How You Become the 'Bad Guy'

Last week the LDS Church excommunicated activist and Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly. The fact that she was condemned by her local church authorities for apostasy is not news. What was news to me was the response the LDS church leaders released late last week claiming that questioning and doubting is something that is allowed within the Mormon community. "Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding," the statement reads.

I don't want to talk about Kate Kelly. But I do want to talk about the church's official statement. Thanks to the Internet, many of the questions that were ignored or denied by the authorities of the church can now be discussed.

It has been almost seven years since I started this blog. I started with a very political motivation. At the time, I was wading around in what is now commonly labeled "tea party" ideology. Ron Paul, The Constitution, Ezra Taft Benson, The Constitution, Cleon Skousen, The Constitution. I have since dipped into discussions of religion, among other topics. Over time my views have evolved toward a more liberal ideology, and back toward a more moderate view.


I don't consider myself a talented writer, but I have always enjoyed making the attempt. When I was a college student, I would write letters to the university paper, as well as the town rag. It is a way for me to process my thinking. When I began discussing/debating, at first it didn't seem to be a problem that I made political/religious points; not in the period where I supported conservative causes and followed church doctrine strictly. Later on, in so many cases, trying to talk about these questions caused friction and discomfort among those with whom I interacted in real life (after I was not a conservative ditto-head anymore).

Strangely enough, most of these same people were uncomfortable with what I would write online as well. So... it's not advisable to talk with people face-to-face about topics like politics or religion, but it's also not a good idea to write about them online. This has more often than not caused me much worry and apprehension, and in recent years, I all but stopped writing on this blog. So it was surprising to me to find out that these discussions were somehow welcome at church, of all places. I guess I started blogging because I didn't have a place to go with all these questions. And when I started asking, I found it caused conflict online and offline. I guess I assumed if I couldn't talk about it with most family members, and if I couldn't talk about it online, then bringing it up at church probably wouldn't be a good idea. If only I had known...

The only arrow I had left in my quiver that allowed me to get away with some of my unorthodox behavior and actions was that I was a lifelong active mormon. But since I haven't attended for a few months now, and I don't intend on returning anytime soon, I have no ability to talk about these things in a familiar setting online. To the believers, I am now Kate Kelly; I am the apostate; I am angry; I am whatever they need to label me so as to not have to actually respond to the problems I am pointing out. An ally wouldn't ask these questions anyway. And we don't associate with people like that, either. But yes, we allow for questions....

IF.... you use the right tone
   .... you ask in the right way
   .... you ask in faith and not doubt
   .... you take no for an answer
   .... you come up with the same answer as the leaders in the end

BUT ... don't talk to just anybody
         ... don't post questions/doubts online
         ... don't believe anything that isn't correlated church material
         ... don't assume there are any answers in this life

After listing the countless stipulations for when someone CAN raise questions, there is very little room, and then we all know the right answers already, so I can't really figure out what the questioning is for.

The truth is, for years I had this blog, I listened to Mormon Stories, I was a member of a private Mormon Stories message board, and later part of private Facebook forums. I listened to more podcasts. I read church history books. I wrote blogs that for some reason I hoped no one in the church would read. I met dozens if not hundreds of bloggers who wouldn't even use their real names because they were afraid to be found out by family members and peers. They were afraid possibly to lose their employment with BYU, or be released from callings at church, or looked upon with distrust by family and friends. Seems like strange behavior in a church that "welcomes doubts and questions."

As for myself, I found answers, but they were not the ones I expected, and they often were in conflict with what was said in official church sources, if they were addressed at all. I have been doing this for years, along with tens of thousands of others with similar questions, online. If questions or doubts were welcome in church, there would be no need for places such as these to exist. If they were welcome, local church leaders would actually know about some of these questions and how to respond to at least a portion of them. Why would we feel like we had to go into private hiding places, where we could feel safe behind a cloak of anonymity, like a drug or sex dealer, just because we didn't have that unshaken testimony? 

The simple fact is, what the church, and what my church associations wanted was silence. Silence is so much easier. Believing without questioning is so much more smooth. You see, they are never uncomfortable with religion as a topic; only when the discussion falls in line with what is acceptable at church, or is considered faith-promoting. They send tens of thousands of young men and women out into the world to profess their beliefs on religion throughout the globe. However, the communication is usually only one-way. We have the truth, listen to us, but we aren't interested in anything that falls outside our "truth." As for politics... you are basically always welcome to bring your political views to the table as a Mormon. Mormons are very active citizens, and are very informed on political matters. You usually just can't question war, christianity, capitalism, republicanism, conservatism, scripture, income inequality, patriarchy, misogyny, heterosexuality, or traditional marriage (see: mormon plural marriage). I'm sure I'm leaving some important topics out.

The LDS church is saying questions are welcome because it sounds good for public relations. I welcome anyone to come visit with me about some of the questions I have. I have never been uncomfortable having those kinds of discussions. But there have been so many arbitrary rules imposed on when it's okay to discuss, that I honestly don't know if it's ever okay anymore. So I would love to see it. I would love to find out where the space is for people like me, during regular church activities, where we are allowed to talk about evolution, science, Book of Mormon historicity, gay marriage, Book of Abraham translation, priesthood/temple bans, Adam/God doctrine, blood atonement, Book of Mormon translation, Doctrine and Covenants / church history revisions, etc. I have been out of activity for months now, and have never discussed any of these questions with any true believers within my local church community - the community where I was born and raised. It's uncomfortable to talk about, I understand. I just don't want anyone pointing the finger at me as to why no conversations are happening. I don't point the finger back at my faith community, either. I point it straight at the fact that questions and doubting are NOT welcomed. Not really. Not by most Mormon leaders.

I know of a person who left the church long ago, who will not have anything to do with his family because they still are associated with the Mormon church. I always thought there must be something really wrong with him. Sure, he doesn't want to be Mormon anymore, but why can't he let his family alone? Now I wonder if I understand a little better. I never wanted to be labeled and classified as the enemy. But the longer I don't have contact with my church counterparts, including my family, the narrative that they use to describe me and explain the why's and the how's of it all support the narrative that those who leave the church (who can't leave it alone) are deceived, are unhappy, are sinful, are angry, are whatever we need to label them to support the ideology that the LDS church is perfect. It's sad. I can't imagine not wanting to have anything to do with my family, but I can see how both parties could be going down that path.


Communication is difficult. Certainly, if the antagonism continues to grow, either silently or outwardly, it will not be all their fault. But it will not be all mine, either. It's unfortunate that we let these wedges fester because it is too uncomfortable to talk openly about difficult subjects, where things are not always black and white.

I was raised with the idea that telling the truth was the best policy. I guess telling the truth never was that easy. I guess if you insist long enough, you eventually become the bad guy. 

Nazis/Racists/Homophobes - Different Degrees, Similar Backdrop

Suzy and I just finished watching one of my favorite movies growing up as a teenager, "Swing Kids." Although not quite as cheesy as "Newsies," it is also probably not best picture material.  Either way, if you have never ever seen the film, it's still probably worth your time (even if Roger Ebert rated it ONE star...). 

The film's setting is 1930's Germany during Hitler's rise to power.  The film tells the story of some young men and women (but mostly men) who become involved in an underground dance movement.  This movement was proscribed by the contemporary leadership because it embraced American swing dancing.  You know, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing," right?  Truth be told, there is not really a lot of swing dancing portrayed in the movie.  Rather, the movie follows the conflict that exists between and within these young men as they contemplate how to look at and respond to the rise of Nazism in their mother country.  A key element of the tale is when the two main characters, Peter (played by Robert Sean Leonard) and Thomas (Christian Bale), both join the Hitler youth.  As the movie progresses, Thomas becomes entirely taken with Nazi ideology, while Peter is still very opposed to supporting the Nazis.  Peter's father also opposed Hitler's rise, and as a result, was taken by the Nazis, and nearly killed, when Peter was just a small boy.  Since Peter and his younger brother were essentially raised without a father, their mother naturally feels tremendous fear toward the German government. 

As the narrative unfolds, the friendship between Peter and Thomas is shaken because Thomas begins to openly support Nazi goals, while Peter cannot come to grips with what is becoming of Germany.  In a final act of rebellion, Peter returns to a swing club one last time, and dances his heart out until the club is invaded by Nazi soldiers.  The soldiers apprehend Peter, along with many others, and load him in a truck to presumably be shuttled to some sort of concentration camp. 

One scene that stood out to me is when Peter, Willi (Pete's younger brother), and the boys' mother Frau are sitting at the dinner table with one of the more prominent Nazi leaders, Herr Knopp.  While there is still a bit of awkwardness in the atmosphere, here is a family eating mouth-watering food, and drinking fine wine.  When Peter shows visible signs of displeasure at the presence of Knopp, and what Knopp stands for, Peter's mother clearly becomes upset, because this is as good as they have had it in a long time.  Why mess with what's comfortable anyway, right?

Whenever I watch a film portraying uncomfortable historical realities, I naturally consider the implications for questions of cultural and social institutions we have in place today.  Today, Naziism, and antisemitism are repugnant to 99% of us.   Similarly, nearly everyone you meet deplores modern and historical racism, in all its disgusting manifestations.

Yet I can't help but think that in the 1930's and 40's many Germans (and Americans for that matter) aided and abetted in the rise of Hitler.  And even after revelations emerged about the reality of the millions who were brutally murdered in the Nazi's wake, many people justified looking the other way, either out of fear, or just plain denial.  The character Thomas in "Swing Kids," as well as Peter's mother Frau, embody the conflict between knowing something is immoral, but also fearing the ramifications of actually standing up for what is really right.  

If you have seen "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner," "Remember the Titans," "Amazing Grace," or the more recent movies "The Help," or "The Butler," you can see examples of a similar trend in American culture.  As civil rights came more and more to the forefront, many prominent individuals and institutions not only continued to shrug at the old ways of thinking, but they also railed against things like interracial marriage and integration in schools, because of the fear of what these changes might lead to in the future.  And just as with the examples portrayed in Swing Kids, you have many, many Americans unable to stand for what is right because of the fear of how they will be seen by others, be it friends, family, religious peers, or employers.  


The civil rights issue of our time is homosexuality and gay marriage.  Even though apparently a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, many institutions, especially religious organizations, are trying to hold back the tide.  They have their various pet arguments, and they cling to biblical scripture to justify their position. 

Yet I cannot help but look backward (and then forward).  Am I equating Nazis = racists = homophobes, or that someone who opposes gay marriage is a gay-hater?  Not exactly.  But it's hard not to imagine a time somewhere down the road where we will look back at gays and gay marriage, and we will think, "wow, I can't believe people believed THAT or said THIS about gays."  Isn't that how we look back at World War II and the civil rights era?  How could anyone think those awful things about Jews?  How could people believe that embarrassing stuff about blacks (Chinese/Japanese/Irish/Hispanics...)? 

I can't help but assume that most of the individuals and institutions that oppose gay marriage today would be the ones opposing fair treatment of Jews in the early 20th century, and equal rights for blacks in the mid 1900's.  It's easy to oppose those positions today.  When you agree with 99% of society, you really have nothing to lose.  But today, now, when things are still much more divided, is the test of what a person really values.  Loyalty to traditional institutions, or love toward oppressed individuals seems to be the common choice one may have to face.  And while "homophobic' is a label many will not appreciate, racism did not become racism only after the vast majority of people decided blacks weren't inferior to whites.

I don't want to look back and know that I was one of those people.  The one who decides to go along once it's obvious what the correct way to act is, because nearly everyone has finally jumped on the bandwagon.  If we study history, I don't think any of us have a legitimate excuse to be "that" person. 

Disempowering Our Youth

This week I spent a fair amount of time spectating as folks on the Internet reacted to a viral blog from an innocent lady writing to girls that post pijama pictures on Facebook.  Dozens and dozens of other blogs reacted.  Hundreds and thousands of people had to share their opinions.  Modesty (re: Miley Cirus) seems to be the most controversial subject on the Internet in past months/years.  Not starvation.  Not unemployment.  Not child abuse.  Not war with Syria.  

So my gut inclination is to ignore the topic, because God knows we don't need one more opinion on the subject.  But among the pages/opinions I have read, I still haven't seen this simple critique - in response to those who feel that once a young man has seen a girl who is scantily clad, that he cannot "unsee" it, or cannot then see the girl as anything but a sexual object. 

All I have to say is, the best way to make sure your son can't "unsee" an inappropriate image or movie scene is to teach him that he can't.  Once a young man has internalized this mentality, then the power images have over him is more about the erroneous idea that he is powerless to change his thoughts than it is about the images themselves. 

Stop disempowering your youth.  Your son (and your daughter) has the ability to change his (her) thoughts.  There is a lot of crap on the Internet. You clicked on this link, didn't you?  And yet, I bet you will forget about having read this in about 30 more seconds.... unless I tell you you will not be able to forget, ever... hmmm....

Karin and Steve's Wedding Video

P90X Works

April 4, 2011

About a year ago, my wife Suzy decided she wanted to purchase the P90X workout program for her birthday. At the time, I thought, of all the things you could get foryour birthday.... why this? After all, I had heard how extreme the program actually was, and I figured she would just be throwing her money awayfor a bunch of DVDs that she would only use for a few w

eeks before giving up. Not that I didn't have faith in her, but I just figured it was a program with constant Saturday morning infomercials showing people experiencing unbelievable results was just what you would predict - too good to be true.

But she bought the DVDs, the pull up bar, the bands, and the dumbbells, and she did the program for about 6 weeks. We took pictures and measurements. The results were actually pretty noticeable for only a month and a half. I was impressed. But for whatever reason, she stopped working out, and nothing happened for awhile. Then, in September, I decided I would try the workout with her. We lasted 3 weeks, and I enjoyed the workouts,

but sickness preempted week 4, and we never got back in the groove.

For the new year, Suzy made a resolution that she wanted to complete the full 90 days before her 30th birthday. At the same time, some members of my extended family suggeste

d we do a "Biggest Loser" contest for 12 weeks for anyone who wanted to compete. These two goals combined helped us to become re-motivated, and this time we weren't going to quit part of the way through.

What can I say about P90X? It is extreme. But I have to think that most people could do it if they just consistently would continue to work at it. Sometimes you don't think you're getting the results that you want, but you just have to be patient. The part that may be even more difficult than actually doing the workouts is showing up to work out. In our

case, we usually had to wake up between 4:30-5 a.m. so we could get in a workout before our kids started getting out of bed. The program is very time consuming. You have to plan on an hour to 1.5 hours a day, six days a week.

One other misconception I had about the program is that I would be sore for a week or two, but then my muscles would be used to the rigor of the routine. However, P90X is based on the principle of "muscle confusion," which means you can plan on being sore probably some if not most of the whole program. After awhile, you start to get used to it, and feeling sore makes you feel like you worked hard enough. The thing I liked best about doing the work

outs is the variety (there are 12 DVDs total), and the fact that I pretty much felt like Superman once I had act

ually finished. Doing it first thing in the morning, I felt like I had finished something significant before my real day had even started.

The best part of the program? It works with minimal investment in equipment (although as I got stronger, I had to sink a little more money into heavier weights), and you can get great results right in your basement. No travel time to and from the gym, and no membership fees.

My results? I did not take all my measurements, but I think the outcome is pretty visible. I dropped 10 pounds, from 176 to 166, which is about what I weighed

way back in

my high school days. My jeans, which used to fit just right on my waist, are now hanging at least two or three inches loose.

I don't think I will be winning the biggest loser event, but I think the accomplishment of finishing such an intense workout regimen speaks for itself. I figure if I can do it, anyone can. Now it's time for Insanity!!

Here's a few pics:

Day 1 - Day 30

Day 60-Day90





















Day 1 - Day 90

Day 1 - Day 90

I Want Nothing but the Truth....but.....

January 5, 2011

A few weeks ago one of the parents of a boy that comes to daycare every day gifted us some different spoils from a recent hunting excursion - jerky, sausage, ground meat, etc. Usually his gifts are savory and mouth-watering. However, this batch of jerky did not impress me, nor did it impress my wife. Before we even consumed half the bag, we threw the rest away.

Flash forward to yesterday, and a scene that is familiar to just about anyone comes into play - this same parent asking my wife and I, "did you eat the jerky? Did you like it?"

I am a person who really hates to be disingenuous, and yet in situations like these, I know what my response is going to be.... "Yeah, it was great!"

Growing up, especially in the LDS church, I was taught very well that lying was wrong, and that there is no gray area between right and wrong. Thus, in my very literalistic, unexperienced way of viewing things, I understood this as meaning "never lie for any reason, ever!" Of course, as I continued to gain experience and knowledge, I realized that this black and white thinking didn't really apply in all circumstances.

However, I would have thought it would apply in God's one and only true church. How could a lie (or the corollary, not telling a lie but just not telling the truth either) ever serve the members of the church? But it seems that even for God, telling the truth can have undesired consequences.

I am reading a biography of Spencer W. Kimball by his son Edward, and while the book can often times be interpreted as potentially faith-promoting, Ed Kimball tries to just tell things the way they are. Thus, you can find quotes like this one from Dallin H. Oaks (p. 190), "Even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it."

To further illustrate this point, Edward points out disagreements various leaders had over the publishing of certain church histories by the LDS Historical Department, such as The Story of the Latter-Day Saints. Apostles Ezra Taft Benson, Boyd K. Packer, and Delbert L. Stapley objected to including things like how Brigham Young chewed tobacco (to deaden the pain of bad teeth), or how the Word of Wisdom came about at a time in the nineteenth century when other people were also adopting similar health guidelines.

I guess even though I have tried to form a more nuanced view of the world, it is easy for me to hold the church up to what I consider a higher standard. If the church is going to go around saying it is the only place where people can find all the truth, then they had better tell the truth, and/or not cover it up.

I have read all sorts of materials and books that would probably be considered "anti-mormon" by your average member of the church. At first it was a little disconcerting, but I just could not turn away. While my views of the church have changed rather significantly over the past several years, I don't think anything I could read could be as trying to my faith in the hierarchy as knowing they try to cover things up ostensibly to promote faith and protect testimonies. Knowing that this happens throws everything else up into the air.

But maybe the church just sees itself as an extension of myself - not wanting to admit that the jerky stinks, to save face, or to preserve a healthy reputation. But we are not just talking about lying to someone who wants to know if you liked their jerky. These are questions about who will or won't be saved, or whether or not there is even a life after this one. That's why I think the church has to be held to the highest standard possible. But one still has to wonder, is it always better to tell the truth? Are we, as well as the church, ever justified in telling a lie, or not telling the whole truth? I was always good at asking questions that have no definite answers...

P.S. I am not trying to say I think the church is not true (as nebulous as the term 'true' can be for me most of the time). I am only trying to point out that even with questions of belief, there may not always be one right and one wrong answer. I think the leaders recognize this, but don't want to admit it openly, probably for the same reasons they don't admit a lot of things.

Torn

October 5, 2010

This weekend was the Semiannual General Conference of the LDS Church. It was a beautiful weekend in a lot of ways. It was also a very difficult weekend for me personally.

To avoid my long-winded tendencies, I will simply state that I was hurt by comments made by a leader of the LDS church, Elder Boyd K. Packer. I won't repeat the words here. They are all over the Internet by now. Not only do I disagree with this good man, but I felt hurt because I knew that now there will be even more ammunition to use against the gay community and people like me who try to defend their rights. Once again, I can be told by a vast majority of my people that I don't follow the prophet, amongst other less flattering statements.

On the other hand, I have read a lot of the responses to Elder Packer, and it hurts me just as much to see all the hatred and anger directed at the church because of the words of a leader. I know Elder Packer's words are offensive to many, but I have never understood when people choose to fight what they consider hateful with more hate of their own. Just as many have a keen inability to recognize a gay relationship as more than just a question of sex, there are too many people who take an LDS church leader's words and determine that Mormonism is a bunch of garbage. In my opinion, both of these approaches are seriously flawed.

I just want to stand off to the side and weep as I watch people being hurt on both sides. I cannot understand why we have to always find ways to divide ourselves, when as another leader (Dieter Uchtdorf) of the church puts it: "All of God's children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man." I wonder if God is weeping as well when he sees His children divided as we always seem to be.

I regret that some people are angry with me because they disagree with my position on homosexuality. I do not mean to offend, and I realize there are valid grounds on which to disagree with me. I have long maintained that we can learn a lot more about ourselves by seeing HOW we disagree on issues than looking at the issues themselves. And I see a lot of hatred and bitterness on both sides. I wish we could find a better way.

For now I guess the best I can do is make a pledge that personally I will try to be less angry, less defensive, and more sensitive to the feelings and opinions of others. I will try to be less concerned about always being right, and more concerned about respecting and loving people despite our differences. I hope and pray that others will join me.

A Cantankerous Myth

May 31, 2010

Coming from an upbringing that insists constantly to be the custodian of truth, I find it interesting that some in my religious heritage do not even seem to begin understanding the erroneous nature of some of their most basic beliefs.

While my church purports to be politically neutral, it is often difficult to disconnect religion from politics completely. Sometimes the two are one and the same. In this context, one of the ideas that has affected me most negatively is simply this: you can't be Mormon and a democrat.

Just for the record, I am not a part of any political party. But while some might point out the simply benign nature of the above statement, it is obvious that among many of your average mainstream LDS people, this is basically a play off of a statement made by one of Mormon conservatives most beloved disciple, Ezra Taft Benson: "No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction." Today we could just insert the word "democrat" for "socialist."

Many conservatives want to use words like those of Benson to contend that being a so-called liberal means you are not worthy, not faithful, not patriotic. It seems that such individuals are unaware of the history of the church, yet they sometimes take this idea to such an extreme that they cannot tolerate anyone who has a distinct point of view. Progressives/liberals are enemies to the causes of God and country. They are a cancer that undermines the foundation of our constitutional government. I have personally experienced this lack of understanding and tolerance from people, some of them very close to me.

While I am despised by some for just acknowledging that it is okay for people to have different points of view, whatever the religious background, the viewpoint that a Mormon has to be connected with republicanism/conservatism is simply false.

Take this opinion from Hugh B. Brown, at the time a member of the church's First Presidency:

"Every person is entitled to his or her opinion, which will be respected as long as he or she respects the opinions of others. Individual General Authorities have the right and privilege to express their own opinions, which, when expressed, represent their opinions only. There may be different opinions among the General Authorities, but we are united on the basic principles of the gospel. When it comes to expressing an opinion on some other organization or some political or quasi-political question, one hopes that the authorities of the church will have the good grace not to be extreme, to keep near the center of the road. All my life I have advocated that people in and out of the church should think through every proposition presented to them. Positions may be modified as time passes by discussing them with others, but there should be no question that both liberals and conservatives in the church are free to express their opinions."
** from "An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown," p. 131.**

More recently it is well known that the late James E. Faust, also an Apostle and member of the First Presidency, was a Utah democrat.

I was especially miffed to just recently find an article from 1998 of an interview with Marlin K. Jensen, another democrat, and current church historian:

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

How is it that I could be taught for years that being a democrat was akin to being an apostate when this is simply not true? Did most of the individuals from whom I heard this idea even know any democrats personally? Even if they feel strongly about their conservative views, are they justified in ostracizing and rejecting those of different opinions? Is their behavior in any way Christlike? Coming from a tradition of being cruelly persecuted as Mormons, it is jaw-dropping to see Mormons do an about-face and persecute others just because they have differing political views.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. I do not really think that differing opinions are really justification for classifying people as enemies. We should be able to appreciate and respect one another. We should be glad that not everyone has the same point of view. We should expect that even with the most righteous of motivations, different people will see the world in opposing ways. As President Brown said, as long as we are respectful, we deserve others' respect.

I am convinced that the conservatives I know have good intentions. Their reasoning is generally sound for believing the things they do. But there is no justification for judgments of large segments of society because of their politics. Defending the indefensible in this way makes their position appear tenuous and weak, for they refuse to even engage in discussion of anything but that which merely goes along with what they already believe. Such an attitude has the potential to be just as damaging to the country as any supposed progressive cancer.

On a day when we honor those who have sacrificed their lives and families for our freedoms, it would be good to remember that those heroes died in defense of the rights we all enjoy to think and believe as we choose, black and white, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, christian and atheist.

AIDS Awareness

April 19, 2010

I had a surprising experience over the weekend. While it would be difficult for me to explain the effect this Elton John song has had on me, I think today is a slight indicator. The song tells of an estranged son who has been rejected by his father for being gay. In real life, the son's name was Ryan White, who will be familiar to many. The song also tells of warm reconciliation. Even though I never knew a gay person growing up, nor had I met anyone with AIDS, this song would always touch my heart.

I have garnered much more experiences since then, therefore I still hold the song very dear. However, there is a side of me that wants to weep when I hear the song. There are times when I am frankly ashamed and embarrassed of myself and the way I felt about the world in the past. Without getting too detailed, I will simply state that my attitude toward homosexuality and AIDS as a young man was something like: "Well, they deserve to die for getting AIDS, and God is punishing them." I won't even get into how this narrow view doesn't even capture the broad segment who contracted AIDS through no fault of their own, but I'm sure at the time I was certain the gays were to blame for the spread.

On Saturday I was listening to Elton John's song, and I felt intense shame for my past feelings on the matter. What a horrible way to view the world! Why would anyone think anything other than how sad it is that people even have to deal with such an awful disease, and that many had to die from it. How awful to think that in our country, we may have hesitated to help those who could have otherwise survived, because of thinking I displayed previously - the very thinking that many probably still believe today?

I did not realize it until today, but there was an AIDS walk taking place on Saturday in Laramie. I don't think I was even aware it was going on until I ran into a friend who had participated. But I wonder if I was maybe there in spirit as I was having these thoughts in my mind. The thing is, AIDS is still a horrific disease that kills people all around the world. I don't know why we don't hear more about it, but I am saddened by every death, no matter where or how it happens. I think in the future I will want to raise more awareness of this disease, and be more involved in lending understanding and compassion to those who may be suffering because of it. Although I regret the way I have felt about this matter in my youth, I take solace in the fact that I have been able to change my perspective for the future.

Accepting Differing Opinions

April 18, 2010

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.” - Benjamin Franklin

The more I learn, the less I know. On the other hand, the more I learn, the more sure I am about certain things. For one, people have many different views and perspectives of the world. This is not a new phenomenon. It is not an earth-shattering revelation. And yet, it is a slightly novel idea to me in some respects.

You see, growing up, I was taught that there was only one "right" way to think - about religion, and about politics. I was not taught to have respect for those views that were contrary or distinct in some way to mine. Rather, I was basically taught to ridicule those ideas as inferior, because if people were intelligent, they would obviously come to same conclusions that I had reached in my life.

I have since just started to scratch the surface of learning the wonder of a world full of diversity. There are myriad religions, political parties, clubs, and family arrangements. While they are not all exactly in agreement with the way I conduct my life, I rejoice in the differences, and the similarities. I strongly detest those who mock others' ways of viewing the world.

I also question the need to mock and/or be defensive with regards to one's own beliefs. To me these days, an excessive amount of defensiveness, or invoking of the persecution card, or belittling of others, may be nothing more than insecurity on the part of the individual doing such acts. If one has a conviction and a confidence about what they believe, they need not feel a need to act in such a way. Security in belief is best reflected in accepting fully that others have different viewpoints, and that is okay.

Accepting differing opinions is the first step in opening up the mind and the intellect to view the world in a whole new spectrum/paradigm/light. I am so glad that I took the risk to understand the world better, and to have more respect for as many perspectives and views as possible. I invite anyone to make the jump.

A Long Journey - Moving Forward

April 10, 2010

It has been sometime since I have given a strong opinion on this issue or that. I often have a hard time capturing an accurate description of my philosophies because they seem to always be evolving as I gain newer information. I try to avoid labels because they don't help; they only bring on overgeneralized stereotypes and judgmental reactions.

Over the last several years I have been on a long journey. I remember several years ago thinking how I wanted to be able to understand opposing points of view without becoming furious all the time, which at the time was how I always seemed to react. Back then I was a bloody red conservative. I could have never imagined that actually making the decision to look at differing views as objectively as possible would change my entire world view so drastically.

I now can accept others' viewpoints as just as valid as mine, in the context of their experiences and worldview. This does not undermine the fact that my perspective is just as valid - for me. In my view, this is much more realistic in relation to how the world really turns today. Diversity is the rule, and I have come to embrace that fact, with the idea in mind that we still have more in common than we have differences.

I do not regret questioning the long-held beliefs of my youth, even though it has caused some friction now and again with some of my closest associations. While I feel I have walked this path despite the uncertainty of where it would lead, I can see why some might believe I am just another example of why people generally are afraid to take those first tenuous steps. It is scary and uncomfortable changing viewpoints and being humble enough to admit you may have been wrong, or that you might even be wrong now. A lot of times along the way I have felt like I was losing my faith because so many things I thought were rock solid beliefs started to crumble before my eyes. But I continue to hang on to things I have always valued greatly, and the other things I let go of.

It has taken me awhile, but I am getting comfortable having views that contradict some of the things I was taught growing up, at church, at school, at home. I feel I am nearing the point where I can talk about those 'aberrant' beliefs openly, regardless of the consequences. I hope to do so in a respectful way. And I hope to bring a perspective that can verify that my perspective and views are not crazy, or unfounded. I hope that someday I can be a comfort to others who feel they have 'unorthodox' political, religious, or social views, to help them feel they are not alone - as I have often felt at times during my journey - and that having differing views does not make them wrong.

Swing Low, Sweet Chariot

January 24, 2010

I have been playing the organ on and off for the last couple years. Maybe that's what makes this performance all the more impressive. The organ is an incredibly cool musical instrument, especially if you have mad organ skills like Richard Elliot of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Watch with amazement.

Jon Stewart Smacks Olbermann

January 22, 2010

Just around the time of the last presidential election, I posted an entry from Saturday Night Live with Ben Affleck mocking Keith Olbermann's self-important, pseudo-intellectual, psycho-babble.

Well, after Olbermann called Senator-elect Scott Brown from Massachusetts about every name you could possibly imagine (with the suffix -ist usually incorporated), Jon Stewart decided to take issue. And though I don't like the wallow in the name-calling myself, Stewart aptly shows why I have, for quite sometime now, considered Olbermann a cotton-headed ninnymuggins.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis