Bedtime story

I just finished watching The Mormons on PBS and it wasn't a bad flick. As I sit here with droopy eyes ready to doze off for the evening, I'm just alarmed at how blessed my life is. I've been meaning to write more "stories" on my blog, so maybe I can pop out a quick one before I slip into my sleepy coma.

I remember one of the interviewees in the documentary saying that it didn't matter all the good that came from the church if it were a fraud. None of the goodness mattered if the historicity demonstrated that it was all based on a fabrication. I don't remember the exact quote, so I hope I'm not giving a really bad paraphrase, but I just can't agree with the guy.

I've never been one to get wrapped up in the historical debates of controversial church issues. Those sorts of discussions just don't float my boat. Regarding the "facts" of polygamy and blacks and ERA and Mountain Meadows massacre... I still have a lot to learn. I do think that in the end the church is true not just in overall effect, but in the details.

When I was a kid, a friend of mine quipped that even if the church isn't true it's still a helluva way to live. I thought he was an idiot. I was a very idealistic little boy and my primary interest was in the truth. The absolute truth.

However; when I watch the cameras flip back and forth between Elder Jensen and various critics of the church, there's almost a demonstrable difference in light in their faces. It's not that the critics weren't nice folks, smart folks, good folks... but the church has had a refining effect on Elder Oaks and President Hinckley and Elder Jensen that seemed amazingly stark to me. Isn't that something to the credit of the church despite whatever academic squabbling a person wants to undertake?

At the end of the day I feel very happy knowing that a large portion (if not all) of the happiness I have in my life extends from my family and the happiness in my family extends from trying to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that gospel has come through this church.

Ok, kids. There you go. That is what you might call a "flight of ideas" post from your schizophrenic friend, -L-. And now, with no regard to whether anything I just wrote made any sense whatsoever, I publish and sleep.

Rules

It's going to be a rehash, probably. I've already mused about R rated movies and the pros and cons of following strict guidelines vs. the "spirit of the law". But watching States of Grace brought the subject back to mind again.

A powerful line in the movie was when Elder Farrell was reluctant to take Louis into their apartment and Elder Lozano says, "Do you want to follow the rules or follow the commandments?" Here's a place where there seems to be no room for argument. Disregarding the rules seems to be unavoidable to really be a follower of Christ.

Later in the film, after Elder Farrell had sex, I couldn't help but imagine to myself that the course of events that led to him being enamored with Holly all started because they disregarded the rules. Had they not started having roof-top family dinners and hanging out with Louis and Holly (Elder Lozano mainly talking with Louis and Elder Farrell left essentially alone for romantic heart-to-hearts with Holly), it probably wouldn't have happened.

I can already imagine some consternation... "What do you want them to do, L? Leave Louis in the street to freeze to death? Oh, yeah, murder's a lot better than losing your chastity!" But, my point is precisely that they could have kept the rules and still rescued Louis. Rationalizing things here and there leaves us open to embracing false dilemmas when we're not paying attention. They could have had him in the house that night, then found an alternative arrangement when he was better... or gotten permission... or called an ambulance... or whatever.

Ought one to follow or be self-sufficient in winging it? Are there ever any really easy answers?

Conditions of love

The issue of the give and take of love gets a pretty good treatment in States of Grace. Elder Farrell's dad says he'd rather his son come home in a coffin than come home dishonored. And, admirably, Dutcher doesn't flake out with a pat reconciliation at the end--the dad stays distant and Elder Farrell stays tormented to an extent. What kind of love is that? What kind of love wants the best for a person, thus sets up expectations of behavior, and failing those expectations withdraws completely?

Holly's parents struggle with the same thing. They love their daughter, it seems, enough to send her to L.A. first class with all their support and hope for the best as an actress. But when things go south and she makes some poor decisions out of desperation, they withdraw not only their approval, but even the most basic of personal contact. Do they see that in some strange way as being loving to their daughter?

I can understand the importance of emphasizing your moral viewpoint to your children. I can understand the temptation to give ultimatums. But sending the message that mistakes are irrevocable is anti-Christ.

I'll never turn my son out, regardless of the decisions he makes, unless he becomes a threat to the safety and well being of others for whom I have responsibility. So, the trick now is, how do I make it absolutely clear that he always has my love and support without dampening the high expectations of behavior I have for him as well? I dunno. It doesn't even seem that tricky to me at the moment. Why then do people put conditions on their love?

States of Grace

Finally got the movie and watched it tonight. Loved it, of course. In fact, I hope if you haven't seen it yet, you will go buy it immediately and watch it. I'm usually a big patron of libraries, but this is one where I'm not only glad to own it, but I'm almost tempted to send a donation to encourage Dutcher to keep 'em comin'. FYI, I'm not going to dance around the plot, so you can assume all subsequent posts have spoilers. Come back and read/comment once you've seen it.

Apart from the central message resonating so thoroughly with me--we all need God's grace--this movie was all the more powerful because I served a mission in an inner-city in the U.S. as well. The tracting, the investigator falling asleep during the discussion, the distractions... were oh so familiar.

Despite the occasional gun flashing at me when someone answered a door (I'm not kidding), stolen bicycles (oh, and a car), and the odd report of one of my district's companionships having discovered a corpse while walking through an alleyway, I liked the city. People listened. People had been compelled to be humble.

There was drama in the personal lives of various missionaries too. I've never felt at all able to convey the types of vignettes from that part of my life. There were illicit romances, mistakes, midnight transfers, broken rules, various kinds of trouble. The need for grace in the lives of the missionaries as well as the investigators has always been a hard thing to accurately describe without inadvertently giving some wrong impressions as well. This movie, I think, has done an amazing job of summing a lot of it up.

Ron Schow, et al.

The Internet has again been conspiring to thwart me in posting. But hopefully, by the time you read this I will have conquered the great cyber-demons and you will be able to view the video below. It's sort of long, but an interesting bio of a gay Mormon. Apparently, several of these video clips are available on LDSresources.info. Prior to this video, all I knew of Schow was that he had responded to the Salt Lake trib article that featured yours truly, and had less than enthusiastic things to say about marriages like mine.

Then, several days ago, the video became the subject of discussion on a list serve I read and my curiosity was piqued. Looking through LDSresources.com, I was delighted to see a review of In Quiet Desperation that took Byrd to task for his, well, obnoxious review. By this, Schow was bumped up a few notches in my estimation. As I read more and more of the site, I saw nothing to support the opinions I had heard that Schow was on the very fringe of LDS faithfulness, claiming adherence and credibility, but actually seeking to contradict the brethren and advance homosexuality as acceptable in the church. What I have seen is a man with unusual compassion and insight into the difficult nature of the issue, as well as a strong advocate for LDS people to follow the prophet's directions to love and accept members of the church who are homosexual as they go forward in faithfulness. And I think we can always use more of those.

Inaccessible, purpose, responsiveness.

The whole engagement is not about God's control but about God's love, because God engages human beings, says what God thinks and then they say back and then God says, "Oh that's right, you know what? Let's do it this way instead." It's not Judaism if it's not responsive to the human condition.
...
If someone is gay, that's an assignment from God... It's part of the life purpose of that particular person to have struggled and worked with that particular issue (among others) to do the best they can.
...
The more hidden something is the more holy it is. And the more inaccessible something is the more meaningful it could be.

These three quotes (from three different people) were among the last several quotes in the movie, Trembling Before G-d. I liked them, but don't really find I have a lot more to add.

Trembling before G-d

Just watched the movie Trembling Before G-d. Chris had posted on it before, and it's been on my list for a while because of its relevance to my personal situation. It's a movie about orthodox and Hasidic Jews who are homosexual.

It was... nice. I guess. I think I've maxed out on the whole religion vs. sexual orientation debate as an interesting novelty to explore, and that's what the movie seemed to depend on. As I watched I kept thinking, I've thought about that... yup, that's true... well, that's not how I think of it... that guy is smart... that guy is annoying... etc. The point is, I've already got opinions on pretty much all of it. There wasn't much new to chew on.

Having said that, I think the movie would be very new and shed lots of light on the issue for 99.9% of the population. Unfortunately, I think it's one of those biased presentations that ignores the minority of folks who are actually able to deal with the friction between their faith and their sexuality and don't have regrets about it. There were several married folks in the film who were living the orthodox life, but they seemed to hate it. And everyone seemed to feel like somehow they were being cheated. I don't feel that way, as anyone who reads here much would know. I now have a gay but faithful Muslim acquaintance (read: abstinent from gay sex) who feels the same way. Surely there are Jewish folks too?

I wonder if it's just easier to maximize the issue by milking the false dilemma. "I tried to change for years, my religious leaders told me how to do it, and it didn't work. What can I do now? Am I to live my life without a loving companion? Does God expect that of me? He can't! Not the loving God I believe in!" This reasoning is a lot more dramatic and heart pangy than saying, well, actually some people figure stuff out and although there's no magic recipe to make it work, it's not the hopeless futility it seems. And yes, God still loves you even when some of the realities of life seem harsh and unfair. But his love doesn't magically make those realities go away. There were subtle denials of any such possibility of middle ground in the movie. Various people would assert things like "celibacy is impossible" and spout anti-ex-gay sentiment without explanation. Labels like "marriage of convenience" are more amenable to the false dilemma than obnoxious notions like celibacy, happy mixed orientation marriages, or ex-gay.

One problem is most people can't deny the false dilemma without appearing homophobic. The shrieking starts, "How can you be so insensitive? How would you like it if... [insert heterosexual analogy of sexual denial here]? You have no idea what it's like."

Folks, I know what it's like, and I, for one, am irritated that people can't be allowed to form opinions on the issue that involve taking a tough position without being made out to be a homophobic ignoramus. It's the last resort trump card: "You're not gay, so you can't know what it's like."

I am gay. Your powers of trumpiness are thwarted! [Queue evil laughter.]