Being brought up Mormon left me naive about important things like the difference between an americano and a latte. Or proper beer bong technique. But my upbringing on the fringes of American religion did teach me some valuable lessons.

For example; if the charismatic, bearded leader of your congregation on an isolated ranch in {fill in the name of a western state here} claims that he is the resurrected Jesus. Or even if he claims to get text messages from Jesus. There's a good chance he's trying to have sex with your under-age daughter.

But don't take my word for it. It happens all the time. Seriously. All the time. So much.

Do you remember when I used to actually write about actual things instead of always writing about why I don't have any time or energy or whatever to write? Yeah, me too. OK, Pete, get on with it. Here's an actual post.

I was not surprised to hear that Gordon B. Hinckley, the leader of my former faith, had died. Especially given how matter-of-factly Donna told me, as though she were announcing the arrival of the mail. Also especially because he was a mere ninety-seven years old. At last check that's almost as old as John McCain.

There was a time when I would have been moved, emotionally by Hinckley's passing. A long while ago, that emotional cocktail would have been equal parts sadness, loss and introspection on my own mortality. A little less of a while ago, I may have been somewhere on the other side of the emotional gamut. I may have even been happy to hear the news. Though I'm not exactly sure why and that happiness would have been rude and misplaced.

When asked about newly-inaugurated Salt Lake City mayor Ralph Becker's proposed registry for domestic partners, State Senator Chris Buttars (R - West Jordan) replied, "I have great empathy for that kind of thing. I have no problem with people sharing insurance or their wills, estates, real estate or lives. I just have to be certain we're not coming in the back door of the Amendment 3 [ban on gay marriage and civil unions]."

I'm sorry... did he just say, coming in the back door of Amendment 3? I thought so. Poor choice of words, Senator Butthole. Personally, I hope the registry gives Amendment 3 a reach-around and a Dirty Sanchez.

In other news, the LDS Church is busy talking out both sides of its political mouth. With one side it is assuring the voting public that it would never dare influence a potential President Romney. With the other, it is issuing statements telling the Utah State Legislature how to vote when it comes to matters of legalized-adulthood. It seems to me that if the church and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff are truly concerned with protecting teens in Utah that grocery stores ought to be farther down the list than forced polygamous marriages, a matter both are quick to divorce themselves from at every opportunity.

In anticipation of Mitt Romney's clear-the-air-about-the-cult-err-church-I-belong-to speech I thought of the legitimate questions many Americans may have for Mitt. I don't mean the kind of questions that have no bearing on his potential presidency like, "How do you explain the recent shift in the LDS Church's position on the origins of the American Indians?"

Discussion like that is certainly of interest to me but is, in no way, relevant to Romney the candidate. No, instead I have two questions for Romney following yesterday's speech.

1) If your church membership were in jeopardy because of your public position on a national issue being in contrast to that of LDS church leadership, would you change your position to save your membership?

Back when I was but a wee Mormon boy, I learned all the Primary Songs. I Am A Child Of God, The Chapel Doors, Book of Mormon Stories.

Ah, Book of Mormon Stories. Remember the hand actions to that one? Where you pound your fist in the palm of your hand to the beat of imaginary war drums then put two fingers behind your head like a couple of eagle feathers? Everything about that song, from the rhythm of the bass line to the lyrics and pantomime Indian stereotypes reinforced a single, simple message. That the people talked about in the book, the Lamanites who defeated the Nephites in an epic battle Cecil DeMille would be proud of, are today's American Indians.

That message was echoed in the introduction to the copy of Book of Mormon that my Branch President gave me the day I was baptized. "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

Around our house, LDS General Conference has become and excuse for Donna to hole up in her craft room and scrapbook with a friend. For them, the weekend is meant to be free of spouses and children. An orgy of die-cuts and heart-shaped punches, not to be interrupted by the trivial goings-on of the rest of us.

I, for one, am happy to oblige. The girls and I sit around burping and farting in our pajamas with our hair uncombed and bodies unwashed. We eat anything that can be microwaved or eaten raw. After all, we wouldn't want to leave any dirty laundry or dishes for Donna to deal with once the post-Conference hangover hits on Monday.

The downside is the all-day inundation of hardline Mormon doctrine. The upside is, it's generally the same droned out nonsense we've been hearing for years from them so most of it goes largely ignored. It becomes background noise. Like Coldplay. Every song sounds the same.

Throughout history, leaders of religious sects have found themselves in legal hot water. Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tony Alamo and, most recently, Warren Jeffs.

After hearing the news of Jeffs' conviction of being the world-record holder as the creepiest living person, my instant thought was to wonder what his followers were doing to discount the conviction. How would they frame and retell their version of events such that even the very nature of the crimes he had been charged with would be lost in their official histories.

If one looks at the criminal cases against Jesus or Joseph Smith, for example, the official recounting by their followers, their true-believers, you notice that those accounts are suspiciously light on the details of the specific cases made against them. How many devout Christians know what charges Jesus was brought up on before Pontius Pilate? How many would go the extra-step in calling those charges erroneous, without even knowing exactly what they were?

Pete,
I'm interested how this is done. Let me know when you can enlighten me on this.

You come seeking further light and knowledge?

A few months ago my grandfather commented that, while the Jordan River temple was active and busy, other temples worldwide sat relatively idle. Some are open only a few days a month and even then, I'm told, activity is pretty low.

I think they could really boost attendance by adding a few new ordinances.

Confession for the dead. Temple-goers would get a chance to sit in proxy for now-dead persons in a meeting with their bishop. Patrons would read from a list of all known sins committed by the person. Families would now have to include gathering of sins committed as part of their genealogy.

James E. Faust is dead. I feel almost obligated to comment but honestly, I have no strong feelings on the subject whatsoever. But it seems to be dominating the local news and has even permeated into the office banter today. Still though, LDS Church leaders have been dying for more than one hundred fifty years. And every time one does, another steps in his place.

Opponents of the church, and no, I don't consider myself in that camp, will no doubt raise a glass today to celebrate the man's passing. Devout Mormons around the world will weep and mourn his passing. I think both reactions are unfounded. As I said, another will come along to take his place so neither position is advanced or reduced by his death. The one position is downright rude. The other represents an unhealthy emotional attachment to a man whose passing, without the benefit of his title, would go unnoticed.

I've never met the man and his title bears no weight with me, neither for good or for ill. I have no personal connection to him in any way at all. I can't even think of a time when I remember him speaking. They could replace him with a cardboard cutout and I wouldn't notice any more or less of a personal impact. Those guys all look the same with their eyes closed on the stand at General Conference anyway.