Snow Days

I neglected to do a post during break about the absolutely wonderful time I had with my sister Katie, brother Andy, and sister-in-law Heather at Snow Days in Cleveland on December 23rd.  If you haven't heard about this, basically the Cleveland Indians turned Progressive Field into a winter wonderland with a huge tubing slide from the bleachers down to the field and then had an ice skating track that circled the entire field.  We went on the 23rd as part pf Katie's birthday.  I wasn't sure what to expect, but came away happy with the evening and glad we went.  Thankfully Andy and Heather brought their Nikon D90, so we were able to get some decent pictures!

Katie with "Ketchup" one of the mascots that races in the "Hot Dog Derby" during Indians games!

Welcome to Snow Days!

Katie and me with Heather at Progressive Field...this is the view from the bleachers (left field)

Andy and me at Snow Days waiting in line for the Batterhorn

The four of us at Snow Days with the "Batterhorn" and maze in the background

Katie and me in front of the scoreboard; we're standing in left field after having gone down the Batterhorn.  So yes, I was "out in left field."

Another view of us standing in left field...in the background on the scoreboard, you can watch yourself go down the hill on the Batterhorn!

Andy and Heather in left field with the scoreboard in the background

Katie trying out the snow machine.  It makes snow like you find at some of the ski resports...it's much more like a huge snow cone than actual snow (there was still plenty of snow on the ground from our snowfall a few weeks prior)

Katie after going down the Batterhorn.  Not only do they have people to help you get into the tube, but when you're done, there's someone right there to take it!  

After coming down the Batterhorn...it was a lot of fun...we did it 4 times.

Katie and me trying out the snow machine...it was pretty fun

Awesome action shot

HAHA...at the maze

A sibling shot at the maze

Another sibling shot at the maze

We even got to go in the dugouts...that's where you can go warm up as there are heaters in the ceiling.

Andy at the halfway point of the ice skating track, known as "The Frozen Mile".  The rest area was in front of the visitor's bullpen in right field and included the bullpen seating area to warm up in.  

Blurry but that's me, Katie, and Heather speedskating!  LOL

Heather and me flying past the camera

This is the Batterhorn...full service snow tubing from the bleachers!

More skating...it was a lot of fun AND I didn't fall down!

A sibling moment on The Frozen Mile

Good picture of Andy skating

Katie and me coming down the home stretch...tough luck for that person on the right!

Progressive Field (I still call it Jacobs Field) is one of my favorite places to visit!  

Trying to feed the reindeer before security rushed us back onto the track :D

We paid $25 each to do the tubing and the ice skating.  You can buy less expensive tickets to do one or the other or even neither (like if you just wanted to bring your kids).  It's on the expensive end for a lot of families, but not astronomically expensive, especially if you don't do everything.  Even without the ice skating and tubing, there are other small things to play around in, plus I really enjoyed being able to go on the field, even IF it was covered in snow!  Included in the price is free parking, which may not sound like much, but since it's downtown Cleveland, free parking isn't so common.  Overall, I was very happy with how it all ways, plus we all had a great time!

Kent Community Survey

I recently had the chance to read the results of the Kent City Schools' survey.  During October, the district conducted a survey of the community to gauge their opinions on such things as the performance of the schools, administration, and possible facility changes.  The survey was done in two parts: the first part was a 400-person survey done over the phone by Kent State University while the other part was a 342-person written survey that was sent home to parents.  One of the days I subbed at Roosevelt I passed out the survey to students in my second period class.  The results of the survey can be found here.  Although I am technically an employee of the district as a substitute teacher, I am blogging here as a community member and an alumnus of the district as my interest in seeing this district do well is far more rooted in my connection and loyalty to Kent than being a sub. 

The first thing that really struck me was the section that had verbatim comments from respondents.  Both surveys had the opportunity for open comments, but only the phone survey comments were published.  I read all of the comments, which were taken for two questions: "Do you have any suggestions for the district to continue saving money?" and "Finally, do you have any questions or comments that we could convey to the Kent administration and board of education?"  Of course there were plenty of the classic "everything's great" and "keep up the good work" comments that inevitably come up.  There were some off-the-wall comments too like "how did you get my number?" and "they should reword the questions".  There were also some that show the respondent didn't pay attention to the survey, like a comment about freezing wages to save money when it was stated earlier that the district had already done so.  This is one of my favorites:
"You have to find a way to communicate with community better. Not everyone reads paper or has a computer, or has kids in the system."  This is especially ironic given a comment earlier that one of the ways to save money would be to "Stop sending junk mail- especially calendars." (each fall the district sends out calendar that has school events and the schedule on it along with other important contact info...I find it VERY useful).  I'm not really sure how much more the district could do.  In the end, they can only do so much to communicate; it's not like they keep the information secret.  The part about "not everyone reads paper" I'm hoping is just either a typo or it was spoken wrong.  How else can we communicate beyond the web and paper?  Does this person want phone calls or a TV show or something?

Most of the comments didn't surprise me.  You always have the people that think we should cut everything but science and math, and even one person said the first thing to go should be music and sports.  There were a few that advocated more of a pay-to-play fee for sports.  While I can understand that stance, I also think that everyone should have an equal chance to play sports or participate in other enrichment activities; not just the ones their family can afford.  Pay-to-play puts huge burdens on families and ultimately keeps a lot of people out of those things I feel make school a lot more real to students than just books and facts.  What bothered me the most as an educator were the focus just on test scores.  I've blogged extensively about the shortcomings of the state proficiency tests and the danger on relying only on their results as a means to compare districts.  Another comment I was troubled by was in regards to getting more part-time teachers so the district could save on healthcare and other costs like salary.  That's it; make teaching even less desirable and that will improve the schools.  Right.  Do people really think that will attract and retain the best and brightest?  As my aunt Jane, who is also a teacher, pointed out at Thanksgiving, teaching is one of those professions that everyone knows how to do your job better than you but won't actually do what is necessary to actually get a job in the field.  If teaching is "so easy" and teachers should be making even less than they do, why aren't all the people saying that lining up to show how easy it is?  Why do so many teachers leave the profession after only a short time?  Why do many who leave cite better pay in their new job as a reason they left teaching if it pays so well? 

The real kicker after reading the many comments (if you have time, the PDF of the phone survey can be found here...comments start on page 13, though the PDF page is one off of the printed page since the cover page is counted as page 1 in the file) was question 21 (printed page 11, PDF page 12): "Do you currently have children enrolled in the Kent Schools?"  The answer was 76.9% no.  So, 76.9% of the comments were from people who don't have kids in the schools right now.  That could range from people who just had their last kid graduate to people who enroll their kids in an alternate private or home school, to people who don't even have kids or had kids graduate many years ago.  In other words, I found it ironic that with all these comments about what is wrong with the schools, the vast majority of them are coming from people who have little to no connection with the district right now, yet they claim to know what's wrong and how to fix it. This survey also rated the superintendent with a "B" rating.  This was in contrast to the take home survey, which was filled out with over 90% of respondents being parents with kids in the district right now.  They gave him him with an "A" rating.  I only wish the written comments they had given were published.  They seemed to have a more positive view of the district.  Why?  Being in the schools lets people see past the state test scores, something I mentioned in my blog a few weeks ago.. The real test to evaluating schools is being an active parent and knowing what to look for.  Only then do the test scores have much more of a context and meaning.

Some of the things I was happy to see were questions about facilities, which I had heard would be one of the primary issues gauged.  In other words, the district is probably considering a bond issue or other increase to fund improvements to facilities and wants to see if it's going to be worth the time and effort of getting it passed.  The facility issues involve adding on to Roosevelt, mainly additional classroom space and a second gym; addressing the parking and traffic nightmare that exists every morning and afternoon at Roosevelt; adding on or replacing Franklin Elementary; and adding on to Holden Elementary.  If I had to rank these facility projects, I'd probably rank them in the order I just listed.  Each one is definitely justified, in my opinion, but obviously now isn't the best time to do a massive building project.  What I found interesting were a few comments in the survey that Franklin should be closed rather than replaced or added onto.  I think it could work, but I'd rather not see an elementary school closed unless the enrollment is very low; right now, Franklin has between 200 and 300 students, which is right around what the other elementary schools have in Kent (there are 5 total).  We also have to look long range.  While enrollment may be down, that doesn't mean it will stay down as families grow up, move out, and new ones move in.  Kent is definitely an aging population and a lot of households do not have kids anymore (empty nesters), but it won't stay like that forever as people age and move on.

One thing that gets missed, in my opinion, is the age of most of the facilities.  As buildings get older, they cost more to maintain.  Outside of Stanton Middle School, which opened in 1999, every other building is near 50 years or older with some having more recent additions.  The vast majority of Kent's schools were built in the late 1960s or before (during the period of Kent's largest growth), with a few having additions in the 1970s.  Roosevelt has a small addition from 1997, but the vast majority of the building was built in various phases between 1958 and 1977.  Franklin dates back to the 1920s and has an addition that was added in the 1960s as far as I know.  Holden opened in 1965 and has largely been untouched since then beyond basic maintenance. 

Roosevelt definitely needs an additional gym.  I have always been perplexed why we only have one gym when most comparable high schools (those of similar enrollments) usually have a main gym and an auxiliary gym.  Even the new Ravenna High School, as I blogged about earlier this year, has two gyms, one that is used mainly for competitions and the other that is used for physical education classes.  As I said in my blog there, I have long wanted Roosevelt to have something similar to what Ravenna ended up building in their high school, which is a small field house.  The current gym has served us well and is in pretty good shape, but people need to remember it was built as part of the original 1958 building.  Since then, the school's enrollment has gone from 550 students in 1959 to around 1,400 today and the building has had numerous additions.  The gym does not even fit the entire student body.  I would love to see a field house type addition with a large space that could be subdivided into multiple courts, as well as a multi-purpose room.  Right now, the auditorium lobby functions as our "multi-purpose room" despite the fact that it is freezing this time of year and is part of the hallway.  We also have quite a bit of teachers who move from room to room each period because we do not have enough classrooms.  I'm all for efficient use of space, but having a few extra rooms would still allow for maximum use while giving teachers a place to "set up shop" as opposed to constantly pushing a cart around the school.

The other issue, the traffic problems at Roosevelt and Stanton, also needs to be addressed.  Maybe it's because I'm at Roosevelt so much now, but the traffic has always been bad.  The reason it gets bad is because of the orientation of the parking lots and roads.  Basically, you have two parking lots and three roads all coming together at one point.  It's further exacerbated by it being the primary route students take to walk to and from the parking lot and it's where people drop their kids off.  So, you have tons of traffic funneled into one area mixing with hundreds of pedestrians.  In the afternoon, all of the buses head over to Stanton together, so it's like a train cutting through it all and bringing everything to a standstill.  Sometimes we have additional buses that are picking up students from other high schools who take vocational classes here as part of the Six District Education Compact.  The main dropoff point doesn't have a turnoff, so it blocks a lane of the road that handles the traffic.  Yes, it is an absolute nightmare every day.  Like the gym, it is a relic of the original 1958 building when there were far less students and even less cars.  Honestly, how many students had their own cars in 1959?  I have my own ideas about how to solve it (move the student parking lot to the north side of Roosevelt Drive adjacent to the building and add a second entrance from Mantua Street), but it definitely can't stay the way it is.

The main reasoning behind additions at Franklin and Holden has to do with mandated all-day kindergarten.  Neither building has much room to add an additional classroom or two to accommodate that and Holden has had a modular building next to it for years.  Replacing Franklin is more to do with its age and the fact that the building is fairly inaccessible to anyone with physical disabilities (if you've never been inside, it has a bizarre layout too).  Since it would likely need an addition and renovations, if replacing it is close to the same cost, in the long run it may be a less expensive option.

Davey Days

Back at the end of September I had the chance to sub at Davey Elementary School for two days (September 30-October 1) for the gym teacher.  Subbing in gym is always fun mostly because it involves just having the kids play a game the entire time, plus, I get to wear "gym clothes" (i.e. t-shirt and warm-up pants) to school instead of khakis and a shirt and tie.  Anyway, subbing at Davey is always fun and interesting because of the history I have with that building and the history of the building itself.

Front of Davey after a snowstorm in February 2010.  The original part
of the building is very symmetrical

I attended what was then Davey Middle School from 1993-1996 in grades 6-8.  At the end of my junior year in 1999, Davey was closed and renovated for a year after Stanton Middle School was done.  In 2000 it reopened as Davey Elementary, replacing Central Elementary, which was turned into an annex of the high school.  The Davey building has quite a history itself.  The original part of the building opened in 1922 as Roosevelt High School.  During the late 1930s/early 1940s, an annex was built behind the building to house industrial education.  It would be the high school until 1959, when it was rededicated as Davey Junior High School after the current high school on North Mantua Street opened.  In the late 1960s, a 2-story addition was added to the school, which included a new cafeteria and extra gym.  Davey Junior High was initially for grades 7-9 until the late 1970s when ninth-graders were moved back to Roosevelt.  During the mid 1980s the first 6th graders were brought to Davey, first all of the sixth grades, and finally just part of them.  From about 1986 until 1999, 6th graders from 2 of Kent's 5 elementary schools went to Davey while the rest stayed at their elementary schools.  I went to Walls Elementary, which was one of the two who sent 6th graders to Davey.  It was an unusual setup that existed only because Davey was simply not quite big enough for all the 6th graders.  The setup ended only after the larger Stanton Middle School opened in 1999.  In 1993, the whole team-teaching concept was introduced and Davey was officially rededicated as Davey Middle School, even though it had been a 6-8 school for several years by then.  What was funny was they made a big deal about it (it was even on TV) and took the words "Junior High" off the building, telling us it would be replaced with "Middle".  Well, that never happened.  To this day, it still says "Davey School" with Davey and School very far apart.

December 2006 picture showing the 1966 addition and the words on the front

The renovations to convert the building to use as an elementary school were pretty extensive.  Some of the older parts of the building were restored to be close to what they would've looked like in the 1920s, though many parts were simply ignored or modernized.  Of course all the junior high school lockers had to be removed, smaller chairs and desks brought in, and many rooms were completely gutted and/or partitioned.  Virtually all of the doors were replaced and the entire building was renumbered (so I can't use any of the room numbers I remember!).  The wing where the upper gym, girls locker room, and industrial arts rooms had been was completely stripped and converted into a preschool wing.  It's easy to see where the gym used to be on the outside of the building, but you'd never guess inside where it used to be.  The double doors that used to be the gym's entrance to the hallway are now the entrance to the hallway connecting each of the preschool rooms.  It's weird being in the school because it's the same building I went to, but it's different at the same time; like a shell of its former self.

Subbing in the gym was fun for the history side of me as the gym has seen quite a few changes.  One of the cool things about Davey is how fairly easy it is to see the many changes that have been made over the years to the building.  There are numerous bricked-over windows and doorways, some very obvious, others not so obvious.  The gym, which I and many others knew as the "lower gym", is part of the original 1922 building and has had several changes to it.  I brought my camera the 2nd day I was there and took some pictures during my lunch hour.  It was pretty fun exploring the hidden rooms of old Davey and noticing certain things I had long suspected about the building's past or never realized!  If you went to Davey, you will definitely be able to relate to these pictures.

The former boys locker room, now just used for storage.

The boys locker room actually has two parts, this part being the "lower" locker room that is under the auditorium.  It's like frozen in time with the floors clean, the showers empty, and the lights and restrooms still functioning.

Just past the doorway seen in the back of the first picture.  This room was used for storage when I was in school and I believe held equipment.  It was obviously used by the teams too.  Most of these signatures came from the period just before it ceased being used as a middle school, the 1990s.

Just beyond that room is another long room that was also used for storage and today is obviously just not used at all.  I long suspected there had been a staircase in this part of the building and this confirmed it.  See the remains of the staircase on the right side?  It was the bottom leg of the staircase on stage left of the auditorium.

Another view of the former staircase with one stair still remaining in a much different color than the stairs that still exist above it.

Looking the opposite direction from the former staircase, I discovered that this was also an alternate entrance to the gym. The shelf straight ahead is in what used to be a doorway.  The former doorway is visible behind the bleachers in the gym.

Another thing that surprised me in that same hallway were these bricked up windows.  Davey is built on the side of a hill, but apparently, the side against the hill was exposed, at least enough to have windows in the basement level.  If you went through these walls today you'd be underneath the 1966 addition.

Inside the gym. The windows on the right had long been bricked up when I was in school but were uncovered as part of the 1999-2000 renovations.  Other bricked up windows can be seen below them.  Behind the basketball hoop is a wall covering up what used to be a balcony that apparently ringed the gym on three sides at one point.  The former balcony was later covered up and leveled and is used as storage today.  When I was in school it was the "green room" for the adjacent stage.  

Rarely-used staircase seen in the far right corner of the previous picture.  A bricked-up window can be seen as well as where the upper staircase (which led to the upper level of the balcony) was blocked off and covered.  To the left of this picture is the "new" entrance to the former balcony.

Inside the former balcony, which I knew as the "green room" since it connects with the stage. Originally it had tiered levels, the evidence which can be seen along the walls (not in this picture...it's covered by the shelves) and below it.

Given the symmetry of the building, I often wondered why the gym didn't seem to follow that.  Turns out it mostly did but was later changed.  This bricked up door is right next to the current door that goes to a staircase that leads up to the cafeteria.  If the bricked up door were reopened, it would lead to an area underneath the cafeteria.  At the other end of this wall, there is another bricked up door.

View of the bleachers.  The former door mentioned a few pictures earlier that led to the now-removed staircase (it has a shelf in the doorway now) can be seen here.  Above the doorway the areas of the wall with plaster as opposed to brick are where the balcony and its supports once were.  I do not know when this part of the balcony was removed, but these markings are on this wall behind the bleachers and the other end zone, something I never noticed.  

Outside the gym where several bricked-up windows can be seen.  Along the bottom of the walls, you can even see where the ground originally was.  The doorway and window on the far left of the picture are part of the 1966 addition.  As far as I know, the newer-looking bricks on the far right of the picture were a small addition to the locker rooms at the same time.  At the top of the building, some of the bricks have been replaced as part of the 1999-2000 renovations.

Another view of the gym.  The four glass-block windows are in what used to be the balcony.  The smaller bricked-up windows in the middle are all part of the rooms that were originally built as dressing rooms for the stage but are now simply blocked off.  The larger bricked-up windows on the right were the windows for the stage right staircase to those dressing rooms.

More bricked-up windows on the back of the school, looking to the right of the previous picture.  The windows on the far right are part of an emergency exit staircase.  The bricked-up windows that alternate in the center of the picture are for the restrooms (right side) and a staircase (left side).  A bricked-up window from the auditorium can be seen just to the left of center next to one of 2 windows that were re-opened as part of the 1999-2000 renovations.

Inside the hallway, the outside of which can be seen on the left side of the previous picture, that connects stage right to one of the main staircases.  My mom said she had a locker here when she went to the school in the late 1960s.  This is largely what it looked like when I was in school; a storage area.  Inside this hallway I discovered that the bricked-over area for the large auditorium windows seen in the previous picture actually extends even lower (different color bricks seen on left), which leads me to believe that this hallway was added later, or was at least covered later.

Behind the school is the former football and track stadium.  Although the high school moved to a new building in 1959, the current stadium wasn't built until 1970, so this was home to Rough Rider athletics for several decades and was known as Bowers Field.  It is still used for lacrosse practice and some youth football.  When I was at Davey, the old bleachers were still standing on the far side of the field and we'd often sit in them when we'd go outside after lunch.  They were removed in 2006.

Supports for the former grandstands that I mentioned above which were removed in 2006.

View of the back of Davey as seen from the field.  There were also stands on the grassy hill according to my mom, who played in marching band at this stadium until her senior year.

Doorway to the "office" of the gym (which connects to the former boys locker room) where you can see the old floor underneath the current floor.  I also discovered that this doorway was added later.  Just to the right of it is a bricked-over doorway I had never noticed.

Sibling Reunion

I had a great chance last week to spend some time with all three of my siblings.  Even though I see them all pretty regularly and we're always in touch, it's actually fairly rare that we're all in the same room together.  I usually see one or two at a time.  With one sister visiting from Utah, I decided it would be a great opportunity to take a road trip down to Nashville so she could visit my brother and sister-in-law.  My other sister is in Kent, so we were able to work it out so she could come too.  The last time we were all together was just after Christmas last year and this was the only opportunity for us to all be together in 2010 as the schedules for Thanksgiving and Christmas visits won't overlap for my brother and youngest sister.  Lately, it's become a one-a-year thing, though I will see each sibling individually multiple times a year usually either visiting them or them visiting Kent.

Being together definitely gave me reason to think about what I admire and like most about each one.  It was so much fun just talking about everything.  We have shared so many experiences together, so our overall perspectives are very similar, though by no means the same.  Even with our differences we are pretty unified as a group and I love how we all communicate amongst ourselves when situations arise.  We have definitely put the wonders of technology to use in keeping in touch, from blogs, to cell phones, to Facebook, and e-mail.

My brother Andy is the oldest of the four.  He lives down in Nashville and does consulting from home.  I have lost track of how many times I have visited him and my sister-in-law in the past 2 years in Maryland (4 visits in Nashville already!) but I do know that I always enjoy visiting, even though both of them are usually very busy, so I don't get to see a lot of them.  Even so, we always manage to find fun stuff to do.  My brother is someone who is not afraid to tell you what he thinks and what you can do to improve (that's part of his job).  Where I'm much more willing to just give people the benefit of the doubt (I'm pretty laid back), he will let someone know when he is unhappy with their service or product.  He's also good at finding good deals and researching products to get not just the cheapest, but the best.  I've always said that if I ever became famous and needed an agent, I'd hire my brother!

I have two younger sisters, one of whom lives in Kent and the other who lives in Utah.  My "Kent sister" Katie and I are closest in age.  Although each of us are about 2 years apart (we graduated high school in two-year intervals), my sister and I are actually just over 21 months apart.  First, I have always loved the red hair of my sister; I honestly think it's beautiful and hope I have a red-haired daughter!  More importantly, my sister has an amazing mind, particularly in making movies.  When she was doing her undergrad work, I would sometimes help her with her film projects and I would always be impressed not only with her editing skills, but also her ability to have the whole idea in her head and know what to do to get it out.  Like me, she's struggled to find steady work in her field, but once she is able to get a foot in the door, she will just take off.  If I ever had the influence to get someone to direct a movie, I'd totally push for my sister!

This looks like the cover for a movie or something!

My other sister Becky lives in Utah, though I'm happy she is hopeful to return to Ohio in the near future.  It isn't bad having a place to stay when I visit Utah though :).  What's special about her is that we have the same birthday, 4 years apart.  Growing up it wasn't so fun sharing a birthday, but now as adults it's pretty darn cool.  Becky is also a great writer.  Some of her work from middle school is still being used by teachers she had as great examples of how to write.  In 7th grade she took 3rd in the state in a writing competition known as Power of the Pen, a feat that still has not been equaled by a student at Stanton Middle School in Kent.  I hope one day she's able to have a  or other opportunity that she can really use those writing skills on a regular basis.  If I ever needed a biography written, I'd totally get Becky to write it or at least proof it! I can always count on her to notify me of errors on my blog posts too.  :)

I think I have pretty cool siblings.  I'm glad and feel blessed they're my siblings and that we are able to stay in touch despite being spread out right now.  I hope we can maintain that even as we settle down and have families of our own.

Trick-or-Treat on Sunday?

Inevitably, at least here, the whole topic of whether or not it's appropriate to trick-or-treat on Sunday comes up, but especially in years like this where Halloween actually fell on Sunday.  Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints consider Sunday the Sabbath day and typically avoid doing anything that is considered recreation or work.  That's not to say Latter-day Saints don't do anything on Sunday, but most will try to get Sundays off from work and avoid doing things like going out to dinner, shopping, playing sports, going to sporting events, going to the park, etc.  Generally, Latter-day Saints look at Sunday as a "day of rest" where we shouldn't be working, but also shouldn't be doing things that make others work (hence not going shopping, going out to dinner, etc.).  We're also very aware of the scripture that Jesus Christ himself spoke that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," (Mark 2:27) meaning that the Sabbath day is for our benefit. 

I could do an entire post about the Sabbath, but the purpose of my post here is whether or not trick-or-treating is appropriate on Sunday.  From a purely anecdotal sampling, I'd say most Latter-day Saints consider trick-or-treating inappropriate on Sunday.  Why?  I'm guessing they likely place it into the category of recreation.  Growing up, my mom definitely considered trick-or-treating an inappropriate activity on Sunday, but now doesn't feel that way at all.  In Kent, trick-or-treating is almost always done the Sunday afternoon before Halloween, though sometimes it is on Saturday.  This year pretty much all local communities had trick-or-treating on Sunday afternoon (since Halloween was on Sunday this year) with a few having it Saturday evening. 

In all honesty, I don't have a problem with trick-or-treating on Sunday.  That said, if people don't feel like it's appropriate for Sunday, it is their right to not have their children participate or go to a nearby community that has trick-or-treating on another day.  My problem comes when Latter-day Saints who feel it is inappropriate act like everyone feels that way or that there has been some sort of official church pronouncement that trick-or-treating violates the Sabbath and thus they are more righteous for either going somewhere else or refraining completely.  Remember, the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around.   While there are some very black-and-white instances that are definitely nor appropriate for the Sabbath, there are many that are very much open to personal interpretation.  And in the end, since the Sabbath is for us, we are ultimately responsible for how we choose to honor it. 

One thing we are encouraged to do on the Sabbath is spend time with our families.  If you take your kids trick-or-treating on Sunday, how is that not spending time with them or not as good as spending time at home?  Is it inappropriate because there is walking or dressing up?  What about people who walk to church (which happens a lot in Utah!!)?  And how is dressing up not appropriate for the Sabbath? Basically, I'm not seeing how trick-or-treating is a blatant violation of the Sabbath when you really look at what you're doing.  You're certainly not "working" and while I think most Latter-day Saints probably consider it "unnecessary recreation" it could just as easily be considered quality family time.  There is no prohibition of fun in the Sabbath either.  

In closing, this is another case of that the world isn't in black and white, but it also isn't in shade of gray; it's in living color.  The more light we have, the more obvious the colors come and the easier it is to discern the different shades of color.  It is also a case of critically analyzing our beliefs and reasons and not just "going along with what everyone else is doing" but actually evaluating why YOU are doing or believe certain things.  There's a reason we were all given our own brain and agency to use them; it isn't to create a bunch of mindless drones!

Putting President Packer's Remarks in Context

Much has been said in reference to remarks made by President Boyd K. Packer's at the recent General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  For those unfamiliar with General Conference, it is a semi-annual meeting that takes place in Salt Lake City every October and April.  It is broadcast to the entire church membership and takes the place of traditional Sunday worship services the weekend it is held.  It is divided into 4 general sessions, 2 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday, each of which lasts for 2 hours.  There is an additional session Saturday night for the Priesthood (which is made up of all men ages 12 and up).  A women's meeting is held the week prior and is also broadcast to the entire church membership.  During conference, leaders of the church (which includes general church leadership and those in the auxiliaries like Primary, Young Men, and Young Women) give prepared talks on a wide variety of gospel-related topics.  President Packer's talk was entitled "Cleansing the Inner Vessel" and focused mainly on the concept of God's love and the importance of repentance.  I hope that anyone who found his remarks upsetting reads the entire talk instead of the few soundbytes or quotes that have been used in the media.  That's the first step in establishing proper perspective.  Too often quotes by themselves appear far worse than they were intended.  Context within the talk itself should not be underestimated.  

Before starting, my point in writing this isn't to convince anyone that President Packer is right or wrong or that Latter-day Saint doctrine is right or wrong.  My purpose is to provide proper context of Mormon beliefs (as best as I personally understand them) so that even in disagreement, at least people can have a fuller understanding of why he would say such a thing.  That said, the quote that has caused the most controversy is this:

"We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.  Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father."

In reading this purely from the vantage point of the average, non-LDS reader, I can totally understand why some people would be upset by it.  I was, admittedly, not paying as close of attention to this talk when it was given enough for this statement to really stick out.  But seeing the controversy a few days later and then reading it, knowing what I do about our doctrine and culture, nothing he said surprised me.  There are a few key concepts of LDS doctrine and understanding that need to be made clear for this to make any sense.

The first point to understand is that "Mormonism" is more than just a religion.  In reality it is much more of a culture that is practiced by its members 24/7.  I think since so many Latter-day Saints are American and the church was founded in the US, people just equate it with American culture.  There are, of course, many similarities, but many differences as well.  Would we be as upset about comments or beliefs if they came from a different culture like, say, the Far East?  I wonder.  I think it's easy to be more accepting of other cultures when we don't have to deal with another culture on a regular basis.  The more we deal with it, the more we see the positives and negatives (at least from our perspective) that every culture has.  Most times when we are exposed to other cultures, it is in fleeting moments or with a few people and even then it's usually something positive (a dance, a custom, artwork, etc.).  It's a different story when people we know very well are part of that culture and we have an idea how they view and react to things.  I've noticed with my own extended family (most of whom are not Latter-day Saints), are all about being inclusive and celebrating diversity--except when it comes to Mormon stuff.  They don't regard it as a culture because they simply see us as part of the same culture as them (which in most ways we are) and we just have "weird" beliefs rather than a different cultural perspective.  See how easy it is to blur the line?

In addition to recognizing Mormonism as a culture (and a culture that has sub-cultures within it such as "Utah Mormonism" that I have blogged about), we must also understand some key LDS doctrinal points for Packer's remarks to be in proper perspective.  First, Latter-day Saints believe that everyone that is alive, that has lived, and that will live are literal children of God.  As such, we believe we have the potential to be like him.  But along with that potential comes many elements that make us quite different from God that must be overcome.  The best scripture verse that explains this is in the Book of Mormon in the book of Mosiah, chapter 3 verse 19:

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

Basically, the "natural man" is a human being with all our flaws.  Everyone is born with certain tendencies, shortcomings, and challenges.  While some are easier to overcome than others, we all have some sort of challenges that we inevitably have to overcome sometime in or even throughout life.  This is known as self-mastery.  Mormons aren't the only ones who teach and believe in the concept of self-mastery; it's a powerful concept that many people follow and is useful in setting goals, bettering ourselves, and overcoming challenges, regardless of what they are.  Many Eastern cultures practice self-mastery as well as many other people; basically, you are in charge of what you are.

In thinking about this post, for whatever reasons I thought about the movie X-Men:3 where they find a "cure" to the mutations and the reaction it gets from the "mutant" community both for and against (by the way, not saying gays are mutants, just using a parallel!!!).  I wonder what would happen if there were some shot that could make someone "straight" with a shot or pill.  Who would take it?  Who would consider it a complete insult?  I have heard of similar debates amongst the deaf and dwarf communities where operations are available that can "correct" those disabilities.  Just a random thought...

I think it's important to note that President Packer did not explicitly mention homosexuality in his talk, though his comments about marriage preceding that do imply that's what he means, though again, the Church has promoted protecting the "traditional" definition of marriage (one man, one woman), not simply anti-gay marriage.  To Latter-day Saints, homosexuality is definitely included in what he meant by "any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel" but it is not the only such relationship he is talking about.  Indeed, "straight" sexual relationships outside the bounds of marriage (whether before, during, or after marriage) are under that umbrella as well as those relationships that society as a whole consider wrong (sexual relations with children or close relatives, for instance).  Basically it boils down to standards.  Mormons believe that God has established very specific behavioral standards that he asks us to follow.  These are known as commandments and they include sexual and social behavior.  We are free, of course, to choose whether or not to follow these commandments, but like pretty much everything in life, there are always consequences for disobeying commandments (and also for following them).  Some of these consequences may not be apparent immediately or even that soon down the road.  Also, as has been pointed out by many other commentators, it's not "being gay" that gets people in trouble in the LDS Church; it's acting on those actions that gets people in trouble, the same trouble as "straight" people doing much the same with anyone they're not married to.  In other words, it's not just gay people that are told they shouldn't have sexual relations; it's anyone not married (which includes me!).  Again, it goes back to standards and who they came from.

From there, another key point is that Latter-day Saints believe that God does not give us challenges and obstacles that we cannot overcome.  In addition to the famous verse in Matthew 19:26: "...but with God all things are possible,"  in 1 Nephi 3:7 we read: the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."  In other words, since Mormons believe God has commanded certain behaviors as acceptable and not, then there must be a way to overcome the feelings and tendencies that lead to those that are "wrong" (which leads back to self mastery).  Now, while Mormons believe that anything can be overcome to put yourself in harmony with the commandments of God, that doesn't mean we have or even claim to have easy answers as to how many challenges and obstacles can be overcome.  Indeed, most obstacles (not just those involving sexual behavior) are not easily overcome.  Many times, the answer lies in desire, prayer, fasting, humility, and patience.  

Unfortunately, what's happened is that too many Latter-day Saints have used those standards and beliefs as a weapon to judge and even condemn other people.  Going back to the main idea of Packer's remarks, it was the loving and forgiving nature of God, not the condemnation.  And no, Mormons do not believe that gays will burn in hell.  We have a far different view of "hell" than the traditional Christian view.  To Latter-day Saints, life is not a pass/fail course; it's fully graded with all the proper curves, extra credit, and exceptions!  Everyone will be rewarded for the good and bad they do, not an automatic "go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200" card or "get out of jail free" card.  :)  

Putting it all together, again, I'm not here to say "we're right" or that Packer was correct, but more to show why he said what he said and why most Latter-day Saints didn't really think twice about it (nothing new!).  I obviously believe what he said is true, not only in relation to Mormon beliefs, but in what I believe personally as well.  In the end, we are the masters of our minds and bodies and we will be accountable for our actions based on the knowledge we have.  So, summarizing:

1. Mormonism is very much a culture that has its own understandings and perspectives.  Respecting us doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with us though!  
2. Mormons believe that all people are children of God and can be like him, but that takes a lot of effort, desire, and work.  
3. Mormons believe all people have challenges and obstacles to overcome, but they can be overcome. 
4. Mormons believe that all obstacles can eventually be overcome with the help of God and that he does not give us something that we cannot deal with.  This is known as self-mastery and is a concept not unique to Mormonism.  
5. Homosexuality is not specifically "targeted" by Later-day Saints, nor was it specifically targeted by President Packer.  It is one of many behaviors that Latter-day Saints consider in opposition to the standards set by God.