My Millionth MRI (approximately)

BIG follow-up appointments this month.  I spent hours and hours and hours at Yale in the middle of July.  Honestly, most of those hours were spent letting people try to find my veins with needles.  WORST THING EVER.

When I went for my MRI, I had an order in for bloodwork, so they decided to take the blood while they were finding a vein to prepare for when they needed to inject contrast (dye) to make things show up on the MRI better. 

So there I sit in the waiting room wearing, I kid you not, paper pants.  Imagine paper towels…in the shape of pants.  I’m not sure what Yale has against hospital gowns, but paper pants are ridiculous, not to mention freezing cold, especially with how hospitals love to blast the A/C.

So I’m shivering in my new paper towel outfit when I tell the nurse, “Look, I have small veins, so you might as well save us both some time and call your supervisor over to stick me.”  She ignores me.  I know she can’t handle these veins, but she is confident.

Three needle sticks later, she decides to call her supervisor.

And those had not just been polite little needle sticks, but each was a slow stick followed by pulling the needle in and out, and rooting all around under my skin.  Ouch.

The supervisor tries twice more and, rather than admit defeat, she declares me too cold and relegates me to a wheelchair in the corner where she covers me with wet, warm towels.  I was like a big white snow man, with melting paper pants.  Then they forget about me.

Meanwhile, some dude is having a panic attack in the next cubicle, cussing out the nurses, and faking chest pain to get out of his MRI.

Oy.

They remember me again.  This time the floor supervisor tries, declaring, “I prefer to use the bigger needles.”

Why, Zeus, why?

She even uses the ultrasound vein finder machine, but no.  After rooting around and making me bleed everywhere, I have nothing to show but a lap full of bloody gauze and alcohol pad wrappers…and three more bruises in my hands and wrists coming on.

Believe me when I say that repeatedly hearing the phrase, “Oh, I blew out another vein!” is seriously disturbing. 

Her one accomplishment was drawing some tubes of blood from a vein in my hand.  IN MY HAND.  So much pain...  I just don’t think that is supposed to happen.  My purple and green hands and wrists confirm this belief. 

Then they forget about me again.

And finally, an expert from anesthesiology comes in, and even she needs to try twice.  She implements the slap the patient’s arms silly approach, which is rather painful considering my arms and hands are full of holes at this point.  Then finally, FINALLY I get an IV in for the MRI. 

Meanwhile, I’ve blown hours past my MRI appointment and my oncologist appointment.  It literally took hours to get one, stupid IV in.  At Yale-freaking-hospital.

Fortunately, after having done everything in my power to not cry for the entire morning, things did get better.

After the MRI, I was ushered right in to see my neuro-oncologist (he is awesome)—apparently he sent out search parties to see what the heck was taking them so long to start the MRI (a very good question, dear doctor).  He and his assistant reviewed the images immediately.  Although nobody to-date has been able to give me a definite “cancer-free” assessment because of all of the post-surgical blood muddling up the MRI scans, my doctor was confident that all he could see on my scans this time around is scar tissue, no polyps or unusual things of any kind.

His confidence is so reassuring.  Nicest of all, he gave me some advice—which Jack is very quick to remind me of—he said, you should not be thinking about this every minute of every day, don’t be afraid to live your life.

That was a powerful moment for us.

At Jack’s request, the doctor also gave the green light to go on the kiddie rides at Six Flags, which had someone doing a victory dance… (Hint: not me)

 Boy, do I have a lumpy dome, or what??

And my poor little boneless, metal plate section at the back :-(  Did you know that the metal pinches my muscles back there a bit, so I can’t lay down with the back of my head pressing directly into the pillow?  True story.  I need to have a cheek facing down or else its ouchy…and sometimes I can hear the plates and mesh clicking, which is all kinds of weird. 

I liked this^ because of the pretty colors.  They’ve given me this image in black and white, but this was the first time I’ve seen it in all of its colorful glory, and it is much more fabulous this way.

Marriage Equality, Mormons, and Love

Written by a life-long Mormon, who was married in a Latter-day Saint temple, who is also a lawyer, who wrote a huge final exam in her Constitutional Law class on the legal arguments for Marriage Equality.  

+

Written primarily to a Latter-day Saint audience.

PREFACE:

Oh, how many times I have said to myself, “Self, why don’t you just save this on your Desktop?  No need to thrust yourself into an abyss of chatter over an already over-blogged event.  Plus, your grandma might get mad…”  Unfortunately for me, my grandma, and perhaps you—I did not listen to that abundantly reasonable inner suggestion.  Because if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?

I intentionally distanced myself from the Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality (nomenclature heavily dependent on whatever position you are pushing) debate for YEARS.

Because of the numbing hatred I witnessed on both sides for nearly a decade, I removed myself from the entire conversation until today.  I guess I finally feel safe to call it as I see it. 

I recall hearing the poisonous rhetoric of conservatives: they will teach our kindergarteners about gay sex if gay marriage is a political right (NOTE: they scarcely even teach your high school students about any kind of sex anymore…) and then there was, the Church* cannot in good conscience perform gay marriages, and so we will be forced to stop performing ALL marriages if gay marriage is legalized.  And so forth.

(*Note that all “Church” references refer to The Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

Meanwhile, with slander and hate speech going on towards the LGBT community from many in the greater conservative/religious community, there were also many Marriage Equality supporters fighting right back with hate of their own—defacing our chapels, branding every religious person who opened his mouth as a bigot, and turning places of sacred solace for earnest religious people into backdrops for vindictive protests.

Recall that when I was a college student at BYU, tucked away in Provo, that back at home in California, the Prop 8 battle (to put a prohibition against Gay Marriage in the California state constitution) was madly raging.  Much to my confusion, I was not protected from this battle by my distance from home.  Instead, huge meetings congregated  —mandatory, as far as I knew—arranged for Californian BYU students, encouraging us to volunteer as much as we could at call centers to call our fellow California voters and convince them to vote YES.   And so, so many students took the bait, puffing themselves up in self-righteousness, certain that their number of volunteer hours somehow equated to their level of spirituality.  And how many hours did I volunteer at call centers?  Nada, nada, limonada.  Zero. 

I was baffled.  And I was uncomfortable with the whole situation.  Hasn’t this church intentionally steered clear of politics for decades?   Don’t they always have the Bishop read a letter to everyone around election time encouraging members to vote for whomever they feel will serve best?  After all, that’s one of our main tenets—pray about things for one’s own self, receive one’s own personal revelation.   So then why are we suddenly being told, carte blanche, how to vote?

I suppose I get it: another one of our primary tenets is family and it is our long-held doctrine that we are all part of the human family and that we remain together in our familial units throughout the eternities if we make and keep the covenants and ordinances required for exaltation (baptism, temple marriage…).  So of course, like many religious folks, that definition of “family unit” strictly applies to Ma, Pa, and kiddos – and homosexual couples have no real place in that version of family. 

Regardless of what marriages are legally permitted now or in the future, be they gay couples, polyandrous groups, polygamous groups, or marriages between humans and animals or humans and robots (I like sci fi), the position of the LDS church will never change—the highest, holiest covenant is a temple marriage, and it is only available to a couple comprised of a morally worthy male Church member plus a morally worthy female Church member. 

Ergo, coupling with someone of the opposite sex isn’t the only requirement.   There’s also a whole slew of worthiness requirements (no un-repented pre-marital sex; no tobacco, alcohol, coffee, or drugs; etc.) and membership requirements (baptized for at least one year, approved by your Bishop and other local leaders, etc.).  That’s our doctrine.  We don’t apologize for it, we only live it as best we can, knowing that many people are excluded from temple marriage because of these stringent, unchanging religious requirements.  (In other words, we’re not just picking on gay people, but also on child brides, people from other religions, drug addicts and alcoholics or anyone currently using controlled substances, etc.)

So I understand when people say that marriage is paramount to our religion, and therefore the preservation of marriage is worth fighting for.

What I DO NOT understand is how the legalization of gay marriage somehow sullies or damages your temple marriage. 

Think of it this way, marriage between a man and a woman is only one prong among the requirements for potential temple marriages:

(a) One man, one woman

(b) Worthy to enter the temple

(c) Members of the LDS church

Do you have similar beef with marriages between “unworthy” people as you do between same-sex couples?  Would you fight for a law that said knocked-up brides can’t get civilly wed because they couldn’t get married in the temple?  Does an “unrighteous” couple’s civil marriage defile the sanctity of your temple marriage?

And what about the membership prong?  Are you lobbying Congress to strictly limit all U.S. marriages to Mormons getting married in a Mormon temple, not allowing anyone else of any other faith to get married?  I sure hope not.  Does someone else’s marriage in a Catholic church or a Jewish synagogue or a courthouse or a beach or a barn make your marriage in a temple less sanctified?  Certainly not.

If you truly believe that a marriage in a temple binds you to your spouse and children for the eternities and that, with proper Priesthood authority, your marriage “bound on earth will be bound in heaven” then how could you possibly feel that your eternal marriage could be threatened by some man-made law?   

The Church is present in plenty of countries where Gay Marriage is legal—Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Denmark, Sweden, France, England…  And yes, EACH of those countries have LDS temples where temple marriages are performed nearly every single day.  Therefore, it logically follows that the rhetoric that once gay marriage is passed, we will have to close our doors to performing temple marriages is total BUNK. 

Look at us now.  Gay Marriage is legal in the U.S. and so what? 

Is your eternal marriage threatened? 

Is your relationship with your family cheapened? 

Is the Church shutting down temples? 

No, no, and no. 

And why not?  Because frankly, this issue is not about you and it never was about you.  It was about granting a civil right to a marginalized class, somewhat recently recognized by our political leaders as a legitimate group of people with earnest feelings and an honest desire to express the love that they feel in the most serious way that humans know how—marriage.  This issue was always about earning a civil right for homosexual people, and never about stripping away a religious right for heterosexual people or conservative institutions.  You’re right that marriage is immensely important.  It is SO important that the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) has been reiterating for years that marriage is among the rights held most sacred by American law—marriage is a fundamental right.

And now about the Mormons.

One thing I really do appreciate is that the Church’s response has largely been one of love for others, while remaining true to its core beliefs.  And I don’t think that is a contradiction.  Years before the SCOTUS ruling, the Church began an anti-bullying campaign that focused on respecting and loving young people who are gay.

If you are interested in the official LDS stance, then check out the church-sanctioned site mormonsandgays.org.  The first three major headings at that website echo this sentiment of love and civility:

“Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction”

“Our Common Humanity”

“Love One Another—The Great Christian Imperative”

And WAY back in 2007, the Church published a section in a manual entitled “God Loveth His Children” emphasizing that no matter whom you are attracted to, you are God’s child, He loves you, and you will be able to receive all the blessings of the gospel.

You may disagree with the somewhat pitying tone it uses to describe those “troubled” with homosexual feelings.  But, regardless, I think that for such a conservative church, it is actually a somewhat progressive article.  It starts this way:

This message is intended for Latter-day Saints who are troubled with same-gender attraction and sometimes feel discouraged but sincerely desire to live a life pleasing to our Father in Heaven.

You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life.

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi voiced feelings we all have when he acknowledged that he did not “know the meaning of all things.” But he testified, “I know that [God] loveth his children” (1 Nephi 11:17). God does indeed love all His children. Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life. But God has revealed simple, unchanging truths to guide us. He loves all His children, and because He loves you, you can trust Him.

This article does not advocate an easy approach for gay Church members—a suggested life of celibacy and singlehood in order to stay morally clean seems extreme for a family-centered church that doesn’t even have nuns or monks or any other celibate clergy.  But isn’t a life of celibacy the same thing that the Church asks of straight members who never marry?   

But is that too much to ask, whether you’re gay or straight?  At times in my life when I saw no temple-worthy options for me to marry, I certainly considered marriage outside of the sanctioned temple ordinances.  However, the doctrine seems to say to wait it out and have hope for marriage blessings in the next life.  But I understand that for so many, that is an unthinkable sacrifice.  Living life alone could be an unbearable cross.  I cannot presume to put myself in your position, and so I will not speculate on what I would do.  Suffice it to say, that I support you in whatever your earnest, heartfelt decision is.  It is your life and only you can make your own choices (personal revelation!).  I certainly won’t choose for you.  And this church will never force you; domineering control is not the Lord’s way.  Freedom of choices and their inherent consequences are the rules of mortality.

And there are so, so many LDS people who have taken this gentler approach of 1) I don’t know all the answers, but 2) I know that I should love others regardless of the answers.  You may have even noted in the news recently that the LDS Church made a significant in-kind donation of food to a nonprofit that primarily helps homeless LGBT youth.  As further evidence of this loving movement, there is a site set up by LDS people called I’ll Walk With You.  If you’re not aware, this title is taken from a beautiful song in our children’s hymnal.  It is one of a handful of hymns that can make me cry on demand.  I always thought its words were about showing kindness to people with disabilities, but I think that the sentiment also applies to showing kindness to people who feel different because of their sexual identity.

If you don't walk as most people do,

Some people walk away from you,

But I won't! I won't!

If you don't talk as most people do,

Some people talk and laugh at you,

But I won't! I won't!

I'll walk with you. I'll talk with you.

That's how I'll show my love for you.

Jesus walked away from none.

He gave his love to ev'ryone.

So I will! I will!

Jesus blessed all he could see,

Then turned and said, "Come, follow me."

And I will! I will!

I will! I will!

I'll walk with you. I'll talk with you.

That's how I'll show my love for you.

            Words by Carol Lynn Pearson

I reminded my New Testament–focused Sunday School class a couple weeks ago that we were expressly commanded to love by the Savior.  But we were not commanded to just give any old kind of love, we were commanded to love others the way that God Himself loves us.  The New Testament was first written in Greek, so it could reach a broader audience than Aramaic or Hebrew would allow.  In the Greek New Testament, there are three words commonly translated into the English word “love.”

Eros: romantic or sexual love

Philia: familial or brotherly love

Agape: charity or godly love.

Agape is the unconditional love that God has for His children, and the love that believers have for their God.  It is also the type of love that we are commanded to have for each other.  Agape was the word translated as "love" in the following familiar verse:

John 13:34  A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 

It doesn’t mean you have to approve, it doesn’t mean you have to celebrate, it doesn’t mean you have to politically advocate.  But it does mean being kind, being respectful, being a friend, being a shoulder to lean on.

“Love is the beginning, the middle, and the end of discipleship.”

            Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, Quorum of the 12 Apostles

                 The Great Commandment, October 2007 (incidentally, one of my favorite talks of all time)

EPILOGUE:

{A}

And, no, gay marriage does not open the door for legalizing pedophilia.  Gay marriage is between two consenting adults; pedophilia is not.  In this country, the most stringent (and arguably most onerous) laws and punishments come from accusations and convictions of child molestation.  Only sex crimes, particularly involving children, require perpetrators to register everywhere they go.  There are even evidentiary exceptions, essentially loosening up the regular rules of court, when a child makes an allegation of sexual abuse.  So based on public opinion and current laws, I absolutely find no merit in the argument that gay marriage paves the way for adults to exploit children legally. 

 {B}

Now, as to your similar assertion that gay marriage opens the door to legalizing polygamy, there is only slightly more traction.   Marriage between one man and one woman has been federal law for a very long time.  I think it was changed now because of:

1) Public Opinion

2) Conventionalization of a previously outsider class

3) Support from large litigating bodies like the ACLU, to find “ideal” Plaintiffs and fund costly lawsuits

While under the “consenting adult” framework, polygamy doesn’t seem to be too far of a stretch, so long as all of the wives (or husbands, if you’re talking about polyandry) are okay with the unusual marriage situation.  However, this has been against the law for quite some time, and I don’t see it changing until the above-mentioned 3 conditions are met:

1) Public Opinion.  After research study after study demonstrated that children raised by two gay parents were just as well adjusted as children of straight parents, public opinion was no longer as firmly rooted against Gay Marriage for the sake of the kids.  There is no equivalent study about children of polygamous parents, as far as I am aware, to begin to shift public opinion in favor of legalizing polygamy.  To the contrary, what I know about children of polygamous families is that they are under-educated, impoverished, starved of society, and often forced into young marriages.  The same, of course, applies to the adults.  Therefore, until it is demonstrated that this is not true, I do not see public opinion changing to support legalizing polygamy.

2) Conventionalization of a previously outsider class.  Nope, they are still the crazies out in the dessert with weird hair and clothes.  This condition has certainly not been met, nor do I see it really ever being met.

3) Support from the ACLU.  As far as I am aware, the ACLU has very little interest in protecting this class of people.  I may be wrong, but it seems they have many more important battles…  Besides that, I find the polygamist folks to not be particularly litigious.  I imagine them using prayer more than the courts.  And besides, except for a couple largely publicized raids, polygamist communities are usually left alone by law enforcement.  So there is really nothing for them to sue over, especially since they perform their own religious marriages, regardless of what the laws of the lands may be.  Therefore, they are really not sufficiently “harmed” by laws prohibiting polygamy, since they ignore them anyway and get away with continuing to have their “marriages” however and whenever they want.

In sum, no, polygamy will not reach SCOTUS, at least not in my opinion, and not in my lifetime.