Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Seven

Today we look at “the Boy Scouts’ challenges in various locations” with . . . well, with something Oaks never really specifies, but apparently it has something to do with alleged restrictions on religious freedom.

Oaks: The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

Problem is, the Boy Scouts of American (BSA) is not a religious organization. True, they affirm faith in God in the Scout Oath, which I can still recite: “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the Scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” And yes, I did type that from memory.

But beyond that affirmation, the BSA is not specific as to any particular religious belief. I remember looking in my Scout manual at pictures of the different medals awarded by various religious organizations for Scouting participation; in addition to the LDS Duty to God award, there were similar ones from the Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Unitarians, and even the Buddhists. Obviously the Boy Scouts don’t care what particular religion their participants follow, as long as they have some kind of faith in whatever God they choose.

So Oaks’ remark about “challenges” the BSA may have had in a “religious freedom” context is puzzling. In numerous cases which have gone as high as the United States Supreme Court, the BSA's freedom of association as a private organization has been repeatedly recognized and upheld by federal and state courts alike. The case which reached the Supreme Court, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, confirmed that since they are a private organization, the Boy Scouts can set their own standards for participation. While those standards have been challenged in various cases, so far no court has found that they constitute illegal discrimination. Does Oaks suggest that an organization with the size and influence of the BSA should expect to be free of litigation and controversy? That’s unrealistic at best.

Research suggests that the alleged “challenges” which might have actual legal legitimacy arise from the BSA's active exclusion of homosexuals and atheists while at the same time retaining sometimes preferential arrangements for use of public lands and facilities that are subject to non-discrimination laws. Wikipedia has a good summary of these cases. In many cases the BSA has sought to do the same thing as the New Mexico photographer and the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association previously discussed in this series: try to use private religious or ethical opinions as a trump card to escape compliance with non-discrimination laws that apply to everybody else.

Oaks makes an oblique reference to the BSA's “challenges” as if they were a well-known and uniform string of lost battles to preserve religiously-based freedom of association. In fact they are anything but that. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the BSA’s right as a private organization to set its own membership standards. Nor is the BSA without success in its efforts to retain sometimes preferential access to public facilities for Scouting activities and events, including public schools for recruiting purposes, U.S. Army bases for jamborees (at public expense), etc.

It is true that the BSA has lost some court battles in this respect. But they have won many others, including what I suspect they would consider the most important ones. The record shows that Oaks’ reference to the BSA’s allegedly well-known “challenges” can be most charitably described as inviting false conclusions. I would expect far more of a former judge, law school professor, and senior authority of a church which regularly quizzes its active members on whether they are “honest in their dealings.”

Tomorrow, a wrap-up.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Six

Today we look at “the Catholic Church’s difficulties with adoption services” which Dallin Oaks holds out as yet another example of alleged restrictions on the free exercise of religion.

Oaks: The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

Real story:

The Catholic Church’s “difficulties with adoption services” are, as noted years ago by BYU law professor Morris Thurston, “another misrepresentation.” Oaks no doubt refers to the case, much-publicized and much-distorted during the Prop 8 campaign, of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts which allegedly “closed its doors” rather than place children for adoption by same-sex married couples. And, as with all his other cited examples, the real story is quite different.

Catholic Charities in Boston had contracts with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to provide adoption services and accepted public funding for those services. In effect, it acted as an agent of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a governmental entity.

After Massachusetts implemented marriage equality, Catholic Charities of Boston's board of directors voted unanimously to continue providing adoption services to same-sex couples. However, four Roman Catholic bishops intervened and sought to stop it from doing so. They also sought an exemption for Catholic Charities from Massachusetts’ nondiscrimination laws. Eight members of Catholic Charities Boston’s board resigned in frustrated protest over this edict from above, which reputedly had support from the Vatican itself. It was also reported that they feared losing support from The United Way of Massachusetts Bay, the largest donor to Catholic Charities in Boston, if it were forced to follow the Vatican’s position.

While Oaks and others seek to frame this in terms of "the state oppressing religious freedom,” it’s really not. The conflict was between the Vatican and Catholic Charities in Boston, not between Catholic Charities and the law. If the Vatican had not intervened and forced a Hobson’s Choice on Catholic Charities in Boston, it would have continued providing adoption services. It was the Vatican, not the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its laws, which forced the issue and tried to stop Catholic Charities in Boston from providing adoption services.

As noted by columnist Brian Cavner, “This is not the case of a church simply asking to be left alone in its policies, but rather an agent of the state seeking to break the law. Because, according to tax reports, Catholic Charities received $1 million of state funds to provide adoption services, its actions are subject to state scrutiny in ways that churches typically are not. The state is not paying the charity to espouse its religious beliefs, but to offer adoption services consistent with its laws. Any organization accepting taxpayer money with the mistaken assumption that it can later deny services to those same taxpayers is immediately suspect.”

So once again, Dallin Oaks perpetuates a myth in a way that I'm sure he never would have tolerated from his law students or law clerks.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at the Boy Scouts’ alleged “challenges in various locations.” Any suspicions on what we'll find?

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Five

Good morning all. Today I will tell you the story of The Valiant Little Pastor who spoke God's word and was persecuted for it.

Well, actually, it didn't quite happen that way. First the Oaks version, then the truth.

Oaks: A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor.

Oaks’ source for this statement in February 2011 is a single news article dated 31 July 2008 in the Washington Times, a newspaper known for its far-right conservatism.

Sergeant Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is also pastor of the Gospel Word of Life Apostolic Church. In September 2006 while serving as a “senior lead officer” of the LAPD’s community relations bureau, he gave a eulogy at the Whittier, Calif., funeral of LAPD Officer Nathaniel Warthon Jr.. Sergeant Holyfield had been Officer Warthon’s supervisor. He was not on duty as a policeman at the time, was dressed in clerical garb, and gave the eulogy at a private chapel at the invitation of Officer Warthon’s family. However, he also introduced himself as “Sergeant Eric Holyfield.” A number of senior LAPD officers attended the funeral. It wasn't held at Holyfield's own church, as Oaks claims.

During the eulogy, Sergeant Holyfield quoted a passage from 1st Corinthians that says “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God” before going on to list such and talk in detail about the specific types of unrighteous people referenced: adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards and others, and to discuss their ostensible eternal prospects, e.g. men should not lie with men, women should not lie with women, doing so was sinful and anyone who did must repent or be condemned to hell’s “lake of fire,” etc.

According to his Complaint filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, Sgt. Holyfield’s supervisor contacted him shortly thereafter and said “I have received a number of complaints concerning you in regards to the funeral. People are very upset. Police officers, community members, clergy people, and as a result I’m going to have to move you.” Sgt. Holyfield was then transferred from his position, which he repeatedly described as “coveted,” and offered the choice of becoming a detective or a patrol officer.

Sgt. Holyfield filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department on June 19 2008, nearly two years after the funeral. He alleged anti-Christian discrimination, violation of his First Amendment free speech rights, and retaliation for expressing his religious views in what he characterized as a private setting with no relation to the workplace. His suit claims the LAPD demoted him and refused him further promotions.

The complaint confirms that Sg. Holyfield and his superiors disagreed over whether the funeral constituted an “extension of the workplace.” His supervisor allegedly told him the problem was the “perception” which Holyfield’s remarks had created, that “this thing is buzzing, it’s all over the department citywide,” and “has gone all the way to the top, it’s like bees to honey, it’s all over.” His supervisor indicated that in the circumstances, the funeral could have been considered an extension of the workplace. Holyfield disagreed.

Holyfield’s complaint goes on to accuse William Bratton, LAPD Chief, and essentially the entire department of systematic anti-religious discrimination and bias, of allowing “discrimination and other forms of prohibited misconduct to take place despite an official policy prohibiting such actions,” and called such conduct “willful, despicable and malicious.”

Holyfield apparently filed a separate administrative action with the LA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which was closed on 26 June 2007.

On 12 January 2011, the LA City Attorney recommended to the City Council that the city proceed with settlement discussions to resolve Holyfield’s claims.

Oaks was partly truthful in stating that Holyfield “claimed” he was demoted for speaking against homosexual conduct. However, Oaks omits the crucial facts that the statements were made at a funeral for an LAPD officer by a police sergeant/lay pastor who introduced himself as a police sergeant, in the presence of numerous other LAPD officers. He also fails to acknowledge the impact Sgt. Holyfield’s statements had on the LAPD and that the administrative action was taken against him as a result of that effect.

Oaks also fails to acknowledge that the merits of Holyfield’s claim have not yet been decided. Having read Holyfield’s complaint, I believe he damages his own credibility by accusing the entire LAPD, from its chief on down, of systematic and intentional discrimination, misconduct, and cover-ups. This is the borderline paranoid language of someone with a hypersensitive propensity to accuse first and check facts later.

In light of the above, and the fact that no court has yet found Holyfield’s “claims” to be true, Oaks would have been wise to ignore Sgt. Holyfield’s case in his speech. It is hardly a credible example of any alleged nationwide growth of infringement on religious freedoms.

Tomorrow we turn to the Catholic Church's and the Boy Scout's issues in this area which, according to Oaks, are "too well known to require further comment." Are they really? We'll see.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Four

Today we turn to the stories of two counselors who allegedly suffered professionally for their beliefs that homosexual relations were wrong. And once again, things aren’t quite as Oaks paints them.

Oaks: Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations.

In the Michigan case, Julea Ward, a graduate student, refused to counsel a homosexual student as part of the required practicum in her Eastern Michigan University's graduate program for becoming a high school counselor, because doing so would allegedly "validate" homosexual conduct which she believed was immoral and prohibited by the Bible. She asserted a First Amendment right to speak or decline to speak as she wished, and that the school's requirement that she counsel a homosexual student would violate that right.

It is settled law that a public university does not force a violation of the First Amendment when requiring students to comply with the terms of an academic assignment. As a former teacher of constitutional law, Oaks knows or should know this. A federal court held that Ms. Ward could not insist upon being excused from training to counsel gay people due to her religious beliefs, and that the school did not violate the 1st Amendment by insisting on a curriculum reflecting the counseling profession’s ethics code concerning non-discrimination in serving clients or requiring students to fulfill curricular requirements.

Oaks tries to paint this case as a penalty for trying to exercise religious freedom. It is not. The federal court's ruling says the following, and Oaks should have known this too, at least in principle:

"Plaintiff [Ms. Ward] has distorted the facts in this case to support her position that [EMU] dismissed her due to her religious beliefs. While [the university] may have been indelicate in their inquiry into Ms. Ward’s beliefs, they never demonstrated a purpose to change her religious beliefs. [The school was] at all times concerned with [her] refusal to counsel an entire class of people whose values she did not share. [The school] acknowledged that [her] beliefs motivated her behaviors, but always made the distinction between the two, and in no way attacked her beliefs. Even [Ms. Ward] is forced to agree that Drs. Callaway and Dugger never told her she needed to change her religious beliefs."

Oaks is therefore simply wrong to claim that Ms. Ward's dismissal from her graduate program represents a restriction of religious freedom. It was instead the predictable consequence of a student's deliberate refusal to fulfill all elements of the graduate program to which she voluntarily sought admission.

Once again, as in all the earlier cases Oaks cites, the federal court granted "summary judgment" for the university and against Ms. Ward. In real person language that means the court said "Ms. Ward, you have no case and there's no reason to take this to trial because the law is absolutely clear." Another reason to say "shame, shame" to Dallin Oaks, the former law school dean. He knows what summary judgment means, and it doesn't mean what he claims in this case.

In the Georgia case, Marcia Walden, a contract counselor with the Centers for Disease Control, referred an employee in a same-sex relationship to another counselor because of Ms. Walden's religious objection to what she believed would be facilitating a same-sex relationship. Although the second counselor was satisfactory, the employee “felt ‘judged and condemned’” and “”that [Ms. Walden]'s communication also indicated disapproval of her relationship.” After investigating the complaint, Ms. Walden was laid off. She sued, alleging (1) a violation of free exercise of religion, (2) a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and (3) a violation of Title VII’s prohibition of religious discrimination.

The court found no evidence in the record to suggest that the CDC removed Ms. Walden from the contract because of her religiously based need to refer clients seeking same-sex relationship counseling. Rather, the court found that “the CDC removed [Ms. Walden] from the contract because of the manner in which [she] handled the situation involving [the client], and the CDC’s reasonable concern about how [Ms. Walden] would handle similar situations in the future.”

Thus, said the court, the firing created no substantial burden on Ms. Walden's free exercise of religion. Since the CDC’s decision was “not based upon [Ms. Walden]'s religiously based refusal to provide same-sex relationship counseling” but on “the manner in which [she] handled the situation," there was no violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or Title VII. In addition, the CDC offered Ms. Walden employment reassignment services which was a reasonable accommodation of any religious objection she may have had.

In the Walden case too, the federal court issued summary judgment for the CDC and against Ms. Walden. "You've got no case, ma'am." This means that in every single case Oaks cites so far, each court has considered the claims of "infringement of religious freedom" (also made by Oaks) so groundless that they weren't even worth having a trial for.

At this point I should stop to say I'm astonished that Dallin Oaks, the former law school dean and state supreme court justice, has been so sloppy and distortionary with his research. He either does or doesn't know the real facts of these cases. If he does, then he's deliberately misrepresenting their implications in his speech. That's called "lying." If he doesn't, then his research has been inexcusably slipshod in a way I'm sure he would never have allowed for any of his law students or law clerks.

Tomorrow, the story of an L.A. policeman allegedly demoted after speaking against homosexuality in the church where he is a lay pastor. Stay tuned!

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Three

All right folks. Back from our Valentine's Day break, today we resume our examination of Dallin Oaks' jeremiad about threats to religious freedom. Next on the list is the sad tale of university faculty disciplined ostensibly for merely saying they thought The Gay was bad.

Oaks: Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful.

Real story:

In the Illinois case, the "professor" was actually an adjunct lecturer who, like all others, was hired on a semester-by-semester basis with no expectation that his employment would continue. A practicing Catholic, he wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students in which he discussed Catholic teachings on how utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts, and said that "sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same." Some students protested [note, this wasn't action initiated by the university itself] and complained to the university. In response, the head of the religion department expressed concern that such remarks would "hurt the department," and the associate dean for the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, stated her belief that the e-mail violated " university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us."

In the Wisconsin case, Tom Hilton, the chairman of the university’s information systems department, received an e-mail from a student organizer of a local gay film festival, seeking support for the festival. He replied, saying "I decry attempts to legitimize [homosexuals'] addictions and compulsions. These, our fellow humans, deserve our best efforts to help them recover their lives. We only hurt them further when we choose to pretend that these walking wounded are OK the way they are, that their present injuries are the best they can hope for in life.” He copied that e-mail to a staff member in the university's women’s studies department. Called on it, Hilton himself said he was sorry for the e-mail and acknowledged it had been worded “very badly.” The University said "administrative action" would be taken against Hilton but would not be made public. I've found no further indication of what "discipline" may have been imposed.

These are two cases out of how many universities, faculty members, film festivals, etc. across the country? One was sparked by student protest, not direct retribution by the school, and in the other, the faculty member himself admitted wrongdoing. This is hardly a rising tide of irrational restriction on freedom of religious expression.

Oaks is in no position to criticize two public universities for such actions when the private university over which he presided has dismissed, denied continuing status, or censured far more than two faculty members and students who have taken critical positions relating to official LDS church policy or leadership as well as those who for personal reasons did not pay a tithe to the LDS Church, and which even today will expel an LDS student solely for joining another church.

Tune in tomorrow for the dolorous details of two candidates for masters' degrees in counseling who were penalized or dismissed from programs allegedly because of their religious beliefs that homosexual relations are wrong.

It's About Love

Today we'll take a break from the Oaks series.

This is a re-post of my piece from Valentine's Day last year. It got nearly 400 hits, far more than any other post I've ever written. I was encouraged to post it every February 14th and I think that's a pretty good idea. So here goes.



On this Valentine's Day, I wanted to re-visit and clarify something referenced in my last post. The reason will become clear in just a moment. I've decided one thing my correspondent mentioned needs more attention: the huge issue they had with the biomechanics, with "the fit" of genitalia as deciding the morality of being gay. So to that person I'd like to say this.

It's not about sex. Let me repeat. It's not about sex. Getting hung up on that issue puts the cart before the horse. Like I said before, deep down inside, everyone wants love, intimacy, security, appreciation, commitment. Optimally, sex should be a result of all that. True, some treat it like a casual playground activity, but it can and should be so much more: an expression, a manifestation of that love and care and appreciation and commitment. This is true whether a person is gay or straight. The sex is a consequence, at best a corollary. It is not a cause or catalyst.

Understanding this should help my correspondent get over the mental roadblock they have with what they imagine is misfit physiology. They need to understand that one of God's gay sons who truly loves another isn't just fixated on the other guy's equipment. He feels a spark, a connection, a pull like a magnet toward the spirit of the boy he loves. His heart will feel the same warm thrills and his tummy the same butterflies as any straight person would feel for their beloved. He will have hopes and dreams and longings when he thinks about that one special boy that are no different than what my straight correspondent would feel for their special one. He too will be unable to sleep or eat sometimes, preoccupied with thoughts and daydreams about them being together. Not about the sex, just about basking in the glow of the love they share. It is a connection of the heart, the mind, the soul, the spirit.

My correspondent may not be able to comprehend that this is possible between two guys, but I assure you it's true. One can accept that gravity, or relativity, or black holes, do exist and work--obviously--without comprehending just how. I have seen this kind of love, happiness, commitment in many gay couples myself. The love and commitment are obviously there. I've included with this post some pics of two wonderful, delightful friends of mine who will be married later this year. I defy anyone who doesn't have a heart of stone to look in their eyes and not see the delight and happiness and love they have for each other. Only the most sordid minds would look at them and still insist it's just about physical gratification.

So to my correspondent, let me say again on this Valentine's Day. It's not about sex. It's about love.

Update: I was privileged to officiate at Dan & Michael's wedding last June in Massachusetts. It was just as joyful and profound as I expected. They are truly married in every sense of the word, loving and faithful and committed to each other. I've seen lots of M/F married couples who should envy what Dan & Michael have. Why, why, why do so many still refuse to even consider the possibility that this is a good thing? Jesus said we should judge things by their fruits, their results. Dan & Michael are living, breathing evidence that it really is about love, and that same-sex couples not only deserve but are just as capable as straight couples of the commitment and the blessings of marriage.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Two

Today we examine the second of Dallin Oaks' faux examples of restriction of religious freedom.


Oaks: "In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies. A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties."

Real story:

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization but NOT the Methodist Church itself (Error #1 to Oaks), had a New Jersey state property tax exemption for a boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove. The exemption's purpose was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use. The OGCMA knew this, amd had opened the pavilion for a wide variety of public events that had nothing to do with the Methodist Church or Christian belief. It was used for band concerts, skateboarding, debates, and even Civil War re-enactments. The OGCMA also made it available for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. But when a lesbian couple who'd been together for over 30 years (each partner in her 70's) wanted to use it for a commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony), the OGCMA said no.

The chairman of the OGCMA at the time was Scott Rasmussen, one of the original founders of ESPN, who subsequently became a Republican campaign consultant, founder of Rasmussen Reports, and business associate of at least two convicted felons. For more details, see http://therasmussenretort.blogspot.com/.

The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA wanted the property tax exemption for their pavilion which was open to the public, they could not discriminate as they had against the lesbian couple.

The lesbian couple filed a complaint against the OGCMA with the state Division of Civil Rights. They were joined in their civil rights suit by a second Ocean Grove lesbian couple who had also been denied use of the pavilion for their civil ceremony for the same reason.

The OGCMA tried to pre-empt the state action by filing suit in federal court asking that the civil rights case be dismissed. The federal judge refused, saying he had no authority to interfere with this particular issue of state law. (As a former law school dean and judge, Oaks surely knew this was the right result under well-settled law, yet he sought to give the opposite impression in his speech.)

The OGCMA appealed, and the 3d Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said the U.S. District Court was correct to dismiss the OGCMA's suit. The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights found that the OGCMA's refusal to rent the pavilion to the couple for their commitment ceremony violated the public accommodation provisions of New Jersey anti-discrimination laws.

Oaks represents this case as an assault on religious freedom. The real story is far less simple. Ocean Grove is a diverse town, not just a religious ministry. OGCMA had public funding and a special property tax exemption for the pavilion based on a representation that it would be open to the general public, rather than restricted to use by the Methodist religious group. The property tax treatment exemption was not a function of OGCMA’s religious status, but rather a result of its promise to provide open public access to the site.

Until it denied the lesbian couple's request to use the pavilion, OGCMA consistently treated the pavilion as public space and accepted secular and religious reservations for its use, subject to payment of a standard fee, and when not so reserved the pavilion was open for all to use. The OGCMA had never put up any signs or other public indication that the pavilion was private property.

At best this case shows competing public and private interests that must be balanced and reconciled. The balance tipped in favor of public accommodation and the application of laws prohibiting discrimination because OGCMA itself had sought preferential tax treatment for the pavilion based on its own conduct of opening the pavilion to all and sundry for virtually any public use—until a couple with whom the OGCMA had private religious disagreements sought to use the facility.

Similarly to the New Mexico case discussed yesterday, the OGCMA had chosen to enter the public sphere by opening its pavilion to public use by anyone willing to pay a fee. It expressly promised, as a condition of its tax exemption, that the public would have equal access to the pavilion. By so doing, it characterized the pavilion as a "public accommodation" and subjected itself to state civil rights laws governing public accommodations. Its effort to bar the lesbian couple from using the pavilion was a classic case of trying to have its cake and eat it too.

OGCMA always had and ultimately did exercise the power to withdraw the pavilion from public use and refuse all reservations of the space. But as long as they chose to open it to public use, the OGCMA—like the New Mexico photographer—couldn't claim that purely private religious reasons exempted them from compliance with statutes that applied to everyone else in a public activity which the OGCMA had chosen to pursue. Oaks, a former law school dean and judge, surely should have known that.

Again, Oaks paints an overly simplistic—and ultimately misleading—picture. His legal background means he should have known better than to do this. There was no "restriction of religious freedom" here. If the OGCMA didn't want to allow gay couples to use the pavilion, all they had to do was withdraw it from public availability. Which they ultimately did.

Tomorrow, we turn to alleged assaults on personal free speech, with the woeful cases of two university faculty members who Oaks says were disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful. As you may have guessed by now, the real stories aren't quite as Oaks would have us believe.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter One

Someone called "Trev" made an interesting comment on my last post about Dallin Oaks' misrepresentations. He quoted my observation that "those who are not attorneys probably won’t take the time to research the cases (or even know where to find them) or see the distinctions" between what Dallin Oaks claimed and what the truth really was, then said this:

You're right. I don't want to take the time. But I *am* interested. I kept waiting for the substantiation of your claims of misrepresentation to surface, but they never did. Could you educate us readers on the actual details of those cases and what they were? I always question these cases they bring up when they speak, but, as you say, I'm lazy and don't want to take the time to look them up. If you've already done the work, do share, rather than just saying you did it and leaving it at that."

It's interesting that he thought I'd called him "lazy" when I didn't, and then flat-out admitted that he was. Couldn't help chuckling at that.

Truth is, my life is pretty packed right now. Those who follow this blog have noticed I'm not writing nearly as much lately. I've resolved a lot of the conflicts that drove my previously more frequent and lengthy posting, and I have a lot going on personally and professionally which take priority. Result: blog posting drops off a bit.

Part of me wants to say "Trev, if you really are that interested, you should be willing to take the time to look something up!" But maybe he's as busy as I am, that's possible too. So "Trev," I went back and did the research for you and for anyone else in your situation. As often happens, the real story is not packaged in quite the same neat little soundbites used by Oaks. So I'll do a separate post for each of his examples of "threats to religious freedom," one a day for the next week. Any non-lawyer who finishes reading these will not only have my admiration for endurance, but is also likely to get more of an education in the legal realities of "freedom of religion" than they ever would from Oaks' speech.

Okay, here we go. First one.

Oaks: "In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay."

Real story:

The case arose after Vanessa Willock of Albuquerque contacted Elane Photography about photographing her commitment ceremony. Its owner Elaine Huguenin told Willock by e-mail "we do not photograph same-sex weddings," but gave no explanation for the refusal.

The next day, Willock's partner, Misty Pascottini, asked Elane Photography via e-mail if the studio would photograph her wedding. Pascottini didn't identify herself as Willock's partner. Huguenin responded that she would be willing to travel to photograph Pascottini's wedding, and sent her pricing information.

Willock filed a discrimination claim in December 2006 with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, seeking attorneys fees but no damages.

The Commission heard the matter and decided against Elane Photography because its admitted "existing policy that excludes same-sex couples from its wedding photography services" violated the state's Human Rights Act. That law prohibits a business dealing with the public from making any "distinction in offering or refusing to offer its services" on the bases of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation and several other factors. The decision went up to the New Mexico Court of Appeals which affirmed it.

Oaks suggests this was an encroachment on religious freedom. The New Mexico court disagreed. It correctly noted that neither the business nor its owners' own religious beliefs or practices were restricted in any way by the state's law against discrimination. "At most, they have been directed to respect [the couple's] belief system and religious observation. They are not being asked to participate in the observation or to adopt or even defend [the couple's] religious beliefs. They are merely being asked to photograph it, for an agreed fee in the ordinary course of their business."

The New Mexico Court cited an Alaska Supreme Court decision in a similar case brought by a landlord who "refused to rent to roommates of the opposite sex because of the appearance of immorality." The landlord insisted he was not discriminating on the basis of marital status, but even if he was, he was only discriminating based on conduct ("hate the sin, love the sinner," anyone?) and in any case he was exempt from state anti-discrimination laws because he was merely exercising his freedom of religion.

The Alaska Supreme Court disagreed. "When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity." Put simply, your religion doesn't give you a free pass to ignore laws applicable to others who are in the same business you voluntarily chose.

In fact, the New Mexico court found the issues to be so clear that it granted what's called "summary judgment" against the photography business. That's legalspeak for "this isn't even worth having a trial, the result is so clear so here's the ruling right now."

This was such a predictable outcome, based on well-established legal federal and state legal precedent, that it didn't even need a trial. The photography business violated the state anti-discrimination law. Period. Religious belief doesn't get you an exemption, and that's not a new rule. And it's not a "restriction on religious freedom" either. Unless you think that religious bases for defending slavery are valid, because the analysis is the same.

How can I put this politely? Oaks "misrepresented" this case when he cited it as an example of encroachment on religious freedom.

Tomorrow, the equally exciting case of the poor persecuted New Jersey church that refused to let a gay couple use their facility for a commitment ceremony.

Not Again

Sigh.

Living in an LDS congregation and region that was particularly active with personal and financial support for Proposition 8, I saw up close and personal what Mormons actually think of gay people. I also heard over and over the advice of LDS leaders on the subject, their jeremiads about encroaching loss of religious freedom and societal degradation that—they said—must inevitably follow if marriage equality becomes law.

As an attorney I’m trained to be skeptical of just about everything, and to demand, or find, proof for any claim anybody makes about anything. So when I heard LDS apostles talk about specific cases of religious liberty being infringed by “the gay agenda,” I checked those cases myself.

I found that every single time, the LDS leaders had misrepresented the facts. Not their predictions or extrapolations, but the facts of the stories they told. I’m being kind with my description of what they did, of course. I could use stronger words. I was stunned. How could these men I’d been taught to revere as “prophets, seers and revelators” do that? Facts are facts, and they’d not been truthful about facts. Yes, I know it's one thing to be mistaken about details on occasion. But that's not what happened here. This was consistent, repeated misrepresentation with the goal of persuading the flock that a danger loomed large, when in truth the "encroachments on religious freedom" were a total myth, completely unsupported by the actual cases LDS leaders cited. That’s when trust evaporated.

I would have thought that, over two years later, the myths spread about those alleged cases of infringement of religious liberty being infringed by “creeping secularism” or “anti-religionism” or “the gay agenda” or the bogeyman du jour would finally have succumbed to the readily available truth.

Alas, no. This past week Dallin Oaks, LDS apostle, gave a speech at the known-for-its-conservatism Chapman University law school in SoCA in which he reiterated some of the same myths about these alleged instances of encroachment on religious freedom which had “already happened.” I won’t bore you with the details, they are easily found through Google search by anyone who’s interested. The bottom line is that once again, Oaks’ speech spun the facts in such a way as to completely misrepresent what actually happened.

I won’t go into a detailed analysis of whether Oaks’ predictions of encroachment on LDS religious freedom are valid. But in sum, he essentially says LDS religious freedom should be given carte blanche but not necessarily the freedoms of other religions, e.g. those who want the religious freedom to perform legally binding same-sex marriages in their churches—a freedom which LDS intervention in California actually took away.

What is most dismaying to me, however, is that this man who I know many of my family and friends revere as having a special right to higher levels of insight and inspiration nevertheless persists in spreading falsehood. I’m not talking about his predictions for the future. I’m talking about his use of examples, actual reported legal cases, in which the facts and implications are completely different from what he wants his audience to believe. Yet those who are not attorneys probably won’t take the time to research the cases (or even know where to find them) or see the distinctions. They will simply rely on Oaks’ opinion, ex officio, and believe his conclusions without question.

With all due respect to Oaks, gentle reader, it’s irrelevant whether you believe he is a prophet, seer and revelator or not. The bottom line is that he has spun facts in a way that completely misrepresents the truth, in order to support his pre-determined conclusion. How can his position in the church justify that? Giving him a pass on this just because he’s an apostle means you think a different standard of honesty applies to him than to others outside the twelve (or fifteen). Do you really want to go there?

How many times does this have to be said? How many debunkings does it take to kill a myth that reinforces religious prejudice? I’m beginning to understand what Hercules dealt with when he tried to kill the Hydra. Sheesh.

Random Sunday Thoughts

Today at church the theme was meekness and humility. Not particularly popular virtues in today’s self-obsessed society. But I’m glad I went. It has been an extremely demanding couple of weeks and I really needed the spiritual refreshment.

This past week the twins told me they missed being in elementary school. So comparatively carefree and innocent, they said. Not much homework, little responsibility, not nearly as many demands as in middle school. It was a bit of a shock to hear my own kids reminisce about the good old days! They’re not even teenagers yet. But we had a good conversation about stages of life, and escalating responsibilities, and the freedoms and privileges that maturity bestows, if one is wise enough to manage them.

I told them the story of King Henry V (the Shakespeare version) as he walked through his camp the night before the battle at Agincourt, ruminating about who had the better life, a farmer or a king. And when I explained his logic to the twins, they agreed with him that in many ways, the farmer had it better. I told them of one of my favorite scriptures, Ecclesiastes 1:18, “In much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” That didn’t go over very well! Until I explained what it meant, then they understood.

This is a fascinating stage of life. My kids are just starting to be old enough to have these more serious conversations, and actually comprehend a more mature perspective on such questions. It’s delightful, really. And a nice contrast from last weekend, when we had their friends here for another sleepover, so the house was buzzing with noise and energy and shouts and kitchen cupboard doors banging and food foraging and video games and trips to the pool and all that stuff. It was all great fun, of course. Especially the early morning trip to our favorite beachfront donut shop, then we drove back down the coast, savoring the sea breezes, the view of the waves, the sunshine. With four sugared-up tweens in the car, it was quite a ride.

This morning as I listened and pondered meekness and humility, I was struck by something I heard earlier in the week. Or was reminded of, rather. With the rise of Correlation that’s taken over the LDS Church in the last 40 years or so, more and more the focus has been on obedience obedience obedience as “the first law of heaven.” Lots of encouragement to do things for no other reason than the leaders say so. Fake it till you make it. Don’t stray from the approved lesson materials. Don’t talk about “the mysteries.” Stick to the pre-packaged, pre-approved, nice vanilla flavors that Salt Lake sends out. This will be familiar to every active Mormon.

But wait a minute. The LDS Church sees itself as the modern restoration of part of the House of Israel, doesn’t it? Each person with a patriarchal blessing is told their “lineage” and it’s usually Ephraim, one of the ancient Twelve Tribes. Mormons think of themselves literally as another part of modern-day Israel.

Does anybody remember what the word “Israel” means? It means “struggle with God.” Yeah, that’s right. “Struggle.” Not “obey.” Not “stick to the manual.” Not “don’t discuss the mysteries.” Abraham’s grandson Jacob was renamed Israel because he “struggled”—wrestled, even fought—with an angel of the Lord, and he won.

So it strikes me as supremely ironic that the corporation which asserts that it’s today’s earthly vehicle for gathering the House of Israel should have morphed into a culture so antithetical to the origin of the name. I’ve always taken comfort from the fact that earthly covenants are not made with the organization but directly with God Himself. So I’m sure He will forgive me if I indulge in some of the same struggling, questioning, wrestling even, that Jacob did. After all, Jacob was rewarded for it. And as a parent, I know I am proud of my kids when they ask questions, try to reason things out, demand answers, struggle to understand new things, don’t take pat answers as sufficient, but ask why, what next, what if. How else will they grow? How else will any of us grow?

Seeing that I am straying close to ponderous philosophizing again, I will now veer back toward lighter stuff.

Dinner with a good friend Friday night, his first time with Korean food, which he loved. It won’t be the last time we go there, I’m sure.

We are out of bread again. This means I get the pleasure of waking up real early tomorrow morning and walking to the local bakery for something fresh and warm right out of the oven. It’s less than a buck more than a similar loaf of wheat bread at the grocery store, and it’s made on site just hours before, not in some factory hundreds of miles away two weeks ago and then frozen for shipment. Plus I like supporting local businesses. And the bread from this place is awesome. We had cooler weather, clouds and even a brief downpour this afternoon; hope it’s back to sunshine tomorrow morning. I like morning walks like that, they’re one of the little pleasures that make life great.

The last of the Christmas stuff is finally put away. I love Christmas but I don’t like Christmas decorations in February. And the house looks a lot cleaner. Well, at least till the kids come back. It’s remarkable the places I find kids’ dirty athletic socks sometimes.

I am grateful for washing machines. Imagine if we had to wash all our clothes by hand with a washboard.

The kids love my homemade chicken noodle soup with chicken stock I make from the remains of a roast chicken from the store. I made a particularly good batch today and then proceeded to spill most of it all over the floor. I’m glad I’ve learned to laugh at myself.

And I’m grateful for talented friends, one of whom appears in the video below playing the postlude from church today. I’ve played this piece myself and it’s riotous fun, like a roller coaster. A joyful and fitting end to a wonderful service.

No, I Don't Know

Well, everybody gets writer's block once in a while. And there hasn't been much to write about lately. Work, time with kids, work. Real exciting.

Church was really nice today. Dr. King's birthday tomorrow was mentioned and I pondered his example of speaking out, his heroism in trying to correct great injustices, change hearts and minds. He is and should be an inspiration to all of us who are trying to do the same. It was good to take the sacrament and really focus on what it means, too. I have friends whose faith or lack of it is all over the map, but for me, nothing in life or the universe makes sense without God or the Savior or the atonement. Which is one of the reasons that as I write this I'm listening to "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty." Sung by the Mack Wilberg era BYU Men's Chorus, of course. ;-) Seriously, it's the best rendition I've ever heard. If I ever do end up in an angel choir, I want it to sound like that.

Kids are not here this weekend, so this evening I took a long walk through the neighborhood, enjoying the evening air, the moon in the east part of the sky and the sunset in the west. As I walked, I read Apronkid's latest post and it really got me thinking. Not specifically about the post, but about how I look at life and the future, what I want, where I want to go and be.

Everybody who's even semi-active in the LDS Church ends up having at least some vague notion of how they imagine the eternities to be, and often it's much like the simplistic organization chart presented in Sunday School. No surprise there. But when I look at the scriptural basis for that picture, I realize how little is actually said about it. A handful of verses in one section of one book. Yet speculation and extrapolation has created a vast body of popular folk beliefs about what all the kingdoms are going to be like, who will be where, what everybody will be doing, etc., etc.

Coming out as a gay Mormon forces you to fracture a lot of stereotypes in your own mind, to say nothing of how it threatens the complacency of others. And one of mine that's fractured is that neatly organized clearly defined picture of the eternities. I've realized that I have virtually no clue how it all works, how it's organized, or anything. With a few historically prominent exceptions easily guessed at, I have no idea how to predict where anybody I know will end up. When I look at pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, ponder the mind-boggling distances in the universe, look at the amount of time that goes into the birth of a star or a planet like ours, it makes me laugh to hear anyone say they know anything about the ultimate destiny of any other person, let alone all of humanity. The hubris!

Now, in the performance-focused Mormon culture where "knowing with every fiber of your being" is the minimally acceptable standard for public statements of faith, admitting such a lack of knowledge is just not done. And a few years ago I wouldn't have done it. I would have clung to The Org Chart of Eternity like a barnacle.

But not anymore. And the bigger difference is this. It no longer bothers me one tiny bit that I don't know. My mom passed away 3 1/2 years ago. Where is she now? I have no idea. I have no doubt that she's somewhere, and I'd like to think that sometimes she's close and checks on me. But I don't know for sure. And that's okay. How do the eternities work? The "many mansions" scripture talks about? I have no idea, and I don't think anybody else really does either. And that's okay.

This is why I say that since coming out, I think my Christian faith and commitment have grown stronger. I no longer have the luxury of drifting along on the Mormon cultural current, content and complacent because I know my appearance makes everyone else think I'm Orthodox Boy. Any honest Mormon will know what I'm talking about and should confess that they've done that too. But now I've broken ranks on a serious issue that LDS theology is not equipped for, and it's no use keeping up appearances anymore. I've had to actually take complete and full responsibility for what I believe, what I have faith in, what I do and don't know. And what I don't know is a lot.

I love Einstein's statement: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." So true, so true. And so it doesn't bother me that I can't explain or even confidently predict anything about the future where we're all gonna end up eventually. The world and the universe are so vast and beautiful that I can only conceive of them as gifts and creations of a loving God and a Savior who taught the best way to have happy lives here and hereafter.

So many Mormons are so guilt-ridden with feelings of inadequate performance of duty threatening their exaltation later on that I think they lose the ability to savor and enjoy the delights of this life while they're here. Well, that's not me. In Thornton Wilder's play "Our Town" there's a very poignant scene where the spirit of a young mother, who's just died in childbirth, says goodbye to the town she grew up in and loved. I don't recall exact words, but it was a touching expression of how beautiful the world is, how miraculous life is, how every breath of every day is a glorious gift, and how much she was going to miss all that. I've been blessed with a wonderful life so far and, God willing, I have a lot more left to enjoy. And I plan to do just that.

Years ago, my dad told me his thoughts on this. "When I go for my final judgment," he said, "I'm going to tell the Savior I did my best with what I had. And if that's not good enough, well, so be it. But I will have done my best." I think that's a very healthy approach and I plan to do the same. And until then, live well, love life and my family and friends, never stop learning, savor the mysterious, enjoy each moment as much as possible.

And I'm very much enjoying that Colin Firth just won the Golden Globe for his performance in The King's Speech. If you could have seen that movie but haven't yet, you deserve to be hit with a nasty spell by Draco Malfoy.

An Apology

Dear Family:

I owe you an apology.

Over the last year or so I have thrown a serious wrench into your expectations and your image of who and what I am. This has been new territory for all of us.

I have had more lead time than you for study, thought, wrestling, debating, and all of that as I've come to terms with being gay and how my life should proceed from here on. It hasn't been my whole life, since for most of my life I was absolutely convinced this was something I must try to kill off and ignore. It's only been in the last couple of years that I've accepted it and planned the rest of life with it in mind. You haven't had quite that long, I know.

And I know it's not fair of me to expect that such a conservative LDS family as ours will be able to change thoughts or opinions on this issue overnight. You all will need time, just as I needed time. So for now, please don't worry about what I said before as far as how I would want a significant other in my life to be treated by the rest of you; there's no such person right now and I don't know when there will be. I never planned to force the issue when it was purely theoretical anyway. Events may play out such that by the time I find him, you all may find your perspectives have actually changed. I think my friend JGW's comment on the prior post is a good one: theory is one thing, but real life experience may prove to be quite different. I hope so.

Meantime, I promise to be more patient. I apologize if I acted badly the other day. I was not prepared for what you said and did not respond in the best way. I recognize that you are all trying to live according to what you believe is right, and I know I must respect that.

I do have one favor to ask. Please, please, please don't refuse to read or listen or learn any more about this topic. The apostle Paul said "prove all things"; that is, investigate, learn, test everything. No exceptions! Please, please, please take his advice, especially about this issue which is now proving to be so crucial to our family unity. Would you at least be willing to talk to a couple of my friends who have been in your exact position? I truly think it would help you feel better.

If there's one thing I learned as I watched Mom battle her illness and slowly slip away from us, it's that the testing and the challenges of life never stop until the very last breath. We really are temporary actors in a play that started long before we stepped onto the stage and which will go on long after we leave. We must each do our best in the role we're given. I know that my coming out has been a challenge for the rest of you and probably will continue to be. But please, please, please don't refuse to learn and investigate and listen to those who've been through this experience.

Growth and change is really hard sometimes. Believe me, I know. I know you are worried, concerned, even fearful of challenges to your beliefs. But remember what Eleanor Roosevelt said: "You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you stop to look fear in the face. Do the thing you think you cannot do."

Love
Rob

Where Do I Go From Here?

A wonderful time over the last week with family and friends, despite a three day snowstorm--the three days we were there, of course. Naturally it cleared up the morning we left, and once I got out of the blizzard I felt a lot better. Now back to civilized weather, safe and sound.

On the way home I found a book on the shelf at parents' home, called "So You Want To Raise A Boy?" by the inimitable Cleon Skousen (first published in 1962, and again in 1995). It contains the following:

"18. Aren't some people born homosexuals?

This is so rare that whenever a case occurs it is considered a medical phenomenon. In practically all cases, homosexuality is cultivated [emphasis in original]. Individuals who get into abnormal sex habits during early youth can develop them into such a fixed pattern that they soon think these deviations are perfectly normal. When homosexuals are arrested, they try to excuse their conduct by saying "I guess I'm just made this way." [end of quote]

While visiting there I also learned the following, which I will relate strictly on the facts without editorializing.

Everyone in my family of origin has read this blog and knows of my statements early last year about giving them roughly a year or so to adjust to my coming out, that after that time, I would expect any significant other or partner of mine to be treated the same as any boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse of any of my siblings, and that we would be a package deal.

I was informed that I could do what I wanted with my own life and no one in the family would try to interfere. I was also asked to respect the feelings of everyone else in the family by never mentioning any such personal relationships with any of them, and by not bringing any significant other or partner to any family gatherings. Doing so would make everyone "extremely uncomfortable". If I chose to do so anyway, any display of affection such as holding hands or a kiss would be unacceptable.

Such relationships are abnormal, I was told, and make everyone in the family "feel icky." Normal is a male/female monogamous marriage and sexual relations, nothing else.

I asked the reasons for this feeling. None was given, and I was told none was needed because feelings are feelings and should be respected as such. Had anyone read the materials I offered from www.ldsfamilyfellowship.org written by members of extended families of other gay LDS men and women, material I thought would be particularly relevant to my own family given the same frame of reference, in order to promote understanding and communication? No, the material had not been read; it appeared to take an apologetic stance and the family was not interested in that perspective.

I was told that this request to "respect others' feelings" was not in fact an effort to push me back into the closet and did not represent any homophobia. I pointed out that everyone else in the family was allowed to freely discuss the central personal relationship of their life and have their significant other or spouse welcomed by the family, but I was not, and apparently I must be silent as regards that part of my life if I wished to maintain harmonious relationships with other family members. I said that I simply wanted to be treated like everyone else, and asked why it was fair to single me out for treatment given to no one else in the family. It was acknowledged that this was not fair, but "life is not fair." The family did not wish to see, discuss or be reminded of an abnormal relationship.

I love my family and this conversation made me very sad. And now I have some thinking to do.

It Feels Like Sunday

It feels like Sunday because I went to church this morning. We've already done the whole presents and stockings thing and the kids are with their mom this week. So I went to church on Christmas morning, following a Christian tradition that goes back centuries if not nearly two millenia. And you know what? It was really nice.

Every year one hears laments about how Christmas has become too commercialized and the "reason for the season" is lost sight of. I know the joke about "Axial tilt is the reason for the season" and think it's pretty funny, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Yet every year Christmas remains as commercialized and frantic as ever. So it was good to actually slow down, spend some time at church on Christmas morning and really reflect and focus on what it's all really about. Focusing on the simple truths. Singing music that was sung on Christmases in Shakespeare's time, and thereby feeling connected to Christians centuries ago who had the same hope I do. That resonates, somehow.

All of this has made this Christmas special in ways I didn't anticipate, and I'm really glad.

The Journey That Christmas Means

In high school, before my brain was fully formed, I first encountered and hated a certain poem. Later when I figured out what it meant, I once even prevailed on my bishop to let me read it from the pulpit as part of a Christmas program, knowing and savoring the probability that some in the congregation might hate it the way I first did. But anything's better than boredom, right?

This Christmas Eve will be different from most I've had in the past. The kids are elsewhere, the rest of my family is far away. Shortly I will be singing with friends in some wonderful Christmas Eve services unlike those I was brought up with.

It's a good time to ponder and reflect. A good time to go back to this poem I used to hate, but which I now love, and which I'd like to share. I like it because it's not the standard soft, gauzy, sweet-Christmas-carol-in-the-background sentimental sappy treacly retelling of its story. It's rough, gritty, and probably a lot more true to what really happened to the people involved than most other recitations. There are two basic flavors to the Christmas story, you know, and for some reason I've always liked the one about the three kings better than the one about the shepherds.

Naturally, this version was written by the great sage T.S. Eliot. And the thing which most offended me at first about it is now the centerpiece of its meaning that I like the best. Fortunately I've grown up a bit since the days when I was a Boy Scout and sang with my friends "We three kings of Orient are trying to light a loaded cigar. Bang!"

No, I understand things a little better now. Including this poem. Paradoxically, for a Christmas story, it ends by saying that "another death" would be welcome. It wasn't till years after I first read it that I understood what Eliot meant. Not the physical death of someone, but the death of the short-term-focused, self-indulgent, temporal, "natural man" as a result of the journey which the poem describes. In favor of the birth of something--someone--better, higher, loftier. Or at least capable of trying for it. It's the story of one journey, but it's also an allegory for life, and what I believe the Savior makes possible for those who will listen to His message. I hope it will add a new and unique facet to your Christmas.

The Journey of the Magi
by T. S. Eliot

A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For a journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.
And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times when we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
And running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities dirty and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kicking the empty wineskins.
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory.

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.

I should be glad of another death.

Walking Through the Cold and Wet

Stuck in this chair all day. I like what I do, but after a full day of it I need to get out. Kids are gone. Nothing much happens Tuesday nights. I need to move, breathe fresh air. It's dark and wet and blustery outside. I pull on a sweater, jeans, and my thick grey overcoat, and venture out.

Clouds overhead reflect back the glow of city lights. Streets wet, drizzling mist in the air. Traffic's light, night is quiet. Air fresh and clean. Christmas lights glint here and there through the trees, up and down the streets. Breezes gust, blow more leaves off the trees to skid and scrape along the sidewalk. I wish I could walk all night long. Soaking in the shiny, misty, cool, fresh tranquility.

Lines from T.S. Eliot, the greatest sage of the 20th Century, come to mind. His "Rhapsody on a Windy Night." Lines like this:

Twelve o'clock.
Along the reaches of the street
Held in a lunar synthesis,
Whispering lunar incantations
Dissolve the floors of memory
And all its clear relations,
Its divisions and precisions.
Every street lamp that I pass
Beats like a fatalistic drum,
And through the spaces of the dark
Midnight shakes the memory . . .

Half past three,
The lamp sputtered,
The lamp muttered in the dark. . .
The reminiscence comes
Of sunless dry geraniums
And dust in crevices,
Smells of chestnuts in the streets,
And female smells in shuttered rooms,
And cigarettes in corridors
And cocktail smells in bars.

The lamp said,
Four o'clock,
Here is the number on the door.
Memory!
You have the key,
The little lamp spreads a ring on the stair.
Mount.
The bed is open; the toothbrush hangs on the wall,
Put your shoes at the door, sleep, prepare for life.

The last twist of the knife."

I love paradox and Eliot captures it so well.

I stop at the local bakery for some orange almond biscotti to have with morning tea. Then the grocery store for some grapes and Stilton for lunch. A cold breeze billows my coat as I walk slowly under the lights hung from the palm trees that seem so out of place in this weather; they should be pines. But those are further down the sidewalk, the few Christmas trees still left on the sidewalk outside the drug store. Especially fragrant just after the rain. And on up the hill, homeward, past the dim street lamps and the memories of going hand in hand with absent children along those same paths. They'll be back. So I wait, and enjoy walks on rainy nights.

Random Thoughts on a Rainy Night

I've noticed that my blogging has slowed down a bit lately. There are probably several reasons for that. One, just lots of things going on that pre-occupy, and when I stop working at the end of the day I'm really tired. I think for a living, basically, so sometimes the last thing I want to do in the evening is more heavy-duty thinking. Which is kinda why I'm writing this post, I guess. Nobody reads The Brothers Karamazov over and over for fun, right? So I shouldn't try to be profound or think deep thoughts with every post. It's exhausting. So I'm just gonna write down some light extemporania so y'all can see that my life is not all sturm und drang.

The kids are with their mom for Christmas week this year, so we already had "our Christmas." This means all the pressure is off for me, basically, and life has returned to normal. Except the tree's still up, and all the decorations round the house. When I was a kid I loved nothing better than to crawl as close as I could to underneath the Christmas tree and just stare up through the branches at the lights and the ornaments all glistening and glowing, especially if the rest of the room was dark. I kinda still do it, though I don't quite fit under the tree anymore, so I'm on the sofa instead. I think about being a kid again, remembering how it was to be so care-free. But there was a lot I couldn't do, and I was powerless in lots of ways too. Would I go back to that age, if it meant giving up all I've done and learned and accomplished since then? Not a chance. Funny how that works.

One of my favorite days of the year is 22nd or 23rd December, depending on when the winter solstice falls. Because on that date, the days start getting longer again. I love summer best, probably because I grew up on the beach. I love it when the sun doesn't set till 9 pm. One of these days I need to visit Tromso Norway, where one of my great-great-grandfathers came from, just to see the midnight sun; imagine the sun not setting from 21 May to 21 July!

Got hand-made Christmas presents from the kids this year. They don't comprehend why such presents should be so much more special to me than anything they buy, but that's okay. Sooner than I'd like they'll have grown up, and one day they'll have their own kids, and they'll get it.

Still raining outside. I like that I don't have to shovel rain or scrape it off a frozen car after it stops falling. Everything glistens after rain, especially when Christmas lights are reflecting off shiny dark streets and sidewalks and cars and windows.

Run-up to Christmas week. Freeways emptying out, that's nice. Helping out with Christmas music at church. Years ago I got so tired of the same old 15 or 20 songs most Americans think is the sum total of all existing Christmas music, and I started avoiding them in favor of other, lesser-known stuff, mostly from Europe. There's such an incredible wealth of Christmas music out there. Call me a grinch, but I really can't stand "Silent Night." Not that it's a bad song, I'm just so sick of hearing it. I much prefer "Quelle est cette odeur agreable", or "Quem Pastores Laudavere", or this one just below. THAT is my idea of wonderful Christmas music.

Christmas Letter

Dear Family:

We've decided to start a new tradition and send out an annual Christmas letter! We noticed a lot of you had "other plans" around Thanksgiving so we didn't get to see any of you. Maybe you're following Uncle Dallin's advice? Whatever. We thought you might like to know what the Adam & Steve family have been up to this year.

This is our first Christmas together as a married couple, and some of you may not even know the story of how we met. It happened at an Evergreen Conference about 16 months ago. Adam was the organist and I was in charge of building security that day, and I had to unlock the Joseph Smith Building chapel early so Adam could practice. We started talking, and Adam ended up getting a good amount of practice that morning. Then I had to leave, so he started working on the music.

Adam worked just a few blocks away and started showing up at the JS Building a lot after that. We had a lot in common; both served French-speaking missions, we both like to cook and to play baseball, and both of us have uncles in the First Quorum of Seventy even! Actually, years ago Elder Packer assigned my uncle to attend every Evergreen Conference and report back on everything said and everyone who attended. Elder Packer seemed really interested in those reports. Never could figure out why. Whatev!

Anyway, Adam and I started dating, We'd meet in the JS Building lobby after work and head west for clubbing, or strolling at The Gateway, sometimes we'd catch a Bees game. In fact, that's where he proposed, on the scoreboard during the 7th inning stretch! The whole stadium cheered, even my uncle who was there, and the players waved us down onto the field to run the bases hand in hand. Isn't that romantic! A few guys in suits in the crowd didn't seem too happy but we didn't care.

We got married three months later in Iowa. It was nice to have a few family members there, too bad most of you couldn't clear the conflicts from your calendar. My uncle in the Seventy couldn't go because he was suddenly assigned to the East Africa Area Presidency right after we got engaged. Oh well. At least we had both grandmas there, and they arranged for all the food. It just wouldn't be a Mormon wedding without red punch and sugar cookies and green Jell-o salad afterward. Plus the local ward let us use their chapel, and the Young Women there even decorated it with white roses and pairs of silver rings and pairs of baseball bats!

When we got back to Utah, I was laid off from my job at the JS Building, but quickly got another with much better pay at the U. Adam and I found a beautiful Craftsman place in the Avenues and made it our first home. He's still working at Zion's Bank so we got a killer rate. The bishop of the local ward lives right next door. On weekdays he's as nice as can be, and on Sundays he doesn't seem to know quite what to do with us. Adam is the ward organist of course--so few guys in the Church can play the organ anymore--but the bishop hasn't asked me to do anything yet. It's fun to watch the different reactions at church when we sit together and hold hands or rub each others' backs like the straight couples do!

We had a bunch of the neighbors over for a Christmas party. The Relief Society president said she was going to copy our Christmas decorations, and the Elder's Quorum President couldn't believe I knew more about baseball than he did. He and the Pride Center director served in the same mission and had a great time swapping stories. Small world! The bishop even stopped in for a bit but said it was "unofficial," LOL.

OK, we've saved the best for last. By this time next year Adam and I expect to be parents! We've already started work on an adoption and so next Christmas we will be telling Santa Claus stories and sending family photos to all of you. We told the Primary President, and she was a little nonplussed at first, but then assured us our new addition would be warmly welcomed. So grandmas, we hope you're as excited as we are!

It's Monday night and we're watching the football game for FHE, then we're making fudge to take to the neighbors. We've enclosed a copy of our best wedding photo as your Christmas present. Have a wonderful holiday!

Love
Adam & Steve

Why They're Stuck

Abelard's latest post related only the latest example of how a large organization with top-down control can stifle creativity in a way that runs counter to the organization's own stated goals. This kind of thing isn't confined to the LDS Church, but it's unfortunate in any organization that tries to be devoted to purposes such as the LDS Church espouses.

Beyond that, though, I was intrigued by Abe's statements of belief that only outside pressure will cause the LDS Church to change its position on homosexuality, that it will never willingly change from within. I've had this discussion with numerous friends who think differently, but I agree with Abe. Yes, there is precedent for the Church to change as a result of internal efforts, but not on issues like this. The last issue of such theological magnitude faced by the Church was polygamy, which the Church agreed to suspend only when its very survival was at stake--due to outside pressures.

For the LDS Church to change its position on homosexuality, it'd have to re-write its current understanding of the "Plan of Salvation" more significantly than has ever been done since Joseph Smith's time. In a church led by revelation, should that be a problem?

Well, ah, yes, I think it would be. Why?

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were radicals. They were most certainly not cautious or conservative. They shook things up in Christianity like few had ever done before. Joseph was not afraid to say "thus saith the Lord", nor Brigham either.

What do we see from the LDS Church of 2010?

As Daymon Smith recently pointed out, there actually is no such thing as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." There is The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which owns a bunch of subsidiaries like Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which owns the trademark "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as well as copyrights to things like hymnbooks, publications, media productions, and so forth. There are other subsidiaries which own real estate, or operate businesses, etc. But believe it or not, there is actually no formal organization that itself bears the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What we actually have is a family of corporations with very defined business functions. Who runs them? General Authorities who, before full-time church service, were doing what? Well, a lot of them were running corporations, or businesses, or practicing law, or engaged in other high-demand professions. Men who know how to navigate large organizations. And who run the LDS Church in the same way they ran businesses or professional practices in their prior lives. I won't go into detail, but trust me on this. I have worked closely with General Authorities and regional authorities and seen close-up how they operate. I know what I'm talking about.

This is the kind of organization that hires a PR firm to re-design its name logo to try to build more street cred amongst other Christian churches. Which surveys its members as to what they like about the divinely inspired temple ceremonies and then changes those ceremonies based on that feedback. Which concentrates authority over its official messaging in the hands of a small group of "Correlation" employees who are reportedly not above trying to tell senior leadership what they can say and how to say it, in the name of "doctrinal purity."

In short, a church run exactly like a corporation.

Now, think of the corporate business people you've known or seen. Are they radicals like Joseph Smith? Are they risk-tolerant or risk-averse? That's an easy answer. The 1978 Official Declaration extending the priesthood to all worthy men regardless of race was the first clear "thus saith the Lord" since 1890. And its text was pretty vague, even so. Now, 30+ years on, with more corporatization and Correlation having almost completely taken over the church, how risk-tolerant will top management be for any public statement about homosexuality, if they don't have a direct conduit for divine instruction that'll make any such statement fail-safe?

Not very. In fact, I submit, not at all. They're going to run as fast as they can from taking on this issue. There will be conflicting signals from individual leaders but no clear statements from the very top. Because they don't know what to do about it, and as best I can tell, there's been no new inspiration or revelation to settle the question. Nor does it seem top leadership feels much need to consider any changes, in light of Boyd Packer's speech.

This is why I think only external factors will succeed. The Church's inertia on this issue is too tied not only to cultural prejudice but to a theological construct which prevents the kind of change that needs to happen, unless some unprecedented revelation comes that shatters prior understandings. And that, my friends, is something risk-averse corporate managers--who now have complete control of the LDS Church--will never seek.

Ordinary Stuff

Saturday morning I went to help clean the church. This is not a task that most people relish. But I looked forward to it, and had a great time. Everybody had assigned tasks, of course. I worked by myself, sweeping, dusting, polishing furniture, cleaning doors and windows. Beethoven's 9th blaring in my ears.

I surprised myself a little, even. I knew I wouldn't mind doing it, but I liked it more than I'd expected to. Wonder why. Maybe it's because all my work during the week is conceptual: I write, I think, I read, I talk. That's basically it. I like it of course, but a steady diet of nothing but one thing all the time can get monotonous for anyone. So it was nice to literally get my hands dirty, see something transform from dusty and grimy to clean and shining right before my eyes. Therapeutic, in a way. The sort of almost instant gratification that I don't get very often. And nice to know that I had done my bit to keep the church clean. It was like saying to God "Here's a way I can actually show you that I'm grateful for everything I have, I'll help make Your house clean and neat so that those who come here will feel welcomed and comforted."

I'm struck by little things in life sometimes, ordinary things. Going to the grocery store or the drugstore no doubt seems like mindless drudgery to many, and I understand that. But I like it a lot. My first law firm job after school was in a far-away country which at the time had a very protectionist government; American goods were extremely expensive and hard to find, and local markets were very small and not well-stocked. But from time to time I was able to access the big American grocery store and drugstore on the US Army base, and it was like being instantly transported back home again.

Americans who haven't had the experience of living far away, without all the comforts and conveniences they take for granted, wouldn't fully understand how good we have it here. But I'm glad I had that experience because I have never again taken for granted the countless little things in my life that are good, and convenient, and helpful, and make my life easier and more pleasant. Things as minor as walking into a clean, well-lighted, well-stocked, safe, secure, friendly grocery store. Even today, whenever I walk into one here, I remember what it was like to be in that other country where imported bananas were illegal (I'm not kidding) and a "big" store was maybe 1000 square feet and its selection of goods was mediocre at best. To be surrounded every day here by such abundance, in such safety, is something I don't take for granted anymore. I'm grateful for it every day, and for all the little reminders, the ordinary things, that tell me my life is pretty good.