« July 2008 | Home | September 2008 »

August 28, 2008

One More Reason to Love Buffy

According to a study discussed in a story published last week in The Telegraph, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is inspiring women to leave conventional organized religion "because they feel the church is not relevant to their lives."

Wow.

Go figure.

Buffy didn't start this phenomenon--according to the author of the study, Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby, it began two decades ago, before Buffy was on the air. One million women, or 50,000 a year, have left their churches over the past 20 years. But Buffy helped show women an attractive alternative to religions that afford them little sense of the egalitarianism they value: wicca. Buffy celebrated female power, connection to the larger world of nature and spirit, and a disdain of hierarchies--all things inimical to traditional western religion. So they're bailing on it.

Referring to developments in the Church of England, Dr. Aune states, "Women's ordination, as priests and now bishops, has dominated debate and headlines – but while looking at women in the pulpit we have taken our eyes off the pews, where a shift with more consequences for the church's survival is underway." The news story goes on to say that

Dr Aune says the church must adapt to the needs of modern women if it is to stop them leaving in their droves.

She believes many women have been put off going to church in recent years because of the influence of feminism, which challenged the traditional Christian view of women's roles and raised their aspirations.

Her report claims they feel forced out of the church because of its "silence" about sexual desire and activity, and because of its hostility to single-parent families and unmarried couples which are now a reality for many women.

But it also says changes in women's working lives, with many more now pursuing careers as well as raising children, mean they have less time to attend church.

Dr Aune believes churches must now introduce services and activities that fit in better with modern's women's schedules, such as Saturday morning breakfast clubs.

Dr. Aune's study is published in a really expensive, recently published book I bet my library hasn't bought yet and won't have available for a while: Women and Religion in the West. I hope to read it as soon as possible.

Posted by Holly at 11:16 AM | Comments (2)

August 27, 2008

Write Brain

With pleasure I announce a friend's new venture: Write Brain Publishing, "a full-service writing and editing company with emphasis on resume writing, cover letter templates, and business cards for everyone’s career continuity and transition needs."

Check it out!

Posted by Holly at 10:03 AM | Comments (1)

August 23, 2008

Sponge + Starfish = Scallop?

I've been a little behind in my Spongebob SquarePants viewing.... OK, years behind. I have not managed to keep up with every last episode, though I watch it when I can: at the chiropractor's, the dentist, my sister's house. Recently, while hanging with my nieces and nephews, I saw an interesting episode called Rock-a-bye Bivalve, in which Spongebob and Patrick adopt a parentless baby scallop.

When Patrick and Spongebob first become parents, everything is great. They enjoy spending time with the little scallop, and take it out to play. They're so caught up in the joy of parenthood that they don't even realize how jarring they are to others. Out on a bike with their scallop one day, they pass a mommy and daddy fish pushing a baby fish in a stroller. The fish look at Patrick and Spongebob, and over their heads, in a bubble, in pictograms, you see the confused question, "Square yellow sponge + starfish = scallop?"

Problems develop when the pair goes to decide who will be mother and who will be father to the little scallop. Patrick thinks at first that he should be the mother, because he has more experience with diapers--he still wear them himself--but Spongebob points out that Patrick can't be the mom because he never wears a shirt. So Patrick acquires a suit, tie and a briefcase, and goes off to work.

And that's where trouble sets in. As the mom, Spongebob spends all day every day trying to vacuum, iron, cook, comfort the baby and do about eight other things, all at once. Patrick keeps promising to help, but never does.

Eventually Patrick fails to show up one evening until very, very late. Spongebob meets him at the door in a pink nightgown with curlers on his head. He's very angry at having been forced to stay home alone and work all day, without any sort of interaction with other creatures who have mastered speech and rational thought. Patrick thinks he shouldn't be forced to assume equal responsibility for the scallop, because after all he works all day, and besides, he changed a diaper--once.

You can find outraged critiques on the web, claiming that the episode advocates homosexuality. Maybe.... But what I find more interesting is that even though Spongebob and Patrick are both male, they adopt traditional heteronormative gender roles within the partnership. And it's the fact that those roles are inherently unfair and oppressive that puts a strain on their relationship and makes them, together as partners, bad parents--not the fact that they are both male (as well as different species).

If an episode of Spongebob can underscore in 15 minutes that the real problem in all of these discussions of marriage and family is patriarchy, why is that so hard for others to see?

Posted by Holly at 10:06 AM | Comments (3)

August 21, 2008

God Fought the Law, and the Law Won

I’ve been thinking, ever since I wrote a response to that dreadfully illogical, dishonest, hypocritical document published by the church to explain its opposition to gay marriage, about struggles framed as a battle between the forces of god and the forces of who or whatever.

The thing is, god so often loses.

Several apt examples drawn from Mormon history:

1. God could not keep his people safe in Ohio, Missouri or Illinois. Mormons were persecuted, raped and murdered--and God couldn’t or didn’t stop it.

2. God could not make Utah sufficiently self-reliant that the church could exist without the trade and support of the US federal government, resulting in a showdown between the US government and the church over polygamy.

3. God could not influence the hearts and minds of the rest of the country enough that people would allow Utah to become a US state unless the church renounced polygamy.

Or look at Jewish history. God couldn’t or didn’t do much about the destruction of the temple, the diaspora, or the holocaust.

Or look at Catholic history. If it was the one true church, God should have been able to do something to stop Martin Luther and John Calvin. He should have been able to prevent the accession of truly immoral popes like the various Medicis and Borgias.

Mormons believe that god is omnipotent, but I’d like to see some serious evidence of that. When you look at what god actually manages to do, how good he is at furthering his agenda, the claim of omnipotence seems like the pathetic blustering braggadocio of a schoolyard bully. Seriously: according to Mormon scripture, God’s work and glory is “to bring to pass the eternal life of man,” a state that requires people to become Mormon. But when you look at how long the Mormon church has been around, and how few people actually join the Mormon church, well, the numbers show that god is pretty damn lousy at achieving his work and his glory.

Truth be told, god is a big fucking prurient loser. The only way to argue otherwise is to look at history after it happens, and decide AFTER the fact that whatever happened was god’s will. The civil rights movement? Oh, despite the resistance to it among christians, that was actually god’s will. The defeat of Nazi Germany? Well, despite the fact that it took a really long time and almost didn’t happen, and despite the fact that the Nazis’ victims numbered in the MILLIONS, it was actually god’s will that that happen. God didn’t have particularly strong feelings about other genocides, however. Cambodia, for instance--he wasn’t too anxious one way or the other about that one. And he stayed pretty neutral in Vietnam, sorta like the Red Cross, except without the part where he actually dispensed aid and comfort. Even now he ignores Africa as much as all the G8 Nations--the suffering of that entire continent isn't something he will ask his followers to redress, 'cause it doesn't involve his major obsession: letting white guys police how other people approach sex and relationships. And the conflict in Palestine/Israel seems to have him stymied, too. Especially given all he did to create that particular problem, you’d think he’d work a little harder to solve it--at least, he’d work harder if he wasn’t A) so feeble and B) such an asshole.

God is going to lose the battle over gay marriage, which is as it should be: god should lose any battle where his edicts and decrees are in opposition to the full development of human potential for love, compassion, intelligence and wisdom. Recognizing gay relationships by allowing homosexuals to marry is a positive step in developing that potential.

Now, there are some people who will say that because I am in favor of gay marriage, I am a tool of Satan. But that’s like calling me a servant of Voldemort or an agent of the Cylon Empire. Satan is a metaphor for evil, not an actual person. DUH.

And in return, I say that people who are opposed to gay marriage are not tools of Satan--they are just tools.

Opposing gay marriage makes people stupid, embarrassingly so. It requires them to resort to illogic and fear in order to fight something that isn’t going to hurt them. Which isn’t to say that opponents of gay marriage won’t have to change when it's finally accepted across the globe: they will be forced to join those who have seen the light and admit that the earth is round, that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around, that other races are not genetically inferior to whites, that slavery is not a divinely sanctioned institution, that kings do not rule by divine decree. And that will indeed be painful for those who resist, but in that good way that maturing spiritually, emotionally and intellectually always is.

Not only that, but opposing gay marriage and taking the Lord’s name in vain by saying that he opposes it too just helps to show what a pathetic loser the god these bigots worship really is. You think they’d learn the lesson of the face-off between Jehovah and Ba’al and find themselves a god who can actually get something done. But no. They’re content to worship the puny, inept idol they’ve created in their own image, confident that one day, he’ll show up and reward them for being as small-minded, bigoted and cruel as he is. Whereas they’ve got their reward all along: they are as much like their nasty loser god as its possible to be.

Posted by Holly at 10:24 AM | Comments (5)

August 20, 2008

The Corporate World Discovers the Benefits of Being Gay Friendly

If trends like this continue in the business world (and let's pray they do), eventually the religious world will follow, and realize that you won't be successful in the world at large if you're homophobic.

Posted by Holly at 9:03 AM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2008

Church Fears Another Marriage Showdown

In a comment on my recent summary of Sunstone, Chris Bigelow asked me to respond to this document from the COJCOLDS, justifying its attack on gay marriage. So I’ve done just that.

The document begins

Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After Creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

First of all, I must point out that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, that it begins with existent human institutions and argues backwards to explain their creation.

Given the fact that the church cites as a historical fact a made-up story used to explain the origins of the world, it's hard to take any of their arguments seriously.

It's also hard to respect any of their arguments, given the way they cherry-pick their scriptures: after all, Jesus also said that in the next life, people are neither married nor given in marriage (Matthew 22:30). And he also questioned the primacy of biological family relationships (Mark 3:33).

The document goes on to state, “In 1995, ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’ declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage,” before listing a bunch of entirely subjective opinions regarding marriage, as a way to threaten and bully people who advocate for greater equality and justice for all human beings. The Proclamation makes many assumptions and assertions about how this or that must be the case because it supports this or that in the Mormon "Plan of Salvation." However, the plan of salvation is bullshit and has neither basis in fact nor any logic except that of a narcissistic fear of change. It allows human beings the comforting but false belief that the next life will be an extension of this one, and that personalities and relationships will make the transition to the next life intact.

The document further states,

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.

Historically, marriage had little to do with affection and everything to do with rearing children. Women were often little more than beasts of burden or brood mares. This is still the case in far too many parts of the world. (See Afghanistan.)

While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these privileges to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

An important fact here is that "the couple" might have received privileges, but the conveying of them upon "the couple" almost always resulted in a loss of privilege for the woman. Don't forget the English law of coverture, which states that "a husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband." Women lost the right to control their own property or persons, ownership of which passed to the husband upon marriage. Husbands had the right to beat, be unfaithful to, and in some cases, even sell their wives. Marriage was primarily about patriarchy, about men's rights and privileges, about the way property and status were conveyed from one generation of men to the next.

The ignorance demonstrated by this document is profound, but not surprising, given its source.

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.

This is not historically true. "Common-law marriage" is recognized by many societies.

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task.

The church's hypocrisy here is profound. Can it forget or ignore how families were constituted under polygamy? Most households who followed that "divine law" resulted in homes in which women were, for all intents and purposes, single mothers for most of the year. And certainly that one male role model, divided among six or ten or 22 wives, did not provide much in the way of "personal resources" or the "differing strengths" that two parents in one home bring to the task of raising children.

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia.

As I said, Mormons are afraid of change and narcissistically rewrite all of history to support their view of themselves. The institution of marriage has changed significantly throughout its existence in western society.

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

The people of America once felt that getting rid of slavery, allowing women to vote, giving black Americans access to decent education, and permitting inter-racial marriage, would undermine the family and all of society. They realized eventually that these were actually positive changes.

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

Jesus also preferred hanging out with sexual sinners and prostitutes to hanging out with the pious and judgmental. He did not “tolerate” but condemned those who focused too much on rigid adherence to formulaic approaches to morality.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”

Oh my god! This is hysterical coming from an institution that had to abandon its concept of marriage in order to preserve its existence!

Given that God had to back down in a confrontation between him and the government of the United States, it's easy to see why the church is so fucking afraid of the game of chicken that looms ahead over the prospect of gay marriage. God is going to lose on this one too, and the church is going to lose face.

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

Plenty of so-called “religious freedoms” are diminished when in conflict from the state–like the right of a 58-year-old man to marry and knock up a pair of 14-year-old girls. I don't feel this is a bad thing.

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages,

thank god they at least acknowledged this.

the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally.

What? Provide some evidence for this. This document claims earlier that the US has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, and there are all these initiatives to “protect” traditional marriage. How is it then the case that European countries are experiencing this terrible weakening of the family?

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide.

OK, this is really dicey, so let’s dissect it: Marriage is an unselfish act because A) a man and a woman do it, and B) when a man and a woman get married, then they have sex, and C) when a man and a woman have sex, they often conceive children, and D) having children requires someone (almost always a woman) to set aside her previously “single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice [her] time and means to the nurturing and rearing of [her] children.”

I don’t know very many women who have EVER had a “single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment,” and those I know have not had children when they married.

Nor does it take a lifetime to rear a child. Plenty of Mormon women have no children at home by the time they turn 50 at the latest.

Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

Recognition is not sought for same-sex marriage because it provides self-fulfillment of its partners, but because same-sex marriage involves commitment and sacrifice. What gay people want the rest of the world to recognize is NOT their selfishness but their commitment to their partners, the mutual enrichment and support, and the ways in which this primary relationship augments their other relationships.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children--through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

Well, I suppose there the church is speaking from experience, given how crappy its own experiment with radical restructuring of marriage turned out: as I said, God lost the fight in the US on polygamy, and the state won. But its hypocritical failure to mention any of that is reprehensible.

And why is marriage really the only place where this argument about what’s best for children gets invoked by the church? To paraphrase Parker’s argument, what is best for children in terms of warfare? What is best for children in terms of environmental policy? What is best for children in terms of how we structure our educational system? What is best for children in terms of how we train and pay our teachers?

But even in this one arena, I don’t feel that the church’s argument is truly sound. The children of gay parents I’ve met who are most confused and angry are those whose family was destroyed because one parent tried but failed to make a straight marriage work, because s/he wasn’t straight. I have met adults who were raised by same-sex couples, and they’re OK.

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Oh good grief. Is there really much attention to divorce in school curricula? It’s a reality of human relationships, but we don’t take time in school to define it.

Parents manage to teach their kids that evolution didn’t happen and that god created the world in six days, despite what kids are told in school.

This is bullshit.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty.

What? They argue that marriage is NOT selfish, that it’s NOT about the individual, and here they argue that it IS.

The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

Again, these statements are laughable in light of the church’s refusal to admit that is already once redefined marriage to fit the state’s definition--and fighting tooth and nail to defend the definition that was imposed on them.

What a bunch of lousy scare-mongers. “Oh! This is the first step towards a totalitarian government!” Yeah, right. Whereas allowing an administration to dishonestly pursue a war of aggression--that’s no real threat to our civil liberties.

To hell with those nasty old men in Utah obsessed with defining everyone else’s sex life. Let them put their own houses in order and do something about the abuse and unhappiness so rife in Mormondom.

Posted by Holly at 2:49 PM | Comments (5)

August 15, 2008

Semi-Precious Sunstone

One reason I like going to Sunstone and functions of its ilk is for the opportunity they provide to dress up. One complaint about Utah Mormons I’ve heard from people I grew up with is that the Utah Saints apparently tend to be far more casual about what actually constitutes “Sunday Best.” I can’t speak to that with any authority, as the only times I ever went to church in Utah were A) when I was at the MTC and B) my second mission president’s homecoming. But I do remember that we had to have NICE clothes for Sunday. It wasn’t enough for guys to wear white shirts and ties; they were expected to wear dress trousers if not suits. Nor was it enough for girls to wear skirts; we wore fancy dresses and heels.

Getting so spiffed up was both a gesture to the specialness of Sunday and a frivolous and vain indulgence in personal adornment, and I LOVED it. This might make me sound shallow, but one loss I genuinely mourned when I left the church was that I no longer had a reason to get really swanked up every week. Not only that, but there was no longer even a reason to buy certain kinds of dresses with the frequency I’d needed them when I had to wear fancy clothes every Sunday. It was a real bummer.

So when I go to Sunstone, I dress up--not exactly in clothes I’d wear to church--not quite that spiffy--but certainly something a little nicer than I’d wear on an average day. And one of the ways I make my outfits special is with jewelry.

I love jewelry, especially big, dramatic jewelry, something that becomes obvious to anyone who knows me at all. And one of the things I love about Sunstone is that it’s not only an opportunity to wear cool jewelry, but a chance to acquire it.

A few of my favorite pieces of jewelry were purchased while I was at Sunstone. You see the SLC Sheraton has two great jewelry stores in its lobby. One is Doug Peterson Jewelers, which is full of really cool pieces, most of them unique and hand-made on the premises. Several years ago I bought this beautiful, unusual, and very fun pendant from Mr. Peterson’s shop:

I love this piece. And I loved it all the more when, only a few dozen yards away, I found this bracelet in the hotel’s gift shop, which complimented it quite nicely:

Hotel gift shops aren’t always great places to shop: often over-priced, with limited selection of kitsch or crappy souvenirs. But I have found some great pieces at Glitz, the lobby shop that also sells M&Ms and toiletries. At my third Sunstone, I found these matching pieces, which I absolutely adore:

I wish I could remember what the stones are--I did find out when I bought them. The red stone is a jasper, I think; the sparkly one is... something sparkly.

Now, I have lots of jewelry, some of it old costume jewelry--I have and still wear a necklace I got when I was eight years old--but some of it contains actual gem stones, though almost all of them are semi-precious rather than precious. And having collected jewelry, with some seriousness, for over two decades, I’ve realized that I sometimes tend to buy similar pieces, and that there are sometimes holes in my collection.

For instance, I had over half a dozen pair of red earrings, but no red necklace. I had three green pendants and two green chokers, but no green earrings. So I set about correcting this problem.

It was easy to find green earrings, but not so easy to find a red necklace. I looked EVERYWHERE. And two years ago at Sunstone, I hoped the stores in the hotel could help me solve the problem.

Turns out there was nothing on hand for me to buy ready-made, so I commissioned a piece of jewelry from Doug Peterson, and this is what he made for me:

This stone is a ruby crystal, a genuine crystal but not one that occurred naturally--in other words, it was grown, which I guess technically makes it synthetic but that just sounds icky, and it's a real stone--"cultured" is a better term, perhaps, like pearls. I don't claim to be an expert--it my next life, I hope to be a geologist, but I forgot to study stones and minerals and so forth in this life. Still, from what I understand, it’s easy to grow crystals, and not that expensive. In fact, grown crystals are the only version of precious stones that someone like me is really able to afford. I love this stone; it looks like a tiny mountain range, all jagged and pointy, with depth and texture as well as color and shine.

Doug designed the setting, which I think shows the stone off beautifully. He was really pleasant and professional to work with, and I would recommend his services any day.

I managed not to buy anything this year, at either shop; given the state of the economy, I thought I shouldn’t splurge. But I hope to pick something up next year to add to my collection.

Posted by Holly at 3:58 PM | Comments (3)

August 10, 2008

Sunstoned

I have a hangover--an intellectual and social hangover. I spent the last three days at Sunstone, and it was the standard mix: really meaningful connections with thoughtful people, new friendships, profound intellectual insights, and a few unpleasant social interactions. As usual, I got asked "So why are you at Sunstone?" in this angry, accusatory tone, as if I have no right to be interested in discussions about one of the primary institutions to shape my life. I think in the future I might photocopy this essay and have it on hand to give people when they ask me that.

There were many discussions of gay marriage, particularly given the church's activism regarding California's Proposition 8. You always hear upsetting stories at Sunstone: tales of religious and emotional abuse, profound spiritual suffering, sheer mind-boggling stupidity. But I was gobsmacked by the tales I heard from a California lawyer who is horrified by the church's homophobia. He said that each ward in California is told how much money it must contribute to the church's campaign to amend California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He also said that a member of the high council got up in a meeting and informed the congregation that Satan is behind all the efforts to legitimize homosexual relations, and that he frequently works in some really pernicious ways to get people to embrace things they shouldn't:

1. He creates sympathy among good people for the lives, hopes and unhappiness of others.

In other words, compassion is of the devil.

2. He uses rational thinking and logic to create doubt about God's commandments.

Or, to paraphrase D&C 93:36: "the glory of Satan is intelligence, or in other words, truth and light."

But enough about that. Here are a few of the cool things that happened.

First of all, a shout-out to my friend Parker Blount, who delivered the best paper I heard at the symposium. Entitled "Proclaiming the Family: Which Family?" its abstract read

The document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" declares that "the family is ordained of God." Are we to assume that means all families, or just so families of a particular type? When the Proclamation warns of the "disintegration" of the family, what exactly does that mean? And what do "responsive citizens and governments" do "to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society"? What are we hearing from Church leaders to answer those questions and fill in the gaps? In this session, I present my take on those questions and suggest that we in the Church may be seduced by our own rhetoric about family.

I have long admired Parker's thinking and figured this would be an intelligent critique of the church's limited and limiting definition of family, which is a cover and excuse for attack on homosexuals, feminists, etc. And the paper did offer that critique, but it went far beyond it and also critiqued our current environmental and economic practices. The real threats to families, Parker suggested, include destruction of ecosystems that support us and all other life on the planet, rampant capitalism, and war.

It was fabulous: intelligently reasoned, politically engaged, attentive to the entire world and not just the somewhat insular community Mormonism intentionally creates. It made me realize that I would love to see an entire symposium focusing as much as possible on the intersections of Mormonism, politics and activism, well beyond Mitt Romney, the ERA, and same-sex marriage.

Margaret Toscano gets my award for the single most profound thing anyone said in my hearing. She offered me a really great definition of "taking the Lord's name in vain": it's not swearing, she said, but invoking God's authority and claiming that YOU know his will and can tell other people, with God's authority, how to think and/or behave.

In other words, though Margaret didn't say this, Thomas S. Monson takes the Lord's name in vain every single day of his life.

Another good thing: I wore these shoes and all sorts of people complimented me on them.

My primary contribution was a paper using trauma studies as a way to read religious autobiography; it was a major expansion of the paper I presented at NonfictioNow back in November. It's not my finest Sunstone offering, as it's fairly new stuff, an introduction of sorts for both me and my audience, but it's a topic I like and plan to pursue, so I hope the next version of the paper will be better.

I also read a really short essay as part of a panel called "This I Believe," modeled on the NPR segment. There were nine presenters and the panel was filmed for YouTube. I tried to find it this morning but it hasn't been posted yet. My essay was on God's sense of humor--I don't really believe he has one, but that doesn't matter so much, as I don't really believe in God. Anyway. If the panel actually gets posted, it will be my YouTube debut, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Posted by Holly at 11:45 AM | Comments (12)