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."

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.

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.

The Lord's Evaluation of Life Does Not Include Convincing People Gay Marriage is Wrong

When I was applying to become a Resident Advisor before my sophomore year of college, they ran applicants through a series of screenings. The one I remember was a group discussion about a controversial topic (if memory serves, the topic was actually about residents' right to hang a Confederate flag in their room/window even as it offended other residents). I was ready. In my young mind, I knew I was right and I was ready to show all those evaluating me how smart, quick, assertive, and correct I was. I thought I did pretty well showing everyone how correct I was.

A little while later I received my evaluation, including the criteria of what I was being evaluated on...and a notice that I had been put on the "wait-list" for the job. What?! Hadn't they seen how brilliant I was? Didn't they see how right I was and how boldly I stood up for what was right?!

Turns out, they didn't really care. Being "right" wasn't listed as one of the criteria. However, genuinely listening, not interrupting, etc. WERE some of the criteria. I felt like a fool. I replayed in my mind the times and I had let myself be incredulous at someone's opinion or interrupted or completely shut them down. This was the first time in my life where I realized that in SO many situations it really doesn't matter what you say (even if it's right), it matters HOW you listen and HOW you express yourself.

In the days following the Supreme Court ruling to grant gay couples the right to be married, I have thought of my experience of evaluation of expression many times. For both sides. And it made me wonder, does the Lord really care about politics? Does the Lord really care about the Supreme Court ruling? Does He care whether we voluntarily take care of the poor or we put in place a government that "forces" us to do it as long as the poor are taken care of?

Perhaps the evaluation of our lives is more about HOW we conduct ourselves in relation to others and, of course, our own personal obedience to the ordinances and principals of truth that we know. I would imagine on the Lord's syllabus for our lives, there isn't one bullet point where it says, "Convinced at least 2 people via Facebook that gay marriage is wrong."

As an LDS born and raised where Mormons are the minority (in fact, where religion in general is a minority), maybe I'm just used to being around people who believe differently than me. In fact, no matter we live, we should be kind of used to it. I rarely see Mormons condemning people who choose to drink alcohol. I rarely see Mormons condemning people who have children before they are married. I rarely see Mormons telling people to "take our country back" because pretty much every store everywhere is open on Sundays. These are all things we believe strongly in, so why don't we do it? Because we also know that life is complicated and it is completely unreasonable to hold all people to a standard they don't believe in. It's a losing fight and, honestly, a waste of energy I need to be putting into my own spirituality and my own family. THAT is how the kingdom is established; not politics. And definitely not the interwebs.

I will boldly and lovingly state what I believe in an appropriate place and time...and then let people choose.

I remember having a religious discussion with a friend from high school who asked what Mormons believe about homosexuality and gay marriage. I told her in as a respectful but firm way as possible. A time later she told me she was gay and I panicked remembering our discussion and wracked my brain for anything I could've said that might have hurt her...because she was my friend from childhood and I love her. I was relieved when I realized I didn't say anything I would take back and nothing that caused her to not want to be my friend even though we disagreed. In fact, she was a Mormon defender when she moved to the South and people would make comments :)

But this is how we should conduct ourselves. On both sides. I didn't say what I said to hurt her, but we knew where each other stood...and then we continued on being friends! There was no trying to convince each other. In fact, we need to get ourselves out of the convincing business, my dear LDS. Talk about what we have, what we know, and then let others decide. Some will say yes, some will say no. And the one's who say no, well, that's not on us anymore. So just continue to love on but move on from it. Trying to convince people hardly ever works. With anything.

The work will go forth, do not panic.

But let me tell you this: the work of the Lord will go on. There is no need to fear or freak out or tell people they are going to hell or (my personal favorite) "gay marriage is satanic." I remember in the midst of dealing with a broken heart over an ex-boyfriend who just couldn't see the merits of becoming LDS to be with me forever (I was a dumb college girl), I told my father, "But he would make such a good Mormon!" My dad calmly replied, "Vanessa, the work will go forth without him. The stone will not stop rolling because he didn't join the Church." THAT was stick of truth that smacked me in the head, big time.

That is my sentiment to you, my fine LDS. The work will go forth with or without gay marriage. So perhaps, you should consider the fact that, no matter how right you think you are, you are being evaluated on HOW you say what you say...and not actually being right.

Honestly, I don't know what the Lord thinks of a temporal government granting a legal marriage to gay couples. And neither do you. Making judgement calls like that is above my pay grade and it's above yours. So don't do it. Believe in traditional marriage. Stand for Celestial marriage. But do not pretend to know what your Father in Heaven thinks of people in a situation you do not understand. We are not called to do that.

Focus on what you know is on the evaluation (ie YOUR covenants) and remember, there is no requirement for convincing people via Facebook.