Friday, October 15, 2010

Afflicting the Comfortable

Well, I’ve been a busy little bee lately but haven’t we all! That is life Maureen, suck it up! Actually I did get to go and see that chick flick Eat, Pray, Love and I’ll tell ya’ my respect for Italians went through the roof. You get a really good picture of their attitude to life, particularly regarding work, rest and play. They really, truly feel that they deserve their ‘down-time’, in fact they know that they deserve it, they have grown up knowing this. Love it.

So I know I have neglected my blogger duties but I have been rather outspoken on fb. I’d like to share part of a thread w/you here. I’d also be very interested in any feedback you might have about how I handled the subject. Am I being too rude? I know Daniel won’t think so… he dislikes tone trolls somewhat. The TBM that I am in discussion w/is (as most Mormons are) a very lovely person. I’m not sure if they still think that I am though. I think another friend may have just bitten the dust, sigh.

I’m thinking it’s time to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

A friend posted about the recent General Conference and a commenter soon enquired about their opinion on the now infamous BKP talk. This is what ensued. I’ll skip the first several comments as I’m sure you’re really only interested in it from where I pipe up (dang, my head won’t fit through the doorway). Good luck, see you on the other side.

Maureen (10 Oct 23:06)

Packers talk disturbs me horribly because of the effect it will have on LGBT youth. Why must the church harp on about homosexuality? If religion must exist, why not stick to 'love one another'?!

Maureen (10 Oct 23:22)

I'd love to hear y'all thoughts on Packers talk though. Check out for great discussion on how to cope with any cognitive dissonance you may be feeling about the church's stance on homosexuality. There are many active members there finding a way to be faithful and informed. xox

TBM1 (11 Oct 18:41)

when i first heard of 'feministmormonhousewives' i thought to myself they must be the most miserable people on earth! haha

TBM2 (11 Oct 22:00)

the notion that feminism clashes with mormonism excludes the streams of feminism that are in harmony with the gender roles in the lds church, such as those of sylviane agacinski-jospin, alma don sorenson and valerie hudson. i like that fmh creates an open forum and i see it's valuable to its readers, but it's certainly not the only or by any stretch the best option for finding answers and reconciling your own belief systems. i prefer academia and prayer - an earnest search for truth and a bit of faith can go a long way.

Maureen (11 Oct 23:36)

I find it interesting that there are still no comments on the LGBT issue. My heart bleeds for LGBT Mormon youth. Are you guys aware of the rise in suicides from this group recently? I'm not trying to disturb your harmonious feminist and Mormon identities, that is awesome if you can reconcile the two, many women at fMh do too, and it is certainly not the only place to go for help w/that, just a good one, if you're interested. Any takers on the LGBT issue? I see hope for these youth (and adults), heck polygamy didn't last forever, the blacks got the priesthood. Is there room in heaven for the LGBT community? I think so.

TBM2 (12 Oct 06:45) well, the church's stance on homosexuality is no secret (president packer's talk, which wasn't even about homosexuality like the newspapers portray it to be by only quoting the small parts where homosexuality was mentioned) and it's pretty simple. God said don't practise homosexuality, the church says don't practise homosexuality. that's about it, but members and opposition alike add all sorts of assumptions of their own.

Calvalcanti (12 Oct 11:28)

Actually, there's an additional proposition in Pres. Packer's speech that, to some people, seems like a bit of a step backwards from previous Church pronouncements (at least at that level). Specifically, the bit about homosexual tendencies not being inborn, with the rhetorical "Why would God do that to anyone?". While I think the reaction has been disproportionate (Pres. Packer has said things far more controversial), I don't believe that it is entirely groundless. Even with all the sensational editorialising stripped away, there's still a legitimate (and complex) issue left for discussion.

TBM1 (12 Oct 13:02)

I noticed that too [Calvalcanti]. I liked Elder Packer's talk because it was clear and straight down the line, despite public pressure.

Maureen, it is sad that those youth have felt that there is no hope for them and ended their lives. However, what would you suggest, that the church change its doctrines to be less offensive to those who find them challenging? If you consider who the doctrine comes from, it seems to be an absurd ask, that
God should change eternal laws and truths and requirements for his children because some of his children find the criteria too hard?

If you are LDS, then it is an accepted belief that revelation (such as talks by President Packer) is from God. Based on that, I can't quite get my head around the idea that you can be LDS, but not believe everything God tells us. For example- it doesn't make logical sense to say "I am LDS but I believe abortion is okay". Either God reveals things to us through his prophets, or he doesn't. Picking and choosing does not make sense.

Maureen (12 Oct 16:00)

Thanks guys, I appreciate the willingness to talk about the issue. Teen health is something that I am very passionate about.

As [Cavalcanti] has pointed out the church's policy used to be that people are not born gay and should just stop being gay. The church now accepts that people are born gay but say that they should not practice homosexuality. Packer seemed to have forgotten this nuance which from where I stand is easy for me to understand as being his personal opinion and NOT from God.

i think you would be hard pressed to find any latter-day apostles/prophets declaring that they actually speak to god. They work on 'feelings' and impressions. I think you would also be hard pressed to show where god says homosexuality is bad, as far as I know there is no mention of it in the New Testament.

I personally believe that if there is a god that he/she accepts homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality.

The church decided to get really public and political about homosexuality so the LGBT community and supporters feel quite justified in speaking out against the Mormon church. Believe whatever you want about the afterlife and god but religions have no right to interfere in the lives of non-Mormons and ought to take youth suicide seriously.

Think for a moment how you would feel if you were a gay teenager listening to Packers talk. Then the drone of "follow the prophet" over and over again. Do you really think that subjecting LGBT people to a life of celibacy is humane? or sexual relations w/a person they are not attracted to. I could not marry a woman, nor could a gay man happily marry a woman!

Again, I appreciate your willingness to discuss. The Mormon church can happily go about their religion as long as they remove hurtful statements and stay out of issues where they do not belong.

TBM1 (12 Oct 16:37)

I do not know of any background regarding the church's stance on homosexuality, and I don't need to know. I also don't need to find specific confirmation of homosexuality (rather than immorality) in the bible. All that matters is if God communicates with his prophets (and I don't know how he communicates with them, and I don't need to). As an active LDS, I believe that God does communicate with his prophets, and he has commanded us not to practice homosexuality. Even if God's attitudes were different in the past, it wouldn't matter. He has said to us as recently as a week and a half ago, do not practice homosexuality.

I feel for people who are struggle with feelings of homosexuality. I am fortunate I have not had that struggle. We have also been instructed through prophets (God) that we should treat everyone with kindness and respect and love one another. There have been talks dedicated to these very people, reassuring them there is hope, and that God loves them.

In regards to hurtful statements, some people may be hurt or offended by gospel doctrine. But as I mentioned previously, demanding that prophets (God) change eternal laws and requirements that are challenging does not make much sense. I wonder if you feel the same way about 'immorality' in general, or just homosexuality?

TBM2 (12 Oct 17:34)

when i was at byu, president packer gave a really long boring talk at our regional conference. a month later, he gave the exact same dead boring talk at general conference. he's an apostle, but the dude is getting old :) i'm inclined to go easy on him. at least he changed the word 'tendencies' to 'temptations' in the conference report - which is what really matters, because the conference report is official church doctrine, and the actual conference session is not.

i can understand a gay lds teen would be frustrated, i can't actually think of a harder spiritual burden for someone who shares our beliefs, but the lds message isn't one of hate. for people who believe that God commanded us to not practise homosexuality, then the message of repentance and the atonement that the lds church teaches is one of hope, and that's certainly the intent behind the message - it was definitely president packer's talk, which was about repenting for immorality. for others who believe that practising homosexuality is not a sin, then the lds belief that it is sinful (and God did tell us this, in 'the family: a proclamation to the world'. this is one of the few church publications that is official doctrine) could understandably be interpreted as hateful. it's a difference of opinion though. i think it comes down to a person-to-person basis though. some lds people are very understanding, fair and eloquent. others have brittle black-and-white, and even erroneous interpretations of our beliefs. it's like any community.

Rockstar (12 Oct 19:02)

when, "[...]by common consent" was the Proc. brought in as doctrine? The last actual doctrine was an altercation to who could and couldn't Hold the priesthood. And even then it's really a stretch considering that since Joseph all the leaders have been less than a "Yankee guesser".

and the bigotry rolls on!

Rockstar (12 Oct 21:09)

[TBM2], seems like it's too easy for the church's official stance to change with the whim, fancy and inclination of whomever may be standing at the pulpit. But then, as long as it all FEELS right, y'know, overall...

Good to see everyone so civil.

Rockstar (13 Oct 17:31)

I notice that [TBM1] took your remark about Paker's statement being a backward step as a good thing... I'm not sure if you feel the same way, do you? I don't, and wouldn't if I was still attending/believing; as a TBM I found this standpoint disgusting, now it's also mystifying. And the backward step borders on evil.

[TBM1], so the church shouldn't change it's stance on gays, but it's fine for them to change it re: polygamy and blacks in the priesthood? Just because they haven't doesn't mean they shouldn't, neither does it mean they can't. The "absurd ask", as you suggest Maureen's statement is, has happened before and, frankly, if the church wants to stay financially stable (which is what's really important these days :] ), it's guaranteed to happen again. Guaranteed. So unless you want to end up just like that old sister at Duncraig ward who left the church because the blacks got the priesthood (it seems she reluctantly came back besides her aversion to skin pigmentation), or those who left because of the change to polygamy, I'd get used to the idea that it's actually a possibility. The church may actually change it's teaching.

Maureen (13 Oct 22:39)

[TBM1] and [TBM2]: Mormons have a reputation for being really 'nice' people but I'm afraid that saying that you feel bad for the suffering of others but then refusing to even question ([TBM1]) 'the whys' of your chosen religions actions, actions that adversely affect others, is not being looked upon favourably in the current climate.

[TBM1]: Check out a paper by Hugh Nibley called 'Beyond Politics' that deals w/why god wants us to question even him! (and even more-so his spokesmen/women).

Personal revelation can trump even a prophet. (I'm sounding like a believer now!)

So it's celibacy or marry someone you're not attracted to, are those the choices?

I asked myself this question before I left. If polygamy were brought back in today would I 'follow the prophet', I could not. I left. If polygamy came back in... today... would you 'follow the prophet'? Does this bring you a little closer to understanding the situation for LGBT Mormons?

I find many points of Mormon doctrine highly offensive but the great thing about leaving is that there is no need for me to 'demand' anything of god. I don't care for the Mormon god. I like my god much better.

How do I feel about immorality you ask?
Not sure how this question applies to our discussion but I'll bite.
Firstly, I have to say that I do not consider homosexuality to be immoral so we differ there. I am not a fan of adultery. I think sex w/in a committed relationship is beautiful, I see no need for marriage. Rah rah rah. There are other differences. I love being able to think about these things and weigh them up in my own mind and heart. It's interesting too how words like immoral, sinful, wrong just don't pop up in the world I gravitate in now.

[TBM2]: He may be old but I think he's next in line to be prophet, will he still get free passes then? Maybe their talks should be scrutinised a little more before they are broadcast/spoken since for anyone listening to it the damage has already been done. I acknowledge that you only accept the print version as doctrine.

I was talking about whether or not god spoke against homosexuality outside of Mormonism. I know Mormons think he has. I still think you should ask a prophet/apostle/anyone to confirm when the last time is that someone actually spoke to god rather than having predetermined ideas that they have then prayed about and had confirmed.

I have the same questions for you about the lot in life for LGBT Mormons and whether you would practice polygamy.

[TBM1&2], you have been great sports. I hope the tone in the written word is coming across ok to you. Any grrrr tone is not directed at you but at 'the church'.

if you're interested, just someone's thoughts on it.


TBM1 (14 Oct 20:27)

I don't have all the answers to all the questions
posed to me. But I am okay with only knowing what is necessary for me to know right now, I can be patient in the meantime. I don't pretend to know better than the prophets and I don't pretend I am more intelligent than god. [Rockstar] and Maureen, I feel you won't be satisfied with any of my responses until I come to the same conclusions you have- that the lds gospel is false, religion is bad, god does not exist etc. I am not going down that path. I do not doubt, and the personal circumstances surrounding my faith are just that, personal, and not fodder for mocking or anyone else's entertainment.

You have asked for us all to respect each other and discuss these things openly. As far as I can see, your friends have been understanding and respectful to both of you. For you to try to tear down the very personal beliefs of your friends while mocking things they hold dear, their sense of compassion and even their intelligence is unfair and does not match the levels of understanding shown to you.

I am happy in my faith, I am not bitter. I don't want to continue a pointless argument about our different beliefs anymore.

Maureen (14 Oct 21:01)

I was just being straightforward with you [TBM1]. I thought you and [TBM2] (etc) were open to that. I just re-read my comments to try and see if I had been rude. I don't think I was. I don't want you to denounce god but I would love to see active LDS question the leadership on this issue. I feel that it is a human rights concern.

I don't believe I mocked you. I called you out though on choosing not to look into the subject. That is a tough thing for you to hear but I thought you would understand why I would say it.

Let me reiterate. You think that practicing homosexuality is evil and that god thinks it is bad and that gays should change. For some reason you don't see that this is considered by many people to be a very hateful stance... and if you are going to hold such a tough stance then I personally think that you need to know the ins and outs of it.

I don't want to tear down your beliefs, I want you to make sure that you understand them and that they truly are your beliefs and not someone elses. Believe in god all you like but when your beliefs impinge on the freedom and happiness of others then you will probably need to be able to explain yourself.

You ARE compassionate AND intelligent, I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I don't think you are bitter.

I gave my views on god etc throughout our debate but I worded them as 'my views' not "here's the truth, you must agree with me!"

The Mormons here have stated many times their strong belief in god, why is it then not ok for me to say that I don't believe???

This is a tough subject. You don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. I thought we were making headway but something went wrong?


So, there’s the long and short of it. If anyone is still reading at this point then you need to go and check in for blog addiction rehab.


  1. Maureen, I found your comments compassionate, articulate and fair. You spoke for me and I am sure for many others. Thank you.

  2. Wow, this is WAY more civil than the Facebook tussle I got into over Packer's talk with a TBM "friend." And way more intelligent. Her main argument was "SODOM AND GOMORRAH! NEED I SAY MORE?!"

    And I was like, "Um, yeah, you do. Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't cut it."

    Ugh. I wish I could quit Facebook.

  3. I find these conversations both fascinating, riveting and frustrating as all hell.

    One pattern that I've noticed in all of them is that many TBMs take contradictions to their view of the world very personally and almost as if they are being attacked. Which is understandable when one's entire identity is wrapped up in a religious belief and its adherence, to poke at the flaws of that is to essentially threaten them with the possible annihilation of what they belive makes them who they are? No one likes to be torn down like that.

    And yet, because they have an identity that they think is correct, everyone else is wrong. And they seem to be oblivious to how they are trying to annihilate the core identity of someone else they can't abide. Such as anyone who is gay. It's irony on a grand scale.

    Also there is another set of TMBs that I deal with in my family that claim they can see both sides of the issue. When I pressed her to express an understanding rather than mimic what I said, after all we can only discuss if there is common understanding, she got offended and ended the conversation. For what ever reason, I'm still not sure of, she felt that I was attacking her for asking what she understood about me and how I view things. So when someone claims to understand both sides of the issue, I'm weary of that statement until they can show me it's true.

  4. You have some big balls there Maureen!  I haven’t gotten involved in all the Facebook madness over this issue because it seems to be futile. Many people who believe the church leaders speak for god can’t imagine that anything they say is wrong because it’s what god thinks. They won’t think for themselves because they have been so programmed to “follow the prophet”. I do think there are some active members who don’t agree with what Packer said and maybe this will cause them to really take a critical look at the church and hopefully they will see that it’s not true. This is a very divisive issue and it seems most people have a strong opinion one way or another. Good for you for standing up for what you believe in!

  5. Thanks Donnell, I sure did try! I am glad that I have posted it all here now as I kind of needed some reassurance as to whether I was way out of line or not. I felt good about what I had said but my friends reaction had seemed somewhat extreme and I wondered if maybe I had missed something.

    Hey Eliza, the Mormons over here (Perth, Australia) tend to be less vocal about their beliefs online. I was surprised that they even engaged w/me at all about the issue. It would drive me mad if I had to read about members support for BKP on FB!!!

    I think FB is a great tool when you can figure out how to block those annoying so and so's (I wonder how many of my Mormon 'friends' have blocked my comments?!) I love it for the easy connection to so many people and the increase in social activities being extended to more and more people. I went to my 15 year school reunion recently and it was actually quite fun, I think in part because many people had been connecting through FB.

    Hi TGD, many TBMs do seem to take it very personally and then respond in an extreme manner. I have had many 'friends' say that they can continue to be my friend only if we don't talk about religion. I say "no thanks".

    Oh yes the irony!!! It drives me mad how the cry foul and say that i/we have hurt, mocked and offended them, they seriously can't see their own faults.

    Yes, be wary of Mormons saying they 'understand' all the issues, as I soon found out from my friend, understanding the issues included claiming ignorance when it came to anything god had not explained to them, as if that were a good defense!

    Ha! TGW, balls or an underdeveloped instinct for self preservation!! It does appear futile, certainly tiresome and hard work! It is really pissing me off that otherwise intelligent and kind people refuse to think for themselves when it comes to things like this. I think that the number of people w/in the church willing to speak out will soon be big enough to effect change. I'd love to speed it up, no more youth can be lost to homelessness and suicide.

  6. You sounded fine to me and I'm a True Believing Mormon. It seems as though your friend is reacting to something else, not something that's part of this conversation.

  7. I think you may be right Retief. I had a conversation w/someone during the week who said to me that when they were a TBM there were points in conversations w/ex-members etc where they just had to stop. The things being said were too confrontational to deal w/at the time. So I am trying to allow this friend of mine (in the above fb conversation) the space to back off and not engage in a conversation that they feel is openly attacking their beliefs.

    Btw, what are your thoughts on the church's view of the LGBT community? Packer's talk? Do you think there is a need for conversation about it w/in the church? From where I stand it is really looking like a similar situation to polygamy all those years ago and then black men receiving the priesthood (as well as other changes) where the church will eventually (possibly sooner rather than later) accept the LGBT community as they are and 'reveal' that god accepts homosexuality. That's what I realistically see happening. What do you think?

  8. Maureen,

    i don't think you were rude. I actually thought you were the one trying the hardest to communicate in a kind way. Most mormons are "nice" people and I love that, but I have been similarly frustrated with being called rude or attacking, when really i was just stating my opinion, not universal truth.
    more power to you, sister!

  9. Thanks Juliane. I think I have been increasingly getting tired of interacting w/conservative TBMs. It can be quite a strain and I really could do without that right now. It also seems to be quite pointless debating these issues w/them. I'm glad that the commenters here have been able to give me positive feedback about my input in the fb thread. I too am more than a little bit sick of Mormons crying foul when all that has occurred is open discussion, opinions stated as you say... hmmm.

    Early on I accepted my LDS friends putting stipulations on our friendships where we could not discuss religion. Well those friendships worked out great! not. Never see them. So, from now on if an LDS friend tries that on I think I'll just say "see-ya", it would be a fake friendship if I had to censor myself that much. I have watched some ex-mo friends try to walk that tightrope w/their believing friends but they (the ex-mo) seems to keep getting burned, looks too stressful to me.

    Aaaaanyway, long comment, I'm just not that motivated to blog these days so I may as well get my thoughts in here in the comments sections. Life just kind of requires attention eh :)

  10. Given that this entire conversation took place on a TBM friend's photo album, where we were all essentially uninvited guests, civility was kind of compulsory. I think the required tone is different when you're on a discussion forum or your own blog. Having said that, I didn't think you were rude at all.
    Rockstar already put most of the TBMs on the defensive before you joined in, so your discussion -began- with half the participants already in siege mentality. I don't think TBM1 would have been as sensitive if this conversation had occurred in a different context.

  11. I'm not sure that I follow the uninvited guests part of what you are saying. The picture of our friend watching General Conference at home was posted on the main wall as a talking piece. There is nothing very private about that. I think that most people accept that when they post something on the wall that anyone may add their two cents to the comment/photo. The issues that arose from this Conference have been particularly controversial and a simple post on fb can easily invite a response (even though our friend probably had no idea of the issues going around in the ex-mo and LGBT world concerning the Conference talks).

    I was pleased to see TBMs willing to engage in what I consider to be very important topics. Having been a TBM and now so very much out I feel some kind of desire to help encourage more conversation about issues that actually harm people (in and out of the church). It can be hard to see these issues when inside the religion ( you are an exception to this) and I feel that I have some responsibility to share (when people are open to it) rather than run away from the church leaving people unaware of the major reasons for my departure.

    I was disappointed that a friend of mine started crying foul as the conversation developed. I am glad to have had some outside (and inside) opinions confirming that I was no rude (so hard to gauge sometimes). This friend and I have been working on things outside of fb. Slow progress but there's hope (for our friendship that is, not for conversion - either way).

    You are most likely right that TBM1 was on the defensive mreso because of the additional topic going on w/Rockstar. I guess I will only know for sure when the conversation is broached again, as is the plan (from both TBM1 and myself wanting to understand each others opinions).

    Long comment :P

    Good to hear from you Cavalcanti :) hope life is treating you well.

  12. I'll add my two cents as well. You were completely kind and nice and thoughtful. There was no mocking or belittling or ad hominem attacks.

    I think it's the cog dis that starts to set in when people start critically looking at one's religion...I felt that all the time as a TBM. The defense mechanism is to shut down and cry foul so they feel better...they felt crummy because of the cog dis so crying foul alleviates the cog dis for a bit and the conversation ends.

    I just think it's amazing when you can talk about this stuff in a public forum like facebook. I'm still way too chicken to do that. I'm still in the process of letting family and friends know where I stand and so far it has not been day. You are an inspiration!

  13. Phewsh - i think i read everything.

    I think it was fine. I get frustrated all the time with people at church who don't fully investigate what they believe. I think people pull out the offense card when they run out of answers.

    I will tell you that while I was watching BKP talk live, I bristled and said out loud - "I can't believe he just said that." I was offended and shocked. Granted, he is old. He is in very poor health, and yes, sometimes we all say things that come out the wrong way, but it was quite hurtful and the LDS community needs to acknowledge that and they NEED to support the youth. I am glad that the Human Rights Campaign spoke up so loudly.

    Times and Seasons had a recap that linked to a nasty little battle on Mormon matters that got taken down. I didn't get to see it, but Carol Lyn Pearson's personal site has notes regarding E. Jensen's visit to the Oakland, California area to address the hurt in their community caused by Prop 8.

    Personally, I don't know where I'm at. I wish a lot of members had more close friends and/or family that were gay so they could understand a bit more. There is a blog that I find quite interesting: and he talked quite a bit about the BKP talk. He was a bit more generous than I feel about his remarks.

    As for the New Testament - I believe there is a bit about homosexuality in the end of first chapter of Romans. Good ol' Paul. And then in Leviticus for the OT. As for the Family Proclamation, my understanding is that once it is an "official statement" it becomes church cannon. But I'm not sure about that and will have to look it up later when my eyes are burning out of my head.

  14. I mean, when my eyes are NOT burning out of my head.

    what a weird sentence to end on.

  15. ha ha! yes, I think most of the TBMs were already put-off before you engaged as I was deliberately pushing buttons. However, if you allow your button to be pushed (or even have a button) I have no sympathy for you, shit I have no sympathy for myself if I allow my buttons to get pushed. If y'all have buttons and I push 'em ... Angry Baker, allow me to twist your words:

    bristling with shock and offense
    my eyes burning out of my head.

    I read everything
    & don't know where I'm at
    a hurtful wish, to acknowledge rights?
    to canonize my burning eyes
    I can't believe; I investigate.
    I need; they need; we NEED.

  16. Oh if only I knew more Mormons like you Angry Baker! There seem to be so few of them here. It is particularly disturbing when it is family members who take the "I don't want to hear about it" approach.

    I just have to keep reminding myself that ex-mo's all over the world are experiencing these types of conversations w/suddenly have a red or yellow card pulled out.

    Wow that blog you linked to is very interesting. Lot's of reading for me to get through there.

    To be honest, I don't know the details about homosexuality in the bible. I have read a few pieces about it but I only retained the general gist of it not the details, so I was kind of waiting for people to question me and then I would have had to research it more ;) my basic understanding from the interweb is that the bible says a lot of things about adultery and other sexual behaviours that could be undertaken by anyone, gay or straight, but that it actually doesn't outright condemn homosexuality if you look at it in detail. But I will have to find where I read that. Noone took it up w/me so I didn't bother.

    As for the Proclamation on the Family, if you were to ask the people who wrote it if it came from the mouth of God then they could not say yes. The last person who claimed to have actually spoken to God is Joseph Smith himself. Even Brigham Young admits to being a "Yankee Guesser".

    p.s. good work for making it through all the comments! I honestly thought noone would.

    Hey mack: you can push my buttons anytime ;)

    Love the poem, can't wait to here Angry Bakers response, she'll love it I'm sure :)

    November 20, 2010 11:36 AM

  17. Kaylanamars!!! I just spotted your comment in there, oops

    Thanks for the support! Conversations w/TBMs these days are possibly more troubling than I wish to take on. As far as facebook goes... it still goes through my mind when I post something whether my TBM friends will find it too offensive but I am trying to remind myself of the same thing I tell them, which is that I am not attacking them, I am stating my opinion on things... and that should be/IS ok. Easier said than done though. I'm sure it will become easier to just be me.

    I think I have had a family easy go of it w/family because I was one of the last ones to leave. My MIL and my father are the main ones still there. Dad is fairly cool about things. MIL likes to make digs but that tends to just allow me to speak up for myself w/has been actually quite liberating, so in some sick way I actually hope that she keeps it up! Then again she'll probably read this and so I probably shouldn't be saying anything about it... but as we all know I don't really listen to should and shouldn'ts these days.

    Still wishing for an ex-mo catch up once someone invents a beaming machine like from Star Trek ;)


  18. @mack samaha
    my twisted words are much more interesting than my actual words. (no fair - don't you have a degree in poetry?)

    I'm going to copy/paste and print that off - I do like it very much -

  19. winky face! twisting words into poems is easy; it's DADA!