Today Is A Really Sad Day. But Not For The Reason You Think.

Photograph: Masayoshi Sukita Masayoshi Sukita/The David Bowie Archive

David Bowie died today. 

Unless you don't Internet much, you probably knew this a few times over. 

I've since seen every news source I've ever heard of, publish a report on his death. This is to be expected, considering the footprint he left on American culture.

I never knew him personally, but I certainly knew who he was. I also know many of my friends have mourned repeatedly today over the news.

It’s truly, truly sad a fellow human being has passed away. And furthermore, that it occurred at the hand of a terrible disease such as cancer. What a painful and difficult finale that must have been. Every ounce of genuine sympathy that I can muster is gifted from me to him; it is truly somber. 

But here’s the deal America.

All I had to do was search “death” on Google News and narrow the results to ‘Today’, in order to uncover hundreds of other people who perished this last weekend; scores of which didn't fall at the mercy of mortality, but whose lives were abruptly stolen at the hand of a fellow human. 

I’m not ashamed to admit that I ugly-cried over a few of these stories. I flinch reading them for that very reason; but it was a powerful reminder to me of the gratitude I should have for my life, and as a Christian, an amplified appreciation to my Savior and His capacity to save them from the pain or injustice they and their families may have to now endure.

And yet…

David Bowie did not persuade such a tear. I couldn’t tell you exactly why. 

Perhaps because he was an explicit sexual deviant. Perhaps because he spent the majority of his life springing from hard-drug-to-hard-drug. Perhaps because he voluntarily rode the self-consuming vanity bus that was progressive Rock’n’Roll.

Perhaps because he was a fashion nut and I’ve always perceived them as a bunch of confused peacocks, flashing absurd colors and dances in eager anticipation for attention.

Perhaps my shoes are too tight, my head not screwed on just right, or my Bowie poster is 2 sizes too small.

I see the angry mobs already forming behind the computer screens.

"His music was incredible!" you say.
"His life was so influential!" Yep. Apparently. 

So these were his ultimate contributions? Fair enough. I can see why some would place value to those things.

But for me, well, I'm not convinced listening to his music nor studying his career is going to elevate my spiritual life, or even necessarily welcome the spirit into my life.

You may disagree. Heck, you may wish me dead for saying so whilst feeling loss for David's. That’s a perfectly acceptable irony as far as I’m concerned.

But, because the internet is flooded with Bowie, I have decided to spend the day learning about the other people who died today. 

Let's be clear here. I'm not suggesting he was a bad person undeserving of commemoration. Was he flawed? Of course. We all are. I don't happen to admire him, but that's not the itch I'm trying to scratch.

What I'm suggesting is that this man was a public example of a lot of things "not" to do with your life; an example that is being heavily covered and revered because of his status. And simultaneously, hundreds of other lives escape unnoticed. Lives that may have very well curated more substance and eternal value in the world.

"Just because I mourn for David doesn't mean I don't care about these other people," you yell.
"I can care about more than one person, Brady!" your furrowed eyebrows scream.

Oh, I don't doubt you can. The question is, did you? Did you check the other obituaries? Did you read these stories today? Did you share a news report about them? Did you post a somber reflection of their previous existence?

According to my social newsfeeds, no. You didn't.

That's the principle issue here. I've always observed that celebrities (intentional or otherwise) cast an unfortunate shadow over those around them - that's what happens when others lift you to a higher status. And it's consistently clear that this shadow follows them at death.

I ache today because there were mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, soldiers, teachers, leaders, heroes, victims and unknowns who lost their lives this last weekend. These people also deserve my sympathy, consideration and respect.

In truth, I’d wager some of them may deserve it more, and so I owe them at least the same magnitude of awareness to the value of their legacy.

So before you share yet another news story on Bowie...

Perhaps take that minute and find someone else’s story of surrender. You may be surprised to see what incredible things they had contributed to society, and the height of the wake that their passing will have on their community. 

That's my challenge to you.

Perhaps only then can we observe the valuable ripple of a life we would have otherwise ignored, as it reverberates unnoticed in the sea of imaginary giants.

Why the LDS Church's latest policy is actually the best possible policy.

Image credit to original Artist/Author

Greetings friends,

I’ve hummed and hawed quite bit on whether or not to take the time to write another serious post. This time, regarding the explosion of emotions surrounding the recent awareness of a policy brought sharply to the public in the last day or so. The policy is regarding the LDS Church and it’s definition of Marriage between a same-sex couple, as well as the result that union will have on the children living in that household.

I tend to take hours and hours to write these, carefully selecting words and refining my points; but I don’t feel like I have that amount of time available - I would like to have this message heard sooner rather than later. Because every misunderstanding surrounding this policy, further threatens the people I care most for - you. 

Yes, you. I may not even know you. But I care about you. And I don’t want you to feel hurt from something designed to accomplish the precise opposite.

I tend to be long winded, but I’m going to try my absolute darnedest to be concise. Fortunately, this subject isn’t complicated.

Let me sum it up with few words first, then I’ll get breathy…

According to the LDS Doctrine:

Intimacy Design

Marriage = man & wife = procreation

Procreation = commandment from God = purpose of life

Intimacy Weaknesses

Appetite A (heterosexual) = temptation = not sin

Fornication A = action upon temptation = is sin

Appetite B (homosexual) = temptation = not sin

Fornication B = action upon temptation = is sin

Resolution of Weaknesses

Appetite A resolved by application of Design
Appetite B by is incongruent with Design, therefore it cannot be solved unless ceased.

Doctrinal Conclusion

Same-sex union = renunciation (rejection) of above doctrine = apostasy

I wish I could format that better, and perhaps use better wording, but I think it halfway makes the point in a concise way.

Let’s use an example of a homosexual couple without children for a moment:

Once a couple of the same-sex decide to marry, it’s essentially a formal decision and public acknowledgement that they have decided to live that specific lifestyle; one that is in absolute contradiction to the public and stringent doctrine taught by the LDS faith they were/are a part of.

Keeping at the forefront of your mind, that being an LDS member is 100% voluntary, this means that this couple has volunteered to not follow this voluntary Church. They arrive at a conclusion that their choices do not need to reflect the doctrines taught by this Church, and,  that they have no desire to follow the compass set by this Church any longer.

Pretty straightforward. 

At this point, many of these individuals choose to leave the Church altogether, seeing as how they have voluntarily chosen to disregard the tenants of the faith, and can’t live in harmony with their lifestyle and the doctrines of the Church. 

This is what we call an exercise of agency, and they are of course completely free to do so. 

Many members will mourn their departure, and will likely try to encourage them to reconsider and return - but ultimately that decision to leave, and it’s all it’s effects, rest solely with this same-sex couple.

However, the complexity comes where two parents (meaning there are children involved) have chosen this path of contradiction to the Church doctrine, but still allow or even encourage their children to attend the faith that they themselves have disregarded.

This puts the child in a precarious and frankly, unfair position. 

This child will now be torn between two totally different sets of ideology that are presented as viable; the issue is that they are mutually exclusive. In this specific situation they are not, and cannot be, simultaneously viable. 

The doctrine of marriage as a legal union between a man and woman as taught by the LDS Faith, does not allow any variation of this union. Same-sex marriage is the epitome of a variation. So, in the case of a child attending LDS Church with homosexual parents, they're presented with two entirely incompatible versions of 'right-and-wrong' when it comes to marriage. 

Allow me now to pose some questions:

• Q: Will the parents tell the child that they themselves, the mommies/daddies, are wrong and the church is right? 
• A: Probably not. That would unravel their familial construction.

• Q: Will the Church concede that it’s okay for the child’s parents to be married as the same gender? 
• A: Not ever. It frustrates the Plan of Salvation and core tenants of the Faith. See the chart-thingy above.

This means that the child is left with the impossible dichotomy: someone is wrong; either the church, or their parents. I don’t imagine many 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 year olds that would easily, readily, or capably make that determination. 

So...

In an effort to protect the child from having to make this decision; a decision that could ultimately serve to cause more harm than good at that young age, the Church has removed the expectation of baptism. 

Let me rephrase that, because I think the entire world has gotten this backwards.

The Church is  improving the situation and removing the pressure that would be on this child to be baptized and become a full-fledged, committed and record-holding member of the LDS Church at age 8. 

To continue that point, and help you grasp the weight of this - the decision to be baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church would of course inseparably constitute an acknowledgment of the doctrine of the church they’re joining; one which exhorts strongly against the form of household they are still being cared for by.

This removal of expectation or pressure allows the child to continue to live with their parents and go to church without the need to make a formal commitment to either party until they are old enough to make this decision with an added decade of elective wisdom, and with less risk to their environmental situation.

The US government has decided that 18 is the age at which we can be agents unto ourselves. The Church has merely used this same canon to provide the child with an increased opportunity to make an educated and personal decision for themselves with regard to Church membership when they then have a greater ability to do so. Again, all this considering the situation this child has no choice but to exist in.

There is quite literally no kinder policy that could have been initiated for these children.

I am incredibly grateful for the prayerful consideration, which am certain was endlessly spent by the leaders of the LDS Church, in determination of a constructed solution for the children caught in these difficult and impassioned situations.

P.S.

I have seen many posts and arguments over how apocalyptic this will be for the children in terms of judgement and horrendous ridicule from their peers.

I say rubbish. Stop opening your umbrellas before it rains.

If this does occur, the blame and fault will always lie with the persons who choose commit such a lousy and selfish act of judgement. And, the blame should end there.

So the true challenge, the people this policy this most affects, are the remaining members of the Church. 

To Us: Let us ever strive to ensure we are sympathetic and respectful of every situation; of every member who visits with us in worship. Most especially the young and the beautiful souls of the children. 

These little ones need now, more than any other time for the rest of their life, examples of compassion and understanding - not whispered evaluations of our fellow brethren and sisters. 

May we ever strive to chase the Charity of our Lord and Savior, and pray to always see our fellow man as Christ does - with perfect, unending and unconditional love.

That’s my sincere prayer.

- Brady

UPDATE:

This article was written prior to any official statement given from the Church Leadership and was an attempt to tie some logical ropes together. It was not designed to provide official or complete representation of the purpose behind the policy.

The Church has spoken to some of these details now, and I will link to the Press Release here if you would like to hear the official stance.

I must admit, I am pleased to see how parallel the statement is to my original thoughts. Of course, they were articulated with far more delicacy by Elder Christofferson than I was able to.

LDS Church Official Statement

How ‘Meet The Mormons’ is revealing our antithetical culture.

The LDS Church has just released a full-length feature film, titled Meet The Mormons. While the word “Mormon” is not the preferred title of my faith, it’s the title most synonymous with the Leave It To Beaver-esque families and the well-groomed boys on bikes. Long-hand, our religion is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Yes, we know, it's a mouthful.

The documentary-styled film was originally intended to be shown at the Church-owned Legacy Theater at the Joseph Smith Visitors Center in Salt Lake City, for those who visited to learn about the Religion. But according to the filmmakers, it was so successful in dispelling commonplace misconceptions about the Church during pre-release viewings that, in tandem with Church Officials, they felt prompted to release it to a larger audience.

This resulted in a first-of-it’s-kind move from the LDS Church to aggressively chase away the misjudgment surrounding the Faith and it’s Members; they opted to use a traditional film release to penetrate every market and demographic possible. It was a bold move, admitted to even by one of our Apostles, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland.

As fully anticipated, the film has been highly praised and heinously pummeled across the country since it’s release. Almost humorously, the large majority of the criticism toward the film has been that it’s “too-good”. As in, the film is a fabrication of what Mormons are really like. That no one is that resilient, upbeat and cheerful. This appears to pull the threads and reveal a very defeatist society. Calling something bad because it's too good seems pretty ironic. 

Countless have murmured: Mormons aren't that sincere. And most certainly aren't that happy.

That perspective is somewhat understandable. If you’re going to tell a story, you’re going to tell the best version, right? The story of those who've triumphed. The few supermodels who make it look good. How can you be expected to believe this?

Of course it's the best version. But what if the best version is also the truth? No embellishment, no colorful artistic drama, and no secrets. Just raw reality. What if it's really like that to be a Mormon? Is it possible? 

As an admittedly wholly-imperfect and incredibly stubborn member of the LDS faith, I can honestly attest that the bubbly, heartwarming and overly-happy examples shown on the film, are... (drumroll)... indeed, real examples of Mormons. 

But just as I said when I pre-qualified my credibility; we aren’t perfect. 

We of course strive for perfection, but we would be fools to claim we are. So, we don’t. If you think we do, then you've got another think coming; we most certainly don't feel that way.

In fact, it’s been proven that Mormons are exceptionally aware of their imperfections; it’s the fuel that drives the culture's uncanny knack for industry and financial success, and the same fuel that billows the flames of occasional self-depracation. We are painfully aware of our humanity; so much so we sometimes struggle to forgive ourselves, and battle with depression and other perfectionist-driven challenges. 

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the Church Presidency, spoke recently about this very reality, “If you define hypocrite as someone who fails to live up perfectly to what he or she believes, then we are all hypocrites. None of us is quite as Christlike as we know we should be.”

So, yes. We are very human. Our smiles might seem like our default mode, but they aren't permanent. We feel sadness and grief just assuredly as we bleed red. Even so, despite our shortcomings, millions of our Members could have just as easily been one of the 6 documented in the film. Pick a Mormon, any Mormon.

But, surprisingly, I’m not here to argue this particular point. I can't argue it. Not very effectively anyway. You can either believe me, or not. I'd like you to believe me, but you're entitled to feel about me, my fellow members, and the film, however you like. That's kind of what makes life so great.

Believe, disbelieve, love, hate, cry, shout… your choice my friend.

So if I’m not here to unravel/defend the truth behind plastic-people, what I have I been dancing toward?

Glad you asked. 

I’ve found something common in the countless opposing reviews, that bothers me. Something that strikes my “Are you serious?” chord something fierce.

An objection that isn’t an opinion. But more of a fact. More of a literal, “Do you hear yourself?” There is a particular critism of the film that warrants the back of my hand.

Allow me then, to begin again: 

Many of the negative reviewers are disappointed, angered, baffled and even sometimes pleasantly amused that the film doesn’t discuss the core tenets of the Faith. The doctrinal stakes and meat that the Church teaches. Some have even claimed that the Church is not only falsifying the nobility of it’s Members, but also whitewashing it’s core religion.

They propose that if we actually talked about what’s going on behind the closed doors of those Homes and Church building walls, you wouldn’t actually want to drink the Kool-Aid. They cry as a noble sentinel, "Don't fall for it. They haven't told you everything!"

And this, this is where I begin to scratch my head. And I ought not to; I’ve not got much hair left there. 

I have 3 issues with negative reviews I've seen:

- Firstly, the Church made very clear from day-one, this would not be a proselyting film. This wasn't spoken clearly so that people would easily fall in the would-be kindest bear-trap ever; they said this because it isn’t. It’s not about our Faith. At all. It’s about the Members. That’s why it’s called “Meet the Mormons”. Do you see the consistency? The Church intended this movie to be void of preaching. No sneaky indoctrination. No colored-sugar in your water. 

Just a movie about the lives of 6 regular people. Who are also Mormon.

- Secondly, the doors aren’t closed. The opposite couldn’t be more true. Many members live quite transparently and are happy to talk about their joys and sorrows. And, our Sunday services are open to the public, every single sunday. Provided you are dressed with conservatively more clothing than bare skin, you are free to attend. 

The inside of an LDS Temple is the only place not open to the public, and I should make clear, it isn't even open to all Members; you have to have a current "recommend". Essentially a piece of paper indicating that you are morally worthy to enter. 

Think of it as the Lord's clean-room -- only those that are spiritually equipped with the suit can enter. All are actually welcome, but there are specific morality requirements. And the most effective way to screen the visitors, is if they already work for the "CDC". Terrible analogy. Please forgive it. But I think it halfway makes the point.

Want to see everything inside? The rules God gave are simple. Go ask a Missionary.

Which ties into my third reason; my biggest and most frustrated vexation; the reason I even took the time to resurrect this dusty blog: it's been claimed we've left stuff out, as if the happiness comes at a price and there's more to the story. Folks, really? 

We’ve tried over and over to tell you all about our religion. 

We even tell you, you have ask God if it's really true. No sales pitches here. None. In fact, it'd be pretty stupid for us to sell a counterfeit and send you to the real deal to confirm our legitimacy.

We've tried to tell you millions of times. Probably even Hundreds of Millions, across the country.

The LDS Church boasts the healthiest and most effective Missionary force in existence on the planet. This has been true for a long time, and I can assure you, won’t let up anytime soon.

The secret? All members that go on a Mission, are there completely, entirely and unequivocally on their own accord. Trust me; if you don’t want to go, you don’t. 

It’s hard. It’s very, very hard to get ready to go spiritually and physically and emotionally, let alone stay there for the entirety of the mission.

And, it’s expensive: nearly all of these missionaries have financed themselves with roughly $10,000 of their own savings to support their lives during this service. What do you think a 18 year old wants to do with their money? Subject themselves to perpetual Sunday-School and live in the slums while working his/her brains out? 

That was on the top on my Christmas list for years.

But despite all this, they go. And, they stay. That’s how much it means to them. Elder David A. Bednar said this recently, and it absolutely describes what I’m trying to say, “…our eagerness to declare this message is not merely the result of a sense of spiritual duty. Rather, our desire to share the restored gospel of Jesus Christ with you is a reflection of how important these truths are to us.”

They do it because they want to. We have thousands (83,035 as of this post) of youthful, eager and willing Mormons, who walk the planet with the sole purpose of telling people about their religion.

We want you to know about our Religion. We want to talk to you about it. 

We really, really want to talk about it.

Have I made this clear yet?

So let me put my entire point as concisely as possible. And, sorry to those who had wished I’d saved my proverbial breath, and said this at the beginning:

You told that humble and authentically selfless Missionary on your front porch, who was willing to spend hours with you telling you anything you wanted to know about his/her religion, “No” (or some variation of that), but now suddenly you’ve been impregnated with interest and you want to learn about it? 

You're telling us, you are upset that we didn’t “shove it down your throat” as you so often analogize, with this film? 

We must be really terrible at reading between the lines…

So, just so we don’t misunderstand each other in the future, let me ask again: 

You were offered it for free, and now you want to pay to hear it?

Well, good heavens. If we had only known…


Friends and Foes. Please, for goodness sake, I need you to do us Mormons a solid. 

Make up your mind.

Your Mormon neighbor,
Brady Tapp





P.S. It’s not too late. And it's still free if you’ve decided you want the Missionaries to come back by. We'd be honored. 

But please, don’t harass the film because it’s exactly what it claims to be. 

Or because you have an issue with the Mormons at large; clearly your review will be a little tainted by this. You probably shouldn't have gone to review a film you'd already previously written a review for in your head. Good advice, I think.  

In any case, I'd encourage you to stop looking for reasons to open your umbrella.