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"

Brushing Me with Broad Strokes

Coming to an LDS Temple/Building Near You?

When the State of California was embroiled in the voter battle over passage of Proposition 8 that sought to formally define marriage as between a man and a woman, I found myself being called on/expected as an ecclesiastical leader of a young single adult congregation in the LDS Church to get congregants engaged in getting out the vote and to work on getting a majority of Californians to vote in favor of the Proposition.  It occasioned me to look at it from both theological and humanitarian positions.  After considering who was asking me to do this, and considering consequences, I made the decision to support its passage and I got my young congregants involved.

I was attending school at the time, getting my Master’s Degree in Psychology, and my support was emblazoned on a bumper sticker on my wife’s car. It caused a brouhaha among my classmates who did not know whose car it was.  Many of my classmates were wondering how anybody could possibly support Proposition 8, especially in light of the “open mindedness” that we were learning was essential to become a good therapist.  I listened with interest as different classmates joined in the disparaging conversation, careful not to say that the car with “that” bumper sticker belonged to me.

Really? 

Still embroiled in the push-pull that was Prop 8, the withering onslaught of negativity and reproachful commentary continued online at a discussion website set up to allow students to communicate with one another (this was before Facebook became the medium to facilitate such communication).  I read with increasing indignity as the commentaries poured in one evening.  I got to a point where I could no longer just read the vitriol. 

It seemed to be the height of hypocrisy to read comments from my peers accusing people who supported Prop 8 as being unloving, uncaring, bigoted, etc..  They were usually the least judgmental people I knew and were being trained to be non-judgmental and open minded as psychotherapists.  And while I couldn’t comment specifically as to the character of each of my fellow supporters (I found nearly all to be loving and caring people), I knew who I was.  I knew that I was open minded, that I was caring and loving and non-judgmental (and was going into a profession where those character traits would serve me well), and felt that I was being wrongfully accused.

The Bumper Sticker

I decided to write a post declaring that it was my car that had the bumper sticker on it and that those that knew me well KNEW that I was non-judgmental, caring and loving.  Furthermore, without calling them out for saying/writing what they had, I merely told them that their words had hurt and that not everyone who supported Prop 8 was how they were portraying them.  In my response, I told them that I see people as people—and because of my religious paradigm, as God’s children and equal to me, not choosing to focus on their sexual orientation, gender, race or ethnicity, and that what I had been taught at our school further reinforced that construct for me.

For the record, not longer after I posted my response, I received a thoughtful response honoring me for my beliefs from my faculty advisor and sometime professor, David, who is gay, whom I had come to appreciate and highly regard and who had been very helpful to me in dealing with my struggles as a 50-something student.  I also received a very thoughtful response from my department chair, Deborah, a lesbian, whose partner ironically was raised as a Latter-day Saint.  In a caring way, she likewise honored my beliefs and informed me that because of what I had experienced at the hands of my peers, I could have greater empathy and compassion for those in her LBGT community who had and continue to experience the labels and broad strokes that I had experienced.  That empathy and compassion has helped me as I have taken the opportunity to have therapeutic relationships with that community and with a beloved transgender individual in particular.

An Active Mormon as President?

Fast forwarding to March 2012, I find myself in a somewhat similar circumstance with my conservative views.  In the current sociopolitical landscape, they and my religion are under attack from those who view themselves as being caring, open minded, and unbigoted.  If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee for President of the United States (and it is becoming nearly impossible for that not to happen), I fear that in the coming months my religion and my religious views will be made light of, ridiculed, and besmirched.  If Romney were a Jew or a Muslim, the media would condemn the perpetrator.  But since he is LDS, and since my Church chooses to ignore and not respond to such attacks, those attacks will be fair game.  I would not be surprised to see “anti-Mormon” demonstrations similar to those that took place outside of the LDS Temple grounds in Los Angeles during the Prop 8 debate.

Night View of Los Angeles LDS Temple

Because of these fears and because I have already heard comments made by thoughtless people, I am publicly taking a stand.  Some people are finding or will find teachings, doctrines, and quotes from past and present leaders of the Church, or other material, that they believe entitles them to mock my beliefs, or Romney’s beliefs.  Some will portray him (and by association, me) as being a member of a cult, a member of an organization that represses women in a variety of ways, and a denomination so bigoted that they did not allow black members to hold God’s priesthood until forced to in 1978. 

 Tons of Donated Clothing for a Needy World

Does a cult allow its believers to freely interact with others in society, serve in the military, celebrate all national and religious holidays, and allow its believers to have differing political viewpoints?  Does a cult allow its believers to donate hundreds of thousands of work hours, hundreds of tons of used clothing, and millions of dollars each year to humanitarian projects that are intended for non-believers?  Does a cult allow non-believers to access their genealogical records so that they can do genealogical research to find their ancestors?  Does a cult build and run schools and universities that allow non-believers to attend?  If one is open minded at all and would look past the doctrines and beliefs and focus on the fruits of my religion, that person would have to admit that my Church is not a cult.  Cults don’t bear such fruit.

Relief Society Donating Food in DR Congo

Because members of my Church funded much of the battle to pass Prop 8 and fought against the passage of the ERA Amendment in the 70s, it will be portrayed as quaint, or even worse, as disenfranchising women and treating them as second class citizens within the Church.  What will likely not be portrayed is how the Church sponsors the largest organization for women in the world: the Relief Society, with a membership of over 4 million women in over 100 countries, which I know from personal experience and knowledge seeks to empower and teach women to be all that they can be and which gives them a voice.  There will be few if any words of praise about how women are honored and given respect over the pulpits of the Church, both on local and general Church levels.  You will not likely hear how in the most sacred and important of all rituals and ordinances of the Church performed in that LDS Temple in Los Angeles and in nearly 140 others around the world, women participate equally with men. 

Darius Gray with Merrill Bateman

In the finger pointing that will surely take place about how bigoted my Church is, you will likely not hear the historical context of how the Gentiles were forbidden from hearing Christ’s teachings while He was on the earth, and that it was only after Christ had been crucified and Peter had received a revelation from God that he decided that the Gentiles could finally be taught the Word.  Nor will you likely hear about how the Levite tribe was the ONLY tribe of the Tribes of Israel that could officiate in the rituals of the Priesthood in the Old Testament which along with the New Testament is in our Canon.  Those who ridicule will likely not tell you that certain black members were given the Priesthood in the early days of the Church, nor will they relate statistics of how the Church is growing faster on the African continent than on any other, and that most Blacks who have joined the Church and participate fully in the Priesthood have come to understand that it was God’s will and not formal Church doctrine that denied their race that blessing for a time.  

Black LDS Family

As it has in the past, the Church has maintained its political neutrality and continues to do so, evidenced by a memo from the top leadership of the Church affirming that fact that was recently read over the pulpits of all church congregations in the United States.  How else can you explain the Church “umbrella” under which Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid share its protection?  Members of my Church may lean right in their personal politics and point their judging, labeling fingers at those who do not believe as they do–and I deplore them for doing so exclusively in our auxiliary meetings--but the policy of the Church is of neutrality.

To conclude, if those who may denigrate my beliefs, the doctrines I espouse, and my Church, I would ask you to get to know some members of my faith, to look at the fruits of this religion and belief system, to honor and respect its members who do not share all of the beliefs of the greater Christian world regarding Jesus Christ and the Godhead, to look past the sound bites and really learn about us. 

LDS Members Donating Disaster Clean Up Service 

If I choose to label an individual or group, I take an “I-am-better-than-you” view of them; there is negative pride inside of me.  Labeling gives me permission to distance myself physically and emotionally from that person or group.  It allows me to disengage myself from them.   I don’t have to deal with them because I suppose I know all about them and who they are and what they represent.  It’s emotionally easier than dealing with them.

I'm Trying to Be Like Him

I don’t want people to label me and paint me with unknowing broad strokes.  I am trying to follow the loving and caring example of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and my religion and its doctrines and teachings have nurtured those attributes in me.  Engage me.

A Soul Cry from My Daughter

Dear Readers,

My daughter Emily (the mother of the triplets) has a wonderful blog --> 3-ring-circus.tumblr.com.  Like me, she uses the blog to send out to the blogosphere, to the world, her ideas, feelings, musings, trying to make sense of her life.  I found her most recent posting engaging and deeply profound.  I know my daughter and I know that she feels so deeply what she writes about.  I wanted to share her soul cry on my blog because after all she is a part of me; I raised her.  

And I want to say to the world how proud I am of her and her resilience in the face of overwhelming challenges; how she does get up every morning and tries to give my grandchildren the love and care they need even when she doesn't feel like doing so. 

March 13, 10:00 PM

This morning, I sat on the rug in my kids’ room, watching them play with their Mega Blocks. After three or four attempts to help them build a tower (the only thing you can build with Mega Blocks) followed by one of them knocking it down with glee, I was ready to scream. Or cry. Or run screaming and crying into another room. Which is what I did. (Okay, so I was screaming and crying on the inside.) I laid on my bed and was overcome by an immense feeling of boredom and despair. Then my eldest popped her head in the doorway and asked if she could come in. “Just close the door behind you,” I pleaded. But no. Three more little heads bobbed towards the bed. Back to the Mega Blocks we go.

The official Church position, and for my intents and purposes, the word of God himself is this:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life andprotection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

So this, translated in my mind, sounds like this: In ideal circumstances (ie. the parents are married, alive, and able-bodied), the dad should work to pay the bills, and the mom should take care of their children in their home. At least while the children are young, mom’s primary focus should be on taking care of them, not on making money. That’s dad’s job. Both work for the good of the family focusing mainly on their own spheres of responsibility. But obviously, this can overlap. Dads are expected to pitch in w/ the kids and household chores. And if mom can manage to get all her stuff done and still have time to make some extra money on the side, well, then more power to her.  Maybe you agree. Maybe you don’t. But for me. this has been my understanding of How Life Works since I was a kid. And I’m not saying I disagree with it now. But I was thinking about this whole idea tonight and something struck me.

You see, the men (and by “the men” I mean Mormon men. In the USA. Who are middle class. So maybe none of this really applies outside of my little world…) Anyway, the men go to college where they spend all this time and money to figure out what career they want to pursue, get the education and training they need for said career, and then work in it for the rest of their lives. They may change careers at some point. But ultimately, and hopefully, they work at a job they enjoy while fulfilling their duty to provide for their family. There are a million different jobs out there. And any of them are open to them. The women, however, no matter what they studied in college or where they worked before having kids, all end up doing the same thing. Sure, some excel at baking. Others take on quilting. Some even learn photography. But we all are doing basically the same job: cooking, cleaning, caring for the children. We are all wiping bums and noses, making grocery lists, and picking up toys. My husband had endless choices when it came to deciding what he’d be doing with the vast majority of his time each day. I had one. 

I’m not saying this isn’t the way it’s supposed to be. I’m not saying I disagree with the church leaders who have taught this concept. I’m not shaking my fist at God (not over this, anyway.) I mean, if you take this line of thinking far enough, you start thinking, this isn’t fair. Why can’t I choose something else? I don’t think I would. I couldn’t imagine putting my kids in day care. It would kill me. I couldn’t imagine leaving them with a nanny, or even a close relative. Not all day, five days a week. It’s going to be hard enough sending my firstborn off to preschool next fall. So obviously, on some level, I chose this as the best (if only) option. 

And it’s not as if I cried with boredom and despair this morning because it’s all simply too easy for me. I’m not so smart/capable/awesomely talented that I’m bored with being a SAHM. In fact, I’m not a very good homemaker. At all. My husband recently pulled the bed away from the wall to reveal a huge patch of mold. Growing on the wall. I didn’t even know you had to check for things like mold. On walls. Behind beds. And there it was all this time. So you see, I’m not very good at this. And that’s only a part of the job description. There’s this whole “shaping of the future generation” aspect of my job description. Isn’t that amazing? I’m doing the most important work a person could do! Ever! SO IMPORTANT, PEOPLE!!!!! (How many times have I heard that in Relief Society?) All sarcasm aside, it does make me feel great when I teach my daughter a new concept. Or when the babies start to do the little hand motions to the “Five Little Monkies” song we’ve been singing every day for weeks straight. I am trying to take this seriously. I even thought about coming up with a curriculum to follow each day. I wrote it on my to-do list and everything. But every time I looked at it, I found something else to do. Because just looking at it made me want to simultaneously cry and fall asleep. 

So where does this leave me? I know that choosing to stay home with my kids was the right choice. I know that giving my time to the nurturing of my children and the upkeep of our home is very, very important. I also know that all this esoteric contemplation may come across selfish at worst and annoying at best. (So thank you for not leaving snarky comments.) But I still am left with the fact that tomorrow, I’m going to have to get up and do everything I did yesterday, Mega Blocks and all, and I really, really need to figure out how to be happy doing it. Or just not consumed with boredom and despair. Any ideas on how? And bonus points if you avoid using phrases like, “count your blessings” or “positive attitude.” I have an uncontrollable reflex that makes my eyes roll when I hear GospelSpeak. 

Okay, friends. Ready, GO! 

I wrote this last night, after a long, hard day. Today has been better. So maybe that’s my answer: just keep swimming.

BIRTHDAY TRIBUTE TO JANEEN

Janeen and My Brother Tom at the Beach

          On the occasion of her 75^th birthday, I wanted to take some time to write about my favorite sister-in-law.  I want her and the world to know how I feel about her.  She is no ordinary woman.  And rather than talk about her to others at some future point when she is pushing up  

daisies, I want her to know now!

          Since she got married to my brother Tom when I was less than three years old, I do not know a world without Janeen.  She has been a constant in my own life and that of my wife and children, supportive and loving through thick and thin.  I want you to know Janeen, as best I can describe her from the many interactions I and my family have had with her through these many years.

          Janeen ‘s greatest attribute is her ability to love, regardless of whether someone is worthy or not of that love .  I would be willing to bet a lot of money that if one were to ask just about anyone who interacts with her, from her children, grand children, great grand children, to friends or even acquaintances, they would tell you that they feel that Janeen cares about them.  She involves herself in their lives, anxious to know how they’re doing, what is happening in their lives—and she does so, I believe, because of her amazing ability to love.  It doesn’t matter if you are not living in the way she thinks you should live (I’m thinking of when my oldest daughter Rebecca lived with her and Tom); she looks past what a person does and looks at the lovable person that they are.  It doesn’t matter if a person has caused her grief (I’m thinking about my mother whom Janeen took care of during the closing months of her life); she continues to love them. It doesn’t matter if you are mentally or emotionally afflicted (I’m thinking about her tireless work with that population in her school district); she loves them even more.  It doesn’t matter if a person has not been considerate of her feelings (I’m sure I’ve done that in the past as has Tom, her offspring and others); she will look past the hurt and love them.

          I can honestly say that of all of the people that I have known closely—family, friends, co-workers, fellow believers—Janeen is the most loving and caring of them all.  To me, she exemplifies to the greatest degree the kind of love that God has for his children.  If that seem like lofty hyperbole, I am not given to doing that, and the person challenging that statement has not felt of her love for them.

          She goes out of her way to show you that she cares.  One would be hard pressed to count all of the meals she has lovingly provided me and others in her home and elsewhere.  I cannot count all of the encouraging words that she has freely given me and mine through the years.  If ever you need her to do something, she will move heaven and earth to accomplish it.  If ever you need her to take care of somebody on your behalf, she is there 100%.  If ever you need a shoulder to cry on, she will offer you hers and shed tears with you.

From my psychologically trained perspective (for what that is worth), I believe that she is capable of  loving and caring and being available for others because she has such a healthy view of herself, accepting who she is, warts and all, so that her issues do not get in the way of her interactions with others.  In other words, she is able to give so much because her issues do not get in her way, thus allowing her to better focus on you.  Most other people, and I include myself in that group, are challenged to be so available to others because our inadequacies get in our way.  Perhaps she can focus on others because she really does understand her relationship to her God, and she understands that the most important thing that we can do here in mortality is to love.  Everything else is subordinate to loving people.

          Another amazing attribute of this amazing woman is her attitude.  I am sure she has moments when physical ailments press in on her, or she feels some level of discouragement, but she deals with them in private (I guess) and does whatever she can to help you be happy and grateful.  (My family and I will forever quote her famous refrain, “aren’t we lucky?)  She has an uncanny ability to cheer you up, probably because she does not take herself very seriously.  She really tries to enjoy life and will do all within her power to help you enjoy your life as well.

          I am so appreciative that she has loved my brother through good and bad, always at his side following him wherever he has gone, being his counterpoint.  I am 100% sure that among the great legacies she has given to her posterity is her undying love and support for Tom (even though like most wives there are times, I’m sure, when she would like to kick him off the dock at Bear Lake!)  How many wives would have cheerfully lived in Nigeria or lived in a tiny flat in England as she did?

 I just want to conclude by saying that she is one of the greatest examples that I have this side of heaven.  I feel very blessed that I have had the privilege to have her grace my life.  I cherish her love and caring.  I selfishly hope that she is blessed with a good many more years here in mortality so that I may yet feel of her love for me.  May God’s choicest blessings be upon you now and forever, Janeen!