LDS Members' "Everything Is Church" Thought Process

I was sitting by my mom int he foyer of the church today because I didn't want to go to Sunday School and she was preparing a lesson. As I read wikipedia articles on my phone (I think I was looking at JK Rowling), she thought out loud, "How do we attribute the charitable nature of people to the atonement?" For her lesson, she needed to tie that together.

I suggested that maybe it does not have anything to do with the atonement. Perhaps not everything that is good is a result of the atonement. While the atonement, in Mormon thought, is a wonderful thing, not everything great has to be attributed to it. She didn't buy that and found some sort of connection. (Disclaimer: my mother is a brilliant women and definitely does not fall into any sort of closed-minded Mormon group)

That situation reminded me that Mormons try to tie everything back into the church. Everything can be explained through it because it is God's church, and God created everything. I don't agree with that, of course, but it seems to be the thought process of most LDS members.

I was just looking through a facebook group entitled "The Straights: You're Not In? What... are you Gay?" at the discussion board and encountered the phenomeon again. There are both closed-minded and open-minded comments that are anti-homosexual. Those I considered "open-minded" tried to consider secular evidence that homosexuality is not a learned thing or it is not a choice. However, in the end they had to return to the Church and concluded it must be a choice because God intended that men and women be together.

Situations like that greatly sadden me. Here, we have a chance for greater understanding to happen with some individuals. Yet, they cannot reach it because the Church is holding them back. It is a defeat for progress, understanding, and intellectualism.

I was feeling a loss reading those, but later I happened upon an opinion column in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled "LDS and Gay." That returned me to my usual hopeful mindset. One day, I hope, the Church will escape its homophobia. As I said before, it can only happen when it is no longer afraid of homosexuality.

How does homosexuality threaten the Church? That's a topic for another day.

McCain and Ellen

Recently, Presidential candidate John McCain went on Ellen. Of course, the news of the California Supreme Court overturning the gay marriage ban came up. This is the short conversation that they had over it:




Ellen makes fantastic points about this. Senator McCain seems to either not be able to or just not rebut her comment, and I think that is very interesting.

However, although I am gay and support equal marriage rights, I support Senator McCain for the presidency. Rather ironic, I know, but, in my opinion, he is more suited for the presidency than Obama or Clinton.

Watching this clip made me think of a routine I watched by Margaret Cho at one point. She was essentially saying that many of these politicians who are against gay marriage are not against it because they feel it is wrong; rather, they are against it because the audience they must appeal to are against it. Quite a frustrating situation, but politics is politics.

From what I gathered in this clip, McCain staved off the debate because it would not be tactful for him to discuss it with Ellen on her show at all. It looked as though he understood exactly what she was saying to him, and there's not really a way that he could disagree. Either his opposition to gay marriage comes from religion or his political base supporters.

Part of me thinks he's against it because he needs to appeal to the far right as much as he can without flipflopping (he is very well-known for crossing party lines despite what the GOP says, and that makes some people on the far right angry). The religious right does not want to see gay marriage legalized in the country. While it has not been a very tangible issue until recently, it hits close to home because it can quarrel with religion. He needs all the votes he can get if he wants to win the White House after President Bush.

I'm not saying that he's going to change his mind if he is elected. I'm just speculating on different reasons why he may be against gay marriage.

Homophobia

I saw this on a friend's facebook and thought it was a good illustration of viewing homophobia from another angle.



He's right, though. It seems a bit ridiculous to imagine the world when homosexuals are the majority since it would throw off population dynamics, growth, etc. But, if you do, then the prejudice against gays hits closer to home. I feel that, while we do not live in a world where homophobia is necessarily encouraged, it's rather ingrained in people's minds and needs to be overcome. I think it stems from two reasons: religion, of course, and its general unfamiliarity with the hoi polloi. In the beginning, though, since religion is always influenced by man (whether it is true or not), I think its unfamiliarity triggered homophobia in many faiths.

Most homosexuals were raised in a heterosexual home since that's the basic way to procreate. So, both orientations are not foreign to us once we reconcile our feelings with reality. I do see where it is a foreign idea to individuals growing up in a "straight" home with no exposure to homosexuality and how it can be such a strange concept. However, much of the fault lies with the parents for not raising that awareness.

It is natural for a person to fear what he does not understand. Were it not, there would be many more entrants to the Darwin Awards. I think a very effective way to cure homophobia is to start young in the home or school and lessen the expectations of a child to feel attractions only for the opposite sex. I'm not saying get rid of prom king and queen, but just predent the idea that there is not only one way to live.

The death of Matthew Shepherd, mentioned in the above video, is absolutely awful. I wonder what drove the assailant to do that, though. Where did he learn to hate so much? Is it really hate, or is it actually fear? Honestly, I think that his hate for gays grew out of his inability to understand it, and that frustrated him to no end. I'm sure his home was closed-minded to other ideas outside of the white picket fence and happy heterosexual family. That makes me so sad.

In my opinion, the true source of homophobia or any hate for gays is the initial fear because it was never understood. Even though I am homosexual, I was afraid of it myself and then hated myself for it. I overcame that hate because I came to an understanding of what it is and that it is not necessarily wrong. When one person is no longer homophobic, he is no longer ignorant of what is happening with others. That is a great thing.

It is a terrible thing that some organizations can push people back into the homophobic mindset. Religion can certainly be one of those things if it, also, is misunderstood. I can think of quite a few individuals that were once welcoming to homosexuals, joined a church, began to fear because of the church's teachings of the consequences, and later went on to hate it again. It's interesting, how that was reversed.

To Be in Love with Love

I've been reading a few blogs about a guy seeking out love. As in, he wants love. I definitely am not one of those people; I will take it when it come, but until then I'm fine.

I think being in love with love is a bit unhealthy. It causes a person to wear his heart on his sleeve for anyone to take it. When that happens, awful relationships are more probable. I think this because the person won't evaluate who his interest is, rather he'll evaluate only how much his interest is attracted back.

This is very prevalent in homosexual relationships. A guy will want a boyfriend so bad but only to have a boyfriend. Not a relationship. Sure, it's nice to have someone there; however, it's better if that person wants to be there as much as you do. Homosexual relationships are generally short-lived anyway. It's a general characteristic of them, at least until a guy has matured enough to handle long-term committment and loyalty. Or just becomes good at hiding his cheating, but anyway.

I know I am too young for that sort of long-term committment. I think guys take much more time to achieve any sort of maturity level that is ready for "love." So my general advice is fall out of love with love. Love a person, not a condition. Don't seek it out, let that person come to you. Realize that you are in love, do not conjure it.

"The Kingdom of God Is Inside You"

Today someone quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson to me; the quote that is the title of this blog. "The Kingdom of God is inside you."

When I heard this sentence I fell in love with it. It is exactly what I have been thinking ever since I rediscovered spirituality this semester. I don't feel as though I need a mediator to have a relationship with a Higher Power. While I am still exploring different ideas about Him among the many religions of the world, I am always coming to the conclusion that nothing exceedingly organized is necessary for happiness or spirituality.

It is quite apparent that all religions contain truth, yet culture as well. For some reason, homophobia sprang up in the Arabian Penninsula as well as post-Roman Europe. Why this happened, I am unaware. Yet, the idea of homosexuality being sinful and unacceptable made its way into their religions' doctrines. The line between culture and religion is rather vague, although if one tried hard enough then they could distinguish between the two. I do think that if homosexuality were truly sinful, then the eastern religions would teach against it, too. It has not always been unacceptable to the homosexual in the religious world, especially if one looks back to antiquity.

It makes me angry to hear a Molly Mormon or Peter Priesthood draw a parallel between homosexuality and having tendencies towards drugs or alcoholism. They are absolutely different in every sense. Homosexuality was programmed into my mind insomuch that I can be attracted to another human being by just looking at him. If I had a tendency toward drugs, saw a pill and did not know what it did, I would not necessarily be compelled to want it.

Because sexuality is a major component to a person, built into their schema basically, I do not think it can be considered wrong. Unless the Creator is a cruel being that intends to bring misery and suicide to a select group of people, then it is a tool to bring happiness and growth to individuals. As I said in a previous post, He blessed me with homosexuality. I have grown so much and opened my mind to such a greater capacity than I would have otherwise, and that is not sinful.

I was not created in sin; I was created by God. He built His Kingdom within me, including my homosexuality. It is just a pillar in my being, and there is no sense in tearing part of me down. I don't think He wants that, or he would not have put it there. The Kingdom of God is inside me, and it is inside you, too. What blessings has he given you?

Naïveté Is the Opposite of Wisdom

I was thinking about what the difference is between someone who is naïve and another who is mature. Certainly, the mature person has experienced more than the naïve, but what exactly was it that caused the innocent person to act differently from the experienced? Elders (not church-related; rather, I mean people who are older) are wiser than youth, and it is because they have experienced life already. Elders are experienced, wise, and mature; youth tend to be (but definitely not always) naïve, immature, etc. Yet, a younger person certainly can be smarter than someone older than he. So it must be, the difference between the mature and immature is the amount of wisdom they wield.

Wisdom, to me, is the ability to make good decisions based on experience or what is known. Naïve people generally cannot make good decisions because they are unaware or do not know enough of the world. Street-smarts is a term that could be related here rather than book-smarts. Wise people know enough of the world to understand what makes it turn and why things are the way they are. I feel that the naïve are that way because they are idealistic and hopeful, stemming from not experiencing the world or other ideas enough. Hope is not wrong, but in an idealistic sense it can be unreal. I have plenty of hope, but I do what it to be realistic.

I used to think that wisdom was the opposite of ignorance or stupidity. However, I feel that one can be exceedingly smart while unwise and naïve. Wisdom extends beyond science and math to being able to examine the human condition through personal experience and understanding of others. It utilizes that knowledge to act in a manner that promotes realism.

I suppose one could argue that "Inexperience is the opposide of wisdom," but for some reason the word "naïve" has the conotation that I am looking for. It is not negative, just a condition.

And at this point I have lost my train of thought. I hope that entry made sense to you, and if I come back when I am not excessively tired then I will edit this to make more sense.

"Do You Have Running Water? I Don't Want to Hear You Ever Complain Again." -My Sister

I was tagged by Peter to participate in one of those tagging games. It consists of finding the book closest to you, opening it to the 123rd page, and typing out the 5th sentence in it. I have quite a few books on my desk, so I chose the book that probably has the most interesting sentence. I chose A Patriot's Handbook, as other choices were the MLA Handbook and DSM-IV; the latter may not have been as interesting.

Anyway, my dad gave me this book. It is subtitled as "Songs, Poems, Stories, and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love." I keep it on my shelf, and sadly I have only looked through it a few times. Anyway, here is the fifth sentence on the one-hundred twenty-third page:

"These selections show the Constitution in action and reflect the deep commitment Americans feel to the rule of law."

It is the last sentence to the opening paragraph of a chapter heading. As indicated, the chapter is on the Constitution. With the election basically in full-swing now, I found this quote appropriate and a good opener to what I want to write on right now.

I love the United States. This is the greatest nation that the world has ever seen. It sickens me when people who are blessed to be born here talk down the country. I often tire from watching election coverage because candidates constantly talk about what is wrong with America. Granted, many things need improvement; however, much good is going on as well. An extreme amount, actually. We live in a country where we are free to do basically anything we want (okay, I know gay marriage is not legal yet, get over it).

We allow free speech, free press, freedom to do what we will, say what we will, and think as we will. The Constitution is the very document that protects those people's freedoms who would criticize the government it orchestrates. In China, people are fed propaganda constantly insomuch that their schema of the world is skewed; in Israel one cannot feel completely safe and secure behind just one locked door in their home; in Sudan armies march to murder you just because you are not Arab. It's no wonder we have a problem with immigration.

I was watching a documentary on the conflict in Darfur, The Devil Came on Horseback (which I completely recommend), and in it a black Muslim said he and his family always pray for the Americans. They do not pray for the Arab countries, they pray for America. I wondered why until he explained. It is the Americans who send them relief, who care enough for their well-being help with their survival. The Arab countries, who are predominantly Muslim as well, have done nothing for them. I wish we were doing more for those in Darfur, but situations are more complex that just what I would like to do. We are a nation of compassion, comprised of a people who wish to extend their luxuries with others. Granted, we do not understand other cultures well enough to do this effectively everywhere, but we are getting there.

A friend of mine told me last week that he has lost almost all his faith in the federal government. I think that sort of thinking is an extension of not appreciating everything that this government provides for us as citizens. It's amazing. One just needs to see a picture of a family in a starving country full on conflict to put his life in perspective. And if that does not do it, some personal evaluation is certainly needed.

The situations in Darfur, Kosovo, and Israel should make us appreciate our security. The starvation in North Korea due to Kim Jong-Il should make us appreciate the food that is readily available for us, allowable by our government. The corrupted and manipulative government of China should make us appreciative of the transparency of Washington. Saudi Arabia makes me appreciate the fact that I can explore religion and spirituality at my will and not be forced to prescribe to something I may not want to. If you have two pairs of shoes, you are in the top 10% of the wealthiest people in the world. 60% of the world makes less than $911 a year; that is probably less than the cost of the computer you're using to read this right now.

As my sister puts it, "Do you have running water? I don't want to hear you ever complain again."