Lesson 1: I need men.

 

I stumbled across this picture in this (http://www.brainjet.com/world/9625/23-powerful-images-revealing-the-real-men-and-women-behind-the-uniforms#slide/4)  photo essay contrasting servicemen and women in their uniforms vs. their everyday lives.
    It's become one of my favorite images, as it illustrates the essence of the first lesson that my homosexuality has taught me:

 I need men.


    This image abundantly communicates the need these men have for each other. Not just in an acquaintanceship-y, business partner-y, I-don't-know-anything-about-you-except-that-you-have-assets type of need, I mean, they NEED each other, deeply and consistently. They need, love and want each other, as men, as brothers, as friends, as partners, as lovers, as beings. Their position indicates committed boundaries of respect, while simultaneously conveying a deep, familiar closeness and enjoyment of one another. These men need each other.
    My homosexuality is a teacher. And the greatest lesson it has taught me is that I need men. Not an acquaintanceship-y, business partner-y, I-don't-know-anything-about-you-except-that-you-have-assets-y type of “need.” I mean a deep, complete, from the core of my being, now and forever need for men. I need men as brothers, friends, partners, and I'd even go so far as to say lovers, within the bounds that the Lord has set. It is only in the context of such a brotherhood that my full power and health as a man is possible.
    Before I continue, I want to make clear that I believe and support the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity. I don't advocate that men seek out romantic relationships with men, and don't believe that such are necessary in order for men to fill their need for each other. However, while I don't condone sexual relationships between members of the same sex on the grounds of morality and conscience, I have learned that these loving romantic relationships between members of the same sex, like that portrayed here, can still provide insights on life, love and relationships. An odd claim coming from someone with my religious perspective, perhaps, but true nonetheless.
    And the foremost lesson that I have learned from homosexuality, both my own and from the broader culture, is that men need men.

    Why would this lesson be so significant, as to make it number one on my list?

    Despite what many deconstructionist voices in the modern world would say, gender is not simply a pattern of “normal” behaviors forced on men or women by the broader culture, (though that does play a part.) Rather, gender represents a pattern of thought and behavior, tied to our biological, spiritual and evolutionary wiring, that develops as a deeply intrinsic part of human nature. Because gender governs how a person relates to other beings, and because humans are social creatures, the pattern of thought and behavior represented by gender cannot develop and exert itself to its fullest extent in isolation. It needs relationships with others in order for that to occur. There are significant cultural patterns extant across human society, from the great warriorship camaraderie of the American soldiery to the priesthood authority binding the men of the Church to one another in common discipleship, that clearly show that the powers of thought and behavior represented by gender can only be fully wielded in the context of a deeply connected brotherhood. Without that deep brotherhood, men cannot fully develop their potential.

    Without homosexuality, I never would have cognicized this principle until much later in life.

    This is a truth that I did not glean from my upbringing. We live in America, as peculiar and odd a culture as any, and while the religious conservatism that has governed American culture for much of its past gets many things right, it is deeply and entirely wrong on many other things. The way it approaches a man's need for connection with men is foremost among those. It's simply just not normal for men in America to need and deeply connect with other men.
    I'm no sociologist, but I can see some pervasive societal expectations of manliness and masculinity here in America that have combined to greatly inhibit the powerful connections that need to develop between men in order for them to reach full health and strength.
    First, men in American culture are expected to be independent. Their modus operandi is strength, autonomy, and self-fulfillment. They are capable of getting what they need for themselves and their families without the help of anyone else. Dependence is weakness.
    Second, men in American culture are expected to be competitive. We love our free-markets, we love our politics, and we love businessmen and politicians (mostly men) who can beat out other businessmen and politicians (also mostly men.) This spirit of competition sets men up to treat most, if not all other men as a potential enemy.
    Third, men are expected to be stoic. Though men are deeply emotional beings, they are taught from a young age that to manage emotions successfully means they must shut them down completely. Emotions are treated as weakness and men who exhibit them belittled. Ever heard a man be told to “Grow a pair?” Case in point.
    Fourth, American culture has been extremely homophobic. It's one thing for a man to set boundaries that prevent other men from exploiting him sexually or emotionally, and quite another to scorn as a “homo” any man that shows desire for love and closeness with other men.
    Fifth and lastly, American men are taught that they must look to the woman for emotional need fulfilment, affirmation and intimacy. Romantic relationships and marriage are the source of these things for adult men. Intense, intimate relationships with other boys and men are expected in boyhood but also expected to discontinue with age, as though they were a sign of immaturity.
    These factors have combined within the past 100 years to create an unusual, perhaps even unique occurrence among the societies of the Earth: a society where depth of connection and love between men is abnormal.

    The human need for love is met through connection. Connection, with all the admittance of weakness, dependence, and the spiritual, emotional and physical intimacy it needs, is antagonistic to all five of these characteristics of American masculinity. Authentic, loving relationships with other men require an admittance of need. They require dissolving walls of competition and antagonism and establishing trust in its place. They involve an understanding and utilization of one's emotions. They require being vulnerable to those men, an especially scary thing for any man who has been taught to be stoic, strong and independent.
    Don't get me wrong, most of these typical expectations of masculinity (independence, competition, stoicism, looking to the woman for intimacy and need fulfilment) are good things in and of themselves. I simply take issue with the fact that they are used to draw a rigid box around masculinity that prevents men from connecting to one another with depth, and thereby prevented from achieving full growth. I don't claim to know a whole ton on this subject, but it's clear to me that both boys and men are generally taught not to relate to other human beings, and ESPECIALLY not other men, from a position of needing, trusting and feeling love and closeness. This is a damaging expectation. A family cannot entirely provide a man's need for intimacy and emotional health. Further, they cannot provide the strength a mature man needs in order to continue well in his familial roles. Strong brotherhoods are required for a man to reach his full stature, in family roles as well as in all other roles he takes on in his life.

    How did homosexuality teach me this principle?

    My personality in connection with my homosexuality taught me this lesson by A) preventing me from connecting with other men without a great deal of difficulty, B) giving me the drive necessary to surmount that difficulty, and C) preventing me from striving to meet those needs for connection through relationships with women.
    By my nature, I've always been more feminine. I'm sensitive and emotional, shy away from competitiveness in favor of cooperation, and was never that much into typical boy stuff. I just was not the typical male! When I was four I would run around wearing sweatpants on my head tied up with a rubber band and call myself names like “Shelly,” for heaven's sake. I enjoyed playing with dolls, preferred to stay in the house and read, and cried a lot...I was almost exuberantly dramatic. In addition, I've always been highly sensitive to rejection and ostracizement (which are almost universal scars of boyhood) and needed a great deal more affection and reinforcement from men than would be “normal.” It all combined to prevent me from connecting effectively with my “normal” male peers throughout my life. I simply couldn't relate with them, nor they with me.
    Don't get me wrong, I've had plenty of wonderful male friends and family. I have a good father and grandfather, friends, and scout leaders whom I have loved and been loved by. But I always felt I had to....perform, somehow, in order to find these connections. Fitting in took a lot of effort and has never come naturally. I was usually the one taking initiative to connect. Deep down, I always suspected, that if I hadn't've been there, they really wouldn't've missed me. I honor them forever for filling an incalculable role in my life that has blessed me immeasurably. But there was always something missing in those connections, and they never completely filled my need.
    It was only until after my mission and I was invited to join North Star, a support group for gay Mormons, that I finally began to feel accepted and desired as a man. How sweet that was to experience! To be certain, gay Mormon men aren't any better or any worse than other men. They have their strengths and weaknesses, but one strength they have that most men lack is they know how to enfold someone in love just for being there. I'd never experienced that with a group of men up until that point in my life.
    It was only until this happened that I began to fully realize my worth and potential as a man. As I felt accepted into this brotherhood where I understand, am understood, can meet needs and have them met, and can give and receive strength, an inner sense of masculinity began to relax into place, a sense I never possessed as a teenager.
    Had I never known homosexuality, I would have bought wholesale into the societal distortions that have shut down male connection in our society. I would have continued on to marriage and family like I was “supposed to,” and gone through much of my life knowing something was missing but never knowing what.
    Because homosexuality diverted me off the typical Mormon cultural path for young men, I was forced to question why normalcy never worked for me. Through that process I came to understand just how deeply I need men, in order to enable my own inner sense of masculinity, crucial to a sense of balance, wholeness and strength, to flourish.
    I know this all sounds vague, and I wish I could ground my perspective in something more concrete than just personal, subjective experiences, but I can't. All I know at this point is, that in order to be my full, healthy self, I need men. I need men as eternal brothers, friends, partners, even so far as to say lovers within the bounds the Lord has set. And I am so grateful to Jesus, the Lover of my soul, for granting me the experience of homosexuality. Without it I never would have known how much I need other men...and just how achingly much I need Him.

Thank you, Teacher.

If not sin, then what? Homosexuality as a teacher.

The next part of this series will answer the question, “If homosexuality is not a sin, then what is it?” I will answer that question by showing the role that homosexuality has played in my life, beginning with its first and foremost role: that of a teacher. (He's one of those odd-duck kind of teachers that you can't help but love....fabulously well dressed and lisps when lecturing....but I digress.)

These next posts will feature my attempts to crystallize the most important lessons I've learned from this fabulous teacher of mine. In all honesty, it's difficult to do...these lessons are deeply subjective and reflect on my entire experience as a human being, with all my messiness, weakness and lack of understanding. Further our language doesn't possess a lot of clear, plain vocabulary with which to describe it. I will be as plain as I can. 

Please bear with me. Remember that these posts represent my own thoughts, opinions and subjective experience. I'll try to reflect on spiritual and psychological truth as much as I can, but these aren't meant to make any kind of statement about the biological origins or eternal purposes of homosexuality, merely to open a window onto what my experience with it has taught me.

I will divide these into a series of principles that I will call “lessons” that I've derived from my experience with homosexuality.

I hope you will enjoy and be edified.

Homosexuality is not a sin, part 2: Lest there be confusion

A clarification of terms is in order.

One of the most significant problems facing anyone who engages in the conversation surrounding homosexuality and gender issues is that the terms we use have different meanings for everyone involved. I experienced this confusion firsthand when I posted an article to the wall of a Facebook discussion group entitled “Nobody is 'born gay.'” The author was expounding his opinion, shared by many LGBT historians, that the term “Gay” refers to a set of social expectations unique to our culture (to use a slightly stereotypical example, if you're attracted to the same sex it means you're gay: you come out of the closet, wear pink, talk really funny and find a romantic partner (or two, or three or one a week or....you get the idea.)) I find this social construction limiting, especially with my status as a believing Mormon, and reject using it in most circumstances for that reason. This was what I was attempting to express. However, in the minds of several individuals on the forum, “gay” refers to the experience of same-sex attraction itself, which (though variations occur) is most likely built into a person's experience while still in the womb. In addition, there have been many ill-informed religious individuals who have used and continue to use the assertion “nobody is born gay” to insinuate that LGBT people chose their orientation. Acting out of this assumption, they have fallaciously pressured, even bullied LGBT individuals into changing their orientation, something that has been the cause of great difficulty and heartache for many in the LGBT community. I had thought I was expressing a rejection of the “Gay” label; the people in the forum thought I was expressing that a homosexual orientation was chosen and that LGBT people should change it.

This resulted in a long, exhausting and confusing argument that could have been avoided with a clarification of terms.

“So much of the controversy happens around unexamined premises and conclusions drawn, often simply accepted without any real critical thought at all,” states Ty Mansfield in an address to Fairmormon. Ty, who himself experiences a homosexual orientation, advocates for a more nuanced understanding and use of the terms we employ. “When we categorize people reductively as 'gay,' 'straight,' or 'bisexual,' or as simply a point along the Kinsey Scale, it assumes that sexuality is one-dimensional and that it exists upon a single linear continuum. It is not and does not.” He suggests that, in order to build more meaningful conversations on this issue, we recognize when the words “gay” or “homosexual/ity,” are referring to one of the following four things:

1) Attraction & Desire
2) Orientation
3) Behavior, and
4) Identity2.

When I boldly declare “Homosexuality is not a sin,” what do I mean by “homosexuality?”
I am referring to points one, two and (mostly) four above. Attraction to members of the same sex is not a sin. When that attraction sets into a long-term pattern, called an orientation, it is not a sin. When that attraction is included as part of one's identity, it is not a sin. This is not just my self-assuring feel-goody idea, it is doctrinal. “The attraction itself is not a sin1,” the Church website http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ simply states in its section “Where the Church stands.” If you experience homosexuality as an attraction or orientation, and include it as part of your identity, according to the Church, you are not in sin.

Let me make another thing clear. I believe that homosexual acts ARE sin. Unequivocally do I believe they are sin. Mormon doctrine is crystal clear on this and will not change. I believe the Mormon doctrine of the family, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the marriage covenant is essential to exaltation. By saying all this, however, I don't advocate for “heternormativity,” I don't think gay people are all evil and condemned to hell, etc. I'm not completely black and white on this; there is much nuance in this issue and there are many gay and lesbian couples for whom the sexual act is as much an expression of love between them as it would be for a straight couple. I believe that there will be much more mercy than fire and brimstone for many LGBT couples. But, it is still sin; it is still an act that has an affect detrimental to the deepest parts of human nature. I have never had full-out sex with a man, but I've gone far enough to have experienced fairly serious spiritual consequences, and though I don't completely understand why, I do believe homosexual acts are sin.

You can rest assured now, that when I declare “Homosexuality is not a sin,” I am not expressing apostasy from Church doctrines. I refer to the broad experience itself, and not just the one narrow aspect of it that is homosexual behavior.

And yet, this uncovers yet another irritating problem of the language we use. One would assume that the word “homosexuality” SHOULD narrowly refer to the sexual response cycle, right? This seems to be implied by the construction of the word itself and would be its most logical use. However, there are two key problems I can see with defining “homosexuality” so narrowly.

Problem 1: the word is never used so narrowly in our discourse. Here's an example: How many male readers have held another man's hand in public? I would assume very few, especially if you're American. Why? Because it's “homo.” We don't want to be “homos” or “homosexuals.” Is holding another man's hand a sign of sexual intent? If you think so, you're weird! At least, in the terms of almost every other culture that exists. Go to any other period or place and you'll see that men do much more than that without meaning anything sexual by it. Somehow, however, our modern culture uses the appellation “homo” “homosexual” and “homosexuality” to refer to any feelings of affection and desire towards people of the same sex, and not just the sexual response.


Problem 2: “Sexuality,” referring to sexual attraction, sexual desire, the motivation towards sexual behaviors and experiences, etc. cannot be parsed from the context of the person who experiences it without a significant loss of meaning. It would be like sawing off a hoof and calling it a horse, or severing a branch and calling it a tree. Sexuality, while a functionally independent biological process separate from one's will, is still influenced by dozens, if not hundreds of factors, including a person's religious beliefs, economic status, cultural upbringing, social class, age, maturity level, emotional makeup and personality. Homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality, gay/straight etc. are oversimplifications, because they do not account for the complexity of these factors. Gender alone is not a good indicator of what one will necessarily find attractive. I am not attracted to all men; “straight” people aren't attracted to every single person of the opposite sex; “bisexual” people are not attracted to every last person that ever lived, etc. For instance, in my experience (it's a little embarrassing to admit this publicly, so please be gentle, especially if you are a friend of mine that fits this) my “type” are generally men at least 10-20 years older than me, loving and considerate, emotionally stable, mature spiritually, my height or taller, and at least 215-250 pounds. And yet, to add another layer of complexity, there are plenty of men that fit these categories that I have never been attracted to, and there are also plenty of men not in these categories that I HAVE been attracted to. For another layer of complexity, my sexuality is often triggered towards both women and men with whom I first experienced a significant emotional connection, a pattern I have heard called “demisexuality3.” The attraction occurred, not because of the gender of the person, but because of the relationship I had with them. Those attractions, by their very definitions, cannot be reduced to either “homosexual” nor “heterosexual” because they were not dependent on the gender of the person involved. As a last example, my sexuality more often than not accompanies a deep love for another person and a desire to give myself, my life and my whole soul in devotion to (usually) him, a desire which, at its root, is not sexual and again, not necessarily dependent on the sex of the person involved.

Does anybody know any words to describe my sexuality? Anyone? You would make my life a lot easier and my writing a lot more concise if you did. My sexuality is so complex...it's so multifaceted, much broader and deeper than the term “homosexuality” could ever give space for.

So why use it?

This word is the only one I have in my possession that fits my patterns of attraction more than 30% of the time. I choose to use it for that reason instead.
To conclude, homosexuality is not a sin. But, if it is true (as I believe) that homosexual acts in any circumstance ARE sin, then what's the point of “homosexuality?” Sounds like it's rather pointless, right?

While that may be true from the simplistic, one-dimensional perspective society often takes on this issue, and which can be a source of great pain for me at times, there is much more to it than that. Given the complexity of my sexuality and all that it stems from, I've found that homosexuality has served distinct and vital functions in my development as a being, and is a hugely valuable aspect of my life.

I ask myself this question: “If homosexuality is not a sin, then what is it?” And find a wealth of answers that are as consoling as they are beautiful.

More on this later. For now, I end with a quote:
“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
- Unattributed

References:
1) http://www.mormonsandgays.org/
2)  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay
3)  http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Demisexual

Homosexuality is not a sin, part 1: Humanizing our discussion of same-sex attraction

I feel it deeply necessary to be open to light the greatest trial and blessing that I have had the privilege of experiencing yet in my life: homosexuality.

Societal conversation on this issue is sadly reflective of the divisiveness that pervades our entire sociopolitical discourse. It is a bunch of screaming and shouting on “love and acceptance, sin and morality, aspirations and despair,” but in the midst of this onslaught of arguments, the people this conversation represents are often lost, divided up into categories, reduced into patterns of behavior and made and condemned or condoned as the poster children of a myriad political causes.

We forget that in speaking of homosexuality, we are speaking of that same awful, powerful force that has dominated the whole of human art, poetry, music and theater, controls the siring of each progressive generation, and shapes our relationships to ourselves and each other. For the people it affects, it is not just some trick of mortality, not just some variation of human sexuality, not just some activation of the parasympathetic nervous system but a complex reality that affects every aspect of life. In recognizing this, we will be able to humanize the experience of same-sex attraction and understand it in the depth of true light.

I want to add my voice to the conversation, not just as a “gay” man, not just as a Mormon, not just as an American or a Millenial or (insert simplifying label here.) These are all words signifying important parts of me, but I am a whole being with many facets, not just a gay man, not just a Mormon, not just this or that. You can't discuss these personal characteristics of mine without some understanding of how they relate to the whole being, and not miss something deeply precious.

Understanding. Understanding. Such a precious, precious word, and so lacking in society. I hope that soon, our conversation about this will begin to humanize, helping all sides of this enormously difficult issue to respond with understanding towards one another in recognition of our worth and beauty in the eyes of God.

I call for you, reader to understand; but every story is different and understanding the complexity of even one such story requires difficult, continual work on the part of the one understanding. I can certainly say that my story and my desires, as I will lay out hereafter, will be mystifying in the eyes of many on every side of the issue. So I ask you, reader, for understanding; and if you cannot give understanding, then I ask you to at least give respect for what you will read. You may not agree with much of what I say, but I am not speaking as a poster child, a spokesperson, a PR representative, or a political advocate. It is my sacred story that I will be spreading open to you.

“Tread softly, for you tread on my dreams.”

- William Butler Yeats

The Paradox of God: The bewilderbeast --or, power and love

One of my favorite moments of the film How to Train Your Dragon 2 occurs right after the hero Hiccup meets his mother. He is deep within a lush island nest surrounded by ice, and his mother takes him to the edge of a cliff, where, slumbering in the water, a giant dragon lies.

“The home of the great Bewilderbeast. The alpha species. One of the very few that still exist. Every nest has its queen, but this is the KING of all dragons. With his icy breath, this graceful giant built our nest, a safe haven for dragons everywhere. We all live under his care and his command.”

At that moment the gigantic dragon opens his eyes, turns and faces Hiccup. After a moment examining him, the Bewilderbeast gently puffs an icy breath onto Hiccup, engulfing him momentarily in a wave of frost; a gentle ribbing.

“He likes ye,” his mother laughs.

I firmly believe that the purpose of art and culture is to help us see hidden depths, facets and perspectives on the experience of life that we would never have found before. Stepping into this scene and examining its patterns helps illustrate an answer to one of the most frustrating paradoxes in existance:

The Paradox of God
Thousands of religions exist, each with their own view of God, some of which claim things about God that are completely antithetical to others. While I speak from a Mormon perspective, I sense that a great deal of what I have to say can apply to patterns found in almost all religious philosophies: the existance of good and evil, awe-inspiring love beyond all fathoming, the triumph of the love and the good over the evil. Feel free to apply these patterns as they may to your own belief system.

    What I love and hate about the Mormon concept of God in particular is its paradoxical nature. On one hand, there are verses, such as this touching passage from the book of Moses, chapter 7, that reveal a Father of incredible beauty and love:

“And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?...

“...And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;”

“....naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne...How is it thou canst weep?”

The Lord's awe inspiring response is recorded thus:

“The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands...”

“And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

“And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them....”

“But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer1?”

In this story, the astonished Enoch watches as a loving and affectionate Father weeps over the judgments He must send upon a group who were more murderous and wicked than any other group that God had ever had amongst the breadth of His creation. He weeps for sadness that they shall suffer...this is not the God of the medieval ages, the judge itching to cast depraved humanity into the fiery pit of doom.
And yet, we espouse as scripture the ancient Bible, where God commanded the Israelites to do things such as kill all the inhabitants of the holy land, sparing none, not even children, a God who commanded Abraham to offer up his only, loved son Isaac, a God of inestimable power capable of great and terrible things, as expressed in this verse:

“O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!2“

God is wild and loving at heart
The experience with God mirrors what Hiccup must have felt as the giant Bewilderbeast awoke and gazed upon him. Here before him stood a giant dragon, its steps reverberating through the ice-nest like thunder, possessing the power to instantly destroy him. And yet, all the benevolent Bewilderbeast does is puff the slightest breath onto Hiccup, frosting his eyebrows; the equivalent of tousling his hair.
    Earlier scenes in the movie depict dragon hunters whose ships and equipment have been destroyed and comrades slain by this powerful Bewilderbeast. It has power, and it knows it. Hiccup also knows that it has the power to do whatever it desires to do with him; he has witnessed that power. And yet all it does is tousle his hair...it likes him, his experienced mother says. It likes him. The giant Bewilderbeast...likes him.
    It must have left him dazed. Confused. Awestruck. Inspired.

    Bewildered.

God's goodness and love are inseparable from His power
    I find an incredible insight into the nature of God by studying the roots of the English word danger. “Danger” means “liable to cause harm.” The word comes to us through the French word Dongier, which is itself derived from a string of words with their origination in the word Dominus, the Latin word for “lord” or “master.”
   
    In other words, our word “danger” is directly derived from the latin name for God3.

    Now, by “Danger,” I do not mean God is like an escaped murderer, a riptide just waiting to carry us out to sea, or a dictator; He is not dark. He is not ruled by shadows. He is not dangerous as in criminal, cruel or conniving; He is dangerous as in powerfully capable of fulfilling His own will, and that, at the destruction of anything and everything that stands in its way.

And His will is to love.
 
    The idea of a loving God may seem incompatible with this God, the lion of Judah, the God of judgment described in the Old Testament. But this is not so: it is God's danger that makes His love efficacious.
    The meaning of “power” is “effectiveness4.” In D&C 1:38 The Lord states “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled...” God's power makes His word 100% effective.

The Lord of heaven loves us, but not just
    The scriptures speak frequently of the deep love God possesses unto all mankind. He is kind to the ungrateful and evil. In His life on Earth, He associated with the vilest of sinners and outcasts. He invited all men to take upon themselves His burden; His yoke is easy, He declared, His burden is light, and His commandments are not grievous.
    I had once heard at a fireside, that the Lord not just loves us, not just knows us personally, but that He likes us. Think of that, after what I have written above. This great and unfathomable Lord, on whose command the nest of this Earth and millions and millions and millions more like it have been strung in orbit around uncountable stars, all powered by His law and command. And yet He loves, knows and likes me, of all puny insignificant heaps of matter. It is His work and glory to bring to pass my immortality and eternal life5...this is His will, and His words and works serve to this end, not just for me peronally, but all now reading these words, all who have ever lived, who now live, or who ever will live.

The Paradox of God
    The same paradox that laughed frost into Hiccup's face confronts us also, when we kneel to pray at night. We are kneeling before a Being that is dangerous, capable of smiting us into dust. And yet...He doesn't. Because He loves. He loves with the sensitivity and the gentleness of a perfect Father. We are made in His image and countenance and can come unto Him without fear, expecting His love and power, not to destroy, but to nurture, caress and cherish us into the beings we are capable of becoming. He is dangerous in His power to fulfil His word, and His word is that He loves.
   
    May we ever allow the gaze of the great Bewilderbeast to fall on us without fear of it.

1) Moses 7:28, 30-34, 37

2)  Jacob 2:15

3)  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/danger#English

4)  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power

5)  Moses 1:39