A World Gone Crazy

Yesterday, I was afraid the apocalypse was upon us. First of all, Elizabeth Hasselbeck (on the TV show "The View," and whose voice normally gives me seizures) actually said something that I fully and completely agreed with. This rarely happens.

Someone had sent her a photo of Barack Obama supposedly on Veteran's Day that showed a bunch of soldiers saluting while he just stood there. The implication was that his refusal to salute American soldiers on Veteran's Day, of all days, showed just how un-American he is.

To her great credit, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who is not an Obama fan, not only explained that the photo hadn't been taken on Veteran's Day at all; and not only explained that the reason Obama wasn't saluting was because he had just joined the soldiers who were saluting him as Commander-in-Chief on the podium and therefore had no reason to salute; and then not only went on to show several photos of the President saluting on other occasions; but then pleaded with right-wing extremists such as the one who had sent her the photo to please concentrate on the real issues rather than creating trivial ones based on falsehoods and misinformation. I really respected and admired her for doing so (and for me to say that about Elizabeth Hasselbeck is no small thing). But I agreed with her 100% and was glad she did what she did.

Then later the same day Chris Buttars, the anti-gay senator from West Jordan, Utah, said he is actually considering sponsoring a statewide bill that will mirror the one Salt Lake City just passed that protects gays, lesbians, and the transgendered from housing and employment discrimination. Of course, his cohort, Gayle Ruzicka (local anti-gay lobbyist) was not pleased by his announcement, which made me even happier.

When asked why he suddenly changed his mind after years of constantly pushing against gay rights, he said because the LDS Church had endorsed the Salt Lake City law, he saw no reason why he couldn't do the same. Of course, he did stress that he is still against gay marriage or gay adoption rights. But, still. To see such an "about-face" (even if he wouldn't have done it had the LDS Church not done it) was pretty jaw-dropping to see.

If all this weirdness this keeps up, the next thing you know Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck will announce they're socialists and are marrying each other. What is happening?!

I Just Love Jonah!

He really is one of the sweetest, most generous, most giving, spiritual (and in tune with the Spirit) people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, and I am so happy he is mine.

It baffles my mind when I see these so-called Christians holding up signs that say things like "God hates fags!" or what-have-you. I am 100% more sure that God is working through a gay man like Jonah than through people like them. I think if homophobic bigots were to really get to know and understand someone like my husband, they would realize how wrong they are in their thinking.

Jonah is amazing, and I have no idea what I ever did to deserve him or why he puts up with me. ;-)

I love him! That's all.

This Rolling Stone

It's interesting, I have been simultaneously reading two books. One is called The Sixties Chronicle, which is basically a pictorial history of the events of the decade from 1960-1969 and also includes first hand accounts and commentary on the events. The other book is a biography of President David O. McKay called David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and which, although written by two Mormons, is a pretty truthful and fairly unbiased account of President McKay's tenure as Prophet of the LDS Church and isn't shy about tackling controversial issues such as the church's opposition to the civil rights movement, for example. I'm really enjoying both books immensely, and I've decided that in spite of his faults, I really like David O. McKay. He seems to be a great proponent of free agency, free thinking, and seems (to me, at least) to be a "spirit of the law" kind of individual as opposed to a "letter of the law" individual.

With the recent endorsement of the LDS Church, an ordinance in Salt Lake City which bans employment and housing discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals was passed. Many gay rights activists were surprised by the Church's endorsement, and I admit I was surprised as well (but was very pleased by what I see as a positive step). The LDS Church is still adamant that it will not support gay marriage and will continue to fight for what it believes is right as far as that issue is concerned.

Some in the gay-rights community are skeptical, feeling that the LDS Church only did this to save face with those who have a less-than-favorable impression of the church and did it simply to boost their image. That may be true, although it seems to me the LDS Church usually does what it feels is right regardless of how popular those decisions make them.

Some in the gay community are also indignant, feeling that they owe the LDS Church no gratitude for this endorsement when the church is still actively working to stifle their civil rights. This is an understandable feeling. I, for one, am grateful for any strides the LDS Church makes in regards to gay rights, just as I am thankful for strides that those in the gay-rights community make in creating an atmosphere of communication rather than antagonism. I think we all have a long way to go, but I am thankful for small steps even if it is "two steps forward, one step back" at times.

As I've been reading about the sixties, I am reminded of how volatile the issue of civil rights and desegregation could be, and although racism still exists today, it is fascinating to see how far the civil rights movement came. It is interesting to look at these photos and be reminded of a time not very long ago at all when black people couldn't sit at the same counter as white people or use the same restroom or drinking fountain; black people couldn't attend white schools and were denied employment because of the color of their skin; that a black person couldn't vote or marry a white person; that the whole "separate, but equal" idea was such a sham. One looks at these pictures and sees very plainly that whites were always given preferential treatment. They were given the better jobs, got to sit in the choicest seats, and weren't denied many of the normal things life didn't offer the African-American.





And when blacks attempted to fight for their rights, they were assaulted, beaten, hosed, attacked by dogs, intimidated, threatened, and killed, often by the very people whose job it was to supposedly "serve and protect."

And as I've read about these issues, it dawns on me that there were many segregationists who probably felt that the threat of civil rights for blacks was completely destroying the foundation of their very lives. They literally felt as if their world would fall apart if blacks were to obtain equal rights. I've seen pictures of a woman holding a picket sign that says, "Integration is a mortal sin." Another sign held by a young man says, "The only way to end niggers is exterminate." Another white man with a gun threatens a black man who is attempting to enter his store. Still another pours hydrochloric acid into a swimming pool where blacks are having a swim-in. Parents pull their white kids out of a school where a little black girl is attending first grade for the first time since desegregation has taken effect and has to be protected by federal marshalls. Police and local government leaders refuse to follow the policies the federal government has laid out concerning desegregation, and it is only through federal government protection that they publicly back down (although in private, they still commit some horrendous acts). A church is bombed and kills several black girls. Civil rights advocates are tortured and killed.





















This was not so long ago. Even as I read this book about David O. Mckay, it is interesting to see where the LDS Church stood on civil rights issues. Realizing that church leaders and members were a product of their time, it is still amazing to me to see how blacks were treated by people who belong to a church established by the Savior himself. Most church leaders were opposed to racial integration, including David O. McKay, and were suspicious of the civil rights movement. J. Reuben Clark, Henry D. Moyle, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, and Mark E. Peterson all opposed civil rights and said things that would be considered racist. There was a resistance to change and progression as far as this issue was concerned.

One man in the First Presidency, Hugh B. Brown, was more progressive in this area and said the following in the October, 1963 General Conference when members of the NAACP threatened to picket Temple Square after being rebuffed in their desire to meet with the First Presidency:

"During recent months both in Salt Lake City and across the nation considerable interest has been expressed in the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.

"We again say, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny to any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

"We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned that means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.

"We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man."

While not sanctioned by the church at the time as an "official statement," it later was reluctantly elevated to "official" status two years later when NAACP leaders threatened to organize a series of marches in front of the Church Administration Building.

As I've read all these things and thought about today's current climate, I cannot help but see the parallels between the civil rights movement of the 60s, the women's rights movement, and the gay rights movement. Just as whites feared their world would come crashing down as blacks tried to gain equality; just as men thought their worlds were crashing down when women tried to gain equality; so I think many straight people feel the same way as gay people try to gain equality. It was not so very long ago, too, that you could be arrested for being gay or when homosexuality was considered a disease (and some people still feel that it is).





Although I do think gay people have suffered discrimination and hate-crimes, I do have to say that I think black people have been treated far more harshly in American history than gay people have (although I do think gay people have been treated very unfairly, too).

It is interesting to me that the LDS Church always seems to be in the rear and very slow on the uptake when it comes to equal rights. Church leaders in the 60s opposed civil rights legislation, and the state legislature consistently shot down bills that would give equal rights to blacks. The church also opposed the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s. This quote is taken from a Utah history website:

"The attack against ERA seemed, at times, alarmist and hysterical. Equation of ERA with sexual permissiveness, abortion, child care, homosexuality, and unisexuality drew the debate away from the constitutional principal of equality to issues of 'traditional family values.' But the attack did reflect the fears of many about the changing roles of women and men and about the changing form of the family. There seemed to be danger in equality for the ideological/cultural concept of the father as head and provider, mother as nurturer and manager, and children as replicas into the next generation. Many feared the equality would make women more vulnerable and exposed, that men would feel freer to abandon family responsibilities.

"Certainly it was these fears which prompted Mormon church leaders to eventually join their financial resources, their promotional skills and their far-flung network of members to the counterrevolution. Church leaders in 1976 described ERA as 'a moral issue with many disturbing ramifications for women and for the family as individual members as a whole.' President Spencer Kimball declared it 'would strike at the family, humankind's basic institution.'

"Donations to support the anti-ERA effort were solicited by ward bishops; speeches against the amendment were deemed appropriate at all church meetings, and church buildings were used as an anti-ERA literature distribution points. Church sponsored anti-ERA organizations operated in Florida, Nevada, North and South Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Arizona."

The parallels to both fights seem very similar to the current gay-rights struggle vis-à-vis the LDS Church. But just as blacks and women have received more equality over the years (although there is still inequality, racism, and sexism that exists), I think it is inevitable that gay people will receive the rights they long for. I really do think it's a difficult, if not impossible task to stop "this rolling stone."

And just as I think it's hard to look back and read about the way the civil rights movement and the battle against the Equal Rights Amendment (which people are still trying to pass) were handled by the LDS Church, I am reminded about the current battle that is happening with gay rights and wonder how history will view the LDS Church. I don't know what will happen or even necessarily what should happen, but I do think gay rights are going to be a reality, especially as the older generation dies and the newer generation, many of whom seem to support gay rights, comes to the forefront. There will be some lost battles, but I think the war will be won, and just as I know there were people who thought their worlds would collapse as blacks and women gained more equality, I think those people who oppose gay rights will be surprised at how their worlds will remain intact. Heck, they might even discover that they are better. Change can be a very good thing, even if some people don't believe it is progress.

Obituary For A Friend

Yesterday I took an old, reliable friend who's been with me through many momentous times in my life and sold her for a fraction of what she was worth to me. It made me feel dirty and depressed, and yet I knew it had to be done. I am talking, of course, about my 1997 Saturn SL1, the first car I ever owned myself and one that I have had for nearly ten years.

I remember when I bought her. I had two jobs at the time, and after test driving serveral cars, I knew she was the one for me. She was used, but she was great, and most of all, she was mine. She cost me $11,000. and only had 54,000 miles on her.

I paid her off relatively quickly and was so happy when the day came when I finally owned her free-and-clear. She was a terrific and dependable car and lived and traveled with me for almost a decade. She saw me through graduate school; traveled with me to many spots in Utah, Nevada, and California; took me on many job auditions and, subsequently, many jobs; she was there for many enjoyable talks I had with fellow passengers, including good friends, family members, and my now husband; and she took me on so many adventures. I loved her very much.

Sadly, the last year of her life was a hard one. After nearly nine years of no problems whatsoever, she began to ail. First she started burning oil at a very quick rate, and I was told I could either repair the problem at a cost of $2-3,000, which I could not afford, so I just kept filling her with oil. Then, on a terrific trip to LA, as I was coming back home, her timing belt broke and she died. I was able to get her repaired, but, of course, the oil problems persisted. Then her muffler and spark plugs needed replacing and her fuel injection needed cleaning. It seemed to me that the money I was putting into her would actually be better spent in buying another, more reliable, vehicle, and since I do travel often and I knew I would rather buy a new car than fix the main problem, the oil waste, I decided it was time to look for a new car.

It's silly, especially since I know cars are inanimate objects, but looking for another car almost felt like I was cheating on my old car. After all, she'd always been there for me, had been completely reliable until relatively recently, and was still running well enough to get me from point A to point B. But I feared she would let me down, and I knew I had to find something I could depend upon.

Perhaps because of my fondness for my old car, I found another Saturn (this time a 2000 SL1) for $7,000 with 73,000 miles on it. It would have been nice to get a newer car or one with less miles on it, but this is what I could afford now, and I test drove it yesterday and liked it very much. In some ways, it's actually in better condition than my old car was when I bought it. So I bought it. Carmax, who I bought it from (and who I was quite impressed with overall) offered to buy my old car. I was only able to get $250 for my baby, which seemed like a slap in the face, but the used car industry isn't doing well, my old car has some problems that will make it harder to sell, and I don't have time to sell it privately or shop sround for other offers, so I took what I could get.

As they removed her license plates, I could almost hear her weeping, crying out, "Why are you abandoning me?" I hope she knows how much I loved her, and I hope whoever gets her next will find as much joy in owing her as I did. I hope she gets a good home (the thought of her being demolished and used for parts absolutely horrifies me; I'm glad I don't have to know).

The new Saturn drives really well and is a nice car. It has power locks and a CD player, too, which my old car did not have, so that's a nice addition. In many ways, the new car is very much like my old one; so much so that to make myself feel better, I've decided that the spirit of my old car is inhabiting this new one. It's so stupid, but it's comforting.

Weird how I get attached to inanimate objects. I'm very sentimental about things. Jonah jokingly told me he hopes I feel as strongly about him when I have to put him in a home. lol

It's All About Image (What A Double Standard)

On October 1st the following article appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune:

Deseret News pulls ad for gay suicide memorial by Rosemary Winters

In addition to irreverent coffee pitches and same-sex wedding announcements, a plug for a memorial for gay Mormon suicide victims can be added to the list of ads the LDS Church-owned Deseret News won't run.

MediaOne, which handles advertising for both the News and The Salt Lake Tribune , accepted payment from the nonprofit Foundation for Reconciliation to run an ad, announcing a memorial service this Sunday, in both papers. But on Wednesday, a MediaOne employee told the group's Cheryl Nunn that the ad had been rejected by the News.

"Anything that's related to the church we have been asked to present that to [the Deseret News ] and then they decide," said MediaOne President Brent Low. "This one was directly talking about the church and sexual orientation."

Without receiving the discount offered from advertising in both papers, the group asked to pull the blurb from the Tribune , as well, and received a full refund, Low said.

In August, the News declined to run a wedding announcement for a gay couple wed in San Francisco. In 2007, it rejected a coffee shop ad that showed the store's owners wearing Mormon missionary uniforms -- but the News has a policy that bans all ads for coffee. Same goes for alcohol, tobacco, tea and adult entertainment.

The foundation's memorial, "From Despair to Hope," honors lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) suicide victims as well as "those who have successfully overcome conflicts involving their sexual orientation and the LDS Church," the ad states. The event features a video appearance by actor Will Swenson, known for his roles in Mormon-themed films "Sons of Provo" and "The Singles Ward."

Peter Danzig, a Salt Lake City spokesman for the foundation, called the newspaper ad "innocuous."

"There's nothing anti-Mormon," he said. "We tried to create an event that would be welcoming to everyone on either side of the issue."

Danzig hopes remembering the "suffering" of those who have taken their own lives because of despair felt from conflict arising between their sexual orientations and Mormon faith and families will "compel" attendees "to create hope for other people."
The service is Sunday at 7 p.m. at First Unitarian Church, 569 S. 1300 East, Salt Lake City.

When I read that MediaOne and The Deseret News wouldn’t run an ad for this memorial, it upset me; not because they chose not to run an ad that might be seen as contrary to what they represent (heck, The Deseret News can run whatever they want to run), but because it makes me wonder what they do represent.

If you’ll recall, in February of this year MediaOne and The Deseret News (and, to be fair, The Salt Lake Tribune) chose to run an ad by an organization called America Forever. You can read my comments about that here. If you want to read about what this moronic organization stands for, their website is here.

Let’s do a side-by-side comparison of the two ads in question.

The ad The Deseret News chose to print contains the following quotes:

“Stand up on stop the homosexual movement.”
“Gays will have more rights than anybody else.”
“If a hooker displays her conduct, a druggie displays his conduct and a homosexual displays his conduct, it is our right to not have them part of our lives…”
“No one loses their job for just being gay….”
This is what [gays] want: to use the law to Force good willed responsible citizens to accept their sexual conduct as Natural behavior; to force an entire society to endorse, promote, and tamper with our children’s identity.”
“DO NOT BE FOOLED BY The Common Ground Initiative. It is not just about a few people here in Utah, it is part of a well-engineered movement, targeted to VALIDATE HOMOSEXUALITY TO THE CHILDREN.”
“Overwhelmingly, the gay agenda is liberal, godless, and very outspoken…Moreover, they are intolerant and do not emulate any Christian ethics.”
“Shame on UTAH GAYS For using the LDS Church to promote the Homosexual Movement.”
They also quote a piece that was printed as satire, but make it sound like it is a legitimate “Homosexual Declaration of War”, quoting, “we will sodomize your children. All churches who condemn us will be closed. The family unit eliminated…”

The ad The Deseret News chose not to print says, in part:

“The Foundation for Reconciliation…presents a Memorial Service, honoring LGBT suicide victims as well as those who have successfully overcome conflicts involving their sexual orientation and the LDS Church. Join us for an evening of music and the spoken word…”

Understanding that the LDS Church is against homosexuality, I still contend that the second ad holds closer to the values I feel I was raised with as a Mormon than the first one does. The first ad is full of lies, misconceptions, ignorance, generalizations, and, frankly, hate (isn't the LDS Church about truth?). The second ad, whether one agrees with homosexuality or not, at least contains some compassion. It does not vilify the LDS Church. The only mention it makes is that these people it wants to honor have overcome their conflicts with homosexuality and the LDS Church, but in no way do I see it as anti-LDS Church. I have great love for the LDS Church and still attend it regularly even though I am not even a member by name. I feel I have come to a place in my life where I have resolved my conflicts between my sexuality and the LDS Church, but in no way would I consider myself anti-LDS.

The first ad does vilify gay people. It is anti-gay. It would have you believe that gays are “godless,” that we don’t have “Christian ethics,” that our sole aim is to corrupt your children. These things are simply not true, certainly not of myself, my partner, or any of the gay people I know or associate with. It’s offensive to me, much as I’m sure gay behavior is offensive to some people out there, including those who belong to America Forever. And yet, that ad is okay to print, but the other isn’t. Why?

I wrote a letter to the editor of The Deseret News on October 2. It said,

So let me get this straight. An ad for a memorial honoring gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual suicide victims and those who have "overcome conflicts involving their sexual orientation and the LDS Church" (quote from the ad) was rejected because it's "directly talking about the [LDS C]hurch and sexual orientation." (quote from MediaOne President Brent Low, "Deseret News pulls ad for gay suicide memorial," Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 1, 2009); yet MediaOne had no problem printing an ad by the group America Forever back in February of this year which was full of lies and misrepresentations, compared gay people to prostitutes and drug addicts, accused gay people of preying on children, and said gay people were "godless" and had no "Christian ethics."

That ad contained the headline, "Shame on Utah gays for using the LDS Church to promote the homosexual movement" and had an entire paragraph devoted to the LDS Church and gay activist groups. I realize America Forever is not an LDS organization, but I would think that the hate and ignorance in that ad would have been far more contrary to the values of the LDS Church, MediaOne, and The Deseret News than the ad for the memorial that Foundation for Reconciliation is holding.

As Peter Danzig, spokesman for the foundation, says "There's nothing anti-Mormon" in the memorial ad, yet there is plenty that is anti-gay in the America Forever ad, and I venture to say that if the same ad had been run about black people or Jewish people, MediaOne wouldn't have dared to print it.

Is this really the image that MediaOne, the LDS Church, and The Deseret News want to project? Sounds like a major double standard to me, and it is shameful.

By the way, I don't really care if you print my letter. I just hope whoever reads this really thinks about the kind of values they claim to have.

As I said, I really didn’t care if they printed the letter (and, no surprise, they didn’t); I just wanted somebody over there to think about what they are doing and what image they are trying to project.

I know I am biased. Of course I am! I’m gay! I know this issue isn’t important to everybody, and that there are those who can’t see my side of the issue (and I admit that my bias probably prevents me from seeing their side in an objective way, too), but I find it disturbing.

Here is a sampling of letters to the editor The Deseret News did choose to print:

Chase Kirkham, (Readers' Forum, Oct. 8) misses the comic strip Lio. That should not be hard to remedy. Just get a copy or two and read one daily. His theme is very consistent. The only variable seems to be his gruesome characters.
John Sorenson
Layton

My wife and I are avid fans of "American Idol," "America's Got Talent" and "Dancing With the Stars." The judges on all three shows have the background and expertise to recognize talent when they see it. The one thing we abhor is the way Simon Cowell ("American Idol"), Piers Morgan ("America's Got Talent") and Len Goodman ("Dancing With the Stars") criticize performers they feel are not up to par. The other judges let the performers save face.
Stan Jacobson
Ogden

I cannot believe that Dane Henderson (Readers' Forum, Oct. 10) and Brian Mott (Readers' Forum, Oct. 9) call Glenn Beck a "mad man." I watch him every day, and he makes me laugh and at other times makes me cry.
He gives us true facts about government issues. He backs up everything he says with video and investigation. If you would watch him, you'd understand what I'm saying. Duly watch with ears to hear and eyes to see and hearts to understand.
Connie Rigby
Sandy

I guess my concerns are not as valid as a yanked comic strip (of which many letters were written), TV reality show judges, or the rantings of a crazy guy (see, I told you I was biased). That’s fine. Whatever.

But what image is being conveyed when a paper chooses to print an ad full of hate and lies, but not one that wants to do something to honor people (oh, that’s right. Those people are gay! Mustn’t do that.)? It seems such a double standard to me.

I still haven’t quite figured out what people are so scared of. Believe you me, I am not out to corrupt your children or turn them gay. As far as I’m concerned, one is either gay or not; there’s not much I could do to turn someone gay even if I wanted to. I’m not even out to convince people to think that being gay is a good thing (I think it is perfectly lovely, but it’s not my goal to convince anybody else that it is).

I am not trying to destroy your marriage. It seems like there are many heterosexual, married couples who are doing just fine destroying their marriages without my help, even if that were my goal.

I am not out to take away anybody’s religious rights. If you want to teach that being gay is a sin and that we’re all going to hell and deny us the right to get married in your church, fine. That’s your business. It doesn’t sound like a church I want to belong to anyway.

I’m not out to flaunt my sexuality in your face. I don’t like watching anybody snogging in public, gay or straight. Jonah and I don’t tend to engage in public displays of affection, not because we’re worried about offending anybody or scared, but because it’s not our style.

You know what I would like? I would like to know that if Jonah or I were to fall ill or get in an accident or, heaven forbid, die, that we wouldn’t have to worry about the legalities of hospital rights or home rights or property rights or visitation rights or what-have-you. I would love to be able to fill out our federal taxes together instead of separately. I would love when I’m filling out an application of some kind to be able to check the “married” box instead of the “single” one. I would love for people like us to be able to share insurance. I don’t know what this “homosexual movement” or “agenda” is. I guess I must have missed the “Gay-People-Who-Want-to-Corrupt-Your-Children, Destroy-Your-Marriages, and-Take-Away-Your-Rights” meeting where they explained all that. I get the feeling some people think we’re this big union of gay people setting about taking over the world. You know what Jonah and I are? A boring “married” couple. I would just like the same legal rights as other boring, married couples.

When I see newspapers print ignorant, hateful ads over sympathetic ones; when I see security members of a church I have loved and revered my whole life kick a gay couple off their property for kissing (maybe more – I don’t know, I wasn’t there); when I hear a sitting Utah senator make ignorant, biased ant-gay statements and then watch senate leaders “reprimand” him at the same time they defend him and those ignorant statements; when I hear religious leaders make ignorant (and sometimes hateful) remarks about gay people; when I see my own religion pour so much time and energy into defending the institution of marriage from threats I am unable to see myself; when religious teachings or quotes cause people to feel suicidal or hopeless, I just wonder what image is being conveyed.

Regardless of whether one believes homosexuality is wrong and sinful or not, I have to ask myself how Jesus Christ treated people, who he hung around with, what he taught, and how he judged. The Jesus Christ I know and believe in is sometimes very different than the one that I see promoted by certain individuals or entities. It’s disheartening at times. The double standards I sometimes see make me think of the Pharisees of old.

"I'm Mad As H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks, And I'm Not Gonna Take It Anymore!!!"

My goodness, did anyone else see Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's talk in Conference Sunday afternoon? Here it is on YouTube in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2

It was a very powerful testimony and defense of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. It starts out simply enough, but as he gets going, he gets pretty impassioned, as is well his right.

I recommend you watch the whole talk, but it's at about the 8 minute mark in Part 1 that he really gets going. If I were to choose a subtext for this talk, I would say that he is very clearly saying, "The Book of Mormon is true, all you jerks who claim it isn't, and I'm sick and tired of it being attacked!" It is very evident he feels very strongly about The Book of Mormon, and it was kind of refreshing to see such a fiery and no-holds-barred kind of talk.

I enjoyed the talk quite a bit, but I also sensed a lot of anger and frustration from Elder Holland (much of which is probably justified), and it almost felt like he was going to jump over the podium and bash some unbelieving mockers' heads, and I feel much of that anger was directed towards those members of the church who have been deceived and walked away.

Anyway, I certainly paid attention to it.

I also found Dallin H. Oaks' talk about God's law and God's love very interesting, although it also disturbed me somewhat because there is a part of me that just has a hard time understanding why justice must trump mercy when my heart feels like mercy must trump justice.

There were other talks I enjoyed. I liked President Monson's talk on service very much. I think sometimes we (meaning me) get so wrapped up in ourselves that we forget to help others, even if it's in the smallest of ways. I would like to do better at serving other people in some way.

There were others, but those are the three that stick out at the moment. Especially Elder Holland's. Pretty straightforward and bold. Sometimes I think it needs to be that way.

Discovered

Well, it was only a matter of time. Someone I know has discovered my blog. Interestingly enough, it is my neighbor who attended my disciplinary council. This comes as no surprise to me since she reads some of the blogs that are in the same circles as blogs I read.

She had asked my mom if I had a blog and that she thought she had stumbled across a blog that most likely belonged to me. Mom asked me, and I said I did and said she was welcome to read it if she wanted and sent her the web address.

I'm not embarrassed or ashamed by anything I have written here over the last three or so years, but at the same time I wonder if I will censor or edit myself knowing that people I know are reading (although most of the stuff here is stuff I've been pretty open about with those in my life).

What does concern me more is how Jonah feels. I think he feels uncomfortable with the fact that some of our personal stuff is here for the world to read and even more so that it may be read by people who are not strangers. He told me he doesn't mind my having a blog, but that it makes him feel weird to know that people who know me might be reading about our personal life and that the whole idea in the beginning was for it to be anonymous. He has a valid point and one that I need to consider.

When I think about it, my original reasons for having a blog (to sort out my feelings and conflicts with my sexuality and my religious beliefs) have pretty much been taken care of. Now it's just become a place to think out loud, but I no longer need it like I did then, and there is, admittedly, a lot of personal stuff contained in it. Everything I have written in this blog (and then some) is in my journal that I keep. I also hoped this blog could be a place where others could learn what it's like to be in a gay Mormon's shoes and take what they could from my own personal experiences, and I feel it's done that, too. Maybe the time has come to shut it down. I've actually considered creating a new blog under my actual name that would contain humorous musings on life rather than all this serious, personal stuff. Maybe this is my excuse to do so.

In any case, I'm thinking it over. I'll let you know.

The Long Way Around

One of my favorite quotes is from J.R.R. Tolkien: "Not all those who wander are lost."

I remember a friend of mine who came out of the closet before I did had the quote on a bumper sticker on the back of his car. At the time I was still a member of the church, and he had recently chosen to leave the MTC while preparing to go on his mission because he no longer wanted to live a lie. He was coming out and seemed very happy in doing so. I remember being jealous because I wished I could do the same thing. At the same time, I also felt concerned for his spiritual well-being because I felt at the time that he was giving up and giving in to things that would take him away from Eternal Life. When I read the quote at the time, it made me think, but I wasn't sure I believed it was true.

Now that I'm on the other side of things, I very much believe it. It's interesting being an outsider looking in (I mean as far as Mormonism goes). I'm still active (as active as a non-member can be) and attend church as often as I'm able. Although I miss some things about being a member, in some ways I actually enjoy church more because there's not as much pressure. Not only that, it's interesting to see Mormonism from a different set of eyes than when I was entrenched in it.

Today in Sacrament Meeting, this lady gave a talk on adversity. The talk itself was fine, but what struck me is that she was talking about how her son had not been able to serve a mission for whatever reason, and he was losing his testimony, and she was talking about how for a great deal of her life, her goals and dreams included her son serving a mission, and when that didn't happen and when his faith was shaken, it shook her own world and caused her feelings of anger, unhappiness, and confusion.

Now, I don't know the circumstances of her situation, and the main point of her talk was that she finally found a place of peace after this adversity, but it got me to thinking about the expectations people have as members of the LDS Church and what happens to them when those expectations are not met. So many people feel that if they just keep all the commandments and do everything church leaders tell them to do, all will be well. People expect to serve missions, fall in love with a member of the opposite sex, get married in the temple, have a family, have those kids go on to live as honorable members of the church, and then eventually die and go on to eternal salvation.

But what happens when you're faced with a time when you're not sure you have a testimony anymore? What happens when you realize you can't be perfect? What happens when you find out you're gay or that you're unable to serve a mission? What happens when you can't find someone to share your life with and you find you're alone or when you do meet someone who won't join the church? What happens when your temple marriage falls apart? What happens when your spouse cheats on you or abandons you for whatever reason? What happens when your kids get involved in drugs or premarital sex or have a baby out of wedlock? What happens when your child doesn't believe the things you do and wants to leave the church? What happens when your spouse is suddenly struck with a terrible disease and you have to take care of them? Or what happens when your spouse is in a car accident or has a sudden heart attack, and you're suddenly left alone? What happens when you or your spouse lose your job and are left with huge bills that can't be paid?

Sometimes people have this false idea that if they are faithful members of the church, they will be free of adversity. Or sometimes when loved ones make choices they disagree with, they think all is lost and their world is shattered.

What really intrigued me was the Sunday School lesson. The instructor piggy-backed off the woman's talk and brought up some of these very points I was thinking of. An illustration he gave was that most of the pioneers crossed the plains to get to Salt Lake City, but he talked of one group who left from New York, sailed all the way around South America, landed in California (where some chose to stay) about six months after they left, and eventually made it to Salt Lake. They went the long way, and some people probably thought they were crazy and wrong to do so, but that didn't make it the wrong way. Many of them still got where they were supposed to end up. And even those who didn't end up in Salt Lake, who's to say that California wasn't where they would be happiest?

Anyway, it got me to thinking about my own situation. There is still no doubt in my mind that I am happier and more at peace than I was when I was trying to be a "good" member of the church. I have not made the wrong decision. Maybe I'm just taking the "long way around." Fortunately, I am very sure God knows exactly where I am in my journey, and I feel (and have felt) His assurance that all is well, and that's the only person's opinion that matters regarding my choices.

Recently, a general authority spoke at an Evergreen Conference. You can read his whole talk here. I suppose I understand his position as a general authority speaking before a body of people who are wanting to change their sexuality from gay to straight, but I fear the expectations that are put before so many people who struggle with feelings of homosexuality are unreasonable, and what will (and does) it do these people when those expectations are unable to be met? Especially when these expectations are being presented by people who have no idea what it's like to be in a gay person's shoes.

And that's what I'm talking about. When we're given expectations of what a "perfect Mormon life" is supposed to be, and those expectations are unable to be met through no fault of our own, how will we respond? Will we lose our testimony? Will we beat ourselves up and self-flagellate? Will we become estranged from our loved ones or embrace them in spite of choices we may not agree with? Will we be strong enough to endure whatever we've been asked to? Will we decide we have to do what is best for our personal peace and happiness even if it goes against the grain of what is expected? Will we leave the church or become excommunicated? Will we maintain our testimony and stay faithful no matter what? These are all choices or conditions personal to each and every one of us. As for me, I know what I had to do. It has not shaken my testimony of the LDS Church, but at the same time I'm able to live my life as I feel I need to, and I am happier for it.