The New Female Costume, Part 2

A continuation of an idea set forth in the late evening news organ.

I tried to go shopping for missionary clothes a few times while in Utah, assuming that they would have the best selection. I don't know why I felt such a rush--I was nervous, I wanted to get everything before I left, etc. Besides, who sells modest things in San Diego? Seriously.

Anyway. I got a thin black skirt, two sweater vests, and a nice wool winter coat in Provo. But a missionary needs much more that. Of course.

Mom and Loll and I hit the sales racks on Boxing Day. And we found a lot of things to buy: five skirts, two blazers, a sweater, and a white blouse. And shoes. (expensive! very, very expensive.) The best place to find clothes, I've discovered, is JC Penny's. They have a lot of professional wear (I sound like a commercial) that is very appropriate for missionaries. When I was checking out, the cashier said "Wow, I don't ever see anybody buy long skirts." Well, well. well. Sister Smith certainly buys long skirts.

Here pictures of my new gear:

Two blazers and winter coat.

Shirt and sweaters. I think I need to add more color to my wardrobe...

Skirts. Pretty, of course. Five of them. I have one more thin black one that falls off unless I pin it to my slip. Its because I don't have a butt, in case you were wondering.

My shoe. Made by Dansko. Very comfortable, and wonderful.

My sweater vests are somewhere in limbo between my Utah and San Diego homes, otherwise I'd post them because they are so beautiful.

g'night, ya'ol organ

"well, that smell got inter ther papers. ther evenin' organ was quite excited erbout it." -The OED (retained for Melissa's reading pleazhure)

Well, its time to say good night to the evening news organ. Now I'm quite new to the blogosphere, but According to Natalie's friend Carrie, a good blog MUST have a good theme--a hook, if you will. Something to unify it into a cohesive whole. (I would go on about this, but I think that's enough.) My two faithful blog readers have seen that the theme of this beautiful, fantastic blog centered around my job at the BYU library making an index of 19th century newspapers. I loved this job, but alas, it is over. No more. I quit.

Because, well, I'm going on a mission. To Kennewick, oh beautiful Kennewick.

I was awfully sad to leave my job, and consequently my sources and inspiration for this beautiful blog.

But I think I have a good reason.

Anyway. So this blog needs a new purpose. My darling roommates suggested just such a purpose: my mission. I am reporting on Jan 23, which is in less than one month. I have many friends and family and loved ones who (I hope) wish to follow my progress and keep in touch with me as I am gone. I will attempt to correspond faithfully with everyone who writes to me, but I can only promise consistent correspondence with my immediate family, and perhaps with my love. SO I will persuade my darling sister (or mother, or whoever is up to the task) to update this blog with my letters, emails, pictures, etc whilst I am gone.

Until my departure, I guess I will discuss my preparations and other things on my mind.

That is all.

Love,
Sister Smith

The Utah Expedition

“We trust the Saints will decide upon such a move, and thereby relieve us of the disagreeable duty of exterminating them. In Sonora they would have the opportunity to develop the beauties of their religion, and if it contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction—as we all believe it does—it will crumble to pieces and disappear, and will be numbered with the numerous false religions that have sprung up and had their day, and are now only known in history.”

The New York herald: NY-H no. 7770 (10 Dec 1857) p. 4, columns 4–5, 24 ½ col. in

I like this quote because I find it ironic. Several newspapers have made similar statements, all expressing the idea that Mormonism will fall a part, especially after the government is through with it. Some say that Mormons have a persecution complex, and this is true. But seriously, read this article! They wanted to exterminate a group of people! Of course the Mormons were antsy and anxious and feeling a little anti-American! I don't know what our excuse is now, tho. Maybe the remains of such sentiments.

World's First Deseret Book

World's first Deseret Book. Even then, there was a niche in the market for and LDS bookstore. And that was a long time ago...and even in England!

From London, 1857

“The Mormon book dealer, from accident, necessity or design, is like the Gentiles of the profession—in quiet retirement. At the corner of a quiet narrow street, and a still quieter and narrower crescent…the attention of the passer-by is arrested by a great display of busts, engravings, and books, set off in the best manner, to ensure at least a momentary examination. This is the “Latter Day Saints’ book depot,” in the city. The busts are representations of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the engravings are the twelve Apostles and the leading elders of the movement, for the adornment of the walls and mantles of the dwellings of the disciples. The books and pamphlets are of course for the edification of Jew and Gentiles, but here the Mormons display considerable tact. Books are not in this window arranged for the display of the binder’s taste and handicraft. Propagandism is the one aim of the Mormons, and here they displace some cunning in the manner they set about it. An open page with some startling vision the relation of some astounding miracle; an argument on the principles of faith, and, not the least attractive of all, something rich on polygamy. Can all be read at this window for nothing. By way of business, this is not a bad dodge, Once interested, the passerby is almost certain to turn in to get the work—the end of the story; at least I speak from experience."

The New York herald: NY-H no. 7764 (4 Dec 1857) p. 2, columns 5–6, 31 col. in.

Cannan and Utah

“The analogies, too, in the physical geography of the country, between their present location and the Palestine of the East, are too striking not to have made a deep impression upon their minds. Who can fail to see in the Great Salt Lake the counterpart of the Dead Sea of the plains; in Lake Utah the Sea of Galilee, and in the river that connects the two the Western Jordan? Only reverse the points of the compass, and the resemblance is perfect.”

The New York herald: NY-H no. 7761 (1 Dec 1857) p. 2, columns 4–6, 61 ½ col. in.

More later.

Mormons--Emigration and immigration

WHY do we have TWO words for emigration/immigration???

That is SO gay.

I think the official distinction is this: e for exit, i for incoming. As in, the emigrants left England on Wednesday. Three months later, the immigrants arrived in New York.

We should just go with migration. Like birds. My ancestors migrated in the nineteenth century...has a nice little ring, don't you think?

Of course, the term "migrant" may be a little confusing, especially because of the modern usage of "migrant workers."

whatever.

The Mormon Handcarts

The following includes a few of my favorite things: handcarts, Old Briggy, English, and oldness.

“He thus describes the new propelling power which “the Lord revealed unto the Later-Day Saints by the Prophet Brigham” last year, whereby a saint can become a “perfect boss” on the Plains—A handcart train!

“It was certainly the most novel and interesting sight I have seen for many a day . We met too trains—one of them thirty and the other fifty farts—averaging about six to the cart. The carts were generally drawn by one man and three women each, though some carts were drawn by women alone. There were about three women to one man, and two-thirds of the women single. It was the most motley crew I ever beheld. Most of them were Danes, with a sprinkling of Welsh, Swedes and English, and were generally from the lower classes of their countries; scarcely one could speak English plain; most could not understand what we said to them.”

Why more women? The author and audience assume polygamy. But I think its because all the men died (probably not true). Or because the women were righteous and heeded the call to gather (probably true :-).

Brigham Young on Polygamy

So, here it is--the touchy topic. Part of understanding one's heritage is owning it--owning the darkness, the shadows, the mysteries, along with the light. Owning is coming to terms with it, accepting it and, still claiming it as your own. Still acknowledging that, despite the shadows, your identity is valid and what you hold to be true is still true. Not that I believe that polygamy is a shadow in my heritage. But I think that many people, both inside and outside the Church, believe it to be so. They are afraid of it. Until you face it and understand it, you cannot own it. And until you own every aspect of your heritage, it cannot truly be a part of you.

I am not an ignorant Mormon. I know our history. And I have owned it--all of it. I have owned apostasy, masons, gold hunts, Mountain Meadows--and polygamy. And let me tell you--polygamy was the easiest.

The early Saints practiced plural marriage because they were commanded to do so. The commandment was not received with joy--quite the contrary. It terrified them. Brigham Young said he would have rather died. When we talk about the revelation of plural marriage, we often miss the point: this doctrine came as a subset of a more important law: that of eternal marriage, marriage that does not end with death but continues forever. Forever! Forever marriages, linked into a web of forever families that bind the children of Adam and Eve together for eternity. That, brethren and sistren, is the point.

In 1892 when the federal government was placing immense pressure on the Church to abandon polygamy, officials seized the temples and threatened to close them to the Saints. This is the point where Wilford Woodruff turned to the Lord. And this is why most of the Saints willingly abandoned polygamy with little argument and dissension: why give up the higher law, the purpose of the law, for a lesser law? Celestial marriage was the point. Plural marriage was a subset.

But why would the Lord introduce plural marriage at all? We have had this lesson in Sunday school and seminary:
-restoration of all things (dispensation of the fullness of times)
-protect/care for widows and orphans during the exodus
-test/try/refine his people--build a foundation of faith and obedience
-seed

It is this last one that I want to talk about. The Lord wanted to build a strong, righteous people. There simply weren't enough early Saints to quickly multiply into a mighty people. I think this is also why Abraham and Jacob were commanded to obey this law--the Lord was building a righteous nation, and he only had a few righteous people to start with.

And this leads me to Brigham Young's defense of plural marriage:

“God never introduced the patriarchal order of marriage with a view to please man in his carnal desires, nor to punish females for anything which they had done, but he introduced it for the express purpose of raising up to his name a royal priesthood, a peculiar people….by the introduction of this law, I can be instrument in preparing tabernacles for those spirits which have to come in this dispensation. Under this law, I and my brethren [and sistren] are preparing tabernacles for those spirits which have been preserved to enter into bodies of honor, and be taught the pure principles of life and salvation, and those tabernacles will grow up and become mighty in the kingdom of our God."[The New York herald: NY-H no. 7266 (22 Jul 1856) p. 2, column 6, 3 col. in.]

There you have it, brethren and sistren. These wonderful, faithful Saints practiced polygamy for us. Their children; God's children. They made immense sacrifices by following this law, and they did it so we, the children of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, would be born into a legacy of faith and truth. All modern members of the Church should praise the names of these early Saints, who raised hundreds of fathers, mothers, and missionaries who gave us life and taught us the faith and truth that we will sustain and carry forward for generations to come.

I love pioneers!

When Brigham Feels Pugnacious

I don’t know if you are as tickled by Brigham Young as I am. In case you are, here are excerpts from a sermon by Old Briggy given 6 Oct 1855, reprinted in The New York herald: NY-H no. 7083 (20 Jan 1856) p. 8. It is about not being too touchy about confessing your sins and receiving chastisement.

“Every fault that a person has will be made manifest, that it may be corrected by the gospel of salvation, by the laws of the Holy Priesthood.”

“I fear not the wicked half so much as I would a mosquito in my bedroom at night, for he would keep me from sleeping; but for the unrighteous, those who will act the villain and conduct themselves worse than the devil, to insinuate that I have not the privilege of speaking of their faults, makes me feel like laughing at their folly. I will speak of men’s faults when and where I please. And what are you going to do about it?”

When people criticize his harsh language: “Do you know how I feel when I get such communications? I will tell you: I feel just like rubbing their noses with them. If I am not to have the privilege of speaking of saint and sinner when I please, tie up my mouth and let me go to the grave, for my work would be done….There are people in our midst who grunt at this course, and at the same time have evils that I think are hardly worth notice, for I do not think that such persons will be good for anything, even should they happen to get into the kingdom of heaven….”

To thieves: “Live here, then, you poor miserable curses, until the time of retribution, when your heads will have to be severed from your bodies….the time of thieves is short in this community.”

“I am here to teach the ways of the Lord, and lead men to life everlasting, but if they have not a mind to go there, I wish them to keep out of my path.”

So roars the Lion of the Lord.

Latest News from Mormondom

“The Happy Valley is comparatively quiet. Nothing has occurred of late, to disturb the equanimity of that immaculate patriarch, President Brigham Young, and his saintly compeers, to any unusual degree.” [The New York herald: NY-H no. 7017 (14 Nov 1855) pp. 2–3, columns 1–6 and column 1, 128 ¾ col. in.] (freaking long article)

So...the term "Happy Valley" was around in 1855. Of course, I think they are referring to Salt Lake Valley, not Utah Valley, but the sentiment is the same: a happy, protected, and productive little Mormon town.

I'm really sleepy. I want to go home. I want the semester to be over!

It will be, soon. I'll have a short break, and then the real work will begin...

Interesting from Utah

Ever wonder where the term "returned missionary" came from? Well, I don't have an answer. But I can tell you that it was in use in the mid nineteenth century.

Proof:

“Several returned missionaries gave accounts of their journeying and works in foreign lands."
[The New York herald: NY-H no. 7053 (20 Dec 1855) p. 3, column 1, 19 ¼ col. in. italics are mine]

So, there you go.

This is a report on the announcements and happenings at general conference. Interestingly, there were several missionaries who were called to missions within Utah territory: the first stateside missionaries! Yay! (too bad three such stateside missionaries were killed by Indians...)

Also Interesting: Instead of saying "missions" to refer to the area, as in the Washington Kennewick Mission, the nineteenth century Mormons (and those who wrote about them) said "missionary station" as in the "Elk Mountain missionary station." This is from the same article above. Another article I read today said that Mormons had "missionary stations" all over the world, including France, Germany, Norway, and Russia. (NYH, no. 6845 (24 May 1855) [p. 1]) Elk Mountain is a missionary station in southern Utah--where the three missionaries were killed by Indians. I guess stateside missions were quite dangerous in those days.

Brigham Young’s Manifesto to the Government and People of the United States

In light of Romney’s recent defense of religious tolerance and freedom, I thought I might share a few gems on a similar topic from another well-known American Mormon: Old Brigham Young. These are from the New York Herald 29 Apr 1855, page 3, columns 1–3:

“I ask you, friends, how is this? Are not our religious sentiments as sacred to us as to any other portion of the community? And should it not be the duty as well and the pride of every American citizen to extend that provision of the Constitution to us which he claims for himself? And is not the sacred instrument invaded and broken as much in debarring and excluding this people from its privileges, rights and blessings as it would be if your rights and privileges were thus invaded? No, gentlemen, we have broken no laws; our glorious constitution guarantees unto us all that we claim. Under its broad folds, in its obvious meaning and intents, we are safe, and can always rejoice in peace. All that we have ever claimed, or wish to, on the part of the government, is the just administration of the powers and privileges of the national compact….

“Again, it was industriously circulated that we were going to declare our independence, not that we had, or intended to do so absurd a thing; yet anything, no matter how absurd, seemed sufficiently to excuse to startle the fears of the community, and they began to drive, plunder, rob, burn our houses, and lay waste our fields, and this was called “Mormon disturbances,” and the aid of the government was invoked to quell the “Mormon insurrection, “Mormon Troubles,” and “turbulent Mormons.” And although it was found necessary, as they state to drive us from Missouri, and the frontiers to prevent us from tampering with the slaves and Indians, yet I teas found equally necessary, ten years afterwards, when were were a hundred to one at that time, to drive us from Nauvoo into the very midst of the Indians, as unworthy of any other society.”

“….And again was the aid of the government invoked to quell the so-called “Mormon disturbances,” and still we see the newspapers teeming with these and the like epithets, “Turbulent Mormons,” “what shall be done with these turbulent Mormons?” is the cry, from one end of the Union to the other. In the name of Heaven, what have we done to excite the fears of any people or government, that the sound of war and blood must eternally be kept ringing in our ears? I answer, nothing. It is the same as before, in the case of tampering with the slaves and the Indians, a certain fearfulness that if we are not looked to, driven, plundered of our homes and possessions, slain and massacred as before, that we may do something, they have not yet, to my knowledge, defined precisely what.”

Snap. Can’t you see the spittle flying from Brigham Young’s mouth? This is an excerpt from a lengthy speech (3 columns, 50 ¼ inches) he gave in the tabernacle. It contains many more gems, but I got tired of typing it down. If you are interested in the rest, see HBLL special collections.

What stands out to me the most is his comments about “Mormon disturbances” and “Turbulent Mormons.” In my job looking through old newspapers, I have found that most articles about Mormons, especially during the Missouri and Nauvoo expulsion periods, have similar titles. I found such titles quite amusing and entertaining, especially in light of our calm, conservative culture today. But Brigham Young, and perhaps the other Mormons about whom these articles were written, obviously took offense. With good reason: they really believed in the constitution; these Americans believed first that the government would save them from lawless mobs, and later that the federal government would redress their grievances. Which it didn’t: “Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.” That was said by Pres. Van Bruen to Joseph Smith and Co. In fact, it was this experience with corrupt government and party politics that inspired Joseph to run for president himself.

Many of the articles that I have read from a non-Mormon perspective accuse the Mormons of anti-American sentiment at best, treason at worse. This particular speech by Brigham Young was supposed to quell such accusations, but it may have perpetuated them. I wish I had time to type everything! But really, can’t you understand why the Mormons would have at least some “anti-American sentiments?” If not, go reread everything above this paragraph. Of course the Mormons harbored some hard feelings about being driven from their homes. I think it is this sentiment that non-Mormon officials and visitors in Utah interpreted as disloyalty. But this speech shows that they still value the constitution.

Oh wait, I typed more:

“Know all men, governments, nations, kindreds, tongues and people, that this is our calling, intention and design. We aim to live our religion and have communion with our God. We aim to clear our skirts of the blood of this generation by our faithfulness in preaching the truth of heaven in all plainness and simplicity; and I have often said, and repeat it now, that all other considerations of whatever name or nature sink into insignificancy in comparison with this. To serve God and keep his commandments are first and foremost with me. If this is the higher law, so be it. As it is with me, so it should be with every department of the government; for this doctrine is based upon the principles of virtue and integrity. With it the government, her constitution and free institutions are safe; without it no power can avert their speedy destruction. It is the life giving power to the government; it is the vital element on which she exists and prospers; in its absence she sinks to rise no more.”

Well, snap. Quite strong stuff, yeah? Prophets don’t talk like this anymore. I love his statements of dedication to his faith. And this makes me think that he would have highly approved of Romney’s statement this morning that there is no freedom without religion.

One thing more: this is a response to Young’s manifesto published the following day (pg 4). It is subtly sarcastic.

“His political programme is very clearly laid down. He is for the constitution, the Union, and for the patriarchal rights of the saints at all hazards. He agrees with…the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and insists that the people of Utah have as much right to it as the squatters of Kansas. Upon this point he is jealous, vigilant, and bold and courage as a gamecock among a flock of favorite hens in a barnyard….[more stuff about polygamy and popular sovereignty and slavery (I didn’t mention this before, but Brigham Young does make a very racist comment in his “manifesto”; he basically says that blacks are slaves because they are supposed to be and will be so as long as it is the will of God; the author of this critique picks up on that)]….We commend to the President and the Cabinet…a careful and thoughtful perusal of this great pronunciamento of Governor Young, for their future guidance in the territorial affairs of the saints of the Great Salt Lake.”

Don’t you love the sarcasm and double meaning of the last sentence? Beautiful!

I love Brigham Young. Very much.

The end. If you read all of this, you get a cookie.

From the Old World

"A company of ninety ??, eighty-one of them from Sweden. Denmark and Norway, and nine from England, arrived at this port on Saturday, on ?on. The Scandinavian partion of this comoany had their rez-dezuous at convert, in Denmark, where seventy eight adults and children, from the different conferences or districts of the country over which the Normans are ?? in small communities, each presided over by an elder."

In my Varieties of English class, we discussed language shifts. A language shift is when someone chooses to abandon their native language for English. Today, that sounds like a crime—but immigrants in earlier decades found it necessary in order to immerse themselves and their children in mainstream American culture. Dr. Baker mentioned that the opposite is becoming quite trendy: immigrants prefer to retain their culture (think of all the cute little Spanish-speaking children in grocery stores), and it is very popular to learn the language of your ancestors. A girl in our class lamented her grandfather’s choice to not teach his children Italian. Think if it: how amazing would it be to be fluent in Italian? I see this trend in my own sphere—Crystal took Italian classes because she wanted to speak—or at least have some understanding of—her ancestral language.

(Interesting side note: in the 1800s, Old Briggy was a staunch “English-Only” guy—although immigrants were pouring in from Scandinavia, there were no Danish or Norwegian wards—Brigham expected everybody to learn English and speak only English all the time. I suppose it promoted unity and developed the Saints into a single people, which was a very, very good thing for a non-worldwide Church. But wouldn’t it be funny to see Brigham Young reprimanding a poor old school marm for scolding her son in Danish?)

And then it hit me. Why don’t I jump on this bandwagon? Sure, I’m already fluent in one of my ancestral languages (and so are you, if you can understand this). But what about Swedish! Great-grandpa Larson’s father was a Swedish immigrant. That line is in fact the only non-British line in my pedigree. But if I could read Swedish…think of how effective I could be in family history research! Think of what I could teach my children! And, of course, think of how cool I would look! Dang, I have been wasting my time with Spanish. I know that everyone speaks it, and that it is useful, and I like it…but I am awful at it, and getting kind of sick of relearning everything. And it is not a part of me. Spanish makes me feel like a stupid white girl.

But Swedish…Swedish is what makes me a stupid white girl! Ever since I received my stateside English-speaking mission call, I have had this amazing desire to learn a foreign language. I never really had this desire before—I was always happy with English and partial Spanish. But now I am not. And as my time at BYU is ticking, I’d better get started…

So I went to my MAP and fit in three Swedish classes. That’s because I have three semesters left until graduation. I have one major and two minors (English and Western American Studies) and an affinity for religion classes and an honors thesis to write, so adding a four-credit class each semester makes things a bit tricky. I had to push one major class into spring term, and each of my three semesters will have 18 credits…but haven’t I done that before? Like every semester? (but I need to work…and maybe get married…) And first-year language classes really aren’t that difficult, right?

Right.

I feel good about it now, but we’ll see how I feel in nineteen months and thirteen days.

Place and Pilgrimage: About my Church History trip

When we flew into Boston, it was raining. Most of the other students in my Church History had never been to the east, so they were admiring everything—“welcome to Boston” signs, Red Socks paraphernalia, accents sounding over the speakers. I noticed all that too—I just was more interested in the rain. After we boarded the red coach bus that would be our traveling home for the next five days, I called my mom in San Diego.

“I’m in Boston now,” I said. Without further ado, she asked the question I had been expecting.

“Is it raining?”

Of course it was raining. This wasn’t the first time that I had taken a non-stop Delta flight from Salt Lake to Boston. My family moved to Connecticut from Utah when I was ten, and we had taken the same flight. And when we arrived, it was raining. It rained all three hours to Connecticut. My mom hated moving to the east and hated living there—so of course she remembered the rain.

My Church History class trip was to consist of an “educational and academic” tour through the eastern sites—Sharon, Palmyra, Harmony, Kirtland. I jumped at the opportunity to be a part of BYU’s first

experimental “class on wheels” because I love Church History and, unlike my mother, I love New England. I had been looking for chance to go back there, and was delighted such a convenient and exciting opportunity as this trip.

I was most looking forward to our first stop: Sharon, Vermont, the birthplace of the prophet Joseph Smith. When I was fourteen, I had gone to girls camp at Camp Joseph, near the monument. Camp that year was one of my favorite experiences—I guess you could say I had a spiritual awakening there—and I wanted to relive at least a piece of it.

When we got there, it was raining (surprise, surprise), and I had an annoying chest cold that made it a little difficult to pay attention during the tour. But, despite the rain, the site was beautiful! The last time I’d been there, everything was green; this time, I was amazed by the colorful foliage on the ground and in the trees. I walked around the grounds by myself for a few minutes, admiring the familiar granite monument reaching thirty-nine and a half feet into the sky (one foot for each year of Joseph’s life). I wondered over to the remains of the cabin where Joseph was born. As a fourteen-year-old, I had placed my foot on the Smiths’ doorstep and took a picture. I still have that picture in my scrapbook. So I placed my foot in about the same location and took another picture.

That place held a lot of history for me. It held my own past, my family’s past, and, of course, Joseph’s past. Later, I pointed out a spot where I had been stung by a bee to my teacher, and he said “Wow, Sara, you are on your own personal pilgrimage.” I suppose I was. A lot of Mormons make this same Church History “pilgrimage”—it seems to be a requirement for Mormon families to spend at least one summer touring these sites. I was on that pilgrimage, but I was also on a personal pilgrimage, a quest for a piece of my past self that would enable me to see the present more clearly.

Why do places have the power to transport us, to teach us? Places are just…places, geographic locations that have no meaning other than what we give them. Then why, at every stop we made, did I fell compelled to pull out my camera in a vain attempt to capture everything I saw and felt? Why did my roommate collect leafs from the Smith farm, the Sacred Grove, the Susquehanna River, and other sacred sites? Why did my class mates take turns bearing testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith in the Peter Whitmer farm in Fayette? Why even have this trip—why does the Church spend so much money purchasing and preserving these sites, anyway?

Maybe its just human nature—but that is hardly an answer. I think it is because places are living monuments, living testimonies, of the things that happened there. I know that I was once a slightly confused fourteen-year-old. And I know that despite my immaturity, I had, and still have, a testimony of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, because the place where I felt this knowledge burn within me for the first time is real, tangible, and it still stands—I know, I’ve been there.

Our Church builds monuments and we visit them because we believe that the events we claim as the foundation of our religion actually happened. They happened in reality, in time, and in space. Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove. He found the Gold Plates in the Hill Cumorah, and translated them in Harmony. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that these things really happened—Mormonism is not a philosophy or a nice idea. To us, it is reality. This is why we believe in the Spirit of Places: place is powerful because it makes history alive and doctrine reality.

The New Female Costume

“There was a most disgraceful exhibition of rowdyism in this city about dusk on Monday evening, growing out of the appearance on the street of a young lady dressed in the new, so-called, Bloomer costume. From the corner of Merrimack, she was followed from Central street, by a hissing, shouting rabble, which called around them an immense crowd of people anxious to see what was going forward. The young lady was in company with another female, and both walked along quite coolly, the impudent blackguards that followed not going so far as to lay hands on her . The City Marshal and posse, we understand, were at the same time quelling a like disturbance on the corner of Central and Middlesex streets. The affair, as we have before said, was most disgraceful. Let females wear what they please, no one save the proper officers should attempt any demonstration toward them. We don’t exactly like the Bloomer dress ourself, but for all that, we would not be the owl that takes the night to hoot it."

Poor girl! But some part of me thinks that she enjoyed it...I mean, wouldn't you? Think of it: crowds following me around campus, some amazed, some appalled, yet all insanely curious. Who is she? Why is she? What is this she wears? What audaciously amazing woman would dare step into the public sphere with such a hideous yet oddly fascinating and enchanting costume? If course, my roomy gray library t-shirt may not inspire such emotion, but my new sweater vests may…

Yes. I bought sweater vests. Two: a royal blue one, and a minty winter-green one. Cassie, Mellie, and I went shopping on Saturday for missionary clothes. What is it about sister missionaries and sweater vests? It seems like the two are inevitably inseparable. (You should know that I spelled the previous word correctly on the first try.) I wouldn’t exactly call sweater vests frumpy, but they get pretty close. They are cute and very conservative. I imagine that they are warm—or at least, warmer. I also have a suspicion that they help prevent missionaries from accidentally exposing themselves through little holes between the buttons on blouses.

Anyway. I am officially the proud owner (and not-yet-but-future wearer) of sweater vests. Sure wish I could the same thing about walking shoes, dresses, long skirts, blouses, winter coats, and all the etcs that want to steal my money.