Unplugged

It’s been over three months since I’ve been to church. It’s not something I’m proud of. It’s merely a fact. A cumulative reckoning of the Sundays I’ve spent not inhabiting LDS pews.

I haven’t been this discouraged with regards to my relationship with my church since Elder Boyd Packer voiced the rhetorical “Why would Heavenly Father do that to anyone?” in his conference address in October 2010 in which he challenged the existence of “inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural.” The timing was rather unusual for me. No more than six months earlier, I had mustered the courage to come out to a group of LDS congregants in a fireside address in St. Louis during which I was permitted to discuss my experience as an LDS man living with same-sex attractions. It was an acutely emotional experience, but a highly rewarding one as I felt for the first time a community gather around me and feel their handshakes say “We’re in this together” rather than the “We’ll never accept this part of you” I projected onto them when I occupied a less self-actualized headspace.

After being treated to the view from that newfound higher ground, I felt that ground suddenly become a shaky and untenable resting place as I heard Elder Packer’s remarks echo throughout the living rooms, satellite-transmitted broadcasts and conference centers of the millions of virtually and spiritually connected Mormons that form the heavily trafficked network of general conference weekend, a weekend when Mormons the world over direct their virtual gaze to the former church president Gordon Hinckley’s walnut-tree-turned-lectern planted in the church’s massive Salt Lake City conference center for ten full hours of uplifting messages, spiritual guidance and doctrinal delineations.

Not seeing any conceivable means of dislodging from the collective psyche of dutifully conference-consuming Latter-day Saints what had been placed there by as high-ranking a “prophet, seer and revelator” as there was among the quorum of twelve apostles of the church, I prayed more fervently than I had in a long time that God would make things right somehow.

The printed version of the talk was released and certain of the problematic statements had been modified in meaningful ways or removed completely. After several months of not feeling any desire to participate in church, the hurt I felt had run its course. In time, I let my desire to be reunited with my tribe overcome my fear of being othered by them. I went back to church.

Fast forward to November 2015 when it was confirmed that updates regarding same-sex couples and their children had been added to the church handbook of instructions. A new policy would find members of the church in same-sex marriages guilty of apostasy, a designation that requires the automatic convening of a disciplinary council. Not only that, but the children of same-sex couples would be prevented from receiving baptism and other rites associated with membership in the church at least until the age of eighteen. At that time those children would be required to “disavow” the practice of same-sex marriage in order to qualify for membership.

I was devastated at hearing this news which was, once again, inconveniently timed for me. I had recently accepted a new volunteer assignment in the presidency of the men’s group in my local congregation. The new assignment would take me a bit beyond my comfort zone in terms of how I was accustomed to participating in the church over the years since dealing with religious/sexual identity conflicts of varying magnitudes. It would require a greater commitment of time and what I felt was an increased expectation of exemplary fealty to the church, but having the support of my local leaders and more than four relatively stable years of church participation separating me from the deepest of the conflicts I had experienced made me optimistic that I could function reliably in my new assignment.

That all changed however when I learned of the updates to church policy. What seemed to me as a twin set of unnecessarily austere pronouncements had me reeling particularly when I considered those of my friends who would be directly affected by the changes. I never anticipated that the church would abandon its exclusive support of heterosexual marriage, and yet I never imagined we would go to such lengths to enact policies which will, I believe, greatly hinder our ability to effectively minister to same-sex couples and their children.

Subsequent justifications of the policy that came from church leaders did little to assuage my concerns. If anything, the conflict was made more acute by those explanations. I expressed my concerns to several of my local church leaders in writing, over lunch and in private meetings in church offices. During those exchanges, I was grateful to be treated to genuine empathy from my leaders; however, I no longer felt that I could meet the requirements of serving as a volunteer in the church. Additionally, continued church attendance made me feel somehow complicit in fueling a conflict that was now reaching a fever pitch inside of me.

Answers to prayers have not come as readily as they did in 2010 when portions of Elder Packer’s talk were summarily edited out of the written transcription and consequently out of my system. I still have to deal somehow with the fact that these new policy changes are taking up precious ministerial real estate on the pages of a handbook belonging to every priesthood leader in the church.

For me, Mormonism was and continues to be the most familiar and most powerful means I have for connecting my life to some larger purpose. Being a Mormon is a bit like being connected to a giant computer network. There are tremendous advantages to being plugged into something that big. Disconnect from all of that and it’s easy to start to feel desperate and alone.

Have you ever gone off the grid? Deprived yourself of technology for a day or two? Then you might know something about what I’m experiencing right now. You don’t realize how much you depend on that connection until it’s gone and your fingers start twitching with eagerness for some shiny surface to swipe, scroll or stream something with.

I never wanted to have to try to find meaning in life outside of my native Mormonism, but if I am to find meaning in life and I cannot feel belonging among my church’s policies, then I must try. To not do so would be to waste this present chapter of life.

I was recently without internet for a week at home because my modem went kaput, to use the technical term. I could text and make phone calls, but there was no network available for me to be able to connect my phone or computer to the host of media I was used to accessing at home. After two days, I already felt myself experiencing serious withdrawals. I texted my friend Brien looking for someone who could commiserate.

Adam: “My internet has been out for two days. They can’t send a technician till Wednesday. I won’t have internet until Wednesday!”

Brien: “They have these things called books. I hear they can entertain in a pinch.”

Adam: “I can see I’m not going to get any sympathy from you.”

Brien: “Sorry.”

Those of you acquainted with Brien will recognize his characteristic snark, but his suggestion caused me to see my situation in a different light. Whereas I couldn’t get my mind off of all the internet-blessed activities I was missing out on, Brien saw an opportunity for me to connect with something else. Going off the grid can be unfamiliar and uncomfortable, but maybe unplugging also allows you the space to tap into something you wouldn’t have been able to pick up on otherwise. Maybe clearing your bandwidth of an intimately familiar thing frees space for productive synthesis with a lesser known but potentially quite meaningful thing. It had actually been quite a while since I had set apart any time to consider doing something as non-technological as read a book. I’ve thought about how my present distance from the church may serve a similar purpose.

Maybe I will find something there, in the quiet unfamiliarity. Or maybe I’ll just go crazy living off the grid. Maybe I will find something more sustainable in a narrower bandwidth. Or maybe my poor shoulder just needs a break before it is put to anymore wheels. If I do end up getting plugged back into my home network, I can only hope that something about the architecture will have changed which would encourage a more stable connection. In the meantime, I’m going to take the time to read a book or two. Perhaps I’ll even end up writing one of my own.

Untitled

All secrets flow to the sea,
the blue as deep as my wanting.
I whispered your name there
for the last time.
It skipped on my tongue like a rock,
then sank in the water.

The waves washed in regret
like an echo.
The sharp smell of fish
and the sea-worn smooth of broken shells.
The sting of salt in my body,
a brackish salve for wounds still fresh;
Naaman's prophet to be redeemed.

Tightrope

I still walk my tightrope. But it feels different now than it used to. Now that the net has disappeared from beneath me. That net. Its presence brought me a certain comfort, a peace of mind equal in measure to the uneasiness that now occupies my headspace. It was a comfort I was reluctant to acknowledge beyond the privacy of my own thoughts. After all, what kind of tightrope walker would I be if I admitted to taking a comfort in nets?

The truth is that the stakes feel higher now than they have in a long while. My footing is a little less sure. My movements lacking in the intention that once attended them. I look down more often than I used to. Forces of which I was only theoretically cognizant before, now seem to weigh on me.

But I am trained. My steps are unrelenting, if hackneyed. The threat of losing a momentum built up from years of practice and expectation compels me forward now. If I cannot be graceful, then I must be consistent. The show must go on and all of that.

Meanwhile I feel like no one remembers I'm up here.

"A tightrope walk," I yell to the distant onlookers below, "is a difficult balancing act!"

Someone stuffs a fistful of popcorn into their face.

"A dangerous flirtation with gravity itself! A death-defying performance requiring uncompromising precision, dexterity and skill!"

"Not to mention just the teensiest bit of flair," I muse.

I look down and see another wave of spectators making its way toward the concession stands.

"Dammit, why couldn't I have been an accountant."

If I could, I'd imagine into existence miles of rope. Rope enough to span the distance to the moon and back. Rope to be braided into nets and ladders and swings and webs, a web so dense that a fall only has one tumbling ever so gently downward, from catch to catch, until arriving unscathed and firmly planted on the ground. Could a tightrope career survive a fall like that? Or would the promise of a soft landing make the precariousness of the tightrope unbearable? I would imagine into existence storehouses of rope. But alas, there only ever seems to be enough of the stuff to fashion a single cord. And that's the one I am standing on.

With rope in such short supply, the closest I can come to summoning a net to my senses is to imagine the people in my life, all of them organized into a sort of grid. With arms interlocked, they form a lattice: a human mesh. Can I ask them to catch me? Would they be willing to take those bruises for me? What if my pain was their pain and it all broke purple just beneath the skin? If pain was like that, would it change anything?

In my mind, I have fallen many times. I have fallen enough to refund the ticket of every accountant in the universe. I wonder about the future of the profession. About those who will come after me. I feel a greater responsibility to them than I do to anyone else. I wonder: If there had been no net in place when I started, would I have even ventured out onto this tightrope in the first place? Will they? Why do I already feel like a vestige sometimes? There has been no greater need for a net than there is at present.

Where do we find these nets of the human variety? They are not likely to arrange themselves spontaneously. I suppose we'll have to manufacture them. We've got to find a way to work them out of the imaginations of those of us who need them and into clear view. We've got to do more than what's been done before. The stakes are simply too high. We've got to make catching our craft.

Untitled

Oh what sweet release
is tears
--and rare
With furrowed brow
and cupboards bare
The name
He bends it to his pleasure
now; it bends
as if on furrowed brow.

The years so tender
played a fool
--and still
The mark he made
the pang, the chill
My voice
It calls out for a love
betrayed; it calls
upon the mark he made.

On Mormon masculinity

This article and the phenomenon it describes are fascinating to me. I have spent countless hours pondering the subject of masculinity and homosocial dynamics in LDS congregations (though I never have been able to concretize my thoughts quite as well as Haglund does). And although I have never participated in a church basketball game, I frequently find myself contemplating the phenomena she describes, often in real-time, as I attend church, participate in elders quorum social activities and service projects or receive visits from home-teachers. The only way I can think to describe my experience is that I often feel like I am witnessing something both supremely beautiful and desperately tragic at the same time. And sometimes the beautiful aspects of Mormon fraternity seem hopelessly unavailable to me unless I am willing to be perceived as heterosexual. It is a dynamic over which I find myself in near constant consternation.

As mentioned in the article, there are spaces within our church culture where male sensitivity is valued and celebrated. Emotional vulnerability is appropriately manifest during a talk or testimony and the love a bishop or stake president has for his counselors can legitimately be expressed over the pulpit. These are aspects of the experience of Mormon masculinity that I celebrate.

In other ways, it seems that male sensitivity among Mormon men is more highly compartmentalized. There are times in which it seems the brotherly love aspects of the Mormon male experience are extended only insofar as one is judged to be non-threateningly heteronormative. Exchanges of physical affection are rare and are only performed under the unspoken agreement that both parties involved are mutually dispassionate. Hugs are reserved only for occasions in which the formality cannot be avoided. To solicit a hug after a home-teaching visit seems a severe imposition. I can't help but contrast this with how I am greeted by many of my gay male friends, with whom I share friendships that are completely platonic in nature, but among whom the cultural expectation is: bookend hugs given and received generously at the beginning and end of virtually every social interaction. Sometimes elders quorum can feel quite cold by comparison.

(Post-Gen-X) male Mormon missionaries seem to be the one exception to this: they can be seen nestled together with arms around each other during prolonged periods in LDS pews. And yet, paradoxically, I find myself (gently) reprimanding missionaries, perhaps more than any other demographic, for making derogatory (albeit, unintentionally so) remarks i.e. "This [thing that I don't like] is so gay" or "That guy is such a flamer." I find the coupling of these seemingly incongruous behaviors absolutely fascinating. But it also saddens me as it serves to make this would-be warmth unnecessarily exclusive, available only to those who are man enough to deserve it.

So when Haglund states, "The performance of Mormon masculinity is a difficult balancing act, a tightrope walk between [two] poles," I get it.

Untitled

The words just won't come;
not like they used to.

They're stubborn things,
tethered
to the roof
of my mouth,
as with a flaxen cord.

And quicksand's quick hand
still tugs
on the hem
of whatever it is I'm wearing,

but the issue of blood
persists.

Of spiders and centipedes

Spiders are sophisticated.
They weave, carefully,
and watch, and wait.
Scrupulous, spinners of a home
and saviors of pigs.
They thread their livelihood
to a rhythm
neither frantic nor frenzied,
but persistent and steady.
And they die
with grace:
a tranquil resignation
to an unprotested fate,
a silken legacy
to leave behind.

Centipedes are so dumb.
Seriously.
A mindless, writhing,
mess of legs.
They know only one trajectory:
Go.
Never stopping,
not even to ask for directions.
Their unidirectional spasms,
the only way to tell
their head from their butt.
They die
in a fit of giggles.
Like some demented clown
on laughing gas.
Their disembodied legs,
convulsing in an asynchronous chorus of nasty.
Their final trick,
as desperate and silly
as their ephemeral existence.

On tithes and edible blessings

A friend of mine posted this link on facebook with the following commentary:

"Tithing to your church so you get your own planet in the afterlife does not count as charity. Thats a retail purchase. I know I know, they're not planets they're 'celestial bodies.' Whatever you happen to call the real estate, Romney bought it fair and square."

This was my response:

"Of course, I don't claim to know all the internal motivations behind Romney's contributions to the church, but I think what most Mormons expect as a return on the investment of tithing is far more boring than planets or celestial bodies. On a most basic level, I think what they expect is electricity, air conditioning, and maintenance for their meetinghouses. The most common scripture quoted in Mormondom in the context of tithing comes from the Old Testament (Malachi 3:10) and cites a "blessing" as the consequence of tithing observance. A "blessing" in Mormon theology is a vague term that can mean anything from peace of mind to a Ted Drewes concrete (personally, my favorite form a blessing can take). The celestial calculus that leads from tithing to custard is generally not derived or understood. I think most Mormons just figure that the enjoyment of such a delicious treat could not have come to them unless there was a God somewhere who at the very least had impeccable taste in frozen desserts. For Mormons, even small enjoyments can be part of a larger religious experience."

The Fig Newton®: A fig? A cookie? A cake? Or something else entirely?

BFF Blogger Brien recently posted the above picture on his facebook page. Not only did it cause me to laugh heartily, but it also engendered some interesting discussion. I reposted it with the caption "Why literal interpretation of scripture can sometimes be problematic." One of my friends made what I thought was an interesting observation in which he stated "It should read, 'Why a literal reading which disregards context is problematic.'" His astute observation got me thinking about the importance of context and prompted the following response from me:

"Context is a very interesting thing. I think sometimes it can be difficult, even if the context of a certain scriptural passage is well understood, to extrapolate its meaning absolutely to a modern context. For example, let's suppose that Jesus DID, in fact, condemn the consumption of figs under a certain historical/cultural/textual context. Fast-forward 2000 years to the age of the Fig Newton®. A Fig Newton® presents the fig in an entirely different context than how Jesus would have experienced it. In some senses, a Fig Newton® hardly resembles the scripturally condemned fig. It doesn't grow on trees. It's packaged differently. It tastes differently. It has a different texture. A different nutritional value. It's consumed in a world that is entirely different from the one in which the original statement was made. If context is so important that the meaning of a statement cannot be interpreted without it, then I would argue that our ability to interpret the same statement in a modern context can be limited if that context wasn't understood by whomever made the original statement. I think it can be difficult to say _exactly_ what Jesus thinks about a Fig Newton®. And I think that is the case _even_ if the original context for Jesus's statement was well understood."

On personal revelation and responsibility

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." -Brigham Young

I like this quote a lot. It has really helped me to understand my personal responsibility and privilege to engage with and seek understanding regarding the teachings of church leaders and apply them as the Spirit directs to me personally. No one else can take that responsibility/privilege away from me. And no one else can gain that understanding on my behalf. It is my belief that by so doing, we actually assist our leaders in their revelatory process. In turn, we experience the growth that comes from receiving personal revelation and a bond is strengthened between Heavenly Father and his child. If all that was required was to follow our leaders unquestioningly, there would be no need for personal revelation. There would be no need to strengthen that bond. There would be no understanding gained. And there would be no growth made. I believe we do our brothers and sisters a great disservice when we so dogmatically coerce them into believing as we do that we deny them their privilege to discover truth through their own personal relationship with deity.

Here's another gem from Hugh B. Brown (to BYU students and faculty):

"We call upon you students to exercise your God-given ...right to think through on every proposition that is submitted to you and be unafraid to express your opinions, with proper respect for those to whom you talk and proper acknowledgment of your own shortcomings... We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts."

I like this one too (also from H.B.B.):

“We have been blessed with much knowledge by revelation from God which, in some part, the world lacks. But there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth that we must yet discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon the false assumption that we somehow have all the answers-that we in fact have a corner on truth. For we do not."

Arts and craftiness

I made these for my niece and nephew for Christmas. I made them with watercolor pencils. You can really do some cool blending of different colors and textures with watercolor pencils. I got the frames at Borders for super cheap when they were going out of business. I had fun with them. And working on them was strangely therapeutic. I think I want to try to some different animals in the future. Like a giraffe. Or a cow. Or a liger. Or a politician.

The ease of celibacy

The following is a conversation I had with a man on facebook:

MAN: It's very easy to not do something that you've never done. If you are a homosexual in the church, who has been following the counsel of the church leaders, and not having pre-marital, even w/ same sex attraction, you won't miss what you've never had. It's very easy for me to not do heroine, never tried it never will. But alcohol on the other hand is different, I've tried it. Do I miss it? Sometimes, but I don't miss its ill effects. And I'm thankful to the Church & its teachings for helping me see the benefits of avoiding & overcoming it & other things. As far as gay people being able to be in a healthy relationship, that's entirely possible in the Church as well. They just choose to be in a relationship w/ someone of the opposite sex. They are happy, blessed & thankful people. One shouldn't disregard what they've overcome by assuming they don't exist. When one always has had the Church & its teachings in their life, they don't always appreciate what they have. When you have to struggle w/ something & overcome it you become grateful for what you have.

ME: I would submit that living a celibate life *is* a very difficult thing we are asking of our homosexual brothers and sisters and church leaders have conceded as much. Marlin K Jensen of the seventy puts it this way:

"And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we're not asking more of them than we're asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they're going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn't have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing."

In seeking to understand the challenges of others, I find it best to listen to those who are actually passing through a foreign experience rather than assume that I know what it is they are going through. We can draw analogies with heroin addiction and other things, but those comparisons have limitations. And I would never tell a heroin addict what it is like to be in their shoes having never experienced that. In the end, we are all wired for human intimacy, and the best analogy in this case is imagining what it would be like to give up the prospect of a heterosexual relationship indefinitely given that there is a strong, persistent desire to be intimate with someone of the opposite sex. And that desire, that need to be intimate in a heterosexual relationship is something that is present no matter if the person has acted on those attractions or not. Given that the Atonement was a vicarious experience in which he sought to experience the suffering of all mankind, the least I can do is ASK a person who is homosexual what it is like to be them and believe them when the tell me about their experiences.

The forbidden labels of discipleship

The following is a conversation I had with someone on facebook:

SOMEONE: I think it's disrespectful to God to openly be Gay, simply because it is unnecessary attention. It reminds me of the hypocrites who sounded their trumps when they paid their tithing. I understand it is a HUGE sacrifice for the members who deal with such attractions to be asked to not act on these feelings. But when you see them living righteously, you shouldn't see a gay person living as a disciple of Christ. You should just see a child of God living as a disciple of Christ. I don't look at others and see them for what they struggle with. I don't see porn addicts and rape victims or what else. If they choose to tell others of their struggles, that is their choice, but it really shouldn't matter. It's just a label that isn't necessary.. because it shouldn't be the center of their life. Christ should be.

ME: Out of curiosity, would you also advise a heterosexual person not to identify as straight? Or tell them that if they do so, they are making their sexual orientation "the center of their life?" Are heterosexual single people who obey the law of chastity "sounding their trump" if they identify as straight? If not, then why should we require that our homosexual brothers and sisters hide their sexual orientation? Why shouldn't we allow our homosexual brothers and sisters to be honest about what they are experiencing? And why shouldn't we seek to understand their experiences? I would go so far as to say that we are COMMANDED to understand their challenges. That is part of the covenant we make to bear one another's burdens. How are we to bear one another's burdens if we require that those burdens be kept secret? And I disagree with your assertion that homosexuality itself (assuming you are referring to the attractions) is contrary to the laws of God. Just because someone does not see the purpose in another person's homosexual orientation, does not mean that the person who experiences the attractions does not see a divine purpose in those experiences and draw nearer to God precisely BECAUSE of them. Additionally, the church has been very clear to distinguish between identity and behaviors, only responding to the latter.

SOMEONE: Yes, there are individuals who sound their hetero "trump" (such as cocky boys who go on about how hot or not a girl is. But that's just a different situation altogether). And really, the label "heterosexual" wouldn't even exist without "homosexual" to dispute it. I do not disagree that we should understand their trials (isn't that what we're doing now;). I do think we should learn to understand all of our brothers' and sisters' trials, because it strengthens our charity. But you don't have to be openly gay to teach others what they go through. In the same sense (loosely) your bishop doesn't have to have gone through your experiences to help you, but Jesus HAS, and through His Atonement and His Spirit all are made whole (which is my dispute to the above quote where "damage is done" when an individual gives up a part of themselves for God.) Whom you tell of your struggles (no matter what they are) is up to you. And I can only think of three reasons why you would. 1. So they can help you. 2. So you can help them understand you (or themselves if they deal with the same). or 3. draw attention to yourself. Your bishop is a good choice, your family and friends CAN be helpful (or unhelpful). Letting anyone know seems silly. It's not everyone's business. It CAN be helpful to tell a stranger if they deal with the issue, or if they need a clearer understanding of it, but, like I said, you don't have to admit you do struggle or have struggled with it in the past to educate. It can be awkward. Should people shun them if they do admit to being gay? No. Should we love them whether or not they choose to share? Yes. I think whether or not you tell someone should be pondered with prayer. It isn't always helpful, it can be hurtful. Is it YOUR sin if they act negatively because you told them. No, but it could have been avoided. I'm not exactly sure which is the problem they're trying to address, though. Whether they should be able to tell others they deal with homosexual attractions, or if they should be allowed to act openly gay. The first one is allowable, if they so feel the need, (It's up to us how we treat them after knowing). Acting gay as in being a boy with a boyfriend (even though you keep the law of chastity): That isn't allowable. Acting gay as in dressing, sounding, and acting the part but avoiding all physical/romantic relationship with the same gender: allowable, but discouraged (as stated in the church's pamphlet "God loveth His children"-I wish I had the quote on me). As for homosexuality being against god's law: I totally agree all things have purpose, even bad things help us come closer to God. Thatms why we have trials, but what you describe is His PLAN not His law. If I love coffee and desire some when I see it, I haven't sinned. The moment I act upon those feelings and drink it, I have broken the word of wisdom. The attraction itself isn't evil, but acting upon it is not good.

ME: "God Loveth his Children" says nothing about discouraging acting gay as in "dressing, sounding and acting the part." What does that even mean, anyway? Am I acting gay if I listen to a Lady Gaga song? If I wear a V-neck? Again, the church has been very clear in that they only respond to same-sex sexual relations. I think it is very important that we are clear about what the church is asking and what it is not. If I find out that one of my friends is gay, there is no reason that should be "awkward." Why should that be any more awkward than if a person tells me their straight? I think the double-standard that we impose on our homosexual brothers and sisters in telling them it is okay for a straight person to identify as straight but not okay for homosexually oriented people to be honest about their attractions is actually making things more difficult for them. And telling them that they can't listen to Lady Gaga is just plain cruel ;)

SOMEONE: As I said, it is up to them whom they tell. You're right that it shouldn't be awkward, but that doesn't change whether or not it actually is when the situation arises. I felt awkward when I found out some of my friends were porn addicts. That didn't make us any less friends but I'd rather not know. And it really doesn't matter anymore, because (most of them) have overcome and moved forward, so it doesn't have place in their life anymore. They don't go on to call themselves porn addict recoverers or whatnot. I think it's individual whether it helps to be open about their troubles. I understand that homosexual attraction is a life-long tribulation, but calling yourself gay just seems to be a crutch to hold on to those feelings. Honestly, it's been a while since I read "God loveth His children", so I shall reread it later. I just feel that if they are striving to be disciples of Christ, then they don't HAVE to identify themselves as gay. I don't have to identify as straight. The concept of being straight wouldn't even be thought of without homosexuality to dispute it. Just like happiness doesn't exist without pain. It would just be. Btw, I really like your quote^ and what you said about it. Something that is true for ALL tribulation, no matter what kind, something anyone can relate to, is that through Chist we are made whole. If we do what He asks of us, no matter how difficult, we can feel at peace and happy with our decison/life.

ME: Glad you like the quote! I agree with you 100% that gay/same-sex attracted members of the church should ultimately be the ones who decide who they tell, how open they are about their sexual orientation and how they choose to identify. That is an excellent point. It seems only right to grant them that freedom. The comparison between homosexual attraction and a porn addiction is an inaccurate one. It implies that homosexual attraction is something that needs to be repented of, and the church is clear that that is not the case. Attraction is neither good nor bad. It simply is. And there is no shame in what a person is attracted to. I don't mean to belabor the point, but it is my experience that many members of the church fail to make important distinctions between attractions and addictions and we are very good about telling homosexual members what exactly we think they are afflicted with instead of listening to them. We tell them that they are heterosexuals struggling with same-sex attraction, when what they are really struggling with are other members of the church who struggle with the fact that some people experience same-sex attractions.

SOMEONE: I totally agree with you. As I showed in my coffee analogy a few posts back, I do understand the difference between addiction and attraction. I should have been a little bit clearer. I didn't mean to imply attraction is a sin. The main difference is porn addiction is started by sin (which is why it requires repentence). I was leaning more towards being uncomfortable when others openly admit their trials. I do agree with you that the attitude and understanding of most members isn't in the right place. I just believe the best way to handle it is through educating without overwhelming them.

Busted

To all guilty parties:

We regret to inform you that you have been found in violation of statute X.MAS8437 which forbids the enjoyment of Christmas music prior to the termination of Thanksgiving. This statute forbids the illegal use of any and all songs, carols, medleys and ditties which make use of sleigh bells, drummer boys, or trans-Siberian orchestras or which otherwise prematurely invite the Christmas spirit. Consistent with the provisions of this statute, we require that you surrender all stolen pre-Thanksgiving holiday cheer to its rightful owner, Christmas, immediately. Because this is your first offense, you will be issued a warning. However, should you be found in violation in the future, you may be fined up to 10 cups of eggnog, several boughs of holly, and a partridge in a pear tree. You may also be sentenced to solitary confinement in a poorly constructed gingerbread house for the remainder of the holiday season without the possibility of parole.

Signed,

The Christmas Police

P.S. In case you can't tell, that's a prison made of gingerbread. Great find, eh?

Letter to a BYU biology professor

I just wanted to say thanks again for the very informative and enjoyable get together we had while you were here in St. Louis. It was great to hear about everything going on at BYU and the unique opportunities that are available there. It was likewise exciting, but perhaps not surprising, to hear about the success of your lab there.

On a personal note, I just wanted to say I was really impressed to hear about some of the ways you have been able to engage your students in conversations about homosexuality. I can't tell you how much of a difference it makes to me to see church members and communities, especially the BYU community, committed to having these kinds of conversations in a constructive manner. Seeing the willingness of church members to understand what it's like to have a homosexual orientation has been absolutely critical to me in helping me to feel like I have a place in the church. My personal feeling is that, in order to demonstrate sufficient compassion for members of the church and others who experience homosexual attraction, we should be trying to understand the issue using as many different resources as are available, and that includes understanding the biological basis for homosexual orientation. So I just wanted to express my gratitude for your willingness to contribute so positively to the conversation.

Love,
Adam

The Pause

Sometimes, you belong.
Sometimes,
you don't.

Sometimes, you're in it
for yourself;
sometimes,
for them.
Sometimes, you don't know
which.

Sometimes, when you've belonged
a very long time,
you ask yourself,
"Am I really related to these people?"

Sometimes you feel a contentedness
so strong
that you can't describe it
to those who don't
belong.

Sometimes you scream out,
fall down
in frustration;
but you come to realize
that soil and screaming
are evidences
of this inescapable fact:
you care.

And that gives you pause.

And for a moment,
you stop running.

And the ones from whom
you were trying
to escape
catch
up.

And you catch your breath
together.

And you realize
they aren't going anywhere.

And maybe,
neither will you.

At least until next time.

To agree or not to agree: that is NOT the question

Building bridges of understanding is so important, but so hard sometimes. Especially when you run into people on both sides who seem so interested in throwing stones without any desire to seek mutual understanding. And when there is so much of that going on, it becomes more difficult to not pick up stones yourself. I really was impressed with a book I read recently called "The Unlikely Disciple." I think it should be on everyone's required reading list. In it, a young man who is a student at Brown University decides to enroll for a semester at Liberty University, an evangelical university founded by Jerry Falwell and one of the most conservative universities in the country. He describes the culture shock he experiences after having attended Brown, a very progressive school. But the cool thing is that even though he notes key differences between the two cultures, some of which are quite troubling to him, he is able to see the people in his new environment beyond those differences, and embrace the common humanity that people of differing ideologies share.

I've decided that the ability to disagree and do so respectfully is one of the most important skills I want to learn. Heaven knows I have plenty of opportunities to do that. While I often become frustrated with how defensive I get when I come across someone who is prone to unapologetic brow-beating, I am also (reluctantly) grateful for my belonging to two disparate cultures that are often at odds with each other, because of what that dual citizenship has taught me. I come across a lot of people who think it is their responsibility to force their opinions on others in a dogmatic way, perhaps because of a lack of exposure or willingness to engage people with differing opinions, and I hope my experiences continue to teach me how important it is to avoid treating others in that way.

The following is a conversation I had (via blogging) with someone who had blogged about Harry Reid, calling him "Dirty" and "Dusty" and an "embarrassment" to his faith.

Me: You stated in your post: "I personally can't stand Mr. Reid, or anything that he stands for."

I understand you may not see eye to eye with Senator (Brother?) Reid on everything... and you have every right to disagree... I have fundamental disagreements with him as well, but is it really possible that you can find ZERO common ground with him? Have you met the man? Are you really able to say that you oppose EVERYTHING he stands for? Is it possible to know where a person stands on EVERY issue without engaging him in conversation? I may be wrong, but if you did have the opportunity, perhaps you would be surprised at what you share in common... Would it be: A love of the church? Of the scriptures? Of sacred music? Observance of the word of wisdom? The importance of temple attendance? A commitment to home-teaching? It's hard to say. But the point is, I think, and you may feel free to disagree with me on this, is to look for commonalities rather than simply dismiss somebody because of perceived differences. One of my favorite quotes of all time is this one from Joseph Smith:

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

I think the point is that while it is fairly easy to discount people we disagree with by calling them names (whether that is "Dusty," "Dirty," "right-wing," "left-wing" or what have you), the real challenge is to dare to find common ground. And attempt to lift people up, even when we don't see eye to eye. When I allow myself to engage people with whom I disagree, rather than belittle them because some of their beliefs may differ from mine, I am often surprised to learn that we have things in common. I think as we focus on the things we share rather than the things that would divide us, we come closer to treating each other as the Savior treats us. Don't we hope that the Savior will dare to focus on the things we share with him, our strengths, our kind words, our good deeds, rather than focus on the things that divide us from him (our weakness, our failings, our sin)?

Blogger: "I personally can't stand Mr. Reid, or anything that he stands for."

I was speaking politically primarily. However the more I know about him, the less inclined I am to agree with him on much of anything.

Me: I don't understand how a few political disagreements qualifies a person to say that he is less inclined to agree with Harry Reid on ANYTHING. Can you help me understand how knowing where a person stands on political issues is indicative of where they stand on every other issue?

Your post has prompted many questions for me: What is our responsibility towards those with whom we disagree? Are we still obligated to lift them up? Does the fact that our disagreement is "political" give us license to call them names or portray them in a negative light? Is all fair in love and politics? :) Is it worth the effort to try to separate the politics from the person? Is there room in the church for disagreement among members without resorting to calling each other an "embarrassment?" Is it important to recognize the many ways in which the church brings us together? Is it important to recognize the things upon which we can agree?

...

I am still learning how to disagree and do so respectfully. One thing that I am often tempted to do but have been trying to avoid is calling people names. I find that when people resort to name calling, it is really just a lazy way of avoiding the underlying issue. It is so much easier to call someone a filthy son-of-a-biscuit than to address the issue with cogent, well-articulated arguments. That takes work. Knowing that makes it easier to identify lazy thinking and less likely for me to get defensive at the sound arguments people are NOT articulating.

I have also come to realize that we have certain "areas" where we allow ourselves to hate on people. Whether it's politics, religion, school rivalries, or what have you we somehow justify in our brains that in those situations it is OK to be rude and belligerent. Breaking down those areas where I give myself automatic license to disparage and belittle has helped me to be more peaceful in my disagreements with people.

A fluffy and new age gospel?

In 2008, I posted my review of "In Quiet Desperation" by Ty Mansfield on Goodreads (the review can be found at the end of this post). Recently, someone read my review and posted some comments to which I responded. I have posted the conversation here. While his responses reflect the opinion of just one member of the church, my experience has been that his misconceptions about homosexual attraction are fairly common among the greater membership. In fact, in a poll recently conducted among registered Utah voters reports that 55% of LDS respondents said it is possible to change same-sex attractions, compared with 20% of non-LDS respondents.

Here is our conversation:

Reader: You really think this is unbiased and not politically-motivated?? What book were YOU reading?...

Me: I think Ty's book has been instrumental in challenging some of the prevailing attitudes among LDS psychologists like Dean Byrd who insist that if a person can't change from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one, that they are somehow not relying on the Atonement, an idea that causes a lot of pain and unfortunately persists among many LDS. Ty's voice came at a time when I was looking for increased reconciliation between my faith and my sexuality, but couldn't find it because of some of the false ideas that were so prevalent in church culture.

Reader: I think Ty's book has done a lot of damage and teaches a lot of skewed ideas about sin and sexuality (not least of which validating self-identified homosexuality as an identity compatible with LDS doctrine). Interesting how different two perspectives on the same issue can be. The Gospel isn't about patting ourselves on the back and giving each other warm fuzzies, it's about hard and sometimes painful temporal truths and trials that lead to incomprehensible eternal happiness. Of course those who want to be coddled will find Ty's worldview comforting, but that doesn't make it true. Back to the point, he certainly has an agenda behind this book, and it is not the Lord's.

Dr. Byrd's writings on the subject are authoritative and beyond reproach.

Me: On the contrary, a homosexual identity is perfectly compatible with LDS doctrine. The church has been very clear to distinguish between identity and behaviors, only responding to the latter. I see no reason why a homosexual identity should necessarily preclude membership in the church anymore than a heterosexual one does. My acknowledgment of a homosexual orientation has not precluded mine. I am just as capable of responding honestly to the temple recommend interview questions as my straight brothers and sisters are. And as to the necessity of the gospel being painful, might I offer an alternative viewpoint? I like this quote from John Taylor:

"We like enjoyment here. That is right. God designs that we should enjoy ourselves. I do not believe in a religion that makes people gloomy, melancholy, miserable and ascetic... I should not think there was anything great or good associated with that, while everything around, the trees, birds, flowers and green fields, were so pleasing, the insects and bees buzzing and fluttering, the lambs frolicking and playing. While everything else enjoyed life, why should not we?"

Byrd may have something to bring to the table, but he does not have the last word on what is best for every person who finds themselves attracted to members of the same sex. There are bodies of evidence that refute many of his claims and it is important to consider what others have to say about the issue as well.

I wonder, have you ever spoken personally to a homosexually oriented member of the church? You might be surprised at what you would learn.

Reader: First of all, I think you should go back and listen to President Packer's General Conference address from October 2010. It very clearly contradicts your first sentences.

Christ didn't come to be a cozy electric blanket. He came to bring the sword. There is joy, yes, but there is more to this life than that. Without struggle and pain, we can't know true happiness. Besides, I think we're talking about things that are a little deeper than trees and flowers. Sometimes I think the focus in LDS culture is a little frothy, obviously to some detriment (see this book for a perfect example). His way wasn't easy, why should we ever think ours would be?

Dr. Byrd's word is definitely more viable than Brother Mansfield's. Whatever else the case may be, he at least is a close advisor to the Brethren. Also, there is no actual evidence disclaiming his theories, which are more scientifically and theologically sound than this inadequate book's pseudo-psychology and self-congratulatory intellectualism could ever hope to be.

As to your last question to me, don't jump to conclusions. You have no idea what very personal experience I have with Latter-day Saints who have struggled with (and overcome) this issue.

Me: I am happy to hear you have personal experience with members who deal with this issue. I can only imagine their experiences must have been invaluable to you in shaping your understanding. That's awesome. I do not discount those experiences. I am willing, however, to concede that sexual reorientation from homosexual attraction to heterosexual attraction is not absolutely representative of the diversity of circumstances in which same-sex attracted members find themselves and it is clear to me that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Byrd's approach may be helpful for some, but it is not helpful for everyone and on a personal level, it has not been helpful for me. Since there has been no divine injunction given that "Thou shalt be heterosexual," I am inclined to believe that there are other ways of reconciling religious and sexual identities that are also in harmony with church doctrine, particularly since the church's emphasis on this issue has dealt specifically with behaviors and not identity. Elder Packer's remarks were modified in some pretty significant ways in the printed version and Michael Otterson's subsequent remarks on behalf of the church further clarify the church's position. Be careful not to draw lines of exclusion. There is room enough for all of us.

Reader: Again, President Packer's comments (modified or not, though I think the modifications are minimal and hardly change his intent or prophetic counsel, and regardless of whatever political and social pressure-influenced response Brother Otterson delivered) and The Proclamation To the World: The Family. You'll find all the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots regarding gender roles and sexuality you need right there.

The Church's position is most certainly clear, but it is not to be found in this book. It is not doctrinal, nor is it written or approved by the Brethren, nor does it agree with what has been revealed and taught on the subject. It's a fluffy new-age self-"help" book, nothing more. It's been interesting. Best of luck.

Me: The Proclamation to the World: The Family is not so narrow in scope that it does not allow for individual adaptation to circumstances that would preclude some members of the church from achieving a successful heterosexual marriage, whatever the reason.

Another possibility as to why Elder Packer's remarks were changed and why the church felt the need to respond with further clarification is that it brings his remarks more in line with the church's official position, and more in line with previous comments made by Elder Packer himself. Recognizing the persistence of homosexual attraction, he stated: "That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."

For me and many other homosexually oriented members of the church, this is not about being "fluffy" or "new-age." It is about welcoming all members of the church regardless of their capacity to be fully functioning heterosexuals, and promoting a culture that allows them to feel valued and loved for their unique gifts and contributions. For me and many of my friends, a sacrifice of the kind that the church asks of its homosexually oriented members is easier to make if it is recognized for what it is: the giving up of something that is owned and real and not imagined away. This is no less fluffy than recognizing the breadth and depth of the Atonement as it applies to the diversity of human experience.

Reader: My real problem with this book is that it validates this as a viable lifestyle, rather than promoting the change that is not only possible, through the Gospel and the Atonement of Christ, but also necessary. I'm not as interested in the human experience, except as it relates to the hereafter, which is why revealed doctrine holds more sway for me.

How frustrating to feel so powerless over our own desires and appetites! It simply isn't so. This isn't hardwired or immutable or genetic or biologically determined, which belief this book espouses. It's just a bummer to me that people are allowing a reductive and false label based merely on self-identification and behavior to define who they are, when really, they are so much more.

Me: Acknowledgment of a homosexual attraction does not constitute a "lifestyle" any more than the acknowledgment of a heterosexual one does.

Power over desires and appetites does not mean ignoring them or obliterating them or changing them from one form to another. It means recognizing them for what they are and choosing to respond appropriately to them.

The change available through the Atonement is not about changing circumstances. All of us find ourselves in circumstances we did not choose. It is about changing our hearts to accept God's will and to thrive in the circumstances we have been given.

...

For more discussion along these lines, read the following:

A review of "In Quiet Desperation" by Dean Byrd
Ty Mansfield's response
Rejoinder

My review of "In Quiet Desperation" (2008):

I've been reading Ty Mansfield's book, "In Quiet Desperation," and I have to say I'm quite impressed. So much of what is written about homosexuality is so politically-motivated that I have a hard time finding an unbiased treatment of the subject. On the one hand you have those who argue that having certain tendencies or inclinations automatically justifies giving expression to those feelings through behaviors. On the other hand you have those who argue that God would never be so cruel as to give someone a trial, an innate attraction, that might preclude him or her from marrying in this life (I actually read a statement from a prominent reparative therapist who made a claim along those lines). While Mansfield is of course writing from a gospel perspective so it is biased in that sense, I like the fact that the book doesn't tout one particular therapeutic approach as the ideal, one-size-fits-all solution. I find myself skeptical of philosophies/therapies that assert that just because something feels natural to someone, that he ought to give in; but I also question approaches that promise the complete reversal of an orientation that is very much part of a person.

In addition, I believe too much of what is written focuses on causes, whether they be biological or psychological. My cursory reading of the literature leads me to believe we know very little about how a homosexual attraction develops, or even how a heterosexual attraction develops for that matter. While some people may find they are described by a particular set of causes or circumstances, there are likely many different ways of arriving at a homosexual orientation.

Ty Mansfield's book is unique in that he makes no attempt to explain the origins of homosexuality. Instead, his purpose is one of reconciliation of an overwhelmingly poorly understood challenge with the doctrines of the gospel. He explains how a homosexual attraction might fit within the plan of God, a plan in which the challenges of mortality are not necessarily obliterated according to our timetable, but the Lord's. The maturity of Mansfield's understanding regarding the Atonement is one that is often lacking in discussions of sexual orientation in religious spheres. In responding to homosexual attraction, too often the focus is on changing orientation rather than changing our hearts to accept the Lord's will for us.

I think I've pretty much decided that even among those who deal with this issue there is a spectrum of needs, and while one approach may work for some, it may not work for all.

The book also issues a call for increased compassion towards who have same-gender feelings whether they decide to engage in homosexual behaviors or not. I have been surprised at how many individuals, individuals whom I respect, admire, and love, have taken me into their confidence by sharing with me the fact that they deal with this. Current estimates are that approximately 5% of people have a same-gender orientation. I have no reason to suspect that prevalence in the church is any lower. I am also surprised at the ignorance of some church members in regards to this issue. I remember one acquaintance of mine at BYU who when the discussion came up of the possibility of a homosexually oriented person being in his ward he said if that were the case, he could never bring himself shake the person's hand. Clearly, something needs to be done about these misunderstandings.

Thoughts after seeing 'The Adjustment Bureau'

*Caution: Spoilers*

If you had a choice between following a plan that everyone told you would make you happy in ways that were known, or following the one thing that made you feel alive and could possibly make you happy in ways that were unknown, which would you choose?

What if it meant giving up something as noble as being president of the United States?

What if one path allowed you to rewrite the plan?

What if the Chairman allows us to rewrite the plan by creating new paths?

What if you couldn't know whether you had made the correct decision until after you had made it? What if it's not possible to know that you made the right decision even then?

What if it's not possible to go back?

What if you couldn't make a decision to go against the plan without becoming angry at the people who execute the plan? Or worse, without becoming an angry person?

What if you suddenly learned there was a different way to turn a doorknob? And that it revealed a different outcome. Could you go the rest of your life without trying it? Or would that knowledge forever nag at you until you had to find out for yourself what was behind that door?

What if you've been turning doorknobs one way your entire life? Could you learn to turn them the other way? Or would it always feel "wrong?"

What if free will *is* the plan?

What is the role of chance in our lives? How can we tell the difference between chance and fate?

What if following the plan meant living in denial of the thing you love?

Which is the path of least regret? Which is the path that will teach you the most about yourself? Which is the path that will teach you most about the Chairman?

What would the people think of you if you started turning doorknobs the other way? Would you always wonder what they were really thinking? Would you always be looking over your shoulder as you turned? Could you live with their judgments, perceived of real?

What if you knew following the plan would mean that you would question it for the rest of your life? Would you be able to follow it anyway?

What if you were tired? Or bored. How do you keep those things from affecting your decisions?

What if following the plan made you angry at the Chairman or caused you to question his mercy?

Would it be easier to turn the doorknob a different way if you had someone beside you? Could you be sure that person would stay with you once you crossed into the unknown?

Is it possible to believe in the Chairman while questioning the plan?

What if you question the plan once. Can you ever stop questioning after that?

What would the Chairman do if he were in your shoes?

Is the Chairman learning too? Are the case workers?

What is the value in following a predetermined plan? Is there value in deviating?

Can you deviate without causing "ripples" that affect those around you? Can you ever know the effect your ripples have? Whether your ripples are helpful or harmful?

Is it possible you are just following the plan simply because some old guys in suits are telling you that you should?

What if your choice puts you on the lonelier path?

Does happiness come from following a predetermined plan?

Can happiness really be *yours* if you don't create it for yourself?

Letter to my 8th grade P.E. teacher

Dear Coach Fleming,

I was hoping to get in touch with you, not because I necessarily expect you to remember me, I know you've got a lot of students, but just to say thank you for looking out for me while I was in your P.E. class years ago. I remember having a really hard time during junior high. It's just hard to be different when as a kid all you want to do is fit in. And all of these stories that have cropped up recently about bullying and kids taking their lives because of it... I realize I dodged a bullet. I remember feeling particularly inadequate in P.E. classes where I felt more vulnerable to harassment from the other kids. But I remember you looking out for me. I felt like I had a friend in you, and that got me through some tough days. I remember you pulling me aside a few times just to get to know me. And I remember near the end of the year, you took me into your office and showed me how my running times had improved from when I started in your class. That meant a lot to me and I've never forgotten it. I've always been a good student, and I achieved several academic successes that year, but nothing meant as much to me as getting the "most improved" award in P.E. from you. So I was just thinking about how much I appreciated your kindness then and how much it means to me now, and I just wanted to let you know the difference that it made for me.

Adam

Caught

The day that I doubted
Was the day I was born
Unnoticed, it sprouted
Surreptitiously sown

Doubtless, I waited
My nose to the soil
Accusations unfounded
My tempters all the while

If not so nearsighted
I might have foreseen
By vine-work, surrounded
A skin-net of green

My questions all knotted
So wildly o'ergrown
The deathly invention
A strangler's hold

My last breath expired
Suspended in death
All senses retired
My life's blood was spent

Till gravity's inverted
And no longer bound
My lungs drank in freely
As my world turned upside-down

From earth's surface parted
Now falling through space
The sky-scape uncharted
Wind's sting on my face

Though now unencumbered
By vine-work o'ergrown
I found myself hurtled
Into chasms unknown

My senses awakened
To the infinite depth
Of falling forever
A fate worse than death

But fate's underhanded
And gravity stopped
It seemed I had landed
And the landing was soft

Then feeling below me
Surprise seized my breast
Embraced by a savior
I'd never have guessed

The hammock hung tautly
Enmeshed, intertwined
With leafy-green branches
All woven of vine

The Many Crimes of Love

Just in time for Valentine's Day! :)

Listen to my new song here.

P.S. Even though there is a 'Buy' option by each song, it is not enabled. My amateur mixes are not for sale. They are purely for your listening enjoyment. :)

Bridge to Nowhere

Probably the most autobiographical of the songs I've written/recorded. Listen to it here.

A Christmas Song

I recorded What Child Is This with a vocoder. Happy Holidays!

My attempt at angsty

Check out my new song, Mr. Saturn. It's the first time I've recorded myself playing electric guitar.

New Song

Month of June

This song is dedicated to the people who have made my summer in San Diego the AMAZING experience that it has been!

I know it's wrong... but I like this

Profound matutinal thoughts

"Cannibalism is hardly an appropriate expression of friendship."
-Adam, 2:39 am CST

"I just saw a crazy man. He was crazy. And he was a man. And he was carrying a knife. Or maybe it was a grocery bag. Hard to say, really."
-Adam, 2:42 am CST

"I want to push Watching Daisies. I do. I want to push it. Then I want to push it some more."
-Adam, 2:53 am CST

Parachute

Just uploaded my latest song to my myspace page. The final version needs a bit more work, but I thought I'd post what I had so far.

Best of Idol

I'm watching you...

Do my eyes on the top of this page creep you out? I've had at least one person tell me as much... I'd be happy to remove them (from my blog, that is) if they are frightening away my visitors... Be honest.

P.S. I've recently installed Google Analytics. So eyes or no eyes, I really AM watching you! ;)

How to perform a paper-shredder Heimlich Maneuver

1. Curse the day you fed your shredder the "whoops!-it-was-too-fat" AAA account renewal junk letter, envelope and all.

2. Spend hours trying to pick the letter's remains out of your shredder's barbed teeth.

3. Cut a finger. Or two or twelve. Admit defeat. Curse AAA again.

4. Grab some pliers, start yanking on the half-shredded and blood-stained mess of what you couldn't floss out of your shredder's mouth.

5. While yanking, switch the shredder to reverse to induce vomiting.

6. BLEHHHHH!!!

Music and me

Adam composed his first song when he was supposed to be practicing “The Rainbow Connection” for his upcoming piano recital. His mother, when she realized that Rainbow would not be ready in time, called his piano teacher to suggest a change in the program. As a result, Adam premiered his first composition, “A Hungarian Melody,” and was the only sixth grader to showcase an original work at the recital. Though the tune had a remarkable resemblance to “Happy Together,” no one seemed to mind, and he was quite pleased with himself for turning his far-from-diligent practicing habits into something that earned him praise.

Adam eventually gave up piano lessons, picked up the trombone in seventh grade and would continue to play through college, participating in several BYU ensembles. Adam also continued to write songs and forced his five younger siblings to perform them every year during the family Christmas Eve program. One of those years, he wrote and directed a Christmas-themed musical featuring three original songs.

Although he doesn’t think of himself as much of a performer, Adam achieved a measure of success participating in regional music festivals during high school. As a junior, he performed “Piece en Fa Mineur” for solo trombone and received a superior rating. That same year he also earned second chair placement in the regional orchestra. The orchestra played Shostakovich’s fifth symphony which, to this day, is his all-time favorite. The following year, Adam’s nerves got the better of him and he completely bombed his festival auditions. He blamed God for his misfortune and, in what he thought was a supreme act of rebellion, refused to wear his CTR ring for an entire week.

Adam’s first musical idol was the Mormon inspirational music icon, Michael McLean. When he found out that Michael McLean was coming to his hometown, he made his dad take him to get McLean’s autograph. Adam may have even told McLean that he was his biggest fan. This was before Adam realized that it was uncool to be a Michael McLean groupie.

Adam’s first introduction to popular music was in the nineties, when, during seventh grade, his classmate gave a presentation on the Gin Blossoms, a band native to Adam’s hometown in Arizona. It was during that presentation that he saw his first music video, “Allison Road,” and fell in love with alternative rock. Since that time, he has indulged a passionate romance with all things post-grunge. In fact, during his high school days, he probably spent more time with his stereo and the sounds of Matchbox Twenty, Collective Soul and Toad the Wet Sprocket, than he did with real people.

Also while in high school, Adam got a hold of a software program for midi sequencing, and spent hours and hours programming electronic instruments to play his songs. The composition for which he was most proud was written in 7/4 time, arranged for full orchestra and was inspired by Yanni’s transition into orchestral music as heard on the incredibly prodigious, “Live at the Acropolis.”

Though, as a teenager, Adam received an electric guitar as a Christmas gift one year, it mostly collected dust as he let his homework completely take over his life. He would, however, learn to play “Dreams” by the Cranberries and perform it with his brother on bass guitar before retiring the instrument. The next time Adam would pick up a guitar was in college when he decided to sign up for a guitar class as a break from the rigors of his other classes. Luckily, this time, he has been able to keep up his playing with some degree of regularity.

Adam was inspired to try his hand at making music again when he received an email response from the lead singer of one of his favorite indie rock bands, Faded Paper Figures. The lead singer of FPF is a BYU grad, and has a faculty position at Yale University. Adam was fascinated by the fact that this guy was a Yale professor by day and an indie rock star by night, and wondered if he shouldn’t try to resurrect his goal of one day having one of his songs on the radio.

Adam likes to write songs that feature many instruments, vocal harmonies, and syncopated rhythms. He also has an interest in exploring the use of electronic and pop elements in his music. Currently, Adam is a one-man-band, recording vocals and acoustic guitar, and beefing up his mixes with soft synth instruments. Adam’s songs reflect a realistic side of human experience as opposed to an idealistic one, and his lyrics mostly address themes of love-gone-terribly-wrong.

Youth

Recorded this cover of a Collective Soul song with Stephanie Peterson who is amazing on the cello. Listen to it on my myspace page.

My Interview with Lady GaGa

ME: First of all, I'd like to thank you for allowing me the chance to interview you.

LG: RA RA! AH AH AH!

ME: Come again?

LG: ROMA! RO-MA MA!

ME: Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time understanding the words coming out of your mouth because they sound remarkably like nonsensical gibberish. Perhaps you should start by telling our listeners who you are?

LG: GA GA

ME: Now we're getting somewhere! Lady GaGa, you are known for your unique taste in fashion. What do you think of my new suit?

LG: OOH LA LA!

ME: Why thank you! I picked it out myself.

LG: I WANT YOUR BAD ROMANCE

ME: I'm sorry, you want my what?

LG: I WANT YOUR UGLY. I WANT YOUR DISEASE. I WANT YOUR EVERYTHING AS LONG AS IT'S FREE.

ME: Is that your attempt at a compliment? I'm afraid I don't have any of those things. But I do have a cough drop. Would you like one of those?

LG: I WANT YOUR LOVE

ME: (gulp) But Lady GaGa, we've only just met... Are you sure you wouldn't like a nice lozenge? It's cherry.

LG: LOVE! LOVE! LOVE! I WANT YOUR LOVE!

ME: Ok, no need to shout. I heard you the first time.

LG: I WANT YOUR LOVE AND I WANT YOUR REVENGE. YOU AND ME COULD WRITE A BAD ROMANCE

ME: I'm so confused... Do you want my love? Or do you want my revenge?

LG: I WANT YOUR LOVE AND ALL YOUR LOVER'S REVENGE.

ME: Well that's crystal clear. And just what do you intend to do to my lover?

LG: PO PO PO POKE! HER FACE!

ME: Uh huh. Back to the interview. Have you ever considered any alternative career paths? You know... one that doesn't involve dressing up in tinfoil?

LG: YOU AND ME COULD WRITE A BAD ROMANCE.

ME: You do know that it's grammatically correct to say "You and I could write a bad romance." Have you considered learning to speak English?

LG: RA RA! AH AH AH!

ME: Guess not. Do you happen to know any real languages?

LG: JE VEUX TON AMOUR. ET JE VEUX TA RAVANCHE. JE VEUX TON AMOUR.

ME: Impressive. Now if you could keep the speaking in tongues to a minimum, perhaps we could get on with the interview? I have a fan on the line who wants to know if the rumors are true. Were you, in fact, a Tyrannosaurus rex in a former life?

LG: RA RA! AH AH AH!

ME: And what is your favorite kind of tomato?

LG: ROMA! RO-MA MA!

ME: Mm hm. And what is the worst possible stage name you can think of right now?

LG: GA GA

ME: Now say something sassy.

LG: OOH LA LA!

ME: There she goes with the French again...

LG: I WANT YOUR LOVE. AND I WANT YOUR REVENGE. I WANT YOUR LOVE.

ME: Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. It's all about what you want, isn't it? How about we just be friends?

LG: I DON'T WANNA BE FRIENDS!

ME: Ok, calm down. No need to get your saran-wrap panties in a knot.

LG: I DON'T WANNA BE FRIENDS!!

ME: It was merely a suggestion...

LG: I DON'T WANNA BE FRIENDS!!!

ME: Security, do you have the tranquilizer gun handy? She's starting to breathe fire again...

My Blogging Family

I heart blogging. When I first created a blog, I spent most of my blogging time composing my own posts. Now I spend more time reading other people's thoughts. I love the chance that blogging gives me to "vicariously experience the lives of interesting people" (that's the euphemistic way to say I shamelessly stalk them). These are some of my favorites:

Blogs that make me laugh out loud:
http://laserlady.blogspot.com/
http://clinicallynomadic.blogspot.com/
http://importantbabblings.blogspot.com/

Blogs of people who are incredibly clever:
http://sweetlemon24.blogspot.com/
http://rfxdesign.blogspot.com/

Blogs about what it's like to be Mormon and...
Progressive: http://notoriousbiggins.blogspot.com/
Gay: http://ryansmiley.wordpress.com/
Bipolar: http://dinamariegardner.blogspot.com/
Paralyzed: http://paralyzedwithjoy.blogspot.com/
Related to me: http://jaceandjill.blogspot.com/
Single: http://hokapidia.blogspot.com/
Married with children: (too numerous to list)

People I blog-stalk who have no idea who I am:
http://singingcicada.blogspot.com/
http://aroundtheworldwithgreg.blogspot.com/
http://crolace.blogspot.com/

Blogs of cute, innocent little BYU freshmen trying to make sense of the world around them (I particularly like Braden's posts):
http://firstbyuyear.blogspot.com/

Blogs of friends who go cool places:
http://t-therestofthestory.blogspot.com/
http://botanizing.blogspot.com/

Blogs that were created to appease a guilty conscience:
http://ottofina.blogspot.com/

Backstory: A friend of mine thought it would be funny to tell me she had a blog when she really didn't. And I, being the trusting person that I am, believed her. She refused to give me the URL of this fake blog. Instead, she fed me "clues" so that I could try to find it myself online. Every week she would give me a new "clue" like "Try Googling Italian!" But, of course, this would turn up nothing but virtual fettuccine and meatballs. After months of sending me Googling all over the planet, she decided to create a (real) blog and had it linked from the blog of a mutual friend and co-conspiritor (i.e. lawyer). She gave her confession in the first post. To this day, I still wonder how she sleeps at night.

Sometimes I feel like this

I sense there's something in the wind

That feels like tragedy's at hand

And though I'd like to stand by him

Can't shake this feeling that I have

The worst is just around the bend

Dear Santa

Dear Santa,

For Christmas I want:

1. As many dead mice as it takes to kill all the mice in my apartment

2. A restraining order against each and every rodent on the planet

3. To have returned to me everything the mice have stolen (i.e. my food, my sanity, my life)

Threateningly yours,

Adam

Quotes from some of my friends

Can you guess who said what?

1. "I think I can make it to your house if I don't get distracted by a lawn donkey."

2. "I vote we play a game for which we don't need to explain the rules."

3. "My biggest pet peeve is doormats. You know, the sound it makes when people wipe their feet on them."

4. "Even if we took off our shoes, socks and feet, I'd still be taller than you."

5. "I can put 'shitting diamonds' in a haiku if I add the word 'out' at the end."

6. "No, I will not be bringing my Edward doll with me to New Moon."

7. "I just made the biggest mistake. It's going to cost me the game." (this person later won the game)

8. "I don't think I'd like to be on the receiving end of this song." (After "Sex Bomb" came on the radio)

9. "This jam I bought is too chunky."

10. "Are you prejudiced against chunky people?"

11. "I love chunky people! I just wouldn't want to put one on my peanut butter sandwich."

I'll give a prize to the person who gets the most right! People can be used for quotes more than once.

Why I love reality TV

These clips totally get me

waterworks 1

waterworks 2