Bigelow's Rameumptom

Literary Balm for the Gay Dilemma

2009-12-15T14:18:00.003-07:00

The Association for Mormon Letters has a new blog, and I've been asked to contribute monthly. Here's my first post:

This is an essay about how I’ve personally grappled with the modern-day gay dilemma and how I’ve looked to literary self-expression as a form of soothing balm for what I believe is one of the most dangerous issues of our generation, with the potential of dividing our society as catastrophically as the slavery issue did back in the nineteenth century, if not more so. Fortunately, with the recent heartening victories against gay marriage in California, New York, and Maine, it doesn’t look like that will happen anytime soon, but the fight is far from over, obviously.

I acknowledge the reality of same-sex attraction and the difficulty of the dilemma it poses. However, I don’t think it’s the world’s hardest challenge or even necessarily harder than some challenges that can arise within heterosexual marriages, even if some people make it sound like living a life of celibacy or living in a hetero marriage when one’s stronger romantic desire is oriented toward the same sex is absolutely unreasonable and undoable. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the same-gender dilemma is certainly right up there with some of life’s more difficult trials, and it’s no doubt harder for some individuals than for others.

When I was an editor at the Ensign magazine in the mid-1990s, I pulled the first same-sex personal essay out of the files and published it in the magazine. This came soon after Elder Dallin H. Oaks opened the door with the first Ensign article on the topic. I tell you this to demonstrate that I think open discussion of this dilemma is valuable and necessary in the LDS Church, and in fact I think we need to take it deeper and younger to better inoculate children against misinterpreting and mishandling the same-gender attractions some will feel during youth and, certainly, to inoculate them against society’s growing encouragement and even pressure to pursue one’s gay impulses, if one feels so inclined to any degree.

While I feel compassion for people who experience same-sex attraction, especially when it seems to crowd out all heterosexual potential and comprise 100 percent of their orientation, I think today’s gay identity is a huge deception, and it sets off many of my last-days alarm bells. If I weren’t a believing Mormon, I don’t think I’d have any trouble with the gay movement, because without the Mormon worldview I’m the kind of guy who just thinks people should take whatever pleasure and satisfaction they can get out of life. But from a Mormon viewpoint, the emergence of the gay movement is clearly a sign of the times; after all, it’s already becoming one of the main wedges between the secular/agnostic and the religious in our fast-polarizing society, including within the church. There’s no way I can see that Mormonism could do anything to endorse the misdirection of romantic/procreative emotions and spirituality into gay relationships, let alone endorse actual acts of gay sex, and still remain Mormonism, and I expect that at some point we Mormons will have to withdraw from society when society becomes wicked enough to try to shove homosexuality down our throats, which I’m sure will eventually happen with even more gusto than when society pressured us to end polygamy.

So I am very leery of anything that I sense plays into the gay-rights agenda. I even thought the recent LDS Church public-relations endorsement of Salt Lake’s ordinances spelling out special protections for those who’ve chosen to pursue their gay inclinations was a step in the wrong direction, one that counters what some apostles have said and that I seriously doubt was based on revelation. What pushes my buttons most is when so-called fellow Mormons try to normalize and romanticize gay relationships. In fact, I’ve gotten myself banned from some Mormon blogs for being outspoken against such an outlook, and I’ve weakened my ties with many post-Mormons and liberal Mormons, such as the Sunstone crowd. But I don’t even care, because the gay issue alarms me so much.

So with that background, along comes a novel manuscript by Jonathan Langford about a teen who feels he’s gay yet wants to stay in the church. While my zeal for devoting time and resources to my Zarahemla Books enterprise has been gradually waning, Jonathan was able to get several qualified readers to vouch for his manuscript and attract my interest, and I agreed to publish it. I would have liked more sensory detail in the novel, but other than that I feel it’s a wonderfully realistic account of what it might be like for someone caught in this dilemma. I feel Jonathan is fair to his characters and fair to both sides of the issue, and I felt it would be good karma for me to publish it, to show that I really am open to understanding the complex human realities surrounding this issue. Literature can be an excellent tool for increasing understanding and even for some healing of rifts and dissensions, in my opinion.

So far, however, my experience in working with Jonathan on publishing the novel has shown me what I’ve long suspected: I’m a man without a real community. I’m too culturally liberal for conservative Mormons, and I’m too doctrinally conservative for liberal Mormons. The mainstream orthodox Mormons have blocked out the novel just as efficiently as we suspected they would, even though we took out all the f-words. In fact, one very conservative Mormon anti-gay group, Standard of Liberty, called us modern-day Korihors for publishing the novel and said we were trying to lure readers into accepting the gay agenda. This is so far from the truth that it still makes me laugh out loud, but it illustrates how some Mormons just can’t handle realistic culture; for them, everything must reflect and promote the ideal, and any portrayal of the realistic or the ambiguous threatens them. Ironically, I happen to agree with almost everything Standard of Liberty says on its website, so it was quite shocking to have the group turn on me so vociferously regarding this novel.

We are finding a smattering of “radical middle” readers who love the book, but of course the liberal side—the side that wrong-headedly, in my opinion, equates the church’s past history regarding blacks with how these liberals expect things will unfold regarding gays, with the church finally coming around to accept gay relationships and sexual acts as okay within “marriage”—do not find the book to be pleasing, and Jonathan has been attacked by some of them in unexpected ways, such as trying to discredit him by aggressively psychoanalyzing him personally through the novel.

The bottom line is, I’m glad I’m involved with Jonathan’s book. The book has a great spirit about it, and yet it doesn’t provide easy answers. It’s a book that engenders compassion without looking upon sin with the least degree of allowance, and publishing it assuages my social conscience to some degree for being so hard line against the gay movement. It’s a book that helps us understand what our youth are facing in today’s society and hopefully motivates us to take more steps to help them get through the maturing of their sexual identities without succumbing to gay temptations.

Deep down, I’m actually glad for this gay dilemma, for while it has upset me and sucked up a lot of my time and energy reading and writing about it, it has also strengthened my ties to the Church and my faith. At the same time, I’m glad to be able to play a small role in helping some realistic same-sex accounts come to light within the culture. I’m grateful that literature can help humanize things for us, and I hope to see future literary expressions cast more light on the gay dilemma. I just wish more Mormons were more open to literature that challenges us and promotes real dialogic thinking and discussion, like Jonathan’s novel does.

On Mormon Humor

2009-12-09T15:40:00.006-07:00

The Salt Lake Tribune recently did an article on Mormon humor, in which I was quoted several times. Here's the complete e-mail Q&A I originally did with the journalist:

Do you think there's any unique Mormon humor or is it just general religious humor, with specific Mormon settings and language?

I think real adult Mormon humor has a fair amount of passive-aggressivity to it. The culture and the belief system are so rigid and so resistant to any kind of disruption of the smooth, conformist functioning of the hive. But sometimes a worker bee has just got to assert his individuality and signal that some aspects of Mormon culture seem fairly absurd to him, and humor can be a veiled, indirect way of doing that. I don't think most other religions create as much of a cultural pressure cooker as Mormonism does.

Why do you think Mormons favor the kids-say-the-darndest-things approach, rather than a more witty or ironic wit?

Mormon what-kids-say humor is much safer and more innocent than adult-level humor, with less chance of being impure or offending the Holy Spirit. Also, Mormons often tend to live vicariously through their children. And after all, Jesus said, "Become as a little child."

Is this generation of Mormons, raised on Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, more inclined to be edgy in their humor?

Yes, to a degree. But even in the younger generation, I don't think active Mormons with a worldly humor sensibility outnumber Mormons who maintain a more sweet, earnest, safe sense of humor. Mormons who cotton to edgy humor are probably the same kinds of "gray sheep" who drink decaf and watch R-rated movies.

How do Mormon humorists know where the line is between sweetly irreverent ala J. Golden Kimball and disrespectful?

That line is different for everyone. Working on the Sugar Beet, I thought we reined in stuff enough to keep it from being too irreverent, but lots of people didn't think we reined it in enough. Whew, good thing they didn't see the raw stuff we didn't publish! I don't know that many Mormon humorists are even pushing this line, tell you the truth. Mormons are just too efficient at freezing out things that challenge the culture too much, so why bother.

What has happened to the Sugar Beet? How did your Mormon Tabernacle Enquirer do?

The Sugar Beet lives on as a regular feature in Sunstone magazine. I don't think the Mormon Tabernacle Enquirer sold as many copies as our non-Mormon publisher hoped it would, but I suspected all along that that kind of satire was too edgy to go mainstream among Mormons. I had people tell me they didn't mind surreptitiously enjoying our brand of boundary-pushing humor for free online, but to actually support it by paying for it and keeping a physical copy in their home seemed to cross a line of conscience for them. It's a similar rationalization dynamic that probably happens with porn.

On Amazon, the top pairing for Mormon Tabernacle Enquirer is No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith by Fawn M. Brodie, if that tells you anything. Still, Mormon Tabernacle Enquirer sold over 2,000 copies regionally, so we're currently working on volume two for release later in 2010, probably with alternative Mormon publisher Zarahemla Books this time.

Do you think there's a market for Mormon humor? If so, how do you reach it? If not, does that make you depressed?

I don't really think there's much of a market for Mormon humor, just like there's nearly no market for realistic or edgy Mormon literature in general. Mormons who like a risker adult sense of humor don't trust mainstream Mormon outlets to provide it, and Mormons who like safe humor--or don't see much of a need for humor at all--certainly don't seek out the edgy stuff that's available. And yes, that does make me personally depressed, because humor is an important outlet for me, and I think it helps certain kinds of personalities stay more connected with the culture, if we can gently mock it a little. I'd love to see the culture loosen up a little and not be so safe and conformist.

Lots of Buzz for NO GOING BACK

2009-12-02T11:02:00.003-07:00

Jonathan Langford's novel NO GOING BACK, which I published through my Zarahemla Books enterprise, is getting lots of good coverage. Here are some recent highlights:

Doug Gibson at the Ogden [Utah] Standard-Examiner gives NO GOING BACK a great review. "The new Zarahemla Books offering has a premise that many haven’t contemplated before," Gibson writes. "It allows the reader to get inside the head of an active-in-the-church gay teenager who desperately wants to live the gospel and the law of chastity." Gibson concludes, "I wish this book was on the shelves at Deseret Book. A lot of us could benefit by reading it."

Read the full review here:
http://blogs.standard.net/2009/11/novel-puts-readers-into-the-shoes-of-a-gay-mormon-teen-who-wants-to-stay-worthy/

+++

Coming Down the Mountain continues its series of interviews with NO GOING BACK author Jonathan Langford.

Jonathan discusses the novel itself here:
http://karenjonesgowen.blogspot.com/2009/11/interview-with-jonathan-langford-novel.html

And he discusses his experience with Zarahemla Books here:
http://karenjonesgowen.blogspot.com/2009/11/publisher-zarahemla-books.html

+++

At North Star, "a place of community for Latter-day Saints dealing with issues surrounding homosexual attraction who desire to live in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the doctrines and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," Jonathan wrote a personal article about NO GOING BACK:
http://northstarlds.org/voices_full_2009-11.php

And North Star director Ty Mansfield said of the novel:

LDS writer Jonathan Langford has authored a masterful fictional narrative in
No Going Back. “Fiction has tools for getting inside the minds of characters,” he
explained, “showing them in a more complete context while exploring the
variations and possibilities of human experience.” The novel gives readers a
window into the inner workings of the heart and mind of an LDS teen who struggles
to reconcile his faith and his sexual feelings in a modern culture that’s
vastly different than the one most of us grew up in. As I wrote in an endorsement
of the book, it “brings to life through narrative what I imagine will be the
struggle of many youth growing up in today’s evolving culture around gay issues.
Parents, friends, priesthood leaders, and peers are all a critical part of how we
negotiate our sense of self-identity and life choices, and this story is
masterful in how it brings to life all the tensions associated with
that process.”

While the book doesn't always paint a picture around this issue as we hope
it would be, as an ideal, the story resonated with me as a markedly realistic and
candid portrayal of the potential conflicts our next generation of LDS youth will
face, particularly those growing up in communities where Latter-day Saints or
other conservative faith groups are a minority—a rapidly growing proportion of
Church membership. The more we as a community fully acknowledge that potential
reality, the better we'll be equipped to meet our youth where they are and offer
them the resource we hope might help them along a gospel-centered path.

+++

Here's an AML-List review of NO GOING BACK by Vickie Cleverley Speek:

I remember playing tag and other games with the neighborhood kids when I was growing up. We would call each other "faggots" and "fairies" not knowing what the words meant. We just knew the words were an insult and meant something we didn't want to be.

As a teenager, a gay student was intimidated into leaving school. Charles wore cowboy boots and a pin on his shirt pocket that said "Davy Crockett." He carried a briefcase to carry his books to class. Boys would kick the briefcase down the hall, then trip Charles as he scrambled to get it. Girls would snicker behind their hands and turn away. "Fag!" they whispered as he walked by. Charles ate lunch alone. He walked to class alone. He had no friends.

Charles was in my seminary class. One day he wasn't there. "I hope you guys are proud of yourselves," our seminary teacher said, "You drove Charles out of school. He won't be back. Of all the people in this school, you, as members of the Church, should have known better."

"By the way," he added. "That pin he wore — Davy Crockett is Charles' real name. He is a direct descendent of Davy Crockett and very proud of it." I was devastated. Although I had never personally done anything to hurt Charles, I never did anything to stop it, either. Forty years later, I am still ashamed.

And now, I know how Charles felt. Jonathan Langford, in his book "No Going Back," has basically recreated the experience I had at Idaho Falls High School. The setting has been modernized to western Oregon in 2003, but the conflict is the same — a gay teenager attempting to walk the narrow conduit between his sexuality and his religious desires.

Paul Ficklin, the main character, is well liked at school, plays soccer and video games, enjoys camping with the Boy Scouts and is active in his ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At fifteen-years old, the age of sexual awakening, Paul has a secret he fears to tell anyone — he's gay. Eventually, Paul works up the courage to tell his best friend, Chad Mortenson. At first repelled by Paul's revelation, Chad realizes his friend is the same person he has always been. Paul also finds support with his mother and the bishop of his ward, Chad's father.

Without revealing himself as homosexual, Paul becomes involved at school with a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) group, where he finds friends and acceptance. But all that changes when an anti-gay-marriage amendment is proposed for the state's constitution and Paul finds himself torn between his sexual identity and his religion. When asked by GSA members to fight against the amendment, Paul declines, revealing that he supports his church, that he feels homosexuality is wrong, and that he intends to live his life not acting on his sexual feelings.

Accidently outed by a vindictive acquaintance, Paul's world becomes unbearable as friends suddenly become enemies, and his name becomes associated with the word "faggot." He nearly suffers a mental collapse when an award, long worked for and desired, is denied because of his homosexuality.

The characters in this book are very real, with human frailties and characteristics — some good, some bad. Not all the members of the ward are supportive. As a matter of fact, while some of the ward youth are understanding, others become his worst tormenters. Chad Mortenson, Paul's best friend, is my hero. I wish I had his kind of courage when I was 16 years old.

If there is a flaw in this book, it's Langford's use of given names from a generation older than the one he is writing about. Paul, Chad, Dale and Janice went to school with me in the 1960s, not with my son in 2003. The book would have been better had he used more modern names like Matt, Michael, Heather and Melissa.

"No Going Back" is an important story. The conflict between Paul's sexuality and his religious desires cannot easily be solved. Chances are he will not be able to cross the bridge successfully between the secular and religious worlds. Will he fall, or jump off the slippery slopes into the deep dark water of despair, as have so many gay LDS men and women?

I highly recommend this book.

+++

Finally, on his own blog, Jonathan questions "What Keeps Readers Away." Here's the link to an interesting, frank author expression about the struggles of reaching an audience:
http://www.langfordwriter.com/blog/?p=55

More info about NO GOING BACK:
http://www.zarahemlabooks.com/product.sc?productId=26&categoryId=1
http://www.amazon.com/No-Going-Back-Jonathan-Langford/dp/0978797191

To Someone Who Lost His Faith

2009-11-21T15:28:00.008-07:00

Someone I know recently asked me to respond to an e-mail from someone he knows who has lost his Mormon faith. Following is the exchange; if anyone has any better rebuttals, I'd be interested to hear them and may even pass them on. And if you're one of my many nonbeliever friends, feel free to argue your side too.

I do not believe in the Bible since it too has many issues that I am not comfortable with. For example, I believe that the world is older than 10,000 years old and that man evolved as Darwin and others have discovered.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Mormons necessarily believe like mainstream fundamentalist Christians. Many Mormons believe the world was created in six PERIODS, not DAYS. Each period could have lasted hundreds of millions of current earth years. Also, Mormons allow room for evolution as a creative tool of God. One of the most fascinating books I've ever read covers many of these topics: Earth: In the Beginning by Eric N. Skousen.

I do not believe that Moses parted the Red Sea or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale or that God flooded the world and Noah built an arc and saved two of every species. None of the above is logical nor can it be explained by contemporary scientific knowledge.

First of all, "contemporary scientific knowledge" still has many blind spots and lack of understanding. Second of all, one does not have to believe these Old Testament stories to still believe in the overall Mormon gospel. Many people are agnostic about some details while still having an overall testimony. They are willing to defer judgment on these Bible stories until finding out the whole story, perhaps in the afterlife.

I also do not believe that God cares about what land Jewish people inherit or whether or not men were/are circumcised, etc. Plus, there is so much war, hatred, incest, rape, fear, etc. throughout the Bible and all of which is apparently condoned by God so this is very hard for me to make sense of or justify.

God allows these things to happen, but he doesn't condone it. Earth life is a test with two conditions: 1) both good and evil can entice people, 2) people are free to do whatever they want. So many bad things happen, but it's all part of the testing conditions and will be sorted out later. From an eternal perspective, earth life is the blink of an eye.

From my perspective, it looks like religion broadly and the Bible specifically was a creation of man's imagination. I do believe that religion has done a lot of good for the world but I also believe it has done just as much evil, if not even more. Think of all of the war and suffering caused in the name of religion. Again, much of this was actually condoned by god so I really struggle with this.

Don't lump Mormonism in with religion in general. The true, pure gospel has been relatively rare on the earth, and most religions are a mix of truth and man's imagination, as you say, including his propensity to misuse power and mistreat others. Even within Mormonism you get some individuals and groups who do that, but overall Mormonism is the pure gospel that does no evil in the world, only good.

So in short, no, I do not believe in God and Jesus as they are portrayed in the scriptures. However, I am hopeful that there is a higher power but I do not "know" if there is or not. This might be hard to hear or even understand but again, it is something that I am at peace with and definitely something that I have spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about and continue to think about.
If you are aware of all of the holes, have you found reasonable answers for them? If not, how have you been able to make sense of it?

You are taking an approach that is too intellectual, not spiritual enough. Read Alma 32 carefully. First of all, you have to WANT to believe. If you don't want to believe, then all the seeming inconsistencies and holes will give you plenty of reason not to. But if you want to believe and put some effort into developing faith, then the spirit will lead you through undeniable experiences that make it so you can be patient with the earthly flaws and the seeming holes. People who believe don't expect to understand everything all at once, but they understand everything enough to give God the benefit of the doubt that troubling things will eventually be explained to our complete satisfaction.

What jumps out at me the most is [Elder Holland's] claim that the Book of Mormon has stood up to, if even conquered any opposing claims that have been brought forward in question of its veracity. The fact of the matter is that Holland could not be more wrong about this. There are still countless claims that Book of Mormon scholars have yet to answer in a way that satisfies the scientific community or even contemporary wisdom. Ironically, one of the most damning works against the Book of Mormon was a book written about 80 years ago by Elder B.H. Roberts called "Studies of the Book of Mormon." I encourage you to read it. B.H. Roberts did a significant amount of research on several claims that challenge the veracity of the BoM to provide to the Quorum of the 12 with the hope that they could provide answers, which they did not. His final opinion is that there was an extremely high probability that Joseph Smith could have, and very likely did write the Book of Mormon (he gives several examples that are quite damning). Roberts never gave up his testimony but he definitely poked a lot of holes in the book and it is very interesting to read. To this day, most of his concerns still remain unanswered and unexplained and they are of the type that should have answers. Holland knows of this book and he also knows of all of the problems that the BoM has, so I find it disturbing that he would stand before the members of the church and claim that the BoM can stand up to modern day critics; those who don't bother to see for themselves will believe him, the rest of us who have seen and know otherwise will find fault with him.

Further, there are absolutely NO modern-day non-LDS scientific experts that believe there is any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. In fact, if you
study some of the issues yourself, you will see that the BoM has several inaccurate historical claims, e.g. there were not any horses (or any domesticated animals for that matter) in North America during the time of the BoM, most of the food items that are mentioned are inaccurate, the tools and weapons that are mentioned in the BoM were not found or even invented at the time of the BoM, civilizations were not nearly as advanced as the BoM would suggest - people actually traveled in small nomadic groups, i.e. wanderers and gatherers, etc... There are many, many, many problems that FARMS or other LDS "experts" can not rationally explain to get support from the broad scientific communities. This is a fact and it is a problem.

Additionally, many of the linguistic virtues of the BoM were actually plagarized from the King James version of the Bible, which diminishes their value. I think I recall that something like 40-50% of the BoM is plagarized word for word from the King James version of the Bible (I saw this for myself and you can too if you'd like). Further, there are even a few scriptures in the BoM that were plagarized from the Bible, which Joseph Smith ended up correcting in the Bible but forgot to correct in the Book of Mormon (I also saw this for myself). How could this ever happen if Joseph Smith was really translating a record that was written by an entirely different people than those who wrote the Bible, especially considering that Mormon's believe the King James version of the Bible is not even a pure translation like the BoM theorhetically is? The list of problems go on so either Jeffrey Holland is not being truthful or he is ignorant of the facts, both of which are problematic for someone of his position.

There are better answers for a lot of these things than you think (start plugging in some search terms at http://www.fairlds.org/), although it's true that debating the Book of Mormon on scientific grounds is never going to prove it. It's a book that tests faith, and it's possible to receive divine, supernatural confirmation of its truth. Looking at it using human tools of understanding is always going to make it come up short. It may be that God designed it that way, to help people develop faith.

Holland mentions that in the "Last Days" it is prophesied that the elect will be decieved. I have a few problems with this type of discussion. First, it is a common fear tactic that can be mis-used to convince people to belong to a specific organization simply out of fear (Mormon leaders have been guilty of this since the beginning). For example, if you lose your testimony and question the church, you will go to hell. This is a scary scenario and certainly is reason for keeping many people "in" the church. It used to scare me too but at this point, I see it for what it is and find that there is more virture in questioning and thinking for yourself than following blindly.

Your language is inaccurate and misrepresents reality. Mormons don't say you're going to go to hell for these reasons. Doubt is something to work on and can eventually lead to greater faith, but even if someone never overcomes their doubt but still lives a good life, they will receive a high degree of glory in the resurrection. And also, it's quite possible to question in the Church while still retaining a basic testimony, or enough of a testimony to know the Church doctrine and organization are the truest in the world and have divine origins.

Second, and speaking about my situation specifically, before I decided that the Church was no longer what I thought it was, I spoke with several leaders about my questions. All of them had "answers" for me, NONE of them were the same. I found this to be very problematic, especially within a church that is supposed to be lead by a living prophet. Furthermore, throughout time all of the prophets have said very different things on the same subject points and are therefore in conflict with one another, which again, is another red flag for me. Therefore, to say that I've been deceived and am in error is inaccurate when I diligently tried to find answers and only came up with more confusion. How is this my fault? I turned to my leaders and none of them had any answers that made sense or even remotely answered the question. The one answer I did get is "listen to the spirit and don't be mislead". This is quite unhelpful and an easy answer when there are no others. If Holland has the answers to all of my questions and the many others like me who also question, then he should write an authoritative book that clearly states the church's position. Unfortunately, the church is unwilling to be very clear on many simple subjects for fear of being wrong, as they have been on many occasions in the past.

Again, you are being too intellectually rigid, not relying enough on spiritual insight. Humanity is too imperfect to give you the perfect doctrinal/historical system you want. If such a thing existed, there would be no test of your faith, which is a big part of why we're on the earth. I would say humble yourself, quit relying so much on intellectual pride, and quit thinking you know better than so many other people. And if you don't want to believe, fine. It may be part of your test to go through years or decades of doubt. But if and when you get to the point where you want to believe again, the Church will be waiting for you, and you'll have to humble yourself and not expect to have all the answers be easily communicated. You're going to have to do a lot of spiritual work, not intellectual.

Regarding the spirit, this is a very elusive and vague element of faith. I saw this all of the time on my mission, as I assume you did too wherein people would share their testimony with me regarding their faith and experiences. I clearly remember many people telling me about how they believed in the Virgin Mary and even saw her. They cried as they told me, would not doubt and even bore testimony to me that they had the truth. I would always doubt their stories because they seemed so implausible but then I would bare testimony that I knew Joseph Smith's story was true, when I didn't experience it myself firsthand. So then, how can I question those feelings and not expect them to question mine? The point is, this is a very slippery slope and people of ALL religions claim to strong spiritual feelings that validate their faith, what makes the feelings Mormons have any more special or true? I've never tried to admit that I didn't have spiritual feelings about the church and uplifting experiences, I did, however I now have a hard time explaining that these feelings came from god when there is plenty of scientifc reason to support that these feelings/experiences are from the mind and can easily be explained psychologically, especially when people all over the world claim to similar feelings for different reasons.

I agree that emotion and spiritual influence are difficult to separate. But that doesn't mean that sometimes the spirit doesn't actually speak to people, beyond their own emotions. You are discounting all of it just because lots of it may be faulty. We call that throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Regarding Joseph and his brother Hyram in Carthage Jail...many people in the church do not realize that the reason why they were there in the first place is for breaking the law. Joseph Smith ordered that the printing press be burned down because reports were about to be published about his polygamous affairs and he knew this would be damning. Many of his additional wives were actually already married to other members of the church who were away serving missions overseas. These men did not know that Joseph Smith had taken their wives into secret marriages after which he had sex with them. He was not in jail being persecuted as the prophet of the church, he was in jail for breaking the law and therefore, he died because of his own mistakes and this is a fact. As an aside, I personally believe there is no purpose in polygamy, especially knowing all of the harm that it has caused the church. God could of course forsee the damage polygamy would cause and therefore, if he was really running the church, he would not have introduced such a problematic practice. Why did Joseph need to have secret marriages and have sex with other men's wives and even girls as young as 14 years old? Where is the virture in this? What is the purpose of this, especially seeing that he was the primary beneficiary of
the doctrine? Keep in mind that Joseph's wife never was in support of the doctrine and after his death, she distanced herself from the church for this purpose.

Joseph Smith may have made mistakes, but that does not negate his role as a prophet. I agree that he perhaps acted unwisely with destroying the Expositor's press. He admitted to mistakes throughout his life, but in my opinion that makes him all the more believable. As far as polygamy, it was practiced in the Old Testament and Joseph restored it. If he went too far with it, I don't really blame him and am sure he has repented. But I'm not sure he did go too far. We cannot judge until we have all the details, which we definitely do not.

Again, if you WANT to believe that God would restore the true gospel to the earth and that he has instituted the plan of salvation, etc. then God will give you ways to deal with the ambiguities. If deep down you don't really want to believe, or you want to think you're smarter than believers, or you have some other character flaw that makes you too proud to follow the path of faith, then you'll have to work through those flaws somehow. I think there's something to be said for sticking with it even if you don't have all the clarity and answers you want, and God eventually rewards such displays of would-be faith.

Not to go on and on but the bottom line is that I am happy and have peace in my life. Going to church does not make me happy anymore because I find that there are simply too many unanswered questions and it doesn't work out for me logically. I wish it did because I know it has been hard on my family but at the end of the day, you have to be true to yourself and that's what I am doing.

Personally I would probably be happier in the short term too if I didn't have to go to church. It's a discipline to go. And if you are an (overly) intellectual person, I can see where some things would irritate and dissatisfy. But you don't have anything better to replace the Church with, as far as I can see. And deep down you probably know there isn't anything any better out there, as far as religions or belief systems or whatever. So by default you join the world's growing secular/agnostic/atheist movement, which offers absolutely nothing meaningful as far as explaining why we're here on this earth or where we're going after. But that's a religion too, with its own morals and values, etc. Good luck with that.

Reconsider the story of Korihor, because you're on the same path: Korihor (c. 74 B.C.) was an extremist, rejecting all religious teachings. He was labeled "Anti-Christ" because he taught that there was no need for a Christ and that none would come. He described the religious teachings of the church as foolish traditions designed to subject the people to corrupt and lazy priests. In a dramatic confrontation with the Nephite chief judge, and with the prophet Alma, Korihor claimed that one cannot know anything that cannot be seen, making knowledge or prophecy of future events impossible. He ridiculed all talk of visions, dreams, and the mysteries of God. He called belief in sin, the Atonement of Christ, and the remission of sins a derangement of the mind caused by foolish religious traditions. He denied the existence of God and, after demanding a sign as proof of his existence, was struck dumb. After Alma accused him of possessing a lying spirit, Korihor confessed that he had been deceived by Satan, had taught words and doctrines pleasing to the carnal mind, and had even begun to believe them himself (Alma 30:6-60). [Korihor text comes from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.]

You may not acknowledge the reality of Satan, but one way he deceives is by overemphasizing human intellect and science, overreliance upon which are a form of unhealthy pride. He is feeding these ideas to you in his subtle ways, and you are biting on them. Humble yourself, give up on your need to know everything perfectly, refocus on what's good and right in the Church, and build on that.

Sorry this came out a little preachy, but I've known so many people who've gone this route, and I get so tired of it. Oh, and you better be damn sure you don't have any secret sins going on that would blunt your spirituality and make it impossible for you to really exercise faith. The majority of my friends who have lost their faith have eventually mentioned that they enjoy looking at porn, for example. Well, duh. I'm not saying that EVERYONE who looks at porn loses their faith or that everyone who loses their faith has looked at porn, but I think that's true more often than not, if not with porn than with some other secret sin.

The Atonement & Same-Sex Attraction

2009-11-06T16:58:00.002-07:00

No Going Back author Jonathan Langford has written a powerful account of why he chose to write this novel about teen Mormon same-sex attraction, which I published; what the critical response has been so far; and how the Savior's atonement relates to this topic.

Following is the full text, or you can read it over on Jonathan's blog, which is well worth following.

On Writing a Realistic Novel

It’s interesting being the author of a novel about a topic that matters so much to a lot of readers. Sex and religion are topics that people care about passionately (if you’ll pardon the double pun), and when they intersect, there’s little that’s more potentially volatile.

That’s all to the good when people like my book. I’ve gotten some amazing comments from people, not just about how the book affected them as a story but about the positive good they think it can do in the world. I’d like to believe those comments are all true. But it can be especially unpleasant when people don’t like my book — especially those who share my religious beliefs.

Most of the comments I’ve received from believing Mormons have been highly positive. Some reviewers have cautioned that this is a book “not for the faint of heart.” I agree. I recently emailed a friend, “I have to admit that it’s a pretty intense book, so if you don’t feel up to that, it may be better that you avoid reading it.”

Which brings me to the topic of this blog.

A few readers criticize No Going Back for being too realistic and/or not optimistic enough. I don’t have an unequivocally happy ending. I don’t show Paul’s gender orientation changing. I show him describing himself as gay, not same-gender attracted as the LDS (Mormon) Church encourages. I show him going to a GSA club. I show him (and other teenage boys) cussing and making crude jokes, as well as some serious mistakes. I don’t show all the LDS Church members acting perfectly toward him and his mother.

Well, hello. That’s the way the world is. Kids are confused. They make mistakes. They pick up the attitudes of the world around them. They have to make choices, and sometimes the choices they make aren’t good ones. What positive purpose is served in creating literature that denies this?

My goal, in writing this novel — beside telling a story that would engage readers, about characters they would care about — was to depict realistically what an LDS teenager in today’s world might go through in feeling same-sex attracted but also wanting to stay true to his
religious beliefs. I wanted to depict fairly both his desires to live his religion and the struggles that might present for him. I wanted to present a story that had a hopeful ending, but also one that took seriously just how hard things might be for my main character going forward.

I’ve written on my website about issues such as gay identity and why my book doesn’t focus much on the possibility of Paul’s orientation changing. What I want to do here is say why I think there’s value in writing a tough, challenging, realistic novel about a topic like this, instead of always writing the happiest, best, or most positive outcome.

I believe in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I believe it has the power to change and heal all our infirmities — not just those that are the result of sin, but also those that relate to things we didn’t choose, such as same-sex attraction in most if not all cases.

I don’t necessarily believe this change and healing will all happen in this life. In fact, I think we’re given a pretty clear indication in scriptures that in many cases it won’t. However, I do believe we’ll be given strength to meet the challenges we confront in life, if we go
before God and sincerely ask him for that help.

I think stories — nonfiction and fiction both — can help us to see and feel better just what the Atonement can do for us. But in order to show the true power of the Atonement, they have to also show the conditions in which we live. If they don’t show realistically what we need to be rescued from, they aren’t really showing us the power that Jesus Christ can have in our lives.

Teenagers, as much as any of us, live in a fallen world and fall victim to it in a variety of ways. Despite that, they too are capable of receiving grace through spiritual realities such as prayer,
scripture study, personal pondering, and service in the priesthood. In order to show the power of the spiritual side of things, I felt that I needed to include a small (and fairly tame) dose of the cruder realities of high school as well — in order to demonstrate that the Spirit can operate in the conditions of real teenage life.

The process of change and healing that comes through the Atonement often takes a long time. I think showing it all happening at once makes the Atonement seem like less than what it is — and has the potential to make readers despair when they realize that the reality of the lives they lead doesn’t match what they’re reading. And it can make the rest of us less compassionate by reinforcing a sense that other people’s trials aren’t as challenging as they really are.

I believe that short of God’s ultimate healing, the single thing that helps us most in getting through the trials of life is the support, understanding, and love of other people. I think that’s particularly important in the case of teenagers for whom God is (let’s admit it) largely an abstract concept, and for whom the notion that they might change 10, 20, 50 years down the road provides little if any comfort.

Even more than my book is about God and spiritual healing, it’s about the comfort that can be provided by other people — and the damage that can be done when others aren’t supportive and understanding.

There’s a lot that doesn’t happen in my book that I’d like to see happen in the life of a teenager who was struggling like Paul. There’s a lot I’d like to say to him myself, if he ever happened to wander into my ward or family. I hope that by reading my book, other people will be more likely to say those positive things to the Pauls in their lives, or at least to understand a little better what they’re going through. If my book is real enough to do that, I’ll be content.

New Novel Now Available

2009-09-10T18:21:00.003-06:00

RIFT
A novel by award-winning author Todd Robert Petersen
Published by Zarahemla Books

Jens Thorsen's retirement is not what his wife, Lila, was expecting. Rather than tending to things around the house, Thorsen has thrown himself into a life of charity: visiting the sick, the widowed, and the incarcerated. Between these acts of service, Thorsen finds the time to nurse his feud with local bishop Darrell Bunker. The two have hated each other for as long as anyone in Sanpete, Utah, can remember.

Even though the valley is much too small for the both of them, Thorsen and the bishop have managed a tense ceasefire that allows daily life to carry on. But when the bishop's daughter moves home, there are suddenly too many egos in one place, and Sanpete starts to pull apart at the seams.

"What a pleasure to read the work of a writer who understands and can accurately portray the small, out-of-the-way parts of this world where honor, generosity, and sheer cussedness are still operative principles. With Rift, Todd Petersen has written a funny and tough-minded account of a place where family, faith, and community still come first."

—Brady Udall, author of Letting Loose the Hounds
and The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint

Todd Robert Petersen is originally from Portland, Oregon. He has lived in Washington, Arizona, and Oklahoma. He currently teaches in the English Department at Southern Utah University in Cedar City. His first book, Long After Dark, received an ARTYS award from Salt Lake
City Weekly. Rift was given the Marilyn Brown Novel Award.

Trade paperback
350 pages
ISBN 978-0-9787971-8-8

Click here to order. Please help spread the word!

Book Review: Longshot, by Lance Allred

2009-08-25T22:26:00.003-06:00

It's not often that a national publishing company contacts me to review one of their new titles; in this case, it was the HarperOne division of HarperCollins that sent me this review copy. I agreed to review Lance Allred's memoir Longshot: The Adventures of a Deaf Fundamentalist Mormon Kid and His Journey to the NBA mainly because I'm rather fascinated by polygamy and anything related to Mormonism, especially when it's published by a non-Mormon national company. However, I probably never would have purchased this book on my own, because its main focus points appeared to be basketball and the NBA, which don't interest me much.

In the end, I don't regret the time I put into reading the book, although I got my fill in 250 pages and wouldn't have wanted more. Overall, it's a pretty quick, entertaining read, and I enjoyed Allred's youthful, somewhat goofy voice, even when he overreaches or is otherwise uneven as a writer. I told myself that I would skim or skip the sports-related parts, but I found myself sticking with the story of Allred's twists and turns in the worlds of college basketball and the NBA minor leagues. I was surprised how negative the publisher let Allred be about the verbally abusive University of Utah coach Rick Majerus and some other people, and the publisher allowed the author's own idiosyncratic prejudices and stereotyping to remain intact, which I think is overall good because it reflects the whole person rather than a sanitized, politically correct person.

While the editor did allow much of the author's voice and many quirky details and tangents to shine through, I saw several errors and typos and punctuation problems and imprecise expressions and weird literary misfires and wobbly attempts at humor that I would have fixed or maybe even deleted, if I were the editor. I liked the often-funny asterisked footnotes that the editor let him include, but I strongly disliked the sappy, cliched epilogue about following your dreams, blah, blah, blah. I found the climax quite moving when he finally got called up into the NBA after all he'd been through.

For such a short book, this memoir covers a lot of ground, from Allred's upbringing in the Rulon Allred polygamous group (Rulon was the author's grandfather) to fleeing that group along with his parents and siblings to facing hearing loss and OCD, including a form of OCD in which he feared he was gay even though he didn't apparently feel attracted to males. After reading his memoir, I found Lance Allred interesting enough to look up online, and I found that he lasted only a few weeks in the NBA and is now moving on to play pro basketball in Europe and write additional books. While uneven in places, the book is certainly not boring and is sometimes funny and inspiring, with plenty of personality.

Annual Goofy Name Roundup

2009-08-22T21:28:00.002-06:00

Each year when school starts, I go down to the kindergarten on back-to-school night and jot down the bizarre names or spellings with which many parents choose to saddle their kids for life. Here's this year's crop:

Taryn
Kaden
Brinley
Hailey
Kaylee
Janae
Debany
Teanekuma
Taygen
Liora
Maika
Uijin
Loryn
Sione
Garreth

Caveat: It's possible that some of these are sane ethnic names with which I'm personally not familiar.

How I Like My Steak, Etc.

2009-08-17T20:00:00.003-06:00

What time did you get up this morning?
6:30 a.m. That's way too early; I'd much rather get up at 8:00 every day.

How do you like your steak?
Rare to medium-rare.

What was the last film you saw at the cinema?
District Nine. Quite intense and fascinating. I've been thinking about it a lot.

What is/are your favorite TV show(s)?
I don't watch any TV. Seriously.

If you could live anywhere in the world where would it be?
New York City or Boston. I'd also like to do Hong Kong for 2-3 years. Or somewhere in Europe.

What did you have for breakfast?
Four chocolate chip cookies and a few bites of cottage cheese and peaches.

What is your favorite cuisine?
Asian. I know that's a little general, but I don't like to commit to only one.

What foods do you dislike?
Bananas, raisins, licorice, all breakfast cereals.

Favorite place to eat?
Bombay House.

Favorite dressing?
I swing pretty freely among ranch, blue cheese, and Italian. Not a big salad eater, frankly.

What kind of vehicle do you drive?
2002 Honda Civic.

What are your favorite clothes?
Shorts, T-shirt, flip-flops.

Where would you visit if you had the chance?
Japan, various places in Europe, and I'd like to take my whole family to Australia.

Cup 1/2 empty or 1/2 full?
Both at different times, but overall half empty a little more often than half full.

Where would you want to retire?
Hawaii, perhaps?

Favorite time of day?
Lunch.

Where were you born?
Newport, Rhode Island.

What is your favorite sport to watch?
None

Bird watcher?
Casually in passing, but not in any serious way.

Are you a morning person or a night person?
Night.

Pets?
Cat.

What did you want to be when you were little?
Don't remember, probably just general "businessman."

Are you a cat or dog person?
Cat. I don't dislike dogs and in some ways they're more rewarding than cats, but they're a lot higher maintenance.

Are you married?
Yes, permanently.

Always wear your seat belt?
Yes, I got in the habit during my mission to Australia, where it was mandatory long before here.

Been in a car accident?
Only a few minor ones.

Favorite pizza topping?
Pepperoni with green olives.

Favorite ice cream?
Coffee-Oreo when I can get it, otherwise usually mint chip.

Favorite fast food restaurant?
Apollo Burger.

How many times did you fail your driver's test?
I failed the driving portion once.

Which store would you choose to max out your credit card?
Wal-Mart or Sears, because of the variety of useful stuff I could get.

Like your job?
Very grateful for the paycheck and the comfy conditions.

Broccoli?
Yeah, I quite like it, but not raw. It makes me feel virtuous and healthy to eat it.

What was your favorite vacation?
China with my wife.

Last person you went out to dinner with?
I treated a group of former Sugar Beet writers to dinner at Bombay House.

What are you listening to right now?
Fan and air conditioner. For some reason I haven't turned on iTunes yet today.

What is your favorite color?
Cooler colors, like blue, green, purples. I don't commit to one.

How many tattoos do you have?
I think tattoos are generally not a good idea, although I wouldn't mind one small one in a hidden place, something ironically Mormon like an Angel Moroni or a CTR symbol. My only tattoos are some small permanent dots made during my radiation therapy for Hodgkin's disease in 1995.

Coffee drinker?
I usually have a cup of decaf most nights in the cooler months, but I get mad if my kids call it coffee. That's how freakin' Mormon I am.

My Rock Concert History

2009-08-08T22:25:00.002-06:00

My wife has been getting back into her blog lately, which inspires me to do the same, especially during this pleasantly mellow month of August, during which I'm actually feeling like I have some time to relax and write for pleasure before the next round of teaching and freelance writing hits me hard...

When I was young, I loved the excitement of rock concerts. I loved hearing that a favorite band thought Salt Lake was cool enough to pay us a visit, and I loved buying tickets and then anticipating the show. Growing up in white-bread Bountiful, I loved going to the big, bad Salt Palace and watching all the freaks and breathing their second-hand smoke of various kinds.

Nowadays, I find attending live-music events to be quite tedious, for the most part, with the parking and all the waiting around and the imperfect sound, etc. So I only go every year or two now, it seems. But I still have some fantastic memories of partaking in the past. Here are my concert memories:

Journey (x2): This was my first-ever concert in high school, probably 1983 or 84, and then for some reason I saw them again their next time around, even though I'm not a huge Journey fan. They had a handful of songs I liked, but they veered over into sappy ballad territory too often for my taste.

April Wine: I remember really enjoying this concert during my senior year in high school. Some other band shared top billing with them, but I don't remember who it was. After the concert I had to go to the KFC where I worked and help with some late-night cleaning for an inspection the next day, and I felt weird and pleasantly woozy, perhaps because of someone smoking something near me during the concert?

The Cars: My friend Dean gave me a free ticket at the last moment, so I didn't get to feel any real anticipation build for this concert. Maybe that's part of why I thought it was so boring. Live, the Cars were just detached and flat. But I still listen to a lot of The Cars and consider them in my top-10 bands.

Oingo Boingo: I really liked this group at one time but don't like to listen to them anymore. By the time of their concert at the Utah state fairground in about 1985, I was already a little tired of them, and I remember moping around by myself during most of the concert, probably due to girlfriend trouble.

Rush (x2): This is the band I've probably listened to the most in my life, and I loved seeing them for their Signals tour in about 1984 even though that album marked the point where I started not liking their new music, some of which got so sappy and synthesizer-heavy during the late eighties/early nineties that I've had to delete it off my iTunes. Then I saw them again in the early 2000s after they'd taken a five-year break, and they played the whole concept album part of 2112, which was so cool. I would go see them again if the right D&D nerd friends from the old days went along.

Sheryl Crow: This was the most recent concert I went to, I think, just last year with my wife. I love nearly all of Sheryl's music and have all her albums, and the concert was fine outdoors in the Usana Ampitheater, but it was kind of windy and I got a little tired of sitting there. The older I get, the less I like sitting through any kind of event, not only work meetings and church but also concerts and plays. It's kind of sad, really...

Stephen Malkmus & The Jicks/Radiohead: This one was relatively recent too, probably about 2006 or 2007. It was outdoors at the Usana Ampitheater, and I really, really enjoyed it, for some reason. I found Radiohead's music so emotional that night, and I sat there with tears running down my face, which isn't like me. I don't know how Radiohead tapped into that part of my brain. The lights and sound were really good. I already liked Stephen Malkmus before he warmed up for Radiohead and I still enjoy his albums with the Jicks, more so than his earlier work with Pavement.

B-52s: I saw them in about 1989 in an old Boston theater called the Orpheum, where they wouldn't let us dance up on the balcony because the floor was too unstable. I've enjoyed the B-52s a tremendous amount over the years and still listen to them regularly, but I don't remember too much about this concert.

Violent Femmes: This was at the Utah state fairground in about 1985. I think I liked it well enough. I remember seeing some of my Kimball cousins there and feeling pretty cool.

311: I saw them outdoors up at Park West or the Canyons or Wolf Mountain or whatever they were calling it in the late 1990s. I was with my sister Stacey and maybe some other siblings, and we were quite far up the slope, and guys locked together in wrestle-fights kept rolling down the mountainside around us, stirring up the dust.

The Eurythmics/Howard Jones: This was the summer of 1984, outdoors up at Park West, soon after I graduated from high school. One of my friends rented a condo up there that we stayed in. It was the occasion when I fatefully hooked up with a girl named Cindy, who would be in and out of my life for the next five years, bringing me some joy but even more grief. I don't listen to either of these bands, but that's just because I don't like the poppy, femmy type of eighties New Wave music.

Moby: I went to this one up at Kingsbury Hall at the University of Utah with my parents and siblings, and I remember it being a fun night and a surprisingly good concert. It was sometime in the late 1990s, I think.

Weezer: My dad likes Weezer, so several of my siblings and I got him tickets for Father's Day and we all attended the show together out at the E Center sometime in the early 2000s. Weezer was great, but we were quite far from the stage, and there were two emo warm-up bands that I really didn't like, and it took forever setting up between bands. My dad was joking with people that he was a "Weezer geezer."

Disturbed/Godsmack/Stone Temple Pilots: My sister Liz's then-husband invited me to this show out at the E Center in the early 2000s, and I enjoyed it a lot. I actually enjoyed the first two bands more than the headliners STP, but I like listening to STP on iTunes more than I do the other two.

Dan Fogleberg: My wife and I attended Dan's show at some ampitheater in Sandy. I remember it was pleasant enough and a nice night out with my sweetie. He's dead now, right?

Spoon: I quite like this indie band, and my brother Jeff and I saw them in Times Square, New York, in about 2005. I was a little bored with the concert for some reason, although I like their music and they played well.

Pinback: Without having heard their music beforehand, I saw them with my parents and siblings at the Depot in Salt Lake not that long ago. I remember liking them a lot, but when I bought some of their albums afterward, I didn't recognize them from their performance, although I still like listening to them.

Berlin/INXS: I saw this double billing at the Salt Palace in about 1985. I remember standing right at the front for Berlin but then just sitting outside during most of INXS. The evening has an uneasy, dissatisfied vibe in my memory, but I can't remember exactly why. Probably girlfriend troubles again. That Cindy made me quite miserable at times.

Styx: This show was about 1984, the year of their career-ending Kilroy Was Here album. I remember the audience actually booing during the first fifteen minutes while they were showing some video to try to set up some kind of storyline. But later in the concert, they got into the older good stuff, and people got happier.

The Police: This was about 1984 as well, before they got so huge. I think it was before Synchronicity, and several of the songs were in French. It was a pretty good show, but I've never been a gigantic Police fan, although I still enjoy some of their early songs quite a bit when they pop up in my shuffle.

Smashing Pumpkins: This was in the late 1990s out at Saltair. A long show but a good one. Billy Corgan was like a preacher with his flock.

Midnight Oil (x2): I love this Australian band and have practically all their albums. I saw them out at Saltair in the mid-1990s and again at a free concert at Utah Valley State College in the early 2000s. I remember the Saltair show was excellent, but somehow I didn't enjoy the UVSC one as much, because the sound wasn't as good and it was free. I always thought Midnight Oil was a much more interesting band than either U2 or REM and wondered why they didn't make it as big.

Crosby Stills and Nash: I remember hopping a fence into this show up at Park West. Can't remember the show itself, though. CSN have a couple of really sublime songs.

The Osmonds: Saw them when I was quite young down at BYU, very early eighties. I had been a big fan of the Donny & Marie TV show growing up and probably enjoyed this concert a lot. I think my grandparents were there with us.

The Doobie Brothers: My parents took me to this at BYU. I remember totally loving it. Maybe this counts as my first real rock concert, not Journey. But hey, I was with my parents...

Alanis Morissette: I was quite taken with her Jagged Little Pill album and enjoyed this show at the Delta Center, even though I felt out of place among all the young girls. I haven't really connected with anything she's done since then, though.

Alanis Morissette/Plant & Page: Saw this lineup at the E Center in the late 1990s. I really love a lot of Led Zep, and I find the whole Jimmy Page mystique interesting. I remember coming away from this show quite satisfied.

String Cheese Incident (x3): Between marriages in the late 1990s, I hung out a fair bit with my sister Stacey and went with her to hear this band no fewer than three times, twice in Salt Lake and once in Denver. I quite enjoyed them.

Modern English: Saw them up at the University of Utah. Don't remember much.

English Beat (x2 or x3): They come through Utah a lot with various line-ups but always the indomitable Dave Wakeling at the forefront. They put on a great show, and I still like listening to my What Is Beat? album.

Garbage: I was big into Garbage in the mid-to-late 1990s, and I remember really enjoying this show at some weird venue somewhere in Salt Lake.

Matthew Sweet: I didn't know him before I saw him at the Zephyr Club, but I remember it being a cool show. One of my coworkers at the Ensign named Paul invited me to go. Come to think of it, Paul and I saw several of the late-1990s concerts in this list together, but I've lost touch with him now.

Stretch Armstrong: Just a tiny bit of ska goes a very long ways with me, but after I left the Ensign I worked with the lead singer of this former band, and I attended their reunion show in the early 2000s. At one point in the mid-1980s, Stretch was big enough that No Doubt opened for them in Salt Lake rather than vice versa, and they sold over 25,000 copies of their CD, which is fantastic for a regional band. To my great surprise, a brainiac kid from my old Bountiful ward was their keyboardist, which I never would have predicted.

Billy Joel: During my senior year, I got great tickets for this show and actually asked a date, one of the half-dozen total dates I went on in all of high school. I remember it being a very satisfying show, all the more so because we were sitting so close. At one point my parents listened to a lot of Billy Joel and I liked him a lot too, but he has not survived in my musical interests.

Seems like there were some additional big Salt Palace shows I attended as a high schooler, but I can't remember who. And then I attended a fair few little punk shows in the Salt Lake scene circa 1984-85, but again, it's hard to remember any band names for certain. In my memory, the best out of all these concerts was probably Radiohead, followed by the more recent Rush show. However, I also sure remember loving that April Wine concert...

Gay-Mormon Coming-of-Age Novel

2009-08-04T16:01:00.005-06:00

TO BE RELEASED THIS AUTUMN BY ZARAHEMLA BOOKS

No Going Back
A novel by Jonathan Langford

A gay teenage Mormon growing up in western Oregon in 2003. His straight best friend. Their parents. A typical LDS ward, a high-school club about tolerance for gays, and a proposed anti-gay-marriage amendment to the state constitution. In No Going Back, these elements combine in a coming-of-age story about faithfulness and friendship, temptation and redemption, tough choices and conflicting loyalties.

“A home run exploring these issues. Langford captures many of the things I have personally felt as I have navigated these waters.”

—Rex Goode, social worker and webmaster for www.ldsr.org

“Abiding by Mormonism’s high standards challenges all its faithful adherents. Coping with one’s besieged status as a young gay is no less difficult. What if you are both at the same time? Like no other work I know, Langford’s frank and poignant novel brings this real-life impasse into bold relief.”

—Thomas F. Rogers, playwright and BYU professor emeritus

“The narrative opens some of our deepest concerns, and the prose makes us glad to be there.”

—Steven C. Walker, BYU professor

Stay tuned for more information on this release, coming soon.

BYU's New Creative Writing Degree?

2009-07-10T16:23:00.004-06:00

Apparently BYU is gearing up to offer a new master of fine arts (MFA) degree in creative writing. I’m very curious to see how BYU’s MFA is different from its M.A. with creative writing emphasis, which I completed back in 1998.

I really enjoyed my BYU experience, but not so much the actual creative writing track. For one thing, at that time they lumped all kinds of creative writers into one workshop, which made only a little more sense than lumping those learning French, Spanish, and Chinese into one class.

For another, the theory courses were very ambiguous and ethereal and academic and didn’t provide any practical training for a creative writer. The emphasis seemed to be more on preparing me for a Ph.D. program, since the M.A. is not considered a terminal degree. I did like some of my two workshop experiences, but in one the professor never said anything, so it seemed like students teaching students, and in the other I had to complete it by mail with the instructor, as I came down with Hodgkin's disease and had to file an incomplete. My favorite class of the whole degree was the Mormon literature reading class I took from Eugene England.

My BYU M.A. gave me some great things. It turned me on to Mormon literature, the Association for Mormon Letters, etc. which have continued as abiding interests in my life. And it was through the M.A. program that I got an (extremely boring) summer internship in the LDS Church’s curriculum dept. which then directly led to a less-boring full-time stint at the Ensign magazine and a subsequent reasonably well paid career in corporate marketing communications. However, as far as preparing me to become an actual published creative writer, the BYU program did less for me than two years of participating in a good writer’s group and studying books and magazines put out by the likes of Writers Digest would have done.

While I can see benefits to M.A. and MFA programs, I come down on the side of thinking it’s too often all just a big pipe dream for the students. It’s a lot like the multilevel marketing industry in which I work: everyone wants to launch their own successful home-based biz and make money, but fewer than 5% actually make it. If a program in law or dentistry had those job-placement odds, it would fail.

If someone has the time and the money to spend on an MFA without needing to earn a living afterward, I think it's potentially a fair-to-good investment in personal development and could lead to some satisfying literary experiences later, for those who stick with the writing discipline beyond school or luck out with a sustainable teaching job. But for the majority of us who need a real career, I think MFA programs should be much more realistic and should include much more practical emphasis on carving out a workable writing life.

In fact, I tend to think that most creative-writing degrees should be a tag-on minor to some real vocational degree in a discipline with reasonable odds for providing a lifetime remunerative career. For most of us, an MFA is a luxury we can't afford, but I don't think many students realize that until later, when the impossibility of making a living as a creative writer really sinks in.

Here's a very interesting article from a recent New Yorker on this whole topic.

Zarahemla Clearance Sale

2009-07-08T13:39:00.003-06:00

Like nearly all publishers in this economic climate, Zarahemla Books has been hit by returns of unsold books from booksellers.

To help us move excess inventory and raise funds to publish several upcoming new titles, we are currently offering the following titles at heavily discounted prices:

Hooligan - $4.95
Hunting Gideon - $3.95
On the Road to Heaven - $5.95
Long After Dark - $6.95

Shipping is only $2.95 for orders totaling under $25.00 and FREE for orders totaling $25.00 or more.

If you've been procrastinating purchasing these titles, now's obviously the time! It's also a good time to stock up on gifts. Prices will return to normal once inventory catches up.

To take advantage of this sale, visit the Zarahemla Books website, where you can order with secure PayPal payment processing:
http://www.zarahemlabooks.com/main.sc

15 Books I've Read that Will Always Stick with Me

2009-05-18T14:33:00.000-06:00

1. The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien
2. Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain
3. Couples, John Updike
4. Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray
5. Moby Dick, Herman Melville
6. The Crimson Petal and the White, Michel Faber
7. Bleak House, Charles Dickens
8. Saturday, Ian McEwan
9. Middlemarch, George Eliot
10. The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen
11. How We Die, Sherwin Nuland
12. The Stand, Stephen King
13. Oryx and Crake, Margaret Atwood
14. The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt
15. The Beatles: The Biography by Bob Spitz

And you?

Going Underground on Gay Marriage?

2009-04-23T16:49:00.003-06:00

As a Kool-Aid-swilling Mormon, my big question on the whole gay marriage issue is, What is the LDS Church's next move?

I used to think the church should keep fighting in the public arena on this issue. But now I'm thinking it would buy us more peaceful years in society if we went mostly dark on the issue—not refute our beliefs, but circle the wagons, reaffirm what we believe to each other and our children and whatever sincere seekers come our way, and let society do what it will without much further input from us.

I think winning Prop 8 actually backfired because it galvanized the gay movement. Gay marriage is definitely coming, one way or another, probably on the federal level. But Prop 8 was an important opportunity for the LDS Church to make it clear to all Mormons everywhere that the gay lifestyle isn't going to be accepted by the church, despite all the wishful thinking that goes on within liberal Mormon circles. The message is clearer than ever: If you want to be in the church, you need to work on resisting and overcoming your same-sex weakness, not seek justification through so-called marriage. And this message is especially important for our children, who will grow up in a world where the gay lifestyle is promoted and celebrated far more than it is today. God help any of our kids who feel same-sex attraction, because it's going to be damn hard to survive spiritually in tomorrow's radically pro-gay moral climate.

Obviously Mormons will continue to reaffirm the sanctity of godlike marriage within our own group, but I don't see the point in raising much more stink about it in general society, which is pretty much equivalent to the great and spacious building nowadays anyway. It's not worth all the bad publicity and ill will to fight something that's going to happen anyway. We've gone on record with Prop 8, we're now widely known to oppose gay marriage, and I think we should just wash our hands of it and sit back and watch with dismay as society does what it will. To do otherwise seems as unwise to me as pasting targets on our foreheads and butts.

Even if we go mostly underground about this issue, though, I still think society will eventually become so culturally fascist about gay marriage—so politically correct in a twisted, diabolical way—that society will eventually dig us out of our burrows, and of course we'll have to hold our ground at that point, come what may. But clamming up until then will hopefully buy us more time.

The only exception I can think of is that the church should probably help block gay marriage at the Utah level, because we can't just roll over and play dead right here in our own backyard. However, even if Utah votes against gay marriage, it will still eventually gain federal acceptance, and then Utah won't really have a choice, at least while the union still stands.

At some point down the road closer to the Second Coming, when our society is really falling apart due to the majority's departure from God, I'm sure we Mormons will be able to say, "Told you so." Your thoughts?

Why I'm Against Gay Marriage

2009-04-06T22:02:00.005-06:00

Okay, I got myself involved in another blog smackdown on the gay marriage issue. I think I did a better job representing my position this time; below are all my comments, and you can click here if you want to go to the original post on Mormon Feminist Housewives and read them all in context. While I'm not following that blog anymore (for reasons you'll see below), I welcome being reasoned with on this blog, if you have any counter-arguments (however, I've been around the block on this issue enough that I've probably already heard them all).

Some interesting logic, but your post shows that you don’t really understand (or accept) Mormon theology. Same-sex marriage is simply absolutely impossible in Mormon theology. Marriage with accompanying sexual relations is a holy, godlike state. As far as we understand, God doesn’t have sex with other male Gods, and neither does Heavenly Mother have it with other female Gods.

To convince someone who really understands and believes in Mormon theology that God would ever say it’s OK for same-gender couples to marry and have sex with each other, you would have to convince us that our heavenly parents could do that too with other same-gender deities. Good luck with that.

++++

#5: With interfaith marriages, the status of the non-Mormon partner can change in this life or the next, with regards to accepting the Mormon gospel. However, gender is eternal, so there’s no way to transform same-gender couples into godlike couples. Sorry!

#6: Absolutely not satirical. Just voicing the Mormon side, putting out the challenge for someone to harmonize same-gender marriage with Mormon theology. I think it’s impossible, but I’m all ears.

++++

#13: OK, I’ll tell you my logic. (I know sources exist outside of the four standard works in which GAs have spoken of similar things, but I don’t have them handy. Some of it was McConkie, which may not hold much credibility anymore anyway.)

We’re taught that God has a corporeal body with “parts and passions.” We’re also taught that we’re created in God’s image and that gender is eternal. So, basically, our heavenly parents must have actual genitals. Personally, I cannot conceive of a God who has a humanoid body and who possesses male gender who is just blank and smooth between his legs, like a Ken doll. (And similar reasoning applies for our female deity.)

And if God has a reproductive organ, I can’t imagine he doesn’t use it in some celestial way, and same with his spouse(s). I don’t pretend for a moment to understand exactly how celestial procreation works, but my Mormon logic tells me that it is a glorified, ultra-turbocharged version of our mortal version here on earth. (By the way, I personally tend to agree with one GA who gave his opinion that those resurrected to a lesser degree will not receive their genitals in the resurrection–indeed, perhaps they WILL be like Ken and Barbie dolls in the crotch area.)

This is deep stuff, and today’s GAs won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, but it’s essential to the conversation about same-gender “marriage” and why it will never be compatible with Mormon theology, in my opinion.

++++

#11 said: “Why in a pluralistic,civil society does Mormon theology take precedence over equality for all?”

If I understand Mormonism correctly, we believe that God inspired America’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles chiefly as a seedbed for the restoration of the gospel. If this society devolves from this original purpose and nature, then it is cause for great alarm and strong action. Legitimizing sodomy in any form is against basic Judeo-Christian principles, not just against Mormon ones. Now, the libertarian in me personally agrees that we shouldn’t be prosecuting people for committing sodomy or anything, but to change the definition of marriage to fully accommodate sodomy is just WAY over the top.

From a Mormon standpoint, I agree with us taking any steps possible to help slow our host society’s devolution into post-Judeo-Christian secularism, because otherwise we know that the same thing will happen to our civilization that happened to the Book of Mormon civilizations. In fact, we know it WILL eventually happen in the time leading up to the Second Coming, but it’s worth fighting to delay the inevitable by a few decades. Also, standing up for what’s right helps sort out the god-fearing from the post-god people, a process that will only keep accelerating as we progress ever deeper into these latter-latter days.

This whole gay-marriage issue is both a sign of our civilization’s degree of pulling away from God and an unprecedented opportunity for people to choose which side they’re on. I’m sure thousands of people are weeding themselves right out of Mormonism because they’ve been deceived by the modern-day gay movement. In my belief and that of most Mormons like me, same-gender attraction is a mortal failing to be resisted or dealt with like any other addictive tendency that may be beyond some individuals’ control, with compassion that stops well short of actually condoning sinful behavior or, even worse, presuming to change eternal principles to legitimize the sin.

++++

#44: That’s all fine and good, and obviously you know history better than I do and how to discuss it. My statement wasn’t a sweeping statement precluding any other influences on this country’s founding as well, and I also wasn’t using the term “Judeo-Christian principles” to mean the whole package transported over from Europe or something. I was more meaning biblical morality and the bits and pieces of the Judeo-Christian tradition or mindset that God saw fit to salvage from among the errors of history and put into the hearts and minds of America’s founders, many of whom asked for such inspiration, after all.

++++

Eh, you guys don’t scare me. I’ll continue to browse FHM any time I want and comment any time I want, unless you ban me.

I guess lots of people see blogs like this as havens from things in Mormonism they don’t like, rather than as places to really fully consider all viewpoints, including conservative Mormon ones like mine is on these issues.

I’m sure there are at least a handful of readers out there who relate with and appreciate most of what I’m saying, even if they don’t speak up because they don’t have much stomach for the demeaning flak that ensues. Get used to it, folks, because it’s only going to get worse, and it’s eventually going to reach YOU too, one way or another, as society puts more and more pressure on us to deny our beliefs. It’s too bad when it comes from ostensibly within the faith…

++++

Like I said before, Quimb-o, I’m open to people using logic and evidence to help me examine my beliefs, which I admit have been hard-fought and hard-won and are not something I’ll put aside easily, and which I tend to communicate as certainties because that’s how I experience them at this point in my life.

That’s why I occasionally get involved in discussions on this issue, to allow for the chance that someone might be able to explain some bit of theology or spiritual reasoning that might make it possible to give up my views against gay marriage and go along with the secular/liberal crowd. But so far no one has been able to do that; instead, I get lots of logical fallacies and emotional stuff. (And I’m not claiming that I don’t return in kind, sometimes.)

Also, I’m very interested in learning more about how others think, and it’s breathtaking to me to see the audacity of people within Mormonism on this issue. Really, it’s VERY entertaining to me and thought-provoking too, mostly in a cautionary way.

Bottom line: I think it’s a discussion worth having and am glad it’s online rather than in person. Quimby, I don’t really care if you’re on my side either, but I have an almost voyeuristic interest in how people with views like yours justify yourself and–again–just a TINY bit of curiosity to see if anyone can win me over to the other side.

++++

OK, I’m back from having Indian food with the editors of Sunstone and Dialogue, both in town for a conference today, and I wanted to weigh in on a few more things before I watch some Big Love on DVD:

#33: I agree that the idea of no genitals in the lower kingdoms is wonderfully hilarious, while also being something that I can believe. I admit I got the concept out of one of the Tanners’ anti-Mormon books, but they’re usually quite scrupulous about their quotes, if quick to go for the weirdest stuff in places like the Journal of Discourses. I just went down in the basement and tried to find it, but couldn’t. I like testing out my Mormon mind against people like the Tanners from time to time, and I’ve learned a lot about my own religion from them. I also get a real kick out of The Godmakers.

Mfranti, I have somewhat more to say unto thee. I think you were too quick to take my crack about Mormon Kool-Aid too personally. I don’t have a clue about your background or anything, so I was responding solely to the person who made the outraged comment in #41. Judging solely by that comment, the person writing the comment has not encountered or absorbed much deep Mormon thought yet, at least in some areas. I can’t reconstruct for you exactly how my Mormon worldview came about, but it goes far beyond the scriptures and includes countless other Mormon books and articles, as well as countless seminary and institute classes, firesides, and employee meetings and retreats while I was an editor at the Ensign magazine for over six years, at which high-ranking church officials, apostles, and other GAs would share frank, intimate insights into the Church, the latter days, America, the gay movement, etc. So you see, I’ve drunk very deeply of Mormon Kool-Aid, and anyone else who has drunk as deeply would recognize what I say as very much reflective of fairly widespread currents of Mormon thought, not freak out and attempt to apologize for them like the writer of comment #41 did, whoever she may be.

Oh, and as far as the “gay movement,” here’s a starting place for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_movement

Personally, I feel no doubt that Satan has largely inspired the gay movement to legitimize sodomy-based relationships as a valid lifestyle. And this must make it incredibly hard for today’s people who are same-sex attracted, to have this large, well-organized campaign luring them all the time by making gayness look normal and acceptable. A hundred years ago, people who felt same-sex attraction might in rare cases act on it furtively but would never have tried to publicly embrace it and defend it as a legitimate long-term lifestyle. But now someone who feels SSA and doesn’t act upon it is made to feel like a repressed coward, so no wonder we have people feeling such pressure to “come out.” With such a vibrant, alluring gay lifestyle beckoning, many people with mixed gender attraction are giving in to same-gender attractions who never would have done so if society had not become so permissive, a process aided and abetted by the devil, who I believe is a real being with a real agenda and real ways of confusing and tempting us.

#56: Huh? I’m actually against sodomy laws. I think consenting adults should be free to practice whatever vices they want and face the consequences, as long as they don’t directly infringe on the rights of others. Even the church hasn’t said anything about enforcing sodomy laws, and it even stated that it doesn’t necessarily oppose basic legal rights for gay couples. Committing blasphemy against God by changing the definition of holy matrimony to include sodomy is a whole other ballgame, though.

#64: That’s a really interesting viewpoint with some good logic. However, Joseph Smith and other early leaders made it quite clear, and it makes total logical sense to me, that God is part of an eternal lineage of Gods who all follow and obey and uphold the same eternal principles, which are very clear when it comes to marriage and procreation and parentage. The universe is one big endless Zion beehive of Gods who are all on the same program, not a chaotic sci-fi scenario like you speculate with “creative families.” At least, from my Mormon perspective.

#68: In logic class, we call this an ad hominim attack. If I do have any narcissistic tendencies, I have lots of other easier topics and more welcoming venues to feed that need. I admit I do feel a sense of responsibility to speak out on this issue as a conservative Mormon when I feel so inclined, because so few other people who think like me do so in venues that I find interesting, such as this one. It’s boring to talk about this with people who already think just like I do.

#71: Thank you. This is just the kind of Mormon Kool-Aid that I’m talking about, which people like the writer of comment #41 don’t seem to have internalized much yet.

#73: Oh, I just like conversations like this online because I have time to formulate my responses and can space it out over a longer time period rather than getting caught in some intense face-to-face encounter. In face-to-face debate, I’m the kind of person who tends to do more listening than talking, with lots of head nodding because I can always see what the other person is saying, but online I can focus on what I think and formulate my responses. I’m sure this is true for other people who are text-driven rather than verbal-driven.

#82 said “There are so many Christian and Jewish sects that are totally fine with gay marriage (either secular or religious) so why should this church, or a group of conservative churches, have the say?” That doesn’t mean anything to me, because none of those churches has the full truth or is authorized by God or led by his priesthood. I’m sure we’ll see the day when the Mormon church is the only one left standing in the right place, all other churches having caved in to secular societal pressure and persecution. (This is another concept I learned at the foot of a mentor while employed at the church.)

#83: Yes, I’m sure he’ll be patient for you to hopefully eventually come around and fully understand Mormon theological reality and accept the stand of the prophets. And if you don’t, he won’t be able to fully trust you and reward you, but he’ll still love you and give you as much reward as he can justify and as you can handle. And if you have some real mental or spiritual block that makes you not fully accountable in this area, then I know he’ll take that into account too, but it won’t make him change the doctrine.

#85: Whoa, the church isn’t trying to force anything on anybody, just trying to rally the majority to block the wrong-headed efforts of the minority to change basic laws and principles upon which the nation was founded. Everyone already agrees that greed, materialism, and poverty are not good, so the church doesn’t need to state the obvious; the reason the homosexual issue is such a telling one is that it’s a recent development in which you now have people saying that the sinful vice of sodomy is actually a good, acceptable thing. That kind of twisting of God’s laws shows an amazing lack of sensitivity to his spirit and respect for his laws, and the more this kind of secular, proudly humanistic thinking catches on in our civilization, the faster God will naturally withdraw his blessing from among us, eventually leaving us to the fate of the Jaredites and the Nephites.

I think one of the most effective ways that Satan is confusing people is to conflate the gay issue with the racial issue and, yes, perhaps even the feminist issue. Race and gender are unchangeable, unavoidable characteristics, while sexual preference is something that one can choose to act upon or not. And I want to say that I’m personally much more alarmed by a supposedly Mormon heterosexual who is so confused by the world that he or she thinks gay marriage is a good idea than I am by a gay person who is having sinful sex but acknowledges that it’s not the ideal and that he is breaking God’s laws but just hasn’t yet figured out a way to resist the temptation. And yes, I do have some gay friends who have left the church.

++++

#142: Hmm, good point. I’m sure I’ve heard someone else argue this better and haven’t restated it as well. I don’t think homosexuality is a characteristic; I think it’s a temptation that can be so strong in some cases that it may FEEL like a characteristic, especially when gay propaganda abets such a feeling. But this gets into areas of whether there’s a biological component to it, which is unproven in either direction. Bottom line: It’s certainly not a clear-cut case like race or gender. Personally, I believe it’s analogous to alcoholism; some people are more prone to it than others and some seem almost born to be taken into its clutches against their will, but it’s something that ideally should be resisted and that should not be enthroned or celebrated by society as something good for us.

#143: Huh, not sure what to say. Are you saying it was wrong for me to comment on your comment from a certain not uncommon Mormon perspective? If so, I think you’re overreacting a bit. I agree with you that God won’t condemn you for doing your best and will give you all the opportunity you need to work it out, and maybe someday someone will finally pull the rug out from under me on this issue and I’ll be in the same boat as you, at odds with the church but feeling that God fully accepts my differing opinion.

I remembered a scripture that encapsulates why I think the LDS Church did the right thing on Prop 8 and should keep trying to rally the people of America along these lines:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. (Mosiah 29)

I think when this will really get interesting is when gay marriage makes it to the federal level within a few more years or decades.

++++

#174: Bah, no regrets on this end. The reason I brought up my Mormon background is because Mfranti commented as if I were some kind of oddball embarrassment for which she felt the need to apologize, when in reality I’m well seasoned to communicate ideas that come from deep within the church (not without my own idiosyncrasies added in, I admit; and I certainly wouldn’t claim to be free of ego, either; it’s hard to be any kind of effective writer/communicator without some healthy self-confidence).

The main reason I like to let loose in this discussion from time to time in somewhat hostile venues like this is because I suspect that for every person who is vocal about their pro-gay-marriage stand and about their disdain for the Church’s involvement in the issue, there are one or more silent readers of comments who are still trying to figure out where they stand on the issue, and I hate to sit by and not try to communicate the orthodox Mormon side, for those still weighing the evidence.

Personal disparagement like what you just said about me, calling me a judgmental ass, just comes with the territory, that tired old ad-hominem cop out often resorted to when other rhetorical devices aren’t strong enough to effectively counter the orthodox position. I don’t expect that my position will convince anyone who’s actively debating the anti-Church side; it’s the undecided onlookers I’m hoping to influence. Don’t be persuaded by so-called Mormons who go counter to the prophet, even if they claim to have received their own revelation from God!

++++

#167: Ah, the old “the same thing is going to happen with the gay issue as happened with the black issue” argument. “Boy, won’t you prophet-following sheep all feel dumb when the church eventually sees the light and accepts gay marriage.”

Here’s why I think it’s different this time, and I’m open to correction if I get any history or interpretation wrong: With the black race issue, it seems like individual GAs gave their opinions for reasons why the church didn’t give the priesthood to blacks, but I don’t think the church ever had an official unified position that rose to the level of today’s practically scriptural proclamation on the family.

And the Church, to my knowledge, never openly resisted the civil rights movement in any organized way, although I understand that some individual GAs expressed concern about some of the militant aspects of the civil rights movement.

However, the Church leadership is obviously quite intensely unified about resisting the gay rights movement, at least at the marriage level. We have the proclamation, and we have organized campaigns and efforts against gay-rights efforts. That signals a whole different ball game. The church ain’t going to back off from this one; there’s too much solid doctrine and theology behind it, not the sketchy mark-of-Cain stuff used by individuals here and there to justify the racial ban.

With the racial issue, our society moved in a positive, godly direction and the church eventually came around. I agree it’s disappointing that the church didn’t lead out in this area and took so long to change its racist policy. With the gay issue, though, society is moving in the direction of ungodly, permissive, radical change that the church cannot abide or capitulate to. Some people may indeed be
individually unaccountable for their homosexual orientation, and we’ve got to find better ways to help them deal with this challenge, but legitimizing the sin of sodomy with marriage status ain’t the way.

++++

Quimby, I don’t understand you. While “ass” is a pejorative remark based on subjective standards, if someone is pro gay marriage when the prophet is anti gay marriage, isn’t it just a cold, hard fact that the person is “counter to the prophet” on that issue?

++++

#194 wrote: “The American Public sector forced a re-evaluation of LDS doctrine on several occasions, and perhaps that is exactly what Heavenly Father intended by locating the church in American borders.”

Yes, agreed. In my opinion, however, it works the other way around too, and the LDS Church is now called upon by God to try to help persuade the American public from going down the wrong moral path by putting sodomite relationships on an equal footing with procreative hetero relationships.

++++

#196: I’d like to see if I can respond to some of this well-written comment.

And with all due respect, I find your position full of folk doctrine and speculation at best.

I wouldn’t deny that there’s some of that in my beliefs, but are you calling the proclamation on the family folk doctrine?

The uniquely LDS scriptures say not one word about homosexuality. […] Having never canonized anything about this issue since the Restoration, and with the founding prophet Joseph Smith saying nothing about it either, this means all statements by the Church about homosexuality rest on a Biblical basis which is questionable at best.

I don’t really have a direct refutation for this, especially for the biblical stuff, but here’s my thought: It may be that the reason homosexuality isn’t dealt with in LDS scripture is because it wasn’t even an issue, it wasn’t even on the radar, it wasn’t even within the realm of possibility that society could devolve to the point where same-sex marriage could actually become a serious proposal on the table. (After all, we’re often reminded that most all of Joseph Smith’s revelations came in response to the Church’s needs and requests.)

I’m sure someone can cite some obscure society somewhere that performed something like gay marriages, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, I would say that our civilization is the first major civilization that actually has the nerve to say the same-sex marriage is a good idea and deserves equal status with traditional hetero marriage. I know that same-sex attraction has always been with us, and I know that people like the Greeks indulged it to an alarming degree, but most of those men were still heterosexually married and, as far as I know, no one tried to say that a same-sex relationship was a suitable alternative. I mean, they wanted to have progeny, after all. Today, of course, we’re a lot less excited about having progeny, and procreative science has muddied the waters further.

Here’s the thing with me: I don’t judge individual gays. I fully believe there are some gay people who really don’t have any choice about their attraction (at the same time, I believe some “gay” people have chosen to magnify their same-sex attractions and minimize their hetero ones). I think it’s even possible that some gay people who have chosen to live a life of fidelity with a same-sex romantic partner may actually be forgiven fairly readily at some point for the sinful sodomy aspect of it; only God knows each person’s degree of accountability and whether they made the best of their circumstances, and the Atonement can fix everything that’s out of whack, for those who let it. (I absolutely do not believe, however, that these couples could ever be sealed as eternal sexual partners, although perhaps their relationship could continue on some basis through the eternities. I’ve heard arguments that same-sex partners could be sealed, but it comes across to me as pure science fiction.)

My problem is with giving gay marriage equal footing with hetero marriage. I’ve already talked about the theological reasons why I object to that. I’ve also talked about why I’m alarmed by the idea of the majority of people preferring this to what we’ve been taught by prophets of God. Another thing I’m concerned about is the confusion it causes for young people. Many young people experiment sexually before settling on their sexual identity. If the gay option becomes so widely accepted and legitimized, many more young people will lock into that lifestyle than otherwise would have. Yes, there will always be some who are just 100% gay through and through regardless of societal influences. But there are many—perhaps the majority—who could resist gay impulses and capitalize on their hetero impulses, but society’s acceptance of the gay side makes it much harder to do so. Bottom line, I don’t want my kids growing up in a world that offers such confusion about marriage.

Here’s another reason I’m against gay marriage from a Mormon standpoint: In our temples, we perform sealings for all married couples. At some point if it hasn’t happened already, some of these gay marriages are going to creep into our family history databases and get sealed, if the fact that they’re same-sex can’t be spotted. For those who believe in Mormon theology, this is a huge inadvertent desecration of the ordinance.

Nothing in your arguments, CB, necessarily excludes the possibility of same sex relationships in the eternities. The best you can defensibly say is that our knowledge is incomplete. If you truly believe the 9th Article of Faith then you must concede this.

Yeah, you’re right, I can’t prove it. But I think the bigger burden is on those who are trying to introduce this new idea, not those who are trying to defend the status quo.

A generation ago it was proclaiming as a matter of doctrine and faith that homosexuality was a choice. Now it’s flipped on that. So when was/is the Church
wrong?

I don’t think the Church has so much flipped as they have refined and clarified their verbiage. They acknowledge that unwanted homosexual feelings are not a choice, but they continue to maintain that acting on those feelings is a choice.

Now the Church is conceding that this “core characteristic” may not change for some in this life. In which case, what afterward? The Church has no answers.

Incorrect. Through the Atonement and resurrection, all earthly flaws can be corrected, including same-sex attraction, even for gay people who can’t currently imagine what it will be like to have hetero desires.

The best you can say CB is that based on your limited knowledge at present, you and the Church believe XYZ, and you must acknowledge that it is all subject to change.

Anything’s possible! But it’s also possible to hope for change for the wrong reasons, such as extreme compassion for gays and/or the desire to be politically correct in today’s society. Both of these motives have redeeming qualities, but not when they outweigh understanding and adhering to the bounds the Lord has set. Any Mormon who is not following the prophet’s lead on this issue is taking a real gamble; I acknowledge that the gamble paid off for those who rejected the Church’s racist policies prior to 1978, but I just don’t see it paying off this time, and I really worry about you Mormon folks who are pro-gay marriage. I worry more about you than I worry about an actively gay person who acknowledges that his lifestyle is in error.

++++

Go ahead and ban me on principle then, Quimby. If I can’t state how I feel from a Mormon perspective when talking about things with other Mormons who are on dangerous ground by preaching against the prophet, then I’d like to request my name to be removed from your records.

I’ve been spending too much time on this anyway. It will be the second blog I’ve been banned from, including Mormon Matters.

Things I've Done in My Lifetime

2009-04-02T22:23:00.002-06:00

X = I've done it
O = I haven't

(X) Gone on a blind date - that's how I met my wife Ann
(X) Skipped school - a fair bit during my senior year, especially seminary
(O) Watched someone die - never seen someone actually pass away
(X) Been to Canada - Alberta when I was young; Montreal and Toronto (twice) as an adult
(X) Been to Mexico - just Tiajuana; I'd love to visit Mexico City and southward
(X) Been to Florida - just Orlando a couple of times for conventions
(X) Been to Hawaii - one time, Oahu
(O) Been on a helicopter - I'm not particularly interested
(X) Gone to Washington, DC - yeah, maybe 5-6 times; not my favorite
(X) Swam in the ocean - Pacific and Indian (Perth, Australia); I've been to Atlantic but may not have actually swum, due to cold
(X) Cried yourself to sleep - I'm sure I did as a kid
(O) Sang karaoke - I don't drink alcohol, so what's the point?
(X) Paid for a meal with coins only - I'm sure I did in high school or college
(O) Been to the top of the St. Louis Arch - just drove by it
(X) Done something you told yourself you wouldn't - duh
(X) Made prank phone calls - yeah, did a lot of those at one point in junior high
(X) Been down Bourbon Street in New Orleans - with my wife
(X) Laughed until some kind of beverage came out of your nose & elsewhere
(X) Caught a snowflake on your tongue
(O) Been deep-sea fishing - I may very well like to try it, with a good guide
(X) Driven across the United States
(O) Been in a hot air balloon - would like to try sometime
(O) Been sky diving - absolutely no interest
(X) Gone snowmobiling - once as a boy scout; would like to go again
(X) Lived in more than one country - Australia for my mission; would LOVE to again somewhere
(X) Enjoyed the beauty of Old Faithful Geyser - yep, and going again this summer
(X) Seen the Statue of Liberty - I've even climbed up into her head (took longer than it was worth)
(X) Gone to the top of Seattle Space Needle - I'd like to spend more time in Seattle
(O) Been on a cruise - part of me wants to try, but part worries it would be boring at times
(X) Traveled by train - the farthest is probably Boston to New York City
(O) Traveled by motorcycle - no, just a little local riding
(X) Been horseback riding - just hour-long trail rides at resorts
(X) Ridden on a San Francisco cable car
(X) Truly believe in the power of prayer - I was miraculously healed of cancer
(O) Been in a rain forest - not sure exactly what the definition of one is
(X) Seen whales in the ocean
(X) Been to Niagara Falls
(O) Ridden on an elephant - I would love to visit India someday
(O) Swam with dolphins - sounds a little corny to me, but I'd probably try it
(X) Been to the Olympics - one hockey match here in Provo, seat so uncomfortable I waited outside in the lobby
(O) Walked on the Great Wall of China - plan to this June
(O) Saw and heard a glacier calf - not a big priority
(O) Been spinnaker flying - I don't even know what this is
(X) Been waterskiing - several times in high school, no interest now (I hate cold water and exertion requiring any skill)
(X) Been snowskiing - quite a bit in high school, don't mind going with kids every once in a while
(X) Been to Westminster Abbey - yes, last April I attended a fascinating evensong service there
(X) Been to the Louvre - yes, last April, cool building but I like the contents of British museums better
(O) Swam in the Mediterranean - maybe this September, if my work sends me on a trip there (50/50 chance)
(X) Been to a Major League Baseball game - several Dodger games as a kid in L.A.; no interest now
(O) Been to a National Football League game - I would be willing to try one

So far in 2009 have I . . . ?

2009-03-28T23:08:00.005-06:00

Sorry, it's been a while, and this questionnaire I pulled off Facebook is kind of lame...

1) kissed someone? Of course, my wife, every day.

2) been dumped? Nope, I'm still married and employed. I think a few people have unfriended me on Facebook, though. Can't imagine why...

3) been drunk? No. I sometimes wonder if I could actually handle moderate alcohol usage in my life right now or if the Mormon church is right that none of us should enjoy any of it, ever.

4) stayed out/up all night? Not on purpose, but I've lost a few nights to insomnia, due mainly to indigestion from eating too much too late. But I still slept at least a few hours.

5) ate so much you got sick? See number four above. The older I get, the less well my digestive system works, though I continue to eat mostly what I want.

6) cried? Oh, my eyes have welled up quite a few times, usually more feelings of excitement than sadness.

7) gone to a funeral? Not that I remember.

9) watched something/someone die? Yes, I witnessed my furnace dying. It was more hearing it than seeing it, though. Oh, and our dishwasher and computer printer. Fortunately I haven't witnessed any biological death, that I can remember.

10) left home without permission? I guess this list is geared toward younger people?

11) smoked? No. Sometimes I enjoy sneaking some second-hand smoke, but I'm never around that anymore, what with all the new laws and stuff.

12) got in a fight? Maybe some verbal sparring with my ex-wife.

13) made someone cry? Not that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did.

14) found out who your friends are? Just here on Facebook, if you judge by who invited me and who accepted my invitations. I was offended today because I got a Facebook e-mail saying that a woman I used to work with at the Ensign magazine had accepted my invitation this morning, but when I clicked on her profile she was no longer my friend, suggesting to me that she clicked on my profile and considered me unworthy to keep. I sent her a message that said, "Well, at least the Lord still loves me."

15) been told you were hot by a complete stranger? Yeah, people stop me on the street all the time and tell me that--not.

16) left the state? Not so far this year, but I have plans to do so later this year as many as four times, if they all work out, including possibly two international trips.

17) been kicked out? My boss may have kicked me out of a meeting if I started dozing or getting too smart alecky.

18) been arrested? No.

19) had your heart broken? No.

20) Told someone (outside the family) you love them? Not that I remember. If so, I was using the term casually.

21) fell asleep with the opposite sex in a bed? Every night with my wife. (Yeah, I do think this list is for high school and college ages.)

23) had someone tell you they hate you? Sometimes my kids say that when they're mad, especially our little drama king Austin.

24) been in a wreck or wrecked a car? No, thank goodness. I worry about it a little every day.

25) cried for no reason? No.

26) felt like dying? I certainly wouldn't go that far, but I'm the kind of person who occasionally thinks I wouldn't be all that disappointed if I DID happen to die. Usually I don't feel that way, though.

27) felt like killing someone else? Not for real, although I can think of some people who I certainly wouldn't be disappointed if they died.

28) wished you were someone/somewhere else? Very often, multiple times per day, as far as my career goes and often with regard to not liking living in Utah.

29) missed someone so much it hurt? No.

30) lost someone close but not through death? No. Oh, wait, I did let the little boys wander away from our house one afternoon when I was supposed to be watching them, so I jumped in the car and luckily found them at the bottom of the street.

31) wanted to ask someone something but couldn't? I tend to avoid confrontations and difficult discussions, so probably.

32) lied to your parents? No.

33) lied to anyone? Probably some little social fibs, nothing I can remember. I was totally honest on our taxes, to our great financial pain.

34) bought something for someone other than yourself? I buy things that my wife and kids ask me to, but I don't initiate giving gifts. I hate giving gifts! Not the expense but the pain of picking out something for them.

35) argued over the petty things in life? "Argue" is a strong word, but I tend to nag my wife a little more than she does me, mostly about household cleanliness.

36) wanted to tell someone something but never did? Probably.

37) learned a lesson the hard way? No doubt, but can't remember a specific example right now.

38) trusted someone you shouldnt have? Probably.

39) done something you shouldn't have? If I were as pure and spiritual and religious and healthy as I should be, there are many things I probably should not read, listen to, watch, eat, and drink.

40) laughed so hard you cried? Yeah, a couple of times, at least got tears in my eyes.

41) danced under the stars? Give me a break. I don't dance, and I don't linger under the stars, at least not this time of year.

42) had a pillow fight? Maybe a brief one with some of my boys. I don't like that kind of horseplay much.

43) kissed somone but regretted it? No, except maybe my wife if she had a cold.

44) met someone new? Yeah, lots of new students in my night class.

45) became friends with someone you never thought you would? Hmm, can't think of any.

46) wished on a shooting star? No. Another dumb question.

47) wanted to go back in time and change something you did/said? Sure, but can't remember what. Well, a few weeks ago I cut my thumb.

48) gone to church? Yeah, I've actually been better about attending church this year, because the time changed from 9:00 to 11:00 and Zachary stopped taking naps, which was a good excuse to stay home lots of weeks last year. I don't like attending much, though, and wish I could get away with going only once a month.

49) cried yourself to sleep? No.

50) loved someone so much it hurt? Huh? I worry about family members from time to time, but I don't really get what this question means.

The BBC's Book List

2009-03-02T21:27:00.002-07:00

The BBC believes most people will have only read 6 of the 100 books here. I bolded every one I've read, plus added comments here and there:

1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen (really enjoyed it, have read many other Austens)
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien (love the idea of it, but it bogs down in places and I don't think I ever actually finished the last book)
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte (quite likable, but not quite as charming as Austen)
4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling (actually just the first three volumes so far, but I intend to eventually read the rest, especially if one of my sons wants me to read them aloud)
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee (great, but perhaps a touch overrated?)
6 The Bible (read a lot of New Testament straight through on my mission, but otherwise just pieces here and there)
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte (started it, strongly disliked it)
8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell (I don't remember actually ever reading it; I read fewer than a third of the novels assigned in high school)
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens (haven't read it yet but am committed to reading more Dickens in my lifetime)
11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott
12 Tess of the D'Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller (started it, didn't like it enough to continue)
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare (I've read only a handful of plays, not a big fan)
15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien (probably my single favorite book ever, seriously)
17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk
18 Catcher in the Rye - J.D. Salinger (what's all the fuss about?)
19 The Time Traveller's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot (fantastic book, in my top 10 for sure)
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald (way overrated, kind of boring)
23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens (I happen to be reading this one right now)
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy (enjoyed the first section, but then bogged down and quit)
25 The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams (not the book, but loved the radio show and hated the movie)
26 Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh (quite liked it)
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky (liked the portion I read, but didn't even get halfway)
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck (loved it in high school)
29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens (wow, this one really turned me on to Dickens, and relatively recently too)
33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis (enjoyed the first one but thought they got progressively boring, not sure how far into the series I made it)
34 Emma - Jane Austen
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis (this one really appealed to my imagination)
37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden (enjoyed it quite a bit)
40 Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne (I suppose Disney doesn't count?)
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell (seems like I read at least part)
42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown (made the time pass fast on the treadmill)
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez (in some ways kind of flat and distant but in other ways quite interesting and certainly unpredictable)
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving (went on way too long, but I did finish it; it sort of put me off Irving)
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood (I've enjoyed quite a few Atwood novels, but this one doesn't make my top three of hers)
49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding (I'd like to reread this one)
50 Atonement - Ian McEwan (I'm actually a much bigger fan of his book Saturday)
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel (quite a narrative experience!)
52 Dune - Frank Herbert (while I'm well read in fantasy, I'm quite weak on sci-fi)
53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen (not sure what Austen is my favorite; I'd like to reread them all)
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley (I read the first few chapters online recently and would like to continue it)
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov (wow, quite a stylistic, queasy trip, certainly not the slightest bit boring)
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold (eh, not as great as I expected for all the fuss)
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac (this one's on my reading list)
67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy (I didn't like it well enough to seek out more Hardy)
68 Bridget Jones's Diary - Helen Fielding
69 Midnight's Children - Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville (I loved this one unexpectedly well, probably in my top 10)
71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker (seems like I read it, can't be sure)
73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett (ditto)
74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses - James Joyce (read the first few pages, sold the book quick)
76 The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath
77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray (this one is in my top three ever, I think)
80 Possession - AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker
84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro (loved the movie)
85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert (loved this one, in my top 10)
86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte's Web - EB White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (read all these within a short period of time as a teen, would like to revisit sometime)
90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad (couldn't get into it in high school)
92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery (really didn't like this at all)
93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks
94 Watership Down - Richard Adams (it's on my list to read someday)
95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas
98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl (I consider myself a big Dahl fan)
100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

Total I've read: 39 (more or less)

More Random Things

2009-02-26T20:52:00.000-07:00

WERE YOU NAMED AFTER ANYONE? I share a first name with my father. I don't recommend this. We've had lots of confusion with mail, phone calls, credit reports. For example, when I go to the Jiffy Lube down here in Springville, my dad's info in Bountiful comes up. As for my middle name of Kimball, that's my mom's maiden name.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU CRIED? Hmm, my eyes got a little teary whenI was reading my student papers the other night about drug addiction, abuse, murder, job loss, etc.

DO YOU LIKE YOUR HANDWRITING? It's OK. But like most everyone else, I do precious little handwriting anymore.

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE LUNCH MEAT? I like tuna at home and smoked turkey at Subway.

DO YOU HAVE KIDS? Oh, yeah. I'm in deep.

IF YOU WERE ANOTHER PERSON, WOULD YOU BE FRIENDS WITH YOU? Yeah, Iwould be attracted to my own irreverence, humor, sarcasm, lightmindedness, smell, etc.

DO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR TONSILS? Yes

WOULD YOU BUNGEE JUMP? No

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE CEREAL? I hate all forms of cereal, which I consider equivalent to dog kibble with tons of sugar added. About every two years, I will chew my way through a bowl of Captain Crunch, but it always scratches up the roof of my mouth.

DO YOU UNTIE YOUR SHOES WHEN YOU TAKE THEM OFF? No.

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE ICE CREAM? I like to get a double cone at Baskin-Robbins with mint chip and chocolate fudge. At home my favorite is mint chip, but only with lots of little tiny chocolate flakes, not bigger chunks of chocolate.

WHAT IS YOUR LEAST FAVORITE THING ABOUT YOURSELF? Physically, I've never liked having such light-blond hair. Personality-wise, I think I'm too passive and lightminded about too many things, lacking in passion and drive and leadership mojo.

WHO DO YOU MISS THE MOST? Interesting question, but I'm not aware of missing anyone per se. I suppose I wish all my siblings lived in state.

WHAT COLOR PANTS AND SHOES ARE YOU WEARING? None. I'm just in my garmies, which I use as lounge wear around the house.

WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING TO RIGHT NOW? Ann is reading the boys stories in the next room, and electronic book keeps making animal sounds, most notably an elephant but also others.

FAVORITE SPORTS TO WATCH? I don't watch any sports. They all bore me.

HAIR COLOR? Very light blond, probably with lots of gray/white mixed in that you can't see because it's already all so light.

EYE COLOR? Dominantly blue with some hazel leanings.

DO YOU WEAR CONTACTS? Tried them once and was relieved when one of them tore, because they were uncomfortable to me. I've never felt the need to try them again. I got my wife to stop wearing them too, because they made her eyes look more tired, with circles underneath.

FAVORITE FOOD? I'm not the kind of person to commit to one and only favorite food, but I love all forms of Asian food (especially sushi and Indian), fries with ketchup, ribs, broccoli.

SCARY MOVIES OR HAPPY ENDINGS? Scary movies are not fun, but I don't like Hollywood formula movies either. I like the more independent type of stuff, with recent examples including No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. I also really liked some of the recent raunchy comedies, which I suppose have happy endings, such as Pineapple Express, Role Models, Superbad, etc.

LAST MOVIE YOU WATCHED? Hmm, maybe Frost/Nixon? Really enjoyed that one, better than expected.

SUMMER OR WINTER? Don't like either one as well as spring and fall, but probably prefer winter over summer. I enjoy the holidays and the dark evenings, and summer bugs me for a number of reasons that I've written about before.

HUGS OR KISSES? Kisses with my wife, neither for anybody else.

FAVORITE DESSERT? I'm not a big dessert guy, but there are some things I enjoy when I'm in the mood, such as my wife's chocolate-chip cookies.

WHAT BOOK ARE YOU READING NOW? I'm currently in the middle of Bleak House, America in Danger, Rough Stone Rolling, and The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. I'm also in the middle of a novel I'm publishing later this year, Rift by Todd Robert Petersen.

WHAT IS ON YOUR MOUSE PAD? An airliner (Jordan made it for us).

WHAT DID YOU WATCH ON TV LAST NIGHT? I never watch TV, but last night I did watch an episode of Big Love on DVD. I'm only just finishing up season one and am quite engrossed in it.

FAVORITE SOUND(S). iTunes

ROLLING STONES OR BEATLES? Beatles, by far. I somewhat enjoy a couple of Stones songs, but by and large they do nothing for me, whereas the Beatles fascinate me enough to actually read books about them, let alone own pretty much all their albums.

WHAT IS THE FARTHEST YOU HAVE BEEN FROM HOME? Perth, Australia

DO YOU HAVE A SPECIAL TALENT? Writing, I suppose, although I'm no magician at it.

Random Factoids about Moi

2009-02-24T17:53:00.002-07:00

Five names you go by:
1. Chris (in person)
2. Christopher (in print, so I'm not mistaken for female)
3. Jimmy or Jimbo (my weird, random nickname at work)
4. Bigs
5. Bigsy (the Australian version of Bigs)

Two of your favorite smells:
1. Ground coffee
2. Anything printed with ink (I'm a sniffer of printed matter)

Three things you are wearing right now:
1. Mormon garments (clean too, I might add)
2. Khaki pants
3. Brown leather slip-on shoes that are sort of cloggish

Two things you want very badly at the moment:
1. To feel secure about my career (I feel queasy about my future the majority of every day)
2. To have enough free time to work on a novel

Two things you did last night:
1. Read Diary of a Wimpy Kid to the boys in their blanket tent
2. Tossed and turned with gas blasting out both ends all night

Two last things you cried over:
1. Felt some eye moisture while watching Glenn Beck's conversion story on DVD
2. Felt some eye moisture while reading student papers about abuse, addiction, murder, etc.

Two things you ate today:
1. A steak burrito on whole-wheat tortilla at Cafe Rio
2. Two boiled eggs for breakfast

Two people you last talked to on the phone:
1. My wife
2. The nurse with my colonoscopy results (the one polyp taken was benign)

Five favorite bands/songs (these are not necessarily my top five, just the first five faves that come to mind):
1. Stereolab
2. Radiohead
3. Beatles
4. Black Sabbath (until Ozzy left)
5. The Cars (first three albums only)

Two things that you are proud of:
1. Having published five books
2. Having done the treadmill three times a week for over five years now

Two things that you are not proud of:
1. That my triglycerides are high from too much fat in my diet
2. That I don't enjoy being a Mormon much even though I believe in it

Two things you are going to do tomorrow:
1. Try to catch up at work on the catalog, video scripts, etc.
2. Teach my night class at Utah Valley University

Two longest car rides:
1. In 1990 I drove from Boston to Salt Lake City when I moved
2. In 1995 I did a three-week road trip from Salt Lake City to Washington D.C., New York City, Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo—and then back again

Two favorite beverages:
1. Coke
2. Sharps

Two of your favorite memories:
1. Going on a trip to London and Paris with just my wife
2. Growing up in Rancho Palos Verdes, California until age 10

My Thoughts on Buttars

2009-02-19T21:38:00.005-07:00

I don't like Chris Buttars, the Utah legislator who spouts off racist rhetoric and is otherwise apparently a boneheaded hillbilly. After last year's kerfuffle with his "black baby" remark, I thought he should have been unseated, and I was unpleasantly surprised when he actually earned reelection.

Now he's in the news again for so-called hate speech against gays, and I again feel uncomfortable with the way he's expressed himself and with all the bad publicity he's generating. And this time my feelings are even more mixed because I also agree with some aspects of his position.

I don't hate gays or think they are completely evil or that the average gay person has any desire to bring down America. I think they are people saddled with a difficult attraction, and those who choose to follow that attraction have made a terrible mistake that I hope they can ultimately repent of. I don't presume to judge any individual's accountability, and there may be some people who honestly can't help themselves, but I don't think there's any situation where God would countenance an actual gay marriage.

I would put it differently than Buttars. I don't think that gays "will destroy the foundation of the American society." But I do agree that the gay ISSUE could well contribute to destroying our society, splitting it apart and causing God to remove his protection and blessing if and when the majority of the nation accepts something contrary to his will.

I am more alarmed by a person who does not have gay sex but who says that gay sex is fine and should be celebrated with marriage than I am by someone who has gay sex but admits it's wrong. Gay behavior is like any other vice or perversion; it's bad to do but can be repented of, and we need to be patient and understanding of those who are caught in its grip, especially if they are humble about it and do not try to redefine God's laws to accommodate their sin.

I absolutely do not accept that God created some people as gay and that they should receive special dispensation to follow their bliss, while the rest of us have to keep resisting our desires that aren't in harmony with God's laws.

We're in a war here, and the gay activists are very powerful. I'm amazed by how many Mormons who should know better are caught up in the deception that homosexuality is just like race and that the Church will eventually come around like it did with blacks and the priesthood. I definitely think the gay issue will be the main engine that divides those who follow God from those who do not, including within the Mormon church. And as more people choose to put aside God and champion the gay cause, I think society is really going to break down.

So I agree with Buttars when he says, "In my mind, it's the beginning of the end." It's a new, terrible phase that clearly shows how mixed up our nation is getting and how far from God we're getting. Never before have people actually said, "Let's take a sin and embrace it and celebrate it and put it on an equal level with real marriage." It's a whole new ballgame compared to abortion or drugs or anything else. I mean, no one has been trying to say that abortion is acceptable to God, just that people have their freedom of choice (which I agree with). But gay marriage is saying that gay unions are deserving of God's full acceptance, which they're not.

I agree with Buttars when he says, "Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide." Previously, one civilization could be falling apart morally while another one was on the upswing. But now we're essentially one big worldwide civilization, or fast becoming one, and when we go down, we're all going down together as a planet. I can see how the Second Coming will happen because it will be necessary, because the whole planet will have gone rotten all at once and will not be salvageable except through such a dramatic, extreme event.

I don't think there should be laws against sodomy or that we should be mean to gay people. I wish they could just live their lives and not try to gain further acceptance for their lifestyle, which I'm certain that deep down they must all sense on some level is not right. Many gays probably are content just to lie low and follow their own passions without trying to alter the civilization. But there are gay radical activists out there who will not stop until they've persuaded our civilization to not only accept but embrace their sinful lifestyle, and they are gaining in power and influence.

One main reason I'm religious is that I've experienced the devil in person for myself, so I know he's a real being, and I see his handiwork all over everything related to homosexuality and the gay movement, from tempting kids starting at a young age to think they are gay and follow same-sex temptations to carefully orchestrating the whole gay agenda and campaign, twisting it to confuse people and appeal to their sympathies by making it seem like it's an issue equivalent to racial rights.

I don't know how long it will take--I hope several more decades. But I agree with Buttars that eventually the gay issue is going to help split this nation apart and cause terrible civil war. It's the latter days, and the world is going to gradually get worse, and this whole gay thing is a BIG part of that. I honestly don't know for sure if Buttars is doing us a favor by drawing a line in the sand or if he's just making things prematurely worse (probably more of the latter). On some level, I admire his courage to say what he thinks, even if most people don't like it, including fellow Mormons who deep down think much like he does but who want to keep things peaceful and easy.

It's going to be very painful for a lot of Mormons to have to choose which side they're on and, if they do choose the right side, to stand up for it in the face of persecution that I'm sure will eventually get every bit as bad as it was for the early Mormons. I hope it takes another 100 or 200 years, but I think it will take only 10 or 20 years for things to really start getting bad, especially if we have another 10-year depression that keeps everyone in a pissy mood.

25 Random Married Things

2009-02-13T12:07:00.003-07:00

I'm afraid all my blogging mojo has migrated over to Facebook these days. It appeals to both my voyeuristic and exhibitionist tendencies, and it's fun when things happen such as your wife's gay cousin, your boss at work, and your mom all chatting together in the comment section of a particular post. Anyway, here's something I typed up over at Facebook, with a few additional tweaks:

♥ What are your middle names?
Ann: None, Me: Kimball

♥ How long have you been together?
Married 11 years in April, plus our four-month courtship/engagement.

♥ How long did you know each other before you started dating?
The extent of one brief phone call.

♥ Who asked who out?
We were set up on a blind date.

♥ How old are each of you?
Me 42, Ann 43

♥ Whose siblings do you see the most?
Probably mine. I have five out of six sisters living relatively nearby (all three brothers are in other states), while Ann has only one sibling in the state.

♥ Do you have any children together?
Three: Austin (9), Kimball (4), Zach (3)

♥ What about pets?
The kids feel like pets quite often, and we also have a cat officially named Dragon but often known as Titty.

♥ Which situation is the hardest on you as a couple?
Dealing with the baggage from my previous marriage, including two kids and their mom. That's the only thing that's ever landed us in a therapist's office, which helped, actually.

♥ Did you go to the same school?
Not for undergrad, but we both earned master's degrees at BYU.

♥ Are you from the same home town?
No, she's a Provo gal and I'm from Southern California and Bountiful, Utah.

♥ Who is smarter?
We're well matched. Ann is definitely better on things like logistics and directions. I'm more the dreamy creative type. We're both pretty logical in most areas.

♥ Who is more sensitive?
Neither one of us is very emotional, most of the time. Neither gets their feelings hurt by the other very easily. We're both quite live-and-let-live, without unrealistic expectations, grudges, all that high-maintenance crap.

♥ Where do you eat out most as a couple?
Bombay House

♥ Where is the farthest you two have traveled together as a couple?
Paris, France (but we're shooting for China this June)

♥ Who has the craziest exes?
Me, by far. My ex-wife disrupts our life at least weekly. And from what we've talked about regarding earlier partners, it sounds like I had a knack for attracting fairly dysfunctional women (up until Ann, that is).

♥ Who has the worse temper?
We're pretty close to the same. I think I yell at the kids more than she does. Ann has probably gotten madder at me than I've gotten at her, but it doesn't happen very often.

♥ Who does the cooking?
Ann does most of the time, but I'll occasionally make lunch or cook some spaghetti or macaroni for dinner.

♥ Who is more social?
Pretty close to the same. We're not very good about reciprocating invitations or reaching out socially as a couple. It seems like we just don't have time. Ann has some girlfriends from her single days that she stays in pretty close contact with, and I tend to get most of my social interaction at work.

♥ Who is the neat-freak?
Me, hands down. I'm not a white-glove kind of guy, but I'm driven crazy by a cluttery, untidy environment. Ann, on the other hand, is a great organizer/cleaner when she gets around to it, but she is content to let things pile up for weeks or even months. I think she probably has better priorities than me, though, in terms of using more of her time and energy to actually, you know, interact with the kids and stuff.

♥ Who is the more stubborn?
Neither one of us stands out as more stubborn than the other. We both have our little weird hang-ups, I guess (maybe I have slightly more than she does). We're very evenly matched on temperament, which is why we experience almost no conflict on an ongoing basis. Seriously, we just get along extremely smoothly. It's been great!

♥ Who hogs the bed?
I am probably ruder about kicking out the sheets so my feet can breathe and then sometimes pulling the covers off her when I roll over in the night. We would love to upgrade to a king-size bed sometime.

♥ Who wakes up earlier?
Most weekdays we both get up at 6:45, but sometimes Ann gets up earlier to go to the gym. On weekends, she is usually the first one up with the kids around 8:00, while I sometimes sleep until closer to 9:00.

♥ Where was your first date?
I was forty-five minutes late to Los Hermanos in Provo (I was driving down from Salt Lake, and it was during the big freeway reconstruction project, so she waited for me). After dinner, believe it or not, we went to a BYU basketball game with her parents.

♥ Who has the bigger family?
I have nine siblings, she has three.

♥ Do you get flowers often?
I'm the man, so no. I get them for her 2-3 times a year, almost always on the expected holidays. I really don't like trying to surprise people or get them gifts.

♥ How do you spend the holidays?
We alternate Thanksgiving between our extended families. We spend Christmas eve with her family and usually some close neighbor friends of theirs (we live in the same neighborhood where my wife grew up—in fact, her mom still lives across the street from us). We have Christmas morning at our house and then go up to my folks' house in Bountiful for Christmas dinner that afternoon. New Year's Eve we usually just spend home with Ann's mom.

♥ Who is more jealous?
Again, neither one, although Ann did have a weird, uncharacteristic episode of jealousy about two years ago when I was corresponding with a lady in France, who I'd never met, about critiquing each other's novels.

♥ How long did it take to get serious?
We were dating exclusively after our second date and engaged about two months after we met, then married six weeks later.

♥ Who eats more?
I eat larger portions at meals and often succumb to the temptation for seconds, but I think Ann eats more baked goods and desserts than I do.

♥ Who does/ did the laundry?
Ann does all of it, but I'd like to start sending out my work clothes more because she's already too busy and sometimes they sit for several months in the ironing pile.

♥ Who’s better with the computer?
I may be slightly better on some things, but there are also things she does better.

♥ Who drives when you are together?
I drive unless we need to get somewhere fast or follow complex directions or parallel park, and then she takes the wheel. I'm very much an autopilot driver who puts very little thought or effort into it, while she puts a lot of thought into routes and traffic patterns and gas prices and all that stuff.

Temple Photos Wanted

2009-01-29T19:00:00.001-07:00

PLEASE FORWARD AND POST THE FOLLOWING REQUEST FAR AND WIDE:

We are looking for print-quality exterior photos of all 129 LDS temples around the world (plus Kirtland), to be included in a large, full-color book about temples under contract to be published later this year.

While we need straightforward shots, we are also interested in temple photos with artistic elements, such as unusual angles, filters, and lighting, as well as close-ups of distinctive exterior elements.

In return for use of your photo(s), you will receive a credit line in the book (with your personal URL, if desired). We are asking for nonexclusive rights, so you can still use your temple photo(s) elsewhere.

Send your temple photo(s) to book designer Kelli Pratt at thedesignlady@hotmail.com. Photos must be high-res with a minimum DPI of 300. If your photo(s) is chosen for the book, you will be asked to sign a release form.

Deadline for submissions: February 15, 2009

Please forward and post this request wherever it might be appropriate.

25 Random Things about Me

2009-01-28T13:19:00.005-07:00

Here's my take on that writing prompt that's been circulating through the social networks:

1. I wear button-down shirts on MWF and polo-style shirts on TTh.

2. I was born in Newport, Rhode Island, and still feel that New England is my real spiritual homeland; I do not feel psychically at home in Utah.

3. I don't like raisins, bananas, or coconut.

4. I haven't shaved my beard once in over nine years.

5. My favorite ice cream is still Baskin-Robbins, despite all these new-fangled places.

6. I really wish I could get away with attending church only once a month—maybe when the kids are grown up.

7. I didn't like my LDS mission to Australia. I liked Australia but not the mission thing.

8. I was sealed to two women at the same time for a few years.

9. I'm surprised by how much I like our new pet cat.

10. My biggest problem in life currently is my career. I'm simultaneously dealing with dissatisfaction, worries about the future, and overwork.

11. I eat cottage cheese and peaches for breakfast every MTW, and I eat two boiled eggs every TTh.

12. I've been consistent for several years now about working up a sweat for a half-hour three times a week on the treadmill.

13. I eat out for lunch every day.

14. I'm a little fuzzy on what I really have to look forward to in life, beyond the little daily pleasures.

15. I've never broken a bone and I still have my wisdom teeth.

16. I've never watched the Super Bowl, except catching glimpses when I walked through the room.

17. I love to sit by the fire and read during the winter.

18. I love Asian food of all types, think Mexican is just OK, and find Italian food pretty boring.

19. I like London better than Paris.

20. I had Hodgkin's disease in 1994 and did the full round of chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

21. I don't attend high-school or mission reunions.

22. I feel little fear of speaking in public, as long as I know what I'm going to say. But I hate the idea of being on TV so much that I turned down an invitation from the local FOX station.

23. I'm usually sort of a glass-half-empty guy.

24. Parenthood is harder and less fun and satisfying than I thought it would be, but marriage is easier and nicer and better (at least with this spouse).

25. I follow a certain rotation of which shampoos I use on which days.

Go and do thou likewise, if you feel so inclined...