Sunday, October 25, 2009

Flying off the deep end.

People are different: The answer to my question before I pose it.

Yet I wonder - When mohos finally make a decision to seriously stop worrying about church involvement/status and embrace their sexuality, why do some guys remain relatively stable and essentially unchanged individuals, while other guys seem to flit to a polar extreme and indulge in stuff that has nothing specifically to do with being a homosexual; stuff like extreme tattoos and piercings, drug and alcohol abuse, and promiscuity?

Do I think there's anything wrong with getting a tattoo or a piercing? No. Having an occasional drink or dabbling in recreational drugs? Not really. Having sex with someone before any long-term commitment has been established with them? As long as it's safe-sex, again, not really.

Yet there seems to be this stereotypical picture of what a homosexual is: A person that revels in every vice or shady thing permitted in our society. Someone without morals. Someone to keep the kids away from.

When I came out and left the church a couple years ago the only thing that really changed about me was that I started drinking coffee. I didn't (and still don't) drink alcohol because I have far too many relatives who are alcoholics, not because God doesn't want me to drink. I didn't get any piercings or tattoos because I think I'd eventually regret doing it, not because I don't want to defile my "temple". When I started dating I stayed away from the sites that are centered around hook-ups and used I found a wonderful guy there, dated him for a month before we ever got physical, and now we're engaged and have been together for two years going strong.

I don't want to prescribe anything for anyone, let me say that. If you're the type who feels he needs to explore the limits of himself and dabble in everything he was denied when he was an active member in the church, then fine.

I don't think people who do that, though, are doing us any favors in our fight for gay marriage. It perpetuates an unhelpful image that keeps people from relating to us. Nor do I think it's helping the moho fence-sitters who want and really need to embrace their sexuality because they think doing so means they'll turn into a drugged-out slut freak-show.

What do you think?

Saturday, October 24, 2009

8: The Mormon Proposition - Link to website.

The youtube url has changed so the video I posted a few days ago doesn't work anymore. You can see the trailer at:

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Upcoming Documentary - "8: The Mormon Proposition"

Remember last February when Utah State Senator Chris Buttars' comments in an interview with Reed Cowan sparked the protest-event known as "Buttarspalooza"? After many long months it seems Mr. Cowan's documentary is finally finished.

8: The Mormon Proposition, narrated by Oscar winning screenwriter and gay activist Dustin Lance Black, has been submitted for inclusion to the upcoming 2010 Sundance Film Festival. Within the next week the film's website will be up and running, but in the meantime there's a Facebook page for the film at the following link:

What are your hopes and/or fears about this upcoming documentary? Are you excited? Nervous of a backlash? I encourage you to go to the Facebook page and post your opinion.

Personally, if the Buttars interview is any clue as to what we can expect from the documentary I'm sure it's going to be rather scathing towards the church. My only worry is such a thing could keep the kind of people away who really should see it.

8: The Mormon Proposition. Spread the word.

The Bubble - October 14, 2009

Since a lot of my postings tend to come out as little nodules of self-contained logic rather than large sheets of chained reasoning, I'm going to start something that plays to that form.

The Bubble - Short WTF vignettes from within the Zion Curtain.

Yesterday David Archuleta's Christmas album was released. Because I contributed to album and am always eager to see my name in print (no matter how small) I went to my local Best Buy to pick it up.

The woman at the register was young and smiley. I smiled and handed her the CD to purchase.

I don't know why, perhaps thinking only LDS people purchase David Archuleta albums, but the woman suddenly asked, "Are you LDS?"


"Did you hear Elizabeth Smart is going on a mission to France? I think that's so wonderful!"

"Oh? That is wonderful," I replied.

Maybe she sensed my excitement level didn't mirror her own. A little less enthused, she said, "Yes....well, enjoy."


Tuesday, October 13, 2009


In a later post, after I have time to think, I'll try to give a point-by-point response to Dallin H. Oaks' talk he gave today at BYU-Idaho.

But this post is for me venting.

....avert your eyes if you're sensitive to swears.


What the Fuck!? Am I going insane?!

Every time I hear the "Prop. 8 is about the church's right to free speach" bull-shit, I feel like I should be checked into an asylum because apparently I can't understand what seems so clear to the church leadership.

Are you serious Oaks?!!

I don't give a flying fuck what you say, Mormon church. Say what you want. Do what you want. I'll even say that, constitutionally, you had the right to say and do what you did to get Proposition 8 passed last November. It's your complete lack of empathy and soulless disregard for the plight of the homosexual, EVEN YOUR OWN HOMOSEXUALS that disgusts me. All we want is to find some happiness in this life. I don't want to take anything away from your theology or MAKE YOU do or say or teach anything that you don't want to. Just leave me alone.

And that you are trying to twist this fight into something that makes it look like YOU'RE the victim, frankly, makes me hate you in a way that I never thought I would. I would take secret pleasure in all the broken windows and stupid and meaningless acts of defacement and protest against you were it not feeding your already bloated martyr complex.

I remember hearing (when I was active in the church) that people can leave the church, but they can't leave the church alone. I'm finding the complete opposite to be true.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Carefully choreographed, for your spiritual enlightenment.

A couple things about the most recent LDS general conference -

On my way to the parents house for bread bowls and soup (fantastic cold-weather fair by the way), I decided to turn on the radio and listen to a little of the LDS general conference the hour-ride afforded me.

The part I listened to was Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's rousing testimony of the Book of Mormon. If you didn't hear it (chances are 50/50 you didn't if you read this blog) then you should, because it's a fantastic example of the power of a well-seasoned public speaker. Lot's of general authorities have given their testimonies of the Book of Mormon, but I can't remember one that sounded so.... angry.

Here are some thoughts I had as I listened:

Holland asserts that the Book of Mormon has to be true because Joseph and Hyrum Smith both took solace in it's pages as they waited to die in Cartridge jail, and that if the Book of Mormon was a fraud then wouldn't the brothers' mind's be elsewhere as they contemplated their impending death?

A few responses to that:

- Yes, the fact that they were reading the BoM in a time of great trial, possibly aware they were about to die, DOES bolster their true and undying faith in the truthfulness of the book; but that does not mean the book is true. Many people in history have believed themselves to be prophets; and I'm not talking about the type of malicious people who consciously grasp their own deceptive intentions, but people who REALLY believe they are some sort of prophet. Why not this scenario? - Joseph, in all honesty of heart, created the Book of Mormon thinking it was sent of God; and then throughout his life used it, taught from it, took succor from it's pages, even to the end of his life. Why not?

Can things resonate truth to our souls, but still be fiction? Sorry if the example offends you, but how many of us cried when the character of Dobby died in the final Harry Potter book? Did this creature ever exist except in our collective imaginations? Did that make how we felt any less...real?

This leads me to a larger point about conference and LDS meetings in general; let me frame it with a question: Have you ever read a book, watched a movie, or been on a ride at Disneyland that was so immersive and convincing in its fiction that you lost hold of "reality" for a while and were completely transported?

While I was in my car and listening to Holland yell at me about the absolute truthfulness of the BoM, some part of me couldn't help but feel moved and effected by it. Luckily my life experience (especially within the church) has taught me not all things that glitter are gold. How can anyone completely resist his testimony, especially considering he whole heartedly believes in what he's saying, and that his words were delivered from within a forum where nothing can be questioned and everything is designed to reinforce his message: from the music to the color scheme in the flower arrangement?

Another tangentially related point - The church is only interested in building faith; whether this is accomplished with truth or fiction is irrelevant.

Boyd K. Paker, in a BYU publication from 1981 said:

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

Really Paker? How far does this principle extend? If something within the historical record is discovered that casts real and serious doubt on the veracity of the church, would the church leadership respect its existence and deal with it, or would they do everything in their power to bury it? And might the inverse be true? - If something that isn't true builds faith, would it be allowed to propagate?

The assertion of the LDS church that it is the only true church on the earth today is heavily reliant on it's history, especially in regards to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It's very hard to study the history of the church when the custodian of the historical record is seriously invested in the picture the record paints.


I don't want to destroy faith. I understand the church's function in the lives of my loved ones and I would never want to take it away from them, even though I personally don't believe it anymore.

But when I heard Holland's talk, rife with it's absolutisms and pointed hyperbole, I can't help but respond; even though about 10 people may read it, and no one in my family. For what it's worth.