Repeat After Me: Faith Over Fear

Yesterday, I shared on Facebook a web story from the Rachel Maddow Show about the recent rule change in the Democratically-dominated Senate.

(http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dems-execute-nuclear-option)

It elicited a few comments, as might be expected. While I was grateful for the general civility in the tone of those comments, I couldn't help noticing the uneasily-restrained tension in most of them. After quoting from the Maddow Show post, I went on to respond this way:

'I have little respect for Senator Reid and I'm sure many Democrats will regret this action when the tables are turned, but at this point someone needed to hit the reset button.

For those of you in this discussion who believe in such things (and I do), if this country is going to hell in a handbasket, that just means Christ's return is more imminent due to the fulfillment of prophecy. He's the only one I really trust to heal what's wrong with us so why get so upset? When Jesus was educating His disciples on the signs of the Second Coming before He entered into Jerusalem as a mortal for the last time, He said "...see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass..." (Matt. 24:6) Over and over again he admonished those who followed Him not to be afraid.

I am not suggesting that we sit on our hands and wait for Jesus to fix all our problems. What I AM saying is that when we engage in this ridiculous political process, we do so in a spirit of faith, faith that we truly are in the Lord's hands, faith that short term frustrations are just that, faith that all things truly do work together for the good of them that love the Lord. This faith will calm the fear fueling our problems, allowing us all to pull back from the violently heated partisanship that has crippled our country. Then, at the very least, we are no longer a part of the problem and when the master of the house returns, we will be found feeding his sheep instead of beating them, verbally or otherwise.'

I really wanted to be more direct and call into question the faith of one of those commentators on my post who is a member of a certain prominent religion here in Idaho. I wanted to point out to him that all his whiny posts and comments about how hypocritical and bad the Democrats are and how unfair anyone with a "liberal agenda" is only points up his own hypocrisy. A couple weeks ago, when three LDS churches were vandalized with some really hateful graffiti, this person grumped about how it wouldn't be labeled a hate-crime, even though hate speech was used. He seemed to imply that he wasn't capable of that kind of hypocrisy. It galled me. Shouldn't a self-proclaimed follower of Jesus Christ be the first to turn the other cheek when wronged? How dare he imply that all "Liberals" were hypocrites?

I'm glad I didn't call him out on Facebook and prove him right. Allowing his public anger to beget more public anger would have only made the situation worse and is precisely the kind of thing that is tearing our nation apart. (Yes, I'm blogging about it here, but I've already claimed this soapbox as a place where I can process feelings.) It's time to choose faith over fear...and I think if I keep repeating that to myself, I'll be able to do it more consistently in all areas of my life and make my corner of the world better in the process.

Quick Thoughts on Poatello's Mayoral Race

Beside the Gould Street overpass, former Mayor Chase has plastered a billboard that promises "No More Wasteful Spending." I have it on good authority from people who were city employees during his "reign" that he didn't spend city money any better than it's been spent under Mayor Blad. It's also very presumptuous of him to say that he or Mayor Blad were alone in making the spending decisions. They can't spend anything of significance without the approval of the city council.

I also have it on good authority from those same employees that Mayor Chase never had a library card and only showed up to the library to meet the press. Mayor Blad, on the other hand, spent an entire day at the library during the first months of his term. He spent time in every department, including maintenance, working side by side with the library employees to learn what went into their jobs. He wanted to know who he was serving and what service they provided to the city. Who do I want for mayor? The man who wasn't afraid to roll up his sleeves.

Intellectual Honesty, or the Lack Thereof

Someone very close to me recently sent a link to The Witherspoon Institute's Public Discourse page. This particular post was made by a self-proclaimed gay man who chooses to live in a "straight" family situation. He makes some strong assertions about marriage equality based on his experiences and biases. Below is the link that was sent to me followed by my response to the person who sent it:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

B****,

I just read this e-mail. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue about this view.

There are many objections I have to what this person says. Seeing that he is co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, I can't say I'm surprised at what he says, but his reasoning is flawed and I'll tell you why. Please refer to his document if you have questions.

First, let me tell you what I DO agree with. His assertion that philia is often overlooked in favor of eros is an accurate one, though it's certainly not just gay culture that does so. It is culture in general that has become overly sexualized. Eros has gained an undue place in our cultural estimation at large, putting our social interactions out of a healthy balance.

Gay culture does, indeed, enshrine sex, but it is not alone in doing so. However, if you read between the lines of Mr. Mainwaring's Greek-word discourse, he basically accuses the majority of gay men of being the main culprits, sexually ravenous wolves who are incapable of non-sexual connection. It's the same type of hysteria that has fueled gay witch hunts for decades, including the one that occurred in Boise in 1955. You should look that up sometime. It had an impact on both of us even though we are two generations distant from the actual events.

The next thing I'd like to discuss is his assertions on the difference between straight and gay marriage. It must be borne in mind that he is speaking from his own experience and then presenting his experience as fact in opposition to the experience of others. He says that in spite of having to repress certain sexual desires, he found marriage rewarding. OF COURSE he found marriage rewarding! The profound companionship provided by marriage is very fulfilling, speaking from my limited, peripheral experience. However, he uses his experiences with men after his divorce to assert that marriage between two men would be less fulfilling. How does he know that? He was never married to a man! And from the tone of everything else he says, even his long-term relationships with other men would have been colored with his prejudice against homosexuality. It's no wonder he didn't find them as fulfilling! (I have experienced similar difficulty in experiencing fulfillment, not because I'm trying to make it work with another guy, but because I was programmed from the beginning to believe it was wrong to try. With that attitude it's very hard to open myself and invest in the relationship because I'm scared it's doomed to fail...thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm very lucky that Chris is so dedicated and has stayed with me as I've struggled with this.)

And as for Mr. Mainwaring's children, they began life while he was still married to his wife. Of course they are going to be happier and feel safer with them back together! What child DOESN'T want their separated parents to kiss and make up? And his assertions that children are deprived if they don't have parents of opposite genders is just false. There is no objective empirical evidence that supports this, and in fact, the unbiased data that HAS been gathered refutes this notion. He can believe it if he wants, but to state it as fact shows his lack of the very intellectual honesty he says he has.

Is sexuality fluid? Absolutely! Do straight people and gay people alike shy away from this truth? Yes, because of how much easier it is to slap a label on someone complete with a code of acceptable behavior. People want things to be black and white because then they don't have to think. They don't have to reason. They don't have to put forth the intellectual and spiritual effort to discern the truth, to see things as they are. And who is this man to judge the lives of his acquaintances as "diminished?" He conveniently avoids the exploration and discussion of the consequences of a mixed-orientation marriage's end. Do these men struggle to find a new identity? Of course! Do they often then rely on tired stereotypes and fall in with the cultural "Sex is everything" message? Absolutely! Does it have to be that way? Absolutely NOT! But denying marriage to gay people only perpetuates the tired stereotypes and leaves these men with few clear options as they seek to begin a new life. Divorce is hard enough but to do so while coming out is exponentially traumatic.

I agree that we, as a society, need to be very, very careful not to allow the government to intrude where it doesn't belong, namely the home. His dystopian scenario is certainly a possible reality, and in fact, we already see elements of it coming to pass in many aspects of our lives. The struggle to maintain our liberties has never been more dire, but the kind of alarmist rhetoric this man employs only muddies the waters and makes it more difficult to focus on the real issues at hand.

So...I guess you can tell I didn't think much of what Mr. Mainwaring had to say. He states truths and then uses them to support false premises. He also makes the very dangerous mistake of thinking that his experience is the only valid point of view. I find his audacity offensive, and I try very hard not to be one who is easily offended.

Again, I appreciate that you shared this with me. I hope you take my remarks in the spirit of discussion in which they were initiated.

love and deep respect,

Trent

Bigger Than a Million Pride Parades

[This post was concurrently made on From Where I Stand's parent blog, All One Peace.]

The day I was confirmed a member of the LDS Church, my father gave me a blessing as is the custom. In it, he told me to walk in the right path so others would know they would be safe to follow me. That admonition has stayed with me since the day I received it and often kept me from doing things I might have later regretted. It has also weighed heavily on me as I’ve followed a path other than the one I was taught. That’s why the following message from a friend, sent via Facebook, filled me with a number of conflicting emotions:

Just wanted to say that I loved the article you posted. […] I think Prop 8 was when many of us were forced to take a stand one way or another. My stake was one of the ones asked to make phone calls to people in California, and it made me really have to consider what the still, small voice inside of me was telling me to do.

Side note: although I knew and was friends with plenty of gay people before, you were the first person who came out who I trusted to make good decisions for yourself. I know it sounds incredibly judgmental of me, but it is what it is. When I found out that you were gay, it was different—it became a real thing in my mind. I knew it must have been an incredibly difficult decision for you, and I knew you lived a life close to God. This wasn’t a choice that you had made lightly, and you weren’t just “confused” or trying to get attention. Because I had known and respected you for so long, I suddenly had to take this whole homosexual thing seriously.

So back to making phone calls to California. I was terrified they would ask me to do it. And while I have a testimony of living prophets, I also have a testimony that the still, small voice inside of me is a personal guide. And after you came out, I had to start asking the still, small voice whether it thought you were doing something evil or whether you were the same Trent you had always been. Suddenly the still, small voice was saying a different thing than what Boyd K. Packer was saying. Which to choose? And I also knew that this was just a small shadow of what you were going through. At least for me it was all theoretical without a big impact in my life; I knew that you had struggled with a much bigger question with huge impacts for you and your family.

So…I didn’t make the phone calls in California, and when gay marriage came up on the Washington ballot last year (I can still vote in the state of Washington) I happily voted for it. I decided to trust the still, small voice instead of the infallibility of prophets. This is still a struggle. And I’m not turning my profile picture red and all that, mainly because I’m not happy with the actions of either political side so I don’t want to align myself with a certain political group. I’ve also been trying to avoid getting into the arguments about it lately, except when I have to. Maybe I’m just a coward, but the “discussions” just seem to lead to contention and make people dig in their heels even more. But the spirit of the movement has my support.

And this whole long story is mean [sic.] to explain to you why I suggested you[…]and everyone else keep sharing your stories. Your personal story had a bigger impact on my personal prejudices than a million gay pride parades.

I’ve known this person since we were children. As I read her message I was reminded yet again of my father’s words. Suddenly there was doubt. Was I leading people in unsafe paths? Was the way I live my life causing people to stray from the true faith? What was I going to have to account for when I faced God?

Yet, I couldn’t help feeling some gratification, even vindication. Her beautifully-worded final sentence made me smile. I’ve sometimes been told I should get angry and assert myself, facing down those who oppose me with fire and force. I’ve specifically been criticized for the way I choose to support “The Cause.” My friend confirms for me yet again that angry militancy changes nothing for the better. Unconditional love and mutual respect will always go further in uniting hearts and minds to heal the world than any flamboyant or violent “in-your-face” display.

All those voices, inner and outer, telling me I had abandoned my calling and betrayed my gifts aren’t necessarily right. Being a true follower of Christ isn’t easy and it involves a lot of stepping out into the darkness, identifying and trusting the right inner voice to lead the way. It’s a struggle for me, too.

The blessing my father gave me is being fulfilled after all. It doesn’t involve me being some great bishop or stake president or any kind of leader, Church or otherwise. I’m simply doing my best to understand and heed what the light inside is telling me to do and then telling my story as authentically as I can. If that helps others to follow the light inside them, I’m glad.

When I face my Savior, I know I’ll have things to account for. Hopefully, I won’t suffer for them too long. In the end, I trust His love and grace to make up the difference after I’ve done all I can do.

We’re all in this together and I’m really glad my friend reached out to share her story. In doing so, she helped me continue to trust the light I feel and become all one peace.

Stay Outta' My Kitchen

Last week, I shared a Facebook post about my friend Jeff's experience in a locker room where he overheard two prominent men in the community discussing the pending anti-discrimination ordinance here in Pocatello. The husband of a friend of mine, who I'll call Thomas, decided to call bullshit because Jeff, wisely, didn't name any names. This guy called Jeff a cry-baby and continued to rave in an ill-worded, embarrassingly-misspelled comment about how Jeff should have handled the situation.

Needless to say, the reaction from Jeff and many other friends of mine to this name calling was strong. Thomas apologized to me via comment, but I replied that he should be apologizing to Jeff since he was who took the brunt of Thomas's verbiage  Ultimately, Thomas unfriended me and made me his enemy. He has since sent me a couple of private messages, one attempting reconciliation and the other threatening me that he would become a monster of my making if I didn't publicly shield him from the continuing comments of my friends. Between those two messages, I accepted his olive branch and told him I had no hard feelings. After the second message, I'm not sure I can still say that and mean it.

So this is the rule for anyone posting comments on my Facebook page: If you make an ass of yourself publicly but refuse to apologize just as publicly, don't expect me to come to your rescue. I will allow you to hang by your own rope. In fact, I might even enjoy watching you twist in the wind of consequence, at least until you get a clue and own your mistake like a grown-up.

Embraceable Me

This was initially published to and written for this blog's parent, All One Peace.


On February 18, I shared an article from The Huffington Post on Facebook that reflected on the impact religious organizations have on young gay people. I commented that the past couldn't be changed but that I often wondered what life would be like for me now if my church had embraced me for who I was. These are some of the things that come to my mind during these musings.

It was pretty obvious when I was a child there was the possibility I would be gay. Although I chased the Baldwin girls around the Moreland church's lawn in a game of kiss tag, I also loved to style the hair on a doll. By the time I was 5, I was kissing boys on the cheek in kindergarten and playing dress up with my cousins by wearing a certain purple skirt that I loved. I continued to crush on girls through my early adolescence but it became clear that it was the guys that sexually turned me on.

I was 12 when I learned that the church had excommunicated my uncle for acting on his homosexual desires, not for drinking alcohol as I'd been allowed to believe for six years. Two years later, I had my first taste of church discipline when I told my bishop I had been engaging in same-sex sexual play with boys my own age since I was 8. I was given a copy of The Miracle of Forgiveness, told to read it, and not discuss this with anyone but my folks. To make a long story short, encouragement to rid myself of these tendencies came at me from every corner, especially from the church. I was also highly encouraged to be interested in girls. 

It was also during this time that I discovered my love for and ability in musical theatre and vocal music. I wanted to be a stage performer so badly my soul ached. I was vigorously discouraged from pursuing my desire by authority figures in my life. I was told that that was precisely how my uncle had "fallen away." Trying to make a living in that wicked world was only going to further corrupt me, and besides, how was I going to support a family living such an economically uncertain life?

Usually, if a teen discovers a deep-seated passion for an art or a science, this is encouraged and nurtured. Given the right support, such individuals often become influential leaders in their fields of endeavor as they pass through high school and college. Basically what I'm trying to say here is, to quote Rocky, I think "I coulda' been a contenda' " in the field of performing arts. Although I fought my way through and am now deeply involved in music making in my community, I think there could have been much more. I am often seen by others as an example of thwarted potential and I'm not sure they're wrong.

When I was a priest, I had the opportunity to ordain a special young man to the Aaronic Priesthood in my ward. As I did so, I gave him a blessing that I knew came through me from God. Conveying God's love isn't hard when it's your basic nature to love anyway. When the ordination was over, the feeling in the room was powerful, many people were in tears and the bishop patted me on the back and told me I had a gift. I still have that gift to give, but the church won't accept it from me. I feel like there are so many ways I could be helpful and would like to serve, but unless I end the loving, committed relationship I'm in, severely wounding the wonderful young man I'm committed to, my gift is unacceptable. So what is the most loving course of action here?

Let me make one thing clear: I do not hate or demonize the LDS church. I am realistic about what it is and its place in my life. It's been over ten years since I was an active member, and this distance has given me a different appreciation than I would have had of the church's felicities and its foibles. (Ten points anyone for using and alliterating those words in a blog post?) Every religious organization has them and the view of them changes depending on your proximity to that body. I just wonder if I would have had as many peaces to put together had my experience with the church been different, and I sometimes wonder if there will ever be a time when my gifts will again be welcomed there.

I Should Have Been a Libra

Those born under the sign of Libra are supposedly peacemakers and proponents of balance in society. What I'm about to post is evidence I should have been a Libra instead of a Leo.

Something that really bothers me about many gay and lesbian people is their inability to respect the rights of others to determine their sexuality. For a group of people so insistent on being respected, many of them have a problem with that concept themselves.

An example of this is with the character of Felix currently on General Hospital. (I know, I just referenced a soap opera. Sue me.) He has a huge crush on another character named Milo. Up until Felix's appearance, Milo's character was written without any question regarding his sexuality. Within the context of the story, Felix keeps wondering if Milo is in the closet, spending time with him in hopes of helping him out of said closet, and discussing this situation with other people. Milo has stated more than once, in very respectful terms no less, that he is straight. In my book, that should have been enough for Felix, regardless of his feelings. No further efforts should have been expended to uncover some secret sexual desire hitherto unknown. And he certainly shouldn't have been talking to a bunch of other people about it.

Within the context of the writing of the story, I see signs that the new executive producer and head writer are gradually building up to a "Milo Comes Out" story. This saddens me deeply. It provides one more example for people to point at of a liberal bias in the media. It's sad because, in large measure, it's true. Can't we please leave our personal agendas at the door when dealing with these very sensitive issues? Personal bias distorts truth, and it's only in the truth that we are all made free. I really hope I'm wrong about General Hospital. I really like that show.

I also hope that, in the realm outside of TV, more and more people will truly respect each other. When someone says they're straight, leave them alone. If someone says they're gay, leave them alone. Or strike up a lively discourse on the weather and end up being really good friends. Just don't decide for someone else how they feel, and please don't tell them how to behave. (Unless they're trying to kill someone. Then you have every right to stop them.)

I said this would be a place for me to rant. Well, here it is.

Marriage In Our Time

Today, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding California's notorious Prop 8 law. Tomorrow they will hear arguments over the Defense of Marriage Act. This issue has been sharply divisive since it was raised in 1993 in Hawaii. Today, one of my very good friends exercised his right to free speech on Facebook, stating he felt that marriage was originally a religious institution. The implication was that marriage should be left up to religious bodies to administer, not entrusted to the courts. I would like to outwardly reflect on why that is not currently possible.

The United States of America proclaims itself to be a republic. Over the years we've shifted more to being a democratic republic, but in any case, neither of those forms of government are theocracies. No church is recognized as the head of state. No specific religious body is entrusted with the governance of the people of the United States.

The government of the United States on both the federal and state levels has taken upon itself the legal administration of the institution of marriage. In so doing, the government has made marriage a civil institution. The word civil comes from the Latin root civis meaning citizen. One definition of the word civil refers to an ordinary citizen in a context set apart from their military or ecclesiastical identity. It is this differentiation between the ordinary and the ecclesiastical that makes my friend's desire literally impractical in the United States.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was adopted on July 9, 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Previous to that, the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court (1857) had held that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment overturned the Court's decision, making all people eligible for citizenship with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities it entails, regardless of their skin color or genitalia.

Given its responsibility to treat all citizens equally under the law, the United States government either needs to completely divest itself of all legal authority regarding marriage or it needs to uphold its promise and allow any consenting citizens of legal age to enter into the civil institution of marriage. Either scenario will create more questions regarding employment, benefits, and other ordinary details of life even in the context of churches, but it cannot continue to stand as it is. We are either one nation or we are merely a geographic mass of neighboring states. The last time we tried to divide our nation, it was bloody and ultimately we decided to remain one nation. (That's what losing a war means for anyone who would like to challenge me on that. It means you have to go with what the winners want, and the winners wanted one nation, not two.)

As for marriage as a religious institution, ideas about what it means and what is acceptable or not have changed through the centuries. At one time, it was perfectly acceptable before God, according to the Bible, for His chosen servant, Jacob, to have two wives. Civil and ecclesiastical marriages are two different things. We should leave religions to define marriage for themselves, but as citizens of the United States, we need to recognize that all people are created equal and should be treated that way.