The ease of celibacy

The following is a conversation I had with a man on facebook:

MAN: It's very easy to not do something that you've never done. If you are a homosexual in the church, who has been following the counsel of the church leaders, and not having pre-marital, even w/ same sex attraction, you won't miss what you've never had. It's very easy for me to not do heroine, never tried it never will. But alcohol on the other hand is different, I've tried it. Do I miss it? Sometimes, but I don't miss its ill effects. And I'm thankful to the Church & its teachings for helping me see the benefits of avoiding & overcoming it & other things. As far as gay people being able to be in a healthy relationship, that's entirely possible in the Church as well. They just choose to be in a relationship w/ someone of the opposite sex. They are happy, blessed & thankful people. One shouldn't disregard what they've overcome by assuming they don't exist. When one always has had the Church & its teachings in their life, they don't always appreciate what they have. When you have to struggle w/ something & overcome it you become grateful for what you have.

ME: I would submit that living a celibate life *is* a very difficult thing we are asking of our homosexual brothers and sisters and church leaders have conceded as much. Marlin K Jensen of the seventy puts it this way:

"And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we're not asking more of them than we're asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they're going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn't have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing."

In seeking to understand the challenges of others, I find it best to listen to those who are actually passing through a foreign experience rather than assume that I know what it is they are going through. We can draw analogies with heroin addiction and other things, but those comparisons have limitations. And I would never tell a heroin addict what it is like to be in their shoes having never experienced that. In the end, we are all wired for human intimacy, and the best analogy in this case is imagining what it would be like to give up the prospect of a heterosexual relationship indefinitely given that there is a strong, persistent desire to be intimate with someone of the opposite sex. And that desire, that need to be intimate in a heterosexual relationship is something that is present no matter if the person has acted on those attractions or not. Given that the Atonement was a vicarious experience in which he sought to experience the suffering of all mankind, the least I can do is ASK a person who is homosexual what it is like to be them and believe them when the tell me about their experiences.

The forbidden labels of discipleship

The following is a conversation I had with someone on facebook:

SOMEONE: I think it's disrespectful to God to openly be Gay, simply because it is unnecessary attention. It reminds me of the hypocrites who sounded their trumps when they paid their tithing. I understand it is a HUGE sacrifice for the members who deal with such attractions to be asked to not act on these feelings. But when you see them living righteously, you shouldn't see a gay person living as a disciple of Christ. You should just see a child of God living as a disciple of Christ. I don't look at others and see them for what they struggle with. I don't see porn addicts and rape victims or what else. If they choose to tell others of their struggles, that is their choice, but it really shouldn't matter. It's just a label that isn't necessary.. because it shouldn't be the center of their life. Christ should be.

ME: Out of curiosity, would you also advise a heterosexual person not to identify as straight? Or tell them that if they do so, they are making their sexual orientation "the center of their life?" Are heterosexual single people who obey the law of chastity "sounding their trump" if they identify as straight? If not, then why should we require that our homosexual brothers and sisters hide their sexual orientation? Why shouldn't we allow our homosexual brothers and sisters to be honest about what they are experiencing? And why shouldn't we seek to understand their experiences? I would go so far as to say that we are COMMANDED to understand their challenges. That is part of the covenant we make to bear one another's burdens. How are we to bear one another's burdens if we require that those burdens be kept secret? And I disagree with your assertion that homosexuality itself (assuming you are referring to the attractions) is contrary to the laws of God. Just because someone does not see the purpose in another person's homosexual orientation, does not mean that the person who experiences the attractions does not see a divine purpose in those experiences and draw nearer to God precisely BECAUSE of them. Additionally, the church has been very clear to distinguish between identity and behaviors, only responding to the latter.

SOMEONE: Yes, there are individuals who sound their hetero "trump" (such as cocky boys who go on about how hot or not a girl is. But that's just a different situation altogether). And really, the label "heterosexual" wouldn't even exist without "homosexual" to dispute it. I do not disagree that we should understand their trials (isn't that what we're doing now;). I do think we should learn to understand all of our brothers' and sisters' trials, because it strengthens our charity. But you don't have to be openly gay to teach others what they go through. In the same sense (loosely) your bishop doesn't have to have gone through your experiences to help you, but Jesus HAS, and through His Atonement and His Spirit all are made whole (which is my dispute to the above quote where "damage is done" when an individual gives up a part of themselves for God.) Whom you tell of your struggles (no matter what they are) is up to you. And I can only think of three reasons why you would. 1. So they can help you. 2. So you can help them understand you (or themselves if they deal with the same). or 3. draw attention to yourself. Your bishop is a good choice, your family and friends CAN be helpful (or unhelpful). Letting anyone know seems silly. It's not everyone's business. It CAN be helpful to tell a stranger if they deal with the issue, or if they need a clearer understanding of it, but, like I said, you don't have to admit you do struggle or have struggled with it in the past to educate. It can be awkward. Should people shun them if they do admit to being gay? No. Should we love them whether or not they choose to share? Yes. I think whether or not you tell someone should be pondered with prayer. It isn't always helpful, it can be hurtful. Is it YOUR sin if they act negatively because you told them. No, but it could have been avoided. I'm not exactly sure which is the problem they're trying to address, though. Whether they should be able to tell others they deal with homosexual attractions, or if they should be allowed to act openly gay. The first one is allowable, if they so feel the need, (It's up to us how we treat them after knowing). Acting gay as in being a boy with a boyfriend (even though you keep the law of chastity): That isn't allowable. Acting gay as in dressing, sounding, and acting the part but avoiding all physical/romantic relationship with the same gender: allowable, but discouraged (as stated in the church's pamphlet "God loveth His children"-I wish I had the quote on me). As for homosexuality being against god's law: I totally agree all things have purpose, even bad things help us come closer to God. Thatms why we have trials, but what you describe is His PLAN not His law. If I love coffee and desire some when I see it, I haven't sinned. The moment I act upon those feelings and drink it, I have broken the word of wisdom. The attraction itself isn't evil, but acting upon it is not good.

ME: "God Loveth his Children" says nothing about discouraging acting gay as in "dressing, sounding and acting the part." What does that even mean, anyway? Am I acting gay if I listen to a Lady Gaga song? If I wear a V-neck? Again, the church has been very clear in that they only respond to same-sex sexual relations. I think it is very important that we are clear about what the church is asking and what it is not. If I find out that one of my friends is gay, there is no reason that should be "awkward." Why should that be any more awkward than if a person tells me their straight? I think the double-standard that we impose on our homosexual brothers and sisters in telling them it is okay for a straight person to identify as straight but not okay for homosexually oriented people to be honest about their attractions is actually making things more difficult for them. And telling them that they can't listen to Lady Gaga is just plain cruel ;)

SOMEONE: As I said, it is up to them whom they tell. You're right that it shouldn't be awkward, but that doesn't change whether or not it actually is when the situation arises. I felt awkward when I found out some of my friends were porn addicts. That didn't make us any less friends but I'd rather not know. And it really doesn't matter anymore, because (most of them) have overcome and moved forward, so it doesn't have place in their life anymore. They don't go on to call themselves porn addict recoverers or whatnot. I think it's individual whether it helps to be open about their troubles. I understand that homosexual attraction is a life-long tribulation, but calling yourself gay just seems to be a crutch to hold on to those feelings. Honestly, it's been a while since I read "God loveth His children", so I shall reread it later. I just feel that if they are striving to be disciples of Christ, then they don't HAVE to identify themselves as gay. I don't have to identify as straight. The concept of being straight wouldn't even be thought of without homosexuality to dispute it. Just like happiness doesn't exist without pain. It would just be. Btw, I really like your quote^ and what you said about it. Something that is true for ALL tribulation, no matter what kind, something anyone can relate to, is that through Chist we are made whole. If we do what He asks of us, no matter how difficult, we can feel at peace and happy with our decison/life.

ME: Glad you like the quote! I agree with you 100% that gay/same-sex attracted members of the church should ultimately be the ones who decide who they tell, how open they are about their sexual orientation and how they choose to identify. That is an excellent point. It seems only right to grant them that freedom. The comparison between homosexual attraction and a porn addiction is an inaccurate one. It implies that homosexual attraction is something that needs to be repented of, and the church is clear that that is not the case. Attraction is neither good nor bad. It simply is. And there is no shame in what a person is attracted to. I don't mean to belabor the point, but it is my experience that many members of the church fail to make important distinctions between attractions and addictions and we are very good about telling homosexual members what exactly we think they are afflicted with instead of listening to them. We tell them that they are heterosexuals struggling with same-sex attraction, when what they are really struggling with are other members of the church who struggle with the fact that some people experience same-sex attractions.

SOMEONE: I totally agree with you. As I showed in my coffee analogy a few posts back, I do understand the difference between addiction and attraction. I should have been a little bit clearer. I didn't mean to imply attraction is a sin. The main difference is porn addiction is started by sin (which is why it requires repentence). I was leaning more towards being uncomfortable when others openly admit their trials. I do agree with you that the attitude and understanding of most members isn't in the right place. I just believe the best way to handle it is through educating without overwhelming them.

Busted

To all guilty parties:

We regret to inform you that you have been found in violation of statute X.MAS8437 which forbids the enjoyment of Christmas music prior to the termination of Thanksgiving. This statute forbids the illegal use of any and all songs, carols, medleys and ditties which make use of sleigh bells, drummer boys, or trans-Siberian orchestras or which otherwise prematurely invite the Christmas spirit. Consistent with the provisions of this statute, we require that you surrender all stolen pre-Thanksgiving holiday cheer to its rightful owner, Christmas, immediately. Because this is your first offense, you will be issued a warning. However, should you be found in violation in the future, you may be fined up to 10 cups of eggnog, several boughs of holly, and a partridge in a pear tree. You may also be sentenced to solitary confinement in a poorly constructed gingerbread house for the remainder of the holiday season without the possibility of parole.

Signed,

The Christmas Police

P.S. In case you can't tell, that's a prison made of gingerbread. Great find, eh?

Letter to a BYU biology professor

I just wanted to say thanks again for the very informative and enjoyable get together we had while you were here in St. Louis. It was great to hear about everything going on at BYU and the unique opportunities that are available there. It was likewise exciting, but perhaps not surprising, to hear about the success of your lab there.

On a personal note, I just wanted to say I was really impressed to hear about some of the ways you have been able to engage your students in conversations about homosexuality. I can't tell you how much of a difference it makes to me to see church members and communities, especially the BYU community, committed to having these kinds of conversations in a constructive manner. Seeing the willingness of church members to understand what it's like to have a homosexual orientation has been absolutely critical to me in helping me to feel like I have a place in the church. My personal feeling is that, in order to demonstrate sufficient compassion for members of the church and others who experience homosexual attraction, we should be trying to understand the issue using as many different resources as are available, and that includes understanding the biological basis for homosexual orientation. So I just wanted to express my gratitude for your willingness to contribute so positively to the conversation.

Love,
Adam

The Pause

Sometimes, you belong.
Sometimes,
you don't.

Sometimes, you're in it
for yourself;
sometimes,
for them.
Sometimes, you don't know
which.

Sometimes, when you've belonged
a very long time,
you ask yourself,
"Am I really related to these people?"

Sometimes you feel a contentedness
so strong
that you can't describe it
to those who don't
belong.

Sometimes you scream out,
fall down
in frustration;
but you come to realize
that soil and screaming
are evidences
of this inescapable fact:
you care.

And that gives you pause.

And for a moment,
you stop running.

And the ones from whom
you were trying
to escape
catch
up.

And you catch your breath
together.

And you realize
they aren't going anywhere.

And maybe,
neither will you.

At least until next time.

To agree or not to agree: that is NOT the question

Building bridges of understanding is so important, but so hard sometimes. Especially when you run into people on both sides who seem so interested in throwing stones without any desire to seek mutual understanding. And when there is so much of that going on, it becomes more difficult to not pick up stones yourself. I really was impressed with a book I read recently called "The Unlikely Disciple." I think it should be on everyone's required reading list. In it, a young man who is a student at Brown University decides to enroll for a semester at Liberty University, an evangelical university founded by Jerry Falwell and one of the most conservative universities in the country. He describes the culture shock he experiences after having attended Brown, a very progressive school. But the cool thing is that even though he notes key differences between the two cultures, some of which are quite troubling to him, he is able to see the people in his new environment beyond those differences, and embrace the common humanity that people of differing ideologies share.

I've decided that the ability to disagree and do so respectfully is one of the most important skills I want to learn. Heaven knows I have plenty of opportunities to do that. While I often become frustrated with how defensive I get when I come across someone who is prone to unapologetic brow-beating, I am also (reluctantly) grateful for my belonging to two disparate cultures that are often at odds with each other, because of what that dual citizenship has taught me. I come across a lot of people who think it is their responsibility to force their opinions on others in a dogmatic way, perhaps because of a lack of exposure or willingness to engage people with differing opinions, and I hope my experiences continue to teach me how important it is to avoid treating others in that way.

The following is a conversation I had (via blogging) with someone who had blogged about Harry Reid, calling him "Dirty" and "Dusty" and an "embarrassment" to his faith.

Me: You stated in your post: "I personally can't stand Mr. Reid, or anything that he stands for."

I understand you may not see eye to eye with Senator (Brother?) Reid on everything... and you have every right to disagree... I have fundamental disagreements with him as well, but is it really possible that you can find ZERO common ground with him? Have you met the man? Are you really able to say that you oppose EVERYTHING he stands for? Is it possible to know where a person stands on EVERY issue without engaging him in conversation? I may be wrong, but if you did have the opportunity, perhaps you would be surprised at what you share in common... Would it be: A love of the church? Of the scriptures? Of sacred music? Observance of the word of wisdom? The importance of temple attendance? A commitment to home-teaching? It's hard to say. But the point is, I think, and you may feel free to disagree with me on this, is to look for commonalities rather than simply dismiss somebody because of perceived differences. One of my favorite quotes of all time is this one from Joseph Smith:

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

I think the point is that while it is fairly easy to discount people we disagree with by calling them names (whether that is "Dusty," "Dirty," "right-wing," "left-wing" or what have you), the real challenge is to dare to find common ground. And attempt to lift people up, even when we don't see eye to eye. When I allow myself to engage people with whom I disagree, rather than belittle them because some of their beliefs may differ from mine, I am often surprised to learn that we have things in common. I think as we focus on the things we share rather than the things that would divide us, we come closer to treating each other as the Savior treats us. Don't we hope that the Savior will dare to focus on the things we share with him, our strengths, our kind words, our good deeds, rather than focus on the things that divide us from him (our weakness, our failings, our sin)?

Blogger: "I personally can't stand Mr. Reid, or anything that he stands for."

I was speaking politically primarily. However the more I know about him, the less inclined I am to agree with him on much of anything.

Me: I don't understand how a few political disagreements qualifies a person to say that he is less inclined to agree with Harry Reid on ANYTHING. Can you help me understand how knowing where a person stands on political issues is indicative of where they stand on every other issue?

Your post has prompted many questions for me: What is our responsibility towards those with whom we disagree? Are we still obligated to lift them up? Does the fact that our disagreement is "political" give us license to call them names or portray them in a negative light? Is all fair in love and politics? :) Is it worth the effort to try to separate the politics from the person? Is there room in the church for disagreement among members without resorting to calling each other an "embarrassment?" Is it important to recognize the many ways in which the church brings us together? Is it important to recognize the things upon which we can agree?

...

I am still learning how to disagree and do so respectfully. One thing that I am often tempted to do but have been trying to avoid is calling people names. I find that when people resort to name calling, it is really just a lazy way of avoiding the underlying issue. It is so much easier to call someone a filthy son-of-a-biscuit than to address the issue with cogent, well-articulated arguments. That takes work. Knowing that makes it easier to identify lazy thinking and less likely for me to get defensive at the sound arguments people are NOT articulating.

I have also come to realize that we have certain "areas" where we allow ourselves to hate on people. Whether it's politics, religion, school rivalries, or what have you we somehow justify in our brains that in those situations it is OK to be rude and belligerent. Breaking down those areas where I give myself automatic license to disparage and belittle has helped me to be more peaceful in my disagreements with people.

A fluffy and new age gospel?

In 2008, I posted my review of "In Quiet Desperation" by Ty Mansfield on Goodreads (the review can be found at the end of this post). Recently, someone read my review and posted some comments to which I responded. I have posted the conversation here. While his responses reflect the opinion of just one member of the church, my experience has been that his misconceptions about homosexual attraction are fairly common among the greater membership. In fact, in a poll recently conducted among registered Utah voters reports that 55% of LDS respondents said it is possible to change same-sex attractions, compared with 20% of non-LDS respondents.

Here is our conversation:

Reader: You really think this is unbiased and not politically-motivated?? What book were YOU reading?...

Me: I think Ty's book has been instrumental in challenging some of the prevailing attitudes among LDS psychologists like Dean Byrd who insist that if a person can't change from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one, that they are somehow not relying on the Atonement, an idea that causes a lot of pain and unfortunately persists among many LDS. Ty's voice came at a time when I was looking for increased reconciliation between my faith and my sexuality, but couldn't find it because of some of the false ideas that were so prevalent in church culture.

Reader: I think Ty's book has done a lot of damage and teaches a lot of skewed ideas about sin and sexuality (not least of which validating self-identified homosexuality as an identity compatible with LDS doctrine). Interesting how different two perspectives on the same issue can be. The Gospel isn't about patting ourselves on the back and giving each other warm fuzzies, it's about hard and sometimes painful temporal truths and trials that lead to incomprehensible eternal happiness. Of course those who want to be coddled will find Ty's worldview comforting, but that doesn't make it true. Back to the point, he certainly has an agenda behind this book, and it is not the Lord's.

Dr. Byrd's writings on the subject are authoritative and beyond reproach.

Me: On the contrary, a homosexual identity is perfectly compatible with LDS doctrine. The church has been very clear to distinguish between identity and behaviors, only responding to the latter. I see no reason why a homosexual identity should necessarily preclude membership in the church anymore than a heterosexual one does. My acknowledgment of a homosexual orientation has not precluded mine. I am just as capable of responding honestly to the temple recommend interview questions as my straight brothers and sisters are. And as to the necessity of the gospel being painful, might I offer an alternative viewpoint? I like this quote from John Taylor:

"We like enjoyment here. That is right. God designs that we should enjoy ourselves. I do not believe in a religion that makes people gloomy, melancholy, miserable and ascetic... I should not think there was anything great or good associated with that, while everything around, the trees, birds, flowers and green fields, were so pleasing, the insects and bees buzzing and fluttering, the lambs frolicking and playing. While everything else enjoyed life, why should not we?"

Byrd may have something to bring to the table, but he does not have the last word on what is best for every person who finds themselves attracted to members of the same sex. There are bodies of evidence that refute many of his claims and it is important to consider what others have to say about the issue as well.

I wonder, have you ever spoken personally to a homosexually oriented member of the church? You might be surprised at what you would learn.

Reader: First of all, I think you should go back and listen to President Packer's General Conference address from October 2010. It very clearly contradicts your first sentences.

Christ didn't come to be a cozy electric blanket. He came to bring the sword. There is joy, yes, but there is more to this life than that. Without struggle and pain, we can't know true happiness. Besides, I think we're talking about things that are a little deeper than trees and flowers. Sometimes I think the focus in LDS culture is a little frothy, obviously to some detriment (see this book for a perfect example). His way wasn't easy, why should we ever think ours would be?

Dr. Byrd's word is definitely more viable than Brother Mansfield's. Whatever else the case may be, he at least is a close advisor to the Brethren. Also, there is no actual evidence disclaiming his theories, which are more scientifically and theologically sound than this inadequate book's pseudo-psychology and self-congratulatory intellectualism could ever hope to be.

As to your last question to me, don't jump to conclusions. You have no idea what very personal experience I have with Latter-day Saints who have struggled with (and overcome) this issue.

Me: I am happy to hear you have personal experience with members who deal with this issue. I can only imagine their experiences must have been invaluable to you in shaping your understanding. That's awesome. I do not discount those experiences. I am willing, however, to concede that sexual reorientation from homosexual attraction to heterosexual attraction is not absolutely representative of the diversity of circumstances in which same-sex attracted members find themselves and it is clear to me that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Byrd's approach may be helpful for some, but it is not helpful for everyone and on a personal level, it has not been helpful for me. Since there has been no divine injunction given that "Thou shalt be heterosexual," I am inclined to believe that there are other ways of reconciling religious and sexual identities that are also in harmony with church doctrine, particularly since the church's emphasis on this issue has dealt specifically with behaviors and not identity. Elder Packer's remarks were modified in some pretty significant ways in the printed version and Michael Otterson's subsequent remarks on behalf of the church further clarify the church's position. Be careful not to draw lines of exclusion. There is room enough for all of us.

Reader: Again, President Packer's comments (modified or not, though I think the modifications are minimal and hardly change his intent or prophetic counsel, and regardless of whatever political and social pressure-influenced response Brother Otterson delivered) and The Proclamation To the World: The Family. You'll find all the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots regarding gender roles and sexuality you need right there.

The Church's position is most certainly clear, but it is not to be found in this book. It is not doctrinal, nor is it written or approved by the Brethren, nor does it agree with what has been revealed and taught on the subject. It's a fluffy new-age self-"help" book, nothing more. It's been interesting. Best of luck.

Me: The Proclamation to the World: The Family is not so narrow in scope that it does not allow for individual adaptation to circumstances that would preclude some members of the church from achieving a successful heterosexual marriage, whatever the reason.

Another possibility as to why Elder Packer's remarks were changed and why the church felt the need to respond with further clarification is that it brings his remarks more in line with the church's official position, and more in line with previous comments made by Elder Packer himself. Recognizing the persistence of homosexual attraction, he stated: "That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."

For me and many other homosexually oriented members of the church, this is not about being "fluffy" or "new-age." It is about welcoming all members of the church regardless of their capacity to be fully functioning heterosexuals, and promoting a culture that allows them to feel valued and loved for their unique gifts and contributions. For me and many of my friends, a sacrifice of the kind that the church asks of its homosexually oriented members is easier to make if it is recognized for what it is: the giving up of something that is owned and real and not imagined away. This is no less fluffy than recognizing the breadth and depth of the Atonement as it applies to the diversity of human experience.

Reader: My real problem with this book is that it validates this as a viable lifestyle, rather than promoting the change that is not only possible, through the Gospel and the Atonement of Christ, but also necessary. I'm not as interested in the human experience, except as it relates to the hereafter, which is why revealed doctrine holds more sway for me.

How frustrating to feel so powerless over our own desires and appetites! It simply isn't so. This isn't hardwired or immutable or genetic or biologically determined, which belief this book espouses. It's just a bummer to me that people are allowing a reductive and false label based merely on self-identification and behavior to define who they are, when really, they are so much more.

Me: Acknowledgment of a homosexual attraction does not constitute a "lifestyle" any more than the acknowledgment of a heterosexual one does.

Power over desires and appetites does not mean ignoring them or obliterating them or changing them from one form to another. It means recognizing them for what they are and choosing to respond appropriately to them.

The change available through the Atonement is not about changing circumstances. All of us find ourselves in circumstances we did not choose. It is about changing our hearts to accept God's will and to thrive in the circumstances we have been given.

...

For more discussion along these lines, read the following:

A review of "In Quiet Desperation" by Dean Byrd
Ty Mansfield's response
Rejoinder

My review of "In Quiet Desperation" (2008):

I've been reading Ty Mansfield's book, "In Quiet Desperation," and I have to say I'm quite impressed. So much of what is written about homosexuality is so politically-motivated that I have a hard time finding an unbiased treatment of the subject. On the one hand you have those who argue that having certain tendencies or inclinations automatically justifies giving expression to those feelings through behaviors. On the other hand you have those who argue that God would never be so cruel as to give someone a trial, an innate attraction, that might preclude him or her from marrying in this life (I actually read a statement from a prominent reparative therapist who made a claim along those lines). While Mansfield is of course writing from a gospel perspective so it is biased in that sense, I like the fact that the book doesn't tout one particular therapeutic approach as the ideal, one-size-fits-all solution. I find myself skeptical of philosophies/therapies that assert that just because something feels natural to someone, that he ought to give in; but I also question approaches that promise the complete reversal of an orientation that is very much part of a person.

In addition, I believe too much of what is written focuses on causes, whether they be biological or psychological. My cursory reading of the literature leads me to believe we know very little about how a homosexual attraction develops, or even how a heterosexual attraction develops for that matter. While some people may find they are described by a particular set of causes or circumstances, there are likely many different ways of arriving at a homosexual orientation.

Ty Mansfield's book is unique in that he makes no attempt to explain the origins of homosexuality. Instead, his purpose is one of reconciliation of an overwhelmingly poorly understood challenge with the doctrines of the gospel. He explains how a homosexual attraction might fit within the plan of God, a plan in which the challenges of mortality are not necessarily obliterated according to our timetable, but the Lord's. The maturity of Mansfield's understanding regarding the Atonement is one that is often lacking in discussions of sexual orientation in religious spheres. In responding to homosexual attraction, too often the focus is on changing orientation rather than changing our hearts to accept the Lord's will for us.

I think I've pretty much decided that even among those who deal with this issue there is a spectrum of needs, and while one approach may work for some, it may not work for all.

The book also issues a call for increased compassion towards who have same-gender feelings whether they decide to engage in homosexual behaviors or not. I have been surprised at how many individuals, individuals whom I respect, admire, and love, have taken me into their confidence by sharing with me the fact that they deal with this. Current estimates are that approximately 5% of people have a same-gender orientation. I have no reason to suspect that prevalence in the church is any lower. I am also surprised at the ignorance of some church members in regards to this issue. I remember one acquaintance of mine at BYU who when the discussion came up of the possibility of a homosexually oriented person being in his ward he said if that were the case, he could never bring himself shake the person's hand. Clearly, something needs to be done about these misunderstandings.

Thoughts after seeing 'The Adjustment Bureau'

*Caution: Spoilers*

If you had a choice between following a plan that everyone told you would make you happy in ways that were known, or following the one thing that made you feel alive and could possibly make you happy in ways that were unknown, which would you choose?

What if it meant giving up something as noble as being president of the United States?

What if one path allowed you to rewrite the plan?

What if the Chairman allows us to rewrite the plan by creating new paths?

What if you couldn't know whether you had made the correct decision until after you had made it? What if it's not possible to know that you made the right decision even then?

What if it's not possible to go back?

What if you couldn't make a decision to go against the plan without becoming angry at the people who execute the plan? Or worse, without becoming an angry person?

What if you suddenly learned there was a different way to turn a doorknob? And that it revealed a different outcome. Could you go the rest of your life without trying it? Or would that knowledge forever nag at you until you had to find out for yourself what was behind that door?

What if you've been turning doorknobs one way your entire life? Could you learn to turn them the other way? Or would it always feel "wrong?"

What if free will *is* the plan?

What is the role of chance in our lives? How can we tell the difference between chance and fate?

What if following the plan meant living in denial of the thing you love?

Which is the path of least regret? Which is the path that will teach you the most about yourself? Which is the path that will teach you most about the Chairman?

What would the people think of you if you started turning doorknobs the other way? Would you always wonder what they were really thinking? Would you always be looking over your shoulder as you turned? Could you live with their judgments, perceived of real?

What if you knew following the plan would mean that you would question it for the rest of your life? Would you be able to follow it anyway?

What if you were tired? Or bored. How do you keep those things from affecting your decisions?

What if following the plan made you angry at the Chairman or caused you to question his mercy?

Would it be easier to turn the doorknob a different way if you had someone beside you? Could you be sure that person would stay with you once you crossed into the unknown?

Is it possible to believe in the Chairman while questioning the plan?

What if you question the plan once. Can you ever stop questioning after that?

What would the Chairman do if he were in your shoes?

Is the Chairman learning too? Are the case workers?

What is the value in following a predetermined plan? Is there value in deviating?

Can you deviate without causing "ripples" that affect those around you? Can you ever know the effect your ripples have? Whether your ripples are helpful or harmful?

Is it possible you are just following the plan simply because some old guys in suits are telling you that you should?

What if your choice puts you on the lonelier path?

Does happiness come from following a predetermined plan?

Can happiness really be *yours* if you don't create it for yourself?

Letter to my 8th grade P.E. teacher

Dear Coach Fleming,

I was hoping to get in touch with you, not because I necessarily expect you to remember me, I know you've got a lot of students, but just to say thank you for looking out for me while I was in your P.E. class years ago. I remember having a really hard time during junior high. It's just hard to be different when as a kid all you want to do is fit in. And all of these stories that have cropped up recently about bullying and kids taking their lives because of it... I realize I dodged a bullet. I remember feeling particularly inadequate in P.E. classes where I felt more vulnerable to harassment from the other kids. But I remember you looking out for me. I felt like I had a friend in you, and that got me through some tough days. I remember you pulling me aside a few times just to get to know me. And I remember near the end of the year, you took me into your office and showed me how my running times had improved from when I started in your class. That meant a lot to me and I've never forgotten it. I've always been a good student, and I achieved several academic successes that year, but nothing meant as much to me as getting the "most improved" award in P.E. from you. So I was just thinking about how much I appreciated your kindness then and how much it means to me now, and I just wanted to let you know the difference that it made for me.

Adam

Caught

The day that I doubted
Was the day I was born
Unnoticed, it sprouted
Surreptitiously sown

Doubtless, I waited
My nose to the soil
Accusations unfounded
My tempters all the while

If not so nearsighted
I might have foreseen
By vine-work, surrounded
A skin-net of green

My questions all knotted
So wildly o'ergrown
The deathly invention
A strangler's hold

My last breath expired
Suspended in death
All senses retired
My life's blood was spent

Till gravity's inverted
And no longer bound
My lungs drank in freely
As my world turned upside-down

From earth's surface parted
Now falling through space
The sky-scape uncharted
Wind's sting on my face

Though now unencumbered
By vine-work o'ergrown
I found myself hurtled
Into chasms unknown

My senses awakened
To the infinite depth
Of falling forever
A fate worse than death

But fate's underhanded
And gravity stopped
It seemed I had landed
And the landing was soft

Then feeling below me
Surprise seized my breast
Embraced by a savior
I'd never have guessed

The hammock hung tautly
Enmeshed, intertwined
With leafy-green branches
All woven of vine

The Many Crimes of Love

Just in time for Valentine's Day! :)

Listen to my new song here.

P.S. Even though there is a 'Buy' option by each song, it is not enabled. My amateur mixes are not for sale. They are purely for your listening enjoyment. :)

Bridge to Nowhere

Probably the most autobiographical of the songs I've written/recorded. Listen to it here.