Skyfall - (Gay) Mormon Guy in a Music Video

Funny story:

I was walking through the Wilkinson Center with my little sister, doing advertising for an a cappella concert we were in, and someone asks me to sing into a microphone. I made it into the finals of their singing competition and they asked me back to record a music video.

I did a pre-recording with a friend, singing "Skyfall" by Adele - the theme for the newest James Bond movie by the same name. My first rendition was pretty similar to Adele's - intense, with a lot of just voice. Great for backing up a movie scene. Here's a link to the audio for it:

 I sent the recording to the producer and his response was "Awesome." Then I got into the studio at Art City Records (Springville) and the fun began. After singing it once, he stopped me and said, "Hey man, this isn't working for me. This isn't the reason why I brought you in here. Do you have another song?"

Apparently, he wanted something brighter, bolder, and higher. That's great, except that I had been practicing Skyfall for weeks and definitely did not have another song ready for performance. So I suggested... trying it again.

And this is the video we created. Make sure you watch from 3:50 to the end.

I'm one of many people participating in the contest - the Art City will produce an original song for the winner after the final round. It was posted to Facebook and YouTube and voting begins today - you can vote once a day per device (computer, smart phone, etc) through the Facebook link here: http://bit.ly/ZtipCH

I hate voting for people in popularity contests. But obviously everyone doesn't share my sentiment (hence why people win them). And I've never done a video for (Gay) Mormon Guy... so I thought I'd go for it.

This is the voting procedure:

1. Click the link http://bit.ly/ZtipCH (it will take you to Facebook, the exact address of the contest)

2. Click "Vote"

You may need to Like "Art City Records" on Facebook or give Offerpop (the entity they use to run the voting) permissions to access your Facebook Likes.


If you're on a mobile device, it may take a little more. Two options:

1. Click the link http://bit.ly/ZtipCH
2. Click "Log In" on the page that tells you the contest is just for fans
3. Log in to allow Offerpop to access your Facebook "Likes"
4. The screen will go WHITE. Click Back.
5. Click the link again -  http://bit.ly/ZtipCH
4. If you haven't already done so, Like Art City Records.
5. Vote for me.


1. Go to your Facebook App
2. Search for me - David Peterson
3. Click on the post that says "David Peterson - Who is the best Singer" via Offerpop
4. Allow Offerpop to access your Facebook "Likes"
5. The screen will go WHITE. Click Back.
6. Click the link again -  http://bit.ly/ZtipCH
7. If you haven't already done so, Like Art City Records
8. Click Vote
 (you'll only need to allow permissions the first day - each day after that you can just click).

 

And if you like clicking a ton and don't want to click the bit.ly link, here's how to find the contest itself (doesn't work on a mobile device (you have to use the bit.ly link):

Go to the "Art City Records" Facebook page

Click the "Vote on 4/30" Button

Click "Vote" at the top

Find my picture and name - David Peterson - and click

Click "Vote"

Also, you can see who is currently winning the contest by looking at the order of the pictures at:
https://apps.facebook.com/offerpop/Contest.psp?c=346952&u=1189779&a=177914495580579&p=422665351132570&rest=0&v=View
The first place person is first, followed by second, third, etc.

Right now (as of this post), I'm winning. Thanks already to everyone who's voted.

I'd love your feedback either way.

Boy Scouts & Distinctions in Homosexuality

I'm an Eagle Scout.

I began my career in scouting selling Cub Scout popcorn. I was 7 - too young to be a Cub Scout. But my grandfather had been president of the local Scout council and got a silver beaver, my dad is uber-passionate about scouting, and I was the first child. So I sold popcorn. I remember realizing that the price of popcorn was absurdly high... and expressing my concern to my parents.

They told me something crazy. They said I was selling Cub Scouts - not popcorn.

Somehow that made sense in my 7-year-old brain. However it happened, for years I outsold everyone in the council.

I went to Scout Camp - it's called Napowan where I'm from - and learned the art of fire-building, capsizing a sailboat without getting wet, and how to keep rainwater from flooding a tent staked on piles of pine needles. I was a senior patrol leader at the Nauvoo Encampment and spoke at Sacrament meeting to a group of scouts so big we had a dozen Sacrament tables.

My Eagle project was providing relief to the victims of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras. I have a plaque from the Honduran consulate giving me the "Hands for Honduras" award.

And the first summer I came home from college, a year before going on a mission, I was called as the Webelos leader in my home ward.

So scouting's in my blood.

I had no idea that the Boy Scouts of America had a policy that homosexual men couldn't be scouts or leaders until the policy came under fire just recently by big corporations who threatened to pull funding unless it was changed. All of my activity in scouting was long before my self-awareness about same-gender attraction anyway, but it made me wonder.

Either way, I'm sure you've seen the firestorm on both sides of the issue. But in the midst of the most recent set of news briefs, much of the media is leaving out what I think is the most important part of the issue. The distinction that BSA has made between homosexual feelings and homosexual actions.

It's cool because the policy change, now, simply looks like it is being updated to match the growing understanding of homosexuality. 50 years ago, very few people made distinctions between actions and feelings. It was all sort of lumped together - by almost all groups, including social science. And since society did not really allow for chaste homosexual men, or acknowledge the thousands in happy marriages to women, there were very few who openly admitted their attractions. Why would you? The few who did admit to same-sex attraction usually "came out" and then became sexually active with men - something that definitely does not jive with being "morally straight." Hence the ban on "openly homosexual" men from serving as leaders or even holding membership in the ranks of BSA.

But today is a bit different. There are men - with same-gender attraction - who quietly serve as Boy Scout leaders, youth advisors, and leaders in the LDS Church - and they are just as morally straight as their heterosexual counterparts. Which leads to the really cool distinction that BSA has included in their most recent proposal.

First, they reiterate the traditional values behind what it means to be "morally straight" - in this case, it means total sexual abstinence for all youth scouts - heterosexual or homosexual:

“Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.”

Then they make the distinction that the Church has taught for years, and the world has only recently made between actions and feelings:

“No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.”

I think this is pretty cool.

I realize that this policy is just a policy. Scouting is ruled and run by the local units, who don't report on almost anything to the National Council, and those units make up whatever rules they want based on their own desires (hence my selling popcorn for the council at 7). But it's cool that we have another ally who has just made the distinction between attractions and behaviors... and given impetus to the reality that one does not mean the other.

If I were on the National Council for BSA, I'd definitely vote for this one.

Marriage "Equality": Why I Oppose It & A Worst Case Scenario

A lot of antitheists ask me why I don't support gay marriage. 

 

The reason is because I love people and want them to be happy. 

 

• If I honestly love people, then I should support them only in decisions that will lead them to complete happiness and peace (since love is wanting others to find eternal happiness and peace and being willing to do anything to help them find it). 
• I believe that homosexual relationships are incompatible with eternal peace - a moral belief that is completely my own. 
• Hence, in my mind, if I or anyone supports gay marriage, it evinces one of two things: either 
• (1) I don't truly love my gay brothers and sisters, and subjugate my desire for their eternal happiness to a personal desire to look good, be accepted, or avoid conflict, or 
• (2) I don't believe that homosexual relationships are incompatible with eternal happiness.

 

That's why I don't support gay marriage - civil, religious, or otherwise. Because I love people and want them to be happy. 

 

I'm unwilling to subjugate my love for others just to keep the waters calm. Hence, the pleas to "let people live their lives as they want to" or "it doesn't affect anyone else" would be non-functional even if they were accurate. The only method that would change my stance on gay marriage would be a change in my belief - specifically, a change that showed me that homosexual relationships are part of the pathway to eternal happiness and peace. 

 

There are three main bases for creating beliefs about the world and happiness: observation, persuasion, and revelation. 

 

Observation is the development of personal beliefs through personal experience, combined with deductive and inductive reasoning. Touch a hot stove, feel the pain, and develop a belief that motivates actions that avoid touching hot stoves in the future. 

 

Persuasion is the development of personal beliefs through the experiences of others, as interpreted through their reasoning. "I touched a hot stove and it burned me" - which in turn develops the same belief.

 

Revelation is the development of personal beliefs through communication with God.

 

In many cases, I develop my beliefs about the world through observation and persuasion. I look at how the world influences people and determine how my actions and beliefs can best fit in with perception and reality. When I can avoid pain through learning from the experiences of others, that's awesome. In some cases, it's not effective to rely on the hearsay or experiences of others - I have to learn for myself. And in other cases, ones that are really close to home - things that will have a lasting impact and where I can't afford to be wrong - personal observation and societal persuasion aren't enough. I need to know from God Himself. That's the case with homosexual relationships. Being personally attracted to men means that I need to know how homosexuality fits in with the pathway to happiness, and it's not enough to take someone's word for it, whether myself, a friend, an activist, or even a prophet. Only knowing from God will be enough.

 

There's another issue - in the application of beliefs to the outside world. A logical question is, "Well, you may think that happiness comes by following a certain path. But what about when you are talking about someone else's happiness and your beliefs differ from theirs? What right do you have believing that their actions influence their happiness, when they disagree?" That's a logical question, and the answer belies the source of my information. If I believe that my beliefs are unique to my own experience, and from my own experience, then I won't readily apply them to someone else. There are plenty of mundane examples of things that are individual in nature. If there are societal proofs of something, I'm more likely to believe that it applies to others. In my case, I believe that God is the only one who can reveal the pathway to happiness, and that the principles He teaches are universal. I also believe that this is an incredibly important part of His Plan of Happiness. So does that mean that I believe my truth from God (homosexual relationships do not lead to eternal happiness) is more true than any other? Yes. It does. And I hold that belief unapologetically - that's the amazing part of the gospel - following it will always lead to happiness, no matter who I am or what has happened in my life... and in the life of every other person ever to live.

 

In an alternate universe, I see a number of reasons why I could support gay marriage. If I didn't really care about gay people is one option. If I honestly believed that homosexual relationships do not lead to happiness, but feared that opposing those relationships would make me lose friends, or felt that opposing them goes beyond my obligation to do everything in my power to help the people I love find happiness. All of those would be proof, in my mind, that I didn't really love people. Or I could be persuaded by my own personal experience or by someone else's personal experience to create a belief that gay marriage does lead to happiness.

 

Issues arise when people don't share my love or my belief that homosexual relationships are incompatible with eternal peace, and are also unable or unwilling to come to an agreement on the basis for our exclusive beliefs. It's pretty simple: if I love people, the deciding factor in whether or not I support gay marriage is based on whether or not I believe that gay marriage is a step along the path to eternal happiness.

 

That means that the conversation can quickly degenerate, since we are discussing beliefs that derive from different bases. My belief derives specifically from a personal relationship with God and revelation from Him, which is then supported by personal and other experiences. The beliefs of others are usually personal. They try to convince me with proof from their lives, but that's inadequate for me. I encourage them to get close to God to find specific answers, but they don't believe in God.

 

Recently, I've been trying to find other reasons that make sense to people who base their moral decisions on different bases. The issue of adoption is fraught with sampling errors and easily misinterpreted data on both sides. As are parenting, abuse, and other statistical references... and, honestly, I've never seen someone change their minds on the issue of gay marriage because someone showed them a statistical study.

So you already know the reason why I oppose gay marriage. But, here's a worst-case scenario... and another reason I could oppose it. This is definitely going to be controversial.

 

First of all, let's set some definitions.

 

Equal: Uniform in operation or effect - the same as.

Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (from Random House dictionary)

 

To set the stage, gay marriage isn't about marriage equality. Equality, by definition, means the same as. Gay men and women have the exact same ability to get married just as much as anyone else. I can go get married tomorrow and tell the clerk I am gay; he will still issue me a marriage license to marry a woman. No questions asked. Under laws that instituted racial segregation in marriage, I couldn't do that. Civil rights made it so that all men now have the same ability in marriage - all men of any race can marry women of any other race. There is no law that discriminates against gay men implicitly or directly in marriage or that stipulates that gay men and women cannot get married. I know hundreds who are.

Gay marriage is more about extending a new set of rights to a special interest group. The gay marriage decision will fundamentally change marriage because it creates a new basis for it. Currently, marriage is based on the union between man and woman as the basic social unit of society, and, traditionally, the only place where sexual relations were allowed and also the method by which children entered society and were dependent on their parents. Traditionally, marriage was a permanent commitment from one person to another, one that instituted massive societal penalties up to and including death for the betrayal of marriage covenants. As time has passed, the sanctity of marriage has become less and less, especially with the introduction of civil divorce, no-questions divorces (note: this is not a discussion on abusive relationships), and the essential elimination of adultery and fornication as sins in popular society, but the basis of marriage has remained the same. 

 

The basis of gay marriage is that of "equality" - specifically, based on the principle that since you can't choose who you love, any two people who love each other should have the benefits of marriage. This is problematic, and where the worst-case scenario begins.

 

The first issue is that redefining marriage will take away personal moral rights that have been held consistent for hundreds of years. The laws covering gay marriage do not end at just wanting to be married - eventually individuals and organizations will be forced by anti-discrimination laws to accept and support gay marriage. One reason for the development of reformations within England and eventually why the first settlers left for America was religious freedom - and not just freedom to believe, but freedom to act accordingly to their beliefs. They did not support the moral beliefs of their king (specifically that he was divorced and remarried) and were being persecuted for not supporting him. If gay marriage is passed, and anti-discrimination laws are passed next, Americans will lose the right that drew the first settlers - the right to act in accordance to our own beliefs without government intervention. We can already see that in cases over private marriage halls, florists, bakers, photographers - the gist is that if it is available to the public as a service, then individuals with personal morals have no right declining their services in support of a person or cause that opposes those morals. This is a massive change from the current model. Today, I can choose to not support a business as a supplier, or to reject a potential contract with an organization based on moral standing. I can also reject participating in activities that are not protected by the law - so in my case I can refuse to bring essential oils to a gay marriage and I'm fine. It's apparent that gay marriage will eventually reverse that, and effectively force individuals and businesses to adopt a new standard that is completely dissimilar to things in the past. Currently, as a gay man, I can go into someplace that is currently against gay marriage and get support for my own marriage. To a woman. Just like any hetero guy. There is no discrimination based on who I am, as there was in racial disputes. There is only discrimination based on personal choices - which has traditionally been preserved as a right reserved to individuals - if you don't support something, then don't give it your business. Worst-case scenario: since religious exemptions are usually only made for churches, individuals and religious organizations who offer services to the public will eventually be forced to choose between two alternatives- close their doors or support gay marriage. Those who receive government funding will be in a similar situation. This would simply require the passing of anti-discrimination laws and courts that find them appealing. It has already happened in some places.

Next worst-case. By creating a new standard for marriage, we are also paving the way to destroy the societal meaning of marriage itself. If anyone who "loves one another" can get married and divorced, then what keeps college roommates from getting a marriage license while they live together to save on taxes and insurance? Nothing. Today there is still a societal expectation that a practice would be untrue to what marriage is. But a shift in the basis would allow quickly for expansion in usage. But that probably already happens. The bigger issue is that if "love" is now a defining factor, and marriage is all about "equality," what about the people who haven't found love? You can't choose who you love... which means you can't choose who you don't love. Why discriminate against individuals who haven't found love and provide government and other benefits only to people who have found love? That's certainly unfair, as love is seen as something you cannot control, which is a crucial part of the gay marriage debate. If you cannot control love, you also cannot control the lack of it, which, if granted and moved on based on equality, could easily extend the rights of marriage to singles as well. Or multiple spouse relationships. Or relationships where marriage is allowed between people who are already married and happen to love someone else as well. Which destroys the meaning of marriage, since once you toss singles in the mix, everyone will be married, regardless of who they are. And then the benefits associated with marriage will suddenly be tossed up to the government to decide how to divvy them up, and will probably also be extended to everyone, which means they will be taken from everyone. Worst-case scenario: Rights and benefits of marriage are extended to everyone based on principles of equality - married, single, polyamorous, or any other. Which means that marriage becomes completely meaningless as a civil convention. Likelihood: I don't know. But setting a precedent that rules equality definitely opens that door and will cause the eventual down that path (as far as singles go). Polyamorous relationships are more likely in the near future.

I'm sure there are more worst-case scenarios that could happen. Pastors in civil affairs (chaplains, etc) lose their license to practice if they preach against homosexual sins. Teachers are fired for refusing to teach secularism's beliefs that homosexual relationships are not sinful. I really don't feel like this is about equality.

Conference Summary - from a (Gay) Mormon Guy

I can't really do General Conference justice in a blog post. Or even in a dozen blog posts. So these are some of my notes on specific talks that seemed to have major messages that apply to same-gender attraction in the Church. They're mostly based on my Twitter feed @GayMormonGuy... so, here you go. General Conference through the lens of (Gay) Mormon Guy.


President Packer (These Things I Know):

The family is under attack. We need to be aware of the influences that are coming into the safe places of our homes. Don’t fall into the tolerance trap. Stand strong for the morals and standards of the Church, even when the world is pushing against them.

“Tolerance is a virtue, but, like all virtues, when exaggerated it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the 'tolerance trap' so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the spiritual consequences that result from the violation of God's law of chastity.”

Thoughts: If I honestly believe that keeping the commandments of God will lead to happiness, I can only encourage people to follow the commandments; otherwise, I either don’t believe that keeping the commandments really leads to happiness… or I don’t really love the people or I don’t really want their happiness. Maybe I care more about looking good. Or I care more about the relationship than I care about the people themselves.

Kindness is different from tolerance. Kindness is always a virtue. God is always kind… “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” So I should always be kind.

Elder Cardon (The Savior Wants to Forgive):

The Lord will always forgive us, as long as we are willing to turn to Him.

No matter what I’ve done in the past, no matter what has happened in my life, I can always turn back to God and find Him… if I’m willing to turn back.

Elder Ballard (This is My Work and My Glory):

“In our Heavenly Father's great priesthood endowed plan, men have the unique responsibility to administer the priesthood, but they are not the priesthood. Men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. In other words, in the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by a husband and wife.”

Elder Scott (For Peace at Home):

When I have family members or friends that have strayed, I should do all that I can, and then leave the rest in the Lord’s hands. God loves my family members/friends just as much as I do… and will always do what He can. I need to have faith in His ability.

Elder Cook (Personal Peace: The Reward for Righteousness):

Peace doesn’t come from external sources. It comes from keeping the commandments and turning to God, and is available to anyone who is willing to repent.

Elder Ellis (The Lord's Way):

The Lord has shown me the way to find happiness – not just a way. If I want to find happiness and peace, I need to follow the pathway that He has laid out.

Elder Bednar (We Believe in Being Chaste):

His entire talk was on chastity, and one of the clearest talks that I have ever heard him give on the topic. If you did not see it, or if you were tired when you watched it, or if you have any desire to understand what the Church’s position is on moral standards and the suggestion for members, click the link above and watch it again.

 

This was one of the most powerful talks on chastity that I have heard. I love Elder Bednar. I love that he is so articulate and speaks with incredible logic. The amazing thing is that his talk could be applied to any issue of chastity. Pornography, abuse, adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality... all of it applies. Which is awesome and amazing and inspired.


President Uchtdorf (Four Titles):

President Uchtdorf's talk on identity was powerful - I choose who I am. There are lots of labels that I could choose - gay, bipolar, autistic - but the most important, and the ones that I should use to define my life, are son, disciple, healer, and heir.


President Uchtdorf (The Hope of God's Light):

This is perhaps the best talk that President Uchtdorf has ever given. I extend the same invitation with this talk as I did with Elder Bednar's. Just go read/watch it again. The symbolism of light, darkness, and the hope that he offers in this talk was amazing, and an answer to my prayers for myself and for others.

I went to General Conference with a lot of questions this year. I didn't get any answers, but Sunday, in between sessions, I felt an overwhelming sense of peace. And I realized that the Lord was one-upping my request for answers. I want answers for my life so that I can have peace - I want to be able to know what is going to come next. But do I need to know? I don't. I have the peace I wanted and, even without the answers, I can have faith that God will take care of me.


Elder Perry (Obedience to Law is Liberty):

Sometimes people wonder why gay Mormons would ever be a part of a church that "represses" them. I think that Elder Perry captured some of the things here that reflect reality - I'm not repressed by my beliefs - I'm freed by them. Knowing the pathway of happiness allows me to find happiness... and I don't have to worry about anything else.


Elder Holland (Lord, I Believe):

The Lord really does do miracles. If I'm willing to turn to Him, give my life to Him, He will heal me. Healing doesn't always come as a miracle that changes everything, or one that brings a child from death to life. Sometimes the healing comes in added strength. Sometimes it comes through friends and others who can support me. Sometimes it comes through a simple knowledge that I am getting stronger each day, even when my trials are getting harder and harder. And sometimes it just comes from a moment of peace in the midst of a storm of emotional turmoil. I know that miracles are possible - that anything is possible. But, no matter what happens, when I turn to Him in faith, the healing will come.


Conference this year was amazing. So much to think about. I hope that you found answers to your own questions.

Gay Mormon History Since Last Conference

A lot has happened in my life in the last six months.

In November I went public on (Gay) Mormon Guy with a series of really long posts about my life.

Two days later, I attended a conference sponsored by AMCAP - the Association of Mormon Counselor and Psychotherapists - and FAR - the Foundation for Attraction Research - on finding peace within the gospel. It was my first time meeting a lot of the people I had only known anonymously before.

That afternoon, I went to a photo studio and did my interview for Voices of Hope. I was scared that I wouldn't say the right thing... but I went anyway. It was just me, my feelings, and my experiences.

I told my family in person, via phone, and through email before telling the world, then, after it was live, posted a link to (Gay) Mormon Guy on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, and the MBA program's private forum. The reaction from almost everyone was positive - they loved me and wanted me to be happy and continue to find peace in living according to gospel principles.

A few days later, the Church released the site mormonsandgays.org - a video montage of people finding hope and faith through following the gospel of Jesus Christ. This was huge.

A few months later, the Church's resource site for same-gender attraction (under gospel topics) was released with links to new resources and affirming the Church's stance on homosexual attractions vs activity.

In the media, there have been suicides, other coming out stories (across the spectrum), the Boy Scouts issue, Supreme Court cases, companies that were blacklisted for supporting marriage...

Then the Church released a new set of scriptures, and in the gospel study helps, there is again the clear distinction between homosexual attractions and activity (something that was more easily misinterpreted in the past).

And, most recently, Voices of Hope went live, sharing the first group of essays and interviews of people who are finding peace and hope.

And I probably missed a bunch of things. Wow. A lot has happened.

Lights, Pitchpipe, Action

The a cappella concert on Saturday and the Easter program on Sunday went well.
Here are some links to our performance. The sound isn't awesome on this video... but at least you get something from it. My siblings also recorded the performance from a different perspective with our digital SLR, but we haven't uploaded ours to YouTube yet.

Stake Dance Medley was a blast. This was the first time we performed it for an audience, and that made all the difference. There are a couple times that the laughter is loud enough that you can't hear what is happening on stage. The short dialogue that you miss goes something like this (at least, this was what was planned; I couldn't hear it on stage either):

"What color is your toothbrush?
Green.
Like your braces? Cool.
Yeah. What ward are you from?
The Pleasant View 3,291,627th ward.
Oh. Do you know Mahonri Hinckley?
*smile* Yeah. I have a really big crush on him.
*silence*
I shouldn't have said that."

By the way, I usually sing low bass in Morris Code... and in this concert I am singing low bass the entire time. Honestly, you probably can't hear me well - video cameras don't pick up low bass well, and computer/phone speakers don't produce it well. But I'm there, and probably singing lower than you can hear. Example: the first song, I'm singing a low E below bass clef for almost the entire song.

I'm in the bright yellow vest.

Battle Hymn of the Republic (mixed with Indonesian chant)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWFCoC2cjY

I Will Wait
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBeN5Fuy30Y

Stake Dance Medley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTzUk_OSMM

A Cappella, Anyone?

I just realized that I mentioned I was trying out for an a cappella group a while ago, but then never followed up on what happened.

...long story short, I'm performing in a concert this Saturday evening at BYU. It's called the A Cappella Jam and will be in the auditorium of the JSB - Joseph Smith Building - on campus.

I'm the 2nd bass for my group - we're called Morris Code... and tonight we practiced with mics and it sounded pretty awesome. Especially with the bass amped up ;) We have one song that's a mix of Indonesian chant with Battle Hymn of the Republic... yeah. Cool/crazy.

There will be a handful of groups there - Noteworthy, which is probably the more famous of us, and a bunch of others.

On a different note (pun), I realized tonight how grateful I am for the guys in my group. It's the first time that I've really felt like I belong with people over time and that they want me there, and not just in one specific setting. When they let me in the group, they weren't just letting me sing with them. They were making me a part of their circle of friends. And for someone who has a hard time feeling wanted, being able to sing and laugh and talk with a bunch of guys who accept me has been awesome.

So... if you want to come, you're welcome to. Hence this post. If not (since you're probably busy during Easter weekend... and coming from outside of Utah or outside the country would probably not be worth it), I'm sure we'll record it and put it up on YouTube. And then I'll link it here and you can laugh.

Voices of Hope: Launched

Voices of Hope is live.

http://www.ldsvoicesofhope.org/

Go there and watch my story, along with others, and let me know what you think.


My Thoughts:

When I got the invitation to be a part of Voices of Hope, it was only a few days after I had decided to go public here on (Gay) Mormon Guy. I pushed back on the invitation... mostly because I didn't feel that I had the ability to determine what my voice really was. I don't read a ton of other gay Mormon blogs. I didn't personally know many of the other gay Mormon people... and so knowing where my voice fit in seemed impossible.

But the producers wanted me to be real, visceral, honest... and so I relinquished my desire to strategically determine my message and, two days after coming out here, I went to a photography studio and shared my voice of hope.

My interview, from that perspective, isn't based on what I felt the community needed. It wasn't designed, like I wanted it to be, to match or fill a need. It's just my thoughts, my hopes, my desires... with the hope that it could somehow touch someone else's life.

It's true to me - deeply cognitive, analytical, thought-out... and that's who I am. I hope that you find it meaningful. Let me know.

Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, Proposition 8 from a Gay Mormon Perspective

The United States Supreme Court is hearing evidence on the issue of whether the voters of California had the constitutional right to alter their state constitution and define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Ultimately, they are ruling on the issue of whether it's constitutional to politically oppose or support gay marriage. Whatever they choose will have massive ramifications for political battles and voter ballots for years to come.

The Church released a press release that indicates its official stance - marriage is between a man and a woman, and they hope that the Supreme Court upholds the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman.

I agree with that political viewpoint.

But in the meantime, this issue is causing rifts in the Church. People are allowed freedom to define their own political views in the gospel - hence why we have political leaders in both parties and people who vote on both sides of issues. But there is a difference between political freedom and doctrinal clarity... and some of the people involved in this debate are rejecting the doctrine of the Church. It's okay politically to believe whatever you want. It's not okay to believe that gay men should be allowed to marry in the temple, or that homosexual activity is not a major sin.

I don't need to accept people's actions to love them. I don't need to agree with them, support them, or anything of the sort for them to know that I care. In fact, in many cases, doing that is actually proof that I don't care.

Let's take a metaphor. I know - metaphors cause firestorms in the gay marriage debate. But I'll use the metaphor until it breaks and then I'll assume that you're able to drop it when it stops working.

I'm vegan, which means that I don't eat meat, milk products, eggs, fish, other animal products, or anything that contains dietary cholesterol. I also don't eat sweets or food that has sugar added - whether in the form of sugar, honey, agave, or whatever. I avoid refined carbohydrates like white bread, and typically don't eat food that has been fried. I do all of this for a number of reasons (health, spirituality); the core is that I believe that eating healthily is a principle from God that allows me to be closer spiritually to Him.

My siblings and friends know that I don't approve of their eating junk food. They know why. They also know that I care about them regardless of what they eat. And, in fact, they know I care about them because I care about what they eat. If I were just a mediocre friend, I wouldn't care. But I want them to be healthy and happy, and to experience the blessings I've found from taking care of my body. And they can feel it.

Even though I may not bring it up, there is definitely sometimes uneasiness when I'm in the room with food. People sometimes project their own emotions on to me - and they assume that I'm judging them for what they eat. Am I? I judge what they eat, and wish they would eat better, but I still love them. Some people can't handle the fact that I won't indulge in sweets with them and avoid me. But most just realize that I care.

Turn the metaphor. As a gay mormon blogger, I know a ton of people along the gay spectrum. People who are faithful members of the Church and happily married, people who are single and hopeful to find a spouse, people who are single and committed to the Church as singles, people who don't yet understand how the Plan of Salvation applies to them but are trying, people who have rejected parts of the gospel in favor of something else, people who have denied their testimonies or lost them through trauma, people who have found bliss in a different way of defining happiness.

Even though I may not agree with them, I still care. And people I meet can realize that I care about them regardless of their choices. One guy said it this way: "David, all my friends wonder why I hang out with you. You're the only Mormon I know, and they all get on my case because you oppose being gay. But I spend time with you because I like spending time with you and talking with you. You make me want to be a better person. I know where you stand, but I don't feel like it's personal to me. I know we disagree on beliefs and politics, but that's not an issue to you, and even though my friends may hate you because they don't know you, it doesn't have to be an issue to me."

Love does not mean supporting people in their actions. Love does not mean agreeing with people, even on subjects that are extremely volatile. A love like that is in inferior. God loves us unconditionally - which means that He will bless us to the greatest extent possible and always keep a door open to repentance. It doesn't mean that He will tell us it's okay if we don't repent, or that He will encourage us to walk down a pathway that won't lead to happiness. God's love pushes Him to push us - to do everything in His power to help us find the ultimate peace and happiness that comes only through following the Plan of Happiness. Sometimes that means giving me incredibly difficult circumstances that will teach me to turn to Him and be happy. Sometimes it means not giving me what I think I want, or creating massive inequalities so that different people learn different lessons from life. But everything is designed to help us learn eternal happiness. Anything else will rob us today and in the eternities... and a loving God would never be okay with that.

Love is caring about someone completely and unconditionally and being willing and anxious to do anything in my power to ensure their eternal happiness. Love weighs eternity heavier than today, long-lasting hope over temporary pleasure, meaning and purpose over desires and passion.

A Nice Thing about Guys with SSA

This is adorable.

It's sort of complicated to explain my physical needs to another guy if he's heterosexual. It feels sort of awkward to tell a guy that I'd prefer that he touch me more... especially in a culture where touch is so deeply sexualized. Simply having that conversation requires enough of a relationship that we're at least friends... which ultimately means that it almost never happens.

I totally understand the difficulty. Girls have had to explain to me their need for emotional and physical intimacy in relationships, and I was clueless until they told me. I'd assume that the same issues hold between guys.

That said, it's really nice when I meet a guy with same-sex attraction. I can immediately understand that he needs touch & emotional intimacy just as much as I do... and we don't need to go over the reasons why. And if I also know that he's committed to living the gospel and has clear moral boundaries, it makes it a lot easier to find someone who's willing to give me a hug or run his hands through my hair (both of which would make some hetero guys cringe just from reading about it) - not just because I look like I need it, but because he wants it, too... and he also knows what I'm going through.

Boundaries & Expectations - What's OK, What's Not

Boundaries and expectations are interesting to me, because they're so incredibly personal, and yet so incredibly public at the same time. I'm talking about physical and emotional boundaries and expectations in relationships - specifically, with other guys.

Until I sat down to think about it, I'm pretty sure I didn't have clearly set boundaries when it came to physical or emotional contact with other people. I mean, part of me didn't want to specify boundaries because it felt like it should be sort of obvious. Just keep the commandments. I do what's right, and I don't do what's wrong... right?

But the reality is that boundaries aren't a re-hash of commandments - they're the guarding walls that keep me from getting that far. The things that ensure that I'm not going to find myself carried away in the heat of the moment to somewhere I don't want to go.

The boundaries for physical contact between guys with SSA are the same boundaries that are given between anyone, as outlined in True to the Faith:

“Never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body” (True to the Faith, 32).

That seems simple. Added to that are some other important boundaries that apply - don't touch the private parts of others; don't let them touch me.

...but the reality is that it's a bit more nuanced than it first appears. The last-resort boundary is the same for everything and is never crossed. But, depending on my experiences, the more fuzzy "arousing those emotions" will fall somewhere on a massive sliding scale. On one extreme, maybe I can appreciate a guy's touch and, as long as it stays within moral boundaries, it's not arousing to me. On the other, maybe just being close to a guy - even without any actual physical contact - could be enough to set off my emotions. And it's probably different with different guys.

Which means that each relationship needs to have boundaries - not just a set of boundaries for myself.

But what about when just being close sends my mind spinning? When arousal isn't even based on physical contact? What then? Do I completely cut off contact altogether?

And what if close contact causes emotional turmoil? If getting a hug, or touching my back, or brushing my arm are physically intense? What then?

I'm not sure that I've found the answers to those yet - except that in my life, the answer was to commit heavily to the gospel boundary. Don't do anything that causes arousal or gratifies sexual emotions.

But touch involves two people. And that's where it can get complicated.

If I'm going to be friends with a guy - and physicality will be part of our relationship - I may or may not know where our expectations and boundaries overlap. Most likely, I won't. If someone I know could be set off by my touching his elbow or putting my hand on his shoulder, I won't know that unless he tells me. And it goes the other way as well with expectations - if he needs a hug and doesn't tell me, there's no way I'll know.

For me, knowing others' boundaries is important so that I can help them stay safe. Simply talking about them makes us more willing to follow them... and means that I'm less likely to do something that will be a trigger, and vice versa.

The same thing applies in emotional situations, but boundaries are more nuanced there. I'm on one extreme: I'd be willing to let a stranger show up on my doorstep and talk for as long as he needed; other people have issues with friends who text them too often. One of the big issues with emotional boundaries is that people don't talk about them. And if someone oversteps their bounds, it causes huge distress to the relationship because the other person often doesn't even say anything about it.

On the other hand of boundaries are expectations - which are essentially minimum expected interactions. Physically, this may be a handshake, or can grow depending on the person or even the development of the relationship. Emotionally it follows a similar pattern. Reciprocity (asking back the same questions, offering similar information) is usually an emotional given... and it changes as the relationship changes as well.

Good relationships are ones that stay within those bounds - expectations at the minimum, and boundaries along the max.

Now if only there were a good way of actually determining them without straight-out asking... asking about physicality is fine. But asking about expectations and boundaries in emotional communication comes across as a DTR.

Northern Lights: If You Want to Be My Friend

I just wrote a post on Northern Lights that you should definitely check out.

It's called "If You Want to Be My (Girl or Boy) Friend..." and is located here: http://northstarlds.org/blog/2013/03/if-you-want-to-be-my-friend/

You can comment there or here with thoughts.

Pain for Others

I don't know if we as human beings experience pain differently from one another. Part of me assumes that we do, since the medical world talks about pain tolerance and experiences that seem to scar one person flatten another.

Either way, today I'm in pain.

Most of the pain in my life is caused by myself. By misunderstanding what's real and what isn't. By focusing on things that won't lead me to happiness.

But then there are people. And the pain that comes from loving. When I open my heart to people and they crush it. When they tell me I don't care, or that they are leaving me, or to go away.

That's pain.
 And then there's the pain of watching someone else in pain. Someone struggling to find hope and faith. And feeling totally impotent to make a difference even when it's been the focus of my mind and prayers and 3 days of fasting.

But it's worth it, right? Relationships... people make me a better man, and give me a reason to go on in life... even if they are painful.

I wonder how God deals with it. He loves people even more than I do... which means that He must feel a lot of pain.

Bliss and Self-Deception

I've been thinking about happiness recently... and trying to reconcile a few things that present some issues in my views. This is sort of long and rambling.... but I felt like it was useful.

Here are the pieces of the puzzle:

1. "Wickedness never was happiness" - this can safely be assumed to mean that disobedience to commandments will bring less happiness than the alternative.

2. "Ignorance is bliss" - this is the statement that made me want to write this post. But in the statement itself is irony; lacking knowledge can bring me greater happiness? What? There's also the statement that I cannot be saved in ignorance. More on that later.

3. "God has a Fulness of Joy" - this seems to be an expression of ultimate happiness.

4. "Men are that they might have joy" - so it looks like God wants me to be happy, but He uses the word joy... so He wants me to have the happiness that He has.

5. The Plan of Salvation/Happiness is a pathway that ultimately leads us to God... and I know that following God will always lead to greater happiness than any alternative.

The big issue at play here is this: I've known many people who claimed to be "completely happy" while doing wickedness. All sorts of wickedness - from mundane to esoteric. And the saying "Ignorance is bliss" really is somewhat true - I know my own perception of happiness has changed based on the knowledge that I've had. As a kid, I was blissfully unaware that I had no friends. And blissfully happy without that knowledge.

But as soon as I realized that I was missing something, and felt the need for friends, the bliss disappeared completely.

Just today I realized that, maybe, happiness has two different axes - just like humidity.

There are two types of humidity. Relative humidity is expressed in terms of % - with a maximum of 100%. Relative humidity is based on partial vapor pressure, temperature... but the simplest way to look at it is this: warm air holds more humidity.

Regardless of temperature, relative humidity has an impact. Heating up dry, cold air during the winter dramatically reduces its relative humidity, which can cause chapped lips, dry skin, and coughing. And once humidity reaches 100%, water begins to immediately condense on every available surface regardless of temperature. In warm temperatures, it's dew. In cold temperatures, it's frost.

Most of the time when I'm talking about humidity, I'm talking about relative humidity. "It's humid today," is assumed to be relative to yesterday, and the normal climate where I live. But when I talk with someone who has lived in an extremely warm, extremely humid environment, their definition of humidity will be dramatically different from mine... because they are working from a different scale, because they've experienced a higher absolute humidity. Maybe we're at 100% humidity. Maybe it's the most humid I have ever felt in my life. But there's always more humid to feel.

I feel like when I use the word happiness, I am usually referring to it in a relative sense. And that makes sense - the frowny-happy face scale that it used in psychological testing is the gold standard. I can only talk about how I feel, and how I feel I feel.

In this metaphor, "bliss" would be like the dewpoint - a relative maximum amount of happiness available at a given point.

But, just like the dewpoint, "bliss," while it may accurately describe relative happiness, it doesn't describe happiness in absolute terms. It could be 0 degrees outside, and the bliss is frost on the ground - not really much absolute humidity or happiness at all. Or it could be 100 degrees outside, and the bliss is like the heavy, warm dew of a tropical rainforest - huge amounts of absolute humidity and happiness.

So it looks like joy, then, would be an expression of an absolute maximum of happiness.

I think that makes sense. The scriptures teach that keeping the commandments - following truth - leads to greater happiness. So, as I learn about new truth, that knowledge enables me to gain greater happiness if I apply it. At the same time, not following that truth will lead to unhappiness. And maybe not even in terms of absolutes... maybe it would just be relative.

From that perspective, it would be interesting to rate the absolute and relative happiness of people across the globe. Or of me in different stages of my life.

When I knew very little about God and His commandments, and I was a generally good person, my life was close to bliss.

When I learned more about how to find greater happiness, the scale shifted. More happiness was available, but I wasn't there yet. So while I learned to apply the principles, I was growing in absolute happiness, but my relative happiness wasn't at a maximum. I didn't have bliss.

When I was able to effectively apply all the principles I had learned, bliss came again. This time, though, I had a greater version of happiness than before.

Then the pattern repeated.

...

An interesting caveat. If I want to be happier - to feel greater relative happiness (since I feel relative, and not absolute happiness) - there two ways to get there.

The first is to better apply the truth I already know - maximize what I have according to what I know. This takes a lot of work, effort, and is often a humbling experience. This is what God wants me to do, and how the Plan works.

The second is to try to forget the knowledge I've received. The thing is, just like lowering the temperature increases the relative humidity without changing the absolute measurement, lowering my maximum amount of happiness - based on the truth I understand - works in the same way. If I could deceive myself, or forget what I've learned that could make me happier, or find a way to convince myself that it's wrong, then my relative happiness would rise... even though my absolute happiness had stayed the same.

That's how, if I left the truth I've known and loved, and renounced the things I believe, I could actually feel greater relative happiness after the fact. If I find a way to forget, at least in the moment, that something better is out there... and am still a good person, the happiness I see could seem to be the maximum that life could offer. At least in the moments when I could make myself forget, or not believe.

But moving backwards to bliss - and trying to find happiness by changing my beliefs instead of my actions - sounds a lot like mortal damnation. God wants me to move forward, change, and grow in joy.

Men are not that they might have bliss. So I shouldn't follow it into places where I deceive myself. Men are that they might have joy - which means that, as I grow in knowledge and faith, happiness will be lasting, but bliss will only be momentary, on a few steps along the path.