Magic Underwear / Pearls Before Swine

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is sometimes known as being Mormon, because we believe The Book of Mormon to be holy scripture along with the Bible.

Mormonism isn't the best understood religion in the world. I think we're somewhere between Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists when it comes to misconceptions, but I've learned to cope with this problem. Being misunderstood by the world is a universal part of Mormon culture.

Mormons have been ridiculed for their beliefs since the day Joseph Smith claimed to have met God and Jesus Christ. We consider ourselves Christian but other Christians mock our beliefs. This gives us a unique perspective on the world. Where other Christian denominations can show solidarity, we are excluded. We're the weird ones.

In my experience, most Latter-day Saints in the U.S. consider themselves conservative and Republican when it comes to politicals. The irony in this is that so many other Republicans and conservatives don't trust or like Mormons. Mitt Romney is a great example of this phenomenon. I'm no Republican, but can you imagine there being any controversy over Mitt Romney if he were some other generic Protestant? He would be hailed as the second coming of Ronald Reagan! Sure, he appears to be well-liked but there's still a lot of apprehension about him. I know it's all because Mormons believe in that crazy Joseph Smith.

That's not all, though. We also don't believe that God the Father and Jesus are the same being. We don't believe the Bible (or the Book of Mormon) is the be-all, end-all of God's word or that it contains everything we would ever need to know about life and the universe. We believe that there are many sacred books in the world written by inspired prophets. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are two collections of these books, but there are many more out there that we don't even know about. We don't believe that any one book contains everything there is to know about God. We believe in personal revelation from God. We believe that we will get to live with God again someday, inherit all that he has, and eventually learn to become like him. We base these beliefs on our interpretation of sacred books but also on the teachings of men we believe to be modern prophets.

These claims are all deeply offensive to many "mainstream" Christians, and so we are rejected by them. Our outlandish claims don't end there, though. We also believe alcohol and other recreational drugs are morally wrong. We believe all sex outside of  marriage is morally wrong. We believe that homosexual activity is morally wrong. Because we feel that some natural human impulses are morally wrong we are labeled as close-minded hatemongers by the other side of the spectrum, namely, atheists, agnostics, hedonists, "free thinkers," nihilists and so forth.  In short, we are friendless outcasts in this world. Our beliefs offend the religious and the agnostic, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. At best we are tolerated by institutions that think they will get our votes or financial support; at worst we are ridiculed and accused of every conceivable evil.

Some might say that the early Latter-day Saint practice of plural marriage is what makes people anxious about the religion, but, as it has been repeated ad nauseam for over a century, the church abolished this practice in 1898. If we held the Republican party or the Catholic church to the same standard as the Church of Jesus Christ then we should be recalling the stuff they were doing in 1898 every time we mention them. We'd have to bring up segregation, racism, the fact that women couldn't vote, the robber barons, etc. There's a lot more I could say on this subject, but I am going to leave it for now in favor of a different topic that's been on my mind.

There is one LDS belief that every group mocks in unison. All the hatred and vitriol against Mormons can be summed up in it. I am, of course, referring to our practice of wearing "magic underwear."

From the Public Relations office of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.

Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.

Just so everyone is aware, the term "magic underwear" is deeply offensive. I doubt this fact will change anyone's mind about employing the term as a lazy joke, since the kind of people who use the term do not typically care about concepts such as "sanctity," "holiness," or "reverence," but I thought I'd make it clear all the same. That term is made up of two mocking words that are not our own. Mormons don't normally refer to their underclothing as "underwear." Underwear is a juvenile, silly word. It's also a sexualized word. It's a blunt and coarse word. It's a word that used to be inappropriate years ago, and was therefore not said in polite company. Words like "underthings" "unmentionables" "lingerie" "shorts" "intimates" and "drawers" were historically used as a polite alternative to "underwear." "Underwear" is used in this term to demean us. It is to mock the fact that we believe our religious attire is somehow different from the Hanes briefs and dollar-store thongs the rest of America is wearing.

Then there's "magic." If that word implies some kind of impossible power that cannot be explained, then one could say that Jesus healed people through the use of "magic." In the same way, one could say that any unexplained phenomena in the universe is "magic." Dark matter is magic. The evolution of DNA is magic. The Big Bang is magic. But nobody uses "magic" in this way. Magic is associated with superstition and ignorance. Children and tribal cultures believe in magic. Enlightened people know better. Mormons believe that some things are sacred, but we do not believe in magic. The people who use the term against us know this. They know we don't believe in magic. They only use the word magic because they choose to not understand the concept of sanctity. They hold nothing sacred. There is no God to them, no afterlife, no salvation, no ultimate point to reality, nothing. They believe we are all just intelligent animals and that our achievements upon this earth are the only useful thing in the universe. There is nothing greater than this world in their eyes, and there is nothing that exists unless they can immediately perceive it. There is no room for the sacred or the holy in their world-view.

When the adjective "magic" is added to an object, it imbues the object with its own power. When we partake of bread and water on Sundays, we do not say that these items are "magical." In fact, the prayer over the Sacrament says we "bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it" (emphasis mine). The bread becomes blessed and sanctified only when it is partaken of by someone who has made the covenants. Anyone can eat the Sacramental bread. You can be a raging atheist and partake if you'd like. It means nothing until it is "eat[en] in remembrance of the body of thy Son." My point is that we don't believe the bread itself is magical or that it has healing powers or special properties. We believe that we the people are the ones that sanctify things. The bread is sanctified by the Priesthood, who act in behalf of God. Without their action, no sanctification takes place. And even then, just because someone blesses the bread it doesn't make it blessed until the bread is eaten by someone who partakes of it worthily.

The same can be said of the sacred garments. They are not magical objects. They hold no power in and of themselves. We consider them sacred. Their power is manifested when they are worn worthily by those who have made covenants with God. The church stresses that they are personal and private "reminders." Harry Potter's wand is magical. The ring from Lord of the Rings is magical. The garments are sacred.

***

In order to educate and enlighten, I thought I'd post some links to various Wikipedia articles on the sacred undergarments of other religions. I find it telling that nobody makes fun of Orthodox Jews for wearing "magic underwear" (although they do get made fun of for many other things). But I can't even imagine the backlash if someone went around with a sign saying "USE YOUR MAGIC UNDERWEAR FOR GOOD!" at a Synagogue on national television. But the same thing happens when Mormons are in the news all the time, and it's generally understood as "hilarious" or "just a bit of fun."

So here's a handy guide to either understanding other religious beliefs or spewing bitter hatred on other religious beliefs because "they're weird." Use this information for good!

The Jewish Tallit Katan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallit_katan

Orthodox Jews wear it like a T-shirt under their clothing. Highly observant Jews will not take four steps without wearing it because it is a commandment to wear it at all times.

The Sikh Kachchhera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachchhera

The Muslim Ihram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihram_clothing

Japanese Hadajuban "skin"

http://www.kekkonshiki.org/bride.asp

The Buddhist Antaravasaka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antaravasaka

Article about Buddhist robes:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma10/robe.html

Mennonites:

http://www.mennonitemaiden.com/unmentionables1.html

Further reading: 

A wonderful article by Hugh Nibley on the nature of "Sacred Vestments"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=103&chapid=1149

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Peace On Earth Was All It Said...

A Fish, A Barrel, And A Smoking Gun...

Earlier this year I wrote about The Scroll, BYU-Idaho's amazing student newspaper. 

Well I've decided to write about it again because I just can't stand it anymore and I need to talk about it or I will end up just screaming at people in the street. 

I'm going to take my two least-favorite letters to the editor from last week's paper and discuss them here. The first is by one Bryan Faulk. Faulk writes about how The Occupy Wall Street movement "lacks direction." I was going to post a link to this letter but it doesn't appear that The Scroll's web site posts letters to the editor. I'll just quote parts of it and do my best to keep it all in context. 

Faulk opens with: 

"As disorganized as the Occupy Wall Street movement is, it's safe to say that their underlying sentiment is thus: greedy industrialists + corrupt politicians = trouble. With that, I couldn't agree more, but all Occupy has done is identify the problem."

Umm, what? You started by accusing the movement of being disorganized, but apparently they're not so disorganized that they don't have an "underlying sentiment." I would completely disagree that their message is about "greedy industrialists" (remember that their movement is about occupying WALL STREET. Wall Street is typically associated with the FINANCIAL SECTOR...) But okay, fine. I'll address this later. Moving on.

"Until the movement officially publishes a list of analyzable policy demands they're nothing more than a throng of crybabies." 

Wait, so people protesting wage inequality, lack of jobs, and lack of government oversight in the financial sector in America are "crybabies." Why? Because they haven't "officially" published a list of "analyzable policy demands"? It's not enough if people actually are publishing lists of demands online and in newspapers and blogs, what we need is an "official" list. Occupy Wall Street is a movement spread by word of mouth and online networking. There is obviously no "official" spokesman for this movement, much like the Tea Party protests have no "official" head or office. Why should they have to publish an official list of analyzable policy demands? They want to make this country aware that there is gross inequality in wages and that 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth. Why are they crybabies for wanting to voice their outrage and dismay? 

"Though the Occupy movement has yet to take an official stance, it appears that many of the protesters support government restrictions to control the greed of big business. With that, I couldn't Disagree [sic] more. They blame capitalism as the problem and government as the answer, when in reality it's the other way around!" 

There are so many logical holes in this that it makes my head spin even trying to start. Faulk states that the movement "has yet to take an official stance" (there's that word again). He then goes on, in the very same sentence, to (incorrectly) outline what the movement is supposedly about!! How can he do this when he has already stated that the movement is "disorganized," "lacks direction," all they've done "is identify the problem" and has "yet to take [a stance]" on anything?! It's as if he's stumbling over himself in his eagerness to discredit these protesters, but he discredits himself in the process. If the protesters do not have any kind of clearly defined agenda, as he says, then how can he then turn around and explain what their agenda is? On the other hand, if the protesters really DO have a clear agenda, how in the world can he say that their agenda is about taking down capitalism? It's like his only information about the protesters comes from Fox News and talk radio. The man has never actually read anything about what these protesters are trying get across. 

He then goes on to describe how big government is the problem, how big government "decides who can produce how much of whatever" and that this leads to lobbyists bribing Congress "to ensure that legislation will favor their industry." 

"You want to keep corporate money out of politics? Take away the magnet!"

"Occupy protests have brought to light a problem that needs fixing, but yelling at buildings won't solve anything." 

"I've proposed a solution and am open to hearing others. Occupy, it's your turn." 

I can guarantee that Tea Party protesters were never called crybabies by this guy, even though their demands amounted to "lower taxes, less government." I can also guarantee that this guy has never ridiculed Tea Party protesters for "yelling at buildings."

My biggest problem with Bryan Faulk is not his condescending tone, his ridiculing, or even his many logical fallacies. No, my problem is the way he characterizes the protests as something they are not. He has no clue what this movement is upset about, or if he does then he is deliberately mischaracterizing their arguments because he knows their arguments are stronger than his.

Yes, there are probably a lot of hippies and stupid pot-smoker types that take place in these kinds of protests. They are (justifiably) angry that they are unemployed or making minimum wage while others are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year for not providing any real goods or services to society. It’s not all young hooligans, though. There are those who believe that the financial industry is what caused the meltdown of America’s economy and so far they have not been held accountable for that in the least bit. They believe that the massive deregulation of the financial industry that took place in the latter part 20^th century led directly to the current crisis we are in, and that governmental regulation at the cost of insane profit is part of the solution. They also believe the wealthy ought to have their tax rates increased to pre-George-Bush levels.

So Faulk off, Bryan Faulk, Economics major. His solution to “keep corporate money out of politics” is to “take away the magnet.” So basically he wants to keep corporate money out of politics by removing government from politics. That is akin to killing someone in order to cure them of the flu.

***

The second letter under consideration today is entitled “’Man up’ and be chivalrous” by one Dean Deveraux. I started reading this letter with optimism but it quickly turned into disgust/anger.

He begins: “The word ‘chivalry’ is most often synonymous with knights. An honorable knight should be a benchmark for us men on how we treat our ladies.”

Okay, simple enough. Sure, the “our ladies” is a little corny, but whatever. He continues: “Modern-day chivalry can go a long way with the ladies you court or marry. The lack thereof can also make that trip very short. Luckily I married a woman that rightly expects her man to treat her like the lady she is.”

Ugh. Why do I suddenly feel like simultaneously vomiting whilst punching this dude in the face? He lost me at “treat her like the lady she is.” What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That the rest of us married women who expect to be treated like dirty little sluts? But okay, okay. Maybe this guy’s got a point. Maybe he’s going to talk about how men treat their wives discourteously or something. I’m still open to what he has to say.

“Why do I speak of chivalry? Simply because I’m disappointed in a recent trend I’ve noticed in which girls drive men around.”

What?! A “recent trend” in which “girls drive men around”? What the eff is this dude even talking about? Is he talking about actual driving, like in a car? Because if that’s what all this chivalry talk is about, then I will be really disgusted. Also, why did he not say in which “women drive men around” or in which “girls drive boys around”? It’s so creepy when  you say “girls drive men around.”

“I am not chauvinistic, I simply feel that men are getting lazy. I have heard many explanations on why the ladies drive their fellas around like ‘she hates my driving’ or ‘I get tired of driving’ but I haven’t been convinced yet.”

Okay, a couple of points I’d like to make. First, the dictionary definition of chauvinism is “Excessive loyalty to or belief in the superiority of one’s own kind of cause, and prejudice against others.” If Deveraux counts his bizarre version of chivalry as his cause, then he is, in fact, chauvinistic. Second, please don’t refer to the ladies’ “fellas” ever again. We don’t live in 1930s Mississippi. Also, was there something so wrong with just “fellows”? And how has he heard “many” explanations about this phenomenon? Does he go around pestering married couples as to why the man is woman is driving when there’s a perfectly capable man right there to take over?

“If your lady is in the car, why would you drive like a maniac? Tired of driving? What are you, a trucker? Suck it up and drive your queen around.”

I wish he would stop referring to my wife as my “lady.” Yes, she is a lady, but I don’t refer to her that way and she doesn’t identify herself as my lady. When we were dating she was my “girlfriend,” then “fiancé,” and now she’s my “wife” or “spouse.” All of these terms are respectful and acceptable. Consider using them. She’s not my queen, unless you mean that she's the queen and I'm the king of our household. But I'm not her subject. We consider one another equals and peers.   

Also, this guy gives completely contradictory messages in these lines. First he tells men to drive safely when our "lady" is in the car, then he tells us that being tired isn't a good enough excuse to let your wife take over. Couldn't being tired of driving be considered a safety issue, you stupid moron?

"What's worse is I see the men sitting passenger while making their ladies get out to get a movie at Redbox or get the mail in the parking lot." 

Uh... What if "my lady" wants to choose the movie at the Redbox herself? Who rents movies from that horrible place anyway? 

"C'mon fellas, man up." 

Again with the "fellas." Enough already. It doesn't make you sound folksy or wise. Just douchey.

I, for one, am so happy that I married a woman who doesn't give a crap about who's driving and who doesn't place her self-worth on whether or not I let her drive. A woman who expects to be treated like the lady-queen she is and never takes the wheel is most definitely not the kind of woman I want to spend eternity with. Why does this guy feel the need to tell us all that we're wrong? We just don't give a crap about who drives!! Is that so morally wrong? There are lots of young couples who date in Rexburg. Not all men have their own cars. Are you telling these men that they ought to be commandeering vehicles from their girlfriends? What if the girl enjoys driving her own car? Does this make her less of a lady? I'm glad I don't ever have to ride in a car with your wife. She sounds like a judgmental bitch.