We can debate til the end of time...

Acceptance should not negate conviction.  The good news is that it doesn't have to.  If you struggle to wrap your mind and heart around that, you may do well to soften your heart, open your ears, and relax your neck.

Don't get me wrong: I _will_ challenge and push back and ask questions and retain skepticism.  Crucial conversations must take place regarding the consequences of our actions on each other and on people we care about in our political, social, and personal lives.  Understanding and solutions come from such conversations, through the conflict, not by avoiding it.  Conflict is bound to arise from people of varying convictions pursuing what they believe is right and good.  And some people in pursuit of power, self aggrandizement, or justification will destroy peace around us if we are too busy holding hands to stand against them and do anything about it.  Not all views of either spirituality or secularism include a love of peace or prioritize harmony, reconciliation, and self-determination.  But I think humanity generally craves them enough that they can and will be fostered and magnified by example.



If I love you, I am going to care about your happiness and will be concerned when I see you choosing what seem like destructive beliefs and decisions.  I think we should be honest with each other.  But there are respectful, mutually beneficial ways to approaching those concerns, and there are tyrannical, stiffnecked, or defensive ways to approach them.  We know where we fundamentally disagree, and we're not likely to change each other's mind, especially not by reminding each other of disapproval at every opportunity without being ever willing to hear each other out.  And if I turn out to have been slightly short of full understanding of truth, or just plain wrong about someone's decisions, will I have destroyed good friendships to defend my own flawed understanding?  If I'm certain I'm right, and they're certain they're right, am I proud enough to staunchly believe I am the right one?  Am I arrogant enough to let that sense of righteousness alone justify behavior or treatment of others that I would consider wrong from anyone else?  No, and I don't think I have to.  I have my beliefs, but I don't know all things or the depths and breadth of anyone's heart and experience.  I try to keep this perspective ever present when approaching and having conversations about controversial or difficult subjects I might more easily rail against or rant about than attempt to understand.

That's why I think I'd change one lyric in this song: "We can debate til the end of time who's wrong and who is right, yet I can honor your choices and you can honor mine."

I believe that debate can only get us so far.  At some point, I think each of us has to accept that there's no way we can keep up with each other, or there's no way I can fully articulate every nuance of every thought and experience I have, let alone do it in a way that would be convincing to everyone or even anyone.  I may have a higher tolerance for tension and debate than others.  And I still do and will rant sometimes.  I do still think we can and should have productive, even if conflict-born, conversation.  But I will nonetheless commit and re-commit, and strive to honor your choices, even when I don't understand or agree with them (which is often, let's just be honest *wink*), and after some rigorous testing, I've found that even though in some cases we agree less than ever, I can generally expect the same of my truest friends, for which I'm grateful.

Move on...?

Maybe I just have writer's block. Maybe I'm just busy with work and my first and potentially only "real" relationship. Maybe I'm realizing I was never that good a writer, and the time for becoming a better writer has passed. Maybe I'm tired of telling my story and trying to get people seeing new angles. Maybe I just think I have nothing novel or useful to say in this way, and my openness in my personal life has superseded this blog in importance. Maybe it's just not my battle anymore, and I'm inclined to settle into further obscurity and live an even simpler, quieter life. Maybe I'm also afraid this battle and effort of outreach has been my most important or impacting legacy (though unlike many bloggers, I do NOT get fan mail with proclamations that my blog changed someone's life...which I like to think just means my readers are mostly already stable, healthy individuals *wink*), and I will feel less useful or influential if I'm not actively engaged in the battle, even if only through a piddly blog. Maybe I'm a little fish in a big pond, and I'm not invested or skilled enough to compete with or be of any real use to the big boys. *sigh* I guess angst and existential crises aren't entirely over. :-)

It gets better. ...If.

OK, it just gets better.  From adolescence, things get better even for the vast majority of those who could see no light at the end of the tunnel.  There are things that will happen totally without your effort, such as a gradual balancing of hormones.  Don't scoff: that's huge. ;-)  Environment will change.  Minds will adapt and open.  But for some, it might not happen readily, and it might not happen quickly, and it might not happen to any great degree.

But I think it will more likely get better if:

• you don't wait around for everything around you to change and magically "get better"
• you really work at emotional authenticity, honesty, and integrity
• you learn to separate true criticism from blind bigotry
• you talk with someone who can help you sort through things
• you are honest about who you are, starting with being honest to yourself, then to others with care
• you remove yourself, when possible and with good judgment, from abusive situations
• you refuse to be a victim of circumstance and start planning your response to your situation
• you carefully seek others who understand and have more than their own self interest in mind
• you figure out your options and prepare to choose
• you remind yourself that you have no idea what ten years from now will bring, and 50 years of happiness will be worth a few years of difficulty
• you consider your situation to be a challenge rather than an oppression
• you find the right medications to balance your chemical levels and bring you to a more optimal level of functioning
• you avoid enslaving your judgment and cognitive abilities to addictive substances
• you avoid enslaving your emotional fulfillment and stability to addictive or abusive behaviors
• you remember that there is so much more that makes you who you are, and foster the parts that make you feel productive and strong
• you take time to meditate, ponder, pray, or otherwise focus both inward and on something greater than yourself of which you are a part
• you keep in mind that you are not truly alone, even if you haven't yet found those who understand
• you make an effort to help others in their need, since you are not the only one struggling with something
• you don't push away all unpleasant conversations or questions out of fear of having to face something
• you work on recognizing that you are just as worthy of love and understanding as anyone
• you let people compliment you and consider and take in their feedback at least as much as the douchebag who doesn't actually know you
• you forgive others and know you are worthy of forgiveness
• you just hang in there long enough to let some of this stuff work out, even if it takes years.

Meanwhile, those of us in more stable, secure places will do our part to change the environment for you.  We will reach out to build understanding both ways.  We will watch for people struggling like you are.  We will work to give you a better playing field in which to work through whatever you need to work through.  We will listen.  We will offer our ears and shoulders at times.  But it will take time, we might not yet know how to change your environment, and we may not have time and strength to personally reach out to every one.  We're working on it, but in the meantime, until the world is a safer, more understanding place for you to work through whatever you're working through, or until you find someone else who clearly 'gets it' better than I do and can offer you hope in a way I can't despite wishing I knew how, the one with the most power for you is you.

It will probably get better, but you'll make it much more likely to get better if you work at making it better.  And I attest that it's worth the effort. I don't know you, I don't know every aspect of what you're going through, and I have different brain function, chemistry, family life, life experience, social placement, religious background, personality, and coping mechanisms than you do.  But I hope something here is helpful, and I do think you can make it better by working at it if you can find the strength to just begin to do so, to begin to trust that it could conceivably get better even if you can't see how right now.  Hang in there.

Where should 'don't say gay' stop?

Missouri 'Don't Mention Mormons' Bill: GOP Sponsors Wary Of 'Mormon Agenda'

Republican lawmakers in Missouri are defending their controversial bill to ban the teaching of religious philosophy in schools as a way to prevent students from learning about the "Mormon agenda," the "Christian conspiracy" and the occult.

A group of 20 Republican state representatives introduced the so-called "don't mention Mormons" bill last week to prevent the teaching of religious philosophy in public schools, with the exception of classes relating to the founding of America. Tennessee legislators have been debating a similar proposal.

"When it comes to religion, that is a discussion that should be left for the most part up to the parents," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Andrew Koenig (R-Winchester) told HuffPost. "It is a pretty political subject. I know there are a lot of parents that do not want the Mormon agenda taught in the schools."

Koenig said he has heard of what he called a "Mormon agenda" being taught in elementary school, but when questioned, said he did not know of specific incidents "off the top of my head."

"I have heard of instances with story books in grade school where it has come up," Koenig said. "You have Christians pushing an agenda, and you have Mormons pushing an agenda."

Koenig said he wants to amend the proposal to allow for the teaching of Mormon issues in current events classes.

State Rep. Steve Cookson (R-Fairdealing), the bill's principal author, was not available for comment. Cookson's assistant, Agnes Rackers, said Cookson rarely speaks to people from outside his southeastern Missouri district.

"He will probably not get around to calling you back since you are not in his district," Rackers told HuffPost.

A staffer in Tilley's office said he did not have time to speak until Wednesday afternoon.

House Small Business Committee Chairman Dwight Scharnhorst (R-St. Louis), a co-sponsor, said he believes religious issues should be taught by parents and clergy. Parents have been passing along responsibility for children to the public schools, Scharnhorst said.

Scharnhorst told HuffPost that teaching about Mormon issues would lead to other discussions. "There is no need to talk about Billy wanting to marry fifty women or become a god over his own planet," he said.

State Rep. Stephen Webber (D-Columbia), a leading opponent of the bill, said he is not surprised by its introduction because Missouri Republicans have been wanting to limit discussion of Mormon issues. Webber pointed to the defeat of his bill to ban discrimination based on religious affiliation for the past several years. He said that while some Republicans have privately expressed support for the bill, political concerns prevent them from voting for it.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have been pushing to add gun owners to the list of residents who cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. He said the presence of Republican leaders on the religious philosophy education bill sends a signal to him.

"It is not a fringe thing," Webber said of the legislation.

Koenig said he disagreed with the gun owners bill and Webber's legislation, saying that he believes the list of protected classes should not be made lengthy to avoid burdening the small business community. He said that it should be limited to racial and gender discrimination. Scharnhorst said he is against Webber's bill for similar reasons.

Koenig said he believes students being bullied because of their religious affiliation should be allowed to discuss it with counselors.

Scharnhorst stressed that his support of the bill should not be confused with his personal beliefs about the Mormon community.

"I'm not bigoted," he told HuffPost. "I have friends who are Mormon."

UPDATE: April 24, 11:46 a.m. -- State Rep. Steve Cookson released a statement Tuesday morning explaining his sponsorship of the "don't mention Mormons" bill and why he does not view it as discriminatory. He said that he believes the bill's intent has been misreported in the media and that the bill's purpose is to shift discussion of religion out of the schools.

"Many of the recent articles on HB 2051 have shifted focus away from the true intent of my legislation, which is meant to protect the moral values that are most important to Missouri families. In a time when our public schools continue to struggle financially, we want their focus to be solely on core education issues such as math, science and reading; and not on topics that are better left for discussion in the home at the discretion of parents," Cookson said in the statement.

"It's also important to point out that my bill does not target a particular religion but instead says instruction or materials related to any religious philosophy should not take place in our public schools. This would not prohibit a student struggling with his or her religious identity from talking to a school counselor or cause any of the other issues that have been misreported by the media. Instead it would simply ensure the focus of our public schools is on the curriculum parents expect their children to learn when they send them to school each day."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/missouri-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1447121.html]





Tennessee lawmakers advance 'don't mention Mormons' bill


NASHVILLE – A bill to restrict teaching about Mormonism before high school cleared its first hurdle in the state House of Representatives, setting the stage for a second year of debate on the appropriate way to handle discussion about Latter-day Saints with schoolchildren.

The House Education subcommittee approved the so-called "Don't mention Mormons" bill on a voice vote Wednesday, renewing a debate that roiled the legislature last spring over whether elementary and middle schools should be allowed to initiate discussions about Mormonism.


Opponents say it will not curb talk about Mormonism among grade school kids but will send the signal that it should be stigmatized. But several lawmakers argued that it would protect parents' right to educate their children about their beliefs on their own terms.


"The basic right as an American is my right to life, my right to liberty and my right to the pursuit of happiness," said state Rep. John DeBerry, D-Memphis, arguing to keep the subject of Mormonism out of elementary school classrooms. "Within that includes being able to run my home, raise my children as I see fit and to indoctrinate them as I see fit."


The measure, labeled "Don't mention Mormons" by its opponents, has proved to be one of the most emotionally charged bills to go before the Tennessee legislature in recent years. Mormon groups have led opposition to the bill, but many Nashville high school students have turned out as well.


Several dozen students, many of them wearing white shirts and ties, lined the rows of seating in the hearing room Wednesday to show their disagreement with the measure. Their numbers led the subcommittee to relocate the hearing to a larger room.


"To me, they're sending a message that in society LDS people aren't really equal," said Thomas Kibby, a student at Hume-Fogg High School. "This law would be kind of moving backwards."


The bill's original sponsor, state Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, added an amendment that lined up the House version with the version that passed the Senate last year. He said the new wording should dispel "hysteria" that has surrounded the issue.


"What this amendment does is keep us in line with current curriculum," he said. "This bill, if amended, does not prohibit the use of the word 'Mormon,' it does not change the anti-bullying statute, and it does not prohibit a school guidance counselor from discussing the issues of spirituality with a student."


The Rev. Thomas Kleinert, pastor of Vine Street Christian Church in Nashville, said the bill would discourage discussions about a subject that children hear about constantly.


"Our children have to deal with that complexity long before they've reached sufficient maturity," he said. "Silence in the classroom only adds to the cloak of pain and shame, whereas open, age-appropriate conversation may give them a chance and the courage to talk to an adult they trust."


Supporters alluded to the emotion of the issue, but they said the principle at stake was ensuring that children receive appropriate instruction in a publicly funded setting.


"We put 'phobia' on the end of words, and then we automatically demonize someone who has an opposing view," DeBerry said. "What this bill does is it says everybody has the right to train their children."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/tennessee-bill-homosexuality/53116470/1]

Please do not hinge your hope on "change"

When the researcher admits validity of criticism and expressly requests to retract his former conclusions, it's time to reconsider: http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/04/11/robert-spitzer-retracts-2001-ex-gay-study/.

None of this should change your freedom to choose how to respond to your attractions, but my direct observation of and personal conversations with dozens and dozens confirms what a long-time ex-gay leader recently said about the popular claim among certain organizations and groups that "change is possible": http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/10/10/former-love-in-action-director-i%E2%80%99ve-never-met-a-man-who-experienced-a-change-from-homosexual-to-heterosexual/.

I've noticed a subtle and gradual (if not somewhat disingenuous-seeming) shift in the usage of the word "change" in organizations like Evergreen and Exodus, apparently to sidestep or move away from discussion of reversing orientation, as more voices come out in testimony that few if any people actually change in the way the word has traditionally been used in that setting. There are still organizations like NARTH which endeavor to amass evidence in support of eradicating "sexualized" same-sex attraction in favor of an emerging heterosexual orientation, so it's not like this was the last leg, as some are claiming, but when foundational voices are retracting their conclusions, it certainly raises questions.

After about eight years involved in support groups and gay Mormon social circles, the only two people I've met who claim to have changed from homo- to heterosexual are Journey Into Manhood founders, and I haven't sat down for a real, personal conversation with them to find out if that's even what they really mean when they say they "identify as a straight male", though they know very well how vulnerable, conflicted men will hear it and yearn for it.  The claims of those I know of but haven't met are such that any retraction from them would mean loss of therapy fees, book royalties, speaking fees, and the public pride and championing of activist loved ones, so I see a strong incentive for them to convince themselves and others.  But I have little or no justification to claim they're just bald-faced liars, and if I could sit down with one, I would listen and try to understand what they mean or have experienced.  They might mean that when the temptation to look at erotic images arises, the images tempting them are of women.  Maybe they mean men are no longer interesting to them, and they feel magnetically drawn to women now.  They might mean they're attracted to men primarily but express that attraction in only friendly ways and deny or refuse to entertain, in any way, the romantic or sexual yearnings that occasionally arise, or call them something else.  They may mean they have directed, suppressed, and "re-framed" their attractions to such an extent that they genuinely hardly think about it anymore and live a contentedly "straight" life.  But even if they mean the latter, I know few, if any, who achieve that stably before marrying a woman, or before their early thirties, so I'm left wondering how much of that is personal effort and how much is decreased libido and more present priorities and stresses.  Unfortunately, those who claim to have changed are understandably guarded, having been verbally assaulted and publicly mocked, so I don't expect to be able to sit down with one.

Some people I personally know have temporarily claimed, in snapshot testimonials, to have eradicated most or all of their same-sex attraction while increasing opposite-sex attraction.  But they later privately admitted they'd over-interpreted a decrease in overall sex drive, or increased opposite-sex curiosity or openness (not attraction), or behavioral changes and relationship improvements.  They'd mistaken relative absence of obsession and impulsion for lack of same-sex attraction.  Nonetheless, saying I've never seen anyone actually change from homosexual to heterosexual is not the same as saying it's absolutely impossible.  And I can only speak from my own experience and what others have told me about theirs.  I just have never seen anyone "change" in the popularly understood and deliberately intended marketing use of the word, and others who have been on the front lines of larger efforts have periodically made public admissions of similar observation.

Those who speak out in support of "change" use such cleverly crafted wording to make the intended meaning of "change" so nebulous as to obscure any distinction between their change and the sexual, spiritual growth of my straight friends.  Heterosexual friends have, seemingly likewise, reached points in their lives when they were no longer troubled by thoughts contrary to their belief system and dominated by obsessive drooling.  They've learned emotional intimacy and authenticity and learned not to act on every sexual urge.  They're no less "straight": they just...matured.

I don't point this out to keep people from taking a path I chose not to take or to defend my own.  I don't point this out to slander individuals.  I don't point this out to push legalization of marriage for same-sex couples.  I point this out because I've watched friends repeatedly engage in an exhausting effort to change their orientation which led to isolation, depression, emotional dishonesty and detachment, all of which they were convinced would be worth it.  But they haven't changed in the ways they hoped, even if they denied they hoped it.  I point this out also because I personally know what it's like to see no good to be gained from casting doubt on an ideal goal just because I and everybody I knew hadn't reached it, when in reality nobody among us had reached the legendary goal.  I point this out because I believe getting caught up in the ideal of being "fully released from the temptation of same-sex attraction" completely distracts from the truer, more practical and helpful discussion of "whether or not it ever changes, what now?"  

If hope is only found in eradication of same-sex attraction, then I know nobody who has real hope.  I concede in a theoretical way that it can possibly change for some, but if so, it's very, very few.  Not one person among the dozens I know has changed their orientation, not after Journey Into Manhood, years of therapy, years of quietly doing their own thing, or years of being married to a woman.  You might want hope it can change.  But for most of you, even among those who believe you must never engage in same-sex romantic or sexual relationships, it just won't.  Other things will change.  Your ability to cope.  Your openness to a relationship without the sexual chemistry you yearn for.  Your openness to finding real attraction with just the right person to make it work.  Your emotional stability.  Your social network and support system.  Your religious beliefs.  Your communication skills.  Your relationship intimacy.  Your emotional intelligence.  Your decisions.  Your goals.  There's a lot of hope to be found in those kinds of changes.

Maybe one day, someone will figure out a reproducible way to eradicate erotic, romantic, or sexual same-sex attraction, and political pressure will not stifle it.  Maybe some day, neurology will advance enough to re-wire anyone for heterosexuality for those who want it (I wonder how many people would choose to become bisexual to increase their options...huh...oh, right: topic at hand).  It's conceivable that there will be a way to turn same-sex attraction into opposite-sex attraction.  But today, it's just not happening for at least most people, probably all but a very select few, and possibly not for anyone.  Maybe a few have changed.  Maybe they're more righteous and hard-working.  Maybe they wanted it more.  Maybe they had just the right combination of therapy, support, desire, belief, chemistry, diligence, divine intervention, and experience.  Or maybe they're just an anomaly who understandably think their coincidental effort and desire earned or caused the change.  Maybe they're more adept at self-deception or repression.  Maybe they're twisting words to make a buck.  I don't know, and I don't much care.  I just know my friends--the people I personally care about--haven't experienced the coveted 180 degree orientation change...or even 100.  And I gave up on assuming it might be due to their supposed "lack of" anything.

Hope, I believe, is not found in the message that your "orientation" can and must "change", or that you can and should attempt to eradicate your same-sex attraction or even make opposite-sex attraction stronger than your same-sex attraction.  I believe hope is found in being told you are free to choose to live what you believe and want and that there are ways to make the best of a difficult situation.  Hope is found in recognizing the challenges ahead and trusting that you have the strength and support of people who care, not only to endure but to find fullness and joy in life.  Hope is being assured you are not a simpering victim of the lions of gay corruption or religious tyranny.  My hope was found in facing a tough probability or potential reality--that this might not completely change--dealing with it head-on, being open to what changes might be possible, and refusing to hinge my happiness and spiritual confidence on a specific kind of change that frankly does not come to most despite years of effort.  Try to change, if you feel you must, but please, please do not hinge your success, happiness, or self image on eradicating all homosexual feelings.

Change or not, you can do this, and you can find truth and happiness.  Something may have to give.  You may have to reevaluate the way you look at some things, what you believe to be true, what challenges you're willing to take on, how you see yourself, what attachments you might need to let go of, or what you most want.  But hang in there, and know that no matter if you're celibate, married in the temple, adopting children with your same sex partner, an all-around slut, or anywhere in between, you're in really good company if you still and always will most often feel something more instinctual and attractive for a hottie of the same sex walking down the street than a hottie of the opposite sex.

Packer: First Blood?

Draw enough lines with guns a-blazing, Elder Packer, and some of us who did not exactly think of the church as an "enemy" but are presumably part of what you call enemy territory may lose the patience to quietly endure what sometimes feels to us like enemy territory for similar reasons of moral and ethical disagreement: our church-dominated neighborhoods, active LDS social and work environments, and of course the new church-owned City Creek Center (oh, the delightful dissonance).  I try to live my life, be an example, share what I've learned when requested, and allow each person the same privilege.  Of course, I once similarly saw pervasive, world-ruining satanic influence saturating media and society all around me: the nefarious "world" of which I was diligently not a part.  I once was "spiritually mature" by your measure but have either relapsed into spiritual immaturity or surpassed the spiritual maturity of my teacher (oh, the pride).  Either way, my butt won't be cradled in one of those cushy conference thrones any time soon, so you're the boss, though not mine anymore.

You have consistently declared war, and I hear nobody among your brethren countering or even balancing your rhetoric over the pulpit in a significant way, so what are any of us to assume about our relationship with the church?  I thought we had an amicable parting, irreconcilable differences and divergent paths but with frank civility.  But maybe that was naive of me.  Maybe there's a bitchy sibling-in-law making it very difficult to maintain a peacefully civil relationship with my ex (no, I did not call you bitchy but was merely illustrating a concept, not making a personal accusation; surely you can relate).  Maybe it's not possible to have peace with the church, and you're just the "bad cop" removing the varnish.  Maybe the church doesn't want peace.  Maybe, instead, it needs passionate troops to animate the body of the church in a battle against those of us who have gone AWOL.  We are not with you, so we are against you, spit out as the lukewarm?

When you say "the enemy", you might mean Satan.  I suspect you did not mean that I am personally the enemy of all righteousness even though I believe things you don't and would support someone in something you wouldn't.  But I do think you implied or stated that those of us not heeding your counsel are either pawns or clueless to "the adversary's" power over us, needing either to be vanquished by the sword of truth or saved by the example and influence of the youth whose righteousness you're rallying.  And if I'm hearing that message, surely at least some of your troops are, and since I'm no longer "on the inside" to see the response, it's unsettling to wonder what foments within.  I can accept that when you counsel youth to fight the enemy, you may mean to engage them in an internal purification and fight for their own soul and righteousness, not an outright offensive against anyone who does not conform to your idea of righteousness.  But your rhetoric carries a tone and implications far beyond that.  And your authoritative position exerts disproportionate influence on the attitudes, cognition, and behavior of some youth I personally know and love but you merely abstractly "feel charity for" in an impersonal stewardship.  You must know the power you wield so seemingly brashly, and you must understand that on some level, or at some point, this does become very personal for some of us, and we will feel compelled to raise defenses and respond if necessary.

Push it far enough, and some of us may have no choice but to reluctantly take up arms (figuratively, of course, which I clarify because I know how easily anyone disagreeing with the Church is painted as a militant  and immoral antimormon capable of who-knows-what) to defend ourselves, our beliefs, our liberties, and those we love against the carefully aimed scopes of you and your troops when we had no such desire for war.  But it seems that's what you want, and it's what you know.  Troops.  Battle cries.  Foes.  Enemy lines.  War.  Cleansing.  There's a great sense of mission, of glory, and of camaraderie in war, in the army of Helaman, especially when the whole world is against the underdogs who shall not falter in defending truth and right, who have the architect and manager of the universe on their side.  I know what that was like.  I didn't hate people.  I loved all people.  I just thought most people were deceived by Satan, and I was fighting Satan's influence everywhere I turned, hoping to help those people.  But lines were drawn, and looking back, my actions and attitudes had unintended negative consequences on others and within myself.  Well, you're rid of me from your ranks, but I, too, feel righteous indignation, and you taught me your tactics most of my life, so expect a fight if a fight is what you force.

Nevertheless, I will hold the line a while longer.  I will wait, quell defensiveness, quiet presumptions, remember my own non-nefarious motives in the past, and watch for the actual, rather than speculative, effects of what you're preaching and the tone you're promoting.  It feels to me like you have set it up so that if I did lash back, it would only confirm what you've warned adherents about.  Take a mild person, warn others of their malicious or ferocious nature, then push that person long enough and marginalize him or her enough, and they may eventually confirm the warning.  But that's not the only reason I step back, turn a cheek, and try to keep calm.  I also believe it's the most productive means of engagement and testimony.  And part of why I don't fire back angrily is that I don't believe you're a monster.  I'm not convinced you're a nasty, embittered old wart bent on making everyone else as miserable as some accuse you of being.  I think you're probably well-meaning and believe you are saving souls and sharing what you believe is happiness.

But what you say and, even more, how you say it directly affects me, my relationships, and the happiness of people I care about, so you bet I'm paying attention.  Still, I have hope.  It seems, to me, that the principle of Zion, or unification of "the kingdom" into one mind and one heart, is not a conquering of ideology achieved by warlike means, as has been viciously attempted by world religions for centuries, but an interconnection through building bridges, looking into eyes, looking on the heart, reproving with sharpness on rare, required occasions, then showing increased love through an open ear, arms, and shoulder, and increasing understanding a heart at a time.

I don't know you.  I can't look you in the eyes in person, connect with you, and see behind your rhetoric.  I can hope there is a richness of humanity behind the abrasive exterior, but your rhetoric makes that hope hard to trust sometimes.  Meanwhile, I remember how your words made me feel when I was in your ranks.  I remember how they seemed such clarion calls of righteousness.  I remember how they called me to align myself and coaxed me into subtly combative ways of thinking while rewarding me with a sense of camaraderie and mission in a righteous war.  I remember the simultaneous retreat of parts of me that were not worthy of discussion, not deserving of understanding, not safe to articulate or bring to any light lest they overtake me completely and destroy my soul.  I have since lived something better, the purification of bringing all of me to light, the strength of looking directly into myself without fear, the power of examining and admitting rather than chasing off-stage my doubts, feelings, or urges, the fellowship of a more complete, authentic me among those who are every bit as faithful but apparently less fearfully combative.  I have greater peace, more optimism, and comfort within myself I didn't know I could have.  What's more: temptations and behaviors are actually less on my mind and less engaged than they were before.  Losing the need to fight them let them dwindle into the background.  I have found better than your teachings, a more excellent way.

I don't want a war. I will attempt productive and constructive rather than destructive and combative engagement, but do not mistake me for a pacifist you can bulldoze, and please understand that if others who believe differently than I do about engagement take up arms in a rhetoric war, it was not before a lifetime of dodging or quietly accepting the darts that flew from you or from those who were responding to your words and commands.  A morality war has been raging since long before you or I was born, and you are likely responding not specifically to we who choose and believe as you would not but to a generalized enemy of your morality.  I suppose your blunt words are in response or reaction to perceived spiritual dangers and those who promote them, and your messages are meant to alert and awaken obedience to what you believe to be a stricter, safer path.  But for most of us, in our experience, your rhetoric drew first blood.  I will decry extreme reactions, as I have.  I will not excuse disrespect and willful ignorance, even directed at a perceived aggressor.  But I do understand a great deal of the emotional reaction, and at some point, trying to defend your words begins to feel a bit like defending an abusive parent by insisting they're just trying to express love the best they know how.  It may be true, but the abused party is no less downtrodden, and when it's consistent, it becomes harder to dismiss it as overreaction, the guilt of the wicked, or generally their problem and not yours.  Couldn't you at least acknowledge it could be both?  After all, they don't have this problem with the other apostles.  Are you that much greater a defender of righteousness than them that the wicked senselessly attack you to justify their guilt-ridden consciences?

Knowing what I do about church hierarchy and beliefs about church office and calling, and you as a public persona, I think it completely ineffectual for me to plead that you change your tone.  I also am not a fan of jumping on the anti-Packer bandwagon and jumping down your throat every time I think you misstep.  Believe me, I've held my tongue plenty before today.  But I'm writing this because I wanted to get it off of my chest, and I'm publishing it in case some reader gets some insight from a little raw honesty and because if my patience is wearing thin, I imagine many are way past worn.  And with that, I'll try to let go of what I cannot change while turning to what I can.