My Thoughts on What Bruce Jenner Did

Please be aware that this is a rough draft that I may never have the time to polish.

Before we get started, here are some assumptions I'm making.  If you disagree with these, please just assume they are true for a moment.  I'm a scientist, not a lawyer or logician:

1. God exists.  If there is no God, there is no compelling reason to make a decision in any direction, besides the relatively short-term consequences of that decision.  
2. God is our Heavenly Father.  As such, he created us in His image.
3. "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
4. Same-sex attraction is real, but is not a action.  Homosexuality is the result of acting on same-sex attraction.

I don't think that what Bruce Jenner (or whatever he wants to be called now) did should be celebrated.  

Please carefully read the above sentence before you jump down to comment.  This sentence, except for maybe what is between the parentheses, is exactly what I would say to someone at work, school, church, wherever I am, if they asked me how I felt about the how Bruce Jenner thing.

Personally, I think that what Bruce Jenner did was wrong, both in my eyes, and in the eyes of God.  We should discuss that more.  This goes back to my second assumption, God created us in His image.  But does God make mistakes?  I don't believe that he does.  God gave some people the tendency to become alcoholics.  God gave some people the tendency to become chain smokers.  God gave some people the tendency to commit homosexual acts.  In fact, everyone has the tendency to commit sin and go against God's commandments.  Did God make a mistake?  What about those born with physical disabilities, or those born with Down's syndrome, or those who are born with six fingers?  God doesn't make mistakes.  He gives people challenges in order for them to grow into the people He knows they can become.

Does everyone having challenges make everyone a terrible person?  Absolutely not.  But should we celebrate people for committing sin?  Again, absolutely not.  Please don't misunderstand me on this point.  I don't care that much whether my neighbor has tendencies to become a chain smoker, to become an alcoholic, or whether they experience same-sex attraction.  I feel sad for them because they can be difficult things to deal with, but I feel happy for them because the Atonement of Jesus Christ is available for them to use.  I feel happy about the Atonement because everything that is unfair about life can be made right through the Atonement, including the difficulties we suffer in mortality.  But I do not believe in celebrating the fact that my neighbor is a chain smoker, is persistently drunk, or participates in homosexual behavior.  This applies to Mr. Jenner as well.

Because gender is an essential characteristic of eternal identity, do you think that God would accidentally give someone the wrong sex in mortality?  Whether He does or He doesn't, it isn't accidental.  But because gender is so eternal, I believe the situation will be corrected in the eternities, just like any other unfairness we encounter in mortality.

So, while I feel that Mr. Jenner has had some difficult things to deal with in his life, I believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ will bring more healing than any surgeon could.  And his elective surgery is not something to be celebrated.

March Madness in the Thurston Household

If you have paying attention, Wisconsin played in the final game of the Final Four basketball tournament and lost to Duke.  I heard rumors of people getting arrested that night, but I don't really know since I was in Kansas City visiting my sister.

Thor feeding Cousin Kiwi

March was still full of good times for the Thurstons though. We got to go to stake conference twice.  The first time was our regularly scheduled stake conference.  The second was a special stake conference, and the rumor was that Elder L. Tom Perry was going to come and address us.  We then heard from the missionaries that Elder Craig C. Christensen of the Seventy would be at our stake conference since Elder Perry would be in Milwaukee.  We didn't get to hear from either of them, since Elder Perry was reassigned by President Packer, so Elder Christensen took his place.  Long story short, we had two stake conferences and it was great.

Toddler Thor is now old enough to go to Nursery during the second and third hours of church on Sundays.  He absolutely loves it.  I was expecting him to be a little nervous or hesitant to be left alone for that long, but he didn't even notice that we were gone.  And he doesn't like leaving when church is over and we come to pick him up.  He's growing up so fast!  Almost too fast.

L to R: Me, Uncle Blayne, Toddler Thor, Aunt Charlene

My Uncle Blayne and my Aunt Charlene came to Madison for a canoe convention and were nice enough to take us to lunch.  Toddler Thor loved them, especially my uncle, and even gave him a hug after they left.


While we were in Kansas City, we visited a farmstead where Toddler Thor got to feed some baby goats.  He thought that was pretty fun until we put him down, let him wander around, and the goats still thought he had food.  Toddler Thor also had a great time playing with Cousin Kiwi, my sister's dog.  He has his own little word for dog (which sounds something like "kak" or "keka") and he says it every time he sees a dog.

The best part of March was technically April.  We got to see a bunch of Church history sites, including Liberty Jail, the Far West Temple site, and the Independence visitor center.  All while listening to General Conference!  It was a very spiritual month for us.

February in Review

Oh my goodness. Baby Thor is growing up! He shall now be called Toddler Thor. He would have started Nursery at church today, except he was sick, so Mom stayed home with him.

I guessed I must have missed a post for January. Sorry. We'll see what I can remember.

February ended up being a great month. For one thing, we got our tax return. Thank you for returning our money Uncle Sam. We went on our first real date since we've been here. If you're ever in Wisconsin you should check out Sushi Box. It's cheap and good.

We also took Toddler Thor to a restaurant for the first time. I could feel people's eyes when he would scream (which only happened a couple of times), but I would love for them to take over for me. It didn't help that the service was really slow at VIP Asian Cuisine (or whatever it's called).  One of us needs to be constantly entertained.  Overall, it was a stressful successful experience.

It was a really cold February, with single digit temperatures being the norm. March looks to be more promising so far.  We took Toddler Thor out to the swings and slides yesterday because it was so warm. (45 is warm, okay.). He loved it! A little too much in fact. He threw a tantrum when we had to go inside. He's been doing lately when he doesn't get what he wants.

School's been good, settling down. So much better than last semester, for sure. Looking forward to getting into the lab even more when I can stop being a TA.

Anyway, that's the update for this month.

State of the Union

The State of the Union Speech should stop being a speech in Congress.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

First of all, from time to time.  George Washington's precedent was annually.  But maybe it should be more often.  Maybe less often.  Just time to time.  Don't be surprised if I ever skip one of these things if I'm ever President, or give a report in July, for example.

Secondly, these are recommendations.  Not mandates, not threats, not announcements.  This is the part where the President should give his input to Congress.  This is part of why it might need to be more than annually.

The speech is traditionally given the House chambers, since they are larger.  If I was the Speaker of the House, I would simply not allow the President to enter the chamber.  Or at the very least refuse to cede the floor to him.

Another thing, why is the Supreme Court even there?  They don't clap, according to Wikipedia, "in order to retain the appearance of political impartiality." How about not showing up to retain the appearance of political impartiality.  It seems to be an invasion of the House of Representatives and a show of force from the judicial and executive branches of government.  The House should be free to vote to ignore the report of the President, if they so choose.  Or to agree to read it on their own time, or have it read by the reading clerk.

Then we could just all tune in to C-SPAN if we want to hear it, and the local evening news can give us the highlights.