Real Recovery From Someone Who Knows

               As many of you know, my son Robert is in a substance rehab facility in Southern California and has been there for almost 29 months.  He has stayed clean and sober those 29 months, a great accomplishment, and I am hopeful that he finally understands the "whys" of his addiction and has taken actions to turn that understanding into changed behavior and thinking.  I believe that he has done so based upon the monthly conversations he has with Ann and me once a month when he is allowed to contact us.  

               Some months ago, I asked him to write down what he was telling us--both for his own benefit and for mine.  Obviously, since I work in the addiction world as a therapist, I am always looking for articles and ideas that I can share with some of my clients.  He finally has produced the following.  He acknowledges that many of the ideas he presents are not necessarily his own (he got many from the AA Big Book and the AA Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions) but they have been filtered and enlarged upon as he makes his way on the road to addiction recovery.  I thought that it was worthwhile to share with the world.  Maybe it can help you or someone you know!

Brains: Masking Pain through Adrenaline

            One of the functions of the brain is to protect a person from pain. This is accomplished through adrenaline. Adrenaline is a powerful anesthetic for both physical and emotional pain. The injuries of a fight, either physical or emotional, are often not felt until after the conflict is over, and the adrenaline is wearing off. Because of the powerful effects of adrenaline, we are all addicted to it.

Adrenaline can be had in many different ways. You can get adrenaline from positive and negative sources. Sports are an example of a positive source of adrenaline. Negative sources of adrenaline can be had from behaviors such as intimidation, sarcasm, wallowing in self-pity, fantasizing, verbal abuse, etc. Some sources can be negative or positive, depending on what it’s being used for. An example would be getting lost in the fantasy of a movie. There is adrenaline attached to the fantasy of a movie. However, it becomes a negative source if, for example, at work you get yelled at by your boss, and rather than deal and process the effects of the altercation, you watch a movie for the fantasy as an escape from dealing with the emotional effects of the encounter with the boss.

From a very young age, our brains learn to use adrenaline to mask pain. In fact, most people’s first memory is of an event or activity where they experienced some adrenaline. When it comes to trauma experienced during the developmental stages of life, the more painful the experience, the more adrenaline is needed to mask the pain. In the brain’s efforts to cope and protect the person from the debilitating pain of trauma, behaviors are learned to effectively get adrenaline to mask the pain. In an environment where trauma isn’t processed in a healthy way, the child is left with coming up with their own behaviors. These behaviors which provide the necessary adrenaline fix to mask pain become the answers to the problems for how they feel. These answers work, at least for a time.

The behaviors adults use that are unhealthy are the learned answers for adrenaline developed as a child in response to traumas. When a child reaches puberty, the onset of these changes with the influx of hormonal changes and combined with the social stresses, forces the teenager to increase the adrenaline they’re seeking to mask the increased pain of puberty. This could mean more frequently engaging in activities that provide adrenaline, or picking up new answers that provide a higher dose. Many teenagers at the onset of puberty will start bullying, setting fires, torturing animals, molesting, breaking the law, and experimenting with sex and drugs. These activities all have super high levels of adrenaline attached to them.

But when an adult is still using childhood answers and is also an addict, it causes a whole set of difficult problems. The result is the unmanageability of life described in the second half of the First Step. These childhood answers reinforce and increase the selfishness and self-centeredness of the addict, inflicting pain on all who get caught up in their inability to cope with life while simultaneously exacerbating the problems created from addiction.

In recovery, the addict learns new answers that are healthy in an effort to replace the unhealthy adrenaline-seeking answers developed as a child. This process takes time for it is only by trial and error through repetition that these new answers become part of their character, which is the goal. These new answers are spiritual in nature, and incorporate the principles of the Steps like honesty, willingness, justice, discipline, courage, etc. Finally, childhood answers are directly connected to the calamity of when what is God-given in every child is twisted and buried beneath the pain of trauma.

Twisted Instincts

We are all born with instincts. They are God-given and therefore good. They keep us alive, and drive us to do the activities necessary for survival. They can be categorized into the three different instincts: social, security, and sexual. The social instinct is the drive for humans to be accepted and feel a part of a social organization greater than themselves, like family, friends, and community. The security instinct is our need for shelter, food, clothing, and other material needs for our day to day existence. The sexual instinct is the drive for a mate and to reproduce.

When humans are exposed to traumas and accompanying unhealthy energies which are absorbed in their developing stages of life, these instincts become twisted. For example, our social and security instincts are to be met and directed by our parents. But when a child experiences abandonment from a parent, the child experiences a mental imprint, and a deficiency in their social instinct not being met is created.

The need for this instinct to be satisfied results in behavior that attempts to satisfy this instinct. It is the behavior people engage in to satisfy unmet instincts that characterize twisted instincts, for we are attempting to get more satisfaction for our instincts than God intended us to. In the example of a child whose social instinct was threatened by abandonment, the child will try to satisfy this instinct in a variety of unhealthy behaviors which could include being codependent, pretending to be someone they’re not for friendship, people-pleasing, making unfair demands for attention, and requiring validation from people, etc. All of the overreaching to satisfy twisted instincts is selfish in nature, sinful, and is the cause of all emotional problems and conflicts in relationships.

An important purpose of the Fourth Step is for the addict to look at how their instincts got twisted. The events surrounding the traumas an addict experiences in the developing stages of life is referred to in AA literature as “causes and conditions”. The Fourth Step confronts the causes and conditions where the instincts were twisted by traumas, and illuminates how this twisting of instincts resulted in the development of coping behaviors which are unhealthy and selfish. These coping behaviors or “answers” that are the products of twisted instincts are the reason why a person turns to drugs in the first place. As stated in AA literature, “alcohol is but a symptom” of the problem.

Indeed, drugs are but one of many unhealthy solutions to the problem of pain experienced from trauma resulting in twisted instincts. As previously stated, these unhealthy answers that are adrenaline-fueled help us to deal with self, which is our true problem. Our twisted instincts seek to keep us "in self," cut off from God and others. The further we indulge in the activities that attempt to satisfy our twisted instincts, the more we come into conflict with others. That creates the need for more selfish attempts to satisfy our twisted instincts. This self destructive cycle keeps us miserable, and for an addict, takes us to the point of suicide. Our answers no longer work, and everyone has been effectively driven away by our selfishness, achieving the disease's goal for the isolation from everyone who cares about us. To the extent we indulge in satisfying our twisted instincts, we are cut off from the grace of God and from a faith that works.  

A Channel for God’s Will

So how does all this affect our relationship with Heavenly Father? We are on this planet to serve His will, to bring Him glory. The questions we must ask and face are: what keeps us from being a better servant? What keeps us from being in God's will more? What percentage of the day is spent "in self," and what percent is spent "out of self," which will always be God's will for us. The fact is that the closer we are to being our true selves, the person Heavenly Father sent us to be, the more effectively we can serve His will.

However, the childhood traumas we experience move us away from our true selves, and the unhealthy answers we develop as a result of our twisted instincts effectively moves us farther and farther away from our "soul purpose".  By healing these traumas, giving them to God so that through Jesus Christ we can be made whole, we can start to establish a connection with God where we can intuitively serve His will.

As the Big Book states, we "intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle us.” We are faced with situations every day where we can choose self will or God's will. If we are stuck "in self" due to sinful behavior as a result of reacting to a twisted instinct, we won't have the connection needed in the moment to clearly see what God's will is for us, and we will be cut off from the power which can be given through the Holy Ghost needed to make the right decision. The more stuff we clear away from our past and heal from that cuts us off from God, the more often we can intuitively make the right decision that falls in line with God's will for us.

This is how we come to have a faith that works in any condition, for when we are connected and aligned with God's will, we are insulated from the temptations of the adversary. When we heal our traumas that effectively keep us creating conditions where we are stuck in self, and practice keeping the commandments and live by spiritual principles, we stay "out of self," and God's love and power can flow through us always, resulting in saying what He wants us to say, doing what He wants us to do, and fulfilling our callings on this Earth. When we stay out of the way, and let Heavenly Father work through us, we know true happiness. There is no doubt that our prayers will be answered. We can be of maximum service to our fellow men, for our "crap" is not affecting or clouding God's ability to work through us.

Been Awhile...Checking In

                It’s been awhile since I posted on this blog.  I must admit to allowing distractions in my life, but I am committing to be more diligent.  Writing my thoughts and feelings is very therapeutic for me and helps me to focus them—as opposed to having them come and go.

                Let me be systematic in writing them, as opposed to some kind of a stream of consciousness riff.  I am kind of a systematic guy, always looking for the system (what is in the background causing the behavior).  I will try to be precise, but at the same time, eloquent.

                Politics—I keep an eye and ear on what is going on with the presidential election as well as what is (or isn’t) going on in Washington.  Politics is a nasty game, not for the faint of heart, but I am afraid that there are very few truly principled men and women that work there.  But the way our government is set up, we should try to elect such principled people at the ballot box and then hold their feet to the fire, so to speak. 

                If you’ve read some of my recent posts, I have been following the Romney campaign closely and observing how his presence on the national scene has affected my Church and its perceptions in the media and by people in the country.  I have been intrigued by his “no-win” scenario when it comes to his religion; how he can’t talk about his religion in any way because 1) he doesn’t want to alienate those Evangelicals on his right, 2) he doesn’t want to be seen as a mouthpiece for leaders of my Church who have constantly reminded the members about political neutrality, and 3) he doesn’t want to bring about the possibility that any of the Church’s past beliefs such as polygamy and blacks and the Priesthood will distract him from his message.

                Sadly, as many articles have shown, being frozen in this manner does not allow him to bring up his “humanity” as shown by his service as a lay ecclesiastical leader and as a missionary in France.  He may campaign in a somewhat stiff manner, but I know enough about his past from study to know that there isn’t much stiffness.  It would be more accurate to say that he is focused on accomplishment, being a good missionary, a good bishop, a good leader at Bain Capital, a good husband, a good father.  I have no doubt that this single-mindedness and drive will make him a caring but competent leader of the Country.  I also have no doubt that the only way he will be elected President is if it is God’s will.

                Same-Sex Attraction—You should know by now that this is a subject of great interest to me.  You also should know that while I have some strong beliefs about various aspects of this subject, I am in a transitional place as to my ultimate feelings about it.  It is my desire to be congruent and consistent in those ideas that I finally choose to espouse. 

                I have been interested by a blog called The Weed, written by a member of the Church named Josh Weed and his wife.  It seems, if he is to be believed, that he has had and still has SSA but has been in a heterosexual marriage for 10 years and has kept his “orientation” in the closet until he felt like he, she, and it (the marriage) were strong enough to weather the controversy that would occur as a result of his “coming out.”  His wife knew about this issue long before they decided to get married, and in fact, they were very best friends from childhood, and he finally realized that she could be more than that and that he wanted to be obedient to the teachings of the Church regarding marriage.  Nothing wrong with marrying one of your best friends; I did.

                I likewise have been intrigued by an article that was posted on a website I frequent.  It relates a similar story to that of Josh Weed.  This male member of the Church is a therapist like me, but wrote that he likewise had SSA early on   He decided to get married to a woman and writes that he is very happy and in full fellowship in the Church.  He likewise realized that he did not want to be celibate for the rest of his life and wanted to place himself in a position to receive what he says are all of the blessings available to those who marry in the Covenant.  He discusses three issues brought up by the You Tube video made by gay and lesbian students at BYU called It Gets Better in the context of Gospel beliefs.

                The blog and the article have caused me to reflect on my attitudes.  As I’ve stated, I am in the process of trying to figure out where I am on this issue.  One thing that I am sure of, however, is of the importance of loving all of the Father’s children, no matter who they are.

ARP—Other than speaking at a meeting in August with some Stake Presidents of the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, Antelope Valley, and points northeast of Los Angeles regarding ARP, I have been released from my regional calling as Program Coordinator.  I may be asked to help start a Spanish–speaking ARP in Orange County or to help out with a Spanish-speaking ARP elsewhere, but those opportunities will be rare.  Having been released last December from attending twice a week ARP groups here locally, for the first time since 2006 I am without what could be termed a “major” calling or responsibility.  I still function weekly as a Sunday School teacher to the 4-6 young men and women aged 14-15 in my congregation, and I enjoy doing that.  It is “major” on one level, and I am enjoying being “under the radar.” 

                Ann and I have grown considerably in this calling, and we both consider it divine intervention that we were given this opportunity to serve.  It has helped me in my career as a therapist who specializes in sexual addiction, giving me a pretty firm grasp of the Twelve Steps and their importance in recovery work.  It gave me a chance to see people struggle against addictive behaviors and has caused me to look inside of myself and my own issues.  I am convinced that God gave me yet another opportunity to be a trail blazer in another endeavor; someone who is planting seeds and establishing protocols and formulating procedures that will be followed and improved upon by those who will follow after me as the endeavor matures.  It was this way on my mission, when I served as a branch president on my mission and in the Spanish Branch in Newhall, and when I served as bishop of the Singles Ward in Glendale.

MY HEALTH—I celebrated my 58^th birthday on June 4.  Physically, I am doing pretty well.  I stopped running about the time I became a bishop and have only run a handful of times since then.  I do go on fast walks with Ann (and sometimes alone—when I will sometimes run) a couple of times a week, we are trying to hike more often, and I try to keep active.  But the reality is that I don’t seem to have quite the lung capacity that I have had in the past.  My blood pressure has gone from being low (a source of pride for most of my adult life) at around 100-110/72-75 to a more normal 120-124/80.  It’s still good but I would like to see it lower.  I am in the first stages of diabetes but I am controlling it with pills and diet.  My weight has been in a 5 lb. range for tens of years.  I had my eyesight checked and it is doing fine.  I go to the chiropractor for adjustments for my neck and back.  There is some arthritis present in my hip area and it usually manifests itself in the wee hours of the morning causing me to wake up and turn over a number of times.  All in all, I’d give myself a B+.  I’d give myself an A- if I could lose about 10 lbs.

                Emotionally, I feel that I am in a good health.  I feel pretty positive and good these days.  I do a good job of not beating myself up when I do something dim-witted.  I am in touch with Bobby, my inner child.  I feel good about the work I do daily on the relationship with Ann, and I feel like my relationships with my kids and grandkids is as healthy as they have ever been.  I feel pleased about my employment situation.   I would say that I am in a good place, and I’d give myself an A.

                Spiritually, I need to spend more time and effort feeding my spirit.  My hectic life is not so hectic these days such that I do have the time to give it nourishment.  It’s a matter of organizing my time in the morning and making spiritual matters a priority.  I need to work on not rationalizing, a life-long challenge I’ve had.  My basic testimony is strong, and while I don’t understand some things and get frustrated at times with the bureaucracy of the Church and how some members focus on doing rather than being, I realize that people are the Church and that the organization of the Church is to give me the opportunity to be a true disciple and to love as Christ loved and loves.  The Church is the means to the end but not the end.  Luckily for me, Ann feels pretty much the same way such that we focus on what is eternal and important, and let the other stuff fall away.  I would give myself a B, and know that I am capable of full-on A because I’ve been an A for much of my life.

Sharing Some Articles

To My Dear Blog Readers (the few of you there are),

When I am not directly involved in selling wiping rags or doing psychotherapy (my "split personality"), I am usually either listening to music or listening or reading about issues that interest me, and these days those issues are often centered on Mitt Romney and the historic so-called Mormon Moment (LDS people  and beliefs in the national spotlight), the upcoming presidential election, the debate on gay marriage, BYU, sports, and addiction.

I read the following articles/posts and found them interesting. The first two are about the Mormon Moment, and the last is a blog post by Mitch Mayne in which he talks about his relationship with God.  They are worth the time to peruse--I hope you do. 

An Acceptable Prejudice?

May 29, 2012 

By

Thomas C. Terry - Associate Professor of Mass Communications at Idaho State University

It was a fairly typical lunch at an academic conference in the East after the New Hampshire primary in 2008. There was a smattering of endowed professorships and international reputations at the table, perhaps eight academics in all.
Along with the sweet tea and penne pasta came the inevitable skewering of George W. Bush.

"Never has a president experienced such horrible poll approval numbers in the midst of a war," one professor quipped.

"That is, if you overlook Harry Truman," I interjected into an uncomfortable silence.

It was going to be that kind of meal.

Dessert made its appearance and talk turned to the relative merits of the developing college basketball season and presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were hotly debated – the state’s primary promised to be a pivotal one. Then it was onto the Republicans, and Mitt Romney’s name popped up.

"I couldn’t vote for a Mormon," one professor said. There was some polite (or perhaps impolite) head-bobbing. "It’s a cult. Very intolerant, and their opinions about women, and, well ... ” and his voice trailed off.

I mentioned I had just been hired at a college in the West with a sizeable student and local population of Mormons -- Idaho State University, in Pocatello. I wondered rhetorically whether anyone said the same thing in 1960 about voting for John F. Kennedy because he was Roman Catholic. Or for then-Senator Obama because he is African-American. There was that same uncomfortable silence again. I think they felt sorry for me.

I’ve attended numerous scholarly conferences since that lunch where Mormonism has been discussed, and it is amazing to confront snide and disdainful comments and even overt prejudice from intellectually and sophisticated academics. And it seems perfectly acceptable to express this bias. Mormons are abnormal, outside the mainstream; everybody knows that. They don’t drink alcohol and coffee. Their women are suppressed. They don’t like the cross, and their most holy book seems made up. And there’s that multiple-wives thing. At one session involving a discussion of Utah’s history, several dismissive comments were spoken, rather blithely and without any sense of embarrassment. Belittling comments were made about Mormons' abstemiousness, and there was a general negative undercurrent. The LDS Church was referred to as the Mormon Church, something many members object to. They don’t mind being called Mormons, but their church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church. At least some of the professors who were making these remarks knew that.

Yes, Mormons do not embrace the cross as a symbol of Christianity, but it is because they consider it representing state-sanctioned execution and intense suffering. I regard it as a sacrifice on my behalf. Who’s right? Various Christian denominations think that during communion the wine and wafers actually are transformed into the body and blood of Christ – and over the centuries Christians have been derided as cannibals. I was raised to believe that the Eucharist represents the sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing more than different perspectives and beliefs.

Mormons are excoriated in popular culture (see: "The Simpsons") for the way their church was created by someone who was kind of a con man. And the translation of the Book of Mormon was accomplished with a hat. And the Golden Tablets have been lost. Hmmm. The stone tablets of the Ten Commandments were misplaced, too. And a burning bush talking? Really? It comes down to faith, as it should. Not some sort of ignorant bigotry.

Many of the academics consider themselves liberal, socially responsible, and broad-minded individuals, the repository of the best in America. They’re proud of themselves for voting for Barack Obama (a bit too smug maybe?). They would splutter and bluster and be generally outraged to be considered prejudiced. None would consider saying anything similar about African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, Native Americans . . . well, you get the idea. But anti-Mormonism is part of the same continuum that contains discrimination against any group. Why, then, is it allowable publicly express bias against Mormons?

In 2009, The Daily Beast compiled a listing of the top 25 safest and 25 most dangerous college campuses in America, based on two-year per capita data from 9,000 campuses with at least 6,000 students. The two states with the highest proportion of Mormons did pretty well in the safest category: #5 was Idaho State University, Pocatello, where I work;  #13 was Utah State University, Logan, and #17 was Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. No Utah or Idaho schools were on the most dangerous list.

And yet, nestled in the midst of all the good publicity, was this comment about BYU: "Joseph Smith’s golden plates would have been safe at Brigham Young." Would the Daily Beast have said this: “The tablets of the Ten Commandments would have been safe at Brandeis University" or "at Notre Dame University?” Not very likely. But this sort of flippant and biased comment about Mormons is somehow socially acceptable. Responsible people don’t use "Indian giver" anymore (and we shouldn't). But we Welch on deals and get away Scot-free. I have a sprinkling of Welsh and Scottish blood in me, and I don't appreciate those comments.

So what, exactly, is so awful about being Mormon?

Utah is about 72 percent Mormon, so it's a pretty good representation of Mormonism. Among the 50 states, Utah has the lowest child poverty rate, the lowest teen pregnancy rate, the third-lowest abortion rate, the third-highest high school graduate rate at 94 percent, the highest scores on Advanced Placement exams, fewest births to unwed mothers (also the highest overall birthrate), lowest cancer rate, lowest smoking rate, lowest per capita rate of alcohol use, and, arguably, the most comprehensive and universal state health insurance system in the U.S.

Furthermore, Mormons as a group have the lowest rates of violence and depression among religious groups, are seven times less likely to commit suicide (if active church members), and have the lowest divorce rates of any social-religious group. Sixty-five percent of Utah residents have personal computers, the highest penetration rate in the country. Crime has decreased in the state of Utah by anywhere from 15-18 percent over the past 10 years.

Mormon women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations than Catholic or Protestant women (similar to Jewish women) and more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women (but less than Jewish women). One survey indicated Mormon women experience more orgasms and are more satisfied with their married lives than non-Mormons.

Plenty of religious groups – from Orthodox Jews to Orthodox Muslims to various mainstream Christian denominations – do not allow women full participation in the life of their church and communities. But disparaging Roman Catholics, for instance, because their church does not allow female clergy, isn’t a knee-jerk reaction to that faith. Yes, Mormon women wear less revealing clothing – no plunging necklines and short-shorts. But is modesty a bad thing?

Glenn Beck is a Mormon, but so is Harry Reid. Other famous Mormons are or were: Harmon Killebrew, Jack Dempsey, J. W. Marriott, Gladys Knight, the Osmonds, Butch Cassidy, and Eldridge Cleaver. What does that tell you about Mormonism? Absolutely nothing.

Sure, many people find it annoying to have Mormon missionaries knock on their doors. But what kind of moral and religious conviction must it take to devote up to two years of your life in service to a higher calling, whether it be community service or religious proselytizing? Isn’t this the sort of commitment we want to encourage in young people, who are too often accused of being selfish and jaded? Having students who have been to Mongolia, Paraguay, and Finland enrich my classes, not diminish them.

At about 13 million members, Mormons are a pretty large cult. So what is so bad about this “cult?” And a cult growing at almost exactly the same rate, decade by decade, as the original Christian church in the 1st and 2nd centuries. It makes no sense, but then bigotry doesn’t. Who wouldn’t want to be on those lists? Seems like good things to be, even if you can’t drink coffee and beer, wear more than one earring per ear, grow a beard (frowned upon only if you want to move up the church hierarchy), and show lots of cleavage. You can have as much hot chocolate and ice cream as you want, though, and I have embraced this provision enthusiastically.

When I first moved to Pocatello, I lived in a cul de sac and seven of my nine neighbors belonged to the LDS Church. Nobody tried to convert me. They invited me to church picnics – no pressure. My next-door neighbor spent nearly two hours one weekday morning (he was late to work) helping me restore my snow blower to life after five years in the humid South. Another helped flush and fix my sprinkler system. A third returned my dogs after they’d escaped. Several just showed up with family members to help me move in. A fourth one tossed me the keys to his Cadillac after the transmission in my Suburban disassembled on my driveway. "Bring it back when you don’t need it anymore," he said.

These are not the faces of intolerance and prejudice.

No. Those faces are in the academic mirror.

I was raised as a member of the United Church of Christ – the same denomination as President Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – and my sister is an ordained minister in the denomination. I am now Episcopalian. An uncle and aunt and several of my first cousins are Mormons; the first was converted while stationed with the Marine Corps in Hawaii.

Just why is it socially acceptable to denigrate and trivialize and insult a class of people as a class of people? They had a name for that sort of behavior and system in the South a few decades back. You may remember it. It was called Jim Crow.

Is Mormonism Ridiculous

May 23, 2012 By Taylor Petrey -- Assistant Professor of Religion at Kalamazoo College

In The Book of Mormon Broadway musical, the central character Elder Price sings, “I Believe…” followed by a mixed series of benign and ridiculous claims. The genius of the song is that it so perfectly performs widespread American perceptions about Mormonism in the early 21st century.  Elder Price, and Mormons in general, are presented as harboring some naive and strange ideas, but in the end being good people with good intentions who might actually be able to help people.

Mitt Romney’s upcoming nomination as the Republican candidate for President seems to confirm how Mormons generally have come to be understood.  Even Evangelical Republican voters have largely overcome some hesitancy about Mormonism, perhaps accepting it the way viewers of The Book of Mormon musical come to accept Mormons. Romney may hold some wacky religious ideas, but he is a good person who may actually help some people.

Like Elder Price and Mitt Romney, Mormons are praised for certain characteristics: being nice, having good families, valuing industry, thrift, or for being good citizens in the community. These are indeed genuine compliments that any community should be proud of.  What is missing from this list of positive attributes is praise for Mormonism as having any important religious ideas.  In fact, praises of Mormons as people often include the caveat that Mormon ideas and beliefs about angels, golden plates, and Kolob are strange, weird, ridiculous, and sometimes even dangerous.

The common response to the idea of Mormonism’s weirdness is to insist that all religions are weird to some extent.  Mormons and non-Mormons alike utilize this response.  Stephen Colbert said it best when he quipped, “Mormons believe Joseph Smith received golden plates from an angel on a hill, when everybody knows that Moses got stone tablets from a burning bush on a mountain!”  Jon Stewart similarly evaluated the angst about Mormonism as a kind of arbitrary stigmatizing that can apply to any religion. There is something compelling about familiarizing Mormonism by way of defamiliarizing accepted religious stories, yet this also remains unsatisfying to explain why anyone would believe incredulous things.

The trotting out of apparently ridiculous Mormon ideas is evidence of just how little Americans really understand religion.  Religious people of all stripes should be concerned with the way Mormonism is portrayed because it reveals the inability of people to ask the right kind of questions about religion and to discern how religious people construct their worlds.  Discussion of Mormonism in the media tends to reveal the fundamentally unethical way that Americans think about religion, engaging in reductionism, decontextualization, and stereotyping.  It is not enough to suggest that all religious are equally silly (a point Bill Maher’s Religulous makes not in defense of religion, but against it).  This perspective represents a failure to understand religion at all.

Such shallow explanations of Mormonism tend to decontextualize certain details that are embedded within larger narratives in a way that renders them humorous or bizarre, but unintelligible as meaningful religious ideas. It would be like saying that Christianity is about the belief that three Zoroastrian magi followed a star to a house in Bethlehem or Islam is about the idea that Mohammed flew on a horse to Jerusalem.  These may be accurate details, but shorn from the broader context they reveal essentially nothing about Christianity or Islam.  Bullet lists of strange ideas hardly explain what people find compelling about the Christian or Islamic narratives and does little to illuminate the meaning of these religions to billions of adherents.

How then should we think about religions that avoids reducing them to a few salacious ideas?  Iconic scholar of religion J.Z. Smith has suggested that in the way we speak about religion, there is “a tension between religion imagined as an exotic category of human experience and expression, and religion imagined as an ordinary category of human expression and activity.” (Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982], xii.)  In other words, we are often tempted to treat religion as something strange and exotic rather than as a normal way of engaging with the world.  When we engage with the religious ideas of others, we owe them the respect of an explanation of what may be intellectually compelling about them.  What kinds of problems are they seeking to solve?  How do they make sense of the situation around them?

Like most religious traditions, Mormonism emerged to resolve some kind of spiritual or intellectual problems its early adherents saw in the competing options available to them.  In order for Mormonism to survive, it has had to continue to be relevant, to address something that people find compelling.  As the discussion of Mormonism continues in the public sphere, it may be useful to understand what people find compelling about Mormonism, and even why so many apparently smart and capable thinkers remain committed to its teachings.

There is no doubt that public discussions of Mormonism will remain interested in difficult issues from its past, including polygamy and its history of excluding people of African descent from priesthood leadership; and its present, including excluding women from priesthood ordination and its teachings about homosexuality. These discussions are important, and will hopefully be conducted responsibly and fairly. Rather than focus solely on these more problematic and controversial aspects, we might practice an attentiveness toward Mormonism as a paradigm for thinking about religion more broadly, to articulate Mormonism as offering a persuasive evaluation (for some) of human situations. The questions that we should be asking, and Mormons should be answering: How does Mormonism handle the big questions?  What is the meaning of life, of death, of the terrible and the good in the world?  How do Mormon notions about the cosmos affect ethical decisions toward others?  What do Mormon narratives about the past and the present offer their adherents?  These are not simple questions, and the answers are not simple either.  To discuss them at all is a serious endeavor.  While we may laugh (and I think we should) about religion, we can only do so ethically if we learn to think with religion as well.

My relationship with my Savior -- by Mitch Mayne on May 27, 2012

The other day I met with a friend of mine—a non-Mormon, very spiritual man who has committed much of his life to Christ-like service within the LGBTQ community. He is kind, wise, and it is remarkably easy to see my Savior very much alive in both the words and the actions of this man.

We ended up, as we usually do, talking about things of a spiritual nature—specifically, about our own understanding of the nature of God."How," he asked, "do remain so confident about who you are and what you're doing in the face of so many who criticize you?"

Somewhere along the journey of my life, I shared, I bought into a notion of God as a punishing, spiteful, vindictive and judgmental God—quick to smite me if I made a misstep, and slow to love me again, if ever. This concept was resinscribed, it seemed, when I heard others (including leaders within my own faith) interpret scripture to say that God demands perfection and has a zero tolerance policy for those who commit transgression, whether it be by choice or by happenstance.

That was a dark and terrifying way to live. With that kind of vision of God, I had to live a faultless life, and if it were true that God has no tolerance for sin, then it would be up to me to perfect myself first, before I presented myself to Him. Worsening things was the consistent counsel to develop my own, personal relationship with God. Well, quite frankly, when I held a vision of Him as such a terrifying figure not only did I fear building a relationship with Him, but quite honestly imagined myself to have a better life on my own. After all, who wants to have someone—anyone—looking over our shoulder who is just waiting for us to mess up so they can condemn us?

I decided that I had to completely toss out what I thought I knew about my Savior and learn for myself. I began simply, just sitting in a room quietly and beginning to talk to Him the same way I would talk to a trusted friend. By experimenting with a combination of prayer (speaking to my Savior) and meditation (listening for His response) I began, over the course of a few months, to feel more comfortable with this new relationship. This step, for me, was not about church. It wasn’t about any specific religion at all. It was simply about building my own personal understanding of a Savior who would be with me anywhere at anytime—not just one who was accessible for a few hours on Sunday.

And over time, I came to an incredibly simple conclusion—my Savior is my best friend. He shares my hopes, my dreams, my heartache, and my failures. I am free to bring my entire self to this relationship—things that would have been off limits with my previous understanding of God—including intimacy and shortcomings.

Today, I can say anything to my Savior—He knows me that well. Even when I am not at my most eloquent, I can still express my feelings and thoughts stumblingly, and I know He understands my intent. At times, I get angry, like a little child, and kick and yell and want my own way. Then I get to apologize to Him, and through that process, our relationship deepens.

He knows my fears, my defects and my mistakes. He also knows my capacity, my worth, my assets and successes. He knows what I need and provides it for me, even when my sight is not keen enough to ask for it. He gently, and often with a great sense of humor, pushes me in the direction of His will for me. When I have questions, I know it’s okay to ask. My Savior never makes me feel stupid or wrong. He gives me choices—and when I make a mistake, it’s okay. That process only makes us closer.

Developing this relationship with my Savior didn’t only change my understanding of Him, I explained to my friend, it changed my life. Today, I can say with complete certainty, that I am much less reliant on the opinions, needs, and demands of others. I need no longer look outside myself for validation. When I'm right with my Savior, I don't really need to be right with anyone else, regardless of their title or position in my life. All the other stuff falls into place easily and effortlessly, or it falls away completely.

What a much better life it is to have Him as my friend, and to have shrugged off the concept of a God who wants me to suffer because of my mistakes.

Sure, there are those who say my version of my Savior is inaccurate and how I approach Him is even disrespectful—and they are free to have their own understanding of Him, as well. But for me, I’ve genuinely grown to believe that when it comes to my relationship with my Savior the only truly disrespectful thing I can do is to lie to Him, and bring some pre-packaged version of myself to our relationship. After all, He can’t really help me become the person we both want me to be if I am not rigorously honest with Him.

How will you cultivate your relationship with your Savior today?

Pumpa's Trip to the East Coast to Help Move My Grandkids

Can you imagine living in a two-bedroom, one bath, 700 square foot, 2nd floor apartment that has no parking, no yard or grass, no washer and dryer, no dishwasher?  Can you imagine living far away from family and long-time friends in Brooklyn, New York?  Can you imagine having four children, one aged 3 1/2 and three aged 1 1/2 in one bedroom, and obviously being incredibly cramped for space? 

That was the life of my daughter Emily and her husband Adam the past year and half or so, and it has been incredibly difficult.  Because of a fairly substantial, heaven-sent pay raise from Adam's current employer, they allowed themselves to dream about moving.  They found a nice home on a tree-lined, suburban street with a driveway with their own parking, with a fenced large grass side yard, in New Jersey.  It has four levels (one of them is an attic floor where they can store stuff), three bedrooms, and a washer and dryer in a finished basement (the bottom level)!  It was inevitable that they move, and this house which they are renting on a month-to-month basis, seemed like a great fit.

I volunteered to fly to New York last week to help them finish packing and to help with the actual move.  It was amazing how much stuff they had crammed into their little living space.  It was amazing how cheerful Church members showed up and helped watch the kids as others finished packing, lugged furniture, boxes and stuff down the stairs and onto the truck, and cleaned walls and floors and appliances and fixtures as stuff was taken away.  I did what I could, cheerleading as I huffed and puffed and sweated (it was SO humid!) 

We said good-bye to those good souls that helped in Brooklyn and drove our U-Haul to Rutherford, New Jersey near the Meadowlands Sports Complex (where the New York Giants play football).  There in the heat and humidity we unloaded the truck rather quickly with the help of a couple from a nearby New Jersey congregation of the Church and placed stuff in the new house.  Soon, the kids and Emily arrived and Emily promptly took off their clothes except for Elizabeth's underwear, put the triplets in swimming diapers, turned on a sprinkler, and let the kids run around in the water in their new side yard.  Emily says it warms her heart to see her children be able to run and play safely on grass that is theirs.

The next few days were emotionally intense as the temperature sweltered and the humidity became worse (it finally rained the night before I left) and kids and Mom (and Pumpa) were adjusting to the new house with boxes everywhere and not much cooling.  Having four children under age 4 in any circumstance is difficult (Lucy, one of the triplets had a fever), but the heat and the disorganization exasorbated the difficulty.  I felt quite helpless sometimes because I wasn't sure where Emily and Adam wanted to put things and because the kids want their Mama and not Pumpa when she's around, and would actually push me away and cry and/or scream for her.

Finally, yesterday, it was time to leave.  Adam took the day off to help Emily organize the house and to assist with the kids, particularly sick Lucy.  After hugs and kisses, Emily and Elizabeth took me to the Newark Airport.  I flew to Phoenix and then to Burbank where Geema awaited me.  How strangely wonderful to feel the dryness of the air, to not hear crying or screaming, to be in an uncluttered environment once again.

I'm glad that I was able to do what I did for this little family so far away.  I'm so proud of Adam and Emily and how they deal with their circumstances and how they are attempting to make a life for themselves and their little, loud family.  I know that neither Ann nor I could do what they are doing.  We want to support them in any way possible, to help them in this transitional time in their lives.  Bye-bye, Pumpa!

Trying to Understand My Thoughts and Feelings About Same-Gender Attraction

In a previous post last year, I wrote about my feelings with regard to how people in faith communities respond to people who decide to attend their churches that may not look or act (or smell) like they do.  I also talked in that same posting about those who are brave enough to attend who may be homosexual and how important I feel it is to love them unconditionally.

A recent posting was indirectly about homosexuality as well, about how misunderstood I felt as a supporter of Proposition 8 in California and how some in that community or those who actively supported that community were condemning me for being judgmental of them when they in fact were being judgmental of me.

I desire to return to the topic of homosexuality, and how I am attempting to reconcile my beliefs about the LDS Church’s doctrine with my support of the LDS Gay and Lesbian community.  I have thought much about this topic, and while I try to understand what I think about it, I wanted to write about it to challenge myself and to help crystallize those thoughts.  

I read with great sorrow some recent posts by a fellow LDS blogger, Mitch Mayne, who is an openly gay member of the LDS Church.  He transcribed some of his interviews with members of the Church who have come out but who still are still attempting to cling to their faith and belief in the Church.  They describe the utter turmoil of their situations, of how difficult it is to feel misunderstood by those to whom they have looked for leadership and ideally, for Christ-like unconditional love.  Their stories and their lives have affected me greatly.  I was able to sense their profound pain.  I invite you as well to read their stories at mitchmayne.blogspot.com.  I also would invite you to watch the stories of some gay and lesbian students at BYU who have produced a You Tube video that can be seen at the following URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym0jXg-hKCI. 

Gay and Lesbian Students at BYU

I was likewise affected by a recent blog entry on the Huffington Post.  It was written by a non-LDS reporter who attended a conference in Virginia recently.  The conference was sponsored by “Circling the Wagons,” a group of members of the LDS Church who have been affected by homosexuality and who are having difficulty maintaining their faith in the Church.  I will sometimes go to the Huffington Post website to look at stories about Mormons, and imagine my surprise when upon reading the blog entry I realized that the blogger/reporter was quoting Katy Adams, the daughter of our dear friends, the Birrells, who have a gay son whom I love. 

Mitch, Katy and Friend

Even though the Church reversed its policy in 1978 allowing all members of the Church regardless of race or color or ethnicity to hold the Priesthood, I do not see the Church ever sanctioning marriage between two men or two women, just as I do not see the Church ever sanctioning women to hold the priesthood.  I understand that “ever” is a long time, but to sanction same sex marriage and women holding the priesthood seems to fly in the face of Church doctrine.  Not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood was policy, not doctrine, to the best of my knowledge, even though some Church leaders treated it as doctrine.  When the policy changed, all discussion ended among Church leaders and all embraced it.   I just don’t see that happening with this issue.

Leaders of the Church have been clear in stating the doctrine that sexual relations outside of marriage, be they heterosexual or homosexual, are a sin, and if someone violates this law of chastity, “they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others [heterosexuals] are” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).   In the same General Conference talk, President Hinckley stated, “To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.” 

Elder Holland

The Apostle whom I love and regard as being as loving a man as I have ever known, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, has written, “First, let’s be absolutely clear on what God wants for each of us.  He wants us to have all of the blessings of eternal life.  He wants us to become like Him. To help us do that, He has given us a plan.  This plan is based on eternal truths and is not altered according to the social trends of the day.”

“At the heart of this plan is the begetting of children, one of the crucial reasons Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (see 2 Nephi 2:19-25; Moses 5:10-12).  They were commanded to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28), and they chose to keep the commandment.  We are to follow them in marrying and providing physical bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children.  Obviously, a same-gender relationship is inconsistent with this plan.”

Even if in the coming years the ban against same-gender marriage is 

overturned by the courts and declared unconstitutional, I do not envision that prompting a change in such basic doctrine.

I know that this is a “wintry” doctrine for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters within the Church.  I feel it (as much as a straight can).  However, I believe in the doctrines of the Church with all my heart (I choose not to have faith in only those doctrines I fully comprehend and understand—but to have faith in all of them) and I particularly have an abiding testimony of the Plan of Salvation as preached by the leadership of the Church.  I just don’t think that doctrine can change.

What I do believe can change and needs to change, and hopefully will change sooner than later, is a Church-wide, consistent but loving policy of how leadership handles believers who happen to experience same-gender attraction.  There are too many stories of rigid Church leaders who seem to be more interested in what they perceive as keeping the Church pure than in being loving shepherds of His sheep.  There is inconsistency in how same-gender attraction is handled because there are, to the best of my knowledge, no specific guidelines in the Church’s Handbook used by leaders worldwide.   One church leader will come down hard on a struggling gay man or lesbian woman who experiences feelings of same-gender attraction and call a disciplinary court and excommunicate them, while another will diligently try to work with the angst-filled member and extend his own personal caring and love.

I know about this type of inconsistency in leadership in dealing with those who struggle with sexual issues because of my continuing work in the Church’s Addiction Recovery Program.  I hear stories that horrify me about some rigid Church leaders who seem to be completely emotionally barren and sound like they have their own issues, and then hear other stories about men who are truly listening and seeking to lift and love the struggling persons that come to them for love, caring, and understanding.

Not so long ago, I believe that the unwritten thought within the Church and among leaders was that leadership should guide those feeling same-gender feelings to just get married to someone of the opposite gender and that the feelings would go away.  More recently, I believe the idea was to direct such people to programs which would challenge their beliefs of only being attracted to same gender individuals.  The former is foolhardy and just plain wrong, while the latter seems to me to be simplistic.

Although a leader may have negative feelings towards a gay or lesbian, he needs to make every attempt to put his negative personal feelings, his personal discomfort about homosexuality, way in the background.  What he should do is to try to emulate what Jesus Christ would do with the individual in front of him: show unconditional love.  It is his responsibility to try to understand, to feel the pain, to feel the possible confusion.  In other words, he needs to truly listen and care.  He should not have a preconceived notion to punish and keep his flock pure.  He should not withdraw either, but should try to engage this sheep of his flock as the Good Shepherd would do. 

There may be occasions where the law of chastity has been violated, and when that occurs, the leader can still show love and caring towards the individual.  In many cases, these souls have testimonies, have faith in the doctrine, and want to feel God’s love.

Mitch Mayne shared the following important points in his talk at the Circling the Wagons Conference regarding being loving to those who are not straight but who have faith and a testimony and want to worship alongside straights, 

“When it comes to LGBT members, this creates a safe space for all to walk in our doors, just as they are, without fear of persecution or retribution. It enables them to genuinely feel that they have a home here, and allows them to grow and develop as equal children of our Father.”

He then brings up another way of looking at our non-straight brothers and sisters, a concept he has discussed with me and that I wholeheartedly embrace.  He remarked, “There is very likely a test wrapped up in all of this, for there is undoubtedly a reason that some of us are gay and lesbian, while others are not. But what if the test, really, is not being given to gays and lesbians, but through gays and lesbians? What if we are actually the vehicle through which the test is being delivered? And the test, then, is not for us at all—but for you--our heterosexual brothers and sisters?”

“That would mean, then, that the test might really be this:  Will you, straight brother or sister, lend us equality? Will you view us as your peers, your equals? Will you move past your own fear and prejudice and genuinely show Christ-like love and compassion to a segment of society that, for whatever reason, appears to be the least of these in this sphere?”

“Or, will you shun us? Will you persecute us? Will you force us to choose between God and Gay, because that is what makes you comfortable? Will you compel us to choose between the faith we call home—and walking this earthly path with a companion we love?”

“Which will you choose? How will you perform on your test?”

I am committed to performing well on my test.  I am committed, to love these sons and daughters of God who as such are my spiritual brothers and sisters.  I am committed to being their advocate and a straight ally.  I am committed to lovingly educate my straight brothers and sisters and leaders, if given the opportunity, about this test.  I am committed to love my fellow man as the Savior would have me do.  If my Church is in fact the Church of Jesus Christ, and I know that it is, then we as members and leaders need to truly be “willing to take upon ourselves His name” by “always remembering Him” through our actions.  It is a continuing transition that needs to occur within the hearts of all believers.

The Final Transition - My Mother-in-Law

I was in Utah with my wife and two of my children to participate in the funeral of my mother-in-law, Helen Paxman this past Monday.  She passed on Wednesday, May 2nd, in Michigan but was flown to Utah to be buried alongside her husband and my father-in-law, Richard Paxman.  She was 87 years old, full of arthritis and pain and very much in the throes of dementia.  Ann and her siblings consider her passing a great blessing; to be released from her physical and mental suffering and to be reunited with her husband whom she has missed terribly since his passing some 15 years ago.

I realize that my belief and my family’s belief in an afterlife made this transition for Helen and for us a less foreboding one.  Our faith gives us sweet comfort.  It affords us peace in the hope that our souls, our essences, our spirits, continue to exist when our hearts stop beating.  How difficult it would be for me to not have that conviction. 

Our faith allowed us to imagine her glorious reunion with her husband dead for 15 years, with her sister Marge who died a few years ago and with her two brothers who died in their youth, with her mother and father and grandparents, and with friends and others who graced her life.  Perhaps most importantly for her, she returned to be with her spiritual father whom we believe sent her to mortality to have a mortal experience—which she had for 87 years.

Nevertheless, it was hard not to be touched by seeing my mother-in-law lying in her coffin.  It was hard to not be touched by the tears of close family and extended family.  It was hard not to be touched by the words spoken and sung during the funeral service.   It was hard not to be touched by the finality of a loved one’s mortality. 

I am very appreciative of the love shown by our friends the Lunts who put us up while we met with family.  It was great to feel the love and concern expressed by extended family and friends who made the journey to Provo for the proceedings.  It was nice to be able to connect with my family.  I feel blessed that both Ann and I could take time off, to pay for expenses to get us and two of our children to Utah and back, to have been able to drive safely to and from Utah, and to have had the health to do what we did.  We were/are truly blessed. 

STAYING WITHIN EMOTIONAL REACH

I'm the apple of her eye!

On Sunday, my wife Ann and I will celebrate 34 years of marriage.  In this day and age, that is an accomplishment I suppose.  But honestly, divorce while always an option never has seemed to be the way to ultimately deal with problems between us.

I can say that through the years, I have assimilated some of Ann’s personal and gender characteristics and she likewise has assimilated some of mine.  Perhaps more importantly from the standpoint of the couple’s therapy that I do routinely these days, she has been working on her own personal issues while at the same time I have been working on my own.  What that has served to accomplish is to keep us within emotional reach of one another.  What I mean by that is she has grown more secure in herself through the years while I have grown more secure in myself in those years, and that growth has been fairly equivalent.

Based upon my research and my clinical experience, when one partner in a relationship goes forward or backward in a significant way in their emotional life and their partner does not simultaneously respond in like manner, there are problems.  For example, if a partner gets caught up in an addiction, there is a regression in his or her emotional life, while at the same time, their partner usually has maintained and not regressed.  That’s a problem.  That presents a widening gap in their emotional reach of one another.  Another example might be a partner who has an exciting, fulfilling job while the other has a repetitive, non-stimulating life at home.  (Read my daughter’s example of my hypothesis in my recent blog entry of her blog post.)  That’s a problem.  That also likely causes a widening gap in their emotional reach.

As I state often in my clinical experience, when we go into a partner relationship, we enter at the level of our dysfunction.  In other words, we find and connect with someone who is as similarly “messed up” as we are (or aren’t).  We fall in love with someone who is within emotional reach of us.  Harville Hendrix, who has written extensively about finding our “Imago,” (Greek for our “image”— our likeness) is stating what I just wrote but in a different way.  We enter into relationships with similar “baggage” from our families of origin and our life experiences (nurture), and who we are (nature.)  If partners aren’t similarly “messed up,” the relationship will likely not last.

Icy surroundings, warm hearts

But then, unless a couple’s emotional lives remain somewhat close as the years pass, their relationship will likely be in peril and likely will not last.  Having read this hypothesis, I imagine my daughter might think that her relationship with my son-in-law might be doomed.  That is not necessarily so.  If both are really concerned about the other and each is willing to be humble and open to making changes in themselves, not expecting the other to change before they do, then they likely will stay within emotional reach of one another.  I pretty sure that will be the case with my daughter and her good husband who is a wonderful, humble man, and whom I am proud to have as a son-in-law. 

I know that Ann really cares for me on a deep level as I care deeply for her, but we both humbly realize that we each have issues and we try to work on them constantly.  In order for our marriage to flourish—that third entity in our partnership beyond her and me—, each entity has to “take care of their own side of the street.”  As we do so, the emotional distance between us is relatively small and we can deal with the resulting bumps in the road as they occur.

To be fully transparent, we have not always cleaned our own sides of the street.  In the past we looked outwardly to the other, to some degree, to meet our emotional needs.  And that occasionally surfaces even now, but when our partnership was wobbly in the past during challenges in child rearing, we got into therapy and we BOTH started working on our own “stuff,” and we continue to do so.  As a consequence, we have grown, and we have grown more or less at the same rate.  That small emotional distance between us has allowed us to grow together as a couple!

We sometimes "put on the dog"

Longevity in marriages does not necessarily mean that all is well and blissful.  For every one that is, there are as many or more that are not.  Couples can often merely tolerate one another because there is little emotional connection; they are not within emotional reach of one each other.  Those partners will often look to fulfill emotional needs outside of their relationship because there is so precious little within it.

So as I approach April 22, I have a huge smile on my face!  I have never been happier and more in love than I am right now at this time of my life.  My marriage just keeps getting better because there is emotional connection and passion.  My wife is my best friend, my confidant, my lover.  I cannot wait to be around her and love living life with her.  And what is most wondrous about this relationship is that the doctrine of my Church dictates it can last beyond death.  It can last forever; there is no “‘til death do you part.”  Why wouldn’t I want this blissful experience to go on indefinitely?

I am working hard on what I can control—myself, and on our marriage so that the transition from mortality to eternity will be natural.   HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO ME!

"You are my lover, you're my best friend, you're in my soul"