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.

Here Am I, Send Me

Often as disciples of Christ, we expect some trials, but nothing TOO hard. We know it rains on the just and the unjust, but, still, as an active LDS we know we're doing the right thing and what goes around, comes around right?

Well, not exactly. Bad things happen to good people. This we know.

But what about when we follow direct inspiration to do something the Lord wants us to do? After we make the (sometimes) difficult decision to do what the Lord wants and not necessarily what we want, shouldn't the "hard" end?

Obviously not. The scriptures and Church history are littered with prophets and apostles who, following the Lord's direction, were led directly into hardships, illness, and even death. Joseph Smith. The pioneers. Abinidai. And so on. Each doing what the Lord asked them to do...and it didn't get easier from there.

I've pondered this the last couple weeks as I've struggled with something so very personal. It is so personal that, even as outspoken as I can be, I've hesitated to even say it out loud for fear of offending someone or hurting their feelings because that is certainly not my intent. But as I was discussing this with a couple dear friends, I realized hard is hard. Your hard may be different from my hard, but it is still MY trial and challenge and everything that comes with it. And I also realized that I am far from the only one who has ever dealt with these not-often talked about feelings.

It deals with pregnancy and I know there are many who struggle with fertility and so this would be my "trigger alert" to not continue reading if it may upset you. I sympathize with that trial and challenge, my heart aches for those who long to have children or more children. That is a difficult challenge. However, that is not a challenge the Lord has given to me in this life and the one in this blog is actually the opposite.

For more than a year, my husband had mentioned that he felt like we should have another baby. I completely wrote him off. "Nope. I'm happy with the two we have. They're out of diapers, they play together, I don't miss getting up every 3 hours. Nope." He never pushed it but would occasionally drop the "I feel like there's one more up there for our family."

I wouldn't even consider it. I wouldn't even PRAY about it because I didn't want the answer. You see, I knew my husband was inspired because we had both talked about how we were both done with two kids. I knew HE didn't really want another child (like I didn't), but he knew the Lord wanted us to have one. And for more than a year I just said "Nope. Not even gonna pray about it. I'm not there yet." Knowing exactly what pregnancy and babies entail.

Finally, I came around to praying about it. Yes, I knew it was the what the Lord wanted. I wasn't excited, but I agreed to be obedient knowing that the Lord knew more about what He wanted me to be and what was best for our family. I trusted Him, but I was not excited. Three months later I was pregnant.

And SICK. My morning sickness kicked in the day we left for a 2-3 day trip up to Canada. Well, it was a work trip for my husband, which means I got 2 days of entertaining the kids by myself in an unknown city and hotel room...while barely being functional. My kids basically missed the last half of summer because I was laid up in bed with my crackers and Sprite. A trip through Costco had me eyeing each garbage can in case I needed to unload into it; those darn sample smells made my upper lip sweat. I refused to grocery shop for the next 2 months.

That alone, made it hard to be excited for this pregnancy. We told our kids pretty early, so they wouldn't think mommy was avoiding them as I spent most of my day in bed. Them being excited about the baby was the best thing about it for a looong time.

As time past, the severity of my sickness went away, but it was replaced by...just feeling like garbage. I'd get about two good hours out of the day, but the rest of the time, I didn't have energy to do much, didn't want to go anywhere, do anything, etc. The worst part was I never knew when it would kick in so I had great anxiety about going out anywhere. I read labor and delivery articles and I was like "Holy cow, I can't believe I'm doing that again. Whyeeee?" I thought about how this baby would be 4.5 years younger than Malcom, almost too far apart to be playmate. I got overwhelmed by the idea of trying to do everything I'm currently doing (including a new job I started the WEEK I found out I was pregnant)...plus keeping a baby alive and well.

During this time I got into a semi-serious car accident (not my fault). Our house got broken into. AND I had to get rid of my beloved dog as a direct result of this impending bundle of joy. I felt like my life was a country song. I was a bit angry, if not resentful.

And when you feel crappy, it's easy to stop praying and reading. Uplifting stuff just became...annoying. I was just annoyed. By everything.

"I was obedient, Lord. What gives? Why do I feel so awful about everything?"

I felt guilty, too. I knew there were thousands of women who would give anything to be in my place and so I felt guilty about not being excited. I know what a wonderful blessing children are, what a wonderful gift it is to be able to carry my own child. But I'd done it twice and I didn't want to do it again. Selfishly, it wasn't what I wanted (as wonderful as it is) and so I had trouble being grateful and excited when I knew I should be. Which led, honestly, to immense guilt, anxiety, stress, and some darkness.

People would say "Just look forward to the end result, holding that baby in your arms." And perhaps because it'd been so long since I've held my own babies, that just didn't work. I was worried I wouldn't feel that love for this baby that I knew I should because I wasn't excited now. I felt ungrateful. I felt guilty. But I had been obedient!

As I talked about these deep feelings with a friend, she said she had felt the same way during one of her pregnancies because she was SO sick for so long. As we talked more, I remembered that the Lord gives us things in life that turn us into the people He wants us to be. This pregnancy, this baby, THESE feelings were my challenge. My trial. While it wouldn't be for someone else, He knows me better than anyone and He knows this is what I need...for reasons I don't understand yet.

I expected immediate excitement and expected the Lord to make me feel happy...simply because I had been obedient. As I pondered the people who had immense challenges following their obedience, my mind traced back to the Savior. I was literally sacrificing my body for this child, He sacrificed His for all of us. I was giving up my life (again) for another person...this child that would require ALL of me. He gave up his life for all of us. And, perhaps, because I was doing it because it's what my Father wanted (and not what I wanted), it made the choice even more Christlike.

By doing this thing as He inspired, as hard as it is for me, I am becoming more Christlike...and with that a small piece of the Lord's plan for me was unveiled.

Had anyone suffered more than the Savior because He followed the will of our Father in Heaven? No. "Art thou greater than He?" No. But the thing that gave me the most hope, the thing that made me turn the corner was this realization: even Jesus asked that this trial be taken away. In the garden of Gesthemane, He prayed to His father: "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt." -Mark 14:36.

Even the Savior struggled through his obedience at one point. That realization took my guilt away. It's ok to struggle through obedience. Even Christ had said basically, "I don't really want to do this, but if you want me to, I will."

I talked to some wonderful mothers who are friends of mine and several admitted to panicking a bit during pregnancy. Not sure if they could do it again. Not sure if would be a good thing. And every single one of them said, "I'm so glad we added that child to our family. What a blessing he/she has been." One friend, who had bigger challenges in pregnancy and family life than me, said, "I don't have any advice for you during pregnancy. I never resented pregnancy until this one. But as soon as they placed her in my arms, I loved her. That rush of love hormones come over me and hasn't gone away."

After realizing that I don't need to feel guilty for my feelings, that my Savior understands EXACTLY what I felt about being obedient (even if a bit reluctantly), my burdens have been lifted. I have been able to embrace feeling crappy without resentment. I have been able to be HAPPY. I have been able to enjoy it. Don't get me wrong, I know the sweet little pokes and prods within me will soon turn to painful jabs into my lungs and labor is never fun, but I no longer worry about not feeling that rush of love when this child arrives in my arms. I know I will. I know he will be an immense blessing of which I cannot even comprehend. I am grateful. Which is something I could not have said even a couple weeks ago.

And with that, another piece of the Lord's plan for me was revealed.

I started reading M. Russell Ballard's "Daughters of God" and while I couldn't bring myself to read about pregnancy and motherhood, I read the chapter on womanhood. He talks about the value women have to the Lord and his kingdom. Elder Ballard says this:

"If you are wondering if you make a difference to the Lord, imagine the effect when you make such commitments as the following:

"Father, if you need a woman to rear children in righteousness, Here am I, send me.
"If you need a woman to make a house a home filled with love, Here am I, send me.
"If you need a woman who will shun vulgarity and dress modestly and speak with dignity and show the world how joyous it is to keep the commandments, Here am I, send me.
"If you need a woman who can resist the alluring temptations of the world by keeping her eyes fixed on eternity, Here am I, send me."


That profoundly touched me. By working through my feelings, not letting guilt hold me back, and looking to the Savior, I realized I had said (by being obedient), "Here am I, send me." Furthermore, I realized that by trying work through what I was feeling, I FELT "Here am I, send me."

Just trust. Be obedient even when you don't understand, even when you don't want to. But don't just trust and be obedient in misery as I was for so many weeks. Struggle, work. Try to understand. Talk to trusted friends, study it out. As you do this, perhaps pieces of the Lord's plan will be revealed to you. Or, perhaps, just peace.

Snuggle Your Oldest, Warrior Child

Last night my four year old son had nightmares. He usually has episodes where he's inconsolable (for about an hour) once or twice a month. It's not fun for anyone. It's REALLY not fun now that his bed is back in the same room as his six year old sister, so she got a front row seat...at 10:30pm...to all the tears, crying, and screaming.

I laid down with my son in his bed, trying to whisper to him about happy memories from our recent trip to Disneyland hoping that the good thoughts would push out the bad and he could go back to sleep...or at least calm down. We lay there cuddling as I ran my fingers through his ridiculously shaggy hair (he is also afraid of hair cuts).

That's when my daughter, from across the room said, "How come you don't do that to me?"

"Do what?" I responded.

"How come you never get in my bed, snuggle with me, or scratch my head?"

I panicked. It was true. I couldn't remember the last time I snuggled with her at night.

I quickly reminded her of that time she got the flu last year and I spent 2 nights sleeping on the floor in her room to be close to her so I could help her right away.

That appeased her enough to drop it because she did remember (thank goodness).

But that's when I really thought about all the times at bedtime that she asks me to snuggle with her in her bed and my response is "No, you need to go to sleep" right before I give her a hug and kiss and shut the door.

To be fair to me, I don't normally get into my son's bed either, but with baby number three on the way, we are trying to break them of the habit of getting into our bed since we plan on cosleeping with the baby and I can't have my 4 year old kicking the baby in the face all night long.

As I sat there next to my sons bed (because a toddler bed just doesn't work for a toddler and expectant mom) I got honest with myself: I would've never done that for my daughter unless she was seriously sick. Not even for nightmares. I would've...and I have...told her "You're fine, go back to bed" so I can get back to my solitary, hopefully uninterupted grown up time, which as a SAHM the last few years, only happens after kids are in bed. So I can have some moments of sanity.

You see, my daughter is a warrior princess. She is no damsel in distress. She doesn't usually pretend to be Snow White or Cinderella, she likes to be the wicked witch or step sister. She likes to feel powerful (we're working on the idea that she can be powerful and kind...like Elsa). She is the first to throw a punch in a fight with her brother and she doesn't agree with ANYTHING unless she truly believes it. There is no convincing her. These are all qualities that will serve extremely well later in her life, but they sure make her hard to parent now.

She is sassy. She is strong. She is exhausting. And by 7:05pm, nice mommy (if I was nice that day) checks out and mean/impatient mommy checks in. And it's usually because of some of her antics. I just want to be done with her and her argumentative nature at bedtime. And, so, I don't feel like snuggling. Honestly, I just want to be rid of her (of both my kids) for a few hours before I tear myself away from Netflix to go to bed and then wait for the inevitable night-time wakings.

But I've been so, so wrong. In that moment when she asked me, "Why don't you do that for me?" I realized it didn't matter why I didn't snuggle her. This phrase came to mind, "Sometimes the people who need the most love ask for it in the least loving ways." She doesn't know how hard she is on me, all she knows is that she wants...needs...snuggles from her mama. And, in fact, I realized it had been a long time since she asked me, knowing that I'd say no. The few times that I did "snuggle," I literally laid my head on her pillow and said, "I'll stay for one minute." She was so starved for that time she greedily accepted...but I was so obsessed with getting my own time, that I couldn't force myself to do any longer.

Not even if she begged. "I'm making her stronger," I'd tell myself. "She's fine."

Don't get me wrong, I hug her, I kiss her, I tend her owies, I sit her on my lap (or near my lap) and read to her every night, we make up songs together, we dance around, I help her with her homework, and try to let her help me in the kitchen. But I come from family where, to quote Malcolm in the Middle, "Feelings are the F word." We are not particularly tender, we do not say "I love you" when we get off the phone (unless it's to my biological father). I do not hug my siblings; in fact, at a recent family photo shoot, my sister and I were forced to touch. It was weird and awkward...and totally showed in the photo. We love each other, but we do not show or express it unless it's by making fun of each other. We suffer from what we like to call "emotional constipation." My mother loved us, nurtured us, read to us at night, but she also told us to suck it up a lot (she was also a nurse) and left us to cry ourselves to sleep sometimes (as any parent knows is necessary sometimes), and a lot of other things that are probably a result of her being raised by very British/Victorian-ish parents.

I think by the end of the day, this "emotional constipation" comes out and I have nothing left to give my oldest, hardest to parent child. I knew this upbringing and background effected my parenting style and most of it I'm ok with as I've tried to find a good balance of showing my children love with huggies and kissies, but also tried to teach them they can't have everything they want...but refusing bedtime snuggles because I was SO done and wanted to binge watch Vampire Diaries? No. I realized that is something I was doing that I am absolutely NOT ok with. And so, tonight, I will snuggle her. I will snuggle her so hard. I will not let her think there is something more important or somewhere else I'd rather be in those moments. I will not let her think her younger brother is more worthy snuggles during nightmares than she is. I forget, she is only 6 years old!

My daughter will be strong, she will be able to deal with hard things. But she will also know that her mother loved her enough to crawl into her bed and snuggle with her because she needed me.

But probably not every night.

Kids Ruin Everything...Even When They Aren't There

I'm going to be honest (aren't I always): yesterday was really hard. My kids weren't behaving, I was cranky from a bad night the night before, I was stressed, anxious, feeling emotional, etc. You know the kinds of days where you pretty much spend the whole time yelling at your kids? And then they lash out at each other and you? Which causes more yelling? And then that all leads to mom guilt.

Stresssss.

I had an appointment scheduled in the evening and even though I thought it should seem like a good idea to get out the house and kidless for a bit, I didn't even want to go to that. I just felt...icky. But I went to my chiropractor/massage appointment in the evening (treating a car accident I got in a couple months ago). I finally got to a place where I thought, "This is what I need, some alone time. A nice massage."

But it didn't go very well. Apparently, despite my smallish baby belly (18 weeks), I am now too big to lay on my tummy. After about 30 minutes, I informed the massage therapist I needed to go on my side because I started to feel a rush of blood to my head, light headed, and nauseated. She was very nice and accommodating and so she rubbed me down on my side. But during that time, my mind just kept racing (and I still wasn't feeling very well, which causes me great anxiety...especially while being butt naked in front of an acquaintance). I could NOT relax. I could not recover. After a few minutes on my side, she asked me what I'd like her to concentrate on next and I just asked to cut it short so I could leave. My anxiety, discomfort, stress, etc. was getting the best of me.

"Kids ruin everything. Vivi and Mac are not even with me and I still don't get to enjoy a massage. Kids ruin things when they're not even there! I NEEDED that massage and now I can't even have it. This sucks." My cranky, depressing thoughts went on. "I'm not even a good mom. I don't even really like being a mom, do I? People say the adore their kids. I don't even like mine" thinking of the crappy things they'd done earlier in the day. Over and over I just kept thinking about how much being a mom sucks while I turned up my gangster rap on the way home.

I snuck into the house while Doug distracted the kids and he left me alone to sob like I needed to (a good cry always makes me feel better).

Happy Ending Part: After a relatively good night's sleep (and as a result of Doug's prayers for me, I'm sure), today I have had that feeling of just being in love with my kids (it was totally unexpected to me, too). I've been loving and appreciating their quirks, the chipped teeth, their big eyes, paying extra attention to what they were telling me, being patient. Adoring them. It's been a GOOD day. Nothing special. Just one filled with love and appreciation for who they are and having them in my life; the laughs they give me, the hugs they give, their unwavering love, the unrestrained excitement when reunited in the Y child care room after my 30 minute workout, and appreciating the fact that my kids trust and me completely, which leads to Vivi telling me about the mean girl at school and some emotional outbursts about being asked to pick up dog poop.

Here's my point in sharing: you're not alone in whatever you feel as a mom of young kids. Ups and downs are name of the game. You don't have to adore your kids every moment of every day...and you shouldn't feel guilty about it. Sometimes I really dislike my kids (I always tell them "I love you, but I don't like what you did). Sometimes I don't like being a mom. Sometimes I let my mind wander and imagine what my life would be like if I never had kids. That usually happens during a crappy day so it revolves around being able to come and go as I please, having extra spending cash, going on more vacations, etc. But, if I was level-headed in that moment (which I'm usually not), I would realize everything I'd have missed: popcorn night on the couch, ridiculous stories out of the mouths of babes, stick figure pictures that say "I luv you," unashamed hand-holding, sweet breath of sleeping babes, snuggles, being the only one who can cure owies, that moment when they realize mom's kisses doesn't actual cure owies, all the milestones, and more.

So don't feel guilty. Just remember every day is a new day to try again and young children have pretty short memories when it comes to mom's screw ups.

And a good night's sleep does WONDERS for everyone :)

Humanists Let Live

When I wrote my last blog post about abortion, I wasn't being fully transparent. At that point, I was about 10 weeks pregnant, something we weren't quite ready to go public with yet (except to a few friends and family because I felt SO crappy). I've also had some interesting discussions with people about it since then, perhaps some revelations, as well.

Here I am, about 16 weeks along. People ask me all the time "Are you excited?" and I will answer honestly, "I'm getting there." They act a little surprised, but I'll tell the truth. I was done after two children (this is our third). I was happy to be done with diapers. Happy to be able to tell my kids to stay in their room until the sun came up and not feel bad about it. Happy with the way they interacted with eachother. Not sure I wanted to add another 6 years to our in-home parenting years.

But over the last year, my very patient husband (who isn't particularly wild about children, btw) kept dropping, "I feel like we're supposed to have another one. I feel like there's someone else who's supposed to be in this family." I was like, "Good for you. I don't." We are a very faith-based home and, while he NEVER pushed it, he told me that he had prayed and still felt it so. He said "If it were up to me, I'd say nope, but I feel like it's what we're supposed to do and I trust that. But you need to have that confirmation for yourself because you're the one who's going to be doing most of the work."

I wouldn't even pray about it. For a year, I felt conflicted (do I get rid of all the baby stuff or keep it?), but I refused to inquire. I did NOT want an answer. I knew what it would be and I didn't want it. So I never asked. Over the past year, my heart softened and I finally to a place where I could ask and feel like that's where our family should go. I had enough faith to be obedient, but not super excited about it. I got pregnant relatively quickly (confirming that inspiration, I think)...and got serious morning sickness soon after. Which also made it hard to be excited.

Our children (6 and 4) are very excited and it's helped me see what a wonderful addition this child will be to our family...but, having gone through this twice before, I know it's not easy, full of things I don't particularly enjoy, and, unfortunately, that is making me work a bit harder to be excited.

It doesn't mean that I love or will love this sweet baby any less. I just don't have that excitement or anticipation one has with their first. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I know there are mamas out there who understand. My point in sharing that very personal experience is that there have been times (like I think many women have during pregnancy), where I was like "Oh crap. I'm not sure I want to do this." And maybe I had them more frequently than many.

However, my first real moment of excitement, my first tears of joy came at my 10 week ultrasound. On that black and gray screen I saw what was, several months ago, my empty womb. It was now occupied by someone who wasn't there a couple months ago. It was now occupied by a being that had never existed before.

"I made that. I made that little person. Until 10 weeks ago, he never existed. Now he does. Now he has life, will grow, will occupy space, will love, will cry, will create other life of his own in the future. None of that would've been possible 10 weeks ago because he didn't exist. Now he does." (*note, I call the baby a 'he' because I'm pretty sure it is, but we still don't yet. This is not an announcement to our friends and family lol).

We had created something. We had created the most wonderful something that anyone can create. Life. Human life. True, it mostly looked like a gummy bear. But that gummy bear was occupying a space that was empty, he was not only occupying that space, but he is living and growing.

It made me think of this quote and talk by Dieter F. Uchtdorf "The desire to create is one of the deepest yearnings of the human soul."

Despite my previous reluctance to have another child, I looked at that ultrasound and saw that precious LIFE that had been created. I felt the love of taking "unorganized matter into our hands and mold[ing] it into something of beauty." It was good. It was right. It was not just tissue.

My mind went to the conversation of abortion and, emotionally, I wondered how someone, even if undesired, could extinguish a life that had been miraculously made. A life that had never existed before...and would never exist again if terminated.

I thought about sharing my experience then, but I didn't want to be constantly talking/writing/thinking about abortion, so I just let myself enjoy the experience. I hadn't really thought about it much until a few days ago when I read about the trending #shoutyourabortion on social media. I was angry. I was disgusted. I am pretty moderate and understand that many women become pregnant in difficult circumstances, but what I saw was women shouting out with pride that they had terminated life because they "weren't ready" and "wanted to focus on their career" and I got upset. I resisted the urge to lash out with words at that point. And I'm glad I did.

B why didn't these women let this life live and give it to someone else who would've nurtured it? Why would they not sacrifice 9 months of discomfort to let this human being...be? No one has ever forced a mother to keep an unwanted child, in fact we have a huge part of government and many social agencies devoted to helping moms adopt out their children...and even take them away if it's obvious the mother does not want to do what it takes to take care of them.

What if, instead of abortions, Planned Parented (and other clinics) became the biggest facilitators of affordable adoption? They get to move on and have their careers, etc as they desire and that life gets to live and thrive with a family who wants him or her so badly.

One of the biggest lies the abortion movement has told the public is that an unborn child is "just tissue." Abortion is "just a medical procedure." As I looked at my unborn child in that ultrasound at 10 weeks, I thought "that is not just tissue. THAT is human life" and abortion is a "medical procedure" that ends that individual human life.

As I mentioned previously, I don't want to defund Planned Parenthood. I know they offer many other health services that are valuable. And it's not just about Planned Parenthood for me. It's the practice as a whole. I still think it should be made illegal (except in medically necessary situations) and we need to offer better support to women before, during, and after pregnancy.

If you haven't read this article at A Holy Experience, it summed up my feelings in a much better way then I did about how we need to do better to support the child AND the woman. It is beautiful, loving, and eloquent.

As I pondered all this and read/heard more vitriol from both sides, throwing out lines like "women's rights! My body, my choice! Women support abortion!"  etc,  I become more entrenched in my belief that, while part of me identifies as feminist, I am definitely more humanist. I considered what it means to be humanist in different situations and heard more people say that identify as humanist (especially with the hot topic of immigration, etc). But I realized that I RARELY heard anyone in the abortion debate identify as humanist. They are feminist...or not (or are feminist but still stand against abortion).

Where are the humanists? Where are the people who have "a strong interest in or concern for human welfare and dignity"? And by that I mean ALL humans. ALL human life, no matter how young. There is not qualification for being cared for by a humanist other than being human...which unborn children are. It doesn't mean we don't care and value the mother less, or wish her less dignity. That would be go against humanism. While feminism promotes that a full-grown woman is more important and valued because she is a woman. I simply can't stand by that.

Humanism means we value the human life for just being human life. We offer it dignity. We offer it support. We care. For all the humans involved. Even if that human kinda looks like a gummy bear for a little while (for didn't we all?). It's not about being "pro-birth" and dropping the humans involved like a hot potato after the placenta comes out. The love and support does not end there.

Nor does it begin there.

If you identify as a humanist, as many liberal AND conservatives do, we value the human life. We demand individuals to be respected, to be cared for...simply because of who they are. Human. Male or female. Child or adult. Infant or elderly. Black or white. It does not matter. Humanists love human life. We let life live. We appreciate the creation of human life because we value human life. We support human life because we believe everyone deserves a measure of dignity.

Is that not something we can all get on board with?

Divorced Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, is making headlines by denying marriage licenses for same-sex couples despite the recent federal court ruling...and several court orders demanding she comply with the federal law.

From what I've seen, most reasonable people think her behavior is unacceptable and I agree. As an elected official, she has a responsibility to uphold the law. If she disagrees with that law because of moral/religous beliefs, that's fine. Make your statement. Disagree. Sacrifice your job. She needs to resign because she cannot uphold the law and that's what she was elected to do.

However, that's not what has bothered me. Over and over again, I've seen people blast this woman's personal life, specifically her marriage history. Apparently, she's been divorced several times and, because of that, she is a hypocrite in disagreeing with same-sex marriage. The tag line goes something like "Protecting the sanctity of marriage by denying same-sex marriage licenses? Says the woman who's been divorced three times."

I find these kinds of attacks abhorrent. For one, unless you know her personally, you do not know the circumstances of her marriages or divorce. Perhaps abuse was involved. Many times, women who marry one jerk tend to marry the same kind of jerk.

But that's not really the point. Christians, even those who support gay marriage, should never use this "look at your history, you don't have any right to stand up for your beliefs" stance. Why? Because we understand that we are all sinners.

"...He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her." -John 8:7.

I don't swear very often, but occasionally a situation arises where it seems to be the only appropriate reaction. Does the fact that I have sworn in the past negate my right to stand up and say "I think swearing is inappropriate?"

Or, how about this one: before my husband returned to church, he was a quite a drinker. He got himself into some pretty serious trouble. But he has since stopped, never had a drink again, and we don't allow it in our home and we will teach our children the same. Does the fact that he has had alcohol in his past mean he can't say "I believe that drinking alcohol is against what my God what's me to do"?

Or how about anger. We are commanded to turn the other cheek, to be slow to anger. But, seriously, which one of hasn't gotten angry...and knows we won't get angry again.

Or how about the most important of commandments: love your God and love your neighbor as you love yourself. How many of us have chosen to put something else before God? How many of us has treated our neighbor (who is anyone around us) poorly? And it will probably happen again. Because we are human. Life is complicated. Circumstances get difficult. Are we not ALL hypocrites?

Even those of us in this human family who are not Christian or religious can understand that we can believe something while having lived that belief imperfectly. We can preach our belief in the sanctity of all life...while doing everything we can to eliminate the pests in our homes. We can teach our children to love everyone...except those who do not agree with us or those that do bad things. We all live our beliefs imperfectly because, well, we are imperfect. So why do we put people like Kim on blast for being, well, imperfect?

So I have cringed every time I've seen a meme attacking that woman as a hypocrite because of her past choices (which she would probably admit were mistakes...probably in that she should not have married those men or any number of issues that contribute to divorce). Does that mean she cannot believe marriage is sacred? No. She may very well wish for a Godly marriage...but, perhaps, has gone about it the wrong way.

I've seen the same thing with Bristol Palin. The champion of abstinence who makes her living traveling around and encouraging people to wait to have sex until after marriage. She is about to have her second child out of wedlock. People made fun of her. But my heart broke for her. Anyone who has been young understands how hard it can be to be chaste. It IS difficult in this world...and she understands that more than anyone. Does that mean she does not believe people should not wait until after marriage? No, I'm sure she believes it just as much as before. But she messed up. Big time.

Does it make her a hypocrite. Yes. But no more than the rest of us. She just happens to live in the public light.

Hypocrisy is one of the biggest sins. It is what Jesus chastised the Pharisees for over and over again in the New Testament. It is something we must be aware of in ourselves and do our best to stay away from. However, we learn from the scriptures that it was the Lord doing the condemning and he specifically taught with the "...He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her..." that that is His job. It is above our pay grade. We are not the judge. Probably because he knew that we are all hypocrites on some level and could not justly judge.

God doesn't care where we are on the path, only that we are traveling in the right direction. Would he have us quit and jump off the path when we screw up? No. We ask for forgiveness and jump back on the path. Will we mess up again? Perhaps. Probably. Most likely. Should we jump off the path then? No. We keep on truckin in the right direction. That is all we can do. Who are we to judge where people are on the path if God does not? Who are we to tell people that might as well have jumped off the path and have no right to believe in right or wrong because they screwed up?

I LOVE this quote from this talk: "If we don’t try, we’re just latter-day sinners; if we don’t persevere, we’re latter-day quitters; and if we don’t allow others to try, we’re just latter-day hypocrites. As we try, persevere, and help others to do the same, we are true Latter-day Saints. As we change, we will find that God indeed cares a lot more about who we are and about who we are becoming than about who we once were^."

I disagree with what this clerk is doing. Maybe she's doing it because she genuinely believes it. Maybe she's doing it to be a martyr and get a martyr's pay day. Perhaps her past actions haven't made her the poster child for marriage. But that doesn't mean she deserve the right to stand up for what she says she believes.

For we are all hypocrites.

Women Have Choices, We Don't Need Abortion. Here's the Plan...

It is rare that I feel compelled to get up out of bed and write my thoughts these days. But, tonight I do.

Abortion. Harvesting baby parts. It's all over the news. And rightfully so.

I was a bit skeptical when the first video came out and watched the edited version. It didn't look good for Planned Parenthood, but figured they find a way to spin their way out of it or whatever. Then a second and third video, which I honestly didn't watch. More fuel for the conservative right to the anti-abortion/pro-life movement for them. Planned Parenthood/Pro-Choice/Pro-abortion defenders defended it with the expected "it was edited such and such" without really watching it.

Blind support on both sides. What I expected and it didn't affect my previous opinion or behaviors regarding abortion.

When the fourth video that "proved" Planned Parenthood was "harvesting" and "selling" baby parts came out as the most damning video, I figured I'd better watch it and see what was so damning about it.

It was horrifying. But what horrified may not be what you think. Assuming that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything illegal (which many argue they are), I was horrified by the manner of the conversation.

They called this child's organs "product." They gave it a monetary value. They giggled. They laughed. They callously talked about how useful (and financially valuable) this baby was in pieces. They talked about how it was more valuable "in tact" ie actually born. I was disgusted.

And I kept watching. I heard them crush a skull and the sift through the parts asking if there was any use for the eyeball. No.

That child would've had use for that eyeball.

And that was for a child well within the first trimester at 11.6 weeks, which is legal to abort in every state. It had identifiable HUMAN body parts that apparently have monetary (or research, whatever) value...but not enough value to be allowed to continue to live after doing nothing wrong.

What have we become? Where in our human existence do we casually talk about what we can gain after strategically crushing and destroying the most innocent, vulnerable of life? How can someone look at those little parts and not see life? Not see a being worth protecting? A being worth being given a chance to just...live?

It was in that moment that I solidified my opinion on abortion. I decided I would not just say "Well, I'm pro-choice, but I hope a woman would choose not to have an abortion."

No. It needs to be illegal again. And I'll tell you why. It has little to do with God or anecdotal stories about people that could've been aborted but weren't and grew up to be movers and shakers in our world. Because I know that has little impact on the blind defenders of Planned Parenthood and abortion.

Here's the deal. I'm all for the women's pro-choice movement. Here are the choices women have:

• The pill (hundreds of different kinds of birth control pills)
• An IUD
• Condoms
• Abstinence (and do not shake your head at this one because I believe in women and men enough to know they can and do abstain).

I'm sure there are more choices, but those are the ones I know of. Those are all choices women can make.

If women have the capacity to decide to have an abortion after getting pregnant, they have the capacity to get on the pill (or whatever) before getting pregnant.

I'm not trying to defund Planned Parenthood, they offer valuable services to communities who need it. I just want to reappropriate their funding: make abortion illegal (except in extreme circumstances like a medical necessity, rape, incest, etc...like any other major medical procedure (or prescription) that is illegal unless deemed necessary by medical professionals) and whatever funding Planned Parenthood got for abortions goes to expanding the resources of prevention. Read that last sentence again before you freak out: abortion would be made illegal except in cases where the pregnancy is a danger to the mother, result of rape or incest, or other extreme circumstances. Which is a very small percentage of the 40 million abortions every year.

Put condoms on every corner. Throw the Pill from parade floats. Increase and improve sex education, which means abstinence only states must suck it up and provide REAL sex education. All in an effort to make sure there is NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

Which, honestly, there isn't really now either. Abortion is simply not a necessary "choice" anymore.

I watched an episode of the Midwife (great show) that takes place in the 1940s in Britain where one mother had more children than she could handle. Like, she literally couldn't feed them all. And then she got pregnant again. She was desperate to get rid of the unborn child because she couldn't even take care of the ones she had. She went to get a back alley abortion...which almost killed her.

I cried for her. I sympathized with the desperation. The feeling of the lack of choices. But do you know how that episode started? She asked for the Pill (a new technology at the time), but was denied. Which is what led to the attempted and dangerous abortion.

Can you imagine that today? Someone walking into a public health service asking for birth control and being denied? Nope. Never. I've been married 10 years and have two children. Why have I never been desperate enough to seek an abortion? We use birth control.

And THAT is why abortion is not necessary and should not be legal. Women don't need that choice anymore. We have plenty of other choices other than wondering if Planned Parenthood is strategically murdering tiny humans so they can use their organs for profit or research (and that is seriously not the point of this blog).

Women do have choices. This isn't the stone age, 1800s, or even 1940s anymore. Want to have sex but don't want to get pregnant? Super. Choose 1) the pill 2) an IUD 3) condoms. Look. Choices. Choices that women didn't have even in the middle of the last century. Abortion is not new, it's only gotten safer for women. What is new is all the options we have to make sure it doesn't get to that point.

Oh I forgot, there is option 4)have irresponsible sex and possibly get pregnant. Under my plan, this means you deal with the consequences of choosing life-making activities without using life-preventing technology. You continue make that life because it did nothing wrong and doesn't deserve to die (and yes, even "clusters of cells" die...skin cells die all the time. Death is death. The difference is skin cells don't have the potential to become a complete human being within a matter of months if just left alone and not sucked out of the womb).

Life has consequences. Choices (and non-choices) have consequences. Sometimes they are hard. But if we give women (and men) all the opportunities, resources, and education in the world to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and they don't take advantage, than they have a responsibility to see it through. It's a nine month commitment at most if she wants...and I bet she'll use birth control next time (and it's less than a murder sentence since so many conservatives call abortion murder). Repeat offenders would be very few if we actually expect people to live with the consequences of their actions.

Because that is not a cluster of cells. By 11.6 weeks that life has organs, as seen in that video. Organs that would help it live, breathe, think, love, see the beauty of life. A body that would have grown, thrived, been loved by someone, and impacted other lives.

It has intrinsic value. Just like the life of a majestic lion or endangered eagles egg. The difference is the potential for that human life is even greater, yet we protect it less. The only philosophy class I took in college was Ethics. The only thing I took from that class is that we place value/priority on something/life based on its potential. What could have more potential than the beginnings of life in the womb?

By all accounts, no one likes abortion. Women don't like getting them. Doctors don't like doing them. Babies don't like getting them. So why do we do them when they simply are not necessary in our day in age? Because we are SO hung up on individual freedom that we can't even see it's wrong to destroy the most vulnerable of lives who can't speak up for themselves.

Women have so many freedoms on how to handle their sexuality and family planning it's laughable when people say they support abortion because they want women to have a choice? They DID have choices. Actually planning ahead choices, not "oh crap, we really should've stopped at the drug store and gotten some condoms" choices. And her/his poor planning or crappy decision doesn't suddenly give her rights of individual freedom priority over the life she created to simply exist. Support her during that process, give her all the medical and emotional support she needs, but do not allow her to end life because of a bad choice when she had all the opportunity to make a better one.

We are so hung up on individual rights that we can't even say, "Hey man, that's wrong. Sorry if that inconveniences you for a few months, but ending that sweet, precious, innocent life is wrong." Even when she had plenty of opportunity to prevent it.

So again, here's the plan: don't defund Planned Parenthood. Make abortion illegal (except in extreme circumstances) and use those funds and resources to get Planned Parenthood, community organizations, and other public health agencies to team up and make sure birth control and sex education is available to anyone and everyone. If we don't make abortion illegal than it will continue to be a safety net and that's just not ok when it could be avoided all together.

What do you think of the plan? Can we do it? I think we can if both sides, but especially my moderate peers stand up and say "THIS is what we want. THIS actually helps women. THIS actually prevents unwanted pregnancy. THIS saves lives."