"I just want to make you into a decent human being."

Someone said the above sentence to me just minutes ago. I couldn't believe that the words actually came out of "Josh's" mouth. I mean, I thought we were beyond this. It came in the midst of an argument over my "immaturity" of submitting a letter to the public forum of the Deseret News which (gasp!) was actually published - on a Sunday, which means that everyone and their dog saw it if they read the Opinion section. I've sent two letters before to the same newspaper within the last two years, and both were published - the last one also on a Sunday. But I guess that this one hit a nerve. Here is the (unedited) text of my letter, which was edited for length (I'm assuming). The boldened parts of the letter were not in the newspaper:

"I couldn't help but write in response to Tonia Freeman Doussett's letter ("Advocate's Hypocrisy"). She outlines the idea that the "kiss-in" at Main Street Plaza was a hypocritical, defiant attack aimed at the LDS Church. Here's how I see it: LDS Church spokeswoman Kim Farah released a statement saying that the two men had been "asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior just as any other couple would have been." That is misleading, at best - wedding pictures are taken on the Plaza all the time. Ironically, the LDS Church is ever-so-willing to be the unsolicited, self-proclaimed 'moral' police regarding a kiss on the cheek while at the same time turning a blind eye towards its thousands of members who are living in this country illegally, even going as far as sending some of these people on missions. Clearly, a kiss on the cheek from one male to another is what this is really all about. Trespassing, anyone?"

Now, of course the letter is provocative and somewhat contentious. By definition, this incident is provocative and contentious - how could my letter not be? I was trying to point out a glaring inconsistency, after all. I had read several letters and opinion pieces on the incident and no one had pointed out that illegal immigrants who live in the U.S. and who are also Church members are, in fact, "trespassing" on U.S. soil - but the Church has urged compassion on these people (and sends them on missions if they so choose, in addition to considering them Temple-worthy). I even read the police report when it became available (and the security guards made no mention of "groping" as the Church statements have). Even the Deseret News, in an article today, said that, "A police report said they sat down for a kiss and were approached by a pair of church security guards, who asked them to leave because their behavior was 'unwanted.'" (Emphasis added.) Because nobody else had made the point that I saw as most important, I felt the urge to write the letter myself as clearly as I could.

"Josh" was offended by my letter because "[I] attacked something very important to [him]." In response, I said, "Well, I feel hurt when my Church would arrest someone like me because of simple and affectionate homosexual behavior." "Josh's" response, "Oh, come on Drew! They were drunk! I see drunk people arrested all the time. If you want to be proud of that behavior then that's your choice."

When I accused "Josh" of being too worried about his image, and that being the reason why he was so upset, he said, "Drew, I just want to make you into a decent (code: good) human being." He also accused me of "hating" him.

I don't hate him. It hurts me to hear that he thinks I do. I love him and I know that he loves me. But I feel like I should have the right to write a letter to the local newspaper if I want to. If it hurts him that I wrote a letter that criticized his Church's property policy, then I understand that and I am sorry that he is hurt by it. But, like I said above, I am hurt when my Church would treat two men this way and then deny being homophobic, and even going as far as to say that a straight couple exhibiting the same behaviors on Church property would have been addressed in a similar manner. Puuuulease!

Furthermore, "Josh" echoed the "you're either with us or you're against us" attitude. I told him flat out that that attitude, when applied to anything, is a fallacy. To put your loyalty to the group, whether it be political, religious, or otherwise, is a trap that too many people fall into. I elaborated on why I thought this was wrong - and that's because without criticism then there is no vector for change, no drive for improvement, no way to become better. And the response from "Josh": "You are going to change the Church?!"

To clarify, I personally see a difference between "the Church" and "the Gospel" because THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Case in point, the Gospel is perfect, but the Church is not. The Church is led by mortal men and, try as we might, we can never perfect the Church while we, as fallen beings, are carrying out perfect revelation. It just can't happen: while the revelation we receive can be perfect or ideal, we may not carry it out in the same exact way that was intended - and that's okay. To accept the fact that we are not perfect and never will be so long as we have yet to experience death is a freeing action that we can choose to implement in our lives. Jesus Christ is the only person in the Earth's history to have been perfect while having a mortal body. To say that we can be perfected while still in our fallen state is to indirectly deny the great miracle and gift that Christ was.

I tried to explain this to "Josh", but he still thought that I was coming out in "open rebellion" to Church leaders. I told him that I assumed he was calling me an Apostate, but he denied it. I think that questioning, or even criticizing, Church property policies are not subject to being labeled as being in "open rebellion." Call me crazy, but agreeing with Church property policies is not a requisite for Baptism, Resurrection, or Exaltation. I don't believe that I have to agree with them for God to be pleased with me or even to love me. He loves me now, He has always loved me, and He will continue to love me for the rest of my life despite the opinions I hold or the actions I take because His love is unconditional. Furthermore, I don't believe that being a Mormon is a requisite for being a decent person. I refuse that notion at any and all levels.

So, at this time, I am choosing to agree-to-disagree: he may think I'm not a decent person, but I think I am. And although his choice of words hurts me, I think he's a decent, although different, person as well.