Am I a Hypocrite?

"Judge Norman Randy Smith - He was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from Brigham Young University with a bachelor’s degree in 1974, and received his J.D. from Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark School of Law in 1977." (Note: In addition to practicing law and serving as a U.S. Ambassador, J. Reuben Clark was also a member of the First Presidency of the LDS Church for several years.)

This man is one of three who will, as a panel, judge the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger...

This man (and I am making an educated guess), is a Mormon. Who graduated from the same law school that Lynn Wardle teaches at (note that it says he is a "Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law" - I haven't been able to pinpoint what that means, exaclty).

(More on Lynn Wardle here. And here.)

(More on Bruce C. Hafen here. Also, Bruce C. Hafen used to be the Dean of BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.)

The other two Judges on the 9th Circuit Panel are more left-leaning (which is great for us!), but I have also heard that Judge Smith is pretty moderate (even on equality isses) for a "conservative judge."

However, I am not convinced. Let me preface this by saying that I am not calling for harassment, or a lynch mob, or anything of that sort, of Judge Smith. But I am not convinced.

His church is heavily invested in his ruling; one of the defendants (NOM) is a Mormon front-group; the law school he attended is replete with people in high positions (a Dean of the law school; a famous lawyer; the fact that the law school is named after a member of the LDS Church's First Presidency) who have come out with mean-spirited, unsubstantiated, and flat-out wrong statements and propositions that undermine not only our equality, but our humanity...

So, here is the question: Am I a hypocrite for thinking that Judge Smith should remove himself from the three-judge panel because of his multiple conflicts of interest? Especially since the last ruling was made by a man who is not-so-secretly gay (ahem, Judge Vaughn Walker). And especially since I thought it was ridiculous that Judge Walker was getting criticized for it by the pro-Proposition 8 Team (they insinuated that judges cannot be gay because you cannot trust a gay man's judgment)...?

I mean, really, come on, isn't this akin to my made-up analogy of a Judge, who graduated from Hitler Law School, deciding a case for/against a state constitutional ban on Jewish rights, with the defendants of the ban in question being created and funded by the Nazi's, with whom the Judge has personal and spiritual associations?

The LDS Church, circa 1943

My only remaining grandparent (my dad's father) passed away on April 2nd this year, about thirteen months after his wife passed away. I now have no grandparents - and I feel cheated. My dad and his siblings have been sorting things out as far as who gets what, trying to clear my grandpa's house so that it can be sold.

Yesterday I noticed a pocket-sized book that looked pretty old, but in fairly good condition, sitting on one of the counters in our kitchen. It is about the size of a pocket-size LDS hymn book, with the title in black against a brown cover. I don't know why I glanced at it, but I did. (I suspect that it's because I have a mild interest in old editions of literature, such as my mom's nursing textbooks from the late 1970's/early 1980's.) Anyway, I flipped open the cover and in my grandma's distinctive cursive handwriting was written "Marlene Oliver." The title page indicated that it was published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1943, and a preface was written and signed by The First Presidency at the time, which consisted of Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay.

This book is simply titled "Principles of the Gospel."

It is topically-based, much like the "Mormon Doctrine" book, and obviously the first thing I looked for started with the letter "H" - homosexuality. But this topic was not present in the book. So I just flipped through the book, browsing until I came upon the subject heading "Church and State" on page 246.

I read all that was written under this subject heading, and I will present it here - with my added italics. (Copyright to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints):

"Church and State

The Church stands for the separation of Church and State. The Church has no civil political functions. As the Church may not assume the functions of the State, so the State may not assume the functions of the Church. The Church is responsible for and must carry on the work of the Lord, directing the conduct of its members, one towards the other, as followers of the lowly Christ, not forgetting the humble, the poor and the needy, and those in distress, leading them all to righteous living and a spiritual life that shall bring them to salvation, exaltation, and eternal progression in wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and power. ***

"The State is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church, itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for.

"Nevertheless, as a correlative of the principle of separation of the Church and the State, themselves, there is an obligation running from every citizen or subject to the State. This obligation is voiced in that Article of Faith which declares: 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.'

"For one hundred years, the Church has been guided by the following principles:

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion.

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

"We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker. ***

"We believe *** that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed. (D & C 134:1-6, 8; Message of the First Presidency, April, 1942)"

This stunned me! I hope it stuns you, too! It stunned me because this is in stark contrast to what the Church now voices in regards to the separation of Church and State, as well as in regards to politics in general.

I actually agreed with the majority of what was written in this section. I still have questions and thoughts, but this pretty much sums up what I feel in my heart. If I had read this in 1943 and was not a member of the Church at the time, I probably would've joined! It just aligns so well with what I feel has been conveyed to me by the Holy Ghost.

So, the question is: what happened?! What changed?! Why is the Church now voicing different principles? I don't understand, and I probably never will... Sigh.

I am disappointed and confused by my childhood faith. But at the same time, I am just overjoyed that I was led to see this passage in this book! I believe that everything happens for a reason, and I was meant to see this passage at this time. It has given me some clarity, some confidence, and some ground to stand on. I am truly blessed and grateful!

At the End of the Gravel Road

This past Friday (March 12th) was a huge day for me. It was my one-year "coming out" anniversary.

I never thought this day would come. When I was a teenager, there was a time when I didn't think I would live to see myself graduate, much less enter my twenties and see my one-year "coming out" anniversary. But I've pulled through. I've survived.

Being open about my orientation has had many benefits, many of which are not quantifiable. As the anniversary was approaching, I tried to reflect on what it really meant to me. How it changed my life. And, to my surprise, I couldn't really think of anything specific except that I don't have to hide anymore. I don't have to be embarrassed if there is something about me that is a little more effeminate than your average white, heterosexual male. Other than that, I really can't think of anything. That doesn't mean that it wasn't worth it, or that it wasn't a big deal - it was a big deal. It is a big deal for anyone who's ever done it.

Like I said, many of the benefits are not quantifiable; they are indescribable. It's more than a pure list on a piece of paper. It's more than how many benefits I can count on my hands. It's more than I even know it is. It's a feeling deep inside of me that gives me confidence. In all reality, it is a state of being. It is how I carry myself.

For example, after not having attended LDS Church meetings in over a year (except for special occasions, like Mother's Day) I attended our ward's Christmas party with my family this past December. My Bishop was there (have I told you about my Bishop? I'll have to someday). Let it be said for now that our past was full of anger and resentment, but that we agreed to disagree. I tried my best to forgive him (and I feel that I have) but that doesn't mean I have to talk to him, or reach out to him, or be his best friend or neighbor. However, I encountered him at the party and chatted with him very briefly. In the past, before I was "out", I had this vision of my Bishop as this all-mighty, wise being who knew exactly how to help and comfort me. I thought that he was infallible. I saw him as having authority because I gave him that authority; it was my perception that he had control over not only my salvation, but my happiness as well. I put myself in a situation where I was dependent on him and ended up getting disappointed. I saw myself as less than him: after all, I was a homosexual and he was a Bishop - a Bishop! Needless to say, my perception of our relationship had him up on this pedestal looking down on me - because I put him there. And that was wrong of me.

Anyway, during our brief chat at the ward Christmas party I felt, for the first time in my life, like his equal. I felt like I was just as important to Heavenly Father as he was. I felt like he didn't have authority over me any more - because I chose not to give it to him. I felt like I was in the right and could defend myself against, yes, even a Bishop. I felt like we were on a level playing field; that his rules didn't apply to me because I was playing a different game than he was.

And to feel that feeling of confidence and contentment made me feel happy.

That's not to say that I look down on my Bishop. I just respected him for who he was while asserting my right to live my life the way I wanted to. And I realized that that's okay. We don't have to agree. That's part of life. It is not my job to please everybody.

And it was choosing to "come out" a year ago that gave me the confidence to feel that way during that brief exchange with my Bishop. It was cordial, nothing to deep, but I felt happy and content. I couldn't have done that if I still felt dependent on him for my happiness; if his approval meant more to me than actually living my life. "Coming out" helped me to assert my independence, to increase the amount of love I show myself, and to increase my self-respect.

And, in essence, those are the two words I would use to describe "coming out": self-respect. Letting go of all the baggage and accepting yourself wholeheartedly without pre-conditions, unapologetically and even aggressively.

If you are still in the closet, I would urge you to "come out." However, it needs to be when you are ready. It needs to be because you want to, and not because someone else wants you to or because you want to "rebel" against someone who is against it. Prayerfully consider it. Treat it with care; you teach people how to treat you by how you treat yourself. If you approach it with respect and sensitivity, so will others. If you "come out" but play a victim, others will treat you as a victim. Please don't do that. "Coming out" means that you are not ashamed of who you are; you are not a victim! You deserve to be happy and victims aren't happy people. Be happy! Show others that you love and respect yourself.

Now, I have recently discovered some new instrumental music that I want to share with you. This is my way of celebrating. It helps me to feel inspired, powerful, and successful. I know that it will inspire you as well.

I want to express specifically how I feel about this first song. It is called "The Gravel Road" from The Village. If you haven't seen the movie, I don't want to ruin it for you, so stop reading. Now, the plot of the film is that there is this secluded village in modern America whose inhabitants live as if it were still the 1700's. The elders of this Amish-like group instill a fear in the rest of the village by telling them horrific stories of monsters that lie in the woods that encircle the village. Often, the villagers are attacked by these monsters, and their fear keeps them isolated. A blind girl in the village decides to go out to find some help for those who were attacked by the monsters and along the way she comes across some challenges, risking her life when the "monster" attacks her (The "monsters" are actually costumes that the elders dress up in to keep the fear instilled in village people). But she picks up her walking stick, brushes herself off, and keeps going. She eventually comes to this stone wall with a door recessed into it. She opens the door and steps out onto a 20th century highway. In essence, her eyes have been "opened" and she is no longer blind (literally and figuratively) to the lies and deceit that kept her secluded from the rest of the world due to fear.

I feel like that is what "coming out" is like. You feel blind, lost along the way. You are fearful of what lurks in the woods, what pains you might have to confront to venture into their shadowy arms. You have these challenges that sometimes you can't see, but you can feel them, you can sense them. And you give these challenges a run for their money! You feel like you are all alone, but you have prayer to help you, much like a walking stick. When you come to that stone wall, it's stature so intimidating, you open that closet door and jump out into the real world. You are no longer blind. That doesn't mean you see everything, but that you welcome the opportunities that come your way. You now realize that the fear you and others held about you discovering what was beyond that door were without merit. It would be understandably hard to adjust from an 18th-century lifestyle to a 20th-century one, much like adjusting from a straight, closeted life to an "out", open life is. But it's a welcome opportunity. The destination at the end of The Gravel Road is yours.

This is what the journey down the gravel road feels like:



This is what I feel when I see that closet door, approaching it with every footstep. I can't believe the moment is here, and I almost want to stay in the moment forever. Everything is happening in slow motion, then the gravity of the situation hits me (from Michael Clayton):



This is what it feels like when I open that closet door: still scared, overwhelmed, so much to take in, but hopeful. Much like Tom Hanks' character at the end of the movie Cast Away, I have a blank slate and I can start all over again:



This is how it feels to finally meet My Love beyond that stone wall (From The Cider House Rules):



...And this song, from The Fountain, describes every part of the journey:

Mixed Message from the "Kingdom"

We've all heard the news about the Church supporting Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance that would add "sexual orientation" protections to the list of protected statuses in the city's areas of employment and housing...

I don't know about you, but when I hear of news about the Church and its political support of anything, my ears perk up and I frantically search the internet to see if the media have picked it up yet.

I first heard word of the Church's actions from the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group on Facebook; a message was sent out to members of the group telling of how "well-placed people inside the Mormon Church" contacted others who were involved with Reed Cowan's documentary to let them know that the Church planned a statement and that they needed to "Watch what we [the Church] are about to do. You will be pleased."

At that point the media hadn't picked up the story yet, and I began to ponder about whether or not I believed the message sent to me by the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group. Honestly, the thought came into my mind that whoever sent the message was trying to rile people up with a sensationalized message - this person proved me wrong!

How do I feel about it? Honestly, I am confused and don't really know, but I will explain my feelings as best I can.

I am upset that the Church got involved, for several reasons. My primary reason for disagreement is because I don't like it when any Church gets involved in politics - period! Even when the Church and I agree on an issue (such as this ordinance), I don't think it is appropriate or ethical for any religion to get involved in politics. It shouldn't happen unless there is an issue that directly or specifically addresses religion.

I don't like the Church being involved in this specific issue because once it is involved a precedent is set. It is said about Utah politics that, "When the Church says 'jump,' those on Capitol Hill say, 'How high?'" So the legislature will, begrudgingly, refrain from challenging this ordinance. The precedent that is set is that the gay community now becomes dependent on the Church for any legislation that affects our community. One could argue that that's the way it already is, but the Church sends enough mixed messages that this ordinance could very well end up being challenged and revoked, which leads me to...

The way the Church handled its press release was, to me, not good enough. If we look back at Prop. 8 and the way the Church announced its support of that measure, it came in the form of a letter written and signed by the First Presidency that was read in every California ward's sacrament meeting. Compared to that, some "Joe Blo" from PR reading a statement written by the PR department carries little to no weight. He wasn't even an official spokesperson! (Those would be Kim Farrah and Scott Trotter). Admittedly, Prop. 8 and this ordinance bear little resemblance in "weight" themselves, but after the fiasco that was Prop. 8, a letter from the First Presidency read in Salt Lake City's wards should've been the least the Church could do.

The way in which the Church announced its support is the reason why people and groups still disagree with the Church on this ordinance. The Sutherland Institute, which is based on LDS principles, issued a statement disagreeing with the Church. The Utah Eagle Forum, which thinks it's based on LDS principles, also disagrees with the Church's stance on the ordinance. The reason why it's "okay" for them to disagree with the Church, but it wasn't "okay" for people who disagreed with the Church on Prop. 8, was because of the reason stated above: this time the statement didn't come from the First Presidency or the Prophet, it came from "Joe Blo" in PR. (The fact that certain people and groups still choose to disagree with the Church is not evidentiary of their "apostasy" - it is evidentiary of their being homophobic.)

And this is not a mistake. The Church does not issue anything - anything - publicly until it has been reviewed, revised, and "okayed" by the highest leaders of the Church. And since Prop. 8 - hell, since the beginning of friggin' time - the Church has been extremely careful with its PR. No one can convince me that everything about this announcement was not thoroughly thought out, or revised, or considered. I guarantee you that even this PR guy's tie was thought out in detail.

In short, the Church knows that an announcement doesn't carry as much weight when it is not delivered in a Church setting by its highest leaders...

Besides, the fact that the Church came in at the last minute to "save the day" when the city knew the ordinance would already pass is beyond disingenuous. I've heard comments from several people, including some MoHo's, with the general consensus being that, "We must thank the Church for doing this for us." To them I say, "I am not going to thank the Church for this; I am going to thank Salt Lake City and Mayor Ralph Becker for this."

Furthermore, the fact that Reed Cowan's documentary is coming out in the next few months has not gone over the Church's head. And that's what I believe this is all about - the Church having some backup, some "ammo" in its arsenal, to address coming criticism once "8: The Mormon Proposition" is released.

I would say the one reason why I am so confused about the Church's actions is because its statement read that this ordinance provides "common-sense rights that should be available to everyone" when just weeks ago Elder Oaks referred to gay rights as "alleged."

Oaks also said, "Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights."

Well, are they "common-sense rights" or "alleged civil rights?" This is one of those Mysteries of the "Kingdom." Can you blame me for being confused?!

One of the reasons the Church supports the ordinance is because it allows for religious freedom and exemption from the ordinance...

Oh, that's nice - especially when the Church owns half of the property in Salt Lake City. The exemption not only protects strictly religious property - such as churches, or temple grounds - but it applies to everything the Church owns. That means that the multi-billion dollar ($1.5 - $8 billion is estimated) City Creek Center being built by the Church, with not only its mall stores (and the stores' employees) but its high-end apartments and condominums, will be exempt from the ordinance. You won't find any dirty gays working for Macy's or Hot Dog On a Stick! Now, I'm not saying that this is inappropriate. In fact, as long as the Church does not accept any federal or state tax monies it is completely appropriate. But I am offended when the Church acts like it is doing us a favor. Please, I'm not a "petulant tween!"

If it's religious exemptions the Church wants, then why did it oppose gay marriage in Maine, which, in its legal form, allowed for religious exemptions? Call me confused... again.

In general, there have been two types of responses from members: those who disagree (like the Sutherland Institute and the Utah Eagle Forum) and those who agree with the Church. Some who agree with the Church are engaging in revisionist history, saying that the Church's position nor doctrine has changed. Huh?! Wha?! The Church itself called the announcement, "an historic statement." If nothing has changed, why is it so historic?

It confuses me when people say, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever." To them I say: "God may be unchanging, but the Church sure isn't." The mere fact that the Church has made this leap compared to twenty years ago (when people were excommunicated just for having gay feelings) is evidence. If it is okay to support a public policy position such as this today, now, then why wasn't it okay twenty years ago? Why is it okay for a person to have gay feelings today and not be excommunicated when twenty years ago it was different?

Having made all my complaints, and despite all my misgivings and hesitancy to send the Church a "thank you" card, I ultimately feel that if the Church's support helped in any way to save someone's life, then it is worth it.

I just wish I understood more what the Church really feels. I'm getting sick of the mixed messages.

Call me confused. And cautiously optimistic.

"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.

Finally... Peace

I had a spiritual experience the other night that was purely amazing, and I feel confident in what I was blessed with and how my prayers were answered.

The other night I felt this urge to go to Denny's by myself and ponder about my life, my choices, my future, etc... I pulled into the parking lot and said a prayer, asking Heavenly Father if He would please bring those things to my mind that I should be pondering, to guide my thinking, to make things clearer to me, and to bring me some closure, some peace of mind.

As I was sitting in the restaurant (at 2/2:30 a.m.) the moment hit me like a rock. I was supposed to be here on this day, in this restaurant, at this time. I felt peaceful, loved and cared for by Him. My heart was full with joy and gratitude because He was reminding me of all the blessings I had received throughout my life, despite the trials and hardships I had endured.

When I got home, I thought that the moment was over; it wasn't. I wanted to listen to my iPod as I fell asleep, something I usually do, but I just felt that doing that on this night was not right. As I was in my room I felt the urge to pick up an LDS quote book and read the quotes selected for Friday and Saturday: "Covenants and Oaths" & "Preserve Your Divine Heritage." After that, I noticed The Secret placed on my nightstand; I picked it up also, flipping to a random page. The page I flipped to described the trials of a gay man and how he used "The Secret" to be happy and positive:

"His whole life changed because he changed from focusing on what he did not want, what he was afraid of, what he wanted to avoid, to focusing on what he did want."

I again flipped the page randomly and the following was written:

"If you do just a little research, it is going to become evident to you that anyone that ever accomplished anything, did not know how they were going to do it. They only knew they were going to do it."

I flipped the page randomly for the last time and the following was written:

"Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive - Matthew 21:22" (emphasis added)

I knew that I was meant to see those three passages at that exact moment, and I was grateful that he was guiding me in my pondering.

I got into bed and laid down on my back and prayed once more. It was the most amazing moment I have ever experienced. I realized that I had been following The Secret principles throughout the night: I wanted peace and to be guided, so I prayed for peace, to be guided - and I experienced a feeling of peace, and I was being guided by Him.

I did not decide what to pray about; rather I listened for the promptings as to what I should pray about. After a few stumped moments I felt that I had three specific people that I needed to forgive, that I needed to address them through prayer; it was weird because I didn't even think about who they might be: I knew exactly who these three people were. I proceeded to address these people as if I was talking directly to them. I told them I was sorry for them because of _____. I told them how I am choosing to forgive them for what they did (or neglected to do). That healing experience was something I never could have done by myself, and the fact that it finally happened was an answer to a prayer; He knew that it was time to heal.

I prayed about how I was saddened that the three out of four people in my family who have died have all been those who I was really close to: my great Aunt and both of my grandmothers. (My great Aunt Norma lived her life solo, something that I may have to go through, and can't even imagine at this moment. My Grandma Christensen was fairly independent. She told people exactly what she felt, but at the same time being someone who knows how hard life is. She went through her own trials, and would certainly admit that she wasn't perfect. My mom has told me that she knows only two people who would go to the movies by themselves: me and my Grandma Christensen. I grew closer to my Grandma Stelter as I got older. I got her hooked on Lost and me and her were avid supporters of Barack Obama (although she lamented Hillary Clinton's loss)). At that moment, something changed. I look back and realize that subconsciously I knew that something was odd. I leaned up and looked around the room more than once, but I could not see anyone or hear anything. However, I knew that there was a different spirit in the room; my room had literally transformed into a Holy Place. I felt as though everything that was happening in the world was going on in my room. It was so surreal. I was reliving the last moment I had with my Grandma Stelter, and I was blessed that she had remembered my name, her relationship to me, and what I was doing in life; days later she would die. A connection existed between us the other night that I cannot deny. It was testified to me that she still knew who I was; she knew what was going on right now in my life; she knew the choices I've made and the choices I face. She testified to me that I was not alone - that she was with me and wanted me to be happy.

Later during my prayer, relating to the quotes above, it was testified to me that whatever happens, I was going to be happy. I didn't know how I was going to be happy, how I was going to find that happiness, all I knew is that I was going to be happy. I didn't know what that happiness entailed, all I knew is that I was going to be happy.

The only thing that left me confused was something that I know was testified to me; why I am confused is because I'm wondering why something like that would be testified to me. It was testified to me that at this time in my life, the Church is doing me more harm than good; that I am not meant to be involved with it at this time. I know that it does not mean an abandonment of Gospel principles, but rather an involvement with the Church. I know that this was testified to me. And yet, at the same time, it was testified to me that I am going to be happy. I didn't know what that entailed, how it was going to come about; all I knew was that I was going to be happy. Both of these things were testified unto me. Whatever the contradiction, I know that He will guide me and it will all work out.

I finished by asking the Lord to bless me with peace, completeness, and wholeness, and I trusted that it would come; I behaved as though I had already received it. And I did receive it from Him.

When I woke up the next day I was no longer angry about most of the things I was angry about before this experience. The past no longer mattered to me. I read the news headlines without any anger. I thought about anger-producing things and I felt no anger. I was peaceful and content.

And yet again, the next night (last night) I felt the prompting to pray again, that the prayer the night before went incomplete. I laid in bed wondering what could possibly be left to say, as I had felt amazing things the night before and all felt right to me. I felt the prompting that there was one more person that I needed to forgive, that I had neglected to forgive this person the night before. I tried to think about who this person was, but I could not place a finger on it. It was in stark contrast to the night before, where I had immediately known who the three specific people were that I needed to forgive. But the Lord let me know that the person I still needed to forgive was myself. I asked the Lord to guide my thoughts to the things that I needed to forgive about myself, and He let me know. I accepted the things about my past; I accepted that fact that I had no control over my past, that I could not re-write history; I accepted all the trials that I've gone through, and was grateful for how they changed me; I accepted my strengths as well as my weaknesses, and realized that they are not deficits in my person. And most of all, I accepted the fact that I am a Beautiful Creature of value and worth; that I am a Child, even a Son, of God, and that God's love is unconditional and He will always have love for me.

I wish I could relive the past two days over and over and over again. It sounds cliche, but I feel totally comfortable dying now; I trust Him and trust His plan for me. I can't see the big picture like He can, but I know that if I trust Him, then I can experience those things that He wants me to experience, and for my betterment.

I really don't know what is going to happen next, but I welcome it because I trust His promise that I am going to be happy.

After reading this, please do what He tells you to do, what He prompts you to do. Trust him.

Chris Buttars Can Kiss My Ass! (and More Opinions)

NOTE: In the past I have refrained from criticizing the Church and specific individuals because I had always thought that those actions are unbecoming of an ethical human being. However, due to recent events discussed below, I cannot remain silent anymore; I have an obligation to speak out. I need to release these feelings.

I've been patient. I've given my fellow Utahns and its legislative leaders the benefit of the doubt. I was naive.

Even after the Church specifically named certain rights that it believes gays and gay couples should receive; after Equality Utah and a few legislators drafted bills based on the specific rights mentioned by the Church - they did nothing. And by they, I mean the legislators AND the Church.

Recently, the Church has been fairly involved in legislation regarding immigration issues and liquor laws; why would the Church not issue another statement backing the Common Ground Initiative? Don't tell me it's because the Church is "neutral;" it clearly is not. (This is discussed later).

If the Church had issued another statement endorsing the Common Ground Initiative, then the legislators on Capitol Hill would have been clamoring over each other to sponsor the bills, inevitably making some contrived public statement that he/she has always supported the rights in the Common Ground Initiative.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Senator Chris Buttars: You are a sorry excuse for a man and a disgrace to all Mormons and Utahns. I have morals you son-of-a-bitch. Who do you think you are? As far as I am concerned, you can suck it.

I hope you get cancer.

Furthermore, your claims that Reed Cowan "assured [you] that he would treat both sides of the issue fairly and that [you] would be treated fairly... and told [you] that the interview would be made public in about a year and [you] would be allowed to see his work and approve [your] part before he released it" are blatant lies.

You signed a release form. You never asked for your statements to be taken off-the-record. To "take [Reed] at his word" is incomprehensible given the fact that you have a penchant for being scrutinized in the media because you make inflammatory statements. Dumbass.

The sad fact is, you were re-elected after you made racist comments on the Senate floor. Your constituents agree with what you have to say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utahns, especially Mormons, can't have it both ways. Mormons claim that it is unfair to blame them for the passage of Proposition 8, given that they make up only 2% of the California electorate. But they donated at least 40% of the money used to promote its passage. I dare say that without all the financial resources Mormons provided to Pro-Proposition 8 organizations, the Proposition wouldn't have passed.

Mormons are willing to take all the credit for its passage; case in point: a recent comment in Elders' Quorum by a Californian visiting a relative in my ward claimed that very fact: without the Mormons, Proposition 8 wouldn't have passed. However, when people started protesting the Church; when people specifically targeted Utah for boycotts; when churches were vandalized - Mormons were (and still are) quick to cry afoul, asking, "What did I ever do to you?" You can't have your cake and eat it too!

There is a genuine disconnect in the communication between Mormons and the "other side." Mormons perceive that the "other side" objects to them voting their consciences; voting based on their moral, even religious, beliefs. NEWSFLASH: That is not what the "other side" objects to. It objects to the fact that Church leaders issued conflicting statements: one regarding alleged political neutrality and another specifically asking Mormons to donate of their time and means to the passage of Proposition 8.

But then another genuine disconnect is encountered: Mormons say that Proposition 8 was not a political issue but, rather, a moral issue. With the "other side" claiming otherwise, this specific disconnect is the root of the problem: neither side will budge on on the "moral/political" nature of this issue - and until one does (which will never happen), healing on both sides will never take place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another irony: one of the arguments used back in 2004 in promoting the passage of Amendment 3 (which defined marriage as between one man and one woman) was that, essentially, nothing could be legally equated to marriage; there was one definition and one definition only. However, the argument used against the passage of the five bills in the Common Ground Initiative was that of a "slippery slope" to the point that gay marriage will slowly and eventually be established in the State of Utah...

My question is this: if that is the argument, then why the hell was the passage of Amendment 3 so important? Amendment 3 was supposedly untouchable - after all, it is now a part of the Utah Constitution. The fact is, because Amendment 3 is now a part of the Utah Constitution, the "slippery slope" argument holds no weight; if a proposed state bill conflicts with the Utah Constitution, then that bill is, by definition, unconstitutional, and that bill will never pass. Do you, Gayle Ruzicka, and you, Chris Buttars, and all you other legislators have so little faith in your state's Constitution that you would be threatened by a bill that would make hiring/firing an employee on the basis of sexual orientation (gay or straight) illegal? Really?! Really?!

Furthermore, the five bills in the Common Ground Initiative never discussed gay marriage or civil unions. The bills outlined medical, legal, and property rights as well as discrimination protections and were offered on an a la carte basis. Failure of their passage contradicts Mormons' claims that they don't hate gays and are just opposed to a redefinition of marriage. (And I can legitimately say "Mormons" and not "legislators" because a full 80% of Utah's legislators are LDS).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is this: Proposition 8 passed. Fine. Later, the Church issued a statement naming specifically six types of gay rights that it supports. You did not pass one of them.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the Church was right about Proposition 8 then it was right about the Common Ground Initiative.

And, once again, just for kicks: Chris Buttars - you can Kiss My Ass!