Do hard things, gently

I learned a poignant lesson recently in my piano practice.

In preparing for Lights Will Guide You Home (for information about the concert, click here) I have learned a particularly challenging piece called the Pathetique Sonata, by Beethoven.

It’s fifteen minutes of rapid and repetitive movements across the keyboard, and let me tell you what, it may not be a full body workout but it sure feels like it after an hour of practice! Those repetitive movements may not involve weights or full range of motion, but they are more than a match for the little muscles in the wrists and hands that move my fingers. They tucker out quickly.

When I first began playing this piece, I faced a perplexing problem. My hands would tire after just a few minutes of playing! For a week I worried significantly. Would I be able to do this piece any justice? Or would I find myself in the middle of my concert too tensed up to continue going? My perfectionism bared its teeth and smiled at the sharp glint of its white fangs.

The answer to my problem came by watching famed pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim play the same piece on Youtube. What struck me as I watched was just how softly he played! He would compress each key just the amount necessary to achieve the level of volume he wanted. I also noticed how accurate and relaxed his playing was.

In comparison, I realized how LOUD my own playing was. Crash! Like a giant husky dog into a pile of bottles after a tasty bone. Just about as accurate too!

So I adjusted. To my surprise, even though I felt almost shamefully lazy as I relaxed my way through it (hard work isn’t supposed to feel lazy, right? Righhhht??) I not only played more accurately, my hands wouldn’t tire as quickly, enabling me to finish the piece.

I took a video to illustrate:

 

What I find best is how my insight applies in a practical way to broader life. We Americans are good at stressing ourselves out in the face of seemingly simple things. I am no exception to this. I tend to belabor all the small points as much as I do big ones. Things like cooking for myself, washing dishes, exercising, planning and goal setting are multi-step tasks with many facets. It's my habit to emphasize each little facet equally. No wonder they feel like a weight that collectively tenses my body. No wonder I procrastinate the abovementioned tasks, and many more!

I'm learning that we must learn how to do hard things gently. Life is hard enough without squeezing the joy and energy out of it through anxiety and worry! And yet, I do it all the time. I double my stress through ego, pride, and perfectionism. I double my stress through unconscious expectations that weigh down every step of our efforts like rocks in a backpack.

 I don't have to do it this way!

WE don't have to do it this way!

Rather than belaboring each little point, there are better ways to be effective in doing difficult things. From my practice I learned the following:

1) Through emphasis we govern energy. Part of what tired my hands out so quick was that I unconsciously emphasized every single note the exact same way. IT! WOULD! BE! LIKE! SPEAKING! LIKE! THIS! ALL! DAY! LONG!

So instead, I began emphasizing certain notes, and playing the necessary-but-not-emphasized notes softly. This increased the beauty of my music because it allowed the song to flow through the points of natural importance, rather than EVERY! NOTE! HAVING! THE! EXACT! SAME! MEANING! And I could also distribute my hands' limited capacity for stress more meaningfully.

2) I began playing the whole piece softer. RATHER! THAN! EVERY! NOTE! BEING! LOUD! OR! LOUDERRRRRR! I played it with some notes being given their appropriate emphasis, and most much less so. That way, when the VERY loud textures happen (and they do!) My hands have the energy to render the volume appropriately. Best of all, since I’m not saturating your ears by overloading them, the listener can notice and appreciate the difference.

Remember ladies and gents! Do hard things gently. Got a big task to tackle? Got a new skill to learn? Find the most important points and give them most of your energy. The rest will flow on their own, and you with it. You are worth whatever it is you set your mind to accomplish. You are worth getting rid of the habits that prevent you. Have the compassion on yourself. Give yourself permission to deemphasize or drop the things that matter little, so the things that matter most receive the best of your attention and energy.

Isn’t it so much easier to do it that way?

Despite the Falling Snow: A Message of Hope for Christmas of 2016

Snow is a unique symbol.

On one hand, snow is often a symbol of purity (such as the expression “Pure as the driven snow,”) of innocence, of beauty and light.

On the other, snow is also a symbol of death, of Earth falling under the spell of sleep.

Snow lies heavy on the ground, burying the world like soil. It muffles sounds. Its arrival signals the changes that drive life away. The leaves fall, leaving the trees as though they were dead. Killing frosts droop the flowers, browning once vibrant petals, yellowing the grass. Animal life sleeps, or dies. Bears retreat to their dens, insects and spiders and reptiles disappear, and frogs lie at the bottom of ponds, their life signs stilling until they exist in a state of suspended animation. Not even their hearts beat.

Like they were dead.

Like the temperate Earth, our lives begin in season, we burst into bloom, then harvest, and as an inevitable part of the cycle, we die.

There is immense potency, then, in the image of a flower that blooms in the dark and the snow.

“Lo, how a rose e'er blooming
From tender stem hath sprung,
Of Jesse's lineage coming,
As men of old have sung.

It came a flow'ret bright
Amid the cold of winter
When half-spent was the night.
Isaiah 'twas foretold it,
This Rose that I have in mind.

And with Mary we behold it,
The Virgin Mother so sweet and so kind.
To show God's love aright,
She bore to men a Savior
When half-spent was the night.”

A flower that blooms despite the falling snow represents faith in redemption, the ultimate triumph of life over death.

It is a fitful faith, starting like a snorer in sleep.

Robert Graves describes it this way:

“She tells her love while half asleep,
In the dark hours,
With half words whispered low;
As earth stirs in her winter sleep
And puts out grass and flowers
Despite the snow,
Despite the falling snow.”

For me, the religion of Christmastime is found in this image of mid-winter stirring.

Like snow, we have fallen. Our lives take form, condense as if the snow, trailing the cloudy glory from which we were born. But then, we are dragged downward to settle on the Earth, subject to winds of fate, part of the great force that has rendered the Earth itself dead.

And yet, despite our fallen state, Earth stirs. Hope remains in the soil, vital and alive and potent, thrusting through when least expected or likely.

We have the promised Savior, born as a rose blooming despite the cold cold winter and the darkened night, and we have each of us: half asleep, weakly whispering our love while our hope for redemption stirs like the Earth shooting forth grass and flowers despite being a winter wasteland.

Christ was born to save. His promise, is the promise of our life springing forth anew. It is found alone in His sacrifice.

What I invite you to reflect upon this Christmas day is the unique impact Christ's birth, death and resurrection have for you. While we are each under the spell of sleep and of death, of winter, our words of love mere half-words whispered low, our hours dark, and our faith a feeble stirring under the falling snow, because of why He came those many millennia ago, spring will come.

In remembrance of September 11th

Trigger warning:

September 11^th. 2001.

I was nine when the towers fell.

I heard something about buildings burning in New York City from my bus driver. My smarty pants self thought “There are ALWAYS buildings burning in New York City. Big deal.”

That was all I got the whole school day...my teacher was either ignorant of what was going on, or, more likely, chose not to reveal anything to us. I come home to see my mother, sobbing to the footage of the south tower's collapse. I sobbed too, but mostly because my mother was sobbing (and what little boy doesn't sob when his mother sobs) and also because of the destruction of one of my favorite landmarks to build in Sim City 3000. (I was nine, don't judge.)

I remember the unfolding of the aftermath. I can't remember all of what was going on in my 9 year old mind, but I do remember sensing the shift in the collective conscious...I knew that everything had just completely changed. I remember the inspiring stories of all the congressional body hugging, crying and singing patriotic songs, and remember comments on how unusual that was. I remember the gloom and terror and everybody on Fox News freaking out about it for weeks afterwards, every bomb threat became a headline. I also remember the solidarity displayed by America in the weeks afterwards, the sense of communion I had with other Americans thousands of miles away. I remember the constant replay of the attack footage and, being fascinated by disasters of every stripe, glued to that footage like any time I saw my favorite tornado movies. I was too innocent and removed from events to experience any impact to myself, but I was sober enough to feel the gravitas, and to comprehend somewhat that I was witnessing the unfolding of something very, very important.

15 years have intervened since then, as have two American wars, economic turbulence, the rise of myriad threats to freedom, and the emergence of a global political reality doubly as dense and tense and intricate as any hairtrigger moment in history. As my experiences have accumulated, my brain and body matured, my identity emerged and my understanding deepened, my relationship to 9/11 and to those memories has also evolved.

With the explosion of the internet came Youtube, and with Youtube hundreds and thousands of pieces of footage made publicly available. I would periodically binge-watch these pieces of footage, sometimes for hours at a time. In my comfortable, cushioned middle-class upbringing, this footage was a window onto a foreign world that, while unfamiliar and full of hostility and anger and bloodcurdling hatred, had direct impact on my existance and thus required me to understand it. For years I viewed these pieces of footage and feel a thrill of dramatic excitement like in an action movie. I researched the physics behind the collapse of the towers, I saw the numbers of lives lost, I factualized and intellectulized it. It seemed so fantasy-like, so unreal, like there should be scrolling credits at the end of each video and an interview with actors talking about how making the movie was such an experience.

Then, I discovered the videos of the jumpers.

Everyone has a moment where their innocence is lost. This was mine.

I avoided those videos for a long time, but there came a point I knew that I needed to experience something that they had to offer...that I needed to watch them, and not just watch, but engage with them, to empathize, to visualize, to put myself in the shoes of who I was watching. While it was only imagination coupled with piecing together a reality I had gleaned from pieces of video evidence, it was enough for me to finally comprehend. No longer did these videos seem like fantasy footage from a movie. I realized, in every sense of that word. I REAL-ized it. It was a real-ization of what despair is, what it feels like, what it stems from, what it causes us as humans to do...

I haven't voluntarily watched 9/11 footage since. It has become very painful to relive, to think about. Defining moments are often like that. They come, they leave their gouge marks, and they leave. We sit, we wrangle, we ignore, we refuse, we hurt, we bleed, we cry, we anger. And though some among Americans responded with hatred, there will come a time when we will realize that we must let go. We stand, we accept, we acknowledge, we heal, we smile, we forgive We refuse to remember...but we cannot forget. We will never forget. We will never forget what it meant to be so deeply and irrevocably wounded...and we will never forget that we will heal, and in healing, forgive.

We will never forget.

Forget the stars and stripes and the garish 19^th century march tunes that accompany it. The emblem of my Americanism is my life: taking my freedom of choice, my abundant privilege and my economic and spiritual opportunities and utilizing them in honoring and serving my fellow man, distinctions of nationality, religion or ethnicity be damned. It is in making my everday living after the manner of the example of those firefighters, who went in to save regardless of station in life. This is America. This is how I remember 9/11, and this is how I honor my heritage.

In the Arms of the Glacier

In the Arms of the Glacier

The mountains call me.

Jagged faces blinding

The moon in its rise

Above the stars.

They lure me, those mountains,

The granite monsters

With wildflowers blooming

in their vast arms,

Lakes as fine jewels

Merry twinkling in their ears

Amidst the frowning snow dangling

Like hair.

I live well,

Sitting comfortable in the

Armchair, reading by

Electric light

All the delights of

The untested surround

Me with pleasure.

And yet I yearn

To have my hair

Ruffled freezing

By the moonlit glacier

To bloom bruises

Slipping on loose rock

Above the cliff.

I yearn

To witness

Sunlight glorify anew

The granite face,

While razor rocks

Cut my knees

Upon my bowing.

I yearn

To hear the wolves

Amongst the ragged vastness

Of the trees

Lifting their wild brows

High and creaking above

The winding ridges

To be initiated

Into the great

Brotherhood of the Wilderness,

wherein

Adventure

and Desire

find perfect balance on the peaks.

To be initiated...

What computer

Could stretch the legs, and bring

The warmth of fire,

Strength

and Beauty

in its manmade stream of electrons?

Though comforts happy smile,

the Took calls

To dangerous roads

Where Love and Truth apair dwell.

Lesson 3, part 2: Our masculine culture has lost its capacity for deep, non-romantic connection.

A disconnect and a restoration
The following thoughts, while neither doctrine nor scientific truth per se, contain something I believe is needed as part of society's healing process: the restoration of a true spirit of brotherhood to men.

In the last part I explained my belief that our culture has sexualized relationality, with the resulting loss of intimacy between men. This process is explained well by this quote from Brett McKay:

“At the turn of the 20th century, the idea of homosexuality shifted from a practice to a lifestyle and an identity. You did not have temptations towards a certain sin, you were a homosexual person. Thinking of men as either “homosexual” or “heterosexual” became common....As this new conception of homosexuality as a stigmatized and onerous identifier took root in American culture, men began to be much more careful to not send messages to other men, and to women, that they were gay. And this is the reason why, it is theorized, men have become less comfortable with showing affection towards each other over the last century.”

To summarize, as the meaning of homosexuality changed from being a set of behaviors to an innate trait, men in conservative Americana distanced themselves from each other in order to avoid the stigma of “being gay.” The result has been the loss of an ancient tradition of deep masculine connection that existed independent of sexuality.

This is a truth that all, no matter their perspective regarding homosexuality, need to understand. Whether one embraces this sexualization process or rejects it, men need other men in a deep, nonsexual capacity, and (correct me if I'm wrong in my observation) we as American men have generally lost the capacity to recognize and pursue this need to its fulfillment. Men both gay and straight seek all their need fulfillment in romantic partners. However, in my view, in order to be a healthy man (and a healthy woman, for that matter) non-sexual, non-romantic but deep connection with others of the same gender (no matter one's orientation or religion) is essential, and its lack contributes to many of the problems in modern American society.

This is something the ancients understood well. Indeed, what happened between men for thousands of years prior to our era would be shocking to us in its level of intensity, but to them, it was so common it was normal, even boring, and more often than not, yes, it was "no homo..." they were not a bunch of closeted gays, they were simply men who loved each other.

For example, here is an excerpt from a love letter between two medieval men:

"I think of your love and friendship with such sweet
memories, reverend bishop, that I long for that lovely
time when I may be able to clutch the neck of your
sweetness with the fingers of my desires. Alas, if only
it were granted to me, as it was to Habakkuk [Dan.
14:32-38], to be transported to you, how I would sink
into your embraces,...how much would I cover, with
tightly pressed lips, not only your eyes, ears and
mouth, but also your every finger and toe, not once but many a time." (1)

This was a man? Addressing another man? "Sink into your embraces" "...cover, with tightly pressed lips, not only your eyes, ears and mouth, but also every finger and toe..." "I long for that lovely time when I may be able to clutch the neck of your sweetness with the fingers of my desires..." Whoa.

How many of you find this revolting? I wouldn't be surprised if most of you did. It makes me uncomfortable too. I love touching and expressions of affection, but...wow. I'd probably have a DTR right there....over facebook, because personalized letters are just WAY too homo, bro. Slow down and take a cold shower.

But still, I have to ask....why? Why is it so uncomfortable for us? I invite you to consider the context in which this love letter was written, and to consider if, like me, you have fallen victim to sexualized thinking. The author of this beautiful bit of writing is none other than Alcuin. Alcuin is known as one of the chief scholars of Charlemagne's Court, a devout Catholic monk of great renown and ability whose work was foundational to the Carolingian Renaissance. Considering this highly religious context, as well as Alcuin's well-documented condemnations of “the Sin of Sodom,” it is unlikely that Alcuin's letter, despite its affectionate outpouring, was an expression of homosexual desire.

In other words, he didn't NEED to take a cold shower. This is not sexuality speaking in the slightest. He was simply expressing his affection for a friend. Really. That's it.

It was simply a man who loved another man.

Indeed, there are plenty of similar examples of such loving and affectionate writing between men during the medieval and later ages (2), and it's highly unlikely that any given bit of writing was an expression of homosexual desire...they were most likely simple evidence of the depth and intensity of connection that men enjoyed with each other in these ages. Of course, homosexuality has been part of the human experience since the beginning, so it can't be discounted, but even with that, I have a hunch that it is the exception, not the rule. And yet, for us, it is very difficult to see this kind of affection and not automatically say, "Do you need to get a room?"

Such intense feeling in male friendships even continues in many other societies up into the modern age. Watch how these Syrian men interact at the reuniting of a father with his lost son, showering the father with kisses, embracing him and holding his hand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9hWKaMQO3

Would you characterize the tenderness and affection displayed towards the father in this video as "gay?"'

We Americans are strange in our tendency towards male-to-male coldness. Ancient Western civilizations had traditions of masculine friendship not only encouraged but often institutionalized close relationships between men, as exemplified by the relationship between Alexander the Great and his friend, Hephaestion(3). Aristotle was quoted as describing these two as “two bodies, one soul,” and Hephaestion's death so affected Alexander that he wept over the body for the greater part of a day, and it is believed that his death was largely what led to Alexander's death eight months later.

This tradition of closeness continued up until modern times, with the letters of Jefferson and Adams and the relationship of Abraham Lincoln and Josh Speed examples of the exceptionally close relationships between the manly men of the 18^th and 19^th century America (4).

This photo essay captures some of the intensity that was commonplace amongst the men prior to the advent of the modern age: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/07/29/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/

Such themes of intense homosocial relationship aren't just matters of secular history, they are also scriptural. Consider the example of the great prophet and king David, a man described by God as being “a man after mine own heart (5)” Upon hearing of the slaying of his friend, Saul's son Jonathon, he laments:

“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26)”

Consider the moving account contained in the Book of Mormon when the great Ammon meets Alma and his brethren after many years of separation for missionary work:

“16 And it came to pass that as Ammon was going forth into the land, that he and his brethren met Alma, over in the place of which has been spoken; and behold, this was a joyful meeting.

 17 Now the joy of Ammon was so great even that he was full; yea, he was swallowed up in the joy of his God, even to the exhausting of his strength; and he fell again to the earth.
 18 Now was not this exceeding joy? Behold, this is joy which none receiveth save it be the truly penitent and humble seeker of happiness.” (Alma 27:16-18)

Here, we have Ammon fainting with joy at the sight of his beloved brothers.
And finally, consider this tender account from the life of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

“23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
 25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?” (John 13:23-25)

Especially those of you who are of a religious bent...how many of you read this last account and judged it as “gay?” I would hope none. The disciple whom Jesus loved is simply...the disciple whom Jesus loved. Who laid his head on Christ's breast, because love.

I recall reading of James E. Faust dispassionately remarking of his “wonderful associations” with the Quorum of the 12, and though I don't doubt that he cared deeply for those men, I can't help but see this as indicative that there's something missing in the way that we men relate to other men.

A return
I can't speak for all homosexual men, but I can speak for my own self, in that I sincerely and deeply believe that my own homosexuality was born, in part, of a deep yearning for the kind of depth, of beauty, of affection, of closeness that exists in all the stories given above. It's something that is foreign to my world.

All men, gay and straight, need brothers who love them and who they love. They need relationships where priority, affection, tenderness and respect are evident. To gain this kind of brotherly love is one of my highest goals in life.

It's my sincere hope that it will once again become a commonplace experience in our society.

Works cited:

1): http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/homo-med.asp

2): Ibid.

3): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestion

4): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Fry_Speed.

5): Acts 13:22

Lesson 3, part 1: Homosexuality is not, and never was, about sex.

“'It's not about the sex.' I said. I was sitting on the sofa in our living room. My wife and Matt (name changed) my one Latter-day Saint friend who knew what was going on in our home, could not seem to understand this concept.

'Come on, it really is just about the sex,' said Matt as my wife nodded in full agreement with him. At this point we had been discussing the matter for quite some time, and my patience was short.

'Last I checked, neither of you have dealt with this issue, so unless you have been hiding your own same-sex attraction,' I said, 'I really do not think you are in a position to lecture me on what this is really about!'”(1)

Thus begins Tyler Moore's account of his journey through same-sex attraction. This conversation, taking place when he was on the verge of divorcing his wife, contains one of the biggest realizations I've ever had:

Homosexuality is not, and never was, about sex.

In this valuable and vital insight, I hope to reveal a new side of homosexuality which, considering the current state of society, might never have been considered. For all reading this, I hope to bring a greater sense of compassion through understanding. For all my Latter-day Saint or Christian friends who believe in traditional marriage, I hope that these insights will help you as you balance your beliefs in traditional marriage and family with compassion for the LGBT community. At the same time, I hope to drive home a point that will help each of us to see ourselves and those that we love the most with new, clearer eyes.

Sexualization, repression, liberation

“Sexualization: To make something sexual in character or quality.”

- Wikipedia (2)

   We live in a time and place of history that, for all its advantages, comes with immense disadvantages in other areas. This is most readily apparent in the way we've been conditioned to relate with others.

Sex and romance defines our societal discourse on human connection, and where sexual and romantic love are placed as the highest achievable form of human love. Whether this is true or not is up to individual interpretation, but that it's a nearly universal belief is beyond question.

As society began defining love in terms of sex, a new pattern of defining people emerged with it: by their sexuality. It's out of this pattern of thought that “heterosexual” and “homosexual” and their synonyms have arisen.

To think that exist people in terms of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” or “gay” and “straight” is one of the most commonly accepted lies currently in existance, a false dichotomy that has been responsible for a great deal of unnecessary pain. The division it creates is entirely unnatural and seeks to reduce the breadth, depth and intensity of human feeling and relating into the limited form of sex. Though homosexuality has been a part of human experience since the beginning, to define people by whether or not they experience it is an invention of Victorian sexual ethics to replace the vacuum created by secularization and the resultant removal of medieval Christian ideals from public discourse. As Michael W. Hannon observes:

“Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes...[they are] a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.....

Michel Foucault...details the pedigree of sexual orientation in his History of Sexuality. Whereas “sodomy” had long identified a class of actions, suddenly for the first time, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the term “homosexual” appeared alongside it. This European neologism was used in a way that would have struck previous generations as a plain category mistake, designating not actions, but people—and so also with its counterpart and foil “heterosexual.”deep

Psychiatrists and legislators of the mid- to late-1800s, Foucault recounts, rejected the classical convention in which the “perpetrator” of sodomitical acts was “nothing more than the juridical subject of them.” With secular society rendering classical religious beliefs publicly illegitimate, pseudoscience stepped in and replaced religion as the moral foundation for venereal norms. To achieve secular sexual social stability, the medical experts crafted what Foucault describes as 'a natural order of disorder.'

'The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage,' 'a type of life,' 'a morphology,' Foucault writes. This perverted psychiatric identity, elevated to the status of a mutant “life form” in order to safeguard polite society against its disgusting depravities, swallowed up the entire character of the afflicted: “Nothing that went into [the homosexual’s] total composition was unaffected by his sexuality. It was everywhere present in him: at the root of all his actions because it was their insidious and indefinitely active principle(3).”

In other words, beginning in the 19^th century, the West began defining people in terms of sexuality, to make sexuality not just a class of actions, as Foucault states, but as “the insidious and indefinitely active principle governing their existance.” We came to view others' actions, thoughts and beliefs as being informed and governed by sexual inclination.

As the defining heterosexual/homosexual binary was accepted into the collective consciousness beginning in the 1930's, the reaction to it was both natural and inevitable: a wave of backlash, condemnation and ostracism of anyone or anything suspected of “being homosexual.” In doing so, religious and national leadership adopted heterosexuality as the sexual norm and sought to repress “homosexuality” and “homosexuals,” buying into this lie wholesale. Unfortunately, the process of sexualization that had begun in the preceding centuries had come to pervade our entire cultural thought surrounding the human experience, so much so that the repression sought by cultural and religious authorities had many terrible, if unintended consequences. 
 
It was an unfortunate misunderstanding of the time to believe that homosexuality as an internal experience or feeling was chosen. Almost anyone who knows the experience of homosexuality knows otherwise. Yet, even with this truth, those who experienced sexualities out of variation with normal “heterosexuality” found themselves pushed to the fringe of society and badly mistreated, as exemplified by Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunt of the 1950's. Homosexuals were often disowned by their families. These conditions of repression finally erupted into the Stonewall Riots of the late 1960's, helping fuel the “sexual liberation” and galvanizing the LGBT community from a few ragtag groups into the politically powerful and influential machine that it is today(4.)

It's my observation that what is manifesting as LGBT furor are echoes of this painful past. What I see when I see the LGBT community in their current state is a deep longing for acceptance and love. Their desire to have their lifestyles and relationships accepted culturally and legally is a reaction to this long history of rejection, and when they see religious communities declaring their opposition to gay marriage, they react poorly because they interpret it as more personal rejection. I've not been involved enough in the LGBT community to know a lot of stories, but I know enough to know that even now, there are LGBT individuals within religious or conservative segments of society that are often kicked out of their homes and disowned by their families when they confide their homosexuality or transgenderism. If that still happens now in our liberalized society, the rejection and ostracism must have been much greater in the conservative 50's and earlier.
Though I don't believe marriage should be redefined and don't agree with the broad LGBT approach, I can also see that it is fueled, not by outright rebellion against God nor hatred of religious people (though those certainly manifest sometimes) but by a deep-seated starvation for acceptance.

Breaking the Cycle
Unfortunately, the broad LGBT movement in their goals is just as their repressors, rooted in this false heterosexual/homosexual binary. Though conservatives may call for repression and LGBT's may call for liberation, they both depend on this false dichotomy for validation. The time has come for this overly simplistic sexualized thinking to be purged from our societal discourse. 
 
One of the unfortunate victims of sexualized thinking is our Christian ideals of chastity. For many believers, these ideals are not rooted in the love of God, others, and life, but rather in fear: a fear of sexuality, a fear of sin, a fear of deviance. Rather than teaching us to bridle our passions that our connections with others may be filled with love, our fear causes an obsessive, rules-based approach to chastity, and a fear-based engagement with those who don't choose it.

Let me make it firmly clear: My issue is not with Christian morality. I love Christian morality. I believe and love the teachings of chastity, but not for what it prevents, but what it enables. We may think that chastity is all about preventing the inappropriate use of sexuality, but that is like saying the ultimate purpose of budgeting is preventing monetary loss. True in a sense, but not the core. Just like true budgeting is an investment that enables us to get what we truly want, chastity is also an investment. Because I govern my thoughts through a deeply internalized lens of chastity in my relationships with others, I experience a deep and pure love that I would never be able to experience through sex. 

This has been especially prominent in my relationships with men. The love I feel for men is incredibly deep, and has only become more so the more dedicated I've become to true principles of chastity.
 
Sexualization, by its definition, would destroy that love. Whether exhibited by a lustful homosexual or a stern and suspicious church man, sexualized thinking would turn any exhibition of tenderness, affection or need for another man into a sexual act, and their acceptance or rejection of that tenderness and affection based on their sexualized judgments independent of the actual motivation.

In many ways, this sexualization process has become so extreme in our society that for many, sex and romance has become the sole legitimate expression of passion and feeling between individuals, and thus why the LGBT movement screams for homosexual relationships to be legitimized. Though deeper for some more than most, the need of a man for other men, and of a woman for other women, is a primal human drive. If someone is conditioned to believe that the only legitimate way to express that primal desire is through sex, wouldn't you blame them for being upset when they're told they shouldn't?

Consider the following, from Steve Bearman:

“Every story of “true love” in the cultural mythology implies that relationships are built on sex, that sex consummates love, that feeling sexual feelings is the same as being in love. Directly and indirectly, we are handed sexuality as the one vehicle through which it might still be possible to express and experience essential aspects of our humanness that have been slowly and systematically conditioned out of us.
Sex was, and is, presented as the road to real intimacy, complete closeness, as the arena in which it is okay to openly love, to be tender and vulnerable and yet remain safe, to not feel so deeply alone. Sex is the one place sensuality seems to be permissible, where we can be gentle with our own bodies and allow ourselves overflowing passion. Pleasure and desire, vitality and excitement, seemingly left behind somewhere we can’t even remember, again become imaginable(5).”

Tenderness, affection, intimacy, the highest expressions of love...where these do not relate to sex, romance, marriage and family, they have been tied to the anvil of sexual deviancy and thrown over the side of the good ship Zion. I speak of very personal experience here...I bristled whenever I heard homosexuality condemned, cautioned against, or explained away as a challenge to be overcome or a tendency to be resisted, because I had been conditioned to understand that that which I was being told to overcome, resist and cast away was the deep, tender part of me to which my homosexuality is intrinsically tied.
 
It has been such a blessing to release myself of the weight of sexualization. The awe and wonder I feel for the male form, the feelings I have for loved male friends, the desire and drive to form loving relationships with many of them....these things are no longer dependent on sexual drives for validity, and thus are freed from expectations both religious and secular. I feel free and unweighted as a little child.

It is only until we as a people can learn to release our obsession with sex and accept the validity of a broad range of human feeling and experience that our preaching the Law of Chastity will gain any traction.

And it is only in releasing our obsession with sex that the true beauty of brotherhood and sisterhood will return from the shadows into which they have been sexualized and repressed.

Sources:

1) “Being My True Self.” Moore, Tyler. Voices of hope: latter-day Saint perspectives on same-gender attraction: an anthology of of gospel teachings and personal essay. Ty Mansfield, editor. Deseret Book, copyright 2011.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization

3) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

5) http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/why-men-are-so-obsessed-with-sex/

Lesson 2: It's okay to long for men.

    This beautiful image depicts, in my mind, one of the most beautiful gifts that two beings can share: desire.
    It also depicts a form of desire that has, for one reason or another, almost disappeared from the fabric of American society: desire of a man for other men. As with the photograph in my first post, these two men clearly don't just “like” each other. They desire each other. There is a partnership and need they share that goes deep. However, unlike the men in the previous photograph (though I can't find anything to confirm or deny) these men, soccer players Aleksandar Kolarov and Edin Dzeko, are highly unlikely to have a gay relationship.
    Do you believe that to be possible?

Homophobia and Male Relationships

    To be honest, I'm having a hard time writing this post because I can't seem to find clear sufficient words to describe my perceptions of male intimacy. This is primarily because the very subject is treated as a joke in our society, and the words we use in our conversations about it reflect that attitude. Male relationships in our society seem to be primarily work- or hobby-oriented acquaintanceships that lead to an exchange of goods and services, but rarely go deep. There is a measure of trust and understanding, but they lack any sort of profound desire. The very idea of them going deeper than that is treated with laughter.
    I want a term that has depth and clarity of meaning, including an indication of a chaste but deep desire of a man for another man. About the closest word I could think of was “bromance.” Bromance/male bonding/etc....they just OOZE discomfort and oddity. Trying to express depth with those words just makes me laugh. The word “bromance” isn't bad, per se, it just oozes immaturity...I can't imagine the term “bromance” having a place in a mature conversation about the subject, though I'm open to that being wrong.
    The word “Homosocial” has merit, but the unfortunate thing about THAT term is that it merely indicates a guy liking, rather than deeply desiring other man. I don't know a guy that doesn't like being “with the guys” at least occasionally, even if he never actually interacts with them beyond a “hey, bro.” I do, however, know a lot of guys that do NOT desire men, and would vehemently deny such a charge if it were ever leveled.
    That, lastly, brings me to the sexualized terms that are the only ones that would describe the sense of depth, dependance and need I'm looking for, but happen to throw in the “oh, they have sex with each other every night” dynamic into the mix. As one who deeply believes in the Law of Chastity and the importance of the nuclear family, this dynamic is not acceptable to me.
    Why this discomfort? What would be wrong with a man desiring men? Society has set up a false polarity in terms of male relationships. Male relationships are either 1) shallow or 2) sexual. The relationships men develop between each other can only be valid if they preserve the masculine “normalcies” of independence and stoicism, which automatically means those relationships cannot penetrate the surface level, as dependence and emotional expression are necessary for desire to be fulfilled and deep relationships to develop. If there's any degree of desire, need, or depth of communication of feeling between men, society automatically suspects a sexual undercurrent.

    In otherwords, desire has become synonymous with lust.

Desire is not lust

    I don't know, but I have to wonder how many of you saw the picture at the top of my post and automatically thought “Oh, that's gay!” I have to wonder how many of you would become uncomfortable and protest or leave if you were to witness two men interacting like this around you. One of the most painful experiences I've ever had was an experience attending church with a gay friend in Utah. He had fallen inactive by that point, and most of his ward knew he was gay and on his way out of living the Gospel. I remember putting my arm around this friend and resting my head on his shoulder for a good portion of both sacrament meeting and priesthood. You would not believe the looks and comments we received. I was expressing desire, to be certain. I desired connection and friendship and love with this friend. But, I was not nor would ever be his boyfriend. I was not trying to express romantic or sexual intent, and yet I could sense the suspicion I was under. I knew there had been some friction between my friend and his ward members prior to our visit, but it still hurt for me to experience it.
    And yet, it was also one of the best sacrament meetings I'd ever attended, because I was able to actually feel a connection to another being there, rather than feeling so abjectly isolated and alone like I almost always have. The intimacy I felt with that friend, whatever his circumstances, filled me deeply.
    I firmly believe that this homophobic polarity is part of what makes the experience of homosexuality so painful in religious circles. Without experiencing depth of mutual desire with other men, I am unable to thrive. But that being homo”sexual,” in conservative religious culture, I generally couldn't find it. Living and believing in my religion, I've generally had to either A) Be religious but accept that I would never be able to go deeply with my male friends, or B) fulfil this deep and persistent need by rejecting religion and embracing a homosexual lifestyle and relationship/s.

It's okay to desire men

    Our culture says that it's okay for men to like being around men and doing things with men...occasionally, and as long as it's sports/work/hobby related. If that works, fine. There are plenty of men for whom that's quite enough at this point in their lives, and that's okay.
    However, that doesn't work for me. It never has.

    Gay men are not superior to straight men, and I'll be the first to admit there are some repugnant aspects of the gay community in the way that they relate to each other. They too, sadly, have largely bought into the lie that for a man to desire another men must be a sexual thing, and exist on the opposite end of the spectrum. However, they have one obvious strength that straight men generally lack: desire. The straight men in my life have largely, though with some exceptions, sent me the message: “We care about you, we love you, but we don't really want you, desire you or need you. Be a part of us, bro, if you want. We'll have your back if something bad happens, and we'll accept you as part of the group if you respect the rules, but we don't really care either way if you decide not to stay.” The gay men in my life, both Mormon and not, both chaste and not, work from the opposite side of the spectrum. They send the message “You are beautiful. I want you, I desire you, I need you, and I love you. I want you to be a part of my life forever.” The first group struggles with distance, the second with codependence; the first with walls and the second with boundaries.

    Why can't we the two be put together? I want to be a part of a brotherhood that has each other's backs, and I want to be wanted, loved and desired, and to freely want and love and desire my brothers without being feared. I want to respect my brothers and I also want to cherish them forever. Is this not the true spirit of friendship? Is not the true spirit of friendship the heart of the gospel?

    I am grateful for my homosexuality. I am grateful for the nuanced understanding I have received because of it. I'm grateful to know that A) my desire for men is okay, B) chastity does not mean devoid of desire, and C) I can find great passion and joy in the fulfilment of my desire within the bounds the Lord has set.

Thank you, Teacher.