Jon McNaughton

Some of Jon McNaughton's work is very nice. His landscapes and garden scapes don't really say much but they can be quite beautiful.

His paintings of Italian cities and countrysides are lovely and almost evocative, especially these first two entitled "He Luvs Me Not" and "He Luvs Me."

Same with his temple pictures. They look like maybe he took them straight from an LDS Temples Screen Saver or something, but they're still worth looking at. 

His depictions of religious subjects and church history are actually very well done, I think. Well, some of them are kind of goofy. But this one's nice:

It's his political art that really gets me. Everything else is pleasant and decent, even uplifting at times. But his political stuff, sheesh. It's not that he's conservative. That's fine, I really, truly don't mind that. I also don't mind the muddying of lines between religious and political beliefs. The very existence of this blog shows that it would be hypocritical to let that bug me. What gets me is that he sounds like he speaks for the church. I don't think he's claiming to be a prophet. But he speaks in a way that if someone not familiar with the church stumbled upon his work they would get a very skewed idea of what we believe.

Also, "Patriotic" on his website means "Anti-Obama" and "Very Conservative." I'll have a post about that later.

This one was once sold in the BYU Bookstore, but enough people filed complaints about it that they eventually took it off the shelves:

Did anyone get the irony of having George Washington shown in an obviously very partisan picture? Every Democratic president--minus Thomas Jefferson because he was a Founding Father and therefore endowed with eternal and divine judgment--is applauding Obama's blatant disregard for the Constitution. And George Washington is supporting this? Yeah, I don't think so. He would probably have disapproved of a black man being in the White House, but he was the Centrist Moses and Messiah. This message of partisanship is most definitely not Centrist or Moderate or even Reconciliatory.

And this last one is my favorite. It's like he's trying to be a political cartoonist, but he's missing the funny and bothered painting a grandiose picture instead of using india ink and paper. It's pretty hilarious:

Notice the dark-hooded figure on the far right. It's Satan. Yep.

State of the Union

Don't forget about the State of the Union Address tonight at 9 pm Eastern Time! I'm going to have to watch it later because I have mission prep class tonight, but I'm excited to see it.

Coming later on Demormocrat: a post about my views on Abortion, a rant on artist John McNaughton and more updates on my mission papers.

I Quit the Democratic Party: A Pasquinade

That's it. I've read the arguments, I've thought about the things, I've worked it out: I'm quitting being a Democrat. I've been shopping around for a new party and I'm pretty settled on Libertarians. You know, like how Joseph Smith settled on the Methodists.

I started doubting when I was sitting in my University Foundations class lecture in November. We were discussing environmentalism and the government's green initiatives and a guy down near the floor--the lecture hall was tiered--raised his hand and said that he agreed that we should do something about protecting the environment, that he liked what the initiatives did but he just didn't think that the government should be allowed to regulate that sort of thing. It should be a "free-market" sort of thing where the people just kind of figure it out and it'll be best in the long run.

At first I scoffed. Seriously? I'll bet this guy is a card-carrying member of the NRA, I thought. And there's no way we voted for the same guy a year earlier. He couldn't possibly be right, but I thought it only fair to give it a shot. If you don't think the other side's arguments through then how are you supposed to debate them when they come up? So while I chuckled at his obliquity, I set my prejudices aside--because I do try very hard to be unprejudiced--and started to mull it over.

My classmate's sentiment started haunting me like a specter of the dumb thing that you said when you were thirteen in middle school. I couldn't shake it. It just stayed, sloshing between my liberal ears, a ripple of Randian limited-government in my usual Marxist brain-wave. It grew, it festered and no matter how I scratched it to make it go away, it got wider, broader, deeper until I was finally convinced. I finally had to come clean, so that's what I'm doing now: I AM A LIBERTARIAN! And may the primal yawp reach the desk of our current despot and make him cower, for there is an army of us and we are ready to take back our nation!

But I said the punchline before I even said the premise.

Taking Pangloss's mantra in Candide, we can accurately assume that the best of all possible worlds is in our future if we but trust in fate and humanity to guide us there. Yet a solitary literary example should not convince the cultivated mind. I must use facts and logic. And with that, you must persevere with me as I am unaccustomed to using either. Remember, I just barely converted from being a freaking Liberal. You wouldn't expect a monk who became a Mormon to demonstrate the Viennese Waltz the day after his baptism.

What does give the government the right to limit our freedoms? Besides the Necessary and Proper Clause, nothing in the Constitution or Amendments or even the Declaration of Independence even arguably gives the ability or responsibility to the Federal Government to limit an individual's rights. The Founding Fathers were visionary rich, white men. They must have realized that the Industrial Revolution was just around the corner and all the ecological destruction that that capitalist utopia brought about. They surely would have included something about treating the planet like we intend it to last for more than two-and-a-half generations longer if they thought it was expedient and within their rights to do so.

I've always been all about individual liberty which is why I supported government programs and infrastructure like public education, food stamps, highways, welfare, universal healthcare, provided housing, Affirmative Action, things that create opportunities and means for underprivileged people. But I was misinterpreting what "Liberty" actually means. I had thought that "Liberty" meant being free from societal economic suppression, free from the tyranny of insensate corporations, free to choose something other than working at McDonald's forever, free from exacting lenders in diabolical schemes, free to better your situation, free to worship as I please, free to love and be loved and free to make a difference for better in the world. Now I realize my folly. "Liberty" means that--as an individual--I should have the ability to do whatever the hell I want. And the Government has no right to take that away. The Government should only protect our country and our liberty, that is all.

I should be able to release deadly toxins from my factory into the air for everyone to breathe and I expect the Government to catch and punish biological terrorists, preferably the Russians. I should be able to own a private arsenal of assault weapons and--why stop there?!--I want a tank and a few bombs and something called "The Widow-Maker" (because it's protected by the Second Amendment, don't you know) without the fear that I might get on a Government watch-list and I expect the Government to increase military spending and keep me safe from Muslim Radicals. I should be able to scream any obscenities and threats I want in whatever venue I want at whatever person I want for whatever reason I want and I expect the Government to silence anyone that disagrees with that basic right. I should be able to exact any amount of labor from my employees and money from my tenants without fear of retribution from a union or mob of ousted renters and I expect the Government to guard my right to assemble and to keep the homeless off the streets.

I've also come to realize that living off of welfare really isn't improving anybody's lives. That just doesn't really make sense. It's like they're buying into being slaves of the state. And with so many people refusing to get real jobs because it's supposedly better to live off of billionaire playboys' hard-earned dollars than the current minimum-wage or less and because either they've never had the chance for a real education or they have and there's just not a job to be had in their area of expertise that they've spent lots and lots of money at state schools to attend, it's really causing a drag on our Government's resources and created a monstrous bureaucracy paralleled only by the red-tape of actually applying for a job. Not to mention the taxes that you'd have to pay.

And that led me to my next point. I've always said I supported a taxes-for-benefits-received system. But since I've started really thinking things through, I've decided that while I still believe that that's the best and most equitable thing for our country, we're not doing it correctly. Why should a CEO have to fund someone else's life and pay more to the Government than a family barely scraping by with four income-earners and only one of three children able to go to college? He (or she but most likely a he) does not benefit one bit by living in a well-educated, balanced society where mafias aren't the ones providing housing and food and gangs don't rule the streets, where starving homeless don't loot mansions and department stores for basic necessities and insurance empires don't wring their customers and leave them out to dry when they're injured because they couldn't understand the legalese of the original contract and can't hire a good enough lawyer, where toll roads don't take exorbitant fees for commuters--but he doesn't mind because he has a private jet, two helicopters and an airstrip in Vegas anyway--and ultra-efficient monoculture farming doesn't strip the country of topsoil and flood the food market with red-painted tomatoes and grain-fed beef and energy companies don't dump waste chemicals upriver of urban centers. Why should he pay any taxes? After all, he makes most of his income in capital gains and keeps his money in Switzerland. He does not benefit from the United States' Government.

But at this point in my train of thought, I had to pause. What about the minorities? Without higher taxes on the wealthiest muck-a-mucks, certain programs will definitely fail and that will be detrimental to demographic groups that benefit most from them. I had to work that out, but I guess they're just going to have to do it the same way we educated, rich, white, land-owning, office-holding, Christian, straight men have done it for centuries: on the backs of everyone else. If Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs can do it, so can you. They get it. You just have to want it. Never mind that you took a second job to double your chances that a paycheck might actually come, you're not working hard enough. Believe me, I get it. My ancestors five-hundred years ago back when experienced something like what you are going through right now. I feel you. But you'll get more satisfaction if you get there on your own.

Anyway, you're just getting what's fair. I'm not racist, but back before Europe was the world's bully, the kingdoms of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas ruled the global economics and left whites in dust of destitution. It's only right that several centuries later we returned the favor. It's not fair to expect the whites at the top to make room for any other race. You had your turn. And don't talk about sexism to me. Expecting women to be anything but pretty? Now that's demeaning.

In fact, I reckon that any government intervention of any kind must of necessity be evil. At least from this point on, anyway. Government disbanding slavery was good, and so were the workplace safety and labor regulations back in the Industrial Revolution. Heck, FDR almost single-handedly got us out of the Depression with the New Deal and maybe Government stepping in and doing something about the housing bubble in 2008 might have saved the country a whole lot of grief, and I guess police-state actions in the South during the 50s and 60s saved a lot of African-Americans' lives, but according to one eye-witness all black people were happier before the civil rights movement, so that point is moot.

Financial aid must come from churches and family and any community centers, which is why we don't have any real problems with poverty. There's nothing stopping those organizations from helping out now, so they're obviously taking charge of the situation already. In fact, the home teaching reports in some wards are doubling from 10% to 20%.

America is great but not immune to the problems of those other, lesser countries. A simple look around at what other countries have gone through, implementing what Libertarians want for America versus what Libtards want will reveal what could happen in the United States with similar policies. And is it okay to use the word "Libtard?" Yes, yes it is. It's just a political leaning and something you choose to be, so using that offensive word is not like using "nigger" or "dago" or "jap" or "fag" or "wetback."

You can see how authoritarian nations like Germany, Japan, Alaska--with their "nationalized" oil--Canada, England, Cuba--which has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States--Russia, Greece, Venezuela, Bolivia and especially Finland are really hurt by their socialist policies whereas countries that are more liberty-oriented in their politicking are better balanced, more socioeconomically equal and overall happier. Unfortunately, they're not as common. But with countries Colombia, Macau and Mexico leading the charge into the non-existent swing back to capitalism, it's easy to see the benefits of such an economic situation where absolutely everyone is free to do what they please with their money and their liberty.

Some people looking at these countries might be tempted to comment on regional cultural norms and "no line of demarkation of fiscal success" or whatever between socialist and capitalist countries and whatever other claptrap they can come up with. But it's really not that complicated. "Libertarian" countries do better than socialist or "Democrat"countries because Libertarians believe in Liberty and Freedom for all people. And when all people are empowered, their nations' economies do better. That's why as the United States we should be more concerned about wresting our economy from the grasp of our dictators and less about the things unions and the ACLU trivialize over. We see our Government sending oodles of money overseas to help give food and shelter to people in third world countries and to bump out foreign tyrants. When are they going to show us the same consideration?

But I've gone on long enough. Now it's time to make a stand, make a statement of the new me, the one who is no longer a liberal.

Government needs to step out. We the People can handle it. Of course, having a system set up by the people and financially supported by the people to organize efforts in disaster relief and eliminating poverty and regulating businesses--only so they can't kill us with poisons in the water and air and making sure they don't touch our national parks and reserves--and provide good-quality public education and managing our roads and creating better mass-transit and making sure our bacon isn't compressed to death and our chicken is made with chicken and not Mary's little lamb that slipped into the wrong vat would be nice. But Government isn't that. Government is evil and you better watch out or they might give you free healthcare, and you know what that will lead to. I need not continue.

I would like to thank that classmate that bravely raised his hand in a room full of communistic idealist college freshmen. He must have trembled to think that any one of us would run squealing to the idea police and rat him out and for that, he should be considered a hero. A nice, staged and shopped photograph of him with a little blurb of his braverism should go around facebook and twitter because all true patriots click "share" and "tweet" when they run across such a tale. All joking aside, I do truly wish that I could find my classmate and thank him. He is a national treasure in my eyes, a regular Abraham Lincoln. He rescued me from the darkness of Engels and Keynes and showed me Smith and Paul. I wish I could thank him, but since he was facing forward and I was behind him, the only thing I know about him was that he had a Southern drawl and wore a camouflage trucker's hat.

So to the brave Fox acolyte, thank you and may the peace that you have brought to my mind fill yours as well.

By the way, "like" Demormocrat on Facebook!

Happy Martin Luther King Junior Day!

Mission Paper Troubles

The following is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to my friend on a mission in Phoenix. Names of people and wards have been changed.

My home bishop took me aside and showed me how to submit the papers and set up an appointment to meet. That night I just felt awful, like I had made the worst mistake in the world, a lot like I felt when I was determined to go to BYU my senior year of high school. I cried and prayed.

The next day I talked it over with my mom and told her that I felt like I shouldn't do go on my mission from Suburbia Ward, that it felt wrong. She said "Okay." I called Bishop Smith of Suburbia Ward to tell him what I felt and he said that it was fine. We canceled my appointment and I texted the Singles' Ward secretary and got an appointment set up with Bishop Jones, thinking that my papers had gone to both bishops when I clicked submit. Somebody told me that's how it worked and since I've never done it before, I believed them. In our interview he went through the temple questions and then said "great! let's get started on your papers." Awkward. I told him that I already had them done.

Fast forward a week and several convoluted developments later. I finally figured out how to switch over my mission papers and turns out that it's Bishop Smith that has to do it. Well, he said he would and now supposedly it's happened, which means I could get called in at any time to have an interview with Bishop Jones and then President Brown.

This whole process has been so frustrating! I'm excited, yes, but it's hard to feel it sometimes because I feel like I'm trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare. Everyone keeps telling me what the "next step" is but they often disagree or are in direct opposition to each other. Then when I finally follow someone's instructions, it turns out that what I did created another knot in the tangle. Then sometimes people don't tell me anything, not even "just wait" and so I have no idea what's going on.

For instance, nobody told me that I had to pick one ward to go through. Someone said that one ward would be for the mission papers and the other would be for the temple. Someone else said that I needed to go through my home ward, but I knew that wasn't true because what's-his-face who's in Ecuador right now didn't even tell anyone at home that he was putting in his papers and only told them when he was skyping with his family on Easter. I only found out that I could pick one when I had an interview with President Brown and he said.

By the way, I thought that that interview was supposed to be a pre-mission interview and Bishop Jones had told me to do it. Turns out it was just for fun. Then I had my real pre-mission interview with Bishop Jones last week when it turned out that he didn't even know what was going on with my papers because I didn't know he didn't know because I was told that he could see them online even though he couldn't and he didn't know to ask me and I didn't know to tell him even though we'd discussed it in interviews that it was happening. Meanwhile, everyone wants to know where I'm going on my "mission-trip" and I have to say "it's complicated." GAH! The whole process is like playing darts in the dark.

And that was my rant. It would be nice to have someone to blame so I could say "Oh yeah, so-and-so is just making it really hard" when people ask. But there's no problem but my ignorance and so I can't blame anybody but myself, but even then I can't because I didn't know anything coming into this and I've just had to learn by trial and error because I didn't know what to ask or whom to ask. It's like that saying, that there are things you know and then things you don't know and then things you don't know you don't know. It's in that third column that I've been functioning. I can't even blame the people that have offered help and advice. They were just saying what worked when they or their missionary put their papers in.

So this is my project for the next few weeks. Figure out what it is I need to do. I think I actually do have everything I can do done, but I'm not willing to bet my mission on it. Unfortunately, Bishop Jones was out of town yesterday so I couldn't ask him what was next. My goal is to have them in and have my call before the Olympics. That would be so cool to be able to wave a flag other than the USA's while sitting on my couch.

Happy Birthday, Dian Fossey!

Book Review: The Shack by William Paul Young

The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity is written as though a friend--who references himself in third person throughout the narrative--has written down what his best bud told him. The language is colloquial to Oregon and Idaho, taking place mostly in the Ore-Idahoan wilderness. Young's craft and writing ability is good. It's nothing flashy or terribly gripping, but it's not poor either. The characters are taken from a stocked shelf and the dialogues and monologues aren't particularly convincing, but that's forgivable.

What makes this book is the story itself and the philosophies it contains. Let me be clear: Young is no Dostoevsky or Sor Juana. At times he flirted with being too preachy. But the ideas he presents are interesting and heart-warming. I teared up once.

There are no real surprises in plotline, so I don't feel bad about giving it all away. A man's daughter is brutally murdered in a shack in the woods. He grieves and blames himself for the hurt. One day, he gets a note inviting him to visit "papa" at the shack. He goes and spends the weekend there with God who helps him find forgiveness and healing, then shows him what he needs to do to make his life better. The end is deus ex machina, but not really because of the circumstances.

But God is not your typical Christian idea of God.

And His teachings are not your typical orthodox, trinitarian views.

So it was very interesting. It was amazing how close it came at times to Mormon doctrine, but other times it was not even very close. Mormons believe in a unitarian, dualistic God. Young preaches a very odd but beautiful trinity. So now I can say I understand trinitarianism a whole lot better. I don't believe it, I do understand it and respect it more.

I know that this may not have been a very glowing recommendation, but I do recommend it. No, it's not perfectly crafted. Yes, the characters may be a bit overwhelming at times. But it was worth the read. I read it by myself, but I think it may be even better when read in a group. Discussion of this book would be awesome.

It was kind of weird, actually. I'd just finished The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky so I was used to small print, long pages and lots and lots of them, reading ten pages a night and twenty or thirty when I had time but being exhausted afterward. My copy--a gift from a very good friend--is regular print with 3x5 pages, so I tore through it in a couple days. It was very discombobulating; I kept expecting there to be more.

Gay Marriage and Why I Support It

When people find out that I'm LDS and a Democrat, they often ask "How does that work?" It's a kind of dumb question, actually. "What do you mean, 'how does it work?' I'm a tithe-paying member of the LDS Church and an active member of the Democratic Party. What else is there to know?"

That question has a whole slew of connotations. The one I find most prevalent lately is this: "How do you reconcile the church's stance on homosexuality with your party's?" What they fail to recognize is that there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that belong to temple-going members worldwide, all the way from gays ought to be fully integrated into the church--"Signed, sealed and delivered" as one facebook activist put it--all the way to gays should be kicked out of the country and don't even talk about letting them near a church, let alone a temple. Yes, the church as an organization has a specific stance on homosexuality. But as a church that not only allows but encourages individual thought and belief, part of that specific stance is that unless a person is having sex outside of marriage, there is no belief relating to sexual orientation that should infringe on that person's right to attend the temple.

What they also fail to recognize is that some people legitimately believe in the separation of church and state. Here I'm going to use the stereotypical Christian Left argument: "Just because my church doesn't allow it doesn't mean that somebody else shouldn't be allowed."

However--as much as I hate to admit my own doubt--I have often asked myself "How do I reconcile my political beliefs with my religious beliefs?" Because while I strongly support the separation of church and state, I still believe that good is good and evil is evil whether it's in politics or in religion and that--absolutely!--our government ought to support and adhere to a set of moral beliefs or guidelines. But that's another discussion altogether.

So that is what this post is about: my reconciliation.

I believe what I write here. I actually, sincerely believe it. I'm not going to share it in testimony meeting ever because that would be inappropriate for multiple reasons. But this is the product of thought, study and even prayer. Let me absolutely clear: I'm not going to claim that God believes or intended things to be the way I present here.

Let me just say, I know a lot of you might be confused by reading this. I've changed my opinions quite a bit in the past two years, even the past semester. This blog isn't about writing my life's manifesto. It's about exploring my beliefs and in exploration, sometimes things will change. I might not believe any of this tomorrow.

This is my first premise: legal marriage is not a human right. Legal marriage is a legal--or civil--right. I've heard too many people get mad or even start crying because the state is infringing on the LGBT's community's human right to marriage to not include this bit. Human rights are things like the right to food and shelter, the right to not be beaten up, the right to love and hate, the right to hold opinions, the right to worship, the right to human dignity. Those are human rights, rights that cannot, cannot be taken away. You can take away someone's life, but you can't take away their right to live.

Civil rights are things like the right to vote, the right to hold political office, the right to a jury or to bear arms, the right to a legal marriage. These are civil rights, rights that are mandated by the government. They tend to have to do with a person's place and function in society. They can be taken away. Disenfranchisement, imprisonment, license removal, seizure; all could potentially happen in a legal situation, sometimes for good reasons.

People on both sides of the argument keep arguing like the nation is discussing the decriminalization of homosexuality. That would be a human rights issue. But we're not. We're discussing the legalization of homosexual marriages. Right now in Idaho, a gay couple can go ahead and get married. There's nothing stopping them. Find a ceremony that will work for you and get yourself hitched. No problem. You don't even need a ceremony if you don't want one. However, the state government won't recognize your marriage. That's the issue, not your right to love.

However, unless a person is a felon, a minor, in a situation where they can't make decisions for themselves or not a citizen, he or she should have the same civil rights as everyone else. So yes: I believe gays and lesbians should have full legal standing in marriage. That is if we're going to license heterosexual couples. The other thing is to have a biased society, and we can't have that. And here's where I use an argument from the Christian Right: "The Founders intended our society to be equal."

I can't believe I just said that. I hate that argument. Again, that's another discussion altogether.

Note here: the church includes in its official statement that under no circumstances are any LGBT to be denied their human rights. All people are Children of God and ought to be treated as such. That includes housing, employment, education and the right to have sex with whomever they want. By the way, it's been a long time since any person was thrown in jail for homosexuality in the United States. I don't have a datum to back that up and if you have a reputable something that says otherwise, please let me know.

However, I can only speak on behalf of Idaho and the Federal Government. Yes, I think all people everywhere--even the entire world--ought to have the same civil rights and they ought to be good ones. But what I say and what I vote can only have direct influence in Idaho and the USA. That gets sticky if a couple marry in California and move to Arizona where the state constitution "bans same-sex marriage" which actually means "won't recognize same-sex marriage." We have a Dred Scott-esque decision ahead of us then.

This is my second premise: same-sex marriage is not a states' rights issue. If the Federal Government chooses to legalize same-sex marriage, that has absolutely no bearing on the states' ability to recognize gay or lesbian marriage or not. Larry and Lester could be married according to the Federal Government and be living in Arizona but not married according to the state government. To those people that say that it's the Federal Government just overreaching their power: I can't even think of something snarky enough to say to you. You're wrong. Now, if we were back in the 50s or 60s and discussing decriminalization and the Federal Government said that homosexuality was no longer illegal and Arizona wanted to say that is still was, then you might have a point. Yes, the USG would be overruling AZ, that would be absolutely true and it would be a states' rights issue. But we're not so it's not.

This is my third premise: although I oppose those Mormons who argue that the LDS Church should endow and seal homosexuals in the temple, I morally support gays and lesbians.

Heads up, the cannon fired. Just kidding.

I always hated the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner." It's condescending and very annoying. And what about if that person's "sin" is something that is a major part of who they are? I'm not talking about accepting rapists for being rapists or thieves for being thieves or stupidheads for being stupidheads though we should love and respect all them too. But I am talking about accepting gays and lesbians and bis for being homosexual.

Here are just a few questions and premises that got me thinking. First, consider a man and woman, married in the temple. They stay married their whole life, but they never really, truly loved each other. They grow indifferent to one another and even verbally abuse each other from time to time but never divorce and never cheat. They raise their children to have the same kind of "happy" marriage and teach that homosexuals can't go to heaven. Now consider two women women, not married legally because they lived in a place where it wasn't legal. But they do love each other. They raise their children to love and respect all people. Both couples die and go to judgment. Which couple will be happier to see each other and which will be less ashamed before God?

Second, I firmly believe that God intends men to marry women and women to marry men in the temple. That's the key phrase: "in the temple." All other marriages have the "at death do you part" clause. Mormon weddings don't. Without getting into too much detail about the nature of God and the purpose of eternal marriage, while I believe that happy couples here will be able to live forever together when they die on earth depending on the situation, they won't get the highest degree of happiness available to those that are sealed in the temple. Sorry if this offends anybody, but it's what I believe. I'm not wishing unhappiness on anybody. I just believe that the best happiness is available through the LDS church and temple ordinances.

So that's what God intends to be family: woma/en plus man plus any children plus God in the temple. If we based civil marriage off of what God intended, then marriages done outside the temple wouldn't be legal. If we based civil adoption off that same standard, then single parents wouldn't be able to adopt, no matter how well they'd be able to provide for that child on their own. But I morally support couples getting married outside the temple and I morally support single parents adopting if he or she is able to provide a happy life for their child. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Before anybody goes off on a rant about Sodom and Gomorrah or the writings of Paul: the men of Sodom and Gomorrah engaged in orgies and gang rapes. It was a part of their culture. I'm more worried about the social elevation of "Blurred Lines" causing the divine destruction of America than legalizing same-sex marriage. And Paul had a lot of things wrong. I'm not going to say that what he said about homosexuality wasn't inspired of God, but I'm still holding onto my beliefs.

Like I said before, morally support gays and lesbians but I don't support the sealing of LDS LGBT members. I do support, however, the legalization of gay and lesbian marriage. I don't hold to the prejudice that all gays and lesbians are sexually promiscuous perverts. I don't think that they all necessarily become child molesters. I do believe in treating all of God's children with respect and dignity.

I also believe that either gay marriage should be legal or heterosexual marriage should be delegalized. Equal rights for everybody. I have lots of gay friends and a few lesbian friends as well. I want for them what will make them happy. I'm not going to marry a man, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same legal standing that I do.

A note to LGBT activists: I really do appreciate what you're doing and I think it's great. Keep up the good work! But the people dancing around the streets in their underwear or less and making a spectacle of something that should be personal and special are making your job a whole lot harder than it has to be. You're one shot of making this happen is convincing the world that not all of you are sex-crazed maniacs, but the news only shows the ones that are acting just like that. I'm all for gay rights, but I'm not for indecent exposure. Gay or lesbian, fine. Public pornographer, not so much.

But I can't understand why it's not legal already! Seriously, you would think the best lawyers in the world would be jumping all over this and with that kind of legal representation, it should fly with no problem. Can you imagine the money involved for marriage and divorce attorneys? They'd be making bank!

One Step Closer

I had an interview last night with President Phillips, the stake president of my Young Single Adult Stake. In case you were wondering, I passed.

Just kidding, there's no pass or fail. It's not "You're a sinner" or "You're a saint," because none of us are perfect. But I can move forward with my mission application process, and I am that much closer to getting that big white envelope from 50 North Temple St. Of course, I've got like 30 interviews to go...also just kidding. I actually have no idea how many I have left. I've never done this before.

So I'll keep updating the closer I get, and hopefully things start moving a little faster now.

By the way, I think I've said this before, but I'm not sure if this is going to become my mission blog or if I'll set up a new one. Anyway, only a few weeks (hopefully) until the guessing game begins!

On New Year's Resolutions

I have two main New Year's Resolutions for 2014: write (much more blogging) and read (all the books!) as much as I can until I go on my mission, go on my mission.

That being said, let me explain why I have mixed feelings about New Year's Resolutions.

Having New Year's Resolutions is kind of a dumb tradition. It's really for lazy people to feel good about themselves for a couple weeks, maybe a month, before settling back into their old habits. Very few NYRs actually last until the next round and even fewer become permanent.

But their fickleness aside, they're really a bad idea. We have this dumb idea in our culture that we have to wait for a big even to start changing into who we want to be. That is stupid. Why do we do that to ourselves? It's true that some changes might need acclimating and baby steps--like working out or becoming a better cook--and some changes need planning ahead--like moving or deciding to quit smoking. But why do we wait for the New Year to start doing them?

Even dumber are the ones about becoming a better person. "I want to be more patient, I want to be more self-motivating, I want to express my love more. But I'm going to wait until January 1st to start doing it." That's bad. It doesn't work like that for 95% of the human population. What does work is deciding over the course of time that you want to become better, over the course of time (I know that sounded redundant, but I promise you that it's not), and then putting a plan in action and NOT WAITING FOR A START DATE. Having mile-markers is great. That's one reason why I love sacrament meeting. It gives me a good excuse, motivation and place to self-reflect and think about how I'm doing on my goals to become who I want to become.

On the other hand, New Years can be just that: a mile-marker. So a lot of people make empty promises to themselves about fitness and personal awareness on December 31st just before midnight. But I think a lot of people also use New Years as a checkpoint on their life-long goals, to be an awesome, worthwhile person. If you're using NYRs to look at yourself and then make a goal like "Hey, here's where I am on January 1st and here's where and what I want to be and doing on December 31st," then I think you're doing it correctly.

Maybe it's splitting hairs. But really, that's what I think.

Happy Late New Year's, Everybody!

PS The NYR about writing more on this blog means I'm hoping to write at least one semi-major piece of opinion a week--much like this one--and maybe two or three really major pieces a month.