Equality vs. Substance

I often find our American values a little weird.  For example, as Americans, we value equality more than substance.  Let me explain.  It is more highly valued to treat everybody the same way than to treat people with kindness.  If a person treats people with kindness but treats some people better than others, that is a terrible thing.  But if a person treats everyone with equal unkindness, well, at least they aren't a bigot.

I had an acquaintance who told me that he had no respect for anybody but himself.  I though that was an odd thing to say, because when you observed him, he didn't really appear to have any self respect, either.  If the primary goal is to treat everyone equally, it is so much easier to treat everyone with equal disrespect than to try to have respect for everyone.

If our goal is to have love for everyone, I think it's better for people to start with unequal love, and work to be more inclusive, rather than to start with universal hate and try to raise it to love uniformly.  The value needs to come selectively before the uniform application is possible.

Temporary Marriage

If a widow was sealed to her husband, and she remarries, she cannot be sealed for time and eternity to her second husband.  I had a friend who was that second husband.  He basically wasn't allowed to be sealed to his wife.  Since it was his first marriage, he didn't get to be sealed at all.  It seemed very unfair to me, but I suppose it will all be sorted out in the spirit world.  Still, it seems a bit unsatisfactory to me here and now.

I want to point out that the church allows for these marriages, despite the fact that they cannot be eternal.  It's not unprecedented that the church supports marriages that do not lead to eternal families, so it seems possible that the church might lighten up a bit when it comes to same gender marriage.  However, even if that happens, same gender couples might very well be like my friend who is not allowed to be sealed to his wife and children.

I consider this post to be wild speculation, so please take it with a grain of salt.  I don't think there is any mortal on Earth who truly understands all the intricacies of this issue.  I have confidence in the leaders of the church when it comes to revelatory changes.  After all, "we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (9th Article of Faith)

In Defense of Marriage

I believe in marriage.  I think one of the most tragic things was the way no-fault divorce laws were constructed in the U.S.  It was Ronald Reagan, that sly one who, as governor of California, crafted no-fault divorces to be convenient for movie stars.  

I much prefer the way the laws were written in Sweden.  There, if a couple have children under 16, there is a year waiting period for no-fault divorce.  That makes so much sense to me.  It allows for no-fault divorce, but at the same time, it tries to protect children.  In the U.S. the laws treat children like an afterthought -- like baggage that gets in the way of sexually fulfilling lives for the parents.

If someone really wants to support laws that defend marriage, that support family values, they ought to be lobbying for a change in the no-fault divorce laws rather than trying to fight gay marriage.  Put energy where it will be useful.

Stereotypes

When we talk about gay stereotypes, we are usually referring to their affects on the gay oriented.  But there is also a pretty profound effect on the straight oriented.  More and more, to prevent themselves from being seen as gay, straight oriented boys and men limit their emotional range and the depth of their interactions with others.  These kinds of limitations can lead to poor mental health and can interfere with forming relationships.

The cry of "no homo" puts a terrible damper on what used to be ordinary interactions.  Often, guys will actively change their interests, their habits, even their sense of self simply because of the desire to make their straight orientation clear to others.  That can't be very healthy.

Fighting Fire with Fire?

When I was a kid, the phrase "fight fire with fire" never made very much sense to me.  I would assume that if my home were on fire, I would not want to fight the fire by adding to the flame.

I have children, and that means that sometimes I see one of my children hurt another.  The weirdest thing is when, as an act of penance, I guess, the perpetrator hurts themselves to make up for it.  I think to myself that the act does nothing for the hurt child.  But now two of my children are hurt.

I think this kind of reasoning is pointless and fruitless.  That's why I though Emma Watson's speech to the UN was so good.  It pointed out that feminism needs to not be perceived as "man hating."  So often we get the idea that to fight discrimination, we should discriminate in the opposite direction to balance it out.  If that is the primary method of feminism, then it is going to be seen as man hating -- basically hate men as much as women perceive that they are hated.  That's pretty unsatisfying.

Rather, let's build each other up.  Let's be positive.  Let's look at the real goal and work for it together.

Assumptions

We all make assumptions that color our communications.  Recently I noticed some research that asserted that over 90% of recently married Americans had sex before their marriages.  While I don't find this surprising, I think it is surprising that so many people think that this is inevitable and even desirable.

I come from a Mormon culture where teens are asked to abstain until marriage.  A surprisingly high percentage of them do so.  I realize that this is definitely not in the mainstream of American culture.

So, what about those of us who have gay orientations?  While this is a question that hasn't really been answered well, some things are sure.  The idea that teens should be allowed to express themselves by having sex is definitely off the table.  I don't think the church should have a different standard based on orientation, in this instance.  Regardless of American or any other culture, I think this one is a given.

I'm pretty sure that there will be no temple sealings of same gender couples any time in the near future, and likely won't happen at all.  It would take quite a huge overturning of doctrinal understanding to effect any change in this aspect of Mormonism.  It would take even more work to prepare the members for any such change.  Such a monumental change is typically not how the Lord develops the church.  Rather, it's here a little and there a little, line upon line.  So if there were any such change, it probably wouldn't be some huge announcement.  And I feel any such change is unlikely to begin with.

I think many of the pundits who challenge the current stand of church leaders on this issue are bringing with them assumptions about the Mormon culture that wildly distort their understanding.  This may be particularly true among those disaffected, former members who have had unfortunate experiences with members or leaders in the past.

It's so very hard to recognize our assumptions, let alone to account for them.

Both Wrong and Right

I was listening to a talk recently where the speaker mentioned the spirituality of Christopher Columbus.  The Italian explorer completely believed in his theory and felt that the spirit of the Lord supported it.  However, most political and scientific figures of his day felt his theory was wrong.  Here's the amazing thing.  The theory was completely wrong.  You see, Columbus believed that the estimates of the size of the world were too big, and it was possible to sail a ship from Spain to India.  However, that idea was rubbish.  The world was, in fact, roughly 25 thousand miles around, and there was no way the ships of the day would make it.  Despite the fact that he was completely wrong, the spirit may very well have moved him to go through with this plan.  Many people feel Columbus was the man referred to in 1st Nephi 13:12 on whom the Spirit of God wrought.  So even though Columbus was entirely wrong, what he did was the right thing to do.  That's a really weird sounding situation.

In reality, I think that the ministrations of the Spirit are more often about the rightness of our course of action rather than the accuracy of our theories about it.  In the days of the Nephites, many times the people wanted to reject the Law of Moses and move to a higher law, but they were reprimanded.  Even though it was known that salvation did not come through that law, they were expected to follow it until it was changed through proper channels and authority.  Finally after the resurrection of the Savior, that law was fulfilled and a higher law was given.

Back in the Roman Empire, the gospel was exclusively taught to the Jews for quite some time.  I'm sure many followers believed that there was something intrinsic about being Jewish in membership in Christ's church.  But it was not true, at least in the way they were thinking.  Still, until Peter received the revelation about preaching to the Gentiles, it was proper that only Jews could join the church.

When we try to impose our own philosophies as to why some policy is the way it is, we are often wrong.  Much more important is to know what we should do, how we should act.  Just because we receive some revelation that encourages us to do something, it doesn't mean we fully understand why we are to do it.  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts," said the Lord in Isaiah 55:9.

Even if our ideas about the world are entirely wrong, if we follow the inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord, we will be doing the right thing.

Authenticity

I firmly believe that orientation is not something that we choose.  It's something that is simply a part of the circumstances of our existence.  Choices that we make have little to nothing to do with the orientation of our attractions.  Few people of any orientation choose who they suddenly have a crush on.

This is precisely why I don't think our orientations themselves are a part of our identity.  Our identity is made of the consequences of our choices, and we don't choose our orientations.  We can embrace things about ourselves that we didn't choose, and and the choice to do so makes them parts of our identities.  But we all have aspects of our selves that we didn't choose, and that we don't count as part of our identities.  I happen to have an extremely high number of moles.  Is that important?  Not to me (except that it makes me more prone to skin cancer, so I have to see a dermatologist more often).  I don't embrace it as part of my identity.  It's not something that I should ignore about myself, but it doesn't make me who I am.

When people claim that in order to be authentic, we have to embrace our orientations, that strikes me as somehow wrong.  I can be perfectly authentic without embracing my identity as a moley person.  I don't think moles make me bad, or even particularly unhealthy.  I didn't choose it.  So it's not part of my identity and I don't have to "own up to it" to be authentic, even though I don't ignore the fact.

On the other hand, I choose to be LDS.  I choose to work on strengthening my marriage and my family.  I work on becoming better at my occupation.  These are things I have to put effort into.  They make up large parts of my identity.  I would be utterly inauthentic if they didn't.  So if someone puts a lot of effort into their orientation, sure it will become an important part of their identity.  But I don't.  It takes no effort on my part to be attracted to guys.  If I continue to not put effort into being gay, it will still fail to be an important part of my identity, and I don't consider myself inauthentic.  That doesn't mean it goes away.  It's not something that I should ignore, or feel guilty about, any more than having moles.  But it doesn't have to define me.

Don't Judge Me

How often do we worry that we are being judged?  I think it is a common feeling, and often it is justified.  However, I also think we are not always very good at deciding when we are being judged.  When someone holds us to a high standard, would that be considered judging?  It shouldn't be.  But we sometimes feel that way.  When parents have high expectations for their children, do the children think they are being judged?  They often do, but they shouldn't.  I think parents should expect their children to put forth good efforts in school.  For many children, holding high academic standards for them is also appropriate.  I don't think this kind of thing is being judgmental.

The problem is that sometimes we are judgmental.  And when someone reacts to the judging, they often reject the other stuff as well.  I think this plays into the fact that those who participate in homosexual relationships are also more likely to smoke, abuse drugs, have multiple sexual partners, and other risky behavior.  In rejecting the judgments of others, they also reject the standards that others hold.  LDS kids are taught to not have sexual relations before marriage.  I realize that it is not always easy, but a large number of youth live up to this standard.  However, those who have gay orientations are far more likely to reject the standard if they decide to pursue relationships with their own gender.  They reject the expectation of chastity which in their mind is connected to a straight orientation.  Children in public schools are commonly taught of the dangers of smoking, but upon rejecting standard straight relationships, people often reject other standard societal messages, like the warnings about smoking.  Then when others who love us question our behavior, we reply with "don't judge me," when the question may not have been about judgment, but rather concern for our well-being.

How Are We Saved? (Part II)

In part one, I wrote about the idea of cleanliness.  I want to now look at our role and the role of the Savior, and what this means about a famously misunderstood scripture.  Nephi made the following statement:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

I think that many people read too much into this scripture.  There is some kind of idea that we save ourselves partway and grace makes up the rest.  I don't believe that's what Nephi meant.  But he's right, we do have to do something.  We can't be saved unless we repent.  In part one, I used an analogy involving a child playing in the mud.  It is clearly impossible for such a child to clean their faces using their muddy hands.  The child's responsibility is to get out of the mud.  The parent with the hose does the actual cleaning.  Similarly, the atonement is what does the cleaning.  All our efforts to save ourselves are like a child trying to clean themselves using their muddy hands.  It gets nowhere.  But if the child refuses to leave the mud, the hose does little good.

All we can do is repent, and remove ourselves from situations that lead to sin.  The actual saving, that which cleanses us and makes us worthy, is done by the grace of Christ, through His atonement.  So Nephi is exactly right.  It is by grace we are saved, after all we can do.

How Are We Saved? (Part I)

When Amulek was teaching in Ammonihah, the need for a Savior became a point of contention.  What would the role of the Savior be, if He was even necessary?  We get this passage:

And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. (Alma 11:34)

Zeezrom takes great umbrage at this, asking what use would the Savior be if he didn't save the people.  But Amulek responds that God "said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins."

I hear similar ideas being bandied about today.  The concepts of worthiness and cleanliness are being portrayed as evil.  We all sin, so the thought goes, and we cannot be perfect in this life.  So the focus of the church on worthiness and cleanliness is destined to bring misery to its members who can never reach such lofty goals.  It's like Zeezrom's thought that a Savior that doesn't save the people in their sins doesn't do us much good.

But to those who read carefully, the answer to this conundrum becomes much clearer when several generations later, Helaman teaches his sons the following:

And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins.  (Helaman 5:10)

I love that scripture.  The way I think of it, imagine a child who wants to eat dinner, who is playing in the mud.  A parent has a hose with which to clean the child off.  But to clean up for dinner, the child must leave the mud.  The hose doesn't do much good if the child stays in the mud.  And the child will not be allowed to eat in such a filthy state.  Similarly, to be saved, we must repent, and leave our sins.  Yes, everyone sins, and we don't need to feel despair about having sinned.  However, we also shouldn't feel so comfortable in this sinful state that we remain there, and fail to achieve the blessings of the atonement.  Like the child, we need to get out of the mud so the hose can do its work.  That's what it takes to be worthy, to be clean.  We have to repent often and remove ourselves from sinful situations so the atonement of Christ can clean us.

Homo-

I'm sure lots of people have heard the news that a gentleman was fired from an English language learner site for an article about homophones.  Evidently, the owner didn't want to be associated with homosexuals.  My first question is why someone who teaches English doesn't know what a homophone is.  That's like a math teacher not knowing the definition of "quotient".

Then there is the inherent homophobia in this firing.  The owner is so afraid of homosexuality that he is disturbed by the use of the "homo-" prefix.  This reminds me of the man that had to quit his job because he used the word "niggardly" and people were offended by its similarity to a taboo word.

Anyway, here's a link to the article.  I enjoyed all the comments about homo sapiens and homogenized milk.