Is It Really THAT Awful?

It's probably just as well for me I wasn't participating much in LDS online communities back in 1994 and 1995, before I went to the Temple. Especially over on LDS.net, I keep seeing threads crying and moaning about how horrible it is to have to wear the Temple garment. Frankly, if I'd read some of this stuff before I was endowed, that make garments sound like deliberate torture devices, I very likely would not have gone to the Temple, since I would have been scared away by the prospect of a lifetime of misery.

Let's review some of the common gripes:
"Waaah, I just can't handle that extra layer in summer!" - Gee, I wonder how pioneer women endured hiking across the plains in summer, dragging all their worldly goods, in corsets, petticoats, long sleeves, high necks, multiple long skirts, etc., frequently bearing (and sadly, not uncommonly burying) babies along the way. They certainly didn't have light modern synthetics or air conditioning, not to mention modern laundry equipment, and womens' underclothing in that time was much more awkward than anything we wear in this century. I'm just not seeing where we pampered modern types really have so much more to complain about than our faithful forebears who rejoiced in the privilege and blessing that we're crying about being inconvenienced by.

"Waaah, I can't wear the latest fashions!" - Considering that current fashion is to reveal as much flesh as possible, that would seem to be the point! If you have enough respect for God to follow His standards of dress, no, you won't be wearing stuff that prostitutes used to find a bit tacky, that presents you as an object for nothing more than physical lust. You'll be wearing stuff that makes you look more dignified and presents you as having the self-respect you should have as the offspring and heir of God. Is worldly fashion really more important than honoring your Divine heritage?

"Waaah, the waistband hits my ribs uncomfortably!/Waaah, the elastic binds me up!" - Try buying your correct size and wear them as designed! If you buy too small so the legs will be shorter and you can wear shorter skirts/shorts, then yeah, the elastic that's meant to go around someone smaller IS going to be uncomfortable! If you're hiking the bottom up as far as it'll go, again to be able to wear shorter skirts/shorts, then yeah, the elastic that's meant to be AT your waist WILL be annoying your ribs. The staff at the Distribution Center are trained to help you find the size that will be comfortable when worn correctly, so make use of that resource instead of looking for excuses to get out of wearing garments. Again, is looking "hot" really the most important thing in your world, or do God's standards get in there somewhere?

"Waaah, I wanna be naked all night!" - Sorry, but when you took on yourself that sacred obligation, you covenanted to wear the garment night and day to cover your nakedness. Is physical sensation really more important than honoring your covenants and obeying God? Do you plan to lie on future recommend interviews and claim that you're wearing your garments correctly if you're not, and bring on yourself God's judgment for mocking him?

All things considered, I just don't see how wearing garments is such an unreasonable demand on us. We do, after all, as Church members, make covenants of obedience to God and sacrifice. When you look at all those who gave up homes, lives, and loved ones for the Gospel, and especially when you look at the infinite suffering Christ endured to atone for our sins, how can something so minor as clothing really be too much to ask of us, as so many I see seem to claim by finding excuses to not do something so simple as wearing the garment properly?

Standing at the Top of the Slope

Much to my relief, Proposition 8 stands, and California's constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. So far, the attacks on LDS facilities I feared (based on the misconduct of gay "marriage" advocates back when 8 passed) have not materialized, but it's only been six hours as I type this. We shall see.

The excellent blog "Thinking in a Marrow Bone" has an article that I think makes some very valid points regarding what comes next if gay "marriage" becomes legal. I agree completely with the writer, and in fact am surprised that gay "marriage" advocates aren't also advocating polygamy, incestuous marriage, or pedophilia as "oppressed sexual minorities". They're only interested in getting what they want, like most immature types who can't bear the existence of rules against their wishes.

Please read carefully: I do NOT claim that homosexuals are pedophiles (with the exception of those creeps at NAMBLA and like-minded organizations that actively advocate adult/child sex). Pedophiles, however, claim they're an oppressed and persecuted sexual minority who were "born that way" (sound familiar?). I'm quite sure they'll start claiming that legal protection for gay adults that doesn't include them is in itself discriminatory, and in logical terms, they'd be right. To be consistent, gay "marriage" advocates would have to also want protection for other "alternative lifestyles".

Pardon me while I get my stomach under control.

Contrary to the claims of the gay crowd, I (a Temple-married LDS woman) do not hate them as people. I have a gay uncle with a partner who's been consistently in the picture for nearly my entire life (said partner is great, and I accord him honorary uncle status). I have gay neighbors I'm friendly with. Disagreeing with your lifestyle choices does not mean I hate you as a human being. It simply means I disagree with your decisions. I don't agree with any lifestyle choices outside God's laws of chastity and virtue. God's law on sexuality is simple: complete chastity before lawful marriage, complete fidelity during same. I understand that this can be a struggle, especially in an over-sexualized society (I am human), but God's not going to change His eternal laws to accord with mortal whim, and yes, you CAN control your sexual urges and channel them in morally appropriate ways.

I do hate some philosophies, such as the "no right and wrong, my feelings decide morality" that is so common in modern society. Simply put, whether you like it or not, God has given us moral laws for our benefit. You can certainly choose to disregard those laws, but you can't force everyone else to do so. Nor do you get to claim the sacred relation of marriage without living to be worthy of that eternal blessing. God will never decide that the sacred relation of marriage can exist between two men or two women, not when the family is the fundamental building block of our eternal destiny (not to mention our earthly society). See the Proclamation on the Family for the way it is, whether human "wisdom" concurs or not.

Assuming California is not destroyed by the riots that will probably result from Proposition 8 standing, one can hope other states will follow our lead and stand for the family and for God's laws.

[minor edit to correct a grammatical error about half an hour after original posting]

Probably Going To Be Another Fifteen Years

As I posted last Wednesday evening, I was heading from Sacramento to the Oregon coast following my grandfather's death. DH was able to arrange to take his week of paid vacation on very short notice to come with me (otherwise, would have taken Amtrak). I was also able to arrange to have next-door neighbor pet-sit.

Well, after a 500-mile drive, turned out there was no service or memorial of any description for my grandfather (which I had not been told would be the case) and my mother found going shopping with someone she knows locally rather higher on the priority list than spending any time with a daughter she hadn't seen in person in fifteen years (in not quite 48 hours, about three hours of contact and I was apparently the only one capable of picking up a phone to find out if we were going to see each other at all), so on Saturday evening (after having arrived on Thursday evening), DH and I headed off to see an uncle of mine about an hour away. We were both getting bad cabin fever and I really resented how low I was on the priority list. Yes, I understand my mother works nights and that she does need to sleep. I do not understand her apparent inability to reschedule outings with local acquaintances or her apparent inability to pick up a phone (or drop e-mail, since I had my laptop along and she knew it) to advise me of her schedule.

Overnighted with uncle and his wife (lovely people, they're great), went to church Sunday morning, ran laundry at uncle & aunt's house, headed home. Arrived 1am-ish on Monday (this is not an outrageous time for a household that includes a swing-shift worker to be up at). After a day or two of recovery, including DH marathoning all six Star Wars movies, we got some errands run and he's back at work tomorrow.

Today was nice, except for a heat wave brewing. DH and I got in a Temple trip, remembered to replace his very beaten-up slippers, and are relaxing at home. I'm looking forward to getting back into my life's normal pattern.

Frankly, it may well be another fifteen years (if then) before I head north again, given how this trip went. By contrast, the last couple of times we've visited DH's family in Santa Barbara, we got a bit more family attention than I felt entirely comfortable with. Would be nice to be able to average the mothers together.

DMIL was evacuated for a few days, and is now back at her place, with the latest wildfire under control. Her gift was delayed until Monday, but I can't fault FedEx for that, since the evacuation got in the way. Pictures of the tote bag will be posted sometime soon.