Is One Mortality Enough, and Other Easy Existential Questions

I firmly believe in the immortality of souls.   While others may wrestle with the idea, I do not.  It makes no sense for us to deal with the pains and sufferings of this life without some purpose or reason.  And while this certainty is one of faith, I am as sure of this truth as I am that I am writing here.   I assume that I exist!

My faith in my LDS religion informs me that we come to this planet from a premortal realm, experience life while growing and becoming, and at an unforeseen time are called back to our heavenly home.  My faith informs me that there are experiences in mortality that can only be obtained here, and that my purpose on earth is to have those good and bad experiences, learning to choose wisely but learning from my mistakes.  I have confidence that I exist for a reason!

I also believe that my mortal sojourn is choreographed by an all-knowing, all-loving Supreme Being who is only interested in giving me learning and becoming opportunities.  That is not to say that everything in my walk is predetermined.  While He may know my beginning and end, I don’t.  He knows what is going to happen in my life but I still have choice, or agency.  And I believe that every mortal's life is likewise choreographed.

However, those who are mentally incapacitated lack the ability to choose and to experience the full breadth of life, although their lives can often be a blessing to those who care for them. Others who become truly addicted to a substance or behavior, or who were born with or developed psychological maladies like obsessive compulsive disorder or schizophrenia, or whose upbringing caused these mental dysfunctions to happen, have limited agency and lack the ability to fully experience life. 

Those difficult conditions beg some questions: what learning and becoming experiences can such persons have?  Do they "get a free pass" for the tests of mortality, or are their conditions for the learning and becoming of those who interact with them?  Did they choose these deficiencies in that premortal realm?  Is it possible that they will learn all that they need to learn in a future time (the Millennium period, in LDS belief), free from the chains of their dysfunction, before they are judged? Or are they just out of luck?

On a related subject, can someone who did not have a full mortal life in which to experience mortality learn all there is to know in a millennial period (another LDS belief), assuming they have all 1000 years in which to experience "life?"  The Church teaches of a terrestrial, peaceful 1000 years.  How can one experience how to choose between good and bad, or much more difficult, good and good, when there won't be bad?  LDS belief dictates that the Devil "will be loosed for a season."  I wonder how long that "season" is, and what really can be learned in a "crammed test?" 

And how can physically and emotionally sound people (are there many of us?) experience all that there is to learn in mortality in 70 to 90 years? I’m 61 and I am still learning so much, and arguably, I am on the downside of my mortality and don’t have 61 more years left.  How can I learn experientially about mortality in a postmortal spirit world (yet another LDS belief)?  Are we put in charge of overseeing mortals in that realm?  I can learn theory there, learning from my experience in life, but I believe that I knew theory before I came to earth and I needed this mortality to actually experience what I had learned theoretically.  

Is one mortality enough to gain the experiential insight we need?

Because of LDS doctrine which teaches an exclusive salvation, I have wondered about the literal tens of billions (a billion is a 1000 million!) of people born on earth through the millennia, most of whom never will hear about God the Father or His Son, Jesus Christ.  There is the LDS doctrine of performing “ordinances of salvation” for ancestors and others who did not have the opportunity to participate and accept such works, as well the genealogical work to account for dead ancestors. LDS people believe that temples will be open 24 hours a day during the millennial reign of Christ, but work in the temple for tens of billions?  Will there be more billions of bodies born in the millennium for those spirits who were aborted naturally or by man, have been given another body?  

Most of my LDS brothers and sisters will read my esoteric questions and either roll their eyes or pat me on the head and say something to the effect of “there are answers to all of these questions and God knows them all, so just have faith that He’ll take care of things.” Just because I have questions does not mean that I am on the road to apostasy, nor does it mean that I am tempted to abandon all that I do know.   I just don't see with my limited experience how all of this is going to work out.

I'm glad that I have these questions.  But at their core, I wonder if a single mortality is enough to experience and learn all that is needful to experience and learn in order to become a god (yet another and very uniquely LDS doctrine)?  And yes, it makes perfect sense to me that if in fact God is the father of my spirit that inhabits my physical body, He would want me, His son, to become like Him!

"Thank you for believing in me when I didn't believe in myself"

My son BJ (Robert) sharing at the Tree Trimming gathering

"Thank you for believing in me when I didn't believe in myself."  So stated a number of guys at the Beacon House in San Pedro last night.  The occasion was an annual "tree trimming" gathering put on for the approximately 100+ guys and alumni of the "House."  It was a chance to share their hearts and their gratitude with their brothers and others, and then hang a meaningful ornament on a Christmas tree. I felt so blessed that my wife and I had been invited to attend.

"I am where I am supposed to be," said some, commenting on how profoundly the Beacon House has turned their lives around and given them hope, a hope that many said they never have experienced.  Some stated that they had been to other rehabiliation centers but felt that the Beacon House was different, but they somehow knew this was home.

"Thank God for my life," announced another, reflecting on the despair and depression he had felt for most of his life, and how the "House" had given him another chance.  Some spoke of times past when they had felt suicidal because they had lost all hope, and how bleak their lives were, but then spoke of renewal and enthusiasm for the future, and how blessed they felt for having another chance.

"I really love my life right now," said others, talking about new outlooks, new schooling completed, new jobs, the sense of community and brotherhood and unconditional love they now feel.

"Words cannot express what I'm feeling right now," stated others tearfully as they stood humbly before a filled hall, realizing they now were clean and sober, being overcome with gratitude for the "House" and its staff, feeling the warm love and caring eminating from their brothers. These are men who had lost faith in themselves and in their ability to change course; many men who had lost everything because of their addictions.

"All the things I was promised have come true," some said as they reflected on how Bill and Brent, the managing and program directors, challenged them to "shut up and follow directions," and that if they did they would finally become the man they always wanted to be.

"Are you going to abandon your son again," said another, quoting something very poignant Bill had said to him when he was given a second chance for sobriety and recovery at the "House" after having willfully left prematurely.  There was always complete openness, transparency, and rawness as hearts were softened during the share.

The Beacon House

"I know God is in this House," stated another.  His heart was full as he gave thanks for the grace and mercy extended to him by his higher power, as well as offering thanks for the love and compassion offered him by the staff and his brothers.  There was talk about how there were miracles that occured routinely at the "House" as men came around to themselves and changed their life's course and credited their higher power for the miracle.

"This place is my home," opined many others, noting that they felt more at home among the people at the "House" than even with their own families, noting the positive feelings and comfort they felt.  Some longed to be with their families at Christmastime, but then stated that they knew this was where they needed to be.

"You never gave up on me," said various men filled with emotion.  They expressed profound appreciation to Bill and Brent, often noting that they seemed like father figures they had never had in their lives and how they looked up to them, and feeling so profoundly grateful for that blessing in their lives.  Some talked about second and rare third chances to be admitted to the "House," even relating how Bill and Brent had on occasion sent some guys to pick them up on the streets because they had lost hope in themselves.

"I'm grateful for my brothers," said nearly all the guys who stood in line for a long time for a chance to express their profoundly deep and raw emotions to the guys who had accepted them with open arms and hearts.  Some expressed how hesitant they were to engage with others when they first arrived, but how they were greeted with open minds and hearts.

"You showed me the real meaning of family," stated many who had felt they had been so selfish and proud with their own families and who, free from the grasp of addiction, had been able to feel the warmth and love of caring brothers walking similar paths.  There really was a feeling of acceptance, forgiveness, caring and love that permeated the hall.

"God's got my life now," announced another, reflecting on how through actively embracing the rules and directions of the "House" and developing a firm belief in a higher power, he felt connected to God and felt His influence in the daily workings at this rehabilitation program.

"I want to sparkle again," said a one-day veteran of the Beacon House, holding a sparkling ornament and using it as metaphor for what he hopes will happen to him there in the coming months and years.  Others who shared had been to this tree trimming event for many years but who come back annually to express profound gratitude for their lives given back to them by the staff and brothers of the Beacon House.

On a personal note, I feel to express my deep appreciation to Bill and Brent and the "House" for giving me back my son BJ and for giving him the opportunity to bless the lives of others there.  It is continually amazing to me how God worked in his life to help him face his demons, and how in His amazing grace and mercy He has helped him turn his life completely around.  

I loved to hear last evening how in his ministry, if I can call it that, at the "House" as part of the young staff, he is touching lives and sharing his knowledge gained through that school of hard knocks.  It's one thing to be licensed as a Drug and Alcohol Rehab Counselor, and another to actually be touching hearts on a daily basis.  He has been been in the dark place that the guys know well, and can not only relate to them but to call them out when they lie to themselves as he did.

So Merry Christmas to the staff and the guys at the Beacon House.  I felt so honored to be in your humble presence.  And thank you for my son. 

Not the staff of Beacon House; just a picture of my son repesenting the "House."

Bobby Davis -- Early Edition

My dad and me--he was 38 in this picture

I am very grateful to my sister Darlene who goes to great lengths to send me memorabilia from my Davis family.  By the way, my mother was a Davis before she got married to my father (no relation!), so when I say Davis family, I mean that literally.  She recently sent my pictures from some scrap book in her possession that I believe I already have in my scrap books.  But it was that Darlene thought that I might not have them; that she was thinking about me!

These pictures are from my earliest days, literally from birth to some age before eight months.  I write eight months because that was when my parents and I moved from 337 North 6th West to 509 North 8th West, the home in which I grew up, and which can be seen in its present state in another blog posting (August 5, 2015).

Notice the fashions, the car, the chairs, and most of all, the crib.  Mom, Darlene and Aunt Ruby looking on.

I was born on Friday, June 4,1954 to Albert Earl and Bess Davis.  If I'm not mistaken, I weighed a paltry 5 lbs. 10 ounces.  I don't recall ever getting an answer as to why I weighed so little, so I usually state my deductive reason:  my mother was not really taking care of herself physically because she was nursing my father back to health from a heart attack he had in May of 1953--at the age of 37.  My reasoning is probably not accurate.  I need to ask her that in person when I see her in the next life!

What my birth timeline does tell me is that I likely was conceived whilst my father was recuperating from the heart attack.  I was born when my father was 38 and my mother was 37.  I was very much an oops; how can it be otherwise with a brother who is 17 years older and a sister who is 12 years older?  There was a baby born between them but who dies within an hour after he (Eugene Leroy Davis) was born, or so the story goes.

My wonderful 12 year old sister Darlene.

When my mother was preparing to leave the Holy Cross Hospital in Salt Lake City the Monday after, she was told that I was not breathing properly and that I "had turned blue."  I assume that referred to my coloring.  She was told that I had been placed in an isolette with 100% oxygen (very much a no-no these days because of its negative effect on eyesight).  

I guess there was some doubt as to whether I would survive.  Evidence of that is, as the story goes, I was given a name and a blessing (an LDS ritual for newly born babies usually done in a church service a month or two after the birth) in the hospital.  My mother used to say that I looked like a little sparrow that had fallen from the nest.  At 5 lbs. 10 ounces (perhaps a few ounces less at the time), I must have been quite tiny.  I was given the name of Robert Earl Davis, a given name that my parents liked and a middle name the same as my father's.  I did have some red hair, so my initials were an indication of that red hair which I am proud to say I still have plenty of!

Obviously, I survived.  Obviously, I gained weight.  Obviously, I was loved by my parents and am loved by my siblings.  Obviously, that was the first of many wonderful blessings in my life.  

Thanks Darlene for caring about me and sending these pictures!  And yes, they are black and white because I'm that old! 

Will Ye Also Go Away?

"From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him."

"Then said Jesus unto the twelve, 'Will ye also go away?'"

"Then Simon Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast the words of eternal life."   John 6:66-68

I paraphrased verse 68 during my temple recommend interviews this past week with both a member of my Ward bishopric and my Stake President.  This in response to the question both of them asked regarding my support of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. 

I told both of them that I am trying but that I am not supportive of the decision to change policy about same-gender marriage as apostasy, nor the decision to preclude children under 18 years of age from receiving ordinances because one or both of their parents may be in a same-gender relationship.  And even though the First Presidency attempted to clarify the Handbook change, the change is nonetheless wrong, in my opinion.

It is not my intent to change anybody's mind about this.  I just believe that the Handbook change only made the Church's stand regarding LGBT people even more difficult for those who want to maintain a connection with the Church for themselves and their children.  I would invite those who may disagree with that assessment, with how damaging the change is particularly to children, to read my previous blog posting earlier this week.

The arguments put forth by Elder Christofferson, and other apologists who have tried to make comparisons to polygamy in protecting the children rings hollow.  I cannot wrap my brain around the Savior forbidding His Father's children to receive baptism.  That is not what the Savior that I worship would do.  

You may argue that I am putting myself in a more knowledgeable position than Christ.  That would assume that every word that a prophet or apostle speaks is His word.  Church history simply does not bear that out.

Of a truth, there is doctrine and there is policy, and this change in the Handbook is not doctrine; the Brethren have not said that it is, and I believe that they have been careful to not say it is.  

But then, I do sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators.   They themselves would say that they are fallible.  I choose not to worship them.  I choose to worship the Father and the Son.  None of the Brethren are on the other side of the vail--Christ is.

I do believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's Church.  I could honestly answer in the affirmative (or negative, depending on the question) the questions of my recommend interview.  If any doubt my sincerity or my testimony, I would refer you to my previous blog posting titled, "Behold You Are Mine."

I believe that the Lord has revealed, is revealing, and will reveal the words of eternal life.  To the degree that the Holy Spirit confirms what the Brethren (and Sisters) say, and it does most of the time, I will make the words my own.  But like Joseph Smith, who lacked wisdom and asked God, I choose to receive confirmation for revealed words, and that has not occurred yet in my case with this policy change.  It may yet happen, but so far, no.

In addition, I am choosing to not allow this to alienate me from the Church, although I respect that many are choosing to disassociate themselves from the Church because they cannot live with the cognitive dissonance they are experiencing.  Many same-gender individuals and couples desperately want to stay connected to the Church, and have weathered the LGBT storms up to now.  These people, returned missionaries, local Church leaders, even an Area Authority Seventy, have desired to stay in the Church, but have simply thrown up their hands and proclaimed, "enough!"

Even though for an LGBT Ally like me can choose to be so, those who are LGBT in nearly all cases cannot.  Most have done everything spiritually that they could to ask God to take the feelings away, and it wasn't.  Many have received personal revelation that the course that they are now following is honoring who they are, and that Heavenly Father is okay with it.  

Now to tell these worshipful and faithful Latter-day Saints that they are apostates?  To tell them that the children that want so desperately to be raised in the Church cannot be treated in the eyes of the Church like those kids who have sat next to them in Primary, Young Men and Young Women.  What a terrible blow!  Yet many are indeed choosing to stay and not go away, waiting as I do with increased faith, that they will someday understand it, and feeling the love now of empathetic members who know them as the disciples they really are.

My Shepherd will supply my need, Jehovah is His name!

I Just Don't Get It -- 46 Consequences Intended or Otherwise

As I have been wrestling mightily with the change in the Priesthood Handbook 1 regarding the apostasy of same-sex couples and the "disenfranchisement" of their children, I came upon this article, posted on timesandseasons.org on November 11, 2015 by Julie M. Smith. I'd be very interested in any responses.

I’m thinking about the implications–doctrinal and practical and cultural–of the recent policy changes.

The language of the policy refers to “a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship” and “a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.” There are no qualifications on the “has lived,” even if that be before the child is born or before the parent is a member of the church.

The idea that this policy covers not just the parent’s current living arrangement but also their past living arrangements is in there not once but twice and, in the second iteration, its applicability to past relationships is emphasized by way of contrast with the phrase “currently lives.” The plain meaning of the language is that it applies to any gay cohab/marriage in the parent’s past. If the policy was not actually intended to apply to past relationships, then the language used is inaccurate. This post addresses the policy as written, not our assumptions about what was really intended.)

1. Say that a woman has a cohabitating relationship with another woman while in college. Years later, she considers returning to full activity in the church, but is aware that any children she might have–even after a temple marriage–would not be allowed to be baptized. I presume this would be a strong disincentive for her to return to church. If she does, the entire ward will know about her past as they watch her children not be members. (Do you think this will lead to speculation and gossip?)
2. How do transgender people fit into all of this? What determines whether they are in a same-gender relationship: physical body, chromosomes, how they present themselves socially, legal gender, or what?
3. I’ve seen comments to the effect of “children in this situation can still have the light of Christ.” It seems to me that every time this is said, our belief in the importance of the gift and constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is diminished.
4. I’ve also seen comments to the effect of “God will work it all out.” While I believe that it is ultimately true that God will work everything out with a perfect blend of mercy and justice, I’m concerned that saying that in this situation leads to a culture where we don’t bother so much about the effects of our actions on other people since God will fix it all eventually.
5. Elder Christofferson said that, for children who cannot be baptized, “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go.” I am pretty sure that his meaning was that, in an eternal sense, there will be no difference a thousand years from now whether you were baptized at 8 or at 18. However, I have to admit that it makes it a little harder for me to get out of my bed at 5:45am every day to take my child to seminary if nothing will be lost to him in the end if he is not active in the church as a teenager. (Of course, I don’t actually believe that.) But I do wonder where we end up as a church culture if the idea that teenage involvement in the church is not thought to be of crucial importance.
6. Gay marriage has been legal in various areas where the church is organized for more than a decade. Gay cohabitation has been going on since time immemorial and more publicly for at least a generation. The fact that this policy was only implemented now suggests to many people that the church leaders only really care about or are aware about what is happening in the US. (I don’t believe that this is true, but I think the timing creates that impression.) This belief makes it more difficult for members to remain faithful.
7. To many people, this looks like a “hateful” and “bigoted” policy. While I do not believe that the Brethren have a single hateful or bigoted bone in their bodies (there are 3,090 bones in the Q12 and FP, if you were wondering), the policy and its roll out can create that impression. How might things have played out differently had the policy been accompanied by admonitions to donate to organizations which help homeless gay teens or a reminder of the need to convey God’s love to gay people?
8. There is a certain number of LDS temple marriages out there–probably a small number, but still–where one spouse is unaware that the other had a gay cohab before marriage. I suspect those marriages may be ruined if that partner now has to tell the other partner that their children cannot be baptized. (Or will they keep it a secret?)
9. To the extent that one accepts Elder Christofferson’s argument that the policy is designed to limit harms to these children but one also recognizes the harms caused to other people (including the always-faithful LGBT people who feel alienated in the church or the parents who now suffer from the choices of their ex spouses), one has accepted a utilitarian calculus in weighing policies. There are obviously some advantages to that calculus, but . . . there we go again, treating some people as if their suffering is an acceptable cost to advance other ends.
10. I don’t buy the argument that the Brethren are clueless and out of touch. Which means that I presume they knew that this policy would lead to many disaffections from the church and make conversion much more difficult. They apparently thought the policy’s benefits were worth this cost. But the only official rationale for it is to avoid cognitive dissonance in children. Another cost of the policy is that presumably some of those who cannot be baptized at eight will never be baptized and go down a different path. In sum, this policy shows that avoiding cognitive dissonance is really, really important to be worth incurring those costs. To what other situations might LDS decide to apply this principle? Will a woman with a nonmember husband decide it is better not to take her kids to church?
11. I have a Primary-aged child. I can imagine him sharing the gospel with a friend. I can imagine him asking me if his friend can meet with the missionaries. What I have a harder time imagining is me asking (who: my son? his friend? his friend’s parents?) if the parents are now or have ever lived in a gay relationship. So I suspect this new policy will put a damper on member missionary work.
12. I, like you and everyone else, live in a bubble. But there are really faithful, orthodox, totally committed to the church people in my bubble, people who oppose same sex marriage. And many, many of them are having a crisis of faith over this policy the likes of which I have never seen in my life. These people will by and large stay in the church, but something has happened to them as a result of this policy. I suspect a lower level of commitment to the institution, a lower level of trust in its leaders, and, perhaps, a lower likelihood of staying faithful when the next challenge (whether that is a personal issue or whatever) comes.
13. I’m already hearing stories of parents filing to change their custody arrangement; they are concerned that their current joint custody might result in their child being denied church membership. It is also not hard for me to imagine situations where, in a divorce, the faithful LDS parent demands/requests/maneuvers the gay parent out of the child’s life and/or the gay parent (who in many cases still has a great love for the church) removes him or herself from the child’s life in order not to jeopardize the child’s membership in the church. (In other words: if I have no idea what my mom is doing, her gay marriage can’t affect my future in the church.)
14. Imagine two young men being interviewed for missionary service. In answer to the bishop’s question about same-sex marriage, they both say, “Well, honestly, bishop, I don’t have strong feelings about the legality of it, but of course I am committed to the law of chastity in all respects and have a strong testimony of it.” Most bishops will recommend for service a kid who gives this answer . . . unless his parents are gay married, in which case the bishop cannot. This is a very odd double standard.
15. There are so many odd situations that might spring up: what if a child lives in a gay-married foster home before being adopted by LDS folks? (In fact, would that background make them less likely to be adopted by LDS people?) What if a child’s legal guardian is a gay married grandmother or other non-parent relative–does the policy impact her?
16. Because of the emphasis on living arrangements, there is an economic aspect to this policy that troubles me. If I’m a 23-year-old who can afford my own place, I can be baptized, but if my budget only permits living with my moms, I can’t. If I’m a gay dad who can afford two addresses, I can present my still-active-ex-wife with a plausible story for the bishop, but if I can’t, my kids can’t be baptized.
17. One part of this policy is that disavowing one’s family member’s gay marriage/cohab is a requirement for baptism. To what extent will Mormon culture develop in terms of disavowing the gay relationships of people other than one’s own children? And what will disavowal look like?
18. Most of this policy relies for enforcement on what a bishop (or mission president) knows about a child’s situation. I wonder if bishops will be tempted to develop blinders; I wonder if members will become adept at hiding things. I can imagine a situation where a temple marriage ends in divorce and the still-faithful parent begs the other parent to please create some plausible deniability regarding their gay living arrangement, such as maintaining two addresses. And will bishops be asking 7-year-olds about their parents’ sexual history in baptism interviews? Will people move to a new area and lie about their ex’s past (and coach their kids to lie)? Or might we start annotating membership records? What happens when we find out about a baptism done in violation of the rules–will it be “annulled”?
19. One premise of the new policy is that, as Elder Christofferson put it, same sex marriage is “a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin.” I do not doubt that it is. But my concern is that in a church where same-sex marriage bars your children from saving ordinances but many other significant and grievous sins do not, we might be therefore tempted to think that sins such as rape, murder, child abuse, etc., are actually not all that serious after all.
20. Elder Christofferson did not say “this is a revelation. We are asking the members of the church to accept it as God’s will, as a matter of faith and as a matter of obedience to priesthood authority.” Instead, he explained it as being done to protect children from cognitive dissonance. In other words, he provided a rational reason–not a spiritual justification–for the policy. He thus invited us to reason about the policy–not to accept it on faith. What are the consequences of this?
21. I’ve seen people defend the policy, but I have seen no one defend its roll out. Apparently church leaders thought a policy could be put online and in print and that no one other than its intended recipients would know about it despite the fact that it was effective immediately, which means that people outside of the recipients of Handbook 1 (including, presumably, all Primary Presidents and Young Men leaders and missionaries and anyone directly affected by the policy) would have to know about it.The Newsroom announced a response would come Friday at 3 or 3:30pm  . . . which became 7:30pm . . .  which was actually about 9:30pm. The roll out does not inspire confidence in the leaders’ understanding of the members, which diminishes the members’ confidence in the leaders.
22. Imagine a woman gay cohabs in her 20s. She meets the missionaries and joins the church. She is endowed and holds a recommend. Per this policy, her children cannot be blessed or baptized. Who is going to be willing to marry her when their children cannot be baptized? What kinds of cultural trends might develop in the wake of this situation? Will people feel obligated to get confirmation of domestic histories before marriage?
23. How will the apologetics over this policy develop? Will folks say that the children of gay married parents must have been less righteous in the pre-mortal life?
24. Tom Christofferson, the brother of Elder Christofferson, has shared his story of living most of his adult life in a gay relationship and then feeling a desire to attend church, despite still being partnered to a man. After a few years of attending his ward as an excommunicated man, he decided to end his relationship with his partner and be re-baptized. Will this new policy make situations like his less likely?
25. The book King Leopold’s Ghost presented me with a shocking realization: the nearly unfathomably cruel way that Europeans treated Africans in the early 20th century was, in large part, based on their belief that since God had denied baptism to the Africans (since they lacked the opportunity for it) and thus condemned them to hell, there was no particular objection to treating such people poorly; rather, it would only affirm God’s judgment of them. I worry that a much milder version of this will happen in the LDS community. Even without intent, it is easy to imagine the Primary teacher or YM leader or whomever devoting their (limited) attention to the child who will be able to get baptized or will be able to be ordained or will be able to go on the temple trip next week–especially since the child of gay parents will not be on the rolls.
26. In situations where a child is not being baptized or ordained or attending the temple, there will be questions. The option is for the parent to reveal their sexual history to the ward or for the assumption to be that the child lacks the desire to participate. I wonder how families will negotiate that.
27. Either this policy will result in virtually no children of gay parents being involved in the church or it will result in their presence as a class unto themselves. I’m wondering what it will do to a ward’s culture to have people who are not on the same track as everyone else. (I suppose we’ve been down this road before with members of African descent.) I’m not sure what it looks like on the ground when eight kids in the Primary and three in YM/YW aren’t baptized/ordained and can’t be. We do a lot of cheer leading at church about things like baptisms and temple trips and the like–and rightly so. I suspect that cheer leading will all but disappear in wards where a child of gay parents is present and it will likely be muted everywhere else, since a teacher or leader does not normally know the circumstances of the children in her midst. I’ve read too many notices in lesson manuals about being sensitive to the home circumstances of children to think I could, if teaching Primary, ever again go whole-hog on how very, very, very, important and wonderful baptism is.
28. How will missionaries handle these rules? Will the questions about the investigators’ parents’ past behavior await the baptismal interview, or will the missionaries bring this issue up earlier in the process in order to avoid complication? (Either way, this means that the investigator will need to be aware of and comfortable with this policy in order to be baptized; will this be a stumbling block?)
29. Many kids these days are pretty fluid in their sexual expression. It is not hard to imagine a situation 30 years down the road where a huge portion of the pool of investigators needs to be told that any of their future children will not be able to be blessed and baptized. I can’t imagine what effect that ends up having; I presume it means that many won’t be baptized. But I can fathom a situation in 50 years where 20 or 30% of the Primary kids cannot be members of the church. So see #26.
30. Elder Christofferson offered a fundamentally different understanding of baby blessings than the one I had. I was under the impression that it was a sort of “welcome to the world, baby girl–God loves you and we do, too!” kind of a thing. But he made it sound more like an event which triggered church membership; I had always thought of baptism in this way. I’m curious about the implications of his position in terms of how we think about baby blessings, baptisms, and church membership in general. I wonder if there will be a reluctance to to bless babies from home situations where their future relationship with the church is less likely.
31. Elder Christofferson also implied that an expectation that a child of gay parents would be in Primary “is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting.” I’m wondering if we are to develop a culture where we don’t expect children of gay parents (or other serious sinners?) to be in Primary. What does that imply for Primary?
32. There is (at least) one significant difference between the policy of children of polygamy and children of gay marriage: children of polygamy can be baptized as minors (if they live in a non-polygamous house); children of gay marriage/cohabs cannot be baptized as minors regardless of their living arrangement. This suggests something; I’m not sure what.
33. Here’s how Elder Christofferson explains the ban on blessings and baptism for children: “We don’t want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.” This sounds to me as if it would be wrong to bring a child to church if they had a gay parent. Is that how members and leaders will interpret it? But later, he says in reference to blessings of healing: “We would expect that to be done throughout their lifetime, from infancy on as long as that’s the desire of the parents and of the child. That’s something we are anxious to provide.” So one presumes a conflict there; I’m not sure how people will resolve that: should or should not the child of gay parents have experiences which expose them to the gospel and priesthood?
34. I take Elder Christofferson at his word that the purpose of the policy is to reduce cognitive dissonance. However, if the child is involved with the church in any way, that cognitive dissonance will still be there. Actually, it will now be increased because not only will there be the “my parents are gay married but the church says that that is wrong” cognitive dissonance, but there will also be the “the church says baptism and ordination and the gift of the Holy Spirit are really important, but I can’t have them” cognitive dissonance. What am I missing that justifies increasing the cognitive dissonance?
35. It’s not a secret that this policy has generated anger. This has largely been in the abstract (as a matter of the policy) or vicariously (as one or two stories hit the Internet of baptism or ordination denied). But I suspect that at some point, virtually every ward will deal with this policy within their own boundaries. I just don’t know how the Saints will react to that. Obviously, there are situations that arise (say, a parent refusing permission to baptize) that might frustrate the heck out of the ward family, but in that case the target is the recalcitrant parent, not the institutional church.
36. How does this play out in blended families? In this example, some of the children in the household are eligible for baptism and ordination while others are not. How will families negotiate that? (Would they really have a FHE lesson about baptism in the presence of a child who could not be baptized?) Will they just shrink from activity?
37. We are now in the odd situation where the missionaries (or bishop, in the case of ordination or missionary recommendation) are more concerned about your parents’ sexual history than your own–theirs has longer-lasting repercussions than yours does. I can’t help but think that this will impact how we think about sexual sin and sin in general. Some sins will impact your children for decades, but may impact you much less. (If I gay cohabbed for a few months, I could then repent and go to the temple–no permanent impact on my status in the church. But my children–not so much.) To put it mildly, this is theologically weird. Mormons are good at generating theology to explain policy; I wonder what members will make up to justify this.
38. There will be situations where a child who is born in the covenant cannot be blessed or baptized. What will that do to our thinking about families and sealings? Can a child be sealed to parents in a situation where the child cannot be blessed or baptized?
39. There will be new thinking about the age of accountability. Are these non-baptized kids still accountable? Will it encourage them to sin with the thought that they haven’t taken on covenants and/or are not regarded as accountable by the church? Will every talk and lesson about the importance of covenant keeping remind them that they are under no such obligation?
40. There will be a cadre of missionaries (and marriages) where, because the missionary was baptized at age 18, he or she has no experience with the temple, with the gift of the Spirit, with exercising the priesthood, etc. It strikes me that this will be a loss to that person’s ability to be a missionary. And in wards with nonmember kids present, teachers may be tempted to downplay the role that these things can play in preparing one to serve a mission.
41. A 20-year-old cannot live in the home of her temple-married parents if she wants to be approved for missionary service if either parent ever gay cohabed. What are the doctrinal and cultural implications of this?
42. Let’s say you are a bishop and you have in your office a 20-year-old child of gay parents who wants to serve a mission. This will, per the policy, require her to move out of her home. It is easy to imagine the bishop arranging for her to live with her friend for a few weeks and conducting her interview during that window. Problem solved? Well, maybe. But it also means that local leaders and members have accepted the principle that sometimes the Handbook has to be “gamed” or one has to look for loopholes. This does not bode well for how we read and apply the handbook in other instances. Other bishops will not, I suspect, look kindly on young adults who move back in with gay parents at some future point (which means that financial or health reversals get really complicated).
43. There are no church-mandated repercussions for the children of a gay man who has a different partner every night of the week, which means that this policy encourages gay promiscuity. Given that the church considers gay sex in any context to be sinful, it may not seem like this would matter much. However, I think we have an obligation to be a light unto the world and to help improve things even if only to a small extent. And, especially because our primary concern in terms of this policy is not the righteousness of the gay man but the effect on his children, I would think that we would want their father in as stable of a relationship as possible.
44. One of my favorite parts of Mormonism is this: every time I have been in a ward where a child was in a poor living situation, the ward went overboard in doing everything possible to help that child with whatever s/he needed and drew her/him as close to the church as possible so that s/he could see what functional families looked like and learn a better way to live. This policy suggests that that is not always the right thing to do; I wonder in what other cases wards will decide to stand down, either to avoid cognitive dissonance in the child or because the ethic of doing everything possible to rescue a child has been de-emphasized.
45. How will the principles behind this policy be applied to other situations? Given that there are so many permutations of experience that the policy does not directly address, it should not be surprising when local leaders decide to apply the policy to other situations. For example, can a BYU student be denied an ecclesiastical endorsement if she goes home to her two moms for the summer? Should older missionaries disavow their children’s gay relationships? Should any and all members reflect their commitment to this policy by disavowing gay relationships of those they know, and what should this disavowal look like? Will people be asked to renounce other people’s sins in other circumstances?
46. If this list sounds like a deluge of negative outcomes, here’s a positive one: the many, many members who are troubled by this policy seem to be working double time to ensure that any gay folks and their families in their circle are shown that God’s love extends to them.

I just don't get it.  I am choosing to remain faithful (I just made it through the temple recommend interviewing process this past weekend), but I just don't get it.  My only consolation at this point is that the neew guidelines are not doctrine, but just policy, and policies change.

Climbing Up a Difficult Mountain

On February 11th of this year, I blogged that I had failed the 200-question multiple choice exam to become licensed as a Marriage and Family Therapist.  Some time later, I applied to retake the exam, as required by the Board of Behavioral Sciences in Sacramento.  Their response did not come until a couple of months ago, and I am now allowed to take the test again.  My intent is to do so toward the end of this month, November.

The exam, which has 25 questions that do not actually count (they are questions being "tried out" for future exams), requires that successful applicants get approximately 117 of 175 questions correct, or a 2/3 success rate.

Because of the nearly six years between when I graduated and when I was taking the test, because my memory was suspect, and because I was 60 years old, I opted to take a test prep course (at no small cost, may I add).  Some of it involved reading through some literature to refresh the memory of what supposedly had been learned in school, but most of it involved taking practice tests, including 200 question tests in a four hour period.  The four hour block is the time allotted to take the actual test.

I read, took some shortened study exams, and took five 200-question tests.  I didn't do so well on the first study exams but I eventually did better.  I recall that I passed four of the five 200 question tests at the 2/3 success rate.  I never did much better than the 2/3, but I did pass them.  With success in taking the mock exams, I believed I would do a "passable" job on the real test.

Not even close!  I barely cleared 50% of the questions!  

It really set me back on my heels.  It made me wonder what it was going to take to pass the exam.  It made me question if I had the brain power/recall to pass it.

I smile as I read the previous paragraph and reflect on what I've written thus far.  If a client came to me and told me this story, what would I say to him/her?

I would probably say that I should not give up but have faith that I can eventually pass the exam.   I would probably challenge him/her to do something different this time, to try different ways of studying, but to study diligently.  I would challenge him/her to keep a positive, can-do attitude, and be careful not to be too hard on himself/herself.  I would tell him/her that regardless of whether he/she passed it this time had nothing to do with their abilities as a therapist.

What I've written above is what I have been telling myself and doing, especially recently.  I did purchase a different test prep course (again at no small cost), with study manuals (two of which were recently stolen out of my car in a bag along with my laptop), cds, and online practice tests, but I will admit that the journey has been very challenging this time.  I am attempting to spend six days a week studying two hours a day, and I am amazed how much I do not retain.  I have taken 31 25-question practice tests, and have gotten 2/3 or better correct only five times. 

I am noticing, however, that recently I seem to have a better grasp of the material.  My issue is that on a half dozen of the four-answer multiple choice practice exam questions I am usually able to eliminate two of them, but I choose wrongly between the other two.  After making a choice, the online exams offer the reasoning why a certain one of the four questions is correct, and I find that sometimes I just make a silly mistake.  If I were to get four or five of those half dozen questions correct, I would usually exceed the 2/3 mark--because I am usually just three or four questions (or one or two) short of the mark.

As I would do with a client, I remind myself that I can scale a mountain by taking one step at a time and focusing on short term achievements along the trail.  Occasionally, when I lift my head up from the trail, and look up at the looming mountain, I feel overwhelmed.  So I just focus on getting up this incline, that hill, knowing that I am scaling the peak.

I would ask for your prayers, warm feelings and thoughts, anything you can do.  I really still believe as a therapist I am doing exactly what I need to be doing, doing what clearly makes me contented and happy, doing what I feel God wants me to be doing, helping some people along the way.  But I am going to need His help to pass this exam!

Just Lazing About,,,,

My life has been quite busy recently and will continue to be so for some time.  Because I haven't posted on my blog in a number of weeks, I felt like I wanted to write about different aspects of my life to let anyone interested know what is happening, and for those individuals to not expect much from me for the next month or so.  I've divided my life into various topics.

Work
I continue to work as a salesman/consultant at A&A Wiping Cloth.  I've been there since 2004 and I continue to experience financial success in maintaining most of my customers, but I find it challenging to find new customers that will buy at reasonable prices and that will buy what we have available to supply.  I do enjoy working with Jeremy, the owner, who is very supportive and kind.

My therapy work continues to be challenging and fulfilling.  I feel quite comfortable and competent, and I perceive that I am doing good work with most of my clients.  We just opened a new office in Valencia and will be moving to a new location in Van Nuys.  The office in Pasadena is still my favorite with my pictures, plants, rocks, and stuff.  It feels very comfortable.

Schooling
As I posted earlier this year, I failed the MFT licensing exam.  It took many months for the BBS in Sacramento to give me permission to take another stab at it but they finally did.  I have committed myself to study a minimum of two hours a day except Sundays for the next 5-6 weeks, after which I will take the exam again.  I have successfully been accomplishing my goal for the past couple of weeks.  I would appreciate any warm thoughts or prayers on my behalf.  I certainly need them!  There is an urgency I feel to take this test (and there is another 75 question vignette test) before the end of 2015.

Family
My wife is spending many hours a week at home either making tests, correcting those tests, or correcting homework, above and beyond the teaching and work at her school.  We are able to spend about 30 minutes together in the morning over breakfast, and sometimes an hour just before bedtime, and that is about the extent of our face-to-face interaction.  I am trying to support her the very best I can during this challenging semester.

Emily and my wonderful son-in-law Adam are going away on a dream vacation, and they are driving their minivan from Northern California to our home next Saturday, dropping off their daughter Elizabeth and the triplets here, flying back to San Francisco, going on their trip for a week, returning to San Francisco the next Saturday where we will meet them with our grandchildren in their minivan. We will fly home the following day to recuperate from the whirlwind!  It'll be a blast to have the kids here, and we're appreciative of BJ and Douglas and others that will help us with the kids while Ann and I work.

Church
I am yet functioning in my role as a 2nd assistant in the High Priest Group leadership, a presidency with no president or 1st assistant!  I found out over the weekend that the High Priest leadership (ME!)  is responsible for the Ward Halloween Party on the 30th.  Imagine my surprise!  With some help from a thoughtful, full of ideas ward member and with my power of delegation, I will endeavor to pull this off.

Lest you believe that I don't have enough on my plate, I will be leading the Sunland Ward Choir (I am the Choir Director as of a month or so ago) next Sunday in singing "God So Loved the World."  I do enjoy leading the Choir.  I only wish I had some more men who could really sing!  The Christmas program is on the horizon, and I am looking forward to beginning on that program in earnest after we perform next week.  I am very much enjoying singing in the Southern California Mormon Choir, and I will enjoy singing Christmas music with them.

By the way, I just finished reading the Book of Mormon again.  This time, I marked meaningful scriptures digitally on my phone.  The physical scriptures that I have had for so long lay gathering dust on a shelf.

I enjoyed watching General Conference, for the most part.  I asked for and received spiritual confirmation about the calling of the three new apostles.  Church leadership seems to be aware of the need for non-Utah leaders to take other leadership roles other than apostolic ones, and I am pleased to see the brethren they have called.  My hope is that they continue to call both men and women leaders from around the world to better reflect the growing diversity of world membership.

Miscellaneous
My views on the US and world economies are fairly negative right now.  And with retirement on the ever approaching horizon, Ann and I feel that we need to take some money and invest in other than stocks and bonds.  As such, we have decided to purchase an investment property.  Real estate is a pretty secure investment in these times, in my opinion, and so we will be earnestly looking to purchase.  There are multiple factors involved in this decision, but I hope that we will be blessed to find the right property,

Our children and grandchildren seem to be doing fairly well.  We love them dearly and love interacting with them.  We are proud of them and their attempts to be the best they can be.   I am truly blessed to have them in my life.

For that matter, I continue to feel so abundantly blessed.  I have good health.  I have sufficient for my needs.  I have friends and family who care for me.  I am doing what I really enjoy.  I have contentment in my spiritual place.  I feel great serenity in my life, in spite of its current hectic pace!

What Can Be Expected From Individual and Group Therapy?

In my work as a specialist in sexual addiction therapy, I have participated in various recovery modalities.  Talk therapy, with individuals and with partners, is the one in which I spend much of my counseling time.  Group therapy is another means to recovery, and I have done it both professionally with Lifestar Network and with the Addiction Recovery Program (ARP) of the Mormon Church.  And even though I am not a sexual addict and cannot sit in on Twelve Step program meetings such as Sexaholics Anonymous (SA) or Sex Addicts Anonymous (SAA) because of that fact, I have clients who regularly attend such programs. These support groups can be very important.

However, I want to share my ideas about one-on-one (or one-on-two) talk therapy, and group therapy, and what should be expected from each modality. I have not taken the time frankly to do research on this topic.  I only share here my observations from my seven years of experience intimately involved in both, and how I frame those observations to my clients. 

I believe both personal and group therapies to be beneficial, but they usually serve different purposes for the person attempting to move past sexual addiction, or any other addictive behavior or substance for that matter.  I would recommend that both be considered, for reasons that I will articulate, but admitting that there are plenty of examples of people involved only in personal psychotherapy, and only in group therapy, who achieve recovery.

Group Therapy

Often, people confronted by a partner, or confronting themselves on the nature of their lives as a result of having addictive behaviors, will seek out so-called "recovery groups," such as SA or SAA, or Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous (SLAA).  These organizations grew out of granddaddy of recovery groups, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).  Sometimes, in rural areas where there are currently no SA, SAA, SLAA, or other less well-known sexual addiction recovery groups, people who wrestle with sexual addictive behaviors will attend AA meetings--usually held just about everywhere.

Almost always, like AA, sexual addiction recovery groups center their "doctrine" or "beliefs" on the Twelve Steps, and as part of those steps, attenders are asked to consider the value of a belief in a "higher power."  These groups are very careful not to describe or mandate what the higher power should be; only that it is an imperative for them to hold some kind of belief in a power larger than itself.  The idea is that they on their own have been unsuccessful in abandoning the addiction.

To offer a very brief summary of the Twelve Steps, the First Step requires that the addict admit his/her powerlessness over the addiction and the subsequent unmanageablility of their life.  Steps Two and Three discuss the need for a Higher Power and the importance of that belief in recovery. Step Four requires a fearless moral written inventory, after which Step Five requires a confession of the addict's "immoral" behavior.  Steps Six and Seven deal with being honest about discovered weaknesses articulated in Step Four, and turning them over to the Higher Power.  Steps Eight and Nine requires that amends be considered then made, or forgiveness offered, to those who have been harmed or who have harmed them.  Step Ten is a daily check in with one's self as to daily recovery. Step 11 adjures the addict to seek spiritual guidance, and Step 12 suggests that the "good news" of the Twelve Steps be shared with others.

The Twelve Steps can be a challenge for some who feel that part of their addictive behaviors have been caused by rigidly religious parental figures, and feel anger toward what they feel is forceful overreaching by those figures. These people now want nothing to do with a higher power.  

When attending a group, one is confronted with real stories of addiction and how the addiction has affected loved ones and others.  Ideally, it is a time of vulnerability and reality, of appreciation and attitude corrections, but most importantly, a time of connection and support from and with other group members.  It can be overwhelming, raw, emotional, affirming, sometimes disgusting, but a respite of time to be among others who share similar experiences and that get addiction.  It is about the group, which at times can feel like church fellowship.

Group members are encouraged to interact with others one-on-one after the meetings, to find a sponsor who is in recovery and has been so for a number of months or years, to read the literature of the group, to attend the particular meeting they are attending plus other meetings--sometimes 30 meetings in 30 days or even 90 meetings in 90 days.  Attending meetings can be very much like attending church services.

Group meetings are meant to be supportive, but not therapeutic.  Some of the group members may be in individual therapy but it is not a requirement of the group.  Done diligently, the work of the Twelve Steps for many can be all that is needed, because while "doing the Twelve Steps," the addict comes to understand the "whys" of his/her addiction; why they acted out sexually, why they sought out solutions in a substance, why they continue to use the addiction.  Regrettably, few actually "do the Steps" which can often happen because usually the groups' emphasis and focus is on sobriety, and members can think that by mere attendance at the group their addiction will go away.

Individual Therapy

The reasons why people engage in addictive behaviors can be complicated or complex. And while support is offered by a group, the particular reasons for the addiction are best understood and dealt with through individual contact with a professional who can dispassionately observe the addictive behavior and offer possible insights--or help the addict to gain his/her own insights.  That is far more challenging to do in the dynamic of a group.  The addict's sponsor, assuming he/she has made the effort to have one and makes contact daily or many times a week, can offer one-on-one insight to the addict.  But again, this mentoring process is not always carried out.

If an addict understands why he/she engages in the addictive behavior, they are on the road to recovery.  Otherwise, they can forever "white knuckle;" or in other words, attempt to use willpower to achieve sobriety.  But sobriety is not recovery.  Certainly, sobriety is needed for recovery--allowing the reasons for the addiction to manifest because the entire focus is no longer on the addiction.  But until the "whys" are identified, willpower will ebb and flow, and the addict will likely never really be able to be free of the addiction.

In the work that I do in my attempt to help clients to achieve long stetches of sobriety, for example, a client can "slip up" or "act out" their addictive behavior(s).  I engage my client, one-on-one, to analyze what he/she did or didn't do that led to the behavior.  I like to put the behavior "under the microscope" so that my client can learn from his/her mistake.  This type of very specific work can best be accomplished through individual therapy, week in and week out.

As the client and I look at what happened, especially if it happens routinely, we begin to notice what core issues were at play that led to the behavior. What did the client do or not do that led up to the behavior.  As a client understands and assimilates what has been occurring, I view this as the beginning of true recovery.  They are in the process of discovering the "why" of the acting out behavior(s). They begin to take control over the addiction as opposed to allowing the addiction to control them.

I believe that most psychotherapists are capable on some level of helping a struggling addict who wants to be rid of an addictive behavior.  However, it has been my experience that we who specialize in addiction recovery, and in my case, sexual addiction recovery, are best qualified to understand the dynamics of addiction and addiction recovery and can best help the addict. In my case, it is my speciality.  It is wonderful for the addict to understand and feel that the therapist really knows what transpires inside their mind and heart.

So there is good to be had from both individual and group therapy.  I encourage clients seeking recovery to avail themselves of both.  Hopefully, this posting helps bring clarity to what can be expected from each.

A 2015 Musicians List

It's been awhile since I've written about my musical tastes.  Some of my earliest postings had to do with my Top 40 Favorite Songs in certain genres.  Even though music is such a vital part of my life, I've written relatively little about it. So it's time to write about some of the genres that form my musical tapestry in September 2015.  I imagine new threads will be woven in as I hear more musicians and composers in the future.

I guess the type of music that I listen to most is rock music, although there are sub groups such as R&B and funk that I lump under rock.  My mood determines what I listen to, and I often want to hear something with guitars, a strong bass, some drum, and definitely a beat, and often with the volume up so I can hear eveything happening.  I generally like music that is melodic, which much of early rock music had, but not so much currently. 

Even since the Beatles hit the scene in 1964 (the Ed Sullivan Show), I have been enamored of the Fab Four for over 50 years.  They will always be my favorite rock performers.  But below are some other "rock" musicians to whom I listen, and with whom I often sing along, and I've attached some You Tube videos of some of them:

Rush, Paul Simon-solo-and Simon & Garfunkel, Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimi Hendrix, The Who, The Police, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind & Fire, Steely Dan, Chicago, Blood Sweat & Tears, Crosby Stills Nash & Young and Neil Young-solo, The Moody Blues, Led Zeppelin, Daryl Hall & John Oates, Bread, The Carpenters, The Beach Boys, Tom Petty & The Heartbrakers, ZZ Top, Michael Jackson, Billy Squier, Elton John, Metallica, The Ramones, Robert Palmer, U2, Billy Joel, Phil Collins.

The list above is pretty much composed of musicians from the 60s, 70s, and maybe the 80s.  I have felt that that was really the golden age of rock.  My tastes have transitioned to include some of these more "recent" rockers--some 80s, 90s, 00s, and current:

Nirvana, Queens of the Stone Age, Stone Temple Pilots, Muse, The Smiths, Club Nouveau (kind of old school), Bush, Soundgarden, Presidents of the United States of America (also kind of old school), Fugees, Beck.

There are singers that I will occasionally listen to that tend to be less raucous, sometimes a little folksy, or maybe jazzy, but I love their music.  Here are a few of them:

Linda Ronstadt (especially in Spanish!), James Taylor, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Sting, Willie Nelson, Dean Martin, John Denver, Neil Diamond, Gordon Lightfoot.

My mood sometimes takes me into the jazz genre, although there are sub genres in jazz that I will listen to but only briefly.  Here are a few of the jazz musicians that I enjoy:

Antonio Carlos Jobim, Sergio Mendes & Brasil 66, Herb Albert (not so jazzy), Keith Jarrett, Count Basie, Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Chuck Mangione, Dave Brubeck, Glenn Miller, Duke Ellington, Vince Guaraldi, Mills Brothers.

When I want something soothing, but not necessarily classical, I will often listen to Pandora--streaming music.  But if I want to listen to one artist(s), I will listen to: Enya, Diana Krall, Thijs Van Leer, Mannheim Steamroller, The King Singers (not always soothing, but always good), John Barlow Jarvis, Leo Kottke, Bedalamenti, Morricone.

In a genre all by themselves--until I find more musicians that don't fit anywhere else outside of clasical, is a new group to which I was introduced on Pandora. They are from Ireland and are called The High Kings; very Irish and very melodic!

As for my favorite classical composers, both instrumental and choral, here is my last name list, although I'm sure I will forget some.  If I hear their music, I often recognize it right away:

Mozart, Vivaldi, Part, Lauridsen, Holst, Beethoven, Faure, Durufle, Rossini, Whitacre, Copland. Rachmaninov, Saint-Saens, Gershwin, Sousa, JS Bach, Wilberg, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Handel, Rodrigo, Strauss, Barber.

I will occasionally swerve into country, opera, world music, electronic music, and other genres, but the above lists are what I usually listen to. 

I feel to thank God for His grace in allowing me to be able to listen to music.  I thank Him every day for the blessing it is to even be able to hear.  I thank Him for the pleasure music has given and continues to give to me!

Based upon what you see here, does anyone out there have any suggestions in any of the genres, or some individual or groups or composers that you would recommend?