Presidential hopeful Evan McMullin is accused of being gay

In today’s repulsive gay-LDS news, KSL is the agency reporting the latest stupidity. Here goes:

KSL claims that someone they call “a white supremacist” is financing auto-calls being made to Utah voters that are meant to call attention to independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin's alleged sexual preference.

As per KSL, "Evan McMullin is a 40-year-old Mormon who has a chance to become the first third-party candidate to win electoral votes since 1968 — and the state that may give him those votes is Utah".

In this auto call, which seems to be a “support the Donald” call, William Johnson states, "Evan is over 40 years old and is not married and doesn’t even have a girlfriend. I believe Evan is a closet homosexual."

This guy Billy Johnson is a BYU graduate, (Something I am loathe to print. Not all BYU graduates are this idiotic)  who was named by Trump’s campaign as delegate to the recent Republican National Convention.  

Oh, wait. There is more. This Johnson also says in these calls that candidate McMullin has "two mommies. His mother is a lesbian, married to another woman. Evan is OK with that. Indeed, Evan supports the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage."

By way of fact, Evan McMullin's parents were divorced.  After the divorce his mother married a woman.

In defending his statement Johnson stated, "I said that I think he is a closet homosexual. Calling someone a homosexual is no longer defamation. Also, he is a public figure. Word on the street is that he is gay."

Of course the McMullin’s campaign has been all over the allegation, denying that there is a gay bone in the dude’s body.

"He has been on the record multiple times saying one of his greatest aspirations is to be a husband and a father. He wishes it would have happened earlier, however he spent more than 10 years in his 20's and 30's serving his country overseas in the CIA. He sacrificed his social life in order to protect the United States, and he expects to start a family of his own one day, "according to the statement.

Johnson, the guy who is making the accusation, is a “California lawyer who has been active in U.S. white nationalist circles for more than three decades” says KSL. “He has unsuccessfully run for public office as a member of various political parties and as an independent.  When Trump campaign officials blamed his inclusion as a national GOP delegate on a "database error." Johnson resigned as a delegate.”

“According to Johnson, the calls will go out to at least 193,000 residential landlines in Utah between Monday evening and Wednesday evening. He said it cost him around $2,000", said KSL quoting The Daily Beast.

Frankly, I am disgusted by the accusation toward McMillion and his mother as well as those humans who would be swayed by someones sexual preference as an indicator of his professional abilities.  

On Twitter, McMillion stated  "This attack is consistent with @realDonaldTrump's bigoted, deceitful campaign and vision for America. Utahns won't be fooled,” he tweeted.

Again, From KSL: "Donald Trump has mainstreamed and normalized white nationalists, xenophobes, and bigots of all descriptions," McMullin campaign strategist Joel Searby said in a statement. "Today isn't an outlier or an exception; it's a vision of Donald Trump's" 

Who do I believe?

A reader brought up a decent point. He stated: "Believing that you are doing something that will affect eternity is powerful indeed. It doesn't even have to be true so powerful is it."

Well, that does present a real problem.  I don't want to be doing something simply because I have convinced myself it is the right thing to do. Recently I found out that I am diabetic. Who in their right mind would give up sugar and shoot up twice daily if it wasn't to get something better? -- in this case, the chance to live.

As a child like millions of others, I believed in Santa. The Easter Bunny always seemed ludicrous, but I got into the whole Santa thing. Even when I was older I still sooooo wanted to believe. I created my own little reality where Santa was a man that was so busy that he instructed parents around the world who then acted as his agents to make sure that worthy children received the gifts they rightly deserved. 

That lasted a year. By then puberty kicked in and I was too busy thinking about other things to worry about Santa. I had been so sure about the Santa thing. But I was mistaken.

So, what if we are putting our whole heart into religion, the Mormon church and the teachings of the gospel and it ends up that Jesus was/is just a good man who tried to keep us from killing ourselves?  

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that we in the LDS church who are also, by definition members of the LGBT community (read - gay Mormons) are functioning under a premise that is mistaken -- our own little "If we are good then Santa will bring us gifts" premise.

The premise is this; if we live a good life we will go to heaven. (We will define good will be as following the commandments as stipulated by the prophets living and written.) How do we find out if we are being taken or not? 

For me there are two things I consider. First, what was in it for Christ to ask us to follow him. He was not political. There was nothing physically or monetarily for him to gain. He got nothing but grief and ended up dead. What would have been his motive if He wasn't who he said he was? What He asked us to do was be kind, be honest, and to focus on the needs of others. Doesn't seem super logical that it was some sort of scam.

Second, in order to know that I am not off on the wrong track, I would need to know the answers to the following questions; Do I believe in God?  Do I believe that He knows more than I do and that he has power that I do not have? Do I believe that He wants what is best for me?

Now that we have the questions established, who do we ask?  Who has the knowledge of things from the beginning of time?  Not John Dehlin. No one here on earth. 

Mormons believe that the third member of the Godhead is the Spirit, the Holy Ghost. He will testify to us when we ask with real intent. He will answer us. We do not need to go through anyone else for personal revelation. Not John Dehlin or anyone else here on earth.

• I believe in God and that God has set standards.
• I believe that the prophets speak for Him to instruct us while allowing us the freedom to choose for ourselves.
• I believe that God is just and that he is in a position to judge.
• I believe that God's knowledge is more than man's knowledge and that his power is more than man's power.

If I believe these things, and I do, then giving up something for something better in the long term is doable.  

BYU -- Land of opportunity for a gay Mormon

This was the first real gay essay I ever wrote. It was bold for me and a little salacious though that was never my intent. I turned red as I looked through it again an hour ago. It was my first real attempt at aggressively taking charge of my life in writing, and I thought it was time for a re-visit.
Most everything I know about the gay lifestyle I learned at Brigham Young University. I don't blame the university. I don't blame the people I met there. I saw an opportunity that hadn't presented itself before -- one that I had apparently been looking for for quite a while -- and I made a choice.

It's not like there was a class or a club - though I hear there's one now with its own Facebook page. There wasn't a paragraph of my "Welcome to BYU" pamphlet that included gay as part of the Cougar experience. My first gay interaction as a consenting adult was with a guy I met when I came to Provo for higher education.

The Smith Field House was the place. I sat on a bleacher completely unanimously and watched guys play. They smacked each other, they ran each other over. The grabbed each another and wrestled. They touched each other, and I thought I would pass out on the spot. It wasn't just that young men were enjoying each other. There was something more to it. There was so much familiarity.

Later I figured that these intense relationship had to do with missions and same experiences and in guys usually a part of a minority suddenly swimming in guys who believed like they did; An instant brotherhood. 

I wanted to be one of them. They were contemporaries, my Mormon friends -- or guys I wished were my friends -- who looked at me (if they looked at me at all) as some guy doing homework in the bleachers.

At the end of my first year at BYU I discovered that the men's rooms were the places to meet guys who were looking for... whatever I was looking for. There was graffiti that pointed the way, and some of the writing on the wall made it really clear what the author was looking for.

So I sat there and waited for some signal from the guy in the next stall. I got all the signals I wanted, but I didn't know what to do. I figured it out quickly. We were all fast learners.

There is is. That's how I started. In a men's room at a church school. I was a fool more than a naive. Regardless, I became a regular.

It wasn't until months later that I heard that guys were picked up, and by that I mean that they were arrested or kicked out of school when undercover cops made their own kind of contact. I was lucky. Later, I was experienced enough to know when I was being played. So I didn't find myself in that horrible position of being outed as it came to be known, by an undercover cop.

I once was caught by someone I figured was a professor who interrupted a beginner in a tryst. I just sat there looking at my shoes until he left. I couldn't bear to look up at the man scolding me for fear that I might be recognized or that I might recognize him.

Once I made a connection with a guy. Looking over the stall I recognized him as a fellow music major who was a friend of mine. I was horrified. I believe to this day that he recognized me, though there was never an acknowledgement. This was my first obvious foray into leading a double life.

You would think that these few experiences would have kept me "clean and sober" as it were, the fear of getting caught, would discourage me from involving myself in the behaviors.

No. It didn't make me do anything but to be smarter and careful and look for other places to find what I wanted -- and there were plenty of other places.

You find what you look for. Down deep I don't know what I was looking for at that time. But I found it at BYU

Gays get marriage licences in Utah on Friday

A federal judge ruling on Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages was deemed to be unconstitutional on Friday, December 20th. Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, wrote that in his  opinion such a law “perpetuates inequality.”

“The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,”  Judge Shelby stated on Friday. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

This ruling was released just hours after another southwestern state, New Mexico, became the 17th state to allow same-sex marriage on Thursday.  It's state Supreme Court ruled that a similar ban there was unconstitutional as well.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has softened its stance on homosexuality in recent years, stating that the known origins of sexuality are not fully understood.  The LDS church was not involved in any part of the lawsuit.

"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect," said a LDS Church spokesman.

Nation wide, public opinion on the matter has made an about face over the past 10 years. In 2003, 55%  opposed homosexual marriage, with 37% supporting marriage equality. Today, 58% are in favor with 36% opposing the bans -- this according to data compiled by The Washington Post.

In the state of Utah, public opinion on the issue has been slower to turn with 28% supporting legalizing gay marriage in a February 2012 (Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy), while a poll taken at approximately the same time period (CBS/New York Times) revealed 38% support for gay marriage rights nationally.

The large Mormon population is opposed to homosexual activity while supporting a persons right to live his own lifestyle making use of "agency", the ability to choose for one's self. Nationally, nearly two in three Mormons in 2011 said society should discourage homosexual acts, while only one third of those polled in other denominations agreed, (Pew poll.) 63 % of Utahans are LDS. (2007 Pew Religion & Public Life survey.)

I may or may not agree with homosexuals getting married, But I am not one to stand in their way.  The constitution seems clear.  Humans are born with certain inalienable rights, regardless of religion or public opinion.  As long as these judges are studying constitutional law, the law the LDS as a people say they support, Homosexuals must be allowed to marry.

Churches should still retain their right to allow such marriage in their denominations.  I would fight for that right right along with the gays right to marry.

What do you think?  What do you think the mormon people will do?  The leaders of the LDS church?  I'd love to hear from you.

Rise up, O men of God! -- Gentle Masculinity

What an interesting article  from "Religion and Politics".  The following excerpt is from "Why Mormon Men Love “Church Ball” and Are Scared of Homosexuality" By Kristine Haglund | September 10, 2012


GENTLE MASCULINITY

"When the women of the church convene for their annual meeting in Salt Lake City, they are likely to hear things like:

“Sisters, we love you. We pray for you. Be strong and of good courage. You are truly royal spirit daughters of Almighty God. You are princesses, destined to become queens.” And they may be gently admonished to refrain from gossip or increase their self-esteem.

Fine and not so fine lines

Yet men are often bluntly castigated over the same pulpit for using pornography, abusing women and children, and otherwise failing, as the late Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley declared in 2006, to “‘Rise up, O men of God!’ and put these things behind you.”

Mormons learn early that “maleness” is by nature potentially sexually dangerous. These lessons begin with the Book of Mormon itself. “For the natural man is an enemy to God,” Mosiah 3:19 reads, “and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man.” This “putt[ing] off the natural man” requires a total prohibition of sexual activity before marriage and strong taboos against masturbation.

Obedient Mormon boys are thus excluded from their peers’ conversations about sexual discovery. Participating in the casual misogyny and homophobia typical of teenage boys’ locker rooms induces discomfort and guilt in a boy who regularly hears admonitions to abstain from sex of any kind before his wedding night—with himself or anyone else.

Mormon boys might laugh at or even tell gay jokes, but they cannot brag about how far they’ve “gone with the girl” or what they’re planning to do with their prom dates. For a Mormon boy, becoming a Mormon man means not becoming a man, at least not the “natural man” engendered by the adolescent onslaught of testosterone. This means that, perhaps paradoxically, while most

Mormons would assert that both biology and God establish gender at birth, Mormon men’s experience of masculinity is highly performative. They learn that the natural tendencies of maleness must be subjugated to religious principle.

This performance is taught most intensively during the two years of missionary service that devout Mormon men undertake, most often beginning at age 19. Two-by-two, Mormon men knock on doors or pass out church pamphlets and Books of Mormon on street corners. During their mission, they are instructed never to be apart from the companion. They eat, work, pray, and sleep “in the same room but not in the same bed” with their companion.

Missionaries are even instructed to conduct a weekly “companionship inventory,” the instructions for which read like a self-help book for married couples: “Discuss the strength of your relationship with your companion. Discuss any challenges that may be keeping your companionship from working in unity or from being obedient.”

This intense camaraderie combined as it must be among celibate 19- and 20-year-old men with sexual repression, is Mormon men’s induction into masculinity. In this context of profound homo-social bonding, they learn that masculinity is both a privilege and a danger. It is something to be controlled and sublimated to religious ideals of gentleness that are, in many other contexts, coded feminine.

If, on the one side, the danger is giving into the “natural man”—becoming promiscuous or abusive—on the other side the danger is that one might become too gentle and meek...

The performance of Mormon masculinity is a difficult balancing act, a tightrope walk between poles established by a brutish, hyper-masculine “natural man” and an effeminate gay man."

Five, Six, Seven, Eight...

BYU recently "transferred" several men in the Musical Dance Theatre program to the University of Utah due to issues dealing with homosexuality.


I certainly will not be one to make humor at their expense being that I am a proud alumni of that same program. But, if I may say, who did the administration think they were getting when these talented men who can sing like the wind, dance up a storm, and act their way out of a paper bag were recruited with scholarships? Stereotypes aside, somebody knew these men were not loggers.


One could easily replace the MDT men in this scenario with football players when the occasional blue chipper is recruited from a non LDS background having been raised with a different belief regarding word of wisdom and chastity.


Of course MDTers should be held accountable for honoring the same code of ethics the football players honor. And when football players have moral issues, they are disciplined the same as anyone who committed a standard of behavior to the university--including the theatre guys.


However, there seems to have been no mention of any honor code violations, only issues dealing with homosexuality.


In 2007 the honor code was revamped and expanded to include recent differentiations between homosexual actions and homosexual behaviors; behaviors (having gay sex), versus homosexual feelings (being attracted to ones same gender).


Earlier this academic year, certain wordings (advocacy as one) were removed from the behavioral standard with little fanfare.


In the previous year, 2009-2010, the honor code had a section titled, “Homosexual Behavior or Advocacy”. This stated that “homosexual behavior and advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violates the Honor Code.” It continued “Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.”


Recently, however, references to "advocacy" have been eliminated. It currently reads, "Homosexual Behavior: Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code." (NOTE:Your being gay is one thing. Your being sexually active - not obeying the law of chastity - is another.) "One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."


FYI, the code had previously read (2007 through 2010): "Homosexual Behavior or Advocacy: Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code. One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable. Brigham Young University will respond to student behavior rather than to feelings or orientation. Students can be enrolled at the University and remain in good Honor Code standing if they maintain a current ecclesiastical endorsement and conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code. Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code."


I am not about to argue the honor code here. Nor do I generally respect the opinion of those who sign it, then enjoy the benefits of the university, and then make known their excuses for not following it.


You choose to sign the code, you choose to come to BYU, you follow the code you signed.


(Quick side bar to nowhere: There may be an occasional conscientious objector status--a peaceful demonstration within the law to further ones cause; but these when done deliberately as an act of true Thoreau Civil Disobedience as per his essay of 1849 are rare.  Rather than an organized distention to not allow governments to atrophy our consciences, we have turned it into a whine in Indian position on a sidewalk somewhere.)


Maybe these MDT men met with leaders and decided that the U of U was a better fit. As a group they all went to the honor code office. Voluntarily as a group. Uh Huh.


Maybe there was some type of sting that nabbed them as they all shuffled off to Buffalo in unison. I doubt it.


Possibly there was an Internet/blogging incident that brought them together, or these men decided to take a political stand where the only outcome was a change of educational venue.


What if several of them spouted off about a social life that was contrary to the code they signed? Possible. Frankly, no university owes anyone an explanation of facts on the files of these eight men (if my source is correct). If I was one of them or one in or out of any group in the public eye, I would be pleased at the university's protection of my privacy--as they have protected the privacy of many students many times in the past. (So 'in So was released from his scholarship today, or Joe Bob was dismissed due to honor code infractions and no, we will not be answering your questions.)


Could the reason be that these men were released and offered transfers be based on confessed Homosexuality alone?


I pray no.

Empha-Sex



Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

-Robert Frost

I recently posted the question of what to do for Valentine’s Day. I wanted ideas of what would be original and fun. The responses I got were mostly hypo-sexual – the kind of references that, frankly, I wouldn’t use in front of anyone I knew and respected. It seemed clear that for a huge number of people, sex equaled love: Valentine’s Day was for sex: Sex was the main/only/most important expression of love.

Remember, I am somewhat a conservative Mormon talking here. (If a gay Mormon is considered conservative) With my conservative background, I have been skewered (deliberate word choice) in a different direction.

I have never been what I thought "real guys" were. I considered sex to be something kept underground, something taboo for the “kind” of person I wanted to be. It was not for the guys in black socks, khaki pants and white shirts. The kind of guy I wanted to be.

My kind of man knew what he wanted, and what he wanted was more of an eternal nature. He wanted love. He wanted a relationship, communication, cooperation, companionship and expression. Sex was none of these things. Sex was something different.

Sex was urges, physical passion, and gratification. Love was not sex. The men I knew didn’t have sex as I understood it. They had wives and families and had appropriate, neutral, controlled expressions of love. They had sex to procreate, and then they went and earned some money to pay the mortgage.

So I tried that. Both. At the same time. I tried to have one, which seemed incredibly incompatible with the other. I kept them separate.

Talk about the swinging pendulum. Even today I have a difficult time with sex as part of an expression rather than simply fulfillment of physical desire. Most people who say that love is more than sex are thought of as prudish, naive, or as one reader said, “He has obviously never had spine tingling sex”. The thought seems to be that if you can think of anything other than sex, you haven’t had the right sex.

I know what it is to have tingling sex. Am I allowed to say that it was wonderful, and then to add-in the same sentence - that I want that and more? I want the sex and I want the relationship. I want the tingles and a commitment and I don't want one for a couple years so I can say I did it and then move on.

Even PBS is against me. A recent documentary emphases that man is not meant to be monogamous. That even women’s menstrual cycles are timed to encourage promiscuity, and that man would be better off genetically if he spread his stuff around instead of sticking with one partner.

Is this really where we are as a people that we are still comparing ourselves to members in the animal kingdom? This seems like the equivalent of “everyone’s doing it”, which is an excuse doesn’t fly past Jr High school. So, everyone is doing it. And I have had my share.

It is true that I have work to do in becoming emotionally healthy. I get that. I get that views towards sex need to change.

And I don’t generally look to PBS for answers to my problems. But the questions this last week has presented beg questions. But what if, after all the counseling and coming to terms and prioritizing, I want, expect more from a partner than sex? What if I consider myself to be more than just a link in someone’s reproductive food chain? Sex plus relationship, plus commitment, plus understanding?

A heightened sense of mutual well being. That topic would not make it to PBS because that would be called religion. When sex is everything, the instructions are easy to follow. When sex is one forth or one fifth of a relationship, when there is something that has to be achieved, the PBS documentary during sweeps week becomes simplistic at best.

I don’t want a club, or a bobsled partner. I don’t think I need to have every sexual whim satisfied. I do want sex as part of the physical/emotional experience.

And I want to be part of something more than just me.