The Ripple Effect

I'm currently reading Stephen King's latest book, 11/22/63. I'm more than halfway through. It's a good read. The basic plot is about a man who has gone back in time with the intent of preventing John F. Kennedy from being assassinated. I'm quite well-read when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, stories about time-travel have always been interesting to me, and I like Stephen King's writing style, so this novel seemed right up my alley.



I don't know where the story will eventually go, but something that has really intrigued me as I've been reading isn't so much the big goal, which is stop President Kennedy's assassination, but how the little things the main character is doing must have some sort of effect on future events in the lives of those he interacts with.

Think about it: this man comes into a timeline he was never a part of in its original incarnation; so no matter what he does, it will have some effect, whether big or small, on the lives of anyone he interacts with and possibly on the lives of those they interact with. I find that fascinating.

There is a quote from one of my favorite movies, It's A Wonderful Life



that says, "Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?" If you're not familiar with It's A Wonderful Life, it's a very good movie about the effect on man can have on the lives of others. George Bailey, thinking himself a failure, contemplates suicide, but is given a chance to see what the world would have been like had he never existed. He sees that even the smallest things he did had a great effect on the lives of those he touched. For example, by saving his brother's life as a child, he inadvertently saved the lives of many men during the war because those men were saved by his brother.

As I'm reading this book, it intrigues me how the people whose lives this man touches are altered, perhaps in significant ways. Regardless of how big or small the effects are, he is having some effect that didn't exist in the original timeline.

It reminds me of a previous post I wrote recently. We never really know the effect we have on others. Perhaps a person feels like their life is a waste, but they never fully understand the effect they have on those around them. Even by killing oneself, that event will have an effect on others.

I remember a friend of mine killed himself several years ago, and at his funeral I got the distinct impression that my friend was not only truly surprised by how many people loved him and were affected by him, but that he was sorry he hadn't realized that. Now whether that impression was of my own making or whether my friend's spirit really felt that way, I will never know in this lifetime. But it always made me think: we just don't know how we're impacting others' lives.

Think of that power. Every choice we make, big or small, is going to have some kind of ripple effect and affect others somehow. It reminds me of the Gwyneth Paltrow movie, Sliding Doors,



which shows two parallel timeline of a woman: one where she catches her train and one where she misses it, and how that tiny event has a major impact on the direction of the two timelines. It's fascinating to think about. Missing the train or catching it occurs simply because a child gets (or doesn't get) in her way in just a matter of second, and yet it creates a ripple effect that completely alters her trajectory. In one timeline, because she catches the train, she gets home early and catches her boyfriend cheating on her; in the other, she doesn't. All this because a little girl playing with a doll got in her way (or didn't get in her way), and yet that child will never have any notion that her actions had that effect on the woman played by Gwyneth Paltrow.

No man is a an island. The things we do (or don't do) have an effect on everyone and everything around us, and we may never ever know it. Sometimes we're just so busy living our lives and doing our thing, we never really take into account the effect our actions have on others. Oh, sure, we can see the big ones. Somebody takes another's life, for example. We can see the effect that had on the dead person's life. But it's the small, seemingly insignificant things that interest me most.

Think about a teacher, for example, that had a great (or negative) effect on you. Jonah had one teacher who treated him terribly and really negatively affected his self-esteem for a time. Does she even realize that? I had a teacher once that served as a father-figure to me when my own father was having some serious health problems. Did he ever realize that until I told him years later. Think of the words you say, good or bad, and how they might affect someone.

I remember watching a training video about productivity, and it was teaching that how you treat people has a ripple effect. It reminds me of this popular story that I've seen forwarded in emails countless times. Maybe it's a little schmaltzy, but I think the moral is apropos:

One day, when I was a freshman in high school, I saw a kid from my class was walking home from school. His name was Kyle. It looked like he was carrying all of his books.

I thought to myself, "Why would anyone bring home all his books on a Friday? He must really be a nerd."

I had quite a weekend planned (parties and a football game with my friends tomorrow afternoon), so I shrugged my shoulders and went on. As I was walking, I saw a bunch of kids running toward him. They ran at him, knocking all his books out of his arms and tripping him so he landed in the dirt. His glasses went flying, and I saw them land in the grass about ten feet from him. He looked up and I saw this terrible sadness in his eyes.

My heart went out to him. So, I jogged over to him as he crawled around looking for his glasses, and I saw a tear in his eye. As I handed him his glasses, I said, "Those guys are jerks. They really should get lives."

He looked at me and said, "Hey thanks!"

There was a big smile on his face. It was one of those smiles that showed real gratitude. I helped him pick up his books, and asked him where he lived. As it turned out, he lived near me, so I asked him why I had never seen him before. He said he had gone to private school before now. I would have never hung out with a private school kid before.

We talked all the way home, and I carried some of his books. He turned out to be a pretty cool kid. I asked him if he wanted to play a little football with my friends. He said yes. We hung out all weekend and the more I got to know Kyle, the more I liked him, and my friends thought the same of him.

Monday morning came, and there was Kyle with the huge stack of books again. I stopped him and said, "Boy, you are gonna really build some serious muscles with this pile of books everyday!"

He just laughed and handed me half the books.

Over the next four years, Kyle and I became best friends. When we were seniors we began to think about college. Kyle decided on Georgetown and I was going to Duke. I knew that we would always be friends, that the miles would never be a problem.
He was going to be a doctor and I was going for business on a football scholarship.

Kyle was valedictorian of our class. I teased him all the time about being a nerd.
He had to prepare a speech for graduation. I was so glad it wasn't me having to get up there and speak.

Graduation day, I saw Kyle. He looked great. He was one of those guys that really found himself during high school. He filled out and actually looked good in glasses. He had more dates than I had and all the girls loved him. Boy, sometimes I was jealous! Today was one of those days.

I could see that he was nervous about his speech. So, I smacked him on the back and said, "Hey, big guy, you'll be great!" He looked at me with one of those looks (the really grateful one) and smiled. "Thanks," he said.

As he started his speech, he cleared his throat, and began, "Graduation is a time to thank those who helped you make it through those tough years. Your parents, your teachers, your siblings, maybe a coach...but mostly your friends... I am here to tell all of you that being a friend to someone is the best gift you can give them.
I am going to tell you a story."

I just looked at my friend with disbelief as he told the story of the first day we met. He had planned to kill himself over the weekend. He talked of how he had cleaned out his locker so his Mom wouldn't have to do it later and was carrying his stuff home. He looked hard at me and gave me a little smile.

"Thankfully, I was saved. My friend saved me from doing the unspeakable."

I heard the gasp go through the crowd as this handsome, popular boy told us all about his weakest moment. I saw his Mom and dad looking at me and smiling that same grateful smile. Not until that moment did I realize it's depth.

Never underestimate the power of your actions. With one small gesture you can change a person's life. For better or for worse."

Yeah, it's an overdone story. Yeah, it's probably lost its impact from being passed around the Internet so much. But there is truth in it: we don't know how our actions and words truly affect others.

I am also reminded of a talk given by a popular LDS youth speaker in the 70s named Brent Yorgason.



I wish I could find a transcript of it online because it's both humorous and poignant. I have it on tape (yes, tape, you youngsters); maybe I'll transcribe it some time.

In any case, the gist of the talk was the effect, either positive or negative, that we have on others; how our words and actions can either life others or bring them down. Although this is not the exact talk, many of its ideas and stories can be found here.

It seems such a small thing, but our choices -how we choose to act; what we choose to say; how we choose to treat our fellow man - give us perhaps the greatest power we have. It's incredible to think about.

Appreciating The Ones You Love

I was watching "Desperate Housewives" yesterday evening. I enjoy the show quite a bit. It's a fun mix of comedy and drama and some of its comedy is dark, which I like.



Anyway, last week a major character was killed, and last night's episode dealt with his funeral and how he impacted the lives of those he touched. It was a sad episode, made more so by the fact that I find his widow such a likable character and hoped she would have a happy ending when the series ends this year (only four episodes left), but it doesn't look like that will be the case.



As I watched the episode, there was talk about what heaven is, and in a flashback the dead husband said that heaven was being surrounded by those you love doing the things you love to do. I thought about how much I love Jonah, and I pondered on the fact that a heaven without Jonah by my side wouldn't be much of a heaven at all. It seems unfair if it isn't so.

I also thought about how hard it would be to lose Jonah (and I think it would be equally hard for him to lose me - heck, he gets really sad when I leave the state for work). After the episode I told him how much I loved him and how he isn't allowed to die.

But of course, we all die some time. Unless we're in freak accident together, chances are very high that somebody will be left behind. It's hard to imagine life without Jonah - without his love, his influence, his support. It would be like losing a part of myself.

Sometimes when I hear ignorant people demean same-sex relationships, it upsets me. The love I have for my partner is just as strong and valid as any opposite-sex relationship. Jonah is such a important and necessary part of my life. Sure, he gets on my nerves, as any spouse might, but I have a hard time imagining my life without him.

I'm glad a trivial show like "Desperate Housewives" helped remind me how much I love my husband and how much he really means to me. That's something I need to learn to hold on to.

Talkin' 'Bout Sex Revisited

After my previous post about sex , my sister reminded me that I wasn't always so open-minded and unfazed about talking about sex.

She reminded me about the day I came home from maturation class in junior high and how embarrassed I had been by what had been taught and discussed. Wide-eyed, I was telling my mom all the things I had learned and explaining it to her as if she didn't already know it (I guess in my naivete I assumed she didn't). I remember her bemused look as she just sat their smiling at the revelations I had received and agreeing that, "Yeah, that's pretty much what happens." In a way, I was surprised she hadn't already revealed all of this to me if she knew it. After all, I was a pretty inquisitive kid about a lot of things. And she and my dad probably had discussed some things with me by that point, but maybe I just hadn't really taken it in until that day.

My sister also reminded me that my mom's visiting teacher, a family friend and a registered nurse, had been at our home as well when I was vomiting all the information I had learned that day, and she. too. confirmed the information I had learned and told me I shouldn't be embarrassed about talking about it. I did not remember that until my sister brought it up, but it's true.

What was nice was that the maturation class had been a nice springboard to talk about sex with my mom, and I think good sex education should inspire those heart-to-hearts a kid should have with his parents. I learned a lot about sex at school, which was great, but I was able to learn more and have frank, unashamed discussions with my parents because of that education.

I will tell you some things I remember from those maturation classes, which I think were taught over the course of two or three days. First off, I don't remember having my parents sign an parental permission slip, which is required in Utah these days. If they did sign one, I do not recall.

Second, I don't remember ever being told that we would be attending maturation classes. All I knew was that I went to gym as usual and we were taken to what was called the Little Theater, where suddenly one of our guidance counselors, who had been my science teacher a year before, was spouting all this information about male body parts and human sexuality. I was, needless to say, shocked and taken aback. It felt like some sort of ambush that I was ill-prepared for. Maybe they had warned us it was coming; I wasn't always the most attentive student in junior high - but I remember feeling completely taken by surprise that it was happening.

Two things I remember with vivid clarity: one was that when the sex act itself was being explained, we were told that even if you pulled out of a woman without protection, that even if you ejaculated outside of her, if the semen was close enough to the vagina, sperm could still get inside and she could become pregnant. In my embarrassment, I turned to a friend and whispered, "Attack of the flying sperm," and giggled.

The other thing (perhaps the thing that sticks out the most after all these years) was that on the second day of maturation class, our female guidance counselor, Mrs. Groot, a woman I didn't particularly like, was talking us through the female reproductive system, and when talking about the vagina, she said, "Now boys, don't worry about the size of your penis in relation to the woman's vagina. No matter how big your penis gets, it will fit like a glove," and she proceeded to push her hand through a hole she had made with her other hand. At the time, I was mortified, and that image of her hand going through her other hand is still indelible.

Of course, we talked about all the basics of male and female anatomy, the mechanics of sex, and STDs. We must have talked about contraceptives, but I have no lasting impression of that. I do not believe homosexuality was discussed; at least I have no memory of it. That would have been nice to hear about as I was just recognizing that part of myself. Who knows if it would have made a difference? I was still very naive about that and probably would have fought against it anyway.

I do remember having a discussion with my mom once about homosexuality, and I actually think it took place prior to my maturation classes in junior high. In 1983 a serial child murderer in Utah named Arthur Gary Bishop confessed to the murder of five young boys. Although he was a pedophile, which certainly is not the same thing as a homosexual, when I would read about the case in The Salt Lake Tribune, issues of homosexual sex did come out, and so I asked my mom how two men can have sex with each other.

Mom tried to answer me as honestly as she knew how, although she was certainly no expert on the ins and outs of homosexual sex. She said that she believed that a man inserted his penis into the other man's bum or that sometimes one might put his penis into the other's mouth. "Yuck," I thought at the time, and it was clear Mom agreed. It just sounded so bizarre to me, but I appreciated my mom being as frank as she knew how to be regarding the issue.

I think sex should be talked about openly and honestly, and I appreciate that my parents always tried to answer my questions about sex as best they knew how, and that I received a good sex education in school. I think it has served me well.

BTW, gay sex doesn't seem so yucky these days.

Talkin' 'Bout Sex

I've been thinking a lot about sex lately...not the actual act, but people's attitudes towards it, especially in Mormon culture. HB363 is a bill that was passed by both the Utah House and the Senate which would have allowed Utah school districts to opt-out of teaching sexual education altogether and which would have required abstinence-only instruction in those that kept it. This in spite of the fact that parents already have the choice to opt their kids out of sex education if they so want to.

I already wrote about this misguided bill here. After it passed in the House, I wrote my senator a letter urging her to vote against it, which I believe she did. And after it passed in the Senate, I wrote Governor Herbert urging him to veto it. To my great surprise and to his great credit, he did.

This whole sex education bill has had me thinking about how we view sex in Mormon culture and how and what we choose to teach our children about sex. And then I have thought about my own sexual relationship with Jonah and how I feel about it. And, coincidentally, I recently heard this very interesting interview with a Mormon sex therapist on The Cultural Hall Podcast, and so my mind has just been swirling with thoughts about sex.

I don't talk about sex much on my blog. Sex for me has always been a personal thing. And I don't expect to talk about the most graphic and intimate details of my sex life. It, frankly, is none of your business.

But I will say this: I am very satisfied by the sexual part of my relationship with Jonah. As far as I can tell, he is, too. I hope so anyway.

I remember at my church disciplinary council, I read a four-page statement explaining why I made the choices I made to be with Jonah, and one of the things I said was that my sin was loving someone of the same sex. One of the brethren challenged me, essentially asking, "You say that your sin was loving someone of the same sex, but really, wasn't your sin having sexual relations with a person of the same sex outside the bounds of what our Heavenly Father has commanded?" At the time, I was taken aback by the question and simply said, "Yes, I guess you could say that is true," but after I thought about it, I was kind of annoyed that I hadn't said, "But aren't we taught that sex is an expression of love between two people? Why is it wrong for two people of the same sex to express that love in a way that is not only accepted, but encouraged, for members of the opposite sex?"

It doesn't seem fair to me. Jonah and I never had sexual relations prior to our commitment ceremony. We weren't two people just looking for a good time or a quick hop in the sack. We were and are two people in a committed, monogamous, loving relationship. Sex is an important and intimate way in which we express our love to each other. I also think we're both very conscious about wanting each other to enjoy the act of sex. The other's pleasure is usually more important than our own, and I think that shows a great expression of love and a desire to meet each other's needs rather than our own. And actually, I think it makes the sex better.

I enjoy sex. Not all the time. Like most people out there having sex, there are times when I am not in the mood. But most of time I enjoy it very much.

If you had told me when I was twenty that there would ever come a time when I wasn't in the mood for sex, I would have thought that impossible. I was a raging bag of hormones back then. I probably could have had sex a few times a day every day if I'd been married or I'd been sexually active. Nowadays, age has curbed my sex drive a bit, although I would say Jonah and I have a healthy and active sexual relationship.

I think in America we don't always have a healthy dialogue when it comes to sex. I think too often sex is such a taboo subject. Coming from a Mormon background, I think this attitude is too often prevalent in Mormon culture, and I think it bleeds into a lot of the problems that we encounter sexually.

Referring to HB363, some things were said on the aforementioned Cultural Hall Podcast such as how there is this attitude that "if we start talking about [sex], people are going to start to think about it...teenagers are going to go out and have sex because now they know it exists," as if they didn't already.

Dr. Emil Harker, the sex therapist that was being interviewed, used the following anecdote to make a point. He said he didn't know if it was based on reality or a joke, but it wouldn't be hard for me to imagine it being based in reality, and regardless, the point is still a good one:

"Small town Utah..the adults decide, 'What we're gonna do is we're really gonna reduce the amount of teen pregnancies' 'cause it's a really big problem in this small community. So what they decide to do is to take anything that would have any association with sex and remove it. So they took all the condoms and they put all the condoms under the counter; so if you needed a condom, you'd have to ask specifically for that. And so what happened was unbeknownst to them, shockingly, pregnancy rates started going up. ...And their explanation was 'Satan is really powerful now.'

There is this attitude that if we don't talk about sex, kids won't do it, but to me that is such a "bury-your-heads-in-the-sand" mentality. And actually, I think the attitude makes things worse; if you don't have a healthy dialogue with your children about sex, it becomes all that more mysterious to them, and they go off in search of answers somewhere else, and sometimes the places they find their answers turn out to be far less healthy than if the parents had just addressed the issue honestly and unabashedly.

Dr. Harker continued, "...There's a huge moral component, and I think sometimes...in an effort to try to sustain a morality base - a value-based education, - what's happening is fear starts to hijack reason...and what happens when that happens is..now the fiber of reason, logic, and understanding - the light of truth - starts to go out because there is no knowledge, and when you make decisions based on poor information, why would we be surprised that the outcomes are turning out crappy?

"...I hear all these people talking about, 'Well if you talk about it, then you're advocating it.' What the crap is that?! We're not advocating it. We're talking about it, we're putting light on it. It doesn't mean we're promoting it, and so this language of advocating; promoting; - that is just political mumbo-jumbo garbage to push their agenda. It isn't about understanding and making good choices based on information. It isn't. It's...dictating, actually..."

One of the interviewers said something I quite liked. He said, "...So the Church teaches that we should be informed. Intelligence is the only thing we take out of our lives with us, and so...I think that a lot of people would assume this bill is kind of being backed by the LDS Church...because it's so conservative, but...I think that the Church, if they were pressed about it, would say, 'You know what? We want people to be informed. We would like you to not have sex out of marriage; that's something that we've said from the very beginning. Read in the scriptures, yes; but, you know, be informed.' People should have knowledge about the consequences if they decide to have premarital sex or sex, in general...once they're inside marriage 'cause some of these things apply...if your partner...was sexually active before you got married..."

I would go further to say that the reason there are probably so many dysfunctional sexual relationships is because people weren't informed about sex enough. As Dr. Harker states, "If we're not getting good information, what kind of choices can we make?"

In Mormonism - and in many other religions - we're sometimes given the impression that sex is a bad thing; a dirty thing; when in fact, sex is one of greatest gifts our Heavenly Father has given us. He just doesn't want us to misuse it.

Now I fully admit that according to Mormon doctrine, I am misusing the procreative power Heavenly Father has blessed me with. But I also don't believe that sex is just about procreation. I don't think it's just about multiplying and replenishing the earth. There are a lot of people having it - yes, even temple-worthy people - who can't have children, and there are a lot of temple-worthy people not having it at all because they are still single and may be for life, so it can't just be about having children.

I think God has blessed us with these powerful and really wonderful feelings to attract us to one another and to share the most intimate part of ourselves with another human being, hopefully in a great expression of love and unity. When you're having sex, a part of you is literally inside another person, and your are a close and intimate as two people could possibly be.

I think sex could stand to be demystified. I think especially when parents don't talk about all the aspects of sex that their children might be curious about as well as those that are necessary for their health and happiness, they aren't doing their kids any favors. I think if they don't get answers from school or from home, they will look elsewhere. Perhaps they will experiment in unsafe ways, thus resulting in unwanted pregnancies, dangerous diseases, and perhaps unhealthy addictions or attitudes. Perhaps they will look for answers in areas that give them an unrealistic and unhealthy picture of sex, such as in pornographic movies or in the solace of prostitutes.

In Utah, state law prohibits the advocating of contraceptives or homosexuality. I feel especially sorry for kids who are gay who are looking for answers in Utah because it's much more difficult for them to be given a healthy outlook as far as homosexual relations go.

I was always taught that masturbation was a sin and spent years and years feeling guilty and terrible about it when if I had just been taught that it was normal and healthy, I wouldn't have had hang-ups about it. Of course, I was taught the homosexuality was wicked and sinful, and it took me quite a while to get over that hurdle. My relationship with Jonah is so incredibly healthy and fulfilling to me. I still fail to understand what is so wrong about two people being together who truly love one another, regardless of their sex.

I don't think it's any great coincidence that there is such a pornography problem among members of the LDS Church. And if you don't think there is one, ask yourself why almost every General Conference has a talk dedicated to it and why there are so many couples going to LDS Family Services to figure out how to tackle it. And I think it is a big issue because there is so much repression in the Mormon faith when it comes to sex.

I am in no way advocating that Mormons need to flout the rules and start having sex. I'm saying that we shouldn't be afraid of talking about it in honest and meaningful ways. Mormons should not be afraid and embarrassed about it.

I knew a girl from Utah County (and yes, I am picking on Utah County because I am biased against it) who in her early 20s, no joke, thought she could get pregnant by French kissing a guy. Her 20s!!! What kind of education was she lacking as far as sex goes? How does someone go through life that long without getting a proper sexual education. Needless to say, she was very sheltered and her parents were very conservative. I was one of the first gay people she ever knew, and she told me after working with me that I had really changed the attitudes she had previously had about gay people. I don't necessarily think she was pro-gay, but what she had been taught (or not taught) about gay people did not match what she was experiencing actually knowing and caring for one.

I think sometimes because we grow up thinking that sex is wrong (until marriage, that is), we develop unhealthy attitudes towards it. It can create dysfunction. A new bride might not want to have sex because it makes her feel dirty even though it's not supposed to be. Or a new groom may think, "Wow, I can have sex now," and not put his wife before his own sexual gratification. Some couples may be so ignorant about sex that when they finally do end up having it, it is a terrible experience. I think there can be so much baggage attached to a poor sexual education.

I love how I feel when I am having sex with Jonah. Sometimes it is mindblowingly wonderful. Not every time, but there are times when it is so great. And there are also times when we are so comfortable and in love that sex is not even necessary. Sometimes I like foreplay even more than than sex act itself. Other times I am all about the act of sexual intercourse. But the cool thing is we just love each other. We care about each other's needs and wants sexually. It's not just about me. It's not just about him. It's truly about us. And I think that's what sex should be.

I'm glad we waited to have sex until after our commitment ceremony. It gave us two years to become friends and base a relationship on more than just sex. I have a friend who spent years sleeping with guy after guy after guy, never taking the time to get to know each one before she jumped in the sack with them, and she could never figure out why she couldn't sustain a relationship. She's thankfully past that stage and seems to have finally found someone that she's happy with.

I don't think sex should be a burden or uncomfortable or a chore. It should and can be really awesome. But I think sometimes our lack of education or unhealthy attitudes developed by either or both partners can cause it to be less than so. I also think good communication is absolutely key in a sexual relationship, and I think because we grow up in a culture where so often we're afraid or embarrassed or reluctant to talk about it, we bring those attitudes into the bedroom and don't discuss things with our partners, and really, if you don't talk about it, how are you going to make it better and more fulfilling?

You have to read a manual to learn how to drive. You have to take a bunch of classes in your chosen field to get a degree in it. Why should sex be any different? To be really good, you've got to have a good education and practice, practice, practice.

I really think the philosophy of fear and ignorance is Satan's domain. The philosophy of love and intelligence is God's.

Jonah Needs More

I don't think I've ever said much about what Jonah does career-wise. Currently he is a wardrobe attendant (a dresser) for a pretty big show. For those of you unfamiliar with the theatre world, that means he helps actors put on their costumes backstage during the show and helps with quick changes or costume repairs.

Jonah is really good at what he does, and this particular job has been a real blessing for both of us, but it would be a lie to say that Jonah's dream job is that of "wardrobe attendant." Jonah is an artist and a performer, and that's really what he would like to be doing. Jonah is good at so many things. He could excel in so many different occupations: performing, interior decorating, flower-arranging, party-planning, making and selling art, costume design, gardening, etc. I sometimes marvel at how talented he is in so many things. I think I'm a good writer, a good actor, a good public speaker, and a decent teacher, but I just think Jonah is capable of so many different things, and he's really, really good at them.

The job he currently holds, which he is also very good at, does not feed his artistic and creative nature, and it is admittedly hard for him to watch other performers perform while he sits on the sidelines hanging up and ironing costumes.

But he does his job well, is very diligent, and rarely complains. But I also know he is sick of his job and yearns to do something more fulfilling. Still, that being said, Jonah is typically optimistic and good-natured and I rarely hear him utter a word of envy.

So I was taken aback a bit this afternoon when Jonah said something that is quite uncharacteristic of him. Some of his friend who perform in the show he works for have been given the honor of singing backup for Jennifer Hudson, a singer whom Jonah admires a great deal. Jonah, who has a gorgeous voice, is certainly capable of singing backup for Jennifer Hudson (and actually, he's a better singer than some of the people performing in his show, truth be told). Anyway, I think he's gotten a little sick of hearing some of them brag about it.

As he were working on our yard this afternoon, he said something akin to "I'm just as good as them. I could sing backup for Jennifer Hudson. Instead, I've wasted six years of my life at this job."

I was only surprised because it's so rare to hear a jealous or self-pitying word from Jonah. Usually it's me who says stuff like that. For example, I've had friends in Broadway shows or acquaintances get jobs that I was up for that I felt more right for, and that's when the green-eyed monster of envy sometimes makes his appearance. But Jonah? He's not like that.

I actually stopped him (literally and physically stopped him) and said, "Hey. You have not wasted your life doing this job. This job is why you and I have a house together. I know it isn't what you want to be doing, but you have worked hard and worked well, and it will be over soon, and then you can move on to something else. But it hasn't been a waste."

Jonah's job ends in September. Who knows what he'll do next? Whatever it is, he'll be brilliant at it. I only help it will feed his creative soul and allow him to fly.


He deserves that.

???

Today on Facebook somebody I actually like quite a bit called me narrow-minded. I was surprised by this comment. There are many things a person could call me that wouldn't bother me, but narrow-mindedness is not one of them. I take pride in the fact that I try very hard to be an open-minded person. Do I always succeed? No, but I really do try to see all sides of an issue, and I consider myself to be pretty open-minded, so her comment really bothered me.

On the flip side, her comment was a reaction to a negative comment I made about Sarah Palin, so I'm not sure how much credence I should give it. After all, I don't see how my thinking that Sarah Palin wouldn't have made a good vice-president (or, help us all, a good president) makes me narrow-minded. I fully support her right to disagree with me about Sarah Palin, but how does that make me narrow-minded?

Any thoughts?

Defending Kirk Cameron...Sort Of

So the other day former 80s star Kirk Cameron was on Piers Morgan and said the following about gay marriage and homosexuality:



"Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't."

"I think that it's -- it's – it's unnatural. I think that it's -- it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."

Well, obviously I don't agree with his points-of-view regarding homosexuality and gay marriage nor do I defend those particular remarks, but I do defend Kirk Cameron's right to say whatever he believes regardless of how I feel about it.

After he made his comments, several people verbally attacked him, calling him hateful and bigoted. Roseanne Barr called him "an accomplice to murder." Others made snarky comments about his acting career (or lack thereof).

I agree that Kirk Cameron's comments are prejudiced. Those prejudices are shaped by what he's experienced and has been taught and believes. We all have them. So in that respect, I suppose he is bigoted against gay people. The fact that he believes homosexuality to be unnatural, detrimental, and destructive belies a certain ignorance that I don't agree with. However, I do get a little annoyed when those who support gay rights automatically accuse those who don't support gay rights of hating gay people. Some do, but I don't think it's a blanket statement one can use to describe anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong.

Do I think Kirk Cameron's beliefs regarding homosexuality and gay marriage are mistaken? You betcha! Do I think he hates gay people? I think it's a stretch, honestly. Certainly I think he has some prejudicial baggage that he carries around with him. Certainly I think his beliefs are based on a certain ignorance about who gay people really are and what they really want. But hate? I just don't quite buy it.

Let me give you an example. I suspect that my brother doesn't agree that a homosexual relationship is what God intends for me. I think my sister-in-law probably feels the same. But I also feel that they don't judge me for any choices I have made to be in one, and no one could ever accuse them of not being supportive of my relationship with Jonah. Do I think they ultimately think that my relationship is contrary to what they believe according to their religious convictions? Yes. Do I think they hate me or even disapprove of me? Not at all. They have shown (as have all my family members) a great deal of love and support for me and my spouse. They have welcomed and accepted us for who we are. I feel my family members, whether they agree that homosexuality is morally righteous or not, have treated me as they have always treated me: with love and respect.

It drives me crazy sometimes when gay activists demand tolerance from those who disagree with them when they often refuse to extend that same tolerance to them. i understand the anger, the annoyance, the refusal to accept anything less than equality; but I am not a fan of the barbs and snarky and sometimes hateful rhetoric that come from either side of the issue.

I certainly don't agree with all of this article, but I do get where the guy is coming from.

I watched a program about gay issues recently, and the commentator was blasting Christians, not recognizing that his own bigotry towards Christians was just as prevalent as the bigotry towards gays he was accusing them of and furthermore, not recognizing that some gay people ARE Christians.



Certainly there are those out there who decry homosexuality in a hateful, completely bigoted way. Then there are others who are prejudiced against gay rights, but aren't bad people; just misinformed, in my opinion.

Of the interview with Cameron, Piers Morgan said, "I felt that he was honest to what he believed, and I don’t think he was expecting the furor that it created… I don’t think I was- it’s been trending worldwide on Twitter for 25 hours.”



Kirk Cameron responded to the "furor" by saying,

"I spoke as honestly as I could, but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community. That is not true. I can assuredly say that it's my life's mission to love all people.

"I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years -- without being slandered, accused of hate speech and told from those who preach 'tolerance' that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I'm in the public square."

"I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect. I've been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally)."

Again, while I don't support his beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage, I think he has a point about being able to express what he believes without being maligned for it. Certainly I think he should expect that people are going to strongly and vehemently disagree with him (as well they should), but I think people can disagree with each other without being disagreeable.

I remember when the Prop 8 stuff happened, a Mormon in a high position in the theatre community was basically forced to resign from his job for donating money to support Prop 8. Even though I didn't agree with his view on Prop 8, I always felt bad that he was pushed out of his career because of the backlash simply for standing up for what he believed in. Yeah, I think what he believed was wrong, and yeah, his actions were going to have consequences, but I never got the impression he hated gay people. He worked with them all the time and got along with them and even loved them. And it's understandable that those people may have taken his decision to donate money to support a bill that would deny them certain rights as a slap in the face. But I still felt bad that two opposing sides couldn't still figure out a way to live harmoniously even while disagreeing.

I just don't think that everybody who disagrees with homosexuality is coming from a place of hate. Ignorance, perhaps. Prejudice, perhaps. But hate? Not always.

It's so easy to throw around the H-word. But it seems like a a huge jump to go from "You disagree with me; therefore you must hate me." It just doesn't compute for me.

I recently saw an episode of the Primetime show, "What Would You Do?"



For those of unfamiliar with the show, I find it a fascinating program. Hosted by John Quinones, the show sets up everyday scenarios with actors that reflect on how people react, why they react, and when they decide to. Usually the scenarios involve social injustices or potentially controversial or hot-button issues. It mainly looks at how people react when faced with everyday dilemmas that test their character and values.

For example, a scenario might be set up where a kid confesses to his father in the earshot of other people that he is gay, and the father reacts badly. Or another scenario might be a Muslim woman being verbally attacked by by prejudiced storekeeper. Anyway, actors play out the scenario in front of unsuspecting bystanders, and then how those bystanders react (or don't react) is the basis of the show.

The one I saw the other night was filmed in Utah. Some of the scenarios included a newly engaged LDS boyfriend berates his fiance when she confesses she's not a virgin; an abusive boyfriend mistreats his girlfriend; a son confesses his homosexuality to his dad; a girl shoplifts from a store; and a white father berates his daughter when he discovers her boyfriend is black.

In the last scenario the black boyfriend was actually played by an actor I know. During the scenario, at one point the boyfriend and girlfriend leave, and bystanders had a chance to speak with the father alone. A couple of ladies agreed with the father that a black boy and white girl didn't belong together. One of the women was an old lady clearly from a generation where those kind of prejudicial beliefs were commonplace. She believed what she believed, and while I completely disagreed with those bigoted beliefs, I also sensed that she didn't have a mean or hateful bone in her body. Misinformed bones and ignorant bones, maybe; bones that come from a lifetime of prejudiced beliefs, definitely; but hateful? I didn't sense that, nor did my black actor friend, who gave the woman a hug and by doing so, rose above what could have been something he could have chosen to react to more negatively, and perhaps rightly so.

I don't care for people who use religion as a way to oppress or disenfranchise others. I don't agree with people whose religious beliefs give them such tunnel vision that they forget to be loving and merciful and nonjudgmental. Kirk Cameron has said many things (not just in this instance) that I disagree with, and I think he can come across as bit overzealous with his personal belief system, but I don't find him hateful. Just wrong.

You Can't Go Home Again

The other day two of my fellow grads from my graduate program and I happened to all be in town at the same time and decided to get together because we had not seen each other in a while. One of us still lives here on a regular basis and still has regular contact with the Theatre Department. I'm only here from time to time, and the other hadn't been here in a a couple of years.

We all graduated in 2007, and it's hard to believe it's been five years since we left a program that was a very integral part of our lives for three years. Since then, another graduate class has come and gone, and a new one is about halfway through the program.

It was fun to catch up with one another and talk about what we knew of our remaining class (there were 13 of us total) and to discuss what we had taken from the program and what we had chosen to discard.

When we attended the university from 2004-2007 the economy was better, the theatre program was more robust, and its reputation more solid. Now, it seems like a shell of its former self. This particular university is going through major budget cuts. Faculty members have been let go, programs have been eliminated and butchered, assistantships have been reduced. It's not the same program my friends and I attended.

We took a little tour of the campus we had once roamed so often and walked down the hallways and in the classrooms that had literally felt like our home. It felt strange. First of all, the place seemed abandoned; not nearly as vibrant as I remember it being when I attended. Second, it just seemed like there was hardly anyone there we knew anymore. This had once been the center of our lives, and now it was like visiting an almost unfamiliar place lacking in any of the warmth and comfort I had felt when I was attending.

We were also here as graduates rather than as students. We've all matured and aged. One friend said she wished she had had the same maturity then as she feels she has now. I knew what she meant. I was one of the oldest in my class, and I think it served me well. I actually am more out-of-shape than I was then, and I wondered if my body would even be able to handle what we did then. It probably would after a while of conditioning, but just the thought of the physical and mental requirements of the program actually wore me out.

In the Theatre Department itself two major program emphases were cut entirely, and two were combined. The faculty has changed somewhat as well. While my two main professors are still there, much of the faculty has been eliminated or have moved on to other things. The program no longer feels as prestigious as it once did, and I think that's sad because I really enjoyed it a lot. I'm so glad I went when I did rather than now. I just wish the current students were getting the kind of program I had. Maybe it's still good, but I have heard from several sources that morale is low and that the quality of the program is not what it once was. It's really too bad.

I also hear it's much harder to pay for now. When I was there, we got assistantships to help us pay for school. They still have them, but not as many, so not all students get the same advantage I did.

We did see a professor we knew (who, rumor has it, is also on his way out) as well as some of the administrative staff, who remembered us well.

It was fun to get together with my friends and catch up. We all agreed we were glad we had attended when we did and not today.

Well, That Lasted Long

My little hiatus from going to to church was short-lived. I missed it, truth be told. I still don't know that I will go every week, but I really felt like going the last two weeks. I missed two weeks ago because Jonah and I had some things to do, but I went on Sunday. I used to attend the ward that meets at 11:00 AM, which I quite liked. But at the beginning of the year they switched places with another ward and now meet at 9:00 AM, which is a bit early for this night owl.

I tried attending the other ward at 11:00, but really didn't care for it, so I got up early on Sunday and went to my original ward. I was glad I went.

Sunday School wasn't much to shout about, but I quite enjoyed Sacrament Meeting. The bishop's two counselors were released, but the bishop is staying on. Those three men have been the bishopric since I started attending this ward three and a half years ago.

Since it was testimony meeting, the stake president had the old counselors, the new counselors, and the bishop bear their testimonies. The first counselor talked about how a couple of years ago he was called into the stake president's office and almost cried because he thought he was being released, and even though the job was challenging, he didn't feel it was time for him to be done. He was relieved when he discovered that the stake president had wanted to meet him about another matter. But he said when he was called this time, he felt it was time to be released.

As he spoke, I was reminded of the mantle I felt I possessed when I was a full-time missionary. I can't deny that mantle and the spiritual experiences I had as a missionary. I did things as a missionary that I don't think I would be so apt to do now, and I feel that a lot of that was due to the Lord's power and that mantle I felt. I didn't realize how much it was present until I was released. There truly is a power in the Priesthood which I do not claim to fully understand, but I do believe in it.

The second counselor was quite emotional. It was clear he had enjoyed and learned much from his calling and that he would miss it.

The new first counselor is a man that I like very much. He has served as Gospel Doctrine teacher since I have been attending the ward, and I think he's a good teacher. I will miss his lessons, and it sounded like he will miss teaching them. He jokingly said that his first duty before he is released as first counselor someday is to call himself as Gospel Doctrine teacher again.

He told about how much this ward has meant to him and talked about how many years ago he was called as Young Men's leader, but was specifically told when he was set apart that he was not only to be the leader for the young men in the ward, but all those young men, Mormon or not, who were within the ward boundaries. Through one of his member young men, he met a young boy who was in foster care whose mother had abandoned him. He eventually took this kid in and basically raised him, and that kid, who is now an adult, had eventually joined the church and was sitting in the congregation with his wife and child. I just thought it was a neat story and showed the influence one person can have on another person's life.

The new first counselor also said how grateful he was that his sister had come from Utah to see him set apart in his new calling. He said many years ago he had received a phone call when she was pregnant that she had gone into very early labor and might not live because of complications. As he flew to Salt Lake City, he wondered if he would make it in time to see his sister living. He said when he got there, she was still alive, but in very critical condition. She had delivered a one-and-a-half-pound baby by Cesarean. He gave both his sister and the baby a Priesthood blessing, and she eventually recovered, and here she was in the congregation today. (He did not mention the baby, but towards the end of the meeting his niece got up and declared that she was that miracle one-and-a-half-pound baby and that she felt that God working through her uncle's Priesthood blessing had been responsible for her survival.)

The first counselor said he also owed a debt to his mother, who had raised a bishop, a first counselor, a policeman, and a doctor without even knowing what the effect of her parenting would be. It made me think of how as parents we should raise our kids to be grand things, whatever those grand things may be. I this this brother will do a great job in his new calling.

The new second counselor talked about how the Lord can speak and walk with us; that callings are opportunities and gifts. He said we may sometimes question how or why Heavenly Father does things the way He does, but that He is always with us and loves us.

The bishop got up and spoke about how he had felt impressed to release his old counselors and sustain new ones, but also didn't feel like it was his own time to be released nor did the stake president. He talked about what wonderful men his counselors were. He reiterated that "who the Lord calls, He qualifies." He said that serving others increases your perspective.

Other people spoke. One woman said all of her boys were now officiating in the Sacrament in some capacity (either as deacon, teacher, or priest) and that that was a new experience for her and made her a feel both proud and a little old. Another woman had high praise for the new first counselor, saying that when he was her home teacher, he was terrific and largely responsible for helping her and her husband become temple-worthy. I don't doubt it. Another man who just moved here from Germany said he has really felt welcome in this ward (I actually think that is one of the strongest traits of this particular ward: they are very good at making you feel welcome and included and doing it in a very heartfelt and genuine way. I think that's vital.)

Another man talked about serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and how when he and another man were told they would be flying out soon, the other man cried because he was serving as a bishop at the time and felt so good about serving his ward members that he didn't want to be released. Another woman talked about how she had lived in Japan for a while and had been called to serve in the Primary in spite of the fact that she knew no Japanese and the kids knew no English. Yet, she said she accepted it and what she learned in that calling had great impact in her life and she has been grateful for it ever since. She said something I really liked, which I feel I can apply to my own situation: "The Lord knows us well, what we need, what we're capable of, and how to help us." Amen, sister!

I really felt a lot of impressions about the callings God gives us in life and the spirit of what testimony is all about. I was really glad I went. I missed it.

Old Photographs

Jonah loves to window shop in antique and vintage stores. It's not my thing, but I go with him because he enjoys it. Although I often get burned out "antiquing," I am very interested in history. One of my favorite things is seeing an item and being able to attach it to a moment in history. For example, the other day we were in a store that had an old civil war canteen, and it just fascinates me to think that a real person held and used that canteen, perhaps in the midst of a battle. Stuff like that makes history come alive for me.

I remember a friend's great-grandfather was one of Charlie Chaplin's cameramen, and she had one of the canes Chaplin had used as his tramp character, which he had given to her great-grandfather as a gift. I remember holding it and thinking, "I'm holding a cane that Charlie Chaplin once held and used.



I felt the same way when I was walking on the floor of Mozart's apartment in Vienna



or looking at a balcony where Hitler had once given a speech.



It's one thing to see things and events in pictures or in books, but to see or hold a piece of history in the flesh just makes it that much more real to me.

I love looking at old photographs. It doesn't matter if I know the people or not. Black and white photographs fascinate me the most. I especially like photos from the late 1800s or the turn of the century. I love looking at what people are wearing or how much cities have changed.

The cool thing about photos - any photo - it that it captures a moment in time. Regardless of whether the people in the photo are old or dead, that moment when it was taken is captured forever, and I find that so intriguing.

I look at photos from my own past and can remember exactly what was going on the moment a particular photo was taken, and it almost feels like magic.

Famous photos of historical events like Lincoln and Grant at Antietam



or the soldiers lifting the flag at Iwo Jima



or Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald



or the first flight at Kitty Hawk



or the police dog attacking the young black man at Birmingham



or the Kent state shootings



have come and gone, but the moments are captured forever and burned into our brains. We may not have been there, but we are still witnesses to actual moments in time.

I like to look at old photos of people I don't know and speculate on who they were and what they were like. They may be anonymous people in photos, but they represent real people who actually existed and lived and breathed and had lives.

I recently saw a photo of some dead soldiers in the Civil War, and I thought, "These were real people with families and hopes and dreams, and here is actual evidence of all that being cut short. War is just as tragic, no matter what era it occurs in.



In one store we were in I found an old photo of a Victorian couple. It kind of fascinated me because in most photos of that era, the people are rarely smiling.



One of the reasons is that exposure time could be up to 15 minutes or more, and for someone to sit and smile that long was probably not as easy as just looking serious. It is also said that because getting your photo taken was a rare luxury, people took these events more seriously. Another theory says that because dental care was not as good back then, people weren't so willing to show their teeth. Regardless of the reason, there aren't many smilers in really old photographs. So this one was intriguing because the woman in the photo was smiling. It wasn't a big smile, but it was a smile, and I found that unusual. The man's expression made him look miserable, which made the caption someone had written on the back even more funny to me: "Grandma and Grandpa Kretchner on their wedding day - 1901."

They were probably happy, but that moment in time captured by that photographer showed a woman with a mischievous smile and a man with a weary look, and who knows why for sure. The husband may just have been tired or he may have been displeased with his marriage day. We'll never know, and that's what is so interesting to me. What was going on in the heads of the individuals in the photo the very moment that is captured for future generations to see.


(This is not the same photo I am referring to.)

I saw another photo just yesterday of what I presumed to be two sisters probably in the early 1800s. Both were probably in their late 20s. One was attractive. The other was kind of plain and was having what looked like a bad hair day. I just found it so interesting. I stared at it for about three minutes.

There's a photo of my family taken in the early 70s. None of us can be accused of having good style by today's standards, but those clothes and hair styles are what we wore in the 70s, and there it is for the rest of the world to see: a moment in time, captured forever.


Disclaimer: Not my family, by the way.

My Sister's Words And An Endorsement

My sister recently wrote a post on her blog in response to this post about why I believe in God. I was touched by much of what she said and asked if I could repost it. She said yes, so here it is:

"I had read [Cody's] beautiful testimony which he posted on his blog. Still not allowed to share it in Church – which is really too bad. It is so powerful and does give insight into acceptance.

"There were some comments made by a few whose names I hadn’t recognized. They’d been following [Cody's] blog for quite some time but had never made comment until [Cody] once again mentioned that he might stop blogging.

"I had told him time and time again that he needed to continue – or needs to rather. It’s not just my selfish desire to read his eloquent words – he has been making a difference for over six years now. Followers have seen him struggle and grow and give advice – though he doesn’t mean it that way. His words just come out so naturally that a reader can’t help but feel some sense of awe.

"Until [Cody's] blog had been pointed out to me – I hadn’t done much research on homosexuality – or same sex attraction rather. Just because one has SSA does not mean that he or she may act upon it – hard as it may be. You either remain celibate and true to your church or true to yourself at the expense of membership. It’s hard. It’s like you’ve been told to multiply and replenish the earth but you’ve also been told NOT to eat the apple.

"There have been many who have become angry or hurt by the decisions of the church. Recently I posted a comment on the website Mormons for Marriages. My thought was that if missionaries teach an unwed heterosexual couple the gospel and have them commit to baptism, they expect the couple will get married first. But what do they expect of a homosexual couple? Would they even bother teaching them?

"[Cody] could have taken a tremendously different path than he did. Between the time he graduated from high school and from the two year college he attended, [Cody] grew into a very bitter person. I had little contact with the prick that he had become.

"It wasn’t because he thought he was a homosexual that put a strain on our relationship – it was just that he would invite Satan – or Satan seemed to hang around his life and I wasn’t thrilled to see his presence crossing over into my own life – denying the fact that with my failing relationship with [Cody], he already had.

"Satan had interfered with the pretty awesome relationship that [Cody] and I had once had. But because we were already at odds with one another when he announced his coming out – I realized then that I just didn’t care. Somewhere between high school and his college graduation, I had stopped caring about [Cody]. The [Cody] I had known had disappeared and a very dark and ugly personality had taken over.

"[Cody] is the first to admit just how dark and ugly his life was. He had been fighting a losing battle practically his entire life. The Church had said, 'You need to behave this way. You need to think that way. You need to repent if you are not in the Mormon Box' – okay – it wasn’t taught entirely with those exact words – but that is the message that was conveyed. Still is at times.

"We are taught to stay in the Mormon lines and yet there is a Mormonad – a youth poster – with a picture of a single daisy amongst several roses in a vase. The caption reads: Dare to be Different. Really? Sometimes I feel chastised for some of the different emotions that I feel. And it’s not just me. It’s every feminist. It’s everyone who has had feelings and desires toward a person who is not of the same faith that we are. It’s every person who has experienced what many may call 'failed' marriages. It’s the person who lost custody because his or her spouse had a 'smoother' attorney.

"From what I understand (I don’t have hard evidence to back this up, so I could be wrong) there was a high suicide rate among the women in the Church in the 60s, unable to live up to all the expectations outlined for them. For years and years those from a black race could join the Church, but could NOT hold the priesthood. It appeared that they had been told, 'You can join the Church but never reap all the benefits that we have to offer.'

"Those who have married a spouse who is not a member of the Church or have a spouse who is inactive or recently divorced may feel excluded with activities or topics of eternal marriage. Even single people who have been looking for straight partners may not always be comfortable with the subject of eternal families and how we need to search for an eternal mate and blah, blah, blah . . . as if they’re not already searching.

"So many meeting will start with, 'of course we want to include our single brothers and sisters . . .' when what they are really doing is just adding salt to the wounds that seem to become deeper with each 'enduring' meeting.

I went from 'single' resentment to a 'budget' hang-up. I understand the need of balancing a checkbook and prioritizing and doing without. I get it. Sitting through the umpteenth meeting with my given financial situation doesn’t change the economy or Roland’s greedy ex. We’ve been behind with attorney fees (have actually lost attorneys) taxes and so forth. We don’t even have anything tangible to show for where our money went. It’s a problem. Rubbing my nose in it isn’t going to change the situation. It’s only going to make me hostile and feel more resentment.

"And now leaders are advising those with same sex attraction NOT to act upon their feelings – to remain unhappy living the gospel. Oh – they don’t say 'Be unhappy' they actually advise the leopard to 'change his spots – or remove them rather' though there are a few that have come to understand that homosexuality is NOT a choice just as being born Hispanic or Asian or any other race is not a choice. It’s in the genes.

"There are many of those who act upon their feelings to share their lives with one of the same sex – they may feel welcome to attend meetings and even feel the love of their fellow members. But over time it becomes trite and mundane. There are still many lessons and talks given that encourage staying within the Mormon lines.

"I recall the day that [Cody] told us that he had decided that he would go on a mission. Blew us away. Where in the world did that even come from? Was my brother back and the impostor of the last two years taken a permanent hike? The transformation that had taken [Cody] from my beloved brother into the arrogant self-centered jerk he’d become was such a gradual one – so gradual that neither of us even saw it was there in the beginning. But the transformation from egotistical angry soul was not. It was like black and white, night and day – nothing gradual about it. And he put in his papers.

I think if [Cody] had remained the impostor slimeball he’d become, it would have led him on a path of destruction. I would have seen gays in a very unpositive manner as so many people do due to some sleazy and corrupt lifestyles that so many gay people take – although there are just as many straight people who choose to lead the sleazy and corrupt life. I would have continued believing that homosexuality is wrong.

"I would have had a Pharisee attitude without researching. I would have kept my eyes closed because I believed that the Church had told me to. I wouldn’t have been open and welcoming to a new idea. Well, new to me.

"I would have forgotten how it feels to be excluded due to culture, life experiences, being single, being poor . . . I suppose there are a great number of people in the Church who feel excluded for one reason or another.

"Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years – it’s been only recently that we’ve become more vocal about it. And yet there are thousands who still close their eyes and refuse to look at gays and lesbians as real people with real feelings. Some choose to lead reprimanded lifestyles while others are really struggling to find their identity, to be happy, to be accepted.

[Cody] came back. He grew into an even better and more accepting human being. He has touched the lives of so many. And he’s given me hope. Given me a new perspective on life. Homosexuality (or same sex attraction) is not a choice – though acting on one’s desires is. The gay man can feel every bit as the straight. He or she can love a partner just as much as a straight man or woman may love a partner. Feelings are real. We don’t often choose whether or not we would like to be attracted to someone. The feelings are there. They are real.

"The Church offers guidelines on how to act and how to dress. (Would Jesus really be offended to see a Snoopy tie on a deacon or 2nd counselor or chastise a woman for wearing a denim skirt or open toed shoes?) guidelines to be conservative and professional overpowering being casual and appearing uncaring.

"Not all members are willing to overlook those who really don’t have the finances of showing up in their idea of 'Sunday Best' for some people the jeans that don’t have holes in them really are their best. If we were to exclude members based on dress code, our ward would have even less youth than we already have. And it isn’t because they’re too lazy to dress appropriately. We just happen to live in a rather financially poor area.

"We need to be happy. God’s kind of happy. The Church offers guidelines, but for most of us I think we need to spread our wings. We need to take the principles that we have learned and continue to soar – but for most of us we need to soar beyond the walls that were created by many members who are trying so hard to live the letter of the law that they are not willing to look at others with the same heart and compassion that God does.

"God loves us completely. He knows who we are and what we can accomplish. He has given us trials to overcome. He has created paths for us to endure. God has. Man hasn’t. I think sometimes we lose sight of that. We’re encouraged to pray for ourselves to know what’s right for us. No one can take away our personal revelation.

"Imperfect members relate these guidelines in various ways. We are encouraged to pray about the things we learn. We need to understand and differentiate between the two. We need to understand God’s will for us versus man’s will for God’s expectations. God is perfect. His children are not.

"There are still some races and cultures who still struggle with acceptance. When those who have homosexual feelings are better accepted, mankind will look for a new group of people to be afraid of, to pick on, and to exclude. Too bad."

I was touched by what she wrote, and all I can say is I agree with what she's written. She speaks the truth, as far as I am concerned.

If you're interested in reading any of my sister's other writings, she's over here. I enjoy reading her blog. Maybe you will, too.

End Of An Era

Last Sunday my former Stake President was released. I have written about him many times here, here, here, and here, among others. He is a really good man and a good friend, and when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, he has grown a lot since he first became my bishop in my singles' ward many years ago.

He's been the Stake President in my old ward for a long, long time. It's weird to think he won't be the Stake leader anymore, and I'm sure it will be an adjustment for him, too.

I called him to thank him for his years of service and for all he ever did to help and support me. I told him I still consider him a good friend. I think he was touched by my call and admitted that his release was "bittersweet."

The new stake presidency consists of a man whose name I did not immediately recognize, my former Stake President's former executive secretary, and my old bishop (a man I have also written about a lot and who I love very much). I think it will be a good group of men.

My former Stake President said after he was released, he had given his keys to the new guy and inadvertently got locked out of the Stake Center. I thought that was both humorous and weirdly metaphorical.

I have nothing but good to say about my former Stake President. He is a good man who I really believe did the best he could in what I'm sure is a very difficult job. I hold him in very high esteem, and I hope whatever is next in his journey will be happy and fulfilling. We plan to get together when I am back in Utah, but this time just as two friends. I think I will like that very much.

Rest In Peace, Davy Jones

I meant to write about this yesterday, but as some of you may or may not know, Davy Jones (formerly of the musical group The Monkees) passed away on Wednesday of a heart attack. He was only 66.

It made me sad. I always liked him, and he leaves behind a family.

I had the biggest crush on Davy Jones. He was the best-looking Monkee in my opinion, and he had a killer accent. I just thought he was to die for. "Daydream Believer" was and is one of my favorite songs.

I'll miss you, Davy Jones. I hope you're serenading them all in heaven.

RIP

Owning One's History

I'm sure some of you have read the latest hoopla in regards to BYU professor Randy Bott's remarks to the Washington Post that come off as racist.

Bott was quoted in the article as having said the following:

"'God has always been discriminatory' when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott... Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

"'What is discrimination?'” Bott asks. 'I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?' Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth—although not in the afterlife—protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. 'You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.'"

Now some are accusing the very popular professor of being racist, and perhaps he is, but in my research of the situation, it appears that the man is only propagating the same speculations that have reared their heads (and often been taught as fact) in the LDS Church's past. The LDS Church claims that none of these "opinions" were actual doctrine and that we don't really know why blacks were denied the priesthood for so many years. Their official statement is as follows:

"The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

"The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

"We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

Bott says he has been misquoted and misrepresented, which may, in fact, be true, but I don't think Bott is the root of the problem; I think the problem is that the LDS Church refuses to acknowledge or own its history. Whether it's the Mountain Meadows Massacre, polygamy, blacks, Mark Hoffman, whatever, it seems the LDS Church is more interested in white-washing or rewriting its history rather than just owning it and admitting its mistakes, and time and time again it gets the Church into trouble. I wonder if the same thing will happen when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.

The LDS Church may NOW condemn racism. The remarks that Professor Bott made may not NOW represent the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church, but they did at one time. I've read apologists' remarks such as this which puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of Professor Bott's head rather than on the LDS Church and its past leaders, who are largely responsible for encouraging the ideas that came out of Professor Bott's mouth, whether they intended them to or not.

Some of the blog posts I've read that somewhat reinforce how I feel about this subject, but say it better than I can include this post at Boys Meets Blog, Jana Riess' statements here, and Joanna Brook's statements here.

It doesn't matter that the LDS Church no longer teaches this stuff. One only need read past remarks by Brighman Young, Mark E. Peterson, Bruce R. McConkie, Ezra Taft Benson, Delbert Stapley, Spencer W. Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, and George Albert Smith, for example, that would definitely be considered racist by today's standards, and whether the LDS Church likes it or not, those statements are a part of its history. Whether the LDS Church likes it or not, those words came out of prophets' and apostles' mouths. Whether they like it or not, members of the Church heard and read those statements and took them to heart and taught them in classes and over pulpits to other members and created generations of individuals who used those words and beliefs as rationalization and support for racism and prejudice.

Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine contains some racist ideas and even though the First Presidency wasn't happy with its publication, it nevertheless was published and remained in LDS bookstores and in LDS homes for years. And with a name like Mormon Doctrine, did the Church not think that members of the Church would accept the ideas in the book as actual doctrine? Did they not think people would revere the words of a man who is largely responsible for the footnotes, topical guide, and Bible dictionary in our own Mormon quads? Heck, this naive return missionary bought his copy of Mormon Doctrinein the MTC and used it regularly.

And even if Bruce R. McConkie himself said something like, "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world" (which he did), did LDS Church leaders really expect everyone to just forget all that.

With the ease of the Internet, anyone in a matter of seconds can find any past statements LDS Church leaders have said concerning this issue, and those things can't just be swept under the rug or ignored just because current revelation says otherwise. Look how many people continued to practice polygamy even after revelation banned it.

Yes, the LDS Church no longer teaches or practices racist policies. Yes, now the Chuch says they don't know why the Priesthood ban occurred or why it was lifted except that it was God's will. Yes, now the Church condemns racism. And yes, Professor Bott shouldn't teach speculation as fact (which I'm not sure he was even doing), but don't blame Professor Bott for being a child of that speculation, which for many years was taught and bandied about as if it was fact by men in authority who, even if they were just spouting their opinions, should have known that as prophets and apostles, their words would be heeded and adhered to by many in the Church.

The LDS Church can't pretend that what once existed never existed because it did, in fact, exist. Own your history! Apologize for any mistakes or misunderstandings or misconceptions that arose due to your history. And move on and hopefully learn from your mistakes and correct misguided behaviors (it won't be surprising to me at all if these same mistakes are repeated concerning homosexuality, but that's probably many years down the road long after I'm dead).

Anyway, that's my two cents.