Day after quarterbacking - a silly sports metaphor for something very serious

Yesterday afternoon I quickly posted the breaking news as soon as I could type. It was not because of any journalistic responsibility but because I was shocked, hurt, anxious, angry, aggravated -- a lot of other 'A' words -- and so full of differing emotions I thought I would explode.

Usually I seek out a few people on these type of issues who I trust before I publish my opinion --  just to make sure that I am not expressing a moronic opinion or at least that that I have my facts straight. I did check my facts but I didn't get a chance to speak with many last night. I just blew it all out in print.

Today I feel much the same way as I did yesterday when I first saw the report. The only difference is that I am breathing now.

I am sad for our children. I don’t know how I am going to explain this to my adult kids if the case should present itself. I don’t know how to speak of this to fellow members, or non-members, or in-active members – or even ex-members who have been hurt by LDS policies/procedures in the past. I have written this religious/gay Mormon blog under a pseudonym for years, and this topic is so hot that I am thinking about taking the week of work to research and inform.

(Like I am not sitting at work writing this now)

In trying to make sense of this: I understand that the policy on those who are vocal against the church has always been to treat their children with care – assuming that those children are interested in being part of the church. I didn’t think they were required to move out of the home -- as the adult children of gay married parents are being asked to do now. I haven’t wrapped my head around this yet.

I have read that those children of 8 years of age would have to get permission from their parents to be baptized. Yes, that could be painful. But is it any more painful than requiring that adult children of same-sex parents only be baptized if they have moved out of their home and renounced their parenting?

In trying to step back and be objective -- I generally feel that everything happens for a reason. I also believe that there are reasons for things that we can’t see, or understand or even imagine.

My friend, John Gustav-Wrathal -- one of the people I try to connect with before I make an idiot of myself -- reminded me that things got better for everyone including the LDS church after the mess that was California's Prop. 8. And I see that this is true.

Maybe -- possibly -- the reason for this is something like this: Mormons will have to take a stand.

• Luke-warm will no longer cut it. 
• Will I stay true to what I know? 
• If I don’t know what I have pretended to know, am I going to do what it takes to have a knowledge? 
• Will I choose to forgo what I know for what I think I know? 
• Can I voice an opinion to something I believe as an attempt to instigate change and maintain my belief in the Gospel/church/divinity of Jesus Christ? Can I do this without creating personal or public derision that is at least as bad as what I oppose at the moment?
• Do I believe that the prophet speaks for the Lord?
• Will I ask for personal revelation?
• Will I still treat all people with respect, and love them for who they are regardless?

This is a quote from Eliza Partridge Lyman resonates with me. Her husband was on a mission in California and had left her with "no flour nor any way to get it". She wrote, "Jane James, the colored woman, brought me two pounds of flour, it being about half she had."

Another friend I try to read before I post said this: 

"Our God is a God of miracles. Expect them and learn to see them. Love everyone, for each of us is intended to heal and to bless each other, to be the miracle in another's life. Don't assume that the present moment of hunger is permanent."

I believe this with all my heart.

No married gays or their children. Why?

Before I freak out on the topic at hand, let me reaffirm my stance, in a brief rant, that the Deseret News is stuck in the mud. Once again there was a story to be published in a way that an unsavory moment or series of moments for the LDS church could have been avoided or at least tamed -- and they let other news agencies not do their job for them. Sad. Shame on the DNews.

Now the story. KUTV news reported about two hours ago that the LDS church has clarified to its leaders in the official Handbook (Number 1) for leaders to use in administering in the church, that being in a same-sex 
marriage is considered a form of apostasy.

Usually, this handbook is available only to bishops and stake presidents and other leaders of the church in higher positions, and I respect that. However, this is 2015 and info is readily available to all -- and we all know this. Where is the PR department of the church when it is needed, and why can't pro-activity be the new norm?  I digress.

Screen shots posted this afternoon were confirmed to be an accurate representation of the document by a spokesperson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

"Church handbooks are policy and procedural guides for lay leaders who must administer the Church in many varied circumstances throughout the world. The Church has long been on record as opposing same-sex marriages," wrote LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins on Thursday - about two hours ago -- and I quote from the KUTV news article listed below.

"While it respects the law of the land, and acknowledges the right of others to think and act differently, (the church) does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership."

In a related major policy announcement, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that children who are living in a same-sex household may not be blessed as babies or be baptized as members. 

"A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing," the recent (an hour ago) policy reads.

"Natural or adopted children living in a same-sex household will only be allowed to be baptized once they are 18, disavow the practice of same-sex cohabitation or marriage, and stop living within the household, according to the policy. Such baptism would still require the approval of the church's governing First Presidency."

So what is the big deal? Nothing if you are not gay, I suppose. Or if you do not love anyone who is gay. Or you are not a father or a mother. But if you are or if you do, this looks and feels ... I can't even find the words. 

This latest version of the handbook declares that members who "are in a same-gender marriage" should be considered apostates. And church leaders are expected to pursue church discipline for anyone who is determined to be an apostate.

So much for my saying that gay people are welcome into the church.

As you know, dear reader, our countries legalization of same-sex marriage gave many the idea that the church would allow gays of all sorts to be part of the church in some way. After all, there are monogamous, legal, gay couples who attend church as believing members. I know several. Are they going to affiliate with the church with their new status as apostates? Yes, we know that they can't use church facilities for their weddings or receptions. How many more doors need to be shut to them?

I still welcome gay people into the church -- and their children. And I am still a TB Mormon. I am a gay welcoming, TB Mormon who is trying to figure this one out. There is a reason for this -- like there is a reason for every challenge placed before us, and I will find out what it is.  

My faith is not shaken. Not even stirred. And yet, I have some homework to do. I am thinking of stepping stones.  Things got better for and in the church after what I call the disaster of Prop. 8. Maybe this is a step toward better things.  


http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-membership

Remembering Matthew

I read “The Meaning of Matthew” several years ago -- a biography concerning the life and death of Matthew Shepard written by his mother. To say that it was troubling would be a gross understatement. If I may, let me briefly recount.

Based on re-creations and eye witnesses, shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, Matthew Shepard met A. McKinney and R. Henderson at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming who offered Shepard a ride in their car. After admitting he was gay, Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, then tortured, tied to a fence in a remote area and was left to die.

 

McKinney and Henderson had also discovered his address and intended to rob his apartment. Still tied to the fence, Shepard was discovered 18 hours later by a jogger who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow. At the time of his discovery, Matthew was still alive but comatose.

Matthew suffered numerous fractures to the back of his head and in front of his right ear. He had severe damage to his brain stem which affected his body's ability to regulate vital functions. Also, there were approximately a dozen smaller lacerations around his head, face and neck.

His injuries were decidedly too severe for specialists to operate. Matthew did not regained consciousness, remaining on full life support for his time in intensive care. He was pronounced dead at 12:53 a.m. on October 12, 1998.

Matthews father describes him as "an optimistic and accepting young man who had a special gift of relating to almost everyone ... very approachable and always looked to new challenges ... a great passion for equality and always stood up for the acceptance of people's differences."

In February 1995, during a high school trip abroad. According to his mother, Matthew was beaten and raped causing him to withdraw and experience bouts of depression and panic attacks. One of Shepard's friends feared his depression caused him to become involved with drugs during his time in college. A few days prior to his death, Shepard had also admitted to one of his friends that he was HIV positive.

Optimistic, accepting, special gifts, beaten, raped, depression, panic attacks, drug use, HIV, robbed, tortured, pistol whipped, tied to a post, left for dead, killed. 

I can't imagine. I don't want to. And this happened just the next state over only 15 years ago.

For me, the real “Meaning of Matthew”-- all deference to him and his family -- is that there was no meaning in any of it.  None of it makes any sense at all.

I am determined to find meaning. I want better for all of us. While his perpetrators are in jail tying to atone for their mistakes, let us look at ours.

How many jabs do we make to the person who is different? How many punches does someone else get to take at our friends and brothers while we try to decide the appropriateness of stepping in? When do we suddenly decide that enough is enough?

How many more Matthews will it take to screw in a collective light bulb?

Follow this link to the Matthew Shepard Foundation