The Other Guy: Letting Go Of Anger

A trait I feel I have been blessed with is my ability to not hang on to anger and not hold grudges. This doesn't mean I don't get angry (I do) or feel tempted to bear grudges (I am) nor does it mean that I haven't held grudges in my life (I have). As I get older, though, I find I am better about not holding on to anger and that I get over angry feelings relatively quickly. I'm glad this is a trait I possess. It sometimes makes life easier to deal with, especially when bad or painful situations are tossed my way.
I hope my saying that I feel I have this trait doesn't sound boastful. I truly do not mean it that way. I am just grateful it seems to be a gift God has blessed me with. Believe you me, there are other things I am not so good at, so I'm grateful for the positive traits I feel I do have.

Faithful readers of my blog may remember this post from a few months ago when I talked about trying to find the positive after some vandal randomly chose to break my car windshield. It was a senseless act and one which I was not too happy to experience, but I moved on from it pretty quickly.

While at work on Friday, I received a call from my mom. She called my actual work, which is unusual, so I knew it must be an emergency. I figured it must be something dementia-related, but it wasn't. She let me know that the Utah Transit Authority Police had called her because my car, which was left parked at the Murray-Fashion Place TRAX station (part of the Salt Lake Valley's public transportation system) had been broken into. Mom wasn't too clear on all the details, but it sounded like someone had smashed my window and possibly stolen some stuff.

I spent the last hour of rehearsal for my show worrying about my car and wondering what the thief or thieves could possibly have wanted to steal out of my car. Aside from some home-burned CDs, a broken iPod radio receiver, an out-of-date GPS, my car stereo system, and a snow brush, there really wasn't much to steal. And aside from the snow brush and the radio, none of those were in plain sight.

After calling the Utah Transit Authority Police office to let them know I was on my way, I was told a policeman would be there to take my report and to confirm with me whether anything had indeed been stolen. Once I got to the station, I checked my car. Someone had tried to pry the rear driver's side window open and ended up completely shattering it. There was glass everywhere and in places I wouldn't have expected it to go. For example, glass shards ended up in the crack where my trunk door hinges. A few pieces were on the driver's seat and in the window well of the back windshield. Most, of course, was all over the back seat and on the floor. It was a mess.





Much to my surprise, nothing was stolen. My stereo, my outdated GPS, my piece-of-crap iPod receiver, which I keep intending to throw away but never remember to, my homemade CDs, my snow brush, and all the papers in my glove box were accounted for. The policeman, who was in the vicinity, but whom I hadn't seen, told me he was sorry and asked if anything was stolen. I told him it didn't appear so. As I suspected, they had no leads. The theory is that the thief (or thieves) tried to wedge my rear window open with the intent of robbing me, but when the window shattered, possibly they freaked out and left. My guess is that they were after the GPS because the box it came in was under the driver's seat and perhaps they saw that. That didn't get stolen, either. I almost wish it had. That would have been a nice joke on them (as would the iPod radio adaptor).

While I was grateful they didn't steal anything, I almost wish they had just to make the broken window seem worth the trouble. Instead, like my last windshield breakage, it just seemed so pointless. Couldn't they have saved a step and not broken the window at all? Truly, the only thing they could have stolen that would have been annoying would be the GPS because I do use it a lot. But I also need a more up-to-date one, so even that wouldn't have been an irreplaceable loss.

Unlike the last time my car window was broken, I had a harder time letting go of my anger this time. I was angry. Angry at the inconvenience of getting my car repaired; angry at the cost of it at a time when I feel like I'm finally just getting back on top of my finances again; angry that the incident had caused my mom so much worry; angry that in an area that is usually so well-patrolled by the police, somehow this person (or these persons) could break into my car in broad daylight in an area that was highly visible; angry that of all the cars in the lot, mine and mine alone was the one they chose to damage; angry that the thief or thieves caused me to doubt my faith in humanity and in the innate goodness of man; angry that people must be so dishonest and selfish; etc.

My first thought was "I hope the jerk that did this gets what's coming to them." However, as time allowed me to cool down, I actually feel sorry for the thief. I'm sorry they are in a position in life where they feel their best option is to steal and/or damage another person's property. And I'm sorry the values they have been instilled with make them think that such behavior is okay.

I wondered if the perpetrator felt any remorse for his or her actions or if they ever will. Do they ever think about the consequences? Do they just feel a momentary rush from damaging someone's property or stealing someone's stuff and never think about it again? Or do they consider the damage they've caused; the sense of security they have stolen; the mess they have made; the cost and inconvenience they have caused the victim? I'd like to believe they do, but I suspect they don't.

In my prayers Friday night I only asked that the person who did this would feel remorse for their actions; not because I want God to punish them with bad feelings, but only because I would hope whatever situation they find themselves in that makes them desperate enough to break into another person's car, that they realize that that isn't the best solution and is ultimately more damaging to their soul than it is to me. I asked God to help them find a better way to get what they want; that if they're involved in something that is destructive to their well-being (for example, drugs or a gang or a life of crime), that they could find a way out; that they could know that Heavenly Father loves them and feel His love; that they know that this type of behavior will not help them be happy.

It was interesting; as I tried to let go of my selfish concerns - how much this was going to cost, when I would find time to repair this, what I would do for transportation the next day, etc. - and put my concern on the perpetrator, my anger dissipated. The fact is, this would-be thief is a person. It's so easy to see a thief or a vandal in the abstract and automatically endow them with negative qualities. It's true that this person may just be a horrible person, but it's equally likely that they are a lost and desperate soul at their wit's end. They could be struggling with issues that I can't even comprehend. That doesn't make what they did right or excusable, but I find it easier to forgive them if I endow them with sympathetic qualities. The fact is, I don't know who this person (or people) is (or are) or what cards life has dealt them that would put them in a position where they think breaking into another person's car is necessary or the only option at their disposal, nor do I think I will ever know in this lifetime. And really, I'm out $120 or so and perhaps some lost time and convenience; my perpetrator is dealing with soul-damaging consequences, whether he or she even realizes it yet. So, really, who's worse off, me or them?  I just hope whoever did this can find a better way to go through life than stealing and damaging other people's stuff.

The good news is nothing was stolen; the mess is cleaned up; my window frame is not so damaged that Technaglass can't repair it along with the broken window (which they are doing tomorrow during a time when I actually don't have to be to work, so that worked out well); the repair should only take an hour; the repair is estimated at $117, which is lower than I thought it would be, and even though it wasn't what I was planning on using my money for, the fact is I DO have the money to cover it (as well as a generous mother who offered to pay for it); and I have a $25-off coupon, so that will help a bit, too. So I'm in good shape and very blessed. It's the other guy - the vandal and would-be thief - I worry about.  After all, I'd rather have a shattered window than a shattered soul.

It's all about perspective, which I've discussed before in this blog. Actually, I'm also gaining new perspectives on my mom's dementia issues as well, which I hope to write about soon. Perspective and attitude are great keys to happiness, in my opinion. So is letting go of all the negative stuff.

MTC Memories

I'm not sure why this has even been on my mind lately, but recently I was thinking about my time in the Missionary Training Center when I was a missionary.

I actually quite enjoyed the MTC, although I did get a little stir crazy towards the end. I was there for 2 months, and although I found much of it very spiritual, I did start to feel like a caged rat by the end.

It helped that I really wanted to serve a mission at the time that I went. I knew why I was there and wanted to be there and felt like I was soaking everything up that the MTC had to offer, so that was nice.

One thing I remember about the MTC was so how calm and peaceful it felt at times. I think a reverent attitude is kind of cultivated at the MTC. Yeah, you have many instances of "boys will be boys" letting off steam and fooling around, but I just remember a very calm, quiet spirit at the MTC. I remember walking from our dorm, for example, to the building that housed our classroom, and I remember especially in the evening it just felt very still and calming. There was definitely a spirit there that was pleasant to me.

I remember all the classes and lectures and training we attended, and many times it was very rewarding spiritually. I remember one time, in particular, when an Elder was asked to take on the persona of Joseph Smith, and the other missionaries in my district of 10 could ask him questions, and he would answer as he believed Joseph Smith would answer. I remember it distinctly because this Elder was not always the most well-behaved, reverent individual (although he was a good guy and turned out to be a good missionary), but in that exercise he became very serious and it almost felt like Joseph Smith had somehow rested his mantle on that Elder for those few minutes. And I remember the spirit I felt, and I remember just believing so strongly that what Joseph claimed he saw and did was true.

I remember when our teachers would be merciful and let us leave the classroom for a bit and take a chaperoned walk around the MTC campus. That was so wonderful, especially during those times when we were feeling like caged animals.

I remember a great lesson a Sister taught us about looking for Christ in everything around us, and we went outside and tried to find testimonies of Christ in nature, in architecture, in people, etc., and it was something that really stuck with me and something I try to experiment with even to this day.

I remember a particular P-Day when all the other elders were playing football or Frisbee or something on the lawn across from the MTC, and I was sitting on the lawn feeling the cool breeze, and I had my earphones on, and the primary song "My Heavenly Father Loves Me (Whenever I Hear the Song of a Bird)" was being sung by a child, and I just felt so close to heaven in that moment.

I remember being terrified after having spent weeks speaking French and finally feeling like I was understanding it well and then watching a French-dubbed version of Together Forever , and I couldn't understand a word. It freaked me out.

I remember being so excited when it came close to our time to depart (as I'd been excited when I arrived and later said goodbye to my family). Scared, too, but more excited than anything. After all the training, we'd finally get a chance to put it to good use.

I remember liking the very rare times I actually got to leave the MTC. One time was to leave to take care of some passport issues, and another time was when my companion had to have his eyes checked, I think. The mall never looked so welcome.

I remember one other spiritual experience I had at the MTC that has really stuck with me (and which was echoed a few years later when my younger sister went through the temple in preparation for her own mission). Marvin J. Ashton, who was an apostle at the time I served my mission, came to speak to us and was the highest-ranking general authority who spoke to us while I was at the MTC. I do not remember anything he said (though I probably have it written in my journal), but what I do remember is this: when Elder Ashton entered the room, my back was to him. There was no audible sound from the missionaries behind me when he entered the room, but I felt a strong spiritual presence and knew somebody filled with the Spirit had entered the room before my conscious mind knew it.



I might think it was some sort of fluke if the exact same thing hadn't happened when my sister went through the Salt Lake Temple. Elder Richard G. Scott joined our session and entered from behind me, and I felt that same spiritual rush before being consciously aware that he was in the room. No matter what I may sometimes think of the Church and some of its policies, I can't deny that I felt something unique and spiritual when I encountered those two apostles. They were full of a spiritual energy that I can't quite describe, and I felt it.

On the other hand, I once made a malt for Thomas S. Monson when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and I worked at a local ice cream parlor in Salt Lake. While I found Elder Monson and his wife both pleasant and kind, I did not feel that same energy. Of course, I was also not in a very receptive place in my life at the time, and maybe that feeling only comes to me when I'm in a more spiritual environment.

Anyway, those are some positives I remember from my time in the MTC. There were things I didn't like about the MTC, too.

I didn't enjoy the conformity of the MTC and of mission-life in general. I found that neckties seemed to be one way I could express my individuality in an environment that did not always encourage it. I remember a particular Elder in my district criticizing my tie because he thought it was too flashy and flamboyant for a missionary to wear. Always being a non-conformist and finding the Elder a bit self-righteous, I was angered by his words and in a fit of rebellion tried to wear my most outlandish ties just to annoy him.

I remember that even though I enjoyed the food at the MTC, it didn't always enjoy me. It made for a lot of bloating and gas, as I'm sure other returned missionaries would attest.

I hated getting up early. Still do. In my entire two years as a missionary I never got used to getting up so early.

I found all the rules and the strict environment necessary, but no less annoying. I kind of like to play by my own rulebook sometimes, so that was challenging, but I tried to be obedient.

I was not a fan of the MTC showers. Being body self-conscious and not wanting to be tempted to look at things I shouldn't look at were not made easy by the MTC showers. I was lucky in a way. Our showers looked like this:



No doors or curtains to hide behind, but at least they were stalls and were private enough to not feel so self-conscious or feed the temptation to sneak a peek at another naked elder. When I would do Celestial Service (read: free labor) in other dorms, I was so thankful I hadn't been assigned to a floor with the more common showers: communal showers which looked more like this:



While my homosexual attractions were more "in check" at that time, the last thing this gay boy needed was to be showering with a bunch of other naked boys. I'm sure the MTC probably designed these showers because they are easier to clean, possibly save more water, and deter masturbation, but to me they just seemed like a breeding ground for inappropriate thoughts. I was glad I had my stall and that I could put my towel on the overhanging towel bar and create a sort of "door" that would shield others from me and me from others. In the long run, I think it was more healthy for me at the time.

I remember not taking much of a shine to the Missionary Guide. I tried to use it faithfully, but I had problems with it. Role-plays are the ideal, but real life isn't always so neat and tidy.

The routine of the MTC also was difficult for me. I do not like to get stuck in routines and get bored very easily and need to be constantly challenged. I did not find the MTC conducive to that.

But in spite of any drawbacks, I really enjoyed my time at the MTC and found it a good place for training me to do what was required as a missionary and it also instilled a lot of growth and spirituality in me. I have few complaints.

Getting To Know Our Father In Heaven (Happy Are We?)

Church was pretty good yesterday. I was surprised because the high council was speaking, and typically high council speakers are not the best.

Sacrament Meeting starts at 9:00 AM in my mom's ward now, so that means getting up an hour earlier than I used to, and for this night owl that is a challenge.

The topic the high council were assigned was "Christian Courage: Standing Up for What You Believe." I was on the defense because with all the talk about religious freedom and gay rights and such, that could have easily entered into either talk, but happily it didn't.

The primary theme of the first talk was more or less now that Mitt Romney's almost certainty of becoming the Republican candidate for president, Mormons and Mormonism will be scrutinized even more, and we have to be willing to own our Mormon beliefs and not apologize for them or sidestep them. We have to stand up for what we claim to believe.

The second talk kind of echoed similar sentiments, and the speaker used a story about how when President Monson was young and in the military, a commanding officer was telling the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant soldiers where to go. Because President Monson didn't feel he fit any of those categories, he remained and thought he was alone and therefore felt uncomfortable. It was only when the commanding officer said something like, "And what do you all call yourselves?" that President Monson realized there was a group of Mormon soldiers standing behind him. It was a good lesson to him that even when you feel alone standing up for yourself, there are always others standing behind you, even if you don't realize it.



I actually thought both talks were well-delivered. But what I really enjoyed was Sunday School. The old teacher was released just before I left to go back home to Jonah. I really enjoyed his lessons. But the new teacher is a good friend of mine, and someone who I really connect with. I knew she'd be an equally good teacher, and I was right.

When I found out the lesson was going to be on the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob 5, I wasn't really excited, but my friend made the lesson interesting and relevant. She had me draw a picture of an olive tree. I'm not a master artist or anything, but apparently I'm a better drawer than my friend is, and I can draw somewhat. In any case, several people thought I'd done a good job.

We talked about the symbols in the allegory and what they mean, but my friend really focused on Christ and his atonement. One thing that struck me was that she said in the story the Lord doesn't just command the workers to labor in the vineyard and then leave them to do so. He labors with them. He goes into the "trenches," so to speak, with them and works side by side with them. I like that image. It actually relates to something else I've wanted to talk about in my blog.

I don't take the Ensign myself, but I do try to read it when I have the opportunity to do so. Having been away with Jonah for the last three months, I haven't been reading the Ensign, so when I came back to Utah, I decided to catch up on reading the past few issues because my mom does subscribe to the magazine.

I was reading the February issue and came across the First Presidency Message by Henry B. Eyring and several things really seemed to resonate with me.

He said when he prayed as a kid he pictured his Heavenly Father as being far away, but now he pictures Him as being close by. I had never really considered that. I pray all the time, and although Heavenly Father appears in my mind as a familiar, relatable, and grandfatherly figure (albeit a Colonel Sanders-esque figure), I still have always kind of talked to Him as though He is somewhere distant. I mean, I talk to him in an intimate way, but always seem to think of Him as being out in the void somewhere.

I like what Eyring says. I like the idea that He is very close to us, perhaps right by our side holding us in His arms or sitting across from us.



I am learning more and more that the image of God that we're sometimes given in various religions does not ring true in my heart. Yes, Heavenly Father is an all-powerful, all-knowing, immortal being, and that sometimes can make Him seem unrelatable or distant. But it's really been imprinted on my heart that Heavenly Father is our Father. He is our Parent, and like an ideal parent, He wants what's best for us and tries to help us grow up to be like Him, but at the same time He is very forgiving, willing to let us make and learn from our own mistakes without judgment, and loves us no matter what.

Even though the Old Testament God sometimes makes Him appear so, I do not see God as an angry, wrathful, punishing God or as someone who's ready to smite us if we fail; I see Him as Being who feels deeply for His children, knows each of their hearts, and loves and supports them no matter what. I think He is sad when we make choices that He knows will make us unhappy, but like a good parent, He still loves us and cares for us.

When I read the Prodigal Son, that father is very much as I think Heavenly Father is. He loves both sons equally, and even if the prodigal son hadn't come back, the father loved him just as much when he was gone as when he returned. There was no judgment or spite on his part. He was just glad his son was home.



President Eyring give Joseph Smith's account in the sacred grove as an example of who God is (and I found it interesting that I must have recited that account numerous times in French when I was on my mission because when I read it in English, I could remember it almost verbatim in French. It's funny what sticks with you.).

He called Joseph by name. He introduced Jesus as His "Beloved Son." In later scriptures like D&C 100:1 He calls Joseph and Sydney Rigdon his "friends." And isn't it interesting that Sydney later apostatized (and God, in His infinite knowledge, surely knew that he one day would), yet He still afforded him the title "friend"?

In the same issue there is a story about a woman who realized that with God we are never alone. Believe me, I know that when we are in the thick of things it is hard to believe that sometimes. I have waged my own battles in life where it felt like God had completely abandoned me. But He hasn't. He never does. Whether we believe it or not, whether we feel it or not, our Father is always with us.

Two quotes that were in this issue of the Ensign were by Dieter F. Uchtdorf. They were both taken from a General Conference address and I have included the two combined (plus a bit more) here:

"Think of the purest, most all-consuming love you can imagine. Now multiply that love by an infinite amount — that is the measure of God’s love for you.

"God does not look on the outward appearance. I believe that He doesn’t care one bit if we live in a castle or a cottage, if we are handsome or homely, if we are famous or forgotten. Though we are incomplete, God loves us completely. Though we are imperfect, He loves us perfectly. Though we may feel lost and without compass, God’s love encompasses us completely.

"He loves us because He is filled with an infinite measure of holy, pure, and indescribable love. We are important to God not because of our résumé but because we are His children. He loves every one of us, even those who are flawed, rejected, awkward, sorrowful, or broken. God’s love is so great that He loves even the proud, the selfish, the arrogant, and the wicked.

"What this means is that, regardless of our current state, there is hope for us. No matter our distress, no matter our sorrow, no matter our mistakes, our infinitely compassionate Heavenly Father desires that we draw near to Him so that He can draw near to us."



I really felt the truth of these words as I read them, and my own experiences have validated that truth. I think religions sometimes put conditions on God, but I am convinced that our Heavenly Father and His love for us do not fit in the confines that religions sometime attach to Him.

Continuing with my friend's Sunday School lesson, as she focused on God's love and the Savior's atonement, she made reference to a hymn we had just sung in Sacrament Meeting: "We Are All Enlisted," and she pointed out the lyrics, "Happy are we, happy are we," and she asked us, "Are we?"



With a gospel that supposedly has the greatest truths known and which teaches us that "men are, that they might have joy," why do so many Mormons seem to worship in such a lackluster way in our Sacrament Meetings? Why when we sing our hymns do we sound like we're singing a funeral dirge? One lady commented that when she worked for the Church, so many of its employees seemed to come to work without a smile on their faces. Another brother, who still works for the Church, said, "Well, let's not forget, it is still a corporation." And it hit me: we often treat our meetings like...well, meetings. The LDS Church in some instances seems more like a business to me than communal, spiritual place to worship our Father.

I was watching an episode of the sitcom, "The Middle" the other day. In this particular episode the main character and her family go to their regular church where the pastor is very dry, and the main character and her family are bored. Then a black friend invites them to his church, which is filled with lively singing and a rousing sermon and "Hallelujahs!" and "Amens!" Even though the main character and her family end up deciding the familiarity and comfort of their normal religion is what works best for them, in that moment when they go to this lively and energetic church service, a whole new world opens up for them.

Now I'm not saying the LDS Church needs to be like a Baptist revival or that church is supposed to entertain us; but I do wonder (and have wondered for many years) why the church that has the restored gospel and is the Lord's established church on earth must be so dry and uninspiring at times. And I know it's not that way everywhere. My friend says his ward in Tonga is quite lively. So why do ours here sometimes feel like a board meeting where the speakers would rather be having a root canal than giving the talk they've been assigned? Why do we go through the motions when we're singing our hymns as if we're half-asleep? And what effect does that have on people who are investigating the Church? If we're not doing things to invite and cultivate the Spirit, how do we expect those who are exploring the Church to feel it?



One last thought: one of the verses we read in Jacob 5 was verse 4, which says,

"And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard went forth, and he saw that his olive tree began to decay; and he said: I will prune it, and dig about it, and nourish it, that perhaps it may shoot forth young and tender branches, and it perish not."

While this verse isn't necessarily to be interpreted as such, it occurred to me that it is the young generation that will revitalize the LDS Church. I'm not saying that the old guard is causing the Church to "decay." I'm just saying it will be interesting to see what happens to the LDS Church as the younger generation is called into leadership positions.

PS. As I was finishing up this post a sister in the ward called me. She was so impressed by my olive tree drawing, she wants me to draw a caricature of the following scripture from Jarom: "Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land."

I'm thinking of drawing a Lamanite with a stone heart wearing a neck brace, sunglasses, and ear muffs. It's supposed to be a funny caricature. Anyway, that's my starting point. I may ask Jonah and my niece for suggestions, too. They're both a bit more artistic than me.

Killing With Kindness

I like to get my taxes done early. When it comes to taxes, I don't like to procrastinate. I just like to get it done. Typically my taxes are filed in February or, at the very latest, early March. This year was no exception. I e-filed my federal tax return on March 7 and sent my state return on March 8. I owed federal tax, but my state taxes were 0 (0 payment, 0 refund).

I still do my taxes in Utah because my official residence is still here even though I live in another state with Jonah. But since I work in Utah and don't work in the other state, it seemed more practical to keep my residence here for the time being, although I plan on changing residency within the year.

So when I came back to Utah for work, I was a bit dismayed to discover that the Utah State Tax Commission had sent me a letter indicating I had made a mistake on my tax return and that I actually owed $251. I went over my state tax return again and found that all of my math checked out. The letter indicated I had put the wrong amount on line 25 and that the revised amount was "$906," but that IS the amount I had put on line 25 and didn't explain why I would owe $251 since my withholdings were also $906.

So I called the Utah State Tax Commission to sort things out. The tax representative who answered my complaint was a somewhat condescending and curt woman named Charlene (not her real name) who I nicknamed "Miss Crabby-Pants, the Tax Harpy." She really talked down to me, which annoyed me greatly. I explained what had been in the letter, and as she pulled up my file, she said that I was missing one of my withholdings and page 2 of my tax return (both of which I know I sent because I checked and double-checked three times before mailing my tax return; plus, I have my own copy which backs me up). What really got on my nerves was that the mistake was made by whomever entered my tax information (using my return) into the tax commission's data base, but Charlene seemed to be taking it out on me as if it was my fault.

Charlene curtly informed me that I needed to fax my tax return and all my W-2s and 1099s to her. When I tried to explain something to her, she brusquely replied, "Just fax me your documents!"

So I paid an additional $12 to fax the documents to her, and the next day I got a phone message from Charlene indicating that I had forgotten to sign my return (which was true; I had signed the one I sent in March, but my own copy, which is what I faxed, was unsigned, and I had forgotten) and that I needed to re-fax my signed return before she could process it. Fine, I made a mistake; but it was the manner in which she responded that annoyed me. Her whole tone was just condescending and the subtext seemed to be, "You stupid person, if you had done this correctly in the first place, I wouldn't have to deal with your stupid problems. And now, because you haven't done it right, I have to wait on you." I even played the message for a couple of friends to make sure I wasn't overreacting. They definitely agreed that her tone was condescending and rude.

My immediate reaction had been one of annoyance. After all, I had sent my original, signed and complete return with no errors, and I was having to deal with this because someone had either misplaced or lost part of my return and my documentation or simply entered it wrong into their system; and now I had to deal with "Miss Crabby-Pants." I just wanted to say, "You don't have to be so unpleasant. I realize dealing with people's tax issues all day isn't anyone's dream job, but you could try to have a more cheerful attitude. Either that or find a new line of work."

However, when I got to FedEx Office to fax the signed return, I was inspired to react the opposite way. I thought to myself, "It's so close to Tax Day, and this woman probably has to deal with annoying tax issues, and it's probably a high-stress job with little return."

So I wrote her a note on the fax cover sheet. I basically said, "Charlene, I'm sorry about the mix-up. I realize this must be a very stressful and busy time of year for you, and I apologize if my mistake has added to your stress or workload. I hope the attached documents will enable you to complete this task and resolve the issue, and I hope you will have a very nice day. Please let me know if I owe anything so that I may do my part to resolve this issue."

Charlene left another voicemail for me the next day. Basically, she said she had received my documents, processed my return, and owed nothing. But the interesting part to me was her tone. There was none of the curtness, condescension, or unpleasantness I had heard the other two times she had communicated with me. She actually sounded pleasant and nice. I'm not saying my note had anything to do with that, but I do think it's interesting that my initial instinct was to attack back, but instead I dealt with it by being kinder, and in return, I received kindness.

I believe in the law "That which you put out into the universe you get back." When we give anger, we get anger. When we give negativity, we get negativity. When we give love, we get love. I think by putting kindness out there to someone who was less-than-kind to me, I received kindness back. And even if I hadn't received it from her, I would have received it elsewhere.

Besides, bottom line - you don't really want to piss off the person who's processing your tax return. That's just asking for bad karma.

Perspective

I had a rough morning yesterday. The Utah Tax Commission made a mistake when it entered the information from my tax return into their computers and they said I owe $251 (which I don't). Anyway, I had to call them and deal with a very curt woman I not-so-affectionately refer to as "Ms. Crabby-Pants."

I think she was angry at the person who had submitted my information, but she seemed to be taking it out on me. They also lost some of the info. I had sent them, so their profile on me was incomplete.

Anyway, "Ms. Crabby-Pants" brusquely told me to just re-fax my tax returns, W-2s, and 1099s. I wanted to say, "Look, lady, I know dealing with people's tax issues so close to Tax Day is probably no picnic, but it's only 8:00 in the morning. Your day has just begun. If you can't foster a cheerier attitude, find another line of work. I'm only trying to help you rectify an error that was your office's fault, not mine."

Anyway, then I had to re-fax all that stuff, and I had to pay $13 to do it. Since I had already paid to file my taxes in the first place, that didn't make me too happy.

Then my mom has lost one of her prescriptions, so I had to try and get that refilled. I still don't know yet whether it has been.

And then I was going to catch TRAX to go to work, but found that my work-provided TRAX pass, which is supposed to be activated, is not. I tried calling several people through work to help me, but no one seemed to be able to, so I ended up driving to work, which annoyed me because gas is so expensive, and if I've got a free TRAX pass, I should use that instead to both save money and help the environment. Until it's activated, though, I can't. I don't want to risk being ticketed.

So then I got to my first day of rehearsal in a less-than-stellar mood and was annoyed that I was making a bad impression on those in the company that didn't already know me.

And on top of that, I was missing Jonah. So after rehearsal I gave him a call to tell him about my crappy morning. He listened and sympathized. Then he told me what was going on with him and he told me that the parents of one of his coworkers were killed in an automobile accident on Saturday. Suddenly all my petty problems seemed so trivial and I felt like a heel. It was nice to get that perspective because it made me feel grateful for what I have and helped me foster a better attitude.

Jonah also mentioned that Trooper, the cat I have emotionally scarred by leaving, peed on some curtains Jonah has been working on for the past two days. He's making them for a friend of his. Jonah, who's pretty even-tempered, was livid. He thinks he caught it in time, but if it stains or smells, he'll have to start over.

And I thought I had problems.

Back In Utah...And Not So Content

After being unemployed for three months, I now have two acting jobs in Utah that will keep me employed at least for the next five months. For a working actor this is truly a gift. On top of that, the first show I am doing is a show I have wanted to do for years, and I have a really fun featured role in it. Normally when I am acting I am so excited and happy and fulfilled, and when I'm unemployed I tend to get depressed; so when an acting job comes up, I am normally very happy. And I am. But I'm not.

These past three months with Jonah have, unfortunately, been the longest consecutive amount of time we have spent together since our commitment ceremony. My job usually takes me away from him for months at a time with only a couple of days here and there to spend time together. It hasn't been enough, so although being unemployed kind of sucked financially (although thank goodness for unemployment benefits, otherwise I would likely be broke), these three months with Jonah have been WONDERFUL relationship-wise.

There are things Jonah does that drive me crazy, and I know there are things I do that that drive him nuts (and perhaps I'll talk about those things in a future post), but I love him so incredibly much. It sounds cliche, but I feel like he is truly a part of me.

As I was preparing to leave him again, I was thinking about what the LDS teaches about my relationship with Jonah; that it is a sin and that the two of us will not be together as a united couple in the afterlife, and that thought made me so very sad. Is it true? I do not pretend to know, but what I do know is this: Jonah is one of the best people who has ever been a part of my life, and I love him so very much. My life would be empty without him. My life in many ways was empty before I met and fell in love with him. He is a part of me. To lose him would be incredibly unfair.

I realized these past three months our house has finally started to feel like my home instead of Utah. Utah has always been my home no matter where else I've lived, and I always refer to it as home. And it always will feel like home. But my real home is with Jonah. My life is with Jonah, and I'd like to do more to make it be more permanent. My acting career does make that tough, but it's an ideal I'd like to shoot for.

And so here I am back in Utah and feeling sad that I have to be away from the guy I love for almost half a year. In two words, it sucks.

My mom is thrilled I'm back, and I think my siblings are equally excited that I am back. My brother hugged me today and said he was grateful the "golden child" was back (so named because my mom, who has dementia, seems to respond to me the best when we're trying to get her to do something she doesn't want to do).

But just in the last two days alone I have been reminded once again how wearing it can be to deal with Mom's dementia. And we all agree she's getting worse. Just today, she didn't seem to have any recollection that I was excommunicated, for example, which seems to be a pretty big thing to forget. She's also forgotten how to arm and disarm her security system, something she did fine before I left at Christmas-time. And, of course, the most frustrating part is dealing with someone who doesn't think they are impaired in any way. It can be exhausting. But I know it has been exhausting for my siblings as well, so it's good to be back to take some of the load until I go back home again.

Anyway, I start rehearsals for my show tomorrow. I'm sure once I get into the groove of working and acting again I will forget how sad I feel right now.

Perhaps one of my saddest moments was waking up half-asleep this morning and not understanding where Jonah was or trying to find my cat who normally sleeps by my side and then being conscious of the fact that my double bed is smaller than the king-size bed Jonah and I share, and then realizing the reason why: I was not home with him at all, but was in my room in my mom's house. Jonah said he had a similar moment coming home from work last night and wondering where my car was and then realizing that I had left to go back to Utah.

Saying goodbye to Jonah and our three cats (who truly feel like my children) was especially tough. At least Jonah understands where I'm going and when I'll be back. Those poor cats have no idea why I leave, why I'm gone for so long, and when or if I'm returning. Our oldest cat, Trooper, who adores me, always seems to know when I'm leaving even before I've started packing and gets very sullen and sad and acts out a lot after I've gone. I truly fear I'm emotionally traumatizing her.

Today was my nephew's baby blessing. I had never seen him in the flesh, so that was nice. I was not prepared for how much it hurt not to be able to join my brother, brothers-in-law, and nephews in blessing him. I didn't even think about it until it happened. Everyone got up to participate in the ordinance, and I just sat there feeling sad. That's when Mom, who forgot I'd been excommunicated, asked me why I wasn't up there.

And, yes, I am fully aware my own choices have precluded me from having any priesthood authority and have barred me from participating in any priesthood functions. But I sat there watching my brother-in-law bless his son (which was a very beautiful blessing, by the way) and wondering why my relationship with my husband makes me so unworthy to not be able to take part in the blessing of my nephew. Why is the fact that I have a sexual relationship with my spouse so abominable? I fail to understand, and I still have yet to hear a satisfactory answer that rings true to my heart.

And then after the blessing and the sacrament, people started bearing their testimonies, and again I felt more sadness that I could not participate and wondered how it is that someone who has so much to share and who does have a testimony of so many things that might be of edification to others or might help them feel the spirit can be denied simply because the love he has for someone of the same sex is deemed to be sinful. I fail to understand that as well.

I admit that with the feelings of sadness, there was just a tinge of anger, a feeling I do not experience very often regarding my lack of participation in the Church. And yet, there it was, rearing its ugly head.

My brother-in-law gave a lovely testimony about how he never thought he would be a father; how five years ago he was happy, but had resigned himself to the fact that he wouldn't have children in this life. And then he met my sister, and now he has two, and one can tell just how grateful and happy he is to have these two precious children.

He talked about how his daughter was named after his first wife, who died, and who my sister wanted to honor (which tells you just what kind of person my sister is) and how his son was named after my father. My brother-in-law didn't care for my father's name, and originally my sister wanted to name the baby Scott because she liked the name. The more she thought about it, however, the more she realized she didn't want to name her child Scott simply because she liked it; she wanted it to mean something, and when she told my brother-in-law this, he knew that they needed to name him after my dad, and he talked about how his two kids are named after people who have passed on, but that he feels like they are present protecting his family. I feel he is right.

Then a bunch of kids got up and bore their "by rote" testimonies. Cute, but it also made me wonder, "Do these kids really know the things they are saying are true, or are they just spouting what they've heard and been taught?" I don't think it's bad for kids to do that; I think it helps them develop a testimony. But I also think some of these kids don't yet have the maturity to really know what they say they know is true is true. I think there are some that do, but others I think are just making rote statements.

One guy who I'm am 99% sure was gay - at least he made my gaydar go off big time - talked about the atonement, and I liked what he had to say, but I also was thinking, "If that guy is indeed gay, he's got a road ahead of him."

On lady talked about how great the plan of happiness was, and I caught myself thinking perhaps with that residual anger, "Yeah, the plan of happiness the Church teaches is great if you don't happen to be gay." I always remember how the "plan of happiness" used to make me feel so left out and alone. I feel pretty happy now, though, but according to the Church, I have deviated from the plan.

As I held my newborn nephew as the testimonies continued, I was watching him sleep, and I felt this feeling of how great it would be to have a child. Jonah and I agreed not to have children when we got together (mostly because I didn't want them), but with the births of my nieces and nephew and even the love I've developed for my cats, who I also didn't want at first, my attitudes are softening somewhat on that front. I've always been kind of selfish, and I think having a child makes you be less selfish, and I also think it's one of the things that you can do in life that helps you understand God more. Anyway, I've been thinking about it. I know Jonah would like to.

My sister talked about how grateful she is to have her children; that even when they leave her feeling frazzled, they are so worth it.

My other sister, who used to belong to that ward, talked about how much she missed it, and how she missed the youth, something that's missing from her somewhat geriatric ward.

An older gentleman kiddingly chided her, though, saying, "What's wrong with being 70?" He gave a very moving testimony on the meaning of Easter, a point that had been earlier stressed by a kid bearing his testimony saying Easter wasn't just about the candy. I wish I could remember the older man's words. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe it was just the spirit I felt as he said those words that helped remind me what my Savior has done and continues to do for me through His atonement; that it is a gift that is offered to and affects everyone in positive ways whether they realize it or not.

It was a good meeting, but there were moments of sadness. No regrets, though. I still maintain that I am where I am supposed to be and know that I am happier with Jonah than I was without him. My only regret, really, is that I'm not with him right now.

I am enormously blessed. Jonah and I are enormously blessed. I am grateful he is in my life and I know he feels the same about me. I am already counting the days until I can be with him again.

---sigh---

"Believe Me, I Don't Want To Go To Your Party."

Warning: This post contains a quote that takes the Lord's name in vain. I do not care for this word, but it is an important part of the story.

So I had this dream last night, and although it was only a dream, everything that happened in it seemed plausible to me. In my dream, we had just finished performing in a show and we had just done the curtain call, when my friend, who was the star of the show, quieted the audience down so he could speak to them personally. He was addressing the audience and expressing his appreciation to them and he happened to say, "Thank you! Thank you so goddamn much!"

When he said this, several audience members gasped in horror. We were performing the show in Logan, Utah, I believe, and there is a pretty conservative Mormon population there, so there were several audience members who were visibly offended by my friend taking the Lord's name in vain.

My friend, sensing the discomfort of some in the audience, tried to defend himself. He said, "No, wait! God isn't in the theatre." Although my friend in real life is an atheist and probably doesn't think God is anywhere at all, what he meant (or at least what I felt he meant when I was dreaming this and upon further reflection) was that we were actors playing characters, and characters say and do all sorts of things that may not be in line with our own personal values or morals, but as actors we still play those parts to convey a larger message even if some parts may be uncomfortable to those watching. That's a lot to interpret from "God isn't in the theatre," but that's what I felt he was trying to convey to the audience in the dream.

Still, in spite of my friend trying to appease a displeased faction of people (which I don't think my friend would actually care about in real life), that minority of people were having no part of it, and several of them chose to walk out. As they were leaving in protest of what they considered to be my friend's offensive language, my friend said some parting words to them: "Fine, walk out. Believe me, I don't want to go to your party."

He did not say this in anger. It was just a fact. My friend didn't want to be a part of that crowd.



That's when I woke up.

This dream was so vivid in my head when I woke up, and I was absolutely going to try and remember it so that I could share it and what I felt it meant to me.

Before I do, I want to talk a bit about my friend. He does indeed exist in real life. As I said, he is an atheist, and his views on organized religion are pretty unfavorable due to the fact that his own personal experiences have caused him to see more negative things to come out of religion than positive ones. He feels religion often causes people to behave self-righteously and in very unloving ways in the supposed name of love and God. It has left a sour taste in his mouth.

Sidenote: my friend is also a staunch Democrat and tends to view the Republican party in black and white. I think he is just as much of a zealot on the left as the people he accuses of being so on the right, and yet, I don't think he sees that quality in himself. I think he just thinks he's right and is unable to distinguish shades of gray. To him, the Republicans are bad and liberals are good. To him, organized religions are bad and cause more trouble than good. To him, God doesn't exist. End of story.

I'm more of a "shades-of-gray" kind of guy. Yeah, I understand why people don't believe in God, but I also understand why many do. Yeah, there are a lot of things that organized religions do that seem to contradict what they profess to teach, but I also see a lot of really good things that come out of various religions. While I, too, am a Democrat, I certainly don't think all Republicans are a bunch of liars like my friend does. Some are. But so are some Democrats. I actually think both parties want many of the same things; they just have different beliefs about how to get them.

In spite of of the fact that I think my friend has tunnel vision sometimes, I also understand why he does, and that brings me back to my dream. As I thought about this dream after waking up from it, it was very clear what the dream meant to me.

All my friend was really doing was taking a moment to tell the audience how much he appreciated them. He just wanted them to know how he felt, and he used words that he was accustomed to using. Instead of seeing that my friend was thanking them and show his love and appreciation for their response, some in the audience chose to focus on a particular word that offended them, and in their self-righteousness chose to walk out on my friend and his fellow cast mates, and to me that seems the bigger sin.



I know why this particular friend was featured in this dream. I have seen in his life many of the things people have done in the name of religion and God that have left a sour taste in his mouth, and I know because of those things he "[doesn't] want to go to [their] party." I've often heard other friends say that if the Celestial Kingdom is filled with the kind of self-righteous people who think they're going there, they would prefer not to. I understand that sentiment.

When I think of the self-righteous kid at BYU who hands a girl an anonymous note decrying her skirt in the name of morality or the parents who throw their gay kid out of the house because they hate homosexuality more than they love him or her or the man who tells of how his Mormon friends' parents wouldn't let them play with him because he wasn't a member or the members who make a less active person feel unwelcome at church because he or she is dressed funny or smells like cigarettes or coffee or booze or the members who suddenly start shunning another member because he or she is going through a divorce or the thousand other similar scenarios I've witnessed both firsthand and have heard about from others, it makes me wonder how many people get pushed away or left with a sour taste in their mouths because of the Pharisaical behavior of those who believe themselves more righteous.



And this behavior, of course, isn't limited to Mormonism. I think the same the same thing when I see some other religious folk with a sign that says "God hates fags" or hear of some supposed pro-lifer bombing an abortion clinic and killing somebody elseor when Christian people talk about Muslims like they're the most evil thing a person could be. Those are extreme examples, but the point is the same: I think sometimes in an effort to be obedient to the letter of the law, we forget about the spirit. We forget about the hearts of the people. In an effort to chastise and take a stand, we sometimes end up pushing people away from Christ rather than closer to Him. Our examples, either good or bad, will have an effect on those whose lives we touch.



A little while back, I read a really good essay called "I'm Christian, unless you're gay" which I think I even posted a link to on my blog somewhere (although I can't find it now), but today I read a woman's response to it and was touched not only by her son's reaction to the essay, but by the woman's willingness to see what damage her actions in the supposed name of righteousness and God were doing to her relationship with her own child.

Anyway, I'm glad I had the dream and even more glad I remembered it. It was a nice reminder to me that sometimes the things we do (yeah, me included) in the name of God aren't really what God would do at all. I just have to remind myself to be careful that my actions are actually drawing people closer to God rather than away from Him.

Freedom

I love this piece of art:





It's called "Freedom" by Zenos Frudakis and is located at World Headquarters in Philadelphia.

I love some of the things Frudakis says about the sculpture, including:

"I wanted to create a sculpture almost anyone, regardless of their background, could look at and instantly recognize that it is about the idea of struggling to break free."

"Although for me, this feeling sprang from a particular personal situation, I was conscious that it was a universal desire with almost everyone; that need to escape from some situation – be it an internal struggle or an adversarial circumstance, and to be free from it."

"Although there are four figures represented, the work is really one figure moving from left to right. The composition develops from left to right beginning with a kind of mummy/death like captive figure locked into its background. In the second frame, the figure, reminiscent of Michaelangelo’s Rebellious Slave, begins to stir and struggle to escape. The figure in the third frame has torn himself from the wall that held him captive and is stepping out, reaching for freedom. In the fourth frame, the figure is entirely free, victorious, arms outstretched, completely away from the wall and from the grave space he left behind."

"In working on the large scale sculpture, I was satisfied that those who drove by getting a quick look at it would see the big picture: that it was about escape."

I just love the piece. It really speaks to me. In many ways, I feel it is a metaphor for my own life. Anyway, I thought it worth sharing. Enjoy!

Relax. (or Why Carson Daly's Jokes Didn't Bother Me)

So some of you may be aware of the Jet Blue pilot who had a mental freak-out the other day and was locked out of the cockpit by hi co-pilot and had be to be wrestled and detained by the passengers before eventually being taken off the plane for evaluation.



So the other day talk show host and radio personality Carson Daly made a joke about the incident, saying, "On this particular flight, most of the people were on their way to some sort of security conference in Las Vegas...so it was a bunch of dudes, and well-trained dudes.

"If that were me...with my luck, it would be like, 'This is the flight going to the [gay] pride parade in San Francisco.' 'Uh, we're headed down to Vegas for the floral convention.'"

Daly came under fire by many in the gay community for his insensitive remarks, and even the mother of Mark Bingham, the openly gay man who helped storm the cockpit of United Airlines Flight 93, thus foiling the intent of the 9/11 hijackers of that plane, criticized Daly for his remarks.

Once Daly was made aware of the criticism, he immediately apologized on his Twitter account, saying, "This morning on my radio show I attempted to make fun of myself & offended others by mistake. I sincerely apologize." and then later issued the following statement:

"We live in a time where gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals find courage every day to overcome adversity, stand up to bullying and find equality. I'm truly saddened that my words today suggested otherwise. I've long been a supporter of Gay and Lesbian rights, and I'm saddened that my comments, however unintentional, offended anyone, specifically members of the LGBT community.

"The fact that I have hurt anyone is devastating. I'm not that guy. I'm proud to be an ally of the LGBT community and will continue to fight with them."

So today I read in the Huffington Post an article asking if the apology is enough; that if celebrities make insensitive remarks about gay people, should they be required to do more than just apologize?

There is even a poll attached to the article, and nearly 63% of the people who participated in the poll say an apology isn't enough.

One commenter said "He is apologizing because he got in trouble not because he is truly sorry. Just another heterosexual person thinking homosexuals aren't regular people."

Another said, "[A]ny time a straight person uses this verbiage it demonstrates their underlying hate and their bigotry towards gay people..."

Several accuse him of being a homophobe.

Sometimes I think people need to step back a little and relax. Look, I may be in the minority here. In the words of another commenter, "Well shoot. This may get me bashed by the more thinner-skin members of The GLBT [Nation], but as a member of The Nation, those jokes made me laugh. I get the need for vigilance against hatefullness [sic] and true homophobia, but every group has stereotypes about them. Those stereotypes can either be used against them to actually harm and debase the group, or they can be the springboard for humor that pokes some fun at them. The jokes were funny.They were actually Daly poking at himself as a loser and how life befalls him."

I think the commenter has a point. I didn't necessarily find the jokes hilarious, but I do see the humor in them, and I agree that the jokes are probably more in self-deprecation against Daly himself than they are an attack on gay people.

As a gay person, if anybody should be offended by jokes that stereotype gay people, it should be me. But I'm not offended, and I think Carson Daly truly means it when he says he meant no ill intent. I take him at his word. If that means I get my gay card taken away, so be it.

Sometimes I think we need to have thicker skins. I understand when you've been attacked your whole life for being gay, jokes like this can rub people the wrong way, but I really think it goes back to true intent? Just as I said in my post about Kirk Cameron, is Carson Daly's intent coming from a place of hate or malice? I don't think it is. Flog me all you want if you disagree, but that's how I feel. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

As another commenter said, "When we lose our ability to laugh at ourselves, we cease to be human."

And another: "We as a society need to lighten up. I mean, comedians make jokes, often at the expense of others. Are we going to require comedians to immediately prostate themselves and apologize for every joke that someone finds offensive? If not, why should the LGBT community get some special exemption from being offended?"

And another: "Maybe it would be safer to ban ALL jokes, just to make sure nobody gets offended?"

And another: "He was trying to be funny. I wish people would lighten up about the politically correct speak they expect from everyone -- including comedians."

My goodness, I’ve heard my share of Mormon jokes and actor jokes, but I didn’t take offense at them simply because they poked fun at a stereotype. Some of them were actually funny.

I think there is a big difference between the jokes Carson Daly made and something like the jokes Tracy Morgan made where he said, "Gays need to quit being p**sies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying," and, when talking about the possibility of his son being gay: "[he] better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little n**ger to death." Maybe I'm wrong, but to me they come from a different place, although I accept Morgan's apology as well and hope he won't continue to make such jokes.

But humor can be a tricky thing. Boundaries are often crossed, and sometimes humor goes into areas that make us uncomfortable. Ricky Gervais or George Carlin, for example, have often crossed that line, and yet I find many of the line-crossing things they say humorous, and yes, sometimes I am offended.

I guess my bottom line is that Carson Daly's apology is enough for me, although I haven't quite decided if he owed me an apology in the first place. I just don't think his jokes came from an evil place. Misguided? Maybe. Hateful? Nah.

I think the real question we should be asking is not, "Was Carson Daly's apology enough?" but "Is anyone still watching 'Last Call with Carson Daly' and how has it actually remained on the air for so long?"

Anyway, that's how I feel.

Homosexual Relationships Sactioned By The Church: Could It Ever Happen?

In thinking about the recent race issues that been discussed anew since Professor Bott of BYU gave his interview with the Washington Post (discussed here), I have been pondering how the revelations regarding the lifting of the Priesthood ban against blacks relates to homosexual issues in the LDS Church.

The other day I was reading a blog that seemed to be splitting hairs about the terms "racist" and "prejudiced" and how they apply to the Church and its past. Frankly, the author's thesis annoyed me.

Basically what I got from the essay was that when people say the LDS Church has a racist past (especially if those people are white and liberal), they are wrong.

The author says, "There is no doubt the Church, except in rare instances, prohibited men of African descent, from holding the Priesthood and restricted Blacks from Temple Ordinances until June 1978. There is no clear cut doctrinal reason why this ban was upheld for so long and the outgrown of it was vile explanations by some in Church Leadership and so-called scholars as to the reason. But, did it rise to the level of racism as some might claim by today’s standard?

"I suppose it depends of how you define racism."

I'm sorry, but isn't prohibiting a group of people based on their race from partaking in something that the rest of the membership is entitled to partake of the very definition of racism?

Then he says, "...The Church, by the very nature that it allowed an idea of Black race inferiority to be perpetuated within it...did rise to the level of racism. But, that alone, does not qualify to make the Church a racist Church, like, let’s say, White Southern Baptists."

Say what?! Disregarding the author's own bigoted statement, true or not, toward white Southern Baptists, if the LDS Church's policies rose to the level of racism, how does that make them not racist?

He continues: "The LDS Church did not restrict anyone from joining the Church because of their race. Some joined in spite of the ban."

"...Compared to other Churches, organizations and parts of the country, the LDS Church and its members, as a whole (There are always exceptions), were not actively advocating or performing acts of violence against Blacks. There were not fiery, racist talks advocating separatism given in General Conference after the 1800s. While there were some prejudicial actions excluding Blacks from some facilities in Utah, it did not rise to the level that you saw in the South, for example.

"By today’s standards, all of this might be considered racist, but when measured against the times when it happened, it was normal, albeit repugnant to us today."

So because the Church wasn't violent towards black or because their rhetoric was not supposedly as blatant, that somehow excuses them from being racist? I agree with the author's statements that "when measured against the times when it happened, it was normal." I'm not saying the LDS Church's Priesthood ban wasn't a product of its time or that the same racist attitudes that were present in the Church weren't present elsewhere in the country. I'm not saying those weren't normal and accepted attitudes of the time; I'm saying that that does not make them any less racist.

I guess my point is why is it so hard for people to just admit the Church has a racist past? Rather than defending it, why not just say, "Yeah, it happened. Yeah, it was present. We're sorry, and we've moved forward."? Why is that so hard? Why must we split hairs? Why can't we just own it and say, "Yes, it was part of our history, but we do not condone racism now, and hopefully none of our members are still hanging on to racist notions, and if they still are, they need to repent."?

The author's last statement is, "Especially, because it is not true today and was not really true in the past. I know that many of us want the Church to have been better than the other organizations at that time and the fact that maybe the ban was rooted in prejudice is troubling given the divine guidance we claim. But, we must keep the entire history in the perspective of the time in which it occurred."

I agree, we must keep the reasons for the ban in perspective based on the times. But regardless of the times or how much the Church has evolved as far as race issues are concerned does not negate the fact that the ban by its very nature was a racist policy.

I speculate that the reason people are unwilling to own that and instead try to excuse or defend it is probably found in the author's sentence: "...many of us want the Church to have been better than the other organizations at that time and the fact that maybe the ban was rooted in prejudice is troubling given the divine guidance we claim." We want to believe that divine revelation would have caused us to be more progressive on this issue. After all, 1978 is a pretty late date to have a "turn around" compared to where the civil rights movement was in other institutions at that time. We don't want to believe that a divinely guided church would be so far behind the times on that particular issue, and so we just excuse it with "Well, it was just God's will, and he made the change when it was supposed to happen." And that may very well be true. I don't dispute it because frankly, I don't know; but it does lead me into my thoughts on homosexual issues in the LDS Church.

In August of 1949 the First Presidency of the LDS Church issued the following statement:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.'

"President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: 'The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.'

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

"The First Presidency

"George Albert Smith, N Eldon Tanner, David O McKay"

In its recent statement disputing Professor Bott's statements, the Church said, "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."

It seems to me that the most recent statement by the Church contradicts the 1949 statement somewhat. In that case, does that mean that doctrine or revelation changes?

When the Priesthood ban was revoked, Bruce R. McConkie made the following statement in August of 1978 (nearly 29 years to the day of the 1949 statement):

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. 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.

"We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

"It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

McConkie, the same man who basically admits that his own statements in the 1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine where he says "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty." is wrong and that statements such as those by Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation ("There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.") or other antiquated statements by Brigham Young or Mark E, Petersen or George Q. Cannon are wrong. And why? Because they "spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." Because "We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more."

If this is so; if something can be considered doctrine one year, and then 30 years later, we're told to disregard everything said about it because new light has revealed more on the subject that we didn't understand, what is stop the Lord from revealing more about the subject of homosexuality to the leaders of the Church.

In talking about the reversal of the Priesthood ban, McConkie says, "...it was a revelation of such tremendous significance and import; one which would reverse the whole direction of the Church, procedurally and administratively; one which would affect the living and the dead; one which would affect the total relationship that we have with the world; one, I say, of such significance that the Lord wanted independent witnesses who could bear record that the thing had happened."

"There has been a tremendous feeling of gratitude and thanksgiving in the hearts of members of the Church everywhere, with isolated exceptions. There are individuals who are out of harmony on this and on plural marriage and on other doctrines, but for all general purposes there has been universal acceptance; and everyone who has been in tune with the Spirit has known that the Lord spoke, and that his mind and his purposes are being manifest to the course the Church is pursuing."

If the Lord were to suddenly come out and reveal to the leadership of the Church a change in policy or doctrine regarding homosexuality, a change that would certainly "reverse the whole direction of the Church, procedurally and administratively," how would members react? Would there be "a tremendous feeling of gratitude and thanksgiving in the hearts of members of the Church everywhere, with isolated exceptions" or would there be a full-out rebellion?

I've heard people say, "Well, doctrine never changes. The Priesthood ban was a policy change, not a doctrinal change." Was it? I think if you read the 1949 First Presidency statement or read in Mormon Doctrine, which although admittedly, the Church has distanced itself from and disavowed somewhat, by its very title and author, would indicate that the ban was considered doctrine at one time. The same thoughts can be found in Doctrines of Salvation, which, again, by its very title and author, would surely have been considered doctrine at one time, even if it may not be now.

"Well," some might argue," "McConkie's own words about dismissing and forgetting what he and others have said about this issue shows that it was never taken to be doctrine; that based on current revelation, they were wrong in their thoughts and views on the Priesthood ban."

So I ask what's to stop Heavenly Father from giving a revelation negating everything Church leaders have previously said about homosexuality. I'm not saying it will happen, and it seems to me that marriage between a man and a woman has been such a bedrock doctrine in the Church for quite some time that if a revelation did suddenly come out declaring that homosexual relations were now recognized and blessed by the Church and by God, it would surely cause a lot of problems for the Church as far as credibility is concerned. But it also seems to me that it wasn't so relatively long ago that marriage between a man and a woman and a woman was also a practiced doctrine, and although it still seems to be a recognized doctrine in the afterlife, the fact of the matter is if you were to practice it today in mortality, you would be excommunicated; and I daresay if the Church were to suddenly declare that people should practice it, there would be a lot of rebellion.

I guess my point is that this is an ever evolving church. It's easy to dismiss our history with regard to issues such a polygamy and blacks holding the Priesthood. It's easy to say that doctrine never changes, that the Church always stays the same, but the fact is the Church has evolved from where it once was as far as these issues are concerned, and while it may be hard for some to imagine, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Church may evolve in its views toward homosexuality. History has shown that it already has. Yes, it may not accept homosexual relations as being in line with the commandments, but even in my own lifetime the Church's rhetoric and attitudes toward the issue of homosexuality have softened with the times.

It's easy to say, "Well, the Church would never change its policies towards gay people." It's easy to say that societal pressures didn't have any play in the revelations concerning the revoking of the Priesthood ban or the declaration that polygamy no longer be practiced. But is it true? Could God ever give a revelation changing the direction of the Church with regard to the homosexuality issue? Based on the Church's own history, is it really completely beyond the realm of possibility that the Church could ever do a turn-around regarding gay people and their relationships? Many would say yes. I say, "Never say never." Generations from now, only our history will tell us for sure.

Don't Quit Your Day Job

ChaCha, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, is a human-powered search-and-answers service which primarily delivers answers to any question via text. A person can use ChaCha by using their mobile phone and either calling 1-800-2ChaCha (800-224-2242) or sending a text to 242-242. ChaCha can also be accessed on your computer at www.chacha.com while you're on the go. ChaCha is like having a smart friend you can call or text for answers on your cell phone anytime for free. It is available 24/7 and is free. And you can basically ask ChaCha anything, serious or funny, and they will answer your question.

So why am I telling you this? Because I happen to be a ChaCha Guide. What is a ChaCha Guide, you ask? Well, somebody has to answer all the questions that people ask ChaCha, and I am one of them.

I originally joined ChaCha on a lark. As I am currently unemployed, I've been a bit bored, and plus ChaCha pays its Guide (don't give up your day job; it's not much, and unless you're answering questions every waking hour, it will take time to earn anything substantial - still, it is possible to earn some minor income if you're dedicated enough. I'm not, though. I've only earned $6.00 since joining.).

The vetting process to join ChaCha was harder than I thought it would be. You need to be a fast typer and pretty knowledgeable about a lot of different things. I had to take a test which asked several questions on a variety of subjects. I did pretty well on that and then had to watch several training videos to be a Guide, and then had to take another test to qualify to be a Guide (one shot only - you fail, and no ChaCha for you). The test was actually a bit stressful, and I was convinced I had failed, but a few days later, much to my surprise, I was accepted as a ChaCha Guide.

Once I was accepted, there was some orientation to go through, and then I was free to start vetting questions (which basically involves making sure the questions texters send get answered correctly). It took me a bit to find my groove and actually my first experience answering questions was a little frantic. A ChaCha Guide is given a limited amount of time to find a suitable answer in ChaCha's data base to any question asked (or you can answer it yourself if you know the answer).

ChaCha Guides are also assessed to measure how well they are doing answering the questions appropriately and giving accurate, timely answers with personality and representing the ChaCha name in a positive manner. I feel I'm doing pretty well.
There is room for advancement at ChaCha, too.

Being a ChaCha Guide is kind of fun because you literally never know what kind of question you're going to get. They can be silly, such as "Does Andy like me?". They can be personal, such as "How do I get my boyfriend to pay more attention to me?". They can be suggestive, such as "Why are you making me so horny?". They can be about a myriad of subjects: "What's traffic like on the 101 right now?", "Can you tell me how to say apple in German?", "Who won the Indiana University game this evening?", "What time does Frank's Brake Shop in Harrisburg close?", "What's the weather going to be like tomorrow?", "Who is the lead singer for the band, The Wonder Years?", "What are the side effects of constipation?", "I need the lyrics to Adele's 'Someone Like You'.", "How do you figure out the slope in math?", "What is the size of Tokyo?", "What are three things Andrew Jackson accomplished in his presidency?", "If you've smoked weed, how long will it stay in your system?", "How do you get past the 16th level in the game 'Doors'?", "In the 1960s how much did a cheeseburger at McDonald's cost?", "How do you make s'mores?", "Are the Paranormal Activity movies based on a real story?", "If sperm got near my girlfriend's vagina (but not inside), can she still get pregnant?", "What is the best way to get rid of hiccups?", and "What is my daily horoscope?", among others. (And yes, most of these are questions (or variations of questions) that I, personally, have answered.

Add to this that some questions are vague, contain incomplete information, misspellings, or are just plain gibberish. I've received "gtbts," for example. Or somebody will send a will send a question on a subject which I am absolutely unfamiliar. For example, I've gotten a good share of Pokemon questions (a lot of ChaCha's users are pre-adolescent or teenagers) or video game questions. I'm pretty good with entertainment and pop culture questions. On the flip side, I'm not to keen on sports and math questions. Still, during high volume times (which are often), it's pretty much the luck-of-the draw.

Anyway, it's fun and can be a nice time-killer, and I'm (very slowly) earning some side cash as well. I also try to put some fun and personality in my answers. For example, somebody asked me what a haiku was, and I gave the answer, but also included a haiku about ChaCha as an example. Somebody was once being cute and made a comment in French, and being a French speaker myself, I replied in French. Or sometimes I'll include an additional interesting fact about the question. And I always try to sign off in a fun way like "ChaCha for now!" or "ChaCha on!" or "ChaCha-ing." or "Thanks for doing the ChaCha." or "ChaCha!"

Anyway, it's been interesting.

Worth Getting Up? Possibly.

So I've been going to my ward off and on. It meets at 9:00 AM, which for this blogger is too early. It's already hard enough to muster enough motivation to keep attending a church where I can't fully participate; having to get up when I am very tired makes it all that much harder.



Still, I felt compelled to go this past Sunday. I fought with myself. I truly was tired and would have rather slept in. Jonah and I had a garage to clean out later in the day. I wanted to stay home.

I managed to get myself up. I actually missed the first 5 or so minutes of Sacrament Meeting because I was late. So I missed the opening hymn, which is something I enjoy and can at least participate in.

It was kind of nice to be sitting to a gentleman who didn't take the sacrament, either. It made me feel a little less alone.

The first talk wasn't great. Some youth speaker told the stories of Joseph (of the coat-of-many-colors fame) and Daniel (of the lions' den fame). But that's all he did was tell the stories in great detail. I could read my Bible if I wanted that. It would have been nice to hear some modern-day applications or his opinions, but nope - just the stories.

The second speaker was pretty good. Truthfully, I don't remember much of her talk; not because it wasn't interesting, but simply because my mind was wandering. She gave a well-delivered talk; I just lost focus.

After her, these three sisters (probably about 14, 11, and 10 years old) played "Nearer, My God, To Thee" on the violin, viola, and cello. They were incredible! Not perfect, mind you, but pretty darn good! And I am a music snob.

It was gorgeous and heartfelt and a very interesting arrangement. A couple of hiccups here and there, but overall, it was quite well-done. And they did it without any sheet music. I was impressed. I really, really enjoyed it. I also was reminded of the scene in the movie Titanic where the band is playing a last song before the ship sinks. I thought that was pretty beautiful, too. Anyway, it was a good number. Other church musical numbers should aspire to be so good.

The next talk caught my interest. The guy started out with a "South Park" reference, of all things, and I thought, "This isn't going to be your average talk." And it wasn't, and I was pleased.

He said although he had never actually seen an episode of "South Park" (which I'm actually not so sure I believed), he was aware of a clip from the show where different religious people are burning in hell, and when they wonder why they're there when they lived their religions so well, the person in charge of hell said they had belonged to the wrong religion. When someone asks what the right religion was, he says "The Mormons."

The man giving this talk used the preceding story as a humorous example of how sometimes as Mormons, we grow up with this kind of self-righteous idea that since Mormonism is supposed to be the only true and complete church on earth; that because it's God's true Church led by Christ himself, somehow that means that Mormons have a market on truth and goodness, and the basic theme of his talk was that that idea is not true.

The talk also led into the idea that as Mormons, we could stand to be more tolerant to viewpoints and religions we don't necessarily agree with; that we should find ways to build common ground with our non-Mormon neighbors by focusing on things we have in common or by opening up our perspective by actually learning about and understanding other belief systems and religious beliefs. Even though we may not share some of them, that doesn't mean that there aren't good things to be learned from them.

He said that sometimes we get so locked into our belief system or sometimes are so heavy-handed about the truth that we have, that we end up excluding others who don't share those beliefs and miss out on chances to get to know a myriad of different kinds of people.

I found the talk immensely refreshing. It was such a nice point-of-view to hear in a sacrament meeting. I really do like this ward a lot. I suppose it's worth getting up early for.

I only attended Sacrament Meeting. That garage wasn't going to clean itself.

The garage looks pretty great now. I hope we can keep it that way. We did find a spider whose width was about the length of my thumb. It was huge; probably the biggest non-tarantula spider I have ever seen. I am quite an arachnophobic, too. We were both concerned it was a black widow, but after capturing it in a parmesan cheese bottle, we determined that it wasn't. I still don't know what it was, but it was scary. I was brave enough to take a picture of it once I determined it didn't have the power to crawl up the inside of the bottle. Perhaps I'll post it later. It was creepy, though.

Anyway, that's all I have for today.