"No, I love America the Best Way!"

This title is meant to be read in the voice of a bratty kid. Continue....

Facebook has turned into a wearisome crap show after what used to be the weekly American holiday of cheering, crying, and cajoling: Football Day.

I won't bore you with the details of who kneeled and who stayed in the locker room, etc because you probably already know all this and I have limited time to write while baby naps. My thoughts are inspired in part by the words of a German national, who is a worldwide leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He lived through WWII. He endured much. He has seen through the eyes of a child the pain hate can cause. Dieter f. Uchtdorf said this:

[The hateful/mad person believed] everyone else was motivated by selfishness, pettiness, and hate. She, on the other hand, was motivated by good intentions-justice, integrity, and love. I shudder to think what happened in 20th century Germany. Once you degrade a group of people, you are more likely to justify words and acts of violence against them."

He cited a study of Israelis and Palestinians who each proclaimed their side was motivated by love, but it was the other side motivated by hate and selfishness.

Let's put this into the football context: the NFL players are motivated by love of their brethren, the defense of the unjustly persecuted. The condemners are motivated by love of their brethren who served and sacrificed. So whose love is correct? Seriously, whose love wrong? Tell me.

My own Seattle Seahawks decided to stay in the locker room during the National Anthem. Not going to lie, I was shocked and a bit disappointed, at first. However, it is their right to express advocacy in 

Whatever peaceful means they can. It got us talking. Unfortunately, we seem to talking about what is respectful flag behavior and not the root of the issue.

Would I have preferred them to come out and kneel? Actually, yes. Kneeling was always a sign of respect until recently. Athletes kneel for injured players. The audience kneels before royalty. Religiously, we kneel to pray. When put in this context, perhaps we could easily assume those who kneel for the flag are respecting what it stands for so much that they are begging our society to practice what it preaches: liberty and justice for ALL. It says, "I see you America. I love you America. I expect better of you." Much like a parent would when they know their child isn't living up to their potential.

But then i read a comment from a friend who served in the military and in his community as a police officer. He said he preferred the players stay in the locker room vs kneeling. So who's love is correct? My kneeling love or his staying in the locker room love?

The following section will hopefully resonate especially with my fellow LDS.

We are all children of God first. Americans (or whatever nationality) second. I maintain that we should put our love for our often unjustly persecuted brothers and sisters above a nation's flag. By that I mean, do not get sucked into the argument of which side is showing the correct love for America. Spend that time and energy loving your brothers and sisters, else you waste your time going around and around about who loves better. Can you imagine the Savior getting angry at quietly kneeling players for disrespecting a nation’s flag because they are trying to help those who suffer?

"It's not the right time or place, it's disrespectful." Ugh this argument.

Throughout all time the Lord has used people to disrupt. The scriptures are full of prophets who, the masses claimed, were disrespectful. Where, in fact, we are commanded to use "boldness, but not overbearance."

I cannot think of a better way to describe this protest. 

Our quintessential Book of Mormon hero, Captain Moroni, was soooo disruptive and disrespectful when he ripped off his shirt to create the Title of Liberty and ran around town telling people they were not honoring the country and values God had given them. The Title of Liberty which proclaimed: "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children."

Are these not, our NFL brethren, waving their Title of Liberty? Are they not asking people to notice that freedoms and peace are being denied to many? Are they not asking that their wives be able to send their children down the street without being unjustly persecuted? 

This is a Title of Liberty our POTUS has called them sons of bitches for. He wants them to lower that Title. He wants them fired. He wants them silenced (much like he has tried to do by denying press access to White House goings-on and calling all news fake news). See Uchdorf’s comments above about populations that are silenced. 

How about another disrupter? Samuel the Lamanite prophet who did not protest the people’s actions by handing out pamphlets on the corner. He stood on an ever-loving wall and yelled at the people…while the people threw rocks and shot arrows at him. For all we know, maybe this was a very special wall, maybe a symbol of their country's might, but Samuel had the audacity to stand on that wall and preach of righteousness and repentance. Dare I say those two R words are equally applicable in this situation if you let go of your pride. Because repentance and righteousness will be needed to heal our wounds.

Biblically, Moses was a pretty disrespectful guy. That dude was so ungrateful that left his privileged lifestyle in the palace to fight against the very brother who had given him so much. All because he wanted to free and entire population of people who were slaves. So ungrateful. So disrespectful to country that had made him a prince. So disruptive.

So right.

And here is a less religious take on things. 

In addition to journalism, my educational background is anthropology and intercultural communications, so I like to fancy an ability to empathize with different perspectives. 

A blogger friend of mine recently wrote how those who kneel are forgetting 9/11. They are forgetting the tears of the wounded soldiers. They are forgetting that our flag is always there for us, even those who burn it and attack it. She said “It stands for you. Whether you stand or not.”

It is easy to say that as a white, middle class woman (I'm saying that as a white, middle class woman). But here's the thing, many of these players belong to a group of people who don't believe the flag has stood for them all the time. Police officers wearing that flag on their sleeve pulled them over for being black and shot them in the back. That flag found innocent a man who killed a black teen with a hoodie on his head and candy in his pocket. That flag was waved by those who lynched them and forced them to a lesser life.

Surely these players understand the blessings of America. But they also understand that many of our systems (and individuals in those systems) have been and are pitted against them.

And so they kneel or stay in the locker room. Asking that we live up to that flag, live up to those tears and drops of blood spilled. Literally kneeling, pleading with us to take notice and make change.

But instead we are arguing about who is loving America the right away. We are spending our time ridiculing the other side instead of trying to understand why they feel the need to be so “disrespectful.”

Instead of arguing who is loving America the right way, though, how about we kneel and stand together to love all God’s children His way.

My Daughter Got Punched on the Bus, and This is What I Did...

Nothing.

That's right. My 6 year old, first-grade shield maiden of a daughter got punched on the bus and we have done nothing about it.

She got off the bus and I could see that something was wrong. She told me that a boy she was sitting next to had punched her in the chest. When I asked why and what happened, she vaguely said, "I don't know..." while her big hazel eyes avoided mine.

She was obviously very upset, so I kept asking, "What happened? What were you guys doing/talking about before he punched you?" I told her she wasn't in trouble, but I could get that boy in major trouble, but that I wanted to have all the information before I contacted their teacher (knowing that most of the time kids don't just randomly punch each other).

But all I got was "I forgot..." on repeat.

That sent up my B.S. meter because she is a smart, capable kid who has the memory of an elephant, so I decided to just give her a snack and some space to process everything.

Sure enough, about an hour and a plate of nachos later, she opened up. Turns out, the boy had "accidentally" hit her, so she hit him back, and then he punched her in the chest.

"So he accidentally he hit you?" I asked. She confirmed. "So then you hit him back on purpose?" She confirmed. "So then he hit you back?" Yup.

At that point, I kept my internal "Good" inside my big mouth and asked her how that made her feel. Of course, it hurt, she said. I explained I would not be contacting the teacher about because she had him on purpose first and I hoped she had learned a lesson not to hit...a lesson we had been trying to drive home as she often exercised her bigger size and passionate feelings on her 4 year old brother.

No, I decided. We would let these natural consequences ride out without any interference from me or her father. Better for her to learn natural consequences, especially ones dealing with physical harm/hitting as a first grader than her believing I would (or could) protect her from similar things happening after she lashes out when she's older...when the consequences could be much more severe.

Yes, we decided it was better for her to get this reality check that physically lashing out won't always work out for her. Better with her 6 year old classmate than as a teenage girl against a whole group of girls...or a boy who wouldn't stop at just one small revenge (maybe knee-jerk reaction) punch.

There is an epidemic of parents trying to protect their children from consequences of their actions, sometimes rightfully so, but it is so much better for us to allow them these relatively harmless events to teach them that their actions DO have consequences...sometimes undesirable, painful ones...and mom and dad will not always save them from them. Especially if they deserved it. Better to do it now when they are young than when they are in college and expecting their parents to call their professors to argue grades for them. Or when the child grows up into a punk who's never been "checked" or put in place before. I'll be honest (like always), there are times when my kids give me major attitude and I'll say "You better check yourself before you wreck yourself." And they know exactly what it means. It means it's better for us to check them, to allow them small punches on the bus after they hit someone first, than for them to get "checked" by a group of bigger, meaner kids after my kid started some trouble thinking nothing bad will happen because mom and dad will fix it. When we "check" them, it's with their well-being in mind. If we don't do it (or allow minor incidences like this), they will "checked" by people who don't care what happen to them afterwards, by people who mean to do them harm to their detriment.

Our children are growing up in a world where they are told, "Do it if it feels good." Unfortunately, what feels good now (hitting on purpose after an accidental smack during goofing around) may not feel so good later. And if it takes a punch by a first grader for my kid to start learning the lesson, then I will simply smile at that kid the next time I see him.

Being a Third-time mom on a Hospital Tour...

Since our last baby was born about 4.5 years ago, we have bought a house a moved. Not too terribly far away but far enough to need a new OB/GYN and hospital.

Since it was a new hospital, we signed up to take a free tour of the hospital mostly because we wanted to help the kids feel more comfortable with the idea of mom being in the hospital, etc. (Vivi is a very anxious child and we wanted to alleviate some of her stress about it and help her enjoy her visit more when she came to see the baby the first time). Unfortunately, after we signed up, we found out there are no kids allowed on the tour, but Doug wanted to take the tour because he wanted to get familiar with which entrance to go in, where to park, etc. I appreciated his diligence because the last thing I wanted to do is park on the wrong side of the hospital and have to walk across the campus while having contractions (did that with Vivi).

So on the tour we went.

It was an interesting experience to see all these anxious first-time parents (I can't say moms because one dad also asked LOTS of questions) on the tour from the eyes of a third-time mom. For the most part they were quiet, but I could see their brains trying to suck in and retain every last word the tour guide/nurse said.

Doug and I mostly noted where the "Nutrition Room" was...that was the kitchen available to patients and the support with a freezer, microwave, etc.

They asked about how many people could fit into one room during delivery and visiting hours. The one very persistent dad mentioned her mother, his mother, etc. The number of times he asked about the amount of people that could fit in the room made it sound like they were going to have a party.

I'm thinking, "Dude. You better check with your wife. And, lady, you do not want a party up in here."

They all asked about visiting hours. "What if we deliver in the middle of the night, can people come then, etc."

I'm thinking, "Gosh, I don't know if I want anyone to come the whole first day. I just want to sleep." Knowing that people come when they can throughout the day and that's usually just about when you're going to fall asleep. (Don't worry family, you're totally welcome to come, but I'm sure I won't pretend to be as perky as I was in babies past).

When one lady asked what she should wear to L&D, I couldn't help but smile inwardly remembering seriously pondering that exact same question. At that point I volunteered what I had done...then Doug reminded me that I only did that with Vivi and with Mac it was just the hospital gownr.

Oh yeah...I'd forgotten. See. It mattered SO much. But I remember fretting and stressing about it and things like it.

What did I ask about?

"So there's no non-medical nursery?" (there is a medical nursery on the floor for babies who need special medical care). The nurse explained there was no nursery, which sort of bummed me out because I had been considering asking the nurse to take the baby to the nursery at some point the night after so I could sleep. The hospital will be my only chance to have that amount of experience watching over the baby while I sleep and I wouldn't have to wake up at every cry or peep if he was in the nursery. Knowing I'll have two other littles to take care of when I got home, I figured it was an opportunity. But no dice. And I'm sure those first time parents were like, "Wow. Doesn't she want to be with her baby?"

I also asked what the thresh hold was for getting admitted was as she explained there was a triage room for moms to get checked out and then it would be decided to admit or send packing to wait. Each hospital, I'm sure, has a different protocol/procedure/philosophy and I wanted to make sure I could get in when I needed lol

As the nurse reviewed some procedure stuff, I realized I don't remember any of this stuff. Simply because when you're in labor basically nothing mattered to me but getting my epidural and then the baby. After the baby's out, you just don't notice much of anything other than your sweet babe. It's all fuzzy. The details were nice, but most, I realized, not important to me.

Mostly Doug and I walked around quietly observing the people and the place where we would deliver our son. One young dad looked a bit overwhelmed and uncomfortable. On the other side of it was the dad-to-be who was very thorough with his questions and very engaged. Then I looked at Doug sitting in the windowsill of the room. He looked bored, mostly. He looked like he was a pro. And it was fun to think how nervous and anxious he was before our first.

I asked later what he was thinking during the tour and he confirmed that it wasn't anything new to him. I asked what advice he would've given to those other dads. He said, "Just be there. That's really all you can do. I mean, really, we don't do anything. You want something, I get it. Be there to support the moms emotionally."

And this is coming from a guy who CAUGHT both of our kids, so he was pretty involved. But, yeah, pretty right on.

The tour really was helpful, but as we reviewed information about lactation consultants (I've BF both my other kids after struggling with the first), where friends and family can wait in the hospital (do people really do that? We didn't even tell our families we went to the hospital until after the baby was born), importance of selecting a pediatrician, etc. I just felt relieved and happy this wasn't my first baby lol. All that stress about stuff that either just doesn't matter (ie what to bring to the hospital. I packed so much useless crap in my hospital bag THREE months before my firs due date: tennis ball, sock filled with rice, clothes that couldn't possibly fit, 5 baby outfits, etc) or just doesn't apply to us because we know how we like to do things, what worked and what didn't work.

So. Soon to be first time parents, I salute you. And I'm glad I'm not you. :)

Picking a Soul Mate: You Cannot Know, but One Does

Today is my 10 year anniversary. As if that is not cause enough for reflection, I am also pregnant with my third baby due later this spring. I have thought much about my life over the past 10 years and, while much has changed because of the addition of children, I wanted to express some things that I have realized about my selection of spouse that may be useful to others.

The biggest thing I realized was how I had no idea what a wonderful man and husband I landed. I knew I loved him, he loved me,  I knew he made me laugh, he challenged me, he supported me, he was thoughtful, and a hard worker. But, really, I had no idea. As I have gotten older and seen more men and marriages, I realize what I did not know then.

But really, there was no way I could've known.

I had no idea how sensitive he could be. How honest he was willing to be with me and himself, even when it wasn't pretty. How he would always continue to push himself to grow in the gospel and as a person. How considerate he would be when I struggled with miscarriage, pregnancy, parts of motherhood, being a working mother, and becoming a stay at home mother. I had no idea how supportive he'd be of my crazy ideas, but still question and challenge me in supportive ways that would make me think harder about them.

I did not realize 10 years ago how carefully he would consider my opinion or how he would listen to my opinions about things he really didn't care about (politics, etc) simply because they were important to me. I didn't know (only hoped) he would be a man who would constantly tell me how beautiful I was even when he knows I'll just roll my eyes. There was no way for me to know he would regularly text me during the day to tell me he got a whiff of overwhelming love and appreciation for me. I didn't know how important it would be that he would be willing to overlook a bit of sloppiness and my distaste for cleaning, but does so without comment (most of the time). I didn't know then how I would rely on his silent, supportive, strength during mood swings, anxiety attacks, and hormones.

While I assumed he'd be an amazing father, I had no idea 10 years ago how much I would love him for being the parent to wrestle and run around with the kids. I had no idea how engaged he would be in their academics, gospel learning, and doing so much to make sure they just turned out to be good people.

And that is my first point: There are so many things I could not have known about my husband and marriage 10 years ago, but One did: a loving Heavenly Father. As I realized this, I appreciated so much my child-like faith back then because, in fact, at the age of 20, I still was a child in so many ways. My husband and I dated for a year before our marriage. Longer than some, but definitely not as long as many. Certainly, there are signs of the kind of spouse a person will be, but they can be overlooked and, dare I say, people change for the better and worse. We go into marriage with hope, but we cannot know. But I know that my Heavenly Father did know EXACTLY what he was doing when He joined me with my husband. It has taken humility, faith, repentance, love, and work, but it all started when I prayed with child-like faith asking if this man should be the one I married for time and all eternity.

To be sure, this is not a knock on those who have failed marriages who also had gotten that same answer to their prayers. While the Lord can show us the way, men and women still have their agency and I only have the deepest love for those who have struggled.

The second thing I realized is that, while my husband is NOW my soul mate, 10 years ago when we got married, I would not have considered him my soulmate. Absolutely, I was madly in love with him. But love is not enough and he was not my soul mate then. The connection of our souls came not in the first or second year marriage even. Soul mates do not magically appear. We create that connection throughout the relationship...after you've been through "stuff." After you've had opportunity after opportunity to be raw, 100% honest, and emotionally/spiritually dependent on your spouse.

I am grateful for the challenges and opportunities that we faced together to make us soul mates. After 10 years our souls have intertwined and I can say, "Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same."

Certainly, we have had our disagreements and I would say we even had a tense year or so in the middle. But our goal and commitment has always been the same. Barring serious sin and betrayal, we knew were going to stay in this marriage thing forever, for the long haul, so we found ways to make it work. We found ways to apologize, to forgive, to be humble, to serve, and to love.

And so that is what I have learned: there is no way we can truly know what kind of spouse or parent a person will be, but trust that the Lord does. Soulmates do not exist until we create them, so don't hold out for "the one."

You Cannot Be a "F*cking Lady"

I have seen them often. Mommy blogs about how they flip off their kids and their husbands and swear in front of their kids; how, when their toddler uses "hell" appropriately it brings a smile and sense of pride to them.

I was reading the comments of one of these "I swear in front of my kids and I'm proud of it" blogs (I don't know why as I fundamentally don't agree with it, but maybe I was waiting for something and needed to kill time), when one mother posted this comment "I'm a f*cking lady, and I cuss often..." and went on to explain how she just makes sure her kids don't say "sh*t" at grandma's house or at school.

There were a lot of "I'm a F*cking lady, too! And I'm raising my daughters to be f*cking ladies and swear!"

And, that, my fellow women, is where I draw a line in the sand. Let me clear, talk however you want to, teach your kids whatever words you want with pride (as long as they don't teach them to my kids). But, you cannot fundamentally be a "F*cking lady" and cuss often. If you describe yourself as a "f*cking lady," you are not, so stop pretending you can be.

Full disclosure: I don't swear often. Don't get me wrong, I do occasionally in extreme circumstances, but almost never when my kids or husband are around. Usually when I'm by myself or with a very close friend. Can you picture Maggie Smith from Downtown Abbey saying, "I'm a f*cking lady, gimme my tea b*tch"?

Yeah, I don't think so.

I have no credentials in the "lady" department, but I was raised by a pretty proper Canadian who was raised by some stereotypical tea-drinking, British parents. Sure grandma dropped an occasional "sh*t" when she was talking about the French...but she didn't swear like a sailor. And she certainly didn't declare herself a lady. I think it's kinda like declaring yourself a gangster. If you gotta tell people you're a gangster, you're not.

If you have to tell people you're a lady (even a f*cking lady), you're not. It is a level of decorum, not a declaration of what you'd like to think you are simply because you're female.

I'm not passing judgement; different strokes for different folks. Different kinds of people make the world colorful and fun. If you want to swear and teach your kids to do it, go for it. But let's not get it twisted and call things (or people) what they are not. And certainly don't pretend you are a lady or raising little ladies when you are raising them to cuss with veracity and regularity.

Even declaring to people you are a "f*cking lady" won't convince anyone you are. Be sure to pass that along to your daughters.

Exclusion or Protection? LDS Baptism Policy is About Protection

Last week one of the most trending topics online was when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "announced" (because it didn't really announce it) that those individuals in a gay marriage would be classified as apostate and children of gay couples would not be allowed to be blessed as infants or baptized into the LDS church.

My initial reaction was similar to that of many in and outside the church, I'm sure. "That seems awfully harsh," I thought. "Why would the church deny those blessings/ordinances just to children of gay couples? That really does not feel right."

But, as I've learned (thankfully) in my 30 years, it is often best to reserve outrage and look beyond the soundbites; to wait for information on both/all sides to become available (see what a 4-year degree in journalism can get you?). In this blog I'm trying not to repeat what I've read elsewhere, but a list of articles that helped me come to this conclusion is near the end.

During this time of information gathering I noticed a couple things:
1) Most of the people who were the most outraged were no longer members, had never been members, and/or openly disliked religion of any kind already. But as soon as this story became available they felt they had the background and enough knowledge to condemn the policy. It doesn't mean they have can't have opinion, but when I responded calmly with some perspective, they never responded back. Most people aren't interested in both sides...they are interested in their side. They never post about the amazing things the Church does (humanitarian aid, etc)...just what they see as the amazingly offensive ones. Not only that, these are people who wouldn't want anyone to join the church anyway...but now they're personally offended when the church imposes obstacles to be baptized on a certain group of people? The alternative of policies like this is that we let any child or person get baptized no matter their circumstances because we don't care about their well-being or growth, we just want butts in the seats. Which would also outrage these individuals. But I digress...

I counted only a couple active LDS Facebook friends I have who expressed disgust (or any other range of negative emotions) about this story. Do I condemn them for these? Absolutely not. It is a difficult, emotionally charged issue. However, I give more credence to them than people who have no idea what they're talking about and wish them well on their personal journey of grappling with this complicated issue and what it means to them.

2) Most people, even members, had very little experience or knowledge of the policy before this clarification came to light. Including myself. How did I learn of my ignorance? Someone pointed out to me that it's not just children of gay parents who cannot be baptized, children of polygamists cannot be baptized either and that had been the policy for many, many years.

I had no idea and realized I needed to put more thought into this.

So what me brought me around from my initial outrage to unequivocal support of this policy? Understanding of the policy before it's famous clarification, a bit of knowledge about human nature/behavior, lots of reading, and the willingness to be open to hear what others had to say (and allow myself to be persuaded).

Let me start with what it turned out I had it WRONG. I thought this was a new policy. I knew that Israelites (ie citizens of the state of Israel) could not be baptized even as adults. I also knew that children could not be baptized without consent of both parents. I knew adults involved in polygamous relationships were considered apostate. That was the extent of my knowledge. So I thought "It seems extremely odd that any gay couple would want their child baptized, but why not? Why should the church take away that option just from just that demographic? That really DOES seem like discrimination."

Here's where some research and understanding came into play: this is not a NEW policy. This is an expanded policy. This policy has also been in place for many years for polygamists. Polygamist parents are classified as apostate and their children are not allowed to be blessed as infants (thus entering their names into the records of the church...it is NOT a saving ordinance as some outside the church may think) or baptized when they are 8. I did not know that.

The reason for this policy for polygamist families is the same for families with gay parents: it is to protect the child/family from conflict within the home. It is to prevent the child from having the excruciating decision between what the church teaches about what we believe and how their parents have chosen to build their family and live their lives.

With this knowledge I realized this policy is not discriminatory, exclusionary, or inconsistent. You want to know who was inconsistent? All the people who NEVER complained about this policy when it just applied to polygamists but got extremely upset when it applied to children of gay couples. Where was the outrage for them? No one ever worried about their kids being excluded? I wonder why...

Let's talk about exclusion for a minute. I have been a member of the LDS Church my whole life. Raised in one of the most liberal parts of the country; I was literally one of about 5 kids in my grade up through high school who was a member. I went to a non-LDS university. I KNOW what it's like to feel excluded. I know what it's like not to be invited to/go to parties because I don't drink. I KNOW what it's like to be a victim of an overt hate-crime (as in "Go back to Utah" was carved on almost every door on the floor of the dorm of which I was the RA because I busted someone for being stupid and drinking alcohol openly underage).True it wasn't written out by an institution, but I don't think that makes a difference as a child.  But you know what? I survived. I learned to celebrate who I was. It forced me to really make sure this is how I wanted to live my life, it forced my testimony to grow.

One reason some people, mostly from people within the church, are upset is a perceived inconsistency. They point out that children of non-member parents, parents who may smoke, and break any other number of "rules" are still allowed to get baptized. Even after I accepted this policy as the right thing to do for gay couples and their children, I pondered this. That DID seem a bit inconsistent, which bothered me (in all aspects of life, actually).

Then, like a bucket of cold water (because I was in the shower, which is where all my good thinking is done), it hit me as far as what the difference between gay/polygamist couples and other parents "living in the sin" (I really hate that term because we all are, but it's the one I saw the most): those living in the openly gay relationships/marriages wouldn't (probably) ever renounce their lifestyle, which would be required to become a member of the church. This is the gospel according to Vanessa, so I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me. If you are so committed to a lifestyle that you literally marry it and/or bring children into it, it's not just a fad. It's who you are (as the community would support) and acting on it will not change. Being gay (same gender attraction) is not against what the church teaches, but acting on it ie getting married to someone of the same gender, being in a relationship, having children with someone of the same gender is about as "set" as you get.

One person kept saying over and over "What the difference between gay parents and parents who smoke?" I'll tell you what the difference is: you can quit smoking and join the gospel. You can't quit your gayness/gay family. And it is the same polygamy. While there are some (mostly women) who quit polygamy, it literally requires they quit their lifestyle and community and flee. It's true, hypothetically someone who is gay and has acted on their same gender attraction could decide not to anymore, but that'd probably be even more offensive (and less likely) than encouraging them not to act on it in the first place if they wanted to be a member in good standing (as is the case now). The other difference is that smoking/not smoking isn't exactly a central tenant to LDS beliefs. The family (the traditional unit), is central to gospel. Pretty much everything we do and teach is about eternal families. Smoking is actually not that big a part of it.

Let's be clear (for those who do not know): same gender attraction is not a sin in the LDS church. Gay individuals are welcome to come to services, serve in callings, be baptized, etc. However, when those individuals act on those tendencies, that's when it becomes a problem within the gospel. If they get married, which is a very conscious action in conflict with gospel principles, that is what causes the apostasy (like polygamy).

Certainly, there is a lot to ponder and consider with this policy clarification. And if you, as a member or non-member still struggle with it, that's ok. Keep struggling. That's how we grow. I'm not even saying you'll come around to my opinion, but keep on keeping on. But I would ask you to do two things as you continue to mull it over:

1) Put yourself in the shoes of Church leadership. This is a GLOBAL church. Not just in Utah. Not just the United States. In fact, there are more members outside the United States than inside. In many of these countries homosexuality is a punishable crime (something the Church does not condone). In many countries/cultures, converting to Christianity is punishable. This policy also applies to children of Muslim families where converting could realistically result in death. This policy protects them. While we love children, they are not always the best at understanding consequences. This policy releases parents and children of any potential conflict where the child may want to join the Church but it is not in the best interest of the child's physical, emotional, or spiritual well-being until they can be self-sufficient and get themselves in a better position to be a member. It allows local church leaders all over the world to offer consistent leadership on such a complicated issue. Certainly the Church does not want to be the cause of pulling families of young children apart.

2) Put yourself in the shoes of these children/parents. Yes, there may be some extraordinarily understanding gay parents who say they would let their child be baptized in the church. And perhaps they would be supportive. But I'm not just talking about driving them to Church on Sundays. I'm talking about (and what leadership is concerned about) is what it takes to foster the spiritual growth of children. Individuals who are not members of the Church may not realize that the LDS church is not just 1 hour commitment on Sundays. Active members go to at least three hours of meetings on Sundays, weekday meetings/activities, sometimes weekend meetings/activities, family/congregation activities, we encourage families to do Family Home Evening once per week (basically a quick lesson on some gospel principle, a fun activity, etc), individual and family prayer, individual and family scripture study, etc. As a life-long member, it is overwhelming to me. I could not imagine the stress this would put on a child who does not have parents who could support them and help them learn through these things. Not to mention the more sensitive issues that are CENTRAL to LDS doctrine that get talked about in some way or another pretty much all the time: temple marriage (only available to heterosexual couples), the importance of the roles of moms and dads, how the traditional family unit is central to gospel, families being together forever, etc.

You can tell me all you want that that you know a family (or are perhaps that family) that wouldn't have a problem with a child of gay parents joining the Church and it would never cause stress. But by and large it would cause intense emotional stress for the child. They would feel like they needed to choose what they learn in church and what they see their parents exemplifying. What this policy does is it relieves that pressure and stress and makes sure the child is simply old enough to understand what it would mean to them, to their family, etc. when they choose to get baptized. That's something that an eight year old, even raised in the Church, does not completely understand...but they have the support to foster that growth and better understand.

Try to remember what it was like to be a child in your parents home. Try to imagine what it would be like to hear at Church that the way your parents, probably the best people you know, the rock of your life, lived their lives in a way that would not allow them to receive saving ordinances. And then imagine trying to go home and talking to them about it. Try to not telling your child what they're learning in Church is wrong. Try to imagine the push-back if you did. Even if you didn't talk about it or conversations seemed to go fine, children are not dumb. They will see the inconsistency and it will cause serious stress and confusion. I cannot empathize, but I feel the internal conflict just thinking about it. I can imagine the external conflict that is possible. And Church leaders do not what the Church to be responsible for that in families with young children.

Say what you want about the Church discriminating, but as I pondered all these things, I finally BELIEVED that the leadership meant what they said: this is for the benefit of the child and their family. This is to keep the child from feeling like they have to choose between their Church and their family.

There are some absolutely wonderful articles that talk about this and aspects of this better than me and these are some of my favorite:

• This is the official explanation from Church leadership by one of the 12 apostles. Something you should know (if you don't) is that Elder D. Todd Christofferson has a gay brother. Elder Christofferson has talked very publicly about how important it is to treat gay individuals, families, and the community with loves and respect. Remember this fact as you listen to his explanation.
• This one gives specifics stories about how the policy protected a child from a Muslim family and another from a polygamist family and what a blessing it was (and is written by a gay Mormon).
• From a LDS woman who was raised by Lesbians and was affected by the policy before it was clarified in the handbook.
• This one is by a friend who's father refused to let her be baptized, so she had to wait until she was 18 and was grateful for it.
• This one is very straightforward and addresses several myths of the policy. If you have doubts, I'd encourage you to read this one with a very open mind and try to believe what it's explaining.

With all of this, I have arrived at a place where I do believe it makes sense for the Church to clarify its policy in this way. I also believe it is done from a very loving place. These children are not being denied the gospel. They are encouraged to come to church, to learn, to grow in the gospel. But they are being required to wait to make any life/eternity-changing decisions that may put them at odds with family until they are old enough to better understand the consequences. It is for the benefit of the child and their parents. That is not discrimination or exclusion. It is protection.

Can You Be Pro-Gun and Still Want Gun Control? Why Yes, Yes You Can

This is an article that has taken some time for me to write. It started as a response to a Facebook post after the recent shooting at a college campus in Oregon. Shootings bring out hot emotions from people and, as I pondered the issue, I realized it'd be best to let it sit for a while. But here it is:

Can you be pro-gun and still want gun control? Yes, you can. How do I know this? Because I am.

I grew up in rural 'Merica. I had boys take me skeet shooting (I'm a pretty good shot, if I do say so), my dad let us use my uncle's handgun (a 9mm?) to shoot targets when we visited him in Montana, my dads (biological, step, and in-law) all served in the military, and summer family gatherings are usually celebrated in part by shooting cans with BB guns and air soft rifles (there are usually about 10 kids gathered around waiting their turn...always supervised by 1-2 adults).

Yes, I believe (most) Americans have the right to bear arms. Responsibly.

However, my mother is also Canadian and I grew up very near the Canadian border, so the cultural comparison...and melding of cultures...is one I am very familiar with. Very few things, I learned, have to be all or nothing. One side does not need to conquer the other when compromise can be reached.

The issue of gun control is a heated and complicated one. Why? Because it isn't just gun control. When we talk about shootings, we need to consider our mental health system, socioeconomic issues, the American culture of violence (not just guns but in general), and others. However, there are things that can be done and SHOULD be done about regulating guns on a federal level. 

"But Vanessa, we don't need a bigger government, let's let the states make their own gun control laws."

As a small government person myself, that sounds fine. But in application that would not work. States have different laws now and MANY straw buyers/criminal networks simply buy guns in states with one set of laws and drive them to a different state to be sold. Yes, gun control changes would need to be federal to be effective. In fact, here is a breakdown from the ATF about how guns get recovered in crimes in the state of Washington, including a migration from other states and time to crime (about 3 years in state of Washington). 

We can't fix all the problems that cause gun violence in our society all at once, but I do believe there are some things we can do on the gun side to prevent some gun violence and save thousands of lives. To be fair (and beat you the argument) gun violence HAS gone down the past 20 years and here's a very fair article about it. But when some very basic things, consistently enforced across the country can be done to save thousands of lives, why not do it? Inconvenience is not an argument I will consider. Many things in life are inconvenient, but we deal with it: the DMV, children's birthday parties, etc.

Ok, so what is that would save lives? Federal laws that require registration AND licenses (including education requirements and a 30-60 day wait period) before gun purchases would, in fact, decrease gun crimes. Why? Because most guns used in crimes are purchased through illegal activities of FFL (licensed sellers) and straw buyers; these measures would deter their ability to get/distribute guns. 

Countries with the highest reductions of gun crime have great requirements for registration and licensing. Yes, there are other requirements, but licensing (that includes education) is a great start. This way, people can still own their guns but they are not as easily purchased. A great comparison of gun laws by country is located in this article and one that is useful in finding where on the spectrum America can fit. 

This means that the best PROVEN plan of attack to keep guns away from people who would use them for illegal purposes is to focus on FFLs and straw buyers with registration and licensing regulations. ENFORCED federal regulations of this would reduce these illegal activities as most people requiring a gun for illegal activity do not want to wait 30-60 days before they get a gun, go through evaluations/training requirements, etc...but if they can't get it any other way then they are SOL. This is a most interesting article about this very issue, I HIGHLY recommend it. 

If we wanted to take a step further, we could outlaw guns with short barrels (handguns)...which would definitely bring death rates related to guns down since the majority of guns used in crimes are handguns.  And I can almost get on board with that since certainly a rifle or shot gun or assault rifle would allow you to sufficiently protect your home and hunt. Or perhaps if you wanted to own a handgun, you could be required to go through a month-long training course (as with motorcycle endorsements) and get medical mental evaluations performed (as in Japan). Forget the sensasualism of the Left when it comes to automatic rifles, etc. If your goal is reduce gun crime/death, let people keep their shot guns, AK-47s, etc and get rid of hand guns, except for people who undergo medical mental evaluations and thorough training, because THOSE are the weapons used in the majority of gun deaths. It wouldn't infringe on your right to own a gun, just make you take measures to ensure you are qualified and mentally well enough to responsibly use one.

This would allow law-abiding citizens in good mental health to have hand guns for personal protection, etc while also making great strides to keep them out of the hands of shady or unwell characters.

Improvements need to be made in regulating FFAs and the requirements of what it takes to be gun purchaser. The NRA and gun lobbies need to stop their blind support of  "all guns all the time to everyone." How do I know? This gun shop, speculated to be one of the worst in the country, was mere miles from the home in which I grew up. Thousands of missing guns and an average of three years of "time to crime" for guns sold from there. It took the ATF EIGHT years to be able to shut it down. That should not happen.

To address the issue of requiring guns be locked up in safes: I believe that EVERY gun should be locked up in safe. Before doing some research, I thought that that requirement/law would significantly reduce gun-related crimes/deaths. However, only 10-15% of guns recovered in crimes were stolen, which isn't a small amount, but much lower than I thought. This leads me to believe that requiring guns to be locked up, while good for personal and domestic safety, would not lead a drastic reduction in crime (if that is our goal). Not only that, but trying enforce such a law would be pretty impossible and probably lead to infringement on other rights.

Washington State has very few registration, license, education requirements to purchase a gun. As cited by the NRA: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/washington/. Of course this feeds into the fact that, according to WSU coach Mike Leach (go cougs!), these guys (young men) play video games, think it's cool to fire a gun and go out to buy a gun. Pretty much as simply as that.

Canada is not perfect, but we can't compare gun laws without comparing culture. They have no constitutional right to own firearms, however, they do own guns but their rate of gun-related deaths is 1 per every 215,000, whereas the U.S. has a rate of 1 per every 28,000.Culturally, they believe their government will protect them; Americans, especially gun toting Americans, are skeptical of governments ability to do anything let alone protect them, so we take it upon ourselves. This is why guns will never go anywhere, but that doesn't mean changes can't be made so people can still protect themselves but also reduce the amount of guns in dangerous people's hands.

But this comparison of culture also brought me to these facts.  My take away from this website is not just gun crime differences, but violent crime in general, especially rape (as a woman, that caught my attention). It is MUCH more likely to occur in the U.S. than Canada. Are Americans inherently more evil than their Canadian counterparts? Less polite, for sure. Evil? I'm not sure. Violent? Absolutely. This supports my main point that violence against our neighbors is not just a gun issue in the US, it is broken culture issue. American culture is a violent culture, with our without guns. But when take our violent culture and give pretty much every citizen (except felons) access to firearms without consistent regulation, of course we have many gun deaths.

Personally, my goal isn't to take away people's guns, but to weed out the people who shouldn't have them. Yes, it may make it harder for good people to get guns, but, really, these are measures responsible gun owners, including the NRA, could and should support. True, bad guys who really want guns will find a way to get them. But, hopefully these tightened regulations would target the apathetic. The people who would be straw buyers. The people who play video games and think they are now qualified to own a gun...and then leave it out for their kid to get a hold of. People who really don't care about gun rights...or human life.

So, yes, you can be pro-gun and want more gun control. As someone who was attacked on Facebook for posting a picture of my kids and nieces/nephews posing with AIR SOFT guns (and defended it with a simple " 'Merica"), I understand the gun culture. But I also understand that more can be done to protect our citizens from our own broken culture and systems.