Liars and mockers

People have continually stolen my various Deseret News identities and then attempted to mock me by posting under my name.
I am not going to be scared off by these haters.
On slightly related matters, these comments appeared on the Deseret News editorial by Brother Joseph Cannon (the News' editor) where he called on members to be more kind to all people.
The claims about racism in the Church are unfounded. I urge all to read Marvin Perkins article on black and white as used in the scriptures. I also urge people to read Elder McConkie's article from August of 1978 where he said we should ignore everything said on the matter of blacks and the priesthood stated before Official Declaration 2, that these were statements made in ignorace and they had been overwhelmed by the further light and knowldege added by that revelation.
That said, there was one comment that clearly indicated that the person who wrote it held racist beliefs. Their claim that they can believe that certain people are marked as less faithful during the pre-earth life and not be racist is just false.
On the other hand, Brother Cannon did not directly deal with how to get more African-Americans to join the Church. It will not happen as long as there are missionaries like at least three in my mission who firmly believed that dark skin was some sort of curse.
Until we follow the lead of Elder McConkie and Elder Holland and reject these notions for the false teachings which have been displaced by a greater amount of light and knowledge, people will learn a lot of the Church and come to a point where they are turned into hard-core apostates by the hate and racism that some people who pretend to high standing in the Church have. Two of the most racist people in my mission were zone leaders.
It is not an issue of the old generation dieing, as I once hoped, we must proactively teach a new set of truths that accepts that God is no respector of persons, that all are alike unto God, and that he seeks to extend his blessings to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.
We still have a long way to go.

More Jewish converts

The number of people in the wikipedia category "Converts to Mormonsim from Judaism" has risen today from 4 to 7. Of the three new people in the category, only one of the articles was newly created, the other two are on people whose Jewish origins had not been identified. The most interesting to me is Marvin Goldstein. There was a good article on him in the Mormon Times back on May 11th of this year.
I still have unanswered questions on Brother Goldstein. I have learned his wife joined the church four years before him, and that Robert Millet, who was his wife's institute teacher and later a professor at BYU (and eventually dean of Religion at BYU) met with Brother Goldstein during his learning about the Church. I also have learned at age 18 he went to study at Tel Aviv University (about 1968) and later studied in Salzburg. He lives in Florida, regularly performs in Utah, and has perfrmed in Israel, Canada, England and many places in the United States. He has produced musical works with Thurl Baily and working on a book with Susan Easton Black. What I have not learned is where Brother Goldstein was born, and how Jewish he was before joining the Church, that is if he was Orthodox, Reform or religious at all or some other type of Jew.

The social institutions argument is getting notice

OK, the fact that I am so excited just shows how little attention is given to this idea. I mentioned it on a Deseret News discussion board. Someone responded by claiming hypothetical ideas of "one man" should not be applied to real life.
This clearly reveals ignorance and failure to even explore the idea. Social institutions theory is widely accepted. Stewart's articles on it have been published in a Harvard journal, I bellieve it was the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
This is not a hypotheticality, but a reality. Marriage is a social institution. If the government redefines it as genderless as opposed to the union of a man and a woman, you loose the social goods currently assoiated with marriage and get a new set of goods.
A good example of this can be found in the no fault divorce system. Well over half of divorces where there are children are initiated by the wife. Yet the husband not only gets ordered to pay very high child support, but the other regulations put on divorced spouses, such as banning them from discussing religion with their own child, are violations of the first admendment, sometimes things that would not be tolerated on the part of criminals.

The day of achievement

I was going to write that yesterday I reached a new goal, meeting an African-American who had gorwn up with both parents members of the Church. However, on reflection I realized that this was not unprecedented. She was just the first female African-American from Detroit I had met who had grown up with both parents members of the Church. I guess young Brother Louis's father did not join the Church until his son was about 16, and the same is true of the third Frank Varner in a row, while young Sister Kiel's father was branch president befrore she was baptized, and this was because she was not yet eight. I am not sure if she was quite BIC (born-in-the-covenant), but Bishop Morris on learning her last name was able to recall being the high councilor assigned to her branch and working closely with her father when she was a small child.
However, there was Janae, a girl I knew at BYU, who I first met when she was in special collections looking for an interview conducted with her father because he was one of the African-Americans who had joined the Church before 1985. In fact, he may have joined the Church before 1978. Since she was born in 1984, I am virtually positve it was before her birth, and although I did not ask, I would not be surprised if she was BIC.
Of course, there are also the Caulford children. Of course, the fact that their father is of Euro-American descent and it is their mother who is African-American, means that their father is not exactly a pilar of good Afrian-American fatherhood (he is a good father, just not African-American, and since the later is what is felt at times to be lacking and needed, he does not quite sufficie, although maybe he does more than at first I admit). Brother Viland is in the same situation, although his son is at most 12, and what we are looking for is not only examples of African-Americans raised in the Church, but seeking to find the oldest such example. Of course, on that grouds Kenyetta Edwards probably wins out, since both her parents joined the Church when she was at most eight (and her borhter Michael was probably four), but I have known the Edwards since they joined the Church (although I was also four, so I can not really remember before they joined the Church), so they don't really count. They have been part of my knowledge all along, but I have felt angst that African-Americans are not being brought fully into the fellowship, theorfore we must find additional examples because the Edwards alone clearly do not end my angst.
Of course, there is also the balance between knowledge and assumption. The fear is that African-Americans will feel slighted if we assume that they are converts, and even if we ask questions built around assuming that they are long time members, if pursued too strongly they may find them to support this possibly insulting supposition. Although I still ask deep and probing questions of many, there are others who might fully fit these parameters, but on the other hand the one I am thinng of may have been baptized at age 14. I know she has been a member for at least a few years, but felt that inquiring deeper would be too much at that point, so for now that is all I can say.

Peace, Christianity, hypocysy and love of our fellow man

The following I posted on my facebook page, but since it is long, I decided to post it here where there is a slightly higher chance of people reading it in full, I hope.
I know I have shared about this cause many times this week. Still, the need to say clearly that Mormons are Christian has been shown to me by those who so willingly insult Mormons and insinuate they are not followers of Christ.
It is true that knowing the truth of the matter woud not change some behavior. At least some of those who spread these falsehood know full well that we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Some may have private definitions of Christian, that they obscure with rhetoric, and so may in their own minds believe their words when they speak ill, however they are misleading others.
We need to keep speaking the truth, and keep openly proclaiming it.
Also, we need to openly avoid being provoked. Some of our enemies say the most mean and cruel things and then when we react will loadly proclaim that we are un-Christian, yet before they said that merely professing the name of Christ made one a Christian, that faith in works was a false faith.
The problem is in their heart they know a Christian must act a Christian. I know it is hard to call on ourselves to live a higher law, but it was Jesus who called on us to turn the other cheek.
At the same time we should show no remorse at advocating for the way of the Lord or seeking to advance his work by any means with in the law. We have no reason to apologize for doing good, but we also need to avoib being degrading or insulting towards others.
We also need to remember many are kept from the truth because of the craftiness of men. Try to answer people as if they have good intents, for at times assuming their ill will when no exists will turn those who might be brought to see the light through patience into people who are offened.
I know it is always easier to preach than to live these things, for I have at times expressed unneccesary condenscension and impatience with those who did not understand that polygamy has been totally forbidden by the Church for over a century.
However we know the work of the Lord need to go forth with more power, and more need to be brought to sing the song of redeeming love, so we need to acknowledge that we can do better, and be willing to say a better way is possible.
It is not hypocrysy to preach a higher law and more kindness and pateience than we have lived in the passed. It is hypocrysy to condemn others for doing what we ourselves are doing, or to pretend we have never fell short.
I fully admit I have answered with shortness when patience was called for, answered when it would be better to remain quiet, and many other things. I remember once a companion on my mission called me out for having not joined him in a discussion with some enemies of our faith as much as he felt I should have. I can not remember the full circumstances of the interchange, so I can not say if I just felt he was doing well enough, or if I feared that my only answer would be one of unjustified anger.
Of course my all time favoirte district leader was Elder Fekete, and this was because when we were on exchanges once we had expressed our views, and those we had met had expressed theirs, and so he said "farewell" and we walked off. This contrasts favorably with another interchange where I had been shot down by a man at the door and he clearly had no intent in listening but although I not only turned to leave but headed down the stairs, my companion continued to speak with him and to try and reason with this man who so clearly had no desire of further light and knowledge and only a desire to try and destroy our faith through his sophistry and cunning. It was truly frustrating to me to have to turn back and go again to that door, and wait until my companion was willing to move on.
I have written long, but my point is that we need to speak truth, and not let error reighn unchallenged, but we must follow the advice of Elder Hales and realize that at times and in places it is better to remain silent.
This may not even require that we not give an answer. It may be that when we type our first frustated answer, where we give full answer to the goads of another, we should take a second, re-read the message, think it over, wonder if we are maybe becoming to combative, or assuming ill-will where none was intended, and pause a moment.
The problem that leads to the incivility on the internet is partly that people rashly send off replies in anger that they regret in times of calm, although not sensing tone, the safety of anonimity, and the overwhelming amount of information making harsh cries one of the ways to get attention also play factors.
I will say some of my attacks on the enemies of the Church might at times be a little harsh. However I will not back down for calling those who teach the exact opposite of the President of the Church on the matter of what is and is not allowed by the Law of Chastity, those who seek to same a clear action of breaking that law could be a complience with it, are anything else than apostates. Some may say I claim a role I do not have, but I will say that those who proclaim that actions that are in no way a man and a woman having sex within the bounds of a legal and lawful marriage are anything but a violation of the law of chastity. A man can only have sex with his legal and lawful wife. I have thought long and hard on why the term "legal and lawful" is invoked, and can tell you if you care to know. A woman can only have sex with her husband. Sex with any other is a violation of the law of chastity. Those who are so rebellious as to claim that not only could something else be other than a violation of that law, but also that not proactively accepting some other forms of sexual intercouse is wrong, these are the deepest ofapostates.
I would use more harsh language, but my campaign to de-color race has made too little headway. Those who wish instead to overturn the traditional meaning of colors have more standing.
This is sad. My skin is not white, but some odd peach color. Of course the fact that I probably have Cherokee and Wampanoag ancestry disqualifies me from being demonated white, as may in fact also result from my having a Grandmother who was raised Jewish. However, in all cases describind people as white is not a reflection of any actually color in themselves, unless it is that of their hair, and that is as likely to be quite among Elder Sitati and his countrymen as among President Uchtdorf and his countrymen. If you do not yet know where Elder Sitati was born and has actually lived virtually all his life, I will just say it is the same place as where the United States' current presidents father was born. I did not say that initially because I chose to open with the more direct statement, and I wanted to compare like men, and a man who abandoned his child at a young age is not worthy of comparison to President Uchtdorf, even if that child who was abandoned has become a major international leader. No I wished to compare equals, and so I compared Elder Sitati and President Uchtdorf.
Unlike some people, I should have been absolved of all feelings of race guilt last centruy, because it was then that I voted for a man of African descent to be president of the United States. My support for Alan Keyes was made known not only by the secret ballot but by the load campaign sticker on my dorm room window.
Well, we need to love more and be more kind. We also have to realize that the truth is that showing human kindness to someone is the measure of our respecting them, and those who say that showing human kindness and regular caring to others does not absolve one of the accusation of racism really do not get it.
This is in response to an essay I wrote where I sought to show how members of African-descent were teated with the same respect, kindness and openness at least on my part as other Church members, and to demonstate that there was no racial animosity. The critiker made the odd claim that merely showing common kindness and civility to another did not disprove racism.
This is the most bothering statement I have ever dealt with. I have since dealt more with those who have imbibed the theories of power sturctures, and might concede that there is a little to this. However, if you are not in-civil to another, and are wiling to treat with them not only openly but in the same open manner as with others, how are you racist?
I have since realized that arguments that focus on percieved authority in the Church hold more wieght outside. Yet, the arguemtns I most want to make I dare not. What could be more a statement of someone's standing then them standing in the figurative place of Jesus in a ceremony? The answer is absolutely nothing, since the Son is equal to the authority of the Father, even standing in the place of God the Father would not change the gradation. Thus, although some may not concieve of it fully, understnading Mormon theology brings us to the realization that even blessing the sacrament is an office of full authority.
In many ways I wish I could have thought so clearly on the matter last century. Of course, it may be other places where the representation is made more evidence, where the fact is pronounced clearly on every interaction and where the connection with the Lord in a physical way is emphasized by clasping of hands with the one representing the Lord, and the fact that I think of this case both because of my grandmothers story of one who had not come to accept all as having a right to officiate in such a postion who the Lord had called, and the fact that when I was in a similar situation where one whose standing to do so was affected by events slightly upwards of two years before I was born was most clearly related to my actions, it was a case, and the case I remember not because of the race of the man, but because it was a man known to me who I had spoken with on many occasions.
Of course, I actually hope I have been so vague that only those who fully know of what I speak have a clue of what I speak, because I do not want to say anythng that reveals to those who do not know.
The above line ends my quote from my other post. I will remain as vague on matters that need to not be diviluged. I only hope I have not spoken too bluntly.
My complexed point is that in some ways I can see Sekou Benson officiating at the sacrement table as a station of profound respect because I have seen other offices, fall to their symbolic nature, and in doing so see that offices we sometimes treat too lightly are very serious indeed.
Of course, I have also seen Brother Banks conducting a meeting, and Obispo Mena, whose ancestors at one time lived in Africa and later in Panama, where he was born, although I know little of their journey from one to the other, whether they stopped elsewhere, and for how many generations before his birth they had resided in Panama, are not known to me. I have been taught by Brother Robinson, who may not really look different than most men of European descent, but who boldly proclaims both his African and his Native American ancestry.
Of course, some of these factors having meaning only is possible from realizing that before 1978 the Lord allowed his Church to withhold the priesthood from some on the ground of race, and that even a man with the apparence of Brother Robinson would have been excluded from the priesthood.
Maybe the reason why my associate was so critical of my theories was because I had tried to explain this fact, but without the knowledge of how important the speaking with the proper nuances is to the subject.
Of course, the fact that my associate was a bold non-believer, probably more agnostic than athiest, but secularist to the core, and one who had imbibed much of liberal theories on power politics, especially for a teenager, might suggest that even if I had spoken in the most nuanced manner, I would have missed some point.
Of course, it must also be recognized that someone living in Macomb County in 1996 could not speak of these issues in a manner than the only cloud was events changed in 1978 or earlier.
I may have even openly admitted the fact that as a ten-year-old (or maybe even nine), I spoke ill of the one African-American in my primary class and mocked him for sucking his thumb. I still remember clearly the rebuking for this mocking I recieved, and I will point out that the mocking was focused on thumb sucking and not anything that could be construed as normally within the confines of race, still if I had admited this failing it might have caused my associate to think ill of me.
I really don't know. His claim that a racist can show general kindness and respect towards those of a race he despises really bothers me. It begs the question, who then is a racist and what does a racist have to do to get that moniker.
While some might claim I would not have mocked the boy if he had been of European and sucking his thumb, and since no other child in my primary class sucked their thumb, I guess I can not disprove them. Others may claim that thumb-sucking is more common on a racial basis, but unless we can find people who proactively promote thumbsucking as an ethnic trait that is not likely to be a strong arguement. Beyond this, if this was in fact what caused the ill-will towards me, we still have the question of why not recognize ethnic insensitivity as lack of understanding instead of trying to label it maliciousness. Beyound this, the fact that my primary class then had a child whose parents were immigrants from China, one whose parents had immgrated to the United States from Brazil (although her father was born in Russia, but that is a complexed story) another whose mother was a native of Uruguay (although his father was born in Detroit, and if either of his parents had among their ancestors the children of Lehi it was his father, whose ancestors probably could not be traced out of Tennessee and Alabama enough to say for sure that he had no Cherokee, Choctaw or Powhatan antecedents), and there was also a boy in that class who would prodly proclaim his great-grandmother was a Cherokee princess, a story told of virtually every Native American wife of Euro-American settlers, so much a stock phrase in the descriptions of the Native American maidens worthy of the settlers marrying that its accuracy is suspect, both because it seems to be aplied to even women whose fathers have not even a known name, but also because what is the meaning of "pincess" when we are dealing with a group like the Mingos who claimed that they were all chiefs? I have yet to mention the fact we had at one point had a Korean girl in our class, but her tailor father had decided to move closer to his place of employment, or found another, and so they had moved to another ward in our stake.
Thus the notions of the binary racial project never applied to my class. How can you apply it when people who have Asian ancestors outnumber those who have African ones. How do you apply it with immigrants from Latin American in the mix. Even more how do you apply it to people who have had primary teachers born in Uruguay and Mexico and a primary president born in Hong Kong (I think, she may have been born in China, but I think it was Hong Kong, I should really know because her son was among those in my class, and was mentioned before, but how either of his parents births coincided with their families moving to Hong Kong, and exactly how two people raised in Hong Kong only met each other at BYU have never been fully understood to me.)
Maybe my hope to be a perscriptive sociologist are too unrealistic. The forces that govern the use of words, the perceptions of race and ethnicity and so on, are hard enough to understand, it is probably beyound hope to desire an overthrow of the equation of color and race, or the end of the perception of race as a two-part dichotomy. If the huge influx of people from countries in Asia and Latin America to the United States since 1965, if the marriages of Alex Boye, Marcus Martins, Larry Caulford, Ronald McClain and Thurl Bailey, if the election of a man whose mother is of Cheorkee and European and whose father was a native of Kenya, and the deafeat of an old school African-American politician in New Orleans by a man who was born in South Vietnam have no killed the binary racial projet, than why do I think that my opinioning on the issue, my open declaration of my possible Cherokee and Wampanoag routes, my occasional speaking of Ira Hatch or even John Brown the Navajo code talker and his primarily Scottish descended stake resident son-in-law, my speaking of my scout masters who were married to women from Uruguay and Venezuela respectively, or my rattling off of all 15 or more immigrants from Brazil I have known, from some who were of full European ancestry to others who if they had any non-African ancestry it was not apparent in their looks, and yet the later had a husband whose ancestors had come to Utah from Europe in the 19th Century.
No, if the fact that in one county almost 5% of the population marked something that even the census, after their scrutinizing and reassigning some of the marked and explained things under it, had to admit was in fact "some other race", did not prevent the puplication of a book that presented the number of "balck" and "white" residents of Georgia in 1990 as equalling exactly (I kid you not, the addition of the two numbers did not come even one short of the total) the population of Georgia in that year, why do I think that my speaking on this issue will cause any change?
It is a good question, but I still hope that by causing someone to think more on this issue I will produce some alteration on the matter.

A lone fight

Some days it seems my reccomending of the works of Monte N. Stewart, my explicating of the social institutions argument for marriage, my exposure of fistgate, and other related actions fall on un-receptive ears.
At times it seems as if all who dare question the end to man/woman marriage are branded as bigots. Even the dean of the Boston College Law School has done that, suggesting that supporting the social benefits of man/woman marriage which can only continue with it remaining the social institution that is designated by marriage is in some way insensitive to people with certain "sexual oreintations".
This shows that the war has been lost, because for too long we have allowed it to be fought on the enemy's terms. We need to stop being distratcted by questions like "how will this effect your marriage". It may not affect individual marriages, but it will destroy the social meanings of marriage. Individuals can not do this, but the government can. It is all the worse when done by judicial fiat under the guise of "constitutional provisions" because it makes those who believe in marriage as God revelead it into rebels against the established governmental order.

Affirmation: An Arm of the Great and Abominable Church

OK, the heading is a bit inflamatory. However, the teachers of false doctrines must be exposed and called out.
The basic premise of Affirmation is that same-gender marriage is a good thing, and that sexual relations between man and man or woman and woman could under some conditions be approved of the Lord.
This is a total and complete lie.
Even more so, Affirmation knows that this is a lie. They know that they teach false doctrine, reject the scriptures, ignore clear statements that make sexual relations with those of the same gender a violation of the Doctrine and Covenants, and much else.
They are true sophists. They try to market themselves as working for an end of mistreatment of homosexuals. They too often avoid mentioning their real goal, or that they reject basic doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In many ways I am surprised that the leaders of the Church agreed to allow them to meet with the head of LDS Family Services. Of course the fact that when the meeting was pushed back for reasons that were totally logical if Affirmation had any interest in better treatment, Affirmation opened its public statement that told us a lot about them.
Specifically they reject the basic idea of the Church being led by inspiration. They think that they can demand certain talks in General Conference and get their way.
The leaders of Affirmation are evil men who seek to destroy the work of God. They oppose the advancement of the Plan of Salvation, and those who accept their false teachings will suffer.
They also preach a message of hopelessness. Not only do they ignore the fact that in some cases treatment and true seeking the Lord can bring a full change of heart, but they ignore the fact that sin begats suffering. They ignore the fact that why so many social distress indicators are so high for practicing homosexuals is because these people embrace a life-style of rejecting the commandments of God.
It is hard to know why people commit suicide. However, I think Affirmation's notion that men and woman who deal with same-gender attraction have no chance of change, and no real hope even in a better life if they remain faithful is a more likely cause of suicide than telling people that there is a possiblity they can have a change at the deepest levels, and that even if they do not in this life the Lord will allow all to recieve all blessings who have been faithful.
Beyound this, Affirmation not only ignored the call of the First Presidency on us to support Proposition 8, but actually proactively worked in the other direction to destroy this measure.
Why such fiery language. In part because I feel strongly that evil must be exposed. Also, in part because I am tired of getting almost no comments on my blog, so I figure if I use in-moderate language it will be noticed.

Please become a fan of Eduardo Balderas

I just started a fan page for Eduardo Balderas, the man who translated the Pearl of Great Price, about half of the hymns, and along with Antoine Ivins the Doctrine and COvenants and Temple Ceremony into Spanish. He also for 30 years traveled from Salt Lake to Mesa once a year to meet the people traveling the other way from Mexico and gave patriarchal blessings.
So far no one has joined me in being a far of Brother Balderas on facebook. So please come and be a fan.

As I survey the wondrous cross

This article reporting on a presentation at the Sunstone Symposium is most useful for its information on the historical use of crosses by Mormons. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705328955/Whats-behind-LDS-cross-aversion.html
I think Robert A. Rees is right that Read has overstated his case with words like "taboo" and "aversion". On the other hand, I remember a friend griping that the bishop was telling her she had to stop wearing a cross but no one had told her Jewish convert friend he had to stop wearing a star of David.
There is my view that this indicates the view of Jewishness as an ethnicity. However, there is also abject fear of anti-semiticism that might play in. The last fact is that the griper in question really did not know that her statement on the case was accurate. First off, the man in question had a different bishop than the one telling her to remove the cross. Secondly, she was comparing her experience of meeting with someone with the outward evidences of another.
I also distrust Rees. He claims to be an active Latter-day Saint, and as far as I can tell he is. However, I think he has been lead astray by the craftiness of men. Look up Richard A. M. Brickerton's review of a talk by Rees on homosexuality. Here it is https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/IssuesInReligionAndPsychotherapy/article/viewFile/377/355
Brickerton does not mince words, but I think he has a good point. He is anticipating Elder Oaks later statements (Brickerton wrote this piece in 1993) where he states that we first off have to recognize people are not instrinsictly homosexual. This may at times be seen as lessening the fact that some people may have been born with a predisposition to same-gender attraction, but Elder Oaks does not question this, and I don't really think Brother Brickerton does either.
The problem is when we define people as inherently different because of this. This is uncalled for. All the more so because many (but by no means all) people who deal with this problem are able to overcome it.
What we need to clearly state is that there is a difference between feeling attraction to those of the same gender and acting on that attraction. Rees has allied himself with those who write letters to the apostles denouncing the Church's teaching on same-gender attaction.
He is allied with people who claim they are not taking a stand on the political issues of homosexuality, and claim they are presenting the Church's teachings on the issue. However, in some ways I think that Brickerton's assertion that the biggest enemies in the Church come from within can be amplified to say that people who claim they are not trying to make waves, and yet write accusatory letters to apostles or write articles turning men who committed suicide into martyrs because they had same gender attraction are more insidious than the people who are full affiliates of Affirmation.
The fact that Rees has been on multiple occasions quoted and praised by Affirmation should cause him to pause and consider whether his rhetoric on this issue gives anyone hope.
One of the false notions is the reasons that men (for it is overwhelmingly males) suffering from same-gender attraction commit suicide. If a man breaks up with his girlfriend and then committs suicide he is considered mentally disturbed, if a man breaks up with his boyfriend and then commits suicide he is internalizing the "homophobia" of the surrounding populace. There are other issues. If one does firmly believe that homosexual actions are evil, the worst advice they can be given is that they should stop resisting them because they are unchanging and should instead embrace and practice these actions.
There is an open issue of how many of the people who deal with this issue can overcome it. While, I agree with Elder Holland that we need to avoid stating as the goal for everyone gaining the ability to have attraction to women to the level of marriage, I think it is often those who consider themselves the most enlightened on this matter who create the most problems.
The notion that people are innately homosexual and that these men will not be able to marry is problematic. I think that if a man legitimately feels a desire to marry a specific woman, and has clearly acted in ways that this is not just an attempt to overcome strong attraction to homosexual behavior, that he should marry.
I guess connected with this, I will argue a man who has experienced homosexual attraction, even if he has never actually had sex with another man should tell his potential wife this. This relates to my view that past issues of pornography and fornication should also be revealed before marriage.
I know this runs counter to the teachings of such luminaries as Brother Bott, but I think it is sychologically the best way. Yes, there is the argument of "forgive and forget". My view, largely influenced by Joseph Tenney, is that if the sister believes these things in her heart of heart she will forgive the man, and realize he has moved beyound these things. The question men like Bott have not addressed adequately is, is it better for the wife to find out about these things at marriage or learn of them after the vows have been made. Breaking an engagement does not violate covenants, ending a marriage, especially a temple marriage, does.
The big question is, will a woman marry a man who has dealt with same-gender attraction, let alone one who may have several years previously engaged in sex with another man? I do not know the answer to the question. If we understood the gospel properly, if we understood the power of the atonement and so on, the answer would be yes.
I will tell you that I am fully willing to marry a woman who has dealt with these issues and tryly repented of them and put them behind her. Although I know of two cases where women divorced men on the grounds that the women was a lesbian, in neither of the cases am I convinced that this was a pre-existant condition. In one especially I get the impression the feelings may have developed during the marriage.
I know this is some very controversial stuff, but I think we need to face up to these things. I think that the judgemental categorization of other peoples sexuality, and assumptions of unchangableness, deneying the power of Jesus and repentance need to end.
While we need to recognize that not all will be changed, that we each suffer our own trials in unique ways, we also need to recognize that the person who knows if he feels the adequate attraction to another individual for marriage is that person. I greatly dislike the assumption that those who end marriages on grounds of same-gender attraction started with the wrong intentions. Like the view that a convert who goes inactive was joining for the wrong reason, we have to remember that people fall into evil, that they are lead astray by Satan, and that current actions are not a reflection of past feeling. Life is a strugle of enduring, and we all may fall at any point. To assume the person who let go of the rod today had not been holding it a year ago is to misunderstand the processes of mortality and human changeableness. If we learn anything from the Book of Mormon we should learn that people one converted can and do fall away, while men in the deepest of sin can and do repent.

Seeking for Dialogue

One of the perpetual questions people aks me, at least those who I bring the issue up to, is why do I keep going back to Deseret News discussion boards when the atmosphere there is so confrontational, and when people insult me so mercilessly.
This is a good question. I guess it is partly a love for debate. I sometimes skip right to the comments section, because debate has an appeal that regular articles often lack.
Still, I have to remind myself why I got hooked, or at least how. My first major interaction was reading the comments on the occasion of President Hinckley's death. I enjoyed reading comments from world wide, and even those not in English.
I have to admit that no set of comments I have dealt with since has ever appraoched those in the geographical area covered.
I have on multiple occasions denounced people for the "if you don't like the way things are in Utah, then leave" comments. However, although some people say this is a uniquely Mormon against non-Mormon antagonism, it is not. I have seen people told that if they do not like President Obama, they can move out of the United States. After a letter I wrote was posted at least one person said that as a non-resident of Utah I should not comment on Utah matters.
However, I think they were mocking a point I did not make. I think they were mocking the argument by some that there is no reason for people of other faiths to comment on articles about the Mormon Church. I do not think I have ever said that. What I do agree with is that it is stupid for people to come on the comments about an article speaking of the Church and say as a non-Mormon they are offended by the space used for that article. The Church owns the Deseret News, no one makes them read it. If you are a Catholic or Jew or Muslim or anything else you can read the articles, but to say that an article is a waste of space because it is about Mormons seems just an odd comment.
However, what I actually complained of was three fold. My main point was that people should have to create accounts to comment on the Deseret News. Some argue that this will not help, their example being that the KSL sight requires you to register but the discussions there are much more hostile than on the DN site. I will agree that that is true, but it is a false comparison. The reason that KSL has more hostile discussions is that they do not use the same screening.
Maybe I was not clear enough, but what I think is that the DN should keep all its current policies and ADD a registration on top of that. My proposal was built around the assumption that this was the only change under consideration.
That said, the person who made the comparison might have a point. The claims of the hard-core haters that if they had to own their comments, had to admit who they were when hurling hate a vitriol at the LDS Church, call all Utahns backwards idiots or say that Mormons are "mindless sheep", they would not do it, may not actually be true. The fact of the matter is people stand outside Temple Square, and used to stand on the Salt Lake Temple plaza making statements worse than these. In fact, the claim that "we need this anonimity to speak how we feel", might properly have included "otherwise the highered Mormons assisns would come and kill us by approved methods". In a lot of ways it does not seem like an actual interaction with the issue, and just another chance to lob one of their hateful anti-Mormon statements.
What frustrates me the most is that I actually want a discussion about some of these issues. What I get is name calling and inmaturity in responses. When I write a statement that takes 200 words, people do not engage any of my arguments, they gripe about me writting too long of a statement.
Personally I find the 200 word limit annoying.
Another claim is I should accept the viciousness because that is part of the inter-net. That is just stupid logic. Yes, maybe the nature of non-personal communications, quick send offs and the like makes the internet a vicious place, and maybe I am oversensitive when people say "Get a life", "You need to clam down and take your medication" and many other such things, but saying "this is just how the internet is" really does not help.
Is there no other option than going around and calling those that disagree with us "commie pinkos" or "wing nuts". Is there no other way to hold a conversation than mocking people for attending Church while on vacation, mocking them for actually living their religion and keeping the Sabbath day holy, not drinking alcohol and many other things. Considering that alcohol sales were banned nation wide for over a decade, to claim that Mormon opposition to alcohol is unique is just based on narrow-mindedness.
I have come to see that the most narrow minded people in Utah are not Mormons but anti-Mormons. True, there is the person on the other extreme who denounces people for vacationing instead of going to their home wards. I probably come off as such a person at times, with my rhetoric on how people should attend the ward they LIVE in. Still, I never was a full supporter of such notions. My last Sunday in my mission when Sister Jaeger came up with the "problem" of missionaries in some other area having baptized a man living in our area because he was dating a member woman in that area, I have to admit I thought she was over-reacting a little.
Still, when people live five miles from a ward and travel 25 to go to a different one, especially when the one they do not go to barely has enough people to operate and the one they do go to has at least twice as many if not three times as many active members, I do see it as not the best thing.
The people who draw ward boundaries do so under the inspiration of the spirit. At times some decisions made may not be fuly guided by the spirit, and at times the Lord may allow us to makde mistakes to learn from them, however, I think in general people should attended where they live.
There is a process for going to wards elsewhere, but when people state point blank that people can go to whatever ward they want, they are wrong. I do have to admit I find it wrong for people to move to a new area, go to a few wards, and then decide which one to move into. I guess, if you are properly guided by the spirit that might actually be a good thing to do. However, if your reasoning is because you like the people in one ward more than another, instead of moving into the ward you feel impressed by the spirit to move to, than it is a wrong decision.
The attiude that I find the worst is those who admit, and I have heard people do so, they moved to the larger ward so they could avoid having to take on more responsibility. They admit it is selfish reasoning, and I dislike such reasoning.
My main point, at least when I began, was that I want to have actual conversations on issues. That is what I seek in the Deseret News discussion boards, but almost never find. That was my goal in starting this blog, and still do not find. Maybe I am seeking for the wrong type of interaction and validation, but then again, is it wrong to want a sensible discussion instead of people just bashing each other?

Intelectual non-judgemental instructions

I am wondering if there is a place where discussion about the Church occur where there is not the unending hate and vicious anti-Mormonsim that is seen on the DN boards.
I get tired of the people implying that the Church intentionally breaks laws to send missionaries places. I am also tired of the stupid rules that groups like the Border Patrol impose, such as making it so missionaries have to have their passport on their person. Keeping passports at the mission office would be a much easier way to deal with the situation. If people are in the country due to institutional connections, the institution and not the people should be responsible for the documents.

Feki Po'uha

Anyone who has watched The Other Side of Heaven will remember Feki.
Unfortunantly if they ever say his last name, it is only once. His name was Feki Po'uha. My search for him on google turned up another Feki Po'uha who was president of the BYU-Hawaii Student Association in 2006-2007. Doing more research it turns out this Feki is the grandson of the older Feki (and has a son named Feki, but his father was named Joseph).
After being Elder Groberg's companion Feki went to Hawaii where he assisted in building BYU-Hawaii and the Polynesian Cultural Center. While there he married a woman named Foli from Niue, and then moved to Niue. He was district president in Niue when Elder Groberg was president of the Tongan Mission. Feki died of cancer in the early 1970s, so it seems likely that the younger Feki never knew his name-sake grandfather.
The younger Feki served his mission in the Kenya Neirobi Mission.

What is Mormon art?

Of course this article does not even ask that question. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705327443/Scholars-ignoring-Mormon-artists.html
Is there Jewish art? Is there Catholic art? Does any work by an artist of that faith count. Is Avard Fairbanks Ram design for Dodge Mormon art because he was a Mormon?
What of Mahonri Young who was totally inactive most of his life? Also, his art often had no Mormon theme.
Still, my biggest gripe is the claim Mormon art=American art. Can we say this of C. C. A. Christensen? He was born and raised and TRAINED in Denmark. Most of the Mormon artists and muscians of the 19th century were immigrants. So were most 19th Century Mormons period.
On the same note, is there a greater Mormon scultor today than Erasmo Fuentes? In his book on Mormon culture Terryl Givens rattles off many non-American Mormon artists. It is one of the constant frustrations I face that this is at times the only soucre I can find indicating these artists exist at all.

Accusing the Church

Here is a story from the Deseret News about 38 or 40 missionaries being arrested in Ghana on grounds that their "papers were not in order". http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705327530/Missionaries-detained-in-Guyana.html
This has actually turned into a chance for some people to accuse the Church of wrong-doing.
I have posted multiple responses to comments, but wanted to do several more.
First off, the fact that TWO lawyers who work for the Church are mentioned gives the lie to the claims that the Church is in some way violating the law.
Secondly, these people who claim we need to abide by the law more OBVIOUSLY forget two things. 1- It is a longstanding view in the American psyche that preaching and sharing your religion is a basic right. It is true that other countries do not hold this view, but in the American view this is a basic human right that is evidenct everytwhere, and mere laws that fail to recognize it do not extinquish it.
2- The strongest article of faith is the one in favor of religious freedom, not the one advocating following the law.
The claims of the man from Belize that the Church ignores laws are patently false. The Church seeks to go into countries through the front door. It posts the disturbing signs saying only those with foriegn passports are allowed in on its Churches in China.
Others gripe without knowing anything. Who are they to criticize the calling of missionaries without regular immigration status. What if they came to the United States at age two, do we punish the children for the sins of the fathers. What if they are immigrants from Iran where going home is a possible death sentance yet the United States refuses to recognize that religious conversion here can make someone in danger when they go home.
Thirdly, just because a person with irregular immigration status is called as a missionary does not mean that the Church intentionally did this. In fact, as we saw with a case at Utah State at times some of these young adults who came to the United States as young children do not even know themselves that they are illegal immigrants. So they do not even have to lie to not disclose their immigration status.
On the other parts of the story we have the guy who gripes about the locked up passports when the law apparently said that each person had to have their own. There is a possibility that the law was changed and this guy does not realize, or that the Church had a specific consent decree allowing this procedure. However, even more importantly this person confuses ignorance with malice. Immigration laws are onerous and complexed, and if you have had one too many missionaries loose their passports, and you do not know there is a provision that they need them on their persons such decisions might make sense.
The whole debate about "We Shall Overcome" shows racism on the part of the complainers. If the only reason these missionaries were thrown in jail was in fact that the government disikes the Church, than these people were actually being falsely imprisoned. The claims that the Church opposed civil rights are false, the First Presidency issued in 1963 a statement in favor of the Civil Rights Act, which for those who do not know was BEFORE the act was passed.
Even worse the assumption that all the missionaries are "white Republican westerners" is just plain false. How many of these missionaries identify with any political party? How many of them are African-American? How many of them came from East of the Mississippi? Even if they were a white sef-identified Republican from Orange County California would this assertion make sense?
Not one of my mission companions could be labeled a white westerner, and I really can't say for sure what any of there political persuasions were. One was a self-identified although 1/8th or so Native American, another was Mongolian, another had a grandmother from Ecuadore, another was of part Chinese descent, 2 were Candians, one was French, and the remaining three were from Ohio, Indiana and Tennessee. Of course, I served my mission in Las Vegas, so we had few westerners in the mission because they rarely send people that close to home, although we did have one missionary from Nevada, 3 from California, at least one from Arizona, maybe 3 from Utah by biggest count and more from Washington, Oregon and Idaho, I just never had any of these as companions.
We also had at least four missionaries of African descent by the end of my mission, two or more from Brazil, one from Virginia and one from Florida most recntly but a native of the Dominican Republic, so realistically we only had one true African-American, but beyond those I named we had several Hispanics and about four Polynesians, one Micronesian and one missionary from Japan.

Monte N. Stewart: A Man for this season

We need to defend marriage. For too long the enemies of marriage have made headway. The radical left has won in few courts and in few state legislatures, but they have won overwhelmingly in academia.
This is probably most clear in the field of law. Even among BYU's own faculty there have been some speaking for genderless marriage.
It is true that those who have any actual background in the issues of marriage law, Lynn Wardle and Richard G. Wilkins come to mind, or among those who are experts on marriage, such as Alan J. Hawkins, there is strong and well defined defense of marriage.
Another key player is Monte N. Stewart, who was for a short time about two decades ago a law faculty member at BYU, and who later was president of the Georgia Atlanta Mission. He has also been a US district atorney as well as the Counsel to the Governor of Utah. He is currently the president of the Marriage Law Foundation.
Here is an article he wrote for Meridian Magazine. http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/051109Explain.html
Stewart has made these same arguments in journals published by Rutgers, Duke and Harvard, in the case of Harvard it was the Harvard Journal of Law and Public policy.
We need to understand the social institutions argument. I have read a whole paper by Stewart on this subject, and some of other papers, including his argument that the recent decisions betray Perez and Loving. That is an argument that is pretty extreme to some, but the fact that common law never defined marriage as only between members of the same race, and that many states did not enact any laws against inter-racial marriage until late in the 19th century underscores that the comparison is based on false premises.
The basic notion of social institution theory is that individual actions neither define nor destroy social institutions. It is only through massive action that this occurs. However, since gnederless marriage encompasses marriages that happen to include men and women, its institution will destroy the social goods of man/woman marriage as we now know it.

BYU and Wayne State

Over at the FAIR Rising Generation blog a post was recently made about BYU.
I was there at the beganing of the Samuelsonian reforms of changing policies about acceptable housing, including things like actually revoking the approved status of apartment complexes where there was a long-standing pattern of honor code violations, and taking more control of the approved housing situation in a large part by cutting back the range of BYU approved housing. So I know that BYU is not perfect, but also know that things are way better than elsewhere.
This caused me to comment on BYU and Wayne State. I realized quickly that to do justice to the issue would require a full blog, and I promised one there, so now I am in the process of delivering.
The most obvious similarity between BYU and Wayne State is that they have similar sizes of enrollment. The difference in number of students is less than 5%, and I am not sure which has more students. However, the undergrad/grad balance is different. BYU limits itself to 10% of grad students, Wayne State has many more. Wayne State has not only a med school, but also a pharmacy school.
One of my favorite BYU v. Wayne State observations is that both schools have similar net clothing worn by the student body. This is probably a slight exageration. Male clothing cover is less at Wayne State, although not noticably so. On the other hand, female clothing cover is just more divergent. On one hand Wayne State has large numbers of Muslim students who walk around with covered hair. On the other, short shorts and low-cut tops as well as sleveless attire are not uncommon at Wayne State. The divergence can be overstated though.
Actually even more central to their differences is that Wayne State publishes its newpaper once a week, BYU five times a week. Wayne State does not have a letters to the editor section in the paper, and the percentage of the students who read the paper is much lower. BYU has various debates over modesty issues, including people griping about the reaction to their bringing their outside friends on campus who dress in tank tops and such. These people blame others "judgementalism", ignoring the fact that one provision of the honor code is that you will tell your guests that they to are expected to dress appropriately on campus.
This has brought to my mind issues of people smoking on BYU campus and when confronted basically arguing "I am not a student". Unfortunantly for them BYU policy bans any tobacco or alcohol use by anyone on campus. I wish I could say it was fully followed, but I was in a dorm where someone would smoke, and we were all faced with the smell.
At Wayne State it was a totally different story. At least one I started there entering some buildings was like running a gauntlet of smoke. The rule was you had to be 20 feet from the building to smoke, but no enforcement or notice existed, the campus police refused to enforce the rule in anyway and most ash trays were closer than that to buildings.
How much drinking went on at Wayne State I have no clue. What I do know is that the school did not have a homecoming dance and no other dances as far as I could tell.
When I was there there was not even institute on campus. Since then an institute has began, but it is apparently small with irregular attendance.
Wayne State is an urban commuter school as opposed to Provo which is a suburban residential-campus set up. However, Wayne State has been seeking to re-make itself as a Residential Campus over the last 12 or so years. This campaign has only been marginally successful. A few years ago, maybe two or three before I started there, they had for a time let freshmen live on campus for free. However, now they charge more to live on campus than BYU does.
Also, Wayne State does not have a surrounding area of "off-campus" housing like BYU does. My 15 mile travel one-way to school was not even marginally more long than most students in distance. Even my taking the bus did not neccesarily make it longer time wise. I knew another student who took the bus who traveled at least four miles further on the bus.
Besides its main campus Wayne State has six entension centers. Two are in high schools and only offer night classes, two are at Community Colleges (one a good hours drive away) and two are buildings that are operated by Wayne State as extension centers.
I knew one person who would leave one class early to get to an extension center class on time.
While leaving class early or being late are not unheard of at BYU, they were much more prevalent problems at Wayne State. I was in classes where literally over half the class left early.
In general I would say that the political views of the faculty are more varied at BYU than at Wayne State. Dr. Bohac at least claimed to be a communist, Dr. Huntington was a Democrat, Dr. Buckley a fiscally liberal Republican while Wayne State's faculty was close to being uniformally strong-left leaning Democrats, even if at times even they could not stomach the bias of some of the texts in un-ending assults on FOX News.
Wayne State lacked community feel. Of course, as I have said Wayne State is an unban communter school. The average age of undergraduates at BYU is lower than at Wayne State, but more to the point there is an actual divide between those over and under the age of 23. Most male students who start at BYU at 18 know they will be 24 at youngest when they graduate, and most BYU students graduating at age 24 began their college career at age 18. 24 means you completed course work in four years, and managed to only miss four semesters due to your mission. Since many courses require extra years, major switching can add time, and it is not unheard of for men to work a semester somewhere around their mission, I would not be surprised if many BYU graduates are actually 25.
While Wayne State has no lack of students who are enrolled for six or more years, most students who come in at age 18 at least think they will graduate by age 23, and many of the older students are transfer students from community colleges or other colleges and universities.
Of course Wayne States over 30,000 students with Division 2 sports clearly does not get the unity from sports teams. However, BYU would feel more unity than Wayne State without football.
BYU's unity is built around the Mormon bond. Tuition gradation is not in-state, out-of state, but LDS or non-LDS.
BYU has a somewhat larger general eduction requirement, if you include religion classes at least, but that is not the full story of unity. BYU has the devotionals and forums, which Wayne State does not, and these creat non-delineated unity in the student body. ALthough devotional and forum attendance or watching is not as high as it could be, even for those who do not go the ideas presented do enter the campus consciouness.
There is also much more of an attitude of protest at Wayne State. People constantly complained about how much money the president made. I never even heard any comment about President Bateman's or President Samuelson's salary at BYU. Of course my comeback that these white protestors against President Reid were really motivated by the fact they did not like a black man making over 100 thousand a year was not fully an internal belief on my part, I mainly just liked to mock radical liberals. However, it is odd that they protested his salary when college football coaches regularly make over 20 times what he did.
President Reid had moved Wayne State into a new age. Some people hated it. He had the audacity to believe the school should not fill in for the failed Detroit Public Schools, and if high school graduates could not cut it in college classes they should go to community college and not to remidial classes at a University.
Even more audacious Reid had the radical view that African-American and other students would best be served by a university that strove for excellence.
Wayne State was truly racially divided. I was never sure how much the divide was because people still clung to their high school cliques, and there was racial division in local high schools. I would have to say that was a big factor though.
There was also a lot more student-teacher animosity at Wayne State. Students were much ruder, and teachers complained more of it. Most of my BYU instuctors gave us their home phone number, and I went to at least four of their homes for class related activities. On the other hand, not only would Wayne State instructors not tell you their home phone numbers, but I had some who would not even tell you what city they lived in.
At BYU most students lived closer to campus than most professors, but most professors had come originally from closer than most students. My not heavily researched guess is that a higher percentage of BYU faculty than students are Utah natives. Wayne State, while a huge percentage of undergraduate students were Michigan natives, most professors first time in Michigan was when they went to interview for their job at Wayne State. Related to this, while probably over 80% of BYU faculty have a degree from BYU, less than 20% of Wayne State faculty do.

Incurable Ignorance

That is all I can call it. Today (or I guess now yesterday) the Deseret News re-ran an article from the Hattiesburg Mississippi newpaper about the first African-Ameircan LDS bishop in Hattiesburg. At least to me it was 100% clear that this was a distinction for African-Americans in Hattiesburg. I guess this might be because we had Bishop Edwards in the Bloomfield Hills Stake who was an African-American, and he was bishop starting in 1991. I also remember reading an article several years ago about an African-American bishop in St. Louis, and I was there in June 2003 when Bishop Joseph Freeman, the first man of African descent ordained to the priesthood after the June 1978 revelation (as opposed to such men as Elijah Able ordained in the 19th century, but that is another story) gave the opening prayer at the 25th anniversary commemoration of the revelation on the priesthood in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. There there is Flavio Martins, who is not exactly Afircan-American (although, Brazil is part of the Americas, and there are many who believe in the one-drop rule, so the fact that his Brazilian-born mother is as white as the day is long and his father has a multi-racial background, even if no one really knows how many races are involved) but is an example of a third-generation bishop on going to his father and grandfather, all of whom are of African-descent. There are not that many men who are third generation bishops, so this is quite impressive. Although what amazes me more is that although Flavio's mother is as white as the day is long and his wife is a white-American (presumably thus white by the one-drop rule, at least with no discernable African-ancestry) his daughter still is of noticable dark complexion. Of course, this may be a result of my light-skin perceptions (since my Cherokee and Wampanoag ancestors are all so far back, that if more than one in 200 of my ancestors were full-descended Native Americans I would be in shock. It does not help matters that whether I actually have Wampanoag ancestors is not clear. I have an ancestor who clearly had a Wampanoag wife [I share this ancestor with President Hinckley, his daughter who I descend from married a Hinckley] but it is not clear if his child who I descent from was the daughter of his English wife or of his later Wampanoag wife. Realistically since this woman was the nice of Massasoit (the chief the Pilgrims dealt with, of whom there is a statue on the BYU campus) it has very little bearing on my genetic ancestry if she is my ancestor or not.
Well, if you got this far you are truly willing to persevere. As I meant to say, but I do not think I have, some commentators on the Deseret News boards assumed that the article in question meant that this was the first African-American bishop in the LDS Church ever. At least to me the article was clearly limiting the area of coverage to Hattiesburg, which to me made the article a little laughable because there are not all that many wards in Hattiesburg. However these people responded by saying things like "It shows how backward the Church is that they are only now getting an African-American bishop". Really? Obviously these people missed the memos on Michigans first African-American bishop. Oh wait, I do not think there were memos. OK, they missed the coverage of Helvicio Martins (the above mentioned Flavio's) call as a bishop. They were obviously not around to listen to the gripes about ONLY two African-American stake presidents in the United States last June (althogh, I am not sure there were only two, there just were two who spoke at the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood).
Lastly, I have to say the rhetoric of "no one cares about African-American firsts anymore" does not make sense. Where were they not only for the election of our first "African-American president", but also for the First African-American Attorney General and the first African-American chair of the RNC. OK, the third was not covered very well. Still, it is not harkening back to the 1950s but oh, maybe 2008, to harp on African-American firsts.

Of intermarriage, love and openess

I have recently delt with someone who had the excuse for not visiting teaching people "I can't go to that neighborhood, it is unsafe". The notion so bothered me I was not able to come up with a good response other then to tell them they needed to learn from the example of Ammon. They came back with a lousy "you need common sense".
I have come up with a better response. What type of arrogance is it for a woman to say "it is not safe to go visit in such and such a place" when the woman they would go visit has to live in that place day in and day out? Are you not your brother's keeper, and is it not worth our while to go see a sister.
Anyway, people are not supposed to go visiting teaching alone. They have companions for crying out loud. We ask you to go in twos.
So, since this person is seven years younger then me, I have to deal with problems that clearly are not solved by waiting for the old guard to die. The failures are in the young gaurd. The one encoraging thing is I mentioned how this attitude had so bothered me to the one member of my ward who lives in the community in question, and he just laughed it off saying "if they think [I will not say the name of the place] is so bad, then how would they react to Detroit". It is a good question, since in theory we could have many members of the ward living in Detroit.
Well this vaguely connects to inter-racial marriage. Of course the great victory may be that in the July 2009 article in the tirbune on Alex Boye they did not explicitly state the race of his wife. For those of you who are wondering, go hunt down Alex and Julie Boye's blog on blogspot. You will know the answer soon enough (although the first picture is not easy to figure out the answer from).
Also join in the discussion on Julie's "we had a baby, just kidding picture", and ask her to put up the real baby picture. It may or may not do any good because the blog seems not to have been updated for a year (the fact that Julie got pregnant sometime in that period is possibly a factor) but we really do like pictures.