Sabbath Musings...

Yesterday was the Sabbath and I found myself once again thinking about the different ways that I worship on the Sabbath in comparison to how so many of my spiritual friends do. I found myself thinking about why I have chosen to worship and study this in this manner and found myself wondering how the different choices and things that have happened to come about in my life have caused this breach... so that I have a very different environment but emotionally similar experience to those who formally attend I have come to recognize the stereotypes by which I am judged by my spiritual family- I can recognize and even acknowledge that some of the stereotypes are potentially true if looked at through a very rigid black and white lens. For other stereotypes, I cannot recognize how they fit in my life or experience and so I find myself forced to either ignore or combat them in conversation and every day life. In the way they frame myself my house so recognizes stereotypes it or not true and yet I'm must live them because I am judged by them whether they are true or not. For in the end, I will not stereotype myself but it is beyond my control how people form opinions. So I find myself rethinking and reliving and re-analyzing conversations over the last few years... conversations online or by phone in which I have used the words that sometimes "church is unsafe" and I am immediately and simply told that 'you are offended' and I should chose not to be... How can anyone adequately respond to this accusation to anyone who can confuse the ideas of safety and offense to be one and the same? If you haven't even explained what made the area unsafe to you, what can you say at that point... for the die is cast and the judgment is there and nothing you can say will change the mind of the other. It will simply become more evidence for the case of offense. In essence, the conversation is over with both sides feeling unheard and for the 'offended', the trust to try and engage in the conversation again with anyone may be gone as well.

For many of us, the definition of safety is clear. If you are in an unsafe place, you must leave. If you find yourself standing in the middle of a busy highway, you shouldn't stay. If you are in a place where you are being hit or knocked down, emotionally abused or neglected... well, this is unacceptable. You must leave, you must try to find a way to leave if it is possible. And if it is possible you must 'MUST' try to take others with you if the situation is unsafe for them. You having a moral imperative... you owe your Heavenly parents and your spiritual siblings that much... to try not to leave them in the same situation. How many mothers who are experiencing partner abuse and then find a way to leave do not take their children with them (very few). And in the legal sense, taking their children with them when they run can cause courts to give custody over to the abusive parent (even with clear evidence that the parent is abusive) under the excuse of 'parental alienation'... the word alienation seems appropos to this conversation as well.

As I lay awake this morning, I found myself thinking about a discussion I had almost a year ago about safety and offense. The conversation was initiated by me and was clearly focused on safety... that I didn't necessarily feel safe at church. Within seconds, I noticed that, instead of trying to find out why I felt that way, the conversations very quickly boiled down the idea that I was offended. Only when I suggested that it was 'interesting' that safety and offense were being confused as having the same meanings did the individual step back and then ask the important question- "What is happening, going on that makes you feel unsafe?" By time the conversation moved to that point and due to the forum it was in I didn't answer that question even though the answer sat on the tip of my tongue begging to be spilled out and hopeful of being comforted and even having the situation changed. Over the last year, I have listened to many others talk about the same situations in their lives and watched how only in safe areas they are able to talk and feel comfort, to get suggestions on change and to feel validated and recognized as a person of value. Outside of these safe places, I have rarely seen that- not in my life or in the lives of others that I can participate in. Safety is immediately equated with offense and the cycle of pain continues. I have even seen family members encourage other family members to stay in abusive situations because of this exact problem and only the release of fairly damning and devastating pictures of the physical abuse has been able to change their minds. If you are unable or unwilling to 'blast' these pictures into the world, you are stuck in this impasse in which so many forms of abuse can still continue unchecked. Over the last year, only one thing has become more focuses and clear- that the general unreligious population that surrounds me as well as some other religious populations do not immediately equate safety and offense. What I have seen is that only Mormons and evangelicals too. It goes without saying that this is not a formal study- simply an observation... but it has made me curious. Like a child with a scab half removed, I find myself aching to rip it off and discover why this is so... what is happening under the rough surface and why. I wish I had a quick answer but I am still chewing on this thought and would love more imput on it. What I did discover as I thought of this is that there is some initial evidence that LDS leaders can confuse the two terms as well... or at least use them in the same conversation which can confuse the issue. A three minute search turned up these quotes:

Elder Bednar - "When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else."

Elder Morrison - "Unfortunately, racism—the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background—remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over. The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands. In common with other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God’s forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin. The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father."

LDS.org - "Abuse is the treatment of others or self in a way that causes injury or offense. It harms the mind and the spirit and often injures the body as well. It can cause confusion, doubt, mistrust, and fear. It is a violation of the laws of society and is in total opposition to the teachings of the Savior. The Lord condemns abusive behavior in any form—physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional. Abusive behavior may lead to Church discipline."

Matthew 18:6 - "But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

President Joseph F. Smith - "We hold that sexual sin is second only to the shedding of innocent blood in the category of personal crimes. … We proclaim as the word of the Lord: “Thou shalt not commit adultery."....It is a deplorable fact that society persists in holding women to stricter account than men in the matter of sexual offense. What shadow of excuse, not to speak of justification, can be found for this outrageous and cowardly discrimination?"

Elder Packer - "But sometimes you cannot give back what you have taken because you don’t have it to give. If you have caused others to suffer unbearably—defiled someone’s virtue, for example—it is not within your power to give it back. There are times you cannot mend that which you have broken. Perhaps the offense was long ago, or the injured refused your penance. Perhaps the damage was so severe that you cannot fix it no matter how desperately you want to."

D&C 54:5 - "And woe to him by whom this offense cometh, for it had been better for him that he had been drowned in the depth of the sea."

Vaughn Featherstone - "The teacher or leader must not only be first in knowledge, in prophecy, and in understanding the mysteries, but he must also be first in performance. I believe that it is not only an offense to the people but also an offense to God when priesthood leaders, teachers, and members of the Church never really get down and serve the people, do not do their duty, do not magnify their callings, and do not fill their stewardships. We ought to bend our backs in our callings in such a way that our words and teachings are always racing to keep up with our acts. In this way we will never become what the Savior referred to as “whited sepulchers”."

President Heber J. Grant - “We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility, all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment."

Sarah Miller - "Forgiveness is often difficult because offenders may deny their behavior or avoid acknowledging it. Regardless of how the offender responds—even if the perpetrator does not admit responsibility—the person who has been abused can choose to forgive. It is important to note that forgiveness does not necessarily mean forgetting the offense, trusting the offender, or even associating with him or her. However, it does mean letting go of self-destructive anger."

LDS.org - “No man who abuses his wife or children is worthy to hold the priesthood of God. No man who abuses his wife or children is worthy to be a member in good standing in this Church. The abuse of one’s spouse and children is a most serious offense before God, and any who indulge in it may expect to be disciplined by the Church”

I intentionally did not pick and choose- rather, I choose these quotes as they cropped up. Some suggest a definition of the word offense which feels more typical, while others do use the word in to describe behavior in situations that are clearly unsafe. In my mind, racism in many forms makes a congregation unsafe for people of color... and homophobic language and behavior can cause our congregations to be unsafe for it's LGBTQI members. Abuse is a safety issue to me... anything that causes real injury is a safety issue and if we admit that behavior has happened in which we 'cannot mend what has been broken', I think it is safe to say that isn't general offense in any use of the word. So, maybe I am splitting hairs or being too particular about how I think about these things, but this is how I think about things. I found out a while ago about a ward that had a convicted pedophile attending and it was decided to not tell anyone outside of a few people in the ward so that he wouldn't be 'judged'... but these same men who kept it quiet allowed other people to let this man spend time alone with their children... yet quickly removed their children from these situations. IS this a safety issue... Well, if you feel the need to remove your own children, but ignore the potential for other children... then yes it is a safety issue and you as the authority holder are complicit in any harm caused.

If you get physical sick going into a building almost every time, it is a safety issue and not offense.

If you are targeted by a member of the church who intentionally over a significant period of time does thinks to cause physical harm to you and your family, who will not quit when confronted and you are then told you need to forgive... while the same bullying behavior is being repeated and condoned... that is a safety issue- period.

If you have authority and use your authority to harm others even when shown evidence of the harm you are causing, that is a safety issue.

What this exercise has given me is a few thoughts. I am able to recognize that some things I am holding onto are because the 'offense' was pretty painful, but not necessarily a safety issue... in that sense, I will admit to being offended. However, in the end, safety is a priority and there is simply too much at risk for me at this point. I may be seen as offended... so I guess I will accept that. I will admit that this new realization brings no joy with it. More thought and prayer will be added to the equation, but I see no change ahead. Maybe that is a good thing as people who say they are friends also judge and disappear. The people who have been the most loyal to me in this life have rarely been found in spiritual communities, but have been found in the living of my daily life... through a stopped car on the road, a co-worker who is friendly, a letter from a distance challenged friend speaking of love and encouragement.... these are the friends and community best nurtured and kept close. Maybe spiritually is best kept between you and the Lord, with study and prayer and revelation... where safety is easily found and offense can be more appropriately wrestled with as a key to understanding yourself and not a judgement made in dismissal. Maybe...

Stories from the Bible: Tamar

One of my favorite people to think about in the Old Testament is Tamar. Many people haven't actually heard of her and I suspect that's for a few reasons. With very few exceptions we do not hear much about women in the scriptures anyway and those exceptions tend to be women who are being held up as bad examples. A wonderful LDS feminist named Laurel Thatcher Ulrich wrote a book whose title has become quite a popular catch phrase that pretty succinctly makes that point: “Well -Behaved Women Seldom Make History.” Another reason is that in many ways, Tamar's story is very peripheral to even the group of stories that she is in. One of the things that I find interesting is that her story was even included at all... and I think of the thousands of women whose stories weren't included at all. I wonder what makes her story so special in the fact that it was considered important enough to include it or if her story was only included because of the men in it.

Tamar's story is short and actually begins when she is old enough to marry. In Genesis, Tamar is first mentioned when she married Judah's oldest son named Er. That marriage was short lived as her husband dies due to his wickedness and Tamar was left widowed and childless. According to tradition, Tamar would then be married to the next oldest son to create children/heirs for her deceased husband. So she was married to Onan, who had no interest in creating any children as they wouldn't be 'his' to claim and so he would pull out before of Tamar while having sex with her so that she couldn't get pregnant. Onan also died prematurely and soon Tamar was widowed and still childless... again. Tradition would have her married to the next brother (whose name is Shelah), however, Judah is portrayed as being pretty wary at this point. Wondering if Tamar is cursed, he feels reluctant to promise his youngest son and so he tells Tamar that she must wait until Shelah reaches manhood. Tamar, having little choice in the matter, waits and even after Shalah is grown and Judah himself becomes a widower, she is still waiting. It becomes clear that Judah wasn't willing to risk his last heir but marrying him to her.

The writer doesn't mention how long it takes Tamar to realize that Judah never intends to follow through on his word and that she is trapped in a perpetual circle. She is back with her family waiting to return to her new family... yet she has little to no status in her new family heirarchy as she is widowed, alone and childless. Unable to marry anyone else to change her situation and yet betrothed but alone, she makes a really interesting and brave gamble. When her father in law, Judah, is headed to a different town for business, she dresses up and sits by the city gates, suggesting by this positioning and environment that she is a prostitute. It is thought that she had knowledge that he had sometimes used prostitutes at that area and as the women would wear veils to disguise their identity, that could help her do so as well. Things apparently went according to her plan and her offer was accepted. Judah didn't have any money so after the services were rendered he offered to send her a goat from his flock. As a pledge, she accepted his staff and his personal seal which were items that were of great worth to him. Later, when a friend of Judah's comes with the goat to make payment and exchange, no one could find the prostitute. Tamar had gone home to her family and had no told anyone around the area who she was and didn't tell her family what she had done. So Judah kept the goat and didn't say anything about it so that he could hide his embarrassment as well as the sin.

Some months later it became apparent that Tamar was pregnant... an unacceptable condition for an unmarried woman during that time. When the news of her pregnancy makes its way to Judah, in his anger and his position as the tribal leader, accuses her of 'playing the whore' and sentences her to death for her adultery (Even though she is currently unmarried, she is still betrothed to Shelah so her actions would be considered adultery... as well as the actions of her partner.) When Tamar learns of her sentence, she appeals to Judah giving him his staff and seal and letting him know that the 'owner' of them is her 'partner'. In his words, “She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah, my son” - Genesis 38:24 Realizing his culpability as well as his potential difficulties, Judah admits his guilt and he acknowledges the appropriateness of Tamar's behavior. She later gives birth to twin boy who are named Perez and Zerah.

I find many things about this story interesting to think about. One thing is something I mentioned before. Why is this particular story including in the book and was considered important enough to write down in the first place. The only characters that are consistent in the story (or at least survive through it) are Tamar, Judah and Shelah. Judah is one of Joseph's brothers (the Joseph who was sold by his brothers and send to Egypt) and the leader of his own tribe. He was married and he had children with her. Judah chose Tamar to be the wife of his oldest son Er so he, in theory, knew a bit about her and her family. What we know about her family is that she was probably not Jewish as she in not listed or named as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Tamar can be seen as a women of integrity doing all she can to follow the cultural rules of her tribe and and Levirite law. She could have either married into a different family or simply stayed a widow. However, she could also have been seen as a co-conspirator with both of her dead husbands and therefore, immoral. Her choice to follow the 'higher' law as set by God and to try and create an heir for Er was risky and dangerous to her reputation as well as her life, but did end up working out for her. In fact, her son Perez gives her not only blessings (and is mentioned in the story of Ruth later in the book), but Perez makes her a direct descendant of King David and part of the Messianic line to Jesus Christ himself. Some people have suggested that the story of Judah and Tamar is put in the scriptures to emphasize how good Joseph was in comparison to his siblings. This story even seems to suggest that Tamar herself was more loyal to the tribe of Judah than he was himself.

Another thought is I really wonder how Tamar was able to pull off the trick. Judah helped pick her for his first son as a wife, married her to his second son who then dies, and was concerned enough about her potential to cause harm to his last son that he risked the wrath of God, etc to not keep his word on the betrothal. His quick temper and enthusiasm to accuse her of adultery and sentence her to death without really talking or doing any research on it suggests to me fear of her as well as anger. So it begs the question: how did he not recognize her... even dressed as a prostitute and not a widow? Can any of you when thinking of the people in your family contemplate the mistake he made? How could he possible not recognize something- voice, movement... anything? I guess I find that stunning and semi- unbelievable.

I also wonder how Tamar felt through all of this. Did she love Er...? Since her marriage was arranged, were they friends, tentatively polite...? How did she feel about marrying her brother in law... and his treatment of her? Heck, what if she loved her first husband and afterward had to deal with her grief and changed circumstances while marrying a man she did have feelings for.... or worse, didn't like at all. Certainly his treatment of her if she did want a child must have been hurtful and frustrating. Then Onan died and here she was alone again... back with her family and childless.

Then the waiting, watching Shelah grow up and imaging her potential life with him... and then realizing it wasn't going to happen. I wonder how long it took her to come to that conclusion and the mixed emotions that came with that.... When she made her plan to prostitute herself to Judah, was it a happy plan.? She didn't really have any way of knowing for sure that it would be successful and end in pregnancy? Would she have been willing to do that more than once...? Did she do that more than once? If nothing else, she must have had some decent acting skills. :) What a painful and challenging set of circumstances for anyone. Some versions of the story suggest she was celibate for the rest of her life while other versions suggest she lived with Judah as his wife and together they raised the twins... how did that work for her in either situation? Were her children worth it for her? Does she have regret for any of this?

So, why do you think this story is in the scriptures? What do you feel or like about this story? Do you feel like you learn anything when reading it? What do you think of Tamar? What might you have done in her place?

Thoughts on Conversation and Healing...

When I was volunteering yesterday, I was given a blank diary from 2008 with beautiful pictures and quotes on different pages. I liked the pictures so I brought it home to glance through and a quote on one page really caught my eye. It is:

'One of the most valuable things we can do to heal one another is listen to each other's stories' – Rebecca Falls

I had three thoughts as I was reading and pondering this. The first was that it really is healing to be able to talk about what is on your mind- at least it is for me. When I do not talk about things it almost feels like bad thoughts are able to 'fester' and become an infection in my mind. And healing an 'infection' is a lot harder than trying to deal with the original thoughts. I can understand the need for secrets and for not discussing EVERYTHING on your mind, but I also think that many times, problems are more easily ironed out if the feelings and thoughts are discussed quickly. I think that having someone who cares for you and listens is great and does help in the healing process especially in very painful circumstances. I don't even think that they have to actually agree with you... to just be there and to care means so much.

Another thought was that some people do not feel comfortable listening or even being listened to except in rare circumstances. And other individuals have suggested that discussing a hurt can be not only complaining but harmful depending on the complaint. An example that I thought of was a discussion on Facebook where a friend discussed her hurt and anger at the treatment she had received by church members in her ward in Utah. Another person piped in and suggests that she was in the wrong to even suggest something bad happened at church because that makes the church look 'bad'. It was even suggested by someone that saying anything that can be construed as bad is 'anti- Mormon'... and so therefore this person is as well. In this case, an act of potential healing became another painful act which created more hurt, anger, and separation- even feelings of betrayal. Nobody, even the church defenders, were looked at in a positive light by the outsiders of the conversation that I heard from. And that feels fairly sad, because I have no doubt that everyone, including the original speaker, loves the Mormon church. But the conversation itself became another nail that could be used against the church instead of an opportunity for healing. While I agree that some people in some instances and due to our perception may discuss the same hurts more times than we think they should, I can see how that would happen if the individuals never felt listened to or had their feelings validated at any time in any conversation.

The last thing that I thought of was how polarized I feel our society is right now... and it feels like nobody wants to listen to anybody unless the individuals involved already agree on everything. I feel like the world is full of so much blame and anger and there is nothing that I can do. Yes, I can listen and I can pray and I can hope and show patience.... but I am just one. And it doesn't feel like it makes a difference at all. I go to the foodbank every week and I listen to those who are looking for work and have been for so long and have been unsuccessful for reasons they can do nothing about such as poor teeth, chaotic living arrangements, homelessness, disability, mental illness, no transportation, etc... These people are stuck in catch 22's and I cannot help them either. Heck, I didn't get the last job that I applied for and I am still looking. Last year, I joined a program to help my family become more stable, more financially independent and to get the help we need to move forward. The program is over and considered a success, with promises never fulfilled and our family even less together and stable than when we entered the program. We have no team, no help, less financial stability and our family is broken. We are more alone than we have ever been. And so many others are as well. In a world full of people, that doesn't really make sense to me at all. I want to help, but I am starting to think that my hands are not strong enough to even help/support me... let alone anyone else.

I really believe that being able to talk can really heal pain and sorrow (and anger) and can help people move forward. How can we draw a line so that people can talk without so much fear? The fear of judgment and being misunderstood looms large in many... including myself which is why I have learned to hold my tongue on so much. I am not sure that I am served in that regard as well. I do think that my soul is starting to fester which makes it even harder for me to feel comfortable around anyone. What can you do in your life to try and change this? What suggestions do you have to help other's feel comfortable talking with you? What would make it easier to talk to someone else when you need to spill? How would you support yourself if you needed some help for a while from someone outside your family- whether emotional, financial, etc...?

Random Thoughts on Oral History, Interviews, and Technique

This week, I spent some time really focusing on the process of getting ready for an oral history interview and what is really involved. I ended up with 13 small paragraphs about different ideas and thoughts on how to interview and collect oral history... and I will share them with you below.

1. The idea of neutrality is described as a skillful way of holding yourself/ body and asking questions that keep the focus at all times on the interviewee and their thoughts and feelings. For instance, having too much rapport or empathy with the interviewee can really side-rail the interview and make it more about you and your feelings and thoughts- and not the person being interviewed... which is certainly not the goal that we are trying to complete(in performing an interview). Also, too much of anything- whether it is emotions, questioning etc... can change the interview and make it more biased, less accurate and focused on the biases, not the whole picture.

2. It is suggested that opening an interview with a question that provokes a detailed answer helps to start an interview with a prompt, purposeful beginning. It lets the interviewee know that the interview has begun and gives both you and the interviewee the cue that you are 'down to business'. Using a question that the interviewee is likely to know and need to give a detailed answer to helps get the interview off on the right track of the interviewee talking... and you listening.. It also should state the main purpose for the interview so that the subject that is to be covered is acknowledged right away.

3. A leading question is a question that sets up the interviewee to answer the question asked in the way that the interviewer seems to wish. This will not necessarily give you the answer you are really looking for. The danger of loaded questions contaminating the interview becomes higher if the 'status' of the interviewer is higher than the 'status' of the interviewee. Loaded questions can also produce answers that are truly difficult for the historian to interpret correctly because the interviewer's bias is so obvious in the original question. To avoid loaded questions, avoid questions that provoke short answers, questions filled with 'emotive' words, and use the interviewers own words to ask more questions- do not make assumptions of what the words mean... ask! Leading questions are less likely to cause problems with the interview near the end of the interview and can be useful when you have had an uncooperative interviewee. At the end you can use these questions to try and pull out more details and get more information. However, even in these situations, keeping the questions as non-'leading' as possible will help to keep the interview unbiased and 'correct.'

4. A negative leading question can be useful for getting comments and thoughts on provocative topics... especially if the historian's research has turned up conflicting information between the research and the information provided in the interview. It is important however, to not use too many of these questions because they can turn the interviewee off of the interview and it is also important to word the question so that the 'challenge' appears to come from a third party and not you- which can cause the interviewee to feel hostile and not as forthcoming towards the interviewer. There are other reasons to be cautious when using a negative leading question, but that covers the important points. They should really only be used when the questions can add to intellectual knowledge and debate or figuring out how the subject deals with adversity.

5. You should only give your opinion when the person being interviewed insists on knowing it. Otherwise, your opinion isn't really important in this instance. Your opinion can only help to bias the interview or even divide you from the person you are interviewing. Even when asked, the interviewer can sometimes use the words in the question to turn the interviewee back to the focus of the interview... and take the focus off of you!

6. Follow up questions are used by the historian to really get the details that you are attempting to have the interviewee provide. Ask for understanding when you feel that something is vague. However, the historian must be very careful to not make the interview feel like the subject is getting the 'third degree'. Questions should be open and indirect... without looking like you are challenging the other person. Some interviews can be fairly useless when they are completed in such a way that followup questions are not really asked.

7. Background research is so useful for a few reasons. Research ahead of time can help you to determine bias or untruthfulness in your potential interviewee. The information can help you during the interview to understand the information that you are being given, help to keep the interview 'on topic', and help you to provide 'useful' leading questions as well as memory nudges for the interviewee that is having a hard time remembering specific things/details. Background details are especially good for helping your interviewee with introspection and helping the individual remember what they 'felt' or 'thought' in the past during certain situations.

8. Approaching a friend or family member about an interview would be done differently than an interview with someone you did not know. First, you already have some rapport with the person that you have developed through your personal relationship. Ignoring your previous relationship while performing an interview would make the interview confused, stilted and any attempt to be 'neutral' would look a little ridiculous. :) However, the interviewer/historian must also carefully analyze the person that they are interviewing and modify their (the historian's) behavior and questions accordingly. Again the interview is about the information and the interviewee and not about you or your relationship with the 'interviewed'. Keeping the interview on track, easy going... but as neutral as possible and focused is the key. The interviewer needs to exercise self restraint in some instances and use rapport, empathy and neutrality to get the information that is sought.

9. Oral history is different from journalism in several ways. Oral history is the legal property of the person/interviewee and can only be used with that person's permission. Oral historians usually try to solve this problem by having a release signed when they complete the interview. Journalists rarely ask for consent to publish and as such they are less likely to get people to truly open up about sensitive personal information. As oral history usually contains such personal information, historians should make no assumptions about publication unless they have consent. Journalists also have the option to bias results in ways that oral historians should not. A journalist can use correct materials in such as way to create a bias in one direction or for political expediency. But while that is not OK for a journalist, many journalists will still do it for reasons of expediency, etc... A historian, in an ideal situation, will not allow societal bias, personal beliefs, etc... to influence the information that he is presenting. The historian will do their best to make sure that the information is as neutral and bias free as possible so that the most accurate picture will be presented. A journalist has the responsibility to report and may use personal information in a way that the person may not feel comfortable with. A historian has the responsibility to do more than just protect the source- if the information is not useful for the current public good and can cause undue injury to those involved, the historian should keep the information safe for a good number of years until the information is can be used in a way that doesn't cause a lot of damage to living people.

10. It is suggested that release forms should be simple and informal... and if you write one yourself... keep it from being legalistic. While some people think the forms should be signed before the interview... it is generally recognized that after the interview process is the best time to do so. While, after the interview you might have problems with a recalcitrant interviewee who has changed his mind, doing the signing before the interview can inhibit the person to be interviewed. Making promises to the one that is interviewed is difficult as well because it may be difficult for you to keep the promises. History can and should belong to everyone so promising that it will not is just one promise that is difficult to keep.

11. Background research itself can raise ethical issues that the historian has to deal with. When you are doing research on living people, you may discover information that is clearly confidential and private. It is important that you realize that specific permission must be gotten for releasing this information- even if you broke no laws to get it. It is very important that the historian does their best to not breach people's privacy or release information that can cause undue harm.

12. It has been mentioned that maintaining a neutral stance during an interview is hard and appears to be manipulative and dehumanizing if you perform tactical and careful planning ahead of time. The idea of neutrality is very important and should be carefully considered, but should not be taken the the other extreme which can inhibit the interview. The historian must remember that being neutral should not cause you to behave unethically or even anti-socially. Making sure that the interview situation is about the interviewee, and not about the interviewer. Keeping things confidential, being sensitive and empathetic, helps to keep the interview unbiased and truly humanistic. Neutrality should be used to gather information and not hinder the gathering... but it also should be slowly put aside if needed to increase communication and understanding by making interpretation. I hope that makes some sense.

13. When interpreting and analyzing your interview, it is important that you treat the conversation and information as serious, important information. Some historians believe that any interpretation of someone else's words is possible inappropriate and ethically challenging.... and a full transcript must be released. Others suggest that the historian, by reinterpreting the interview, puts themselves in a place of higher significance, and that releasing the interview as a full transcript is the only way that the interviewer and the interviewee are on 'the same plane'. Other say that there is always interpretation and if you assert that the interpretation of the historian is unethical, that is 'tantamount' to saying that the interview should have never taken place. I suspect what is being said is that care must be taken to be objective when attempting to interpret an interview... and that the historian should be aware of bias- especially their own.

14. The interview should be put into context if you are planning on using it for a term paper or for general consumption. One reason for this is that reading about someone you do not know can be confusing... and even boring. Most people understand that no life is perfect and is affected by the society and culture around it. So adding the history that affects the person's life is so important and makes the interview interesting and draws the attention of not only historians, but other people.

What would you do...? Thoughts on Tolerance and Sexuality

I wrote this post for my human sexuality class. I know that many people will have strong opinions about my thoughts. I am happy to have a honest and appropriate discussion with anyone who wishes- but please... keep it nice!

I have tried several times to think about how I would react if my child was a homosexual. I think that my reactions over time have changed a bit.  As I have grown older and seen more of the world (and been judged pretty poorly by some people for being who I am whether I am not following gender roles appropriately, etc...), I have tried to err more on the side of understanding and tolerance.  I have found too many times in my life that I have not understood or been intolerant in ways that have caused pain to others, pain and disappointment in myself, and really haven't found anything positive but maybe my own growth in knowledge and a determination to try and not make those mistakes again.  I am aware that my religion is not accepting of homosexuality and most of my extended family are not accepting as well. I am also aware that my religion is not only very intolerant about this issue, but has members that are extremely intolerant and hateful. Reminding myself that they are really confused and fearful individuals doesn't really help as I don't think any human being should have to deal with senseless hate.

What I do know is that I love my child and I cannot imagine anything he could do that would cause me to love him less. And so many of us as parents have read our young children the books about how much we love them and that can never change...no matter what they think or do. I think that some people can have conditional love for others that can actually be harmed by behavior... but I think that most people do not. I just can't imagine (at least for me) turning off my caring for my child because they are different. (In so many ways, aren't we all different?) So I like to think that I would be extremely tolerant and understanding and supportive. That said, it is really easy for me to say that in my position. My son is almost nine years old and developmentally delayed- the idea that I might need to actually practice what I am thinking is so far away... or at least it feels like it is. And I have been told that I am the most generous and tolerant person from some friends who have made it very clear that my behavior towards them is a rare gift for them... which doesn't make any sense to me as we are all people, right?

So, if my child did come up to me and told me that he was gay... I like to think that my first response would be to say 'that's wonderful'.  I don't think that it should really matter except how it matters to him.  I like to think that I could express my gratitude for the trust that my child was showing me and that I would be supportive and caring- just as supportive and caring as I have always been. I do think that maybe one thing that I need to think about... maybe instead of just making sure to keep highly hateful people away from my son, maybe I also need to make sure that he is able to see positive examples of homosexuals around him... so that no matter what sexuality he finds that he 'feels'... he will know that he is OK and cared for. I can't imagine loving him any less and I can't imagine not standing up for him and his choices in front of ignorant or hateful people. I also cannot imagine the sorrow that other parents feel when others hurt their children... or cause their children to harm themselves. I hope that my child feels that he can be who he is and that I can support him in that- no matter whether he is heterosexual or homosexual, whether he follows social gender roles or not, whether he is religious or not,... I hope that we all can.

I am not sure that any of us can know how we will react until we are faced with it.  But I think that thinking about how we would react is a great first step to understanding how we feel so we know how we are most likely to react and confront our confusion, fear, or ignorance head on... which I think would be great just to understand ourselves better... and being able to help our children and others is an added bonus!  :)

Thoughts on Somatoform Disorder... and a Lot of Questions!

1. Somatoform disorder is the name for a group of conditions in which the physical pain and symptoms a person feels are related to psychological factors. These symptoms can't be traced to a specific physical cause. In people who have a somatoform disorder, medical test results are either normal or don't explain the person's symptoms. This group of disorders includes: Conversion disorder, Dissociative disorder, Somatization disorder, Hypochondriasis, Factitious disorder, and Body Dysmorphic Disorder.


I will admit that after reading my texts twice- I am still not sure that I 'get' Somatoform disorder. Or at least I thought that I was starting to get it until I read a lot of the other posts from my other classmates. Everyone seemed to focus on hypochondriacs and while I do think that was part of being discussed... well, I guess I wasn't really convinced that was the whole idea... And the amount of backbiting/rudeness and judgement was quite impressive ('I know someone just like that and she does it for the attention...' or 'I know someone who definitely fits this disorder and they go to the doctor all the time but it's clear there's nothing wrong with them', etc...)

Am I wrong? Maybe I am so focused on the idea that I was so sick and nobody could find anything wrong for a year. I had x-rays, ultra sounds, a colonoscopy or two, and was poked and prodded by everyone imaginable in my local practice and was given huge antibiotic shots every few weeks, started Prozac and was then sent to a third specialist... who then gave me an upper-endoscopy and then told me that all of my symptoms made perfect sense for the problem that I was really having... which wasn't recognized by any of the other physicians that I had seen.... So how can you really be sure that someone is a hypochondriac and doesn't really have something physical wrong with them? Especially just by casual looking or conversation...? The textbook talked about how women are more likely to be diagnosed with this disorder... can this be because physicians as a rule are more likely to think women have something wrong with their mind (anxiety, etc) than a heart attack for instance... and so they do not look deep enough? Or am I just overly tolerant and not cynical enough?

I guess I also wonder if pain disorders have to be specifically 'pointed' at in the sense that I think that Fibromyalgia is a 'pain disorder' but there doesn't seem to be anything specific to 'point' at- they hurt, but no one seems to know for sure why? Are they hurting?... I have no doubt. Is it all in their mind? I can't believe that... Also if I look at the criteria, is it possible that someone with a bad relationship and stress problem be able to be 'diagnosed' with this disorder that with time and other changes could no longer qualify for this disorder? For instance, if my friend Pamela has belly pain and reflux from stress (she thinks), a sex symptom- because she has no interest in sex with her estranged husband right now, and she is also likely to complain of random chest pain, a twitching eye, headaches, and leg pain... could she be diagnosed with this disorder if her doctor can't find anything definitive? Even though a casual discussion and exam could probably show that this is most likely temporary and stress related? And once you are diagnosed, can you ever 'lose' the diagnostic label... or is it yours forever? I also wonder which came first- the label hypochondriac or somatoform disorder... although I suspect that the term hypochondriac came first. I guess I have more questions this week than answers- sorry :(

One thing that was really interesting to me was that Body Dsymorphic Disorder is one of the disorders under this diagnosis- known to us lay people usually as anorexia or bulemia. Because maybe that is my clue for understanding the idea of the disorder. If the idea behind BDD is than an individual for some reason is unable to accept who he/she is or what he/she looks like or can't be what he/she wants to be... is able to for unknown reasons in her mind attempt to force the body into what he/she cannot have (and I believe that is done unconsciously truly- I can't imagine that those thought processes are something that someone works on to develop... although I could be wrong.) Well, than maybe what the book is trying to say is that a person has so much 'stuff' in his/her life that is painful (whether it is abuse, stress, etc...) that they cannot control... then the unconscious mind tries to get out some of the strain through other various ways which the individual doesn't tend to recognize and then they go to the doctor thinking that they had another problem. But I guess I am again stuck on the idea that at some point the doctor can decide that the patient has nothing really wrong and diagnose them with this when it could be something else.

Does anyone out there know someone who has one of these disorders and can maybe give me a little more insight into it? I really am curious and want to have a real discussion on it. What do you think if you are someone who has it? Would you be willing to explain a little bit of your personal history so maybe I can understand a little better?

Trials and Temptation

(David Lynn)

“Didn't He say he sent us to be tested? Didn't He say the way would not be sure? But didn't He say we could live with Him forevermore, well and whole if we but patiently endure? After the trial we will be blessed, but this life is the test” - The Test by Janice Kapp Perry

The last two months, I have felt tested beyond anything I have ever dealt with in my life. Scarily enough I am finding this harder to deal with than my turbulent adolescence in my parent's home... although I think that is because I didn't expect to be so threatened in my life ever again. However, it has happened and I am unsure what to do. In some ways, I think I feel almost bipolar- my moods change constantly depending on my thoughts which are headed in almost any direction as I try to cope. And trying to deal with the outside forces bombarding my mood and emotions has been almost impossible. In the past when I have needed to try and cope with severe problems, I have been reminded of a Bible verse:

1 Corinthians 10:13 - There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

The first time I heard someone describe this Bible verse was in Sunday school and it was misquoted. Many people have shortened this verse to mean that “Heavenly Father will never give you more than you can handle”. Just my opinion, but that is absolute bunk. First of all this verse uses the words “you will not be tempted”. Second, God does not 'give' us the problems that we face- most of those problems come from ourselves as consequences or from other people and their free agency. I know that it can be comforting to smile through our tears and repeat over and over that we can handle it, but it is just false doctrine. The other (and main) reason I think that this statement is bunk is that it tends to be used by others to justify their good fortune- “I am good and that is why I have money... she is bad and that is why she is having problems with money, children, etc...”) By using this justification, it allows people to divide others into 'us' and 'them' and permits them to justify allowing suffering and allows them to feel comfortable either not helping and/or judging.

I can not accept that. I can not accept that some people are poor because they are bad. I can not accept the idea that rich individuals are closer to perfection – not to beat a point into the dust but.... Tiger Woods anyone? And so I find myself frustrated with this platitude and others that seem to mostly justify not doing anything about bad things. I take the scripture verse at face value- Heavenly Father will not allow us to be tempted past our endurance. Trials, however, are different from temptations no matter how you splice it.

I believe that temptations are personal- it may hurt or cause consequences for others, but your sins are your own. Isn't that listed in Article of Faith number 1? Trials, however, are meant to be faced with others. We are on earth so that we can be tested but also to make the test easier for us around us. If we allow ourselves to become so insulated and arrogant that we do not help each other... well, what is left to enjoy in life. If we only help those we love... a lot of people will be left out to struggle alone which is not what our Father intended. We can not allow ourselves to be so self involved that we do not ask ourselves a question – “Is Heavenly Father hoping to use me to ease this burden?”

We can not make it alone- only be helping each other can we hope to make it!

Is Questioning Bad?

Why do people tend to believe that if you question something, you are inherently bad? Why is questioning bad? Why do we as human being fear curiosity? Is it questioning itself or do people get upset depending on other factors- such as who is doing the questions, what is questions, how it is asked, etc...

When I was growing up, questioning someone was not a learning experience- it was rebellion, pure and simple. In college I was taught that questioning is the source of growth and learning. But every time I question some policy or cultural expectation of the LDS church (notice my word choice – I am not questioning doctrine), I am branded by almost everyone as a foolish befuddled person who has fallen prey to anti-Mormon ideas, apostate visions or just simply too confused to truly understand the church. My testimony and faith are questioned and found lacking with no evidence besides the word “Why”.

To me, the idea of dissent and questioning of faith are inherent to my faith and stem back to the very earliest Mormon faith. If truth be told, would Mormonism exist without the faith and questions of our first latter day prophet Joseph Smith? Almost every revelation he received was based upon asking the Lord for confirmation and answers to questions. In the church today, we are encouraged to ask Heavenly Father for anything understanding that he is never to busy for us and he will answer our prayers. We can receive revelation to help us with specific needs, responsibilities, and questions and to help us strengthen our testimony. D&C 76:5-10 states:

5 For thus saith the Lord— I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.

6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.

7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.

9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man.

So, if revelation is so important and questioning is a basic part of our religious structure so that we can receive revelation, why do we pounce like feral dogs onto our fellow saints who question? Why do we immediately assume that their questions are meant to cause harm to the church? Why do we fear them? And why are we not more like them? Because to question helps us to learn more about God and life itself....