(Some of) The Times They Are A-Changing

My good buddy Adam posted an awesome link on his Facebook page today.  It's a copy of the LDS pamphlet "For the Strength of Youth" published in 1965.  Anyone who grew up Mormon or who has kids growing up Mormon are familiar with his or her own generation's edition of the pamphlet.  In the pamphlet, young Mormons find direction on everything from how to dress to how to date, personal grooming habits to sexual standards to appropriate dance moves.   There's a new one out for 2012 (in a cool, modern, online format) that includes topics like education, family, service, church attendance, and tithing.  Of course, these things in themselves aren't bad - it's perfectly good and acceptable for religions and their members to have and follow a prescribed behavioral code.  Whether or not you agree with that behavioral code only really matters if it affects you personally (e.g., because you're a member of that religion or because that religion is trying to legislate adherence to their specific code).

The thing I found most fascinating about the 1965 pamphlet was how different it is from the pamphlet I was told to carry around in my wallet when I was a teenager. Some of the things were the same, of course: no dating before age 16, a high value on sexual purity, etc.  But there is much that is different.  For example, my pamphlet didn't tell women they had to wear skirts or dresses in public like the 1965 version does, nor did I have to wear 'trousers' in public because shorts weren't allowed.

This is evidence, albeit minor, that the Mormon Church does change.  Whether you believe it changes because of external, societal pressure or you believe it changes because of divine inspiration from God...it changes.   And the Church has changed it's position on issues as minor as trousers versus shorts for men and as major as polygamy and institutionalized racism.

For example, from the Kirtland era (circa 1830s) to the 1890s, a relatively significant portion of Mormon men had a plurality of wives.  Because this wasn't an uncommon practice, and because it was strange and even repulsive to many non-Mormons, the Mormon Church was persecuted for it - both criminally and in the courts and legislatures. Finally, all of the Church property was seized by the U.S. government because the Church wouldn't abide by new laws that criminalized polygamy.  At about this time, the man who was president and prophet of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, received what is known as the Manifesto - a revelation from God letting the Church out of the problematic doctrine of plural marriage.  A convenient policy change due to social and legal pressure?  Maybe. Or maybe it was a conveniently timed revelation from God.  Either way, it led to major change in Mormon beliefs and behavior.

The same thing happened in 1978, when the leader of the Church at that time, Spencer W. Kimball, decided to allow Black Mormons to have all of the same rights as White, Asian, Hispanic, and Latino Mormons.  Until this date, Black Mormon men could not hold the priesthood, Black Mormons could not enter Mormon Temples and could not be married in Mormon "sealing ceremony."  Again, perhaps it was a divine revelation from Jesus Christ to Kimball.  Or maybe it was a (late) capitulation to social pressures.  The point, still, is that it led to major change in Mormon beliefs and behavior - in fact, change that some leaders of the Church, sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators by Mormons, implied would never happen.

Things in Mormondom do change.  Women can wear pants in public.  Men can wear shorts. Black people are no longer (officially) marginalized.  Men can only have one wife at a time.   So, I think, that means there's hope.  Maybe one day, those pants-wearing women will have the same power and authority as those shorts-wearing men.  Maybe one day, gay people will no longer be (officially) marginalized.  The change will be announced as a result of divine inspiration - maybe it really will be, or maybe it will simply be a recognition of changing social values and relevancy.  The purported reason won't matter nearly as much as the actual change.

The thought makes a lot of Mormon people's heads spin, I know.  I've watched it happen.  I've heard them say, over and over again, that it will never, ever happen. I think they might be wrong - I really hope they are.  And to help them prepare for those changes, I'll end with a quote by Bruce R. McConkie (one of those prophets, seers, and revelators).  He's talking about the difficulty some Mormons had with the change allowing Black Mormons full rights.  And I think in this instance, his words really might be prophetic:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes [homosexuals] would not receive the priesthood [or full rights] in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or [Boyd K. Packer or] whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro [homosexual] matter before the first day of June 1978 [soon...please...soon]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles [and the gays].

There Are People, And Then There Are Women

I ran across this blog post a few weeks ago while preparing for one of my classes on gender roles.  I am surprised on a regular basis when I'm confronted with the privilege I have because of the demographic characteristics with which I was born (whether it's being male, being white, being middle class, being heterosexual, etc.).  Of course, all this does is serve as evidence of how privileged I am. 

The privileged, almost as a rule, have no idea they're privileged until it's pointed out to them.  And then most fight like wild dogs to defend and protect that privilege while simultaneously denying its existence. It is easy, however, to recognize and demand justice when we find ourselves in a group without privilege (for me, that includes things such as being overweight, being single, etc.).  Funny how that happens, eh?

Recognizing and accepting that one is privileged is one of the goals I have for all of my courses, mostly due to the content I teach but also partly due to my belief that in order for our society to progress toward justice and equality, those with privilege must recognize it.   Recognizing privilege is a very, very hard thing for people to do at first.  It was for me (and still is at time, to be honest). It is something that takes my students years to do - years spent reading, talking and thinking about it not only in my classes but in many others. 

I believe that once people realize that recognizing their privilege doesn't mean they are to blame for it (it's no more my fault I was born male than a woman's fault she was born female) and that being privileged doesn't mean they didn't work hard for their accomplishments (trust me, I worked really, really hard for a lot of my accomplishments) they are more willing to explore what their privilege means to them and those around them.  For example, even has a privileged, white male, I put in a lot of time and money and effort toward gaining a higher education.  Admitting that I probably didn't have to work quite as hard as someone born with other demographic characteristics doesn't take away any of the hard work I did.  It just means I was lucky enough (even if unfairly so) to avoid some of the extra obstacles - usually imposed by social and cultural traditions - that someone had to confront and overcome.  It just a tiny bit easier to climb to the top of the ladder when you're born a rung or two higher than someone else. But both people still have to work hard to make that climb.

One of the (dis)advantages of having social privilege is the obliviousness with which that privilege is enjoyed.  As a male, I never would have thought that when a company distinguishes between anti-itch powder and anti-itch powder for women (identical products) it "illustrates the way we continue to think of men as people and women as women, thereby centering men and men’s lives as 'normal' and women’s as 'special'..."  But when I take a minute to try and recognize my privilege and try to view the issue from the perspective from the less-privileged point-of-view, I can see the point.

This doesn't mean I need to or should feel guilty about the situation or apologize personally for it (I didn't necessarily do anything to create or celebrate or maintain the situation - if I did...then of course I should stop and apologize!).   But it does mean I should refrain from perpetuating or defending or denying the privilege I have.  This is the simple first step in an individual's progress toward helping to create a more just and equal society.  And then, once the privileged learn that it isn't such a scary step, hopefully we'll take the next one and then the one after that.

If you're interested, here are a few more examples of "male as natural, female as special":

1. Deodorant, sports equipment, and Awesome Kid versus Awesome Girl
2. Bodies: The Exhibition
3. Avatars have gender
4. Scientists and Women Scientists

Finally, read the comments on one of the blogs posts I linked above.  Of course, a lot of the comments fairly critique the argument the author is making - intellectual criticism is always a good thing. However, notice how many of the comments (especially made by men) are quick to defend or deny the privilege that they have.  This is particularly true on the "Scientists and Women Scientists" post.  For example, many make simplistic arguments (and plenty of ad hominem attacks) that women choose not to be scientists or engineers, stating that they have as much right and opportunity to make those choices as men - completely ignoring the social and cultural traditions of generations past and present while at the same time denying and defending the privilege they hold.

This Week's Babblings (1/27/2012)

Who Deserves the Blame?

Anyone following the news from Wisconsin about Gov. Scott Walker wanting state employees to "contribute more" to their own retirement plans should read this article by Forbes.   Walker has defined the discussion by implying that taxpayers are paying the salaries of state workers and then paying more money on top of those salaries for the state workers' pensions.  This isn't true.  The state workers themselves cover 100% of the contributions to their retirement funds via deferred compensation.  And then, of course, the state has mismanaged those funds horribly and is now trying to blame the state employees for the problem.

If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue. They are not, in fact, asking state employees to make a larger contribution to their pension and benefits programs as that would not be possible- the employees are already paying 100% of the contributions.

RIP Etta
Etta James 1/25/1938 - 1/20/2012




It's Never That Simple

In the last half of the 20th century, scientists discovered and began to research the role of neurotransmitters in mental illness.  This view, known widely and generally as a "chemical imbalance" took the treatment and understanding of mental illness by storm.  This was particularly true of depression.  As is often the case, however, science as moved beyond the too simplistic explanation that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin or some other screwed up chemical level.  Of course, it is still recognized and accepted that neurotransmitters play a major role in issues of mental health.  But it's also recognized and accepted - at least by experts in the field - that those neurotransmitters only play a role.  And that role might even be a supporting role rather than lead actor (or actress, depending on how you anthropomorphize neurotransmitters).  The challenge now is to help the general public understand this shift in understanding.  Part of it is a general misunderstanding of some of the basic tenets of science (i.e., that science changes and grows and shifts, and that's a good (and necessary) thing).  But part of it is simply getting that message out to people and convincing them that taking a pill everyday isn't enough.  It helps, sure.  But it's not enough.  Just imagine how much better we could manage depression if people were willing to treat all of it's causes!  NPR recently took up part of this fight.  Listen to the interview or read the article. 


Separation of Powers

I'm not sure how I feel about this - former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour pardoned more than 200 people before he left office in January, 14 of them convicted murderers.  Four of those murderers worked at the governor's mansion as a reward for their good behavior.  Now the Attorney General of Mississippi has asked a judge to investigate and possibly reverse those pardons.  The claim is that the pardon processes Barbour used didn't follow the rules.  If that's the case, fine.  But if people are just upset that Barbour pardoned people that they don't think he should have...this could be a dangerous interference in the separation of the three branches of government.

Clueless? Ignorant? Definitely Ironic

In defending Newt Gingrich's comment that he was going to go to the NAACP to teach Black Americans to want paychecks instead of food stamps (yes, he actually said that), Richard Land (the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission) said this about a faith-based summit he attended a few years ago: "About 80 percent of the people that came were African-American and Hispanic. And I heard them all day say faith-based initiatives [are] an opportunity for us to get off the liberal plantation and out of the liberal barrio..."

A Church Doing Good

Sure, it can happen. While I'm not a huge fan of Rick Warren, I don't think he's a bad guy.  In fact, he does a lot of good stuff.  Here's one:  his church organized and supported a program that so far has helped people lose 250,000 pounds.  Making people's lives better and teaching people to help other people should be the focus of all religion.  What a great example!

Two Spaces

I do it...but I'm not sure I care too much.  However, if you do, here ya go. When you write, only put on space after your periods, or else!

Best News of the Week

ABBA is releasing a new song!  What could be better?

This Week's Babblings (1/20/12)

I want to try something out.  I read a lot of news, blogs, reports and other data online.  I want to share a lot of it with people.  The most important stuff I put on Facebook, but there's still a lot of stuff I want to share.  I don't want to litter up my Facebook page too much, because then everything gets lost in the shuffle.  So every weekend I'm going to post a list of links and descriptions to these things.  Pick and choose what you to read...and I'd love to hear back what you think of them!

This week's babblings:

Give Me Fox News or Give Me No News!

Public Policy Polling has found that Republicans trust Fox News.  No surprise there.  But the scary thing is that they only trust Fox News.  PBS, NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and even Comedy Central are all liars, apparently.  It's interesting to note that Democrats trust everyone buy Fox News, and Republicans trust no one other than Fox News.  Like one blogger pointed out, it seems sadly similar to an abusive husband isolating his wife from any influence other than his own. 

One Georgian to Another Georgian

Jimmy Carter, a white guy from Georgia, knows that Newt Gingrich, another white guy from Georgia, is appealing to a certain faction of right-wingers when he talks about food stamps, welfare, work ethic, etc.  Thankfully for African Americans, if Gingrich wins the presidency, he's going to (finally) teach them how to 'turn to a work ethic' and get jobs.  Why wouldn't they vote for such a savior? 

This is Christian Love?

Instead of loving your enemy, walking with that guy who needs your help for two miles instead of the requested one, and worrying about the beam in your own eye...use scripture passages to justify hatred, bigotry and intolerance.  Or even to justify hoping for another person's death and suffering.  The Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives just did it.  

Marriage Isn't Everything
A new study found that couples how cohabitate are happier than married couples.  This is gonna upset a lot of people, I'm sure.   But think about one insightful comment made by one of the researchers:

It's the relationship itself, rather than its official status, that's key to its benefits, said study researcher Kelly Musick, an associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University's College of Human Ecology.

Betty White

I don't think there are many people I'd rather have lunch with than Betty White.  She's funny (I laughed out loud more than once watching her new show, Off Their Rockers), she's hip (and hasn't broken hers yet), she's smart, and she's compassionate.  She also just turned 90.  Oh, Betty.  If only you were 15 years younger!