Response to Porter to a very long ago comment

So I'm very slow in publishing this, which was written in reply to a comment on this blog post.

In response to your comment:
I don't feel judged. Anything but that. You are capable of real discussion about this topic without becoming swamped in emotion and hyperbole, regardless of your personal views on the topic(s) at hand.
As you surmised, my divergence from the Mormon church took place some time ago. (Many years, I'm not going to get too specific here, just wanting to let you know that it took place some time ago and happened very quickly- not related to the mission thing whatsoever.)
As I went through life for several years without fully processing, analyzing and moving past the issues I had with the church, I realized I had some big issues that needed to be resolved. Some of these I've been wrestling for over 30 years.
To grow up being taught that one thing is 'everything' - now and forever- and then to find that it isn't. It takes a long process to work through the steps of getting out.
Some have compared this process to the Kubler-Ross model of grieving. It took me many years to get past the first step of the process, which is denial. Now I'm in the angry phase. The rest of the process will go more quickly. I hope. I don't have 60 years to invest in the healing process.
If the church works for you, please participate in it. But be aware that no church or any organization has a corner on the market of morality, decent living, loving the neighbor, goodwill or anything else that many LDS seem to think is exclusive to the Mormon faith. I've been asked, both directly and indirectly: "How can you make moral and good choices without being an active member?" The answer is simple, and it may be surprising to some, but being a decent, moral person feels much more natural and effortless being on 'this side' without the church looking over my shoulder for every decision. For example: I'll never be asked to 'Lie for the Lord' ever again, nor will I be pressured into donating money to a cause I may disagree with- and if the pressure comes, I can stand under my own power and defend my position.
I am very glad that you have 'carved out your own place' in the church. That is great, because I think you are strong and intelligent enough to stand up for yourself if the going gets tough.
You seem like the kind of guy who a) smites fear into the gospel doctrine teachers because of your advanced debate and discussion skills- and b) never gets to teach the gospel doctrine class, because the bishop fears what you might say. Here's something I must say to that: You are not alone. There are thousands of people who don't believe 100% that stay somewhat attached to the church for a variety of reasons, and that's OK.
There's a place in Mormonism for everyone, from the most devout believer through the most bitter anti-Mormon. There are dozens of definitions that people use to describe the level of activity and/or belief in the church:
More active: TBM (True Believing Mormon) or Iron Rod Mormon- people that believe in the literal truth of every doctrinal twist and turn of Mormon theology.
Apologists- a group of people that might know about some of the disputed elements of the doctrine, or the historical issues- but use every mind-bending bit of logic-defying energy they have to defend and promote the church as a perfect (or nearly perfect) group.
In the middle, we have the Social or Liahona Mormon- believes some of the doctrine, but not everything. Sticks around because it is socially convenient to do so, or uses the church as a 'compass.' Semi liberal about their beliefs, but still consider themselves members.
The Cafeteria (or Buffet) Mormon takes what they like from the arrangement of doctrinal offerings, leaving the rest sitting under the heatlamps.
Sunstone/Dialogue Mormons are the intellectuals- they read all the history, they know all of the dirty dark secrets. Most of them probably own a hardbound copy of the Journal of Discourses and have actually read it. Despite their knowledge of the details, they still believe for whatever reason. There are a whole bunch of BYU humanities faculty that fit this description. They are active, recommend holding members that believe the doctrine, but could discuss in detail at the drop of a hat: Joseph Smith's multiple wives- including the polyandry, Brigham Young's racist speeches, the time Lorenzo Snow spent in jail for polygamy, or the church's position on ERA, abortion, Prop. 8, beards on men and multiple ear piercings on women.
New Order Mormons generally don't believe most or all of the doctrine, but continue to attend for a variety of reasons. Sometimes caller 'Foyer Mormons', these people accompany their parents, spouses, children and siblings to church- often to 'keep up appearances' and often to 'keep the peace.'
Paper Mormons- these are people who are largely gone, but their names remain on the church records. Some of these kinds of members are inactive, drink, smoke, enjoy coffee- yet when someone asks them, they define themselves as LDS, even so much as to defend the church and its leaders.
Then we have the other extreme: the PostMormons- mostly resigned, excommunicated, etc- but still working through their loss and the change in their life. Often PostMos offer their advice and knowledge to people who are newly considering leaving.
ExMormons are the same as the PostMos, but a bit more cynical. Less forgiving to the church leaders and the faults of the organization.
And then we have the AntiMormons. these people are usually evangelical extremists that think the Mormon dogma is so wrong that it must be replaced by another version of the same dogma. Kinda like an argument on what is the better color: blue or green.

So to wrap this up- there are tons of places for different types of people in and around the church. I have mine, it is somewhere toward the bottom of that list... But it is ever-changing.
I feel the need to vent this information, to take a public stand. Both for my own recovery and to offer assistance/dialogue/awareness to my friends and family that might need this information.
It hurts me very badly to see people, intelligent people, follow the LDS church when it is so clearly not what it claims to be. Simple academic research can prove that the leaders are and were lying about things.
Being physically embedded in Mo-Town has been a huge factor in my staying quiet for so long. But now integrity, honesty and relieving frustration are more important than remaining silent. Am I happy about it? No. Right now I'm still angry. And I'm screaming my lungs out. But this will pass. I will find my happy place.
There is no 'simply walking away.' It is impossible.

Obsessions

I love cheesecake
I dream about bike rides in the mountains
Sometimes my thoughts dwell on food of all kinds
Gadgetry and gizmos make me happy
Books and literature make my brain feel good
But more than anything
I am always on the prowl for new record stores
There has to be something in the dusty shelves that I don't own yet, and I am willing to hunt it down.

I am obsessed with music more than anything. Really. It is sometimes kind of pathetic.

I almost always have music playing in the back (or fore) ground of wherever I hang out- car, work, home, airplanes, motorcycles, etcetcetc.

I don't even know how many stereo systems we have at the house- the number I'm sure is pretty obscene. But I need to have them all over in order to facilitate my soundtracking of every life event.

Part of my obsession is listening to new purchases repeatedly. Dozens of times. I pick out a few tunes that I like and completely soak myself in them. I listen to tracks in album order, out of order, singles, repeats, etc. I soak them up, and then file it away on a shelf for future consumption when my needs call for it.


As a subset obsession to my music fetish, I love love LOVE LOVE LOVE U2. I've been a huge fan since right around the time that War came out in 1983. I heard "Sunday Bloody Sunday" on KRSP (Rock 103) and really liked what I heard. It turned out that my cousin had a tape. we jammed it for days.


In March of 1987, I bought "The Joshua Tree' on cassette- skipped school to go to a record store and pick it up the morning of release. After listening to it 10 or more times a day for a month, the tape was tired, worn out, and just plain damaged. So I replaced it- hoping for better luck with the second one. It also died in 6 weeks. So I bought the CD. I didn't have a CD player, but I had friends that could make me copies. Still have the CD. Several others also.

I took a bit of a break from my obsession for most of the 1990s- the stuff they were releasing wasn't interesting to me at the time- although I don't mind it now.

It's pretty unhealthy. I listen to U2 almost all the time, I travel to concerts, my collection contains almost (not quite all) every song they've released- almost 600 to date. I've been known to purchase rare items on ebay. But I don't think It has reached the point of imbalance. Yet.

I'm going to be heading out into the desert this fall to locate the tree. I have a 'treasure map' that shows approximately where it is located in Death Valley.

I also plan on hitting several other U2 specific sites around the world in the next few years- we'll see if it happens.

But most importantly:
concert season is here.

A slippery slope? How about fairness and equality?

Well, I have been rejoicing for a couple of weeks, since the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a discriminatory marriage law (Section 595.2) and gave all couples, regardless of gender, the ability to be married in Iowa.
It seems that despite being a very conservative state, Iowans support equality and fairness to all people. It is written into their constitution, and when considering upholding or striking down the marriage exclusion bill, the court had no choice but to find the law unconstitutional.
(read the text of the court's decision here)
An excerpt from the decision: "Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution."
In the days following this action in Iowa, the District of Columbia City Council voted unanimously to recognize same gender marriages performed elsewhere. Also, Vermont's legislature stood up to a gubernatorial veto on same-gender marriage- making their law the first in the country that has not involved legal action.
I know this is not the end of the chaos surrounding these laws, rather it is the beginning. I'm sure that the US Supreme Court is watching these measures and others like them (including California's Proposition 8) and preparing for the upcoming challenges and appeals.

It's just a matter of time people, and when it happens, society as we know it WILL NOT cease to exist. The only thing that will change is that all citizens and residents of the United States will be able to make a lifetime commitment to the adult partner of their choice.
I'm looking forward to being able to tell my grandchildren that I remember weeping with joy the day the tide turned. I remember how it used to be when our laws prevented all people from equal treatment. And I remember standing with all my friends, gay and straight, to celebrate the day it all changed. Oh yes, we will celebrate. Consider this your warning. Perhaps the uberconservatives will label our celebrations as the 'downfall of traditional society' or whatever, but I'm gonna party like CRAAAAAAAzy.
You see, the funny thing is, I have nothing personal to gain from this. I'm straight, married, and not particularly attracted to people of my same gender. But I'm pissed off that my country won't allow all people to act as responsible adults and make decisions for themselves. And I'm sick and tired of my friends and family members feeling devalued by society- sometimes being driven to suicide, drug abuse and other self-destructive behavior. It is wrong, and the clock is ticking.
Opponents of gay marriage always seem to fall back on a couple of arguments, which I will now address:
1) Homosexuality is immoral, therefore allowing homosexual marriages degrades the institution of marriage.
WHAT? leap of logic. There are plenty of heterosexual people that engage in every bit of the 'immoral' behavior that some homosexuals enjoy. Should those people be denied the right to marry as well? Who conducts the morality interviews? And who exactly gets to write the morality laws for the rest of the populace?
2) Gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage.
Again, I can't see a link. At all.
3) Homosexuals can't raise 'normal' children, their children will probably be damaged, broken and *gasp* gay.
Actually, the American Academy of Pediatrics found that "...there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents..." (study link)
4) It's a slippery slope. Allowing gay marriage to change the definition of marriage will lead to people marrying children and barnyard animals. Where will it end?
Where will it end? Very simple: Consenting adults. Gays aren't looking to marry children or goats any more than straight people.
5) Why should gays get special rights and protections?
Special rights? You've got to be kidding me. The General Accounting Office of the US Federal Government found (in 2004, under Republican President George W. Bush) that there are 1138 benefits, rights and privileges that are given to straight married people that can not be given to people who are unmarried. Coupled with the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and homosexuals are automatically denied these rights. Silly little things like end-of-life decisions, tax advantages, Social Security, pensions, insurance benefits, next-of-kin status, etc.

I'm done ranting. The winds have changed, and I thought I'd gloat a bit.