Our Samhain

One of the things I love about living in Alaska is the wild meat we're able to hunt and butcher ourselves. It was actually on Mabon that we got a call from a neighbor who had some caribou they had shot but could not fit it all in their freezer, and they asked if we wanted some. So we spent our Mabon evening butchering and freezing caribou.
Since Samhain is a time of giving thanks for the harvest of meat (and showing gratitude for the animals' gift of their lives for our sustenance), I thought it was appropriate to eat some of our caribou tonight.
We had actually had a caribou roast just a few days ago, so instead of cooking another one, I chopped up the leftover meat, added in carrots, potatoes, broccoli, and peas, and poured over the leftover gravy to make a savory caribou pie.

Samhain is also a time to ponder on death, and to remember our loved ones or others who have died. I had planned to make "dead bread" but we had a last minute shuffle (something came up and with very little notice we ended up celebrating a night earlier than planned), so that fell through and it was just the pie.

The boys drawing their pictures
you can see our element candles and the remainder of the caribou pie...

However, we did do something to remember our departed loved ones, and that was to write messages or draw pictures for them, and put them in the fire so that the smoke could carry our love and thoughts to them. My husband wrote to his granddad who passed away this last year. I wrote to my babies who died before I was ever able to meet them. My sons all drew pictures.

Embracing Faith Transition

Thank you Joanna Brooks for putting words to something I have felt often of late.
(This is an excerpt from a piece she wrote for the latest Exponent II magazine, called "Embracing Faith Transition" )

Here are the last few paragraphs.

My faith is not the same faith I had when I was sixteen years old. It isn’t without wrinkles, puckers, and scars. It isn’t perfect now, but really, it wasn’t perfect then either. It is not effortless, and it never has been. If I stood my faith naked before a crowd, some might say it isn’t very pretty. Not pretty at all. But it is my faith. It is hardworking, scarred, and muscular. It has been cut, pierced, torn, and reorganized beyond recognition. It has been fed, and it has fed others.


My faith is strong in the way a survivor’s body is strong. To survive, I let go of some once-precious parts of myself, parts of myself that others may have thought were special and beautiful. But these parts were not healthy any more. They were making me sick. And my survival was more important than holding onto them. They have gone, and my faith has a new silhouette.


My faith has been through some major transitions, and it continues to change. It may not be pretty, but just look how many miles my faith has carried me. I can say: I have lived, I have lived, and my spirit is stronger still.

Of late my faith is changing, is transitioning. I don't know precisely how it all will come out. Part of me has feared to say anything, lest I make others uncomfortable or worried about me, yet honesty and authenticity demand that I speak. Know that I am not doing anything rashly. I am studying with my mind and my heart, seeking the Spirit, searching the scriptures, and trying to follow as I feel led. "A mind, once stretched, can never return to its original dimensions" said Oliver Wendell Holmes, and so too with spirituality and faith. I learn things, I experience things, I understand things in new ways, and I cannot return to the simple faith I had when I was younger. I share my journey with you here both for the sake of honesty, and also because I know that I am not the only one who journeys. I have updated the "My Faith" tab here on the blog. I have added a section at the end for the series of posts which traces my journey. I claim Mormonism as my heritage, my culture, and my center, but I am no longer the vanilla mormon that I was. I'm butter brickle, or strawberry swirl, or cookie dough fudge crunch, or perhaps all of them all mixed up. I'm more complicated than I was--as is appropriate for one who is no longer a child--and my faith is more complicated as well. This is part of why I wrote about being a Big Tent Mormon--because I think that the time is coming--or has come--when it will take a big tent to hold this mormon.

(PS, are you suddenly craving ice cream? Because I totally am. mmmmm.)

Mother's Necklace

I have a new mother's necklace. (I ordered the beads and made it myself too.) It's different from any other mother's necklace I've ever seen (and, actually, there is a charm for my husband too, so it's more of a "family necklace" I suppose). In any case, I thought I would share:

Dragon ~ Wolf ~ Bear ~ Eagle

Bee

Somewhere in my late teens I started signing my name as "jenni b" because there were always multiple Jennies. Due to the pronunciation, that naturally morphed into "jennibee." After I married, my new last name still started with a B, so "Jennibee" remained. When I opened an etsy shop to sell cloth diapers and other baby things, I settled on the name "lilbees," making myself the mama bee. Readers who have been here more than a few months know that for a couple of years my blog title was "Musings of Mommy Bee."

And so the bee became my inadvertent symbol. I wasn't particularly drawn to bees, didn't even particularly like them, but it's what I ended up with. (My sons are the Wolf, Bear, and Eagle, my husband is the Dragon...and I'm a little Bee...yeah...one of these things is not like the others!)

In the Book of Mormon, the honeybee is called "deseret." Before Utah was a state, the mormon settlers named their territory "Deseret" and their motto was (and still is) "industry." In thinking on that, I concluded that, in spite of my 'totem' not fitting in with the rest of my family's, it did seem appropriate for me. A few months ago I was feeling disgruntled about it though, and decided to do a little reading about bee symbolism and meanings.

Oh wow.

The Bee is a symbol of the Goddess/Feminine Divine and of female warrior energy.
In addition to industry and productivity, it represents achieving the impossible, making or bringing order, royalty, wisdom, celebration, fertility and the honey of life, sweetness of truth, community, concentration, organization, planning and saving, working with the spirits of the deceased, industry, prosperity, purity, birth, death, resurrection and reincarnation, communication with spirit(s), helping earth-bound spirits move on to their proper place, luck, misfortune and Otherworld wisdom.
The bee is connected to *Bridgid, Ra, Vishnu, Krishna, Indra, Aphrodite, Demeter, Cybele, Artemis, Diana, Rhea, Zeus, Dionysus, Pan and Priapus.
(see The Bee Goddess, The Bee, Wyldcat's Animal Guide, and OneSpiritX) (and if you don't know what all those gods/goddess represent, well, you should study up, some of them are pretty cool. I helped you out--see the end of the post)

Recently I listened to an interview at Daughters of Mormonism, and the interviewee was talking about Hugh Nibley's book Abraham in Egypt and a section called "The Deseret Connection." She explained how the book told of the things the bee symbolized in ancient Egypt: power, life, fertility... it was a symbol of the royal line. When Joseph married Asenath, she (as the daughter of a priest and part of the royal house) brought the bee into union with the House of Israel. Most mormons believe we are part of the house of Ephraim, which means that the bee is part of our birthright.

So I've made friends with my bee self. I've decided I like her after all. In fact, she's pretty much awesome. Which is why on my new charm bracelet (filled with symbols which are meaningful to me), there is a bright, shiny, bee.


*Bridgid--threefold goddess of hearth and fire (Celtic)
Ra--the sun god (Egypt)
Vishnu--preserver of the universe (Hindu)
Krishna--an avatar of Vishnu, the embodiment of love and supreme joy (Hindu)
Indra--lord of heaven, god of war, storms, and rainfall (Hindu)
Aphrodite--goddess of love, beauty, and sexual rapture (Greek)
Demeter--goddess of harvest and growing things (Greek)
Cybele/Sybil / Rhea--earth mother goddess/mother of the gods (Phrygian/Roman)
Artemis / Diana--goddess of nature, wild animals, fertility, and childbirth (Greek)

Zeus--king of the gods, god of sky and thunder (Greek)
Dionysus--god of wine, agriculture, fertility, theater, spiritual intoxication, secret rites (Greek)
Pan--god of nature, shepherds and flocks (Greek)
Priapus--god of gardens and fruitfulness (Greek, imported from Asia Minor)

The Next Stage

Eagle is now 23 months old; just weeks away from the age Bear was when I got pregnant with Eagle.
But I'm not pregnant. Yes, I am fertile (it took 22 months this time instead of 20), but we're not trying to get pregnant; actually we are actively preventing pregnancy. Maybe forever.

If you had asked me a year ago (as my husband did), I would have said no way was I ready to be done having kids. Ever since my teens I had been planning on 5 kids at least... Even with my slow start and wider-than-anticipated spacing I was 28 when Eagle was born, so I could certainly have another child or two before 35! But when Eagle was just a couple of weeks old, Hubby said something about how we were outnumbered now (more kids than parents), and he thought maybe we should be done having kids. I figured he was tired and stressed with the newborn, and brushed it off. When he brought it up again a few months later,  I began to think about it.

Initially I hated the thought of being done. Only three children? But I have so much to give! I'm pretty good at this mommy thing, I know how to handle lots of kids, shouldn't I give a good home to as many kids as I can? Pregnancy is not that hard for me physically--I don't get that sick and my body doesn't fall apart. Birth isn't hard on me either--in fact it's exhilarating.

And then a friend gave me a piece of very sound wisdom. Some kids need more than others (and I do have a couple of high-needs kids). If a mother has a finite amount of energy (which I think she does!), then no matter how much love she has, it makes sense to go with a family size that is appropriate to her energy. Sometimes that might mean 9 children, and sometimes it might mean 3. As I considered the possibility that I might actually have my quiver full with [only] three children, I began to accept that it was probably true.

So we made the decision to be done with having babies. I admit I made it more mentally than emotionally--part of me keep thinking "we're just done for now, in a few years we'll have another one or two." But I set it in my head and then let it marinate... and it took a while. Some days I would think "ok, I can wait 3 or 4 or 5 years, but I want at least one more" and other days I would think "how nice would it be to have no kids in diapers?!" or "we'll never have to buy a bigger van!"

And then, one day last winter, my sister called and told me she was pregnant. And for the first time, instead of thinking "I wish I were" I thought "I am so glad I'm not." And that was a massive turning point. I had never experienced not wanting to be pregnant in a particular moment. It was weird, and also it helped me realize that maybe I could make this transition.

I don't know precisely what the future holds, but I do know that it does not hold pregnancy for me--not for several years at least, and very probably not ever again. Some days I still struggle with the finality of it, but I also feel confident that this is the right choice for us at this time.

I have an IUD now (because breastfeeding was messing with my charting, and we did not want to allow the possibility of an 'oopsie'). Even though I intellectually knew that I wanted to do this (Hubby and I discussed at length and agreed on this option), it was still hard emotionally. I felt as though I had voluntarily given up my "full bloom" of fertility, as it were, in trade for a forced infertility. Like I had handed in the fullness of my womanhood for premature old age. I appreciate that that probably sounds like hyperbole, but I really felt it keenly. It didn't hit me until I was in the CNM's office getting ready to have the IUD put in, and then I bawled and gushed to her (a veritable stranger) about it. I suppose she doesn't get that very often! I cried much of the day after I came home too. I had not expected to react that way--after all, an IUD can be removed! But the next day I calmed down enough to do a closure ritual for myself, and felt much better for it. It was shortly after this time that I had my epiphany about the three phases of womanhood which I wrote about here.

I may be finishing with one stage of my life, but I still have many stages to live and enjoy. Perhaps I am done with pregnancy and birthing (for myself), but of course motherhood goes on. My children are young, there is much to do with them. As I exit the baby stage, I can enter another stage--a stage I have been thinking about (but putting on hold for six years)--a stage where I can reach out to other women and teach and support them as a doula and a childbirth educator. It's actually pretty exciting.

"...or whether I speak of myself"

I think I ruffled some feathers recently when I said I disagreed with something that an apostle had said over the pulpit at general conference.

Allow me to clarify.


When I said I am a Big Tent Mormon, I was not saying that the church can't set standards for membership, or that temples should be opened to the public, or that policies should be changed. What I did say was that I think the title of Mormon should be self-selected, and that we should accept it for those (all those) who select it.

All of us--including leaders at every level--are human, and potentially make mistakes. We have been counseled again and again to seek personal confirmation on the things our leaders tell us. In the early days of the restored church there were disagreements, even heated arguments between various members and leaders. Ultimately, we have been given a simple method for determining if something--anything--is from God, or simply the teaching of a man.

study ~ measure it against the gospel as found in the scriptures
ponder ~ think it through logically, determine if it makes sense, and fits in with other things you know to be true
pray ~ ask for a personal verification of the validity (or falsity) of the matter

If it does not measure up, then it is opinion, not gospel.

"Scriptures are like packets of light 

that illuminate our minds 

and give place to guidance and inspiration from on high. 

They can become the key

to open the channel to communion 

with [Heaven]."

--Richard G Scott

I cannot guarantee that everyone will find the same answers. But I can guarantee that this process will bring valid answers. I generally believe in the good intentions of people. I generally give the benefit of the doubt when something sounds off to me. And then I go through the process. But I will always claim the right to differentiate between Truth and opinion, and I do not hold myself subject to the latter.

Wave of Light

Join us tonight in lighting candles from 7-8pm (in your time zone), 

in remembrance of infants lost before or after birth, 

and of their families who miss them still.

Attachment Theory

This excerpt was from two different assignments, the first comparing an older developmental theory with a new one, and the second was to explain a developmental theory, along with primary people involved with it, and the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Some information overlaps between the two parts, and since these are excerpts it won't always have nice pretty beginnings and endings. But a couple of people have expressed that they'd like to hear about these topics, so here goes. ☺

“Attachment is an integral part of human nature from the cradle to the grave” John Bowlby

Erik Erikson’s psychosocial development theory posited that individuals progress through stages as they age. Within each stage, they face a crisis or choice, and the way in which they resolve it will affect them throughout their lifetime. John Bowlby took particular note of the “trust verses mistrust” conflict of the infant stage, and developed attachment theory. Attachment theory agrees with psychosocial development in the belief that development is affected by experience as well as biology. It specifically considers the way in which a small child interacts with his or her caregiver—and the way in which the caregiver responds to the child--in relation to the wellbeing and subsequent success of the child. Mary Ainsworth developed the “strange situation” study, which allowed researchers to empirically study attachment behaviors in infants. While Bowlby and Ainsworth’s research (as well as Erikson’s first stage) focus primarily on infant-to-caregiver attachment, some contemporary theorists are extending attachment theory to adult relationships as well.

“In the 50 years since Bowlby and Ainsworth’s initial work in attachment theory, its basic premises have become well recognized and largely accepted into mainstream psychology and into popular culture as well” (Berghaus, 2011). While studies such as Ainsworth’s give clear validity to attachment theory in infants, modern researchers disagree on whether it is appropriate to apply the theory to adults. Some theorists—as well as popular culture--do so readily, but Barry J. Berghaus does not. He cites studies showing that the attachment style of a person in infancy does not necessarily predict their attachment style as adults; in fact, the correlation ranges from .20-.50 (Fraley, 2010). Berghaus explains that “attachment theorists simply accept/presume that internal working models exist, and from there assume that internal working models have a causal relationship with behavior” (2011). So, in spite of the popularity of attachment theory, Berghaus maintains that attachment theory—at least in relation to adults--is actually more philosophical than empirically based.
-------------------------
Attachment Theory was named and first written about by John Bowlby (Bretherton, 1992), however both Mary Ainsworth and Harry Harlow made significant contributions to it by doing formal studies which validated parts of the theory (Bretherton, 1992; Harlow, 1958). It is a contemporary theory, with the earliest written works being published in 1958, and research continuing in the present day. Bowlby was unique at the time for suggesting that there was a “possibility of helping children by helping parents” (Bretherton, 1992); in other words, that children who were not developing ideally could show improvement if their parents responded to them more reliably or affectionately. Bowlby believed strongly in the role of nurture in human development, and emphasized social networks as well as the parent-child relationship, and “[called] to society to provide support for parents,” (Bretherton, 1992), but those parts of his theory have often overlooked or ignored by subsequent researchers, who have focused on one-to-one attachments. “Bowlby also took great pains to draw a clear distinction between the old social learning theory concept of dependency and the new concept of attachment, noting that attachment is not indicative of regression, hut rather performs a natural, healthy function even in adult life” (Bretherton, 1992). While some recent theorists argue whether attachment theory can appropriately be applied to adults (Berghaus, 2011), others have found positive correlations between secure attachment in early childhood and increased IQ scores, or secure attachment patterns in adult romantic relationships (Fraley, 2010). The correlations vary in strength, and thus they can be hotly debated.



Though attachment theory seems to apply for small children in cultures around the world (Bretherton, 1992), the percentages of children who develop each type of attachment varies, almost certainly due to cultural norms about parenting (for example whether the children are routinely left with a non-parent caregiver, or how often they are held). Since children in diverse cultures can still become healthy adults, one must question whether one style of attachment is necessarily better than another, or whether the important thing is simply for the parent to be reliably responsive to the child. Attachment theory might have a more universal application if the definitions of types of attachment were broadened.

One area where attachment theory does not seem to work is with autism. The “ideal” form of attachment (secure attachment) is defined in part as a child who experiences separation anxiety when the parent leaves, and seeks comfort from them when they return, but autistic children often refuse physical contact because it overstimulates them, and may prefer to be solitary, even when very young (Grandin, 1996).



Resources

Berghaus, B. J. (2011). A new look at attachment theory & adult “attachment” behavior. Behaviorology Today, 14(2), 3-10. Retrieved from
http://www.behaviorology.org/pdf/AttachmentTheoryBeh.pdf

Berk, L. E. (2010). Development through the lifespan (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/inge_origins.pdf

Fraley, R. C. (2010). A brief overview of adult attachment theory and research. Retrieved from http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm

Grandin, T. (1996). Thinking in pictures: and other reports from my life with autism. New York: Vintage.

Harlow, H. F. (1958) The nature of love. First published in American Psychologist, 13, 673-685. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Harlow/love.htm

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Cognitive Development Theories. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/CPSY/6215/03/downloads/WAL_CPSY6215_03_A_EN.pdf

Lifespan Learning Institute (Producer). (2009). John Bowlby attachment and loss. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAAmSqv2GV8

Susskind, J. (2005). Social development. Encyclopedia of Human Development. Retrieved from
http://www.sage-ereference.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/humandevelopment/Article_n574.html

The Na-na is Sleeping

I'm weaning Eagle. He'll be 2 next month and I'm ready for it. We've dealt with chronic thrush on and off for nearly a year (I nearly weaned him a couple of times) and I think we may just be giving it back and forth to each other. I need to start sleeping through the night and he's old enough to do so too.

I was going to wean him in conjunction with our move--I did that with Bear and it worked quite well. But it was not working well for Eagle. Perhaps it was because he was 6 months younger than Bear had been, and perhaps it was because this was a much higher stress transition, but he seemed to really need the comfort and attachment (and I did not have the energy to stick to non-nursing comfort measures) so that fell through.
I still wanted to wean him around his birthday, but wasn't sure how best to go about it.

Then I came across the book Nursies When the Sun Shines, which was written by a mama who was nightweaning her toddler. Basically she explained to her daughter that the nursies (or, as Eagle calls it, "na-na") goes to sleep when the sun goes to sleep. She used this method for nightweaning, but as soon as I saw it I realized that it would help us for full weaning.
Because we live in the arctic! So by late november or early december we won't have any real daylight at all. The sun will sleep 24/7. (Technically at solstice we have two hours between sunrise and sunset, but it doesn't amount to much light.) Following the light and dark seems better than picking an arbitrary day (like his birthday) and going cold turkey then.

So we've been going on a couple of weeks now, We started just after equinox, with nearly equal parts light and dark. We change by 7-8 minutes per day. On Sep 30 (the first day), sunrise was just before 9am and sunset was just after 8pm. Today sunrise is 9:45 and sunset at 7:30 (you can see a full calendar of the times here if you're curious). The first week we mostly focused on not nursing at night. Some nights went better than others, but he's adjusted pretty well, especially because he knows that he can still have na-na in the daytime. It's simple to just point to the window and show him that it's dark, and he'll cuddle up and accept it. He has been nursing more during the day, but I expected that. This last week we've been cutting out the bedtime nursing, as it's getting dark right about bedtime and if we're running late or he's not feeling sleepy then he may get pre-bedtime na-na, but it's gone to sleep before he does, so he can't nurse to sleep. We have had a couple of late nights and more than a few tears, but I know they are only tears of frustration (he's held and cuddled and has a water bottle and so on) and he is learning to go back to sleep without nursing.

I definitely feel better about doing this gradually and with a toddler than I would with a younger child. I still hold to all my reasons for extended breastfeeding, and I'm glad we stuck it out in spite of teeth and thrush and all the rest. Sometimes I feel guilty for pushing my kids to wean when they still love nursing, but I know that by age 2 their need for it changes to a want. And after two years my want for sleeping through the night I think validly becomes a need (especially with grad school and all those kids I babysit!). He's not a baby anymore, he'll be alright.

Authenticity

I believe in living authentically.
I believe in being honest with the world about who I am and what I believe.
Over time, some of my beliefs or feelings about various things have shifted, and I have always tried to be honest about those changes. Nearly a year ago I "came out of the broom closet" with my intention to integrate aspects of paganism into my spiritual path. I have continued on that path. I celebrate the sabbats and actively participate on the MotherWheel blog, I shared my story on a Daughters of Mormonism podcast, I have connected with the Feminine Divine in a lifechanging way. I have associated with friends who have inspired me in my authenticity with posts such as this and this and this (and I am proud to acknowledge that I am one of the 'coven' mentioned in the first post, and I am the friend 'Buzzy' mentioned in the last).

Today I would like to share something else that is a deeply-felt part of who I am. I suspect that some of my readers will be uncomfortable about it. It may "shatter the safe sweet way you live" because it certainly goes against some familiar habits, but that does not make it any less valid or important. I hope that you will read on with thoughtfulness.
 

Most people know that I am Mormon. What a lot of people (including some Mormons) don't know is that there are many kinds of Mormon. I fit with some, not so much with others. Some accept all the kinds, some not so much. But we are all Mormons, and as a "Big Tent Mormon" I accept them all as my Brothers and Sisters. ♥

The Open Stories Foundation (the npo which funds Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters podcasts, as well as helping arrange assorted "Open Mormon" or "Big Tent Mormon" conferences around the country) produced this Shared Values Statement this last summer, which they shared at the SLC conference. I strongly recommend listening to Carol Lynn Pearson's excellent speech "No more US verses THEM" which was delivered at the same time.
This is the Shared Values Statement:

1. We claim the right to self-identify as Mormons if we so choose. We may claim this identity based on our genealogies, upbringings, beliefs, relationships, and other life experiences.
2. We believe that one can be Mormon or claim a Mormon identity without necessarily adhering to the teachings or doctrines of any religious organization.
3. We acknowledge the richness of Mormon heritage, teachings, and community in all of its diversity.
4. We seek spaces where we as Mormons can live lives of intellectual and spiritual integrity, individual conscience, and personal dignity.
5. We acknowledge and honor different spiritual paths and modes of religious or non-religious truth-seeking.  We respect the convictions of those who subscribe to ideas and beliefs that differ from our own.
6. We recognize the confusion, distress, emotional trauma, and social ostracism that people on faith journeys often experience.  We seek constructive ways of helping and supporting people, regardless of their ultimate decisions regarding church affiliation or activity.
7. We affirm the inherent and equal worth of all human beings.  We seek spaces where Mormons (and all people) can interact as equals regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  In this spirit of egalitarianism, we prefer non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical means of organization and affiliation.

I am here to say that, as a self-identified Big Tent Mormon, I agree with these statements. I believe that God loves everybody, and actually I'm no longer convinced of the idea that there is only "one right way" to find or worship God; it seems logical to me that a loving Parent would accept his children via whatever route they come.

I believe that it's time for us all to accept the term "mormon" in a broader way. As columnist Joanna Brooks so brilliantly explained:

What do you call a Catholic who grew up going to CCD but now attends mass only on Christmas, Ash Wednesday, and Easter, and supports gay rights? Catholic.

What do you call a Jew who loves bacon, doesn't believe in God, and attends shul only on High Holy Days? Jewish.

And so with Mormons. Some people are active, orthodox members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, others are orthodox Fundamentalist Mormons, or there are those who are mormon by culture or heritage, whether or not they are literal believers in the doctrine. There are Reform Mormons and New Order Mormons and the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), and I'm not saying that they should all be considered LDS--they should not because they are other sects. But they should all be considered Mormons.

Just because the CoJCoLDS is the biggest sect doesn't give them/us any right to say that the others who are different have no right to the name "Mormon." If we have a right to do that, then the Catholics have a right to say that nobody else is Christian--they were here first and they're the biggest!

It's just a matter of logic I think.

Over the last year or so I have come to know a variety of people who are not orthodoxic/orthopraxic LDS, and yet still identify as Mormon by culture or heritage or belief, they just don't fit the current LDS mold. One couple I know is fundamentalist (not in a compound someplace, but a very normal couple who believes that the modern leadership has gotten lost and that it's better to stick with the early leaders). They identify as mormon. If I believe that Joseph and Brigham were prophets then I should accept them as fellow mormons, don't you think? Because they are. And so are the feminist mormons, the gay mormons, the social mormons, the cafeteria mormons, the tattooed and pierced mormons, the non-literal believing mormons, the inactive mormons, the former mormons, the polygamous mormons, the buddhist mormons, the pagan mormons...and of course the literal-believing/orthodox mormons.


Elder Ballard's talk at this last LDS general conference led me to feel the need to speak about this. Of course the LDS church has every right to determine who is or isn't a member of their records, and to be possessive of their (copyrighted) full official name. I'm not arguing that for a second. But the larger term "mormon" isn't copywrited; it was a nickname in the first place, given by others, and which (intended or not) has come to mean a much broader group. So yes, I am saying that I disagree with Elder Ballard on this particular point.

As per the Church's style guide, "The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.
While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use." Find and good. I am on board.
However, in that same guide, they go on to say that "The term "Mormonism" is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death." THAT is where I heartily disagree.
It is hypocrisy to say "please call us christian" on the one side and on the other side to say "you can only be called mormon if we say so."
We ARE christian. And we--the much broader-than-just-LDS-members group--ARE mormon.

I'm sure there are those who will consider me fringy or even apostate for thinking these things, but the more I study Christ the more I believe that we should look at the world through love colored glasses, and invite people into the tent rather than shutting people out.

Juliet said "what's in a name" and I admit it seems kinda paranoid that an organization as big and strong as the church would get uptight over a little thing like a nickname... I appreciate the desire to be called by one's proper name (trust me I do, I've been mis-called my entire life!). But when it comes to nicknames, or looser cultural designations, such as the term "mormon," I think that self-classification matters a whole lot more than what somebody else says. If testimony is individual and personal, should not classification be equally personal?!

So I choose to welcome all sorts of mormons into my big tent, realizing that we are different in many ways, but that that thing we have in common, that "mormon" thing, is glue enough to make us family. Even if some of the second cousins seem kinda weird. ;)