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.