Why we leave

This weekend was general conference weekend for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While I would still agree with many thoughts expressed in recent conference sessions on topics such as service and forgiveness, I no longer believe many of the foundational doctrines of the church. In an effort to promote faith in the church and retain membership, sometimes leaders and members tend to simplify the reasons some decide to separate from Mormonism. This is an open letter to give some collective voice to why some Saints leave the fold.

Dear leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Most of us do not leave the Church because we are offended or because leaving is easy.

We leave because we have diligently read the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures and found anachronisms; miracles that are difficult to believe; and conflicts with western hemisphere archaeology, modern anthropology, and DNA studies of Native American populations.

We leave because we value reason and find over time that our deeper inquiry into Mormon history and doctrine culminates in an irreconcilable conflict between the Mormon worldview and what we learn of the universe from rational inquiry.

We leave because we find that the typical church narrative about Joseph Smith is inaccurate and incomplete. We struggle upon learning that there are multiple accounts of the First Vision, that Joseph took over 30 wives when some were still teenagers or married to other men, and that the Book of Mormon “translation” was closer to methods used in 19^th century treasure-seeking than one might expect in an inspired scholarly translation.

We leave because we are women, or men who believe that women can do anything a man can do, and yet find that in the church women have few substantive leadership roles; that they can never preside over a man in the modern church; and that there are numerous inequalities between how men and women are treated in the faith.

We leave because we are LGBT and after long and intense struggles to reconcile our internal truths with Mormon doctrine, we find that the Church has no fulfilling or empowering place for us in its doctrine. We remember the years of harmful rhetoric, condescension or misinformation at the hands of the church and ultimately conclude that a much healthier existence is waiting for us outside the church’s narrow understanding of sexuality and family.

We leave because we have long hoped for a church that more fully embraces a diversity of political viewpoints, but find instead that the institution has been more focused on using its social and political capital to obstruct civil justice for all Americans as it did with Proposition 8 in California.

We leave because despite our respect for many wonderful people in the faith, we are not comfortable with recent church priorities such as its obsession with modesty and pornography, the negative rhetoric about LGBT families, its efforts to excommunicate those who openly challenge church doctrine or practice, and its investment in billion dollar real estate enterprises. We cannot understand the lack of transparency in church finances or instances when church leaders have misled others. We ask why we hear more from Mormon leadership about tithing or temple attendance than about great societal problems such as poverty, economic and political corruption, or environmental destruction.

We leave because despite the great challenges this brings to us or our families, we find greater peace of conscience outside the religion. We respect your choice to stay, but we hope that in bolstering your own faith, you will not misunderstand or trivialize our motives for leaving.

Damn us

I’ve fallen in love with another male twice in my life. Nothing has quite shaken me like those experiences. There is a lot that could be said about my feelings and my growth in connection with falling in love, but the salient point here is that those experiences are the clearest indication to me of what it means to be gay. In the course of falling in love, the full suite of my attractions was engaged. I know that being in love is as much an emotional and spiritual response to another person as it is any sort of physical reaction. In fact, I might use the word visceral to describe it, not in a carnal or debased sense, but in the way that every fiber of a person’s being (to borrow a Mormon cliché) feels something deep and fundamental. The times I fell in love are an invaluable reference point from which I’m able to understand my attractions. To me then, the idea that homosexuality is merely a manifestation of unnatural sexual desire is only an illusion, an over-simplification of experiences that are profound and even sacred.

This is the context in which the orthodox Mormon position on homosexuality must really be examined. The discussion is properly about love, not about lust. It is about personal growth and fulfillment of human potential. It is about dignity and the ability of individuals to define their own identity. It is about giving of oneself and receiving of another in a relationship that is best suited for gay persons. It is not about sin. The conversation cannot merely be a version of ‘it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t act on it’. Such statements are simply platitudes repeated over and over again in LDS discussions of homosexuality.

This is the general Mormon message on homosexuality today: gays are acceptable before God, even noble, if they “struggle” with “same-gender attractions”, but they’ve crossed the line into sin if they “act” on those persuasions. Gays need to fight homosexuality because it is a temptation, a weakness, and not an integral part of their eternal being. They need to believe fundamentally in the wrongness of homosexuality. Homosexuals need to fight the “natural man”. Gays really – though the leadership wouldn’t phrase it this way – need to fight themselves.

The roots of the tension between homosexuality and Mormon thought are doctrinal (though the conflict is also manifest culturally). In Mormonism the nuclear family, with a heterosexual union of husband and wife at its head, is the theological and social center of the religious experience. This is the ideal family organization designed for all people. Though not elaborated on much by current leadership, God himself is a biological male with a wife (actually, wives) in an exalted heterosexual union. We are his direct spiritual children here on earth with the principal goal of advancing along the same path that He took in the past towards glorification. Glorification (“exaltation” in Mormon terminology) comes through increase (reproduction). Either here or in the next life, everyone is supposed to eventually be married to the opposite sex or they have failed the principal reason for their existence. Families are discussed in Church meetings, families form the basis for much of Mormon advertising and proselytizing, and families are the central focus of LDS temples. In fact, such is the rigor and frequency with which the ideal family is discussed in the Church, that perhaps even Jesus is secondary in importance in Mormon theology. It is through this one specific family structure (man + woman + children) that earthly happiness is obtained and the ultimate objective of this current life – securing eternal life with God – is realized and perpetuated. In fact, in LDS thought the principle reason for Earth’s creation even, with its millions of species, is for one species - for us. If Christianity can be said to be a strongly anthropomorphic religion, Mormonism is a significantly accentuated variation on the theme.

In the LDS cosmology I have attempted to sketch out, there is no place for gay love or gay relationships. For Latter-day Saints, heterosexuality is built into the universe. Same-sex relationships stop with friendships or direct family relationships. Sexual activities are off limits. Non-sexual physical affection, especially between two males, is also limited, though this is a modern cultural norm and it was not prohibited socially a century ago, even among devout Mormons (1). Finally, any emotional bonds between two people of the same sex are ultimately supposed to be subservient to the emotional connection one makes with an opposite-gender spouse. So, all of the ways in which a gay person can be attracted to a person of the same sex – physical, sexual and emotional – have proscribed limits in Mormonism. Sex is the big one, however, and is the area with the most severe consequences officially.

Because heterosexuality appears to be the only type of attraction that exists in the eternities, Latter-day Saint leaders teach that gays will not be tempted with same-sex attraction in the next life if they are faithful (either celibate or heterosexually married) and repentant of any homosexual behavior (2). Therefore, the concept of homosexuality doesn’t really exist in the realm where it matters most (eternally); it is only a mysterious wrinkle in our current imperfect and fallen world. Same-sex attractions will somehow disappear for the faithful once they die. It is unclear how this will happen, or even if that promise is consonant with the general Mormon understanding of how this current life’s experiences relate directly to the next life: “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” (3). For gay people, is this really an appealing doctrine? Personally, I am not sure that I want to be changed in such a fundamental way in the next life (if there truly is one). Sure, the less desirable traits in my personality would be good to dispense with, but my capacity to love? I don’t want to find myself a stranger in my own soul or disconnected from the same-sex bonds I make with people in this life.

For many gay Mormons, the fundamental heterosexuality of all of Mormon reality leaves a nearly intractable tension between the essence of who they are as persons and the belief structure of the Church (4). Dizzying tales of conversion therapy and suppression of homosexual “urges” notwithstanding, virtually all gay people really are gay and cannot change their orientation. By being forced into a universe in which heterosexuality is the only option, currently and forever, gays are left as theological strangers in a worldview that cannot accommodate them. And if there is no place for what are the most fulfilling of relationships for gay people, then there is only a shadow of happiness, a shell of existence.

Mormonism thus damns us homosexuals – in the doctrinal sense of the word – because it prohibits us from the possibility of a life that is most likely for us to achieve relationship fulfillment. Church doctrine on sexuality is damnation for us because it caps our ability to grow spiritually and emotionally. It limits our chance to find sexual and physical fulfillment. It prohibits us from attaining what is supposed to be the pinnacle of Mormon achievement, a deep and abiding union with another person. Why do gays leave the church? If it is not because of un-Christ-like ridicule from insensitive members, intellectual dissonance, or intolerant leaders, then it is likely because of this theological damnation. God just has nothing to do with being, thinking, or acting gay. God is not gay and never has been and never will be. This perhaps is at the heart of gay Mormon despair and sorrow. Many gay Mormons internalize their theological otherness and their emotional separation from the divine. It is this doctrine that pits our loyalty to self against the official position of the Church. Though most gay Mormons will eventually choose either the self or the Church to be supreme in this matter, the conflict is a spiritual fire through which eventually every LGBT Mormon must pass.

There is really nothing that has brought me to a place of sorrow in life quite like being in love and not having the opportunity to form an uninhibited romantic same-sex relationship. I understand that there are many people, regardless of sexual orientation or religious background who go through life never experiencing reciprocated love or who have circumstances that keep them from a relationship that they desire. But heterosexuals always have the chance to form these relationships and experience love in all of its physical, emotional and spiritual manifestations. There are no legal, doctrinal, or cultural barriers to their relationship potential inside or outside the Church.

Does the orthodox Mormon position on homosexuality benefit anyone? Is it even harmonious with other tenets that are essential to the religion? As I understand it, the whole purpose of commandments and restrictions in Mormonism is to keep individuals from doing that which is harmful to their spiritual, emotional or physical health. It is fair then to ask if the LDS position on homosexuality actually achieves that. I think it accomplishes the opposite. It humiliates, confuses, degrades and exiles gay members. It keeps them from developing more fully the valuable personality attributes essential to thriving relationships such as selflessness, sacrifice and compromise because they cannot attain an intimate long-term stable relationship with a person of the same sex. It inspires spiritual self-doubt, facilitates dishonesty, and can generate an emotional distance between a gay person and his or her associates. It leads to a higher incidence of mixed orientation marriages than is likely to be the case if same sex relationships were allowed in the Church. It restricts sexual fulfillment and expression of non-sexual physical affection.

Having extricated myself from the constraints of Mormon possibilities, I have the freedom, at least mentally, to explore the idea of a relationship with another man – one in which I can give fully of myself, as much as my potential permits. A same-sex romantic relationship seems likely to be the kind in which I can give and receive the most that a relationship between two un-related people can offer. Though I do not know what my own future holds, I want all people to have the opportunity to form relationships that work best for them, free from social, legal and theological roadblocks that have little real value. The ability of two consenting adults to express love is a basic human right.

I believe the Church would benefit from seriously examining its position on homosexuality in light of its other doctrinal views about human happiness and human progress. Church leaders need to have the courage to recognize that their prohibition on homosexual relationships is unjust to a significant number of God’s children. Institutionally, Mormonism has shown theological creativity and adaptability in the past. It may take some unprecedented creativity to incorporate same-sex relationships into Mormon theology, but it may be a necessary step if Mormonism is to rightly claim that it is a religion for everyone. On an encouraging note, among Church membership, understanding, dialogue and acceptance are growing. Perhaps an increasing number of Latter-day Saints now diverge from their leadership in full support of their gay friends and family members. Meanwhile, back in the narrow corridors of doctrinally pure Mormon sociology, however, gays continue to be damned.

Notes:

1. See Quinn, D.M. 1996. “Same-sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans. A Mormon Example”

2. Homosexual behavior is universally interpreted in Mormonism to include same-sex sexual intimacy, but is more ambiguously interpreted for other types of affection such as kissing or holding hands.

3. Alma 34:34

4. There are many possible solutions to the tension between accepting homosexuality and Mormonism. In many cases, however, an imbalance arises in the reconciliation. Either the member (1) renounces homosexual behaviors to be in line with the Church, (2) continues to “commit” homosexual acts while still being a devout believer and cycles through a likely painful process of confession and repentance, or (3) decides that they must abandon some or all of the Church’s teachings to accommodate their conscience. I don’t mean to imply that acceptable resolutions are unattainable, rather that all gay Mormons confront the tension at some point and that a balanced compromise between homosexual desires and Mormonism is probably exceedingly rare.

Tender ironies

I don’t believe very strongly in Mormon doctrine anymore. As I have written on this blog before, I still find much good in the teachings of the Church. And of course, I very much like many of its current and former members. While it is neither necessary nor productive to turn over every doctrinal cobble, I have suffered enough of my unease over Church history and policies in silence, and no longer feel as compelled to self-censor my thoughts.

This week, a three member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier judicial finding that Proposition 8 in California is unconstitutional. Of course, further legal wrangling is all but certain, but along with Washington State being on the cusp of legalizing gay marriage, this ruling was one more small step towards marriage equality in the US. The following was part of the majority opinion:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort’.” Further the court determined, “The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.” (1)

In response to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a short statement on Tuesday that reads in part:

“The Church…regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition … Millions of voters in California …expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society …”. (2)

Obviously, the Church is welcome to express its opinion on the merits of gay marriage. Superficially, press room responses like the one above give the impression that the Church holds a simple and popular position. However, like so much in Mormonism, one needs to dig a little deeper to find the deep ironies that sometimes characterize the deceptively simplified narrative the Church offers. In other words, some historical context is needed.

Point 1: The Church repeatedly avows its loyalty to the US Constitution, but in its response to the judicial ruling by the Ninth Circuit, it is being selective. Its statement lauds the initiative process but attacks the judicial functions of balanced government. In doing so, it joins, at least in spirit, other conservatives who decry the actions of “activist judges” with whom they disagree. The complete system of governance in the United States involves not only means for the majority to enact law, but institutions and concepts such as checks and balances that are designed to protect the rights of the people. Fundamental civil rights, especially minority rights, are not intended to be subject to the whims of the majority. The judiciary plays a prominent role in preventing discrimination by the majority. (3)

Point 2: The Church is on shaky ground invoking the supremacy of the democratic process in matters of public policy, because its own structure and modus operandi are far from democratic. The Church is a theocracy, ruled by 15 unelected men who are the final voice in matters of doctrine and policy. Exercise of power at all levels in the Church is supposed to be done in love and righteousness (a laudable goal), but regardless, Church governance flows structurally from top to bottom. It is not democratic. Even if we ignore the silliness of a theocratic institution lecturing on democratic principles, I wonder what the Church will argue when the day comes that the voice of the people in a particular state approves gay marriage. Public opinion on gay marriage is changing, and it is changing very quickly.  Prop 8 did not pass by an overwhelming majority in California.

Point 3: In its very active political opposition to gay marriage, the Church is actively campaigning against the legitimate aspirations of a minority people. In seeking marriage equality, gays are not interfering in the liberties of others, but seeking only to advance their own pursuit of happiness. The Church’s own history of persecution as an unpopular minority should invoke, at a very minimum, deep empathy for LGBT persons who are fighting for equality under the law. Driven from Ohio to Missouri to Illinois, then to Utah, attacked by mobs, and having suffered terrible hardships in the course of pursing their faith in the 1800s, Latter-day Saints are well acquainted with the injustices perpetrated by intolerant neighbors and hostile laws. Nineteenth century Mormons by and large wanted to be left alone to pursue their way of life; twenty-first century gays by and large want to be left alone to love who they love.

Point 4: Recently Church leaders have linked the advance of gay marriage to threats to religious liberty. These arguments are as much of a smokescreen as a genuine concern. Elder Dallin H. Oaks (4) and others (5), for example, may claim that gay marriage infringes conservative religious freedoms, but eliminating the opportunity for gay marriage infringes the rights of other religious groups and individuals to perform marriages that they believe are equally acceptable to God. The religious freedom argument is a twisted one: the Church is seeking freedom from the beliefs of others, not freedom to define its own beliefs. As long as the Church is not forced to perform gay marriages, change its doctrine, or alter its own practices in any substantive way, its religious freedom is not infringed. Of course there may be some legal complexities and some need for compromise to both implement legal gay marriage and preserve freedom for certain religious viewpoints, but blanket prohibition of gay marriage is not acceptable. Hearing a wealthy conservative religion with a public voice disproportionate to its actual membership size crying victim is a little pathetic.

Point 5: Finally, there is great irony in hearing appeals for “traditional marriage” from Latter-day Saint leaders. As much as Church leadership may prefer to whitewash its own controversial history with sexuality, polygamy was a major component of Mormon theology for decades before the practice gradually faded away during the late 1800s and early 1900s following intense public disapproval and persecution from the US government (6). Moreover, monogamous heterosexual marriage – the way much of the rest of modern western society might have defined “traditional” marriage until recently – isn’t a completely accurate expression of current Mormon views of marriage anyway. Theologically, polygamy remains a component of mainstream LDS views because a man can be sealed to more than one woman during the course of his life as long as only one of the women is alive at the time – polygamy is thus believed to exist in the next life (7). Joseph Smith, the first LDS President and founder of polygamy among the Saints, had many wives, some of these women being already married to other men at the time he courted them and one being as young as 14 years old (8). Thus, early Mormons practiced both polygamy and polyandry. Brigham Young and subsequent leaders of the Church continued polygamy for several decades and defiantly challenged laws that prohibited the practice (9). Unfortunately much of this history occurred under a mantle of secrecy and deception so it is perhaps not even well known to most Latter-day Saints. Whether we’re talking about the 1800s or 2012, early Mormon sexuality represented some very unconventional experimentation with marriage! The Church’s position on gay marriage may be consistent over the short span of time that it has been debated openly, but its broader sexual history probably wouldn’t be deemed “traditional” to most people today.

Why the Church has invested so much energy into public opposition to gay marriage is beyond my comprehension. I can only speculate. But the ironies inherent in its political opposition are blatantly obvious to anyone who takes a careful look at Church history, doctrine, and culture. My conclusion is that the Church is exhibiting a bewildering disregard for its own history and culture in the process of publicly defending its position on gay marriage. Perhaps for those of us who have taken the courage to oppose the Church on marriage equality, our frustrations with its position are tempered by this thought: these ironies remind us that we are on the right side of history.

Notes:

(1) Ninth Circuit opinion.
(2) LDS statement.
(3) The desegregation of schools mandated by Brown v. Board of Education is an excellent example of judicial sanity in the face of majority discrimination.
(4) Elder Oaks’s speech at Chapman University.
(5) An open letter from several religious conservatives.
(6) Official Declaration 1, contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, comprises the 1890 manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff that banned polygamy, at least in the US. Despite the modern tendency to interpret this document as a revelation, and perhaps to believe that polygamy ended abruptly upon its reciept, the history is not so clear cut and polygamous marriages continued into the 1900s. For instance, polygamous LDS colonies were created in northern Mexico even though the practice was illegal since 1884 in that country. The Church acknowledges these post-manifesto plural marriages and that phasing out of polygamy was a gradual process. See Quinn, D.M. 1985. LDS Church authority and new plural marriages, 1890-1904. Dialogue 18:11-107 at this link.
(7) The term sealing refers, in part, to an eternal marriage in LDS theology. Theologically, polygamy is enshrined in LDS doctrine in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(8) This site contains very detailed information on early plural marriages in the Church including source documentation for most of the claims in the document. Most of Joseph’s additional marriages appeared to have occurred during the last few years of his life.
(9) Quinn, D.M. 1985. LDS Church authority and new plural marriages, 1890-1904. Dialogue 18:11-107.

The fixed and the fluid

Coming from the Mormon worldview, it is hard to break free from the concepts of permanence and constancy. I don’t necessarily know their doctrinal origins, but I do have a good theory about why they are maintained: they feed a basic human desire to be emotionally secure, to feel that despite the empirical evidence of our individual insignificance, we are in control of at least the little spheres around us. But evidence everywhere tells us that constancy and permanence are illusions. Change is constant, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but ubiquitous. And interestingly, other doctrines of Mormonism (like the seldom spoken-of idea that God was once like man and evolved into His current position of deity, and the concept of continuing revelation), run counter to these strains of constancy. Doctrinally, Mormonism is a mix of change and constancy, but it is certainly the latter that has the upper hand theologically these days.

Think for a minute of the atoms and molecules that make up our bodies – the flux of matter in and out of us with every meal and trip to the restroom. Most of the atoms that make me today will be somewhere else a year from now. Even the atoms in the DNA molecules that instruct cells to synthesize such and such molecules at such and such times are replaced over time. Only the information in the DNA, encoded via its physical structure, is relatively constant during the lifetime of an individual. However, slowly accumulating mutations in individual cells and in the evolutionary lineages of species and higher-order taxa point to its ultimate impermanence as well. As individual organisms we age, we lose functions gradually, and then die.

By doctrine, Mormonism attempts to escape some of the inevitabilities of death. Through the doctrine of a bodily resurrection, we may inherit bodies that become immortal and never again subject to die (1). Through sealings to spouse and children we can bind relationships beyond the separation of death (2). Through covenants we can forge a relationship with God that cannot be touched by other forces in the universe. Many Latter-day Saints become very attached to these concepts, evidenced in part by emotional testimonies born in congregations about the truthfulness of the afterlife, sealings and a literal resurrection.

I have little problem with the motivations behind such hopeful concepts of permanence, because they are born of the human need for emotional security (I doubt I differ much from anyone else in this respect) and, at their core, they are really innocuous systems of belief that of themselves probably have little negative effect on how life carries on. But there is scant empirical evidence that any of these amendments to the constitution of death are close to being true.

Given belief in an afterlife, there are two general alternative paths for how a person engages with life. The first is a proactive existence that uses belief as a motivation to do one’s absolute best in this life. Belief in an afterlife isn’t required to live a purposeful existence by any means, but for some it serves a useful role. The second path is an unfortunate one – belief in the afterlife becomes an excuse to be passive about making the most of experiences in the here and now. I imagine, for example, the mindset of people who want to wait until a future existence to find happiness, or who shy away from asking the really hard questions of modern life or fully accepting themselves.

Hope doesn’t release us from change. It will not keep my atoms from recycling into some other organism somewhere on the planet. My atoms will soon enough find themselves in the soil and in water, and, if in another lifeform, a bacterium (likely – they make up most of the earth’s living organic biomass), a plant perhaps (how wonderful, I’d love to participate in the miracle of photosynthesis!), or, less likely, in some animal. Basically, my atoms no more belong to me than to the other creatures that use them, past and future.

Hope is a beautiful concept applied to the here and now. It is the fire that burns in those pushing for civil rights. It is the extra energy to forge new and exciting relationships. It can encourage individual sacrifice for causes greater than one’s self. But it is less attractive as an escape from the inevitability of change. I have hope; I work hard; I cling in some ways to concepts of permanence. But I also must know deep down that these are games of the mind. Death is the great arbitrator of our existence. If my mortal relationships and experiences, if my own identity even, can survive the inevitability of death, then I will be genuinely pleasantly surprised. But I may also gain much more out of life by living without that “certainty”.

Notes
(1) The cycling of physical matter among organisms and inert matter presents some technical challenges for belief in a literal resurrection that is based on the concept that organisms “own” their own physical matter. Life forms other than humans will also be resurrected in LDS theology. Thus, if an atom finds residence in several creatures, which will gain ownership of an atom in the permanent hereafter?  Also, given the short generation times of bacteria, their large cumulative biomass relative to other organisms, and their long evolutionary history, resurrection of all bacteria that ever lived on Earth would materially swamp the elemental requirements other multi-cellular organisms like humans. There is another strangely literal LDS teaching about the resurrection: blood is the Mormon symbol of human mortality, so our immortal bodies will be bloodless in the hereafter but will otherwise resemble our present anatomy.

(2) LDS sealings are only performed between husband and wife and between children and parents. This is nice, but I would vote for a heaven where I am sealed to friends and nice strangers too.

Not so!

“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. In 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 tendencies toward the unpure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember He is our Father.”
-President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference (1)

Some suppose that their attraction to the same sex is sinful or shameful. They believe that their deepest capacity to love another person must be suppressed or that God cannot approve of the nature of their love. Some suppose that only in being fractured can they be saved, that only in withdrawing from themselves can they commune with God. Not so! Why would God endow a person with a beautiful capacity to love another and then require him or her to fight this very gift? Remember that truth transcends culture and ignorance and fear.

Some others suppose that it is natural to have disgust for those who acknowledge or express love towards the same sex. They believe that only attractions towards the opposite sex are normal, and that other forms of love are illegitimate or unfulfilling. Some therefore suppose that it is their duty to denigrate homosexuality, to elevate themselves by demeaning others. Not so! Why would a loving, omniscient God ever sanction ignorance or arrogant judgment of others? Remember that we each have the remarkable capacity to reach beyond the limited understanding of our own individual experiences.

Note:
(1) This is the un-edited version of President Packer’s talk delivered at the LDS General Conference in October 2010. My transcription is taken from the video posted here. The talk was later edited for the printed version of the General Conference proceedings.

"Gender confusion"

LDS leaders and lay members use a lot of code words. A whole set of vocabulary has accrued around the Mormon experience: “ward”; “stake”; “Relief Society”; “temple worthy”; “celestial glory”; “member/non-member”; “active/less-active”; “the brethren”; “conference”; “worthy”; “in the covenant”….

One pair of terms that appears from time to time in Church-centered discussions of sexual morality is “gender confusion” and “gender disorientation”. The exact meaning of “gender confusion” as used by church leaders or members in any given instance can be quite elusive to me; it is unclear if it is given in reference to the transgender experience or in reference to sexual orientation. Or perhaps, it is given in reference to both. Or perhaps it is given in reference to a more general concern that Church leaders have over the blending of gender roles in family life or individual behavior.

Here are a few quotations:

•  “It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere.” - Elder Boyd K. Packer, April 2006 LDS General Conference Address.
•  “There are things that cannot be understood or taught or explained unless it is in terms of the plan of redemption. Unless you understand the basic plan … the unmarried, the abused, the handicapped, the abandoned, the addicted, the disappointed, those with gender disorientation, or the intellectuals will find no enduring comfort.” – Elder Boyd K. Packer, 2003 CES fireside talk
• “I have spent a significant portion of the last few years of my ministry pleading to give help to those who don’t practice [homosexuality] but who are struggling with the impressions and the feelings and the attractions and the gender confusion.” – Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, March 2006 interview with American Experience/Frontline documentary “The Mormons”

Using terms such as “gender confusion” in discussions of sexuality just creates, well, confusion. It may not be a tacit objective of Church leadership, but exacerbating confusion about sexual orientation keeps it unappealing, mysterious and dark. Perhaps a likely reason why such terms are used on occasion is that Church leaders and members are often too uncomfortable discussing anything having to do with sexuality in general, so using code words simplifies and sanitizes the discussion. Gay Mormons reading this may be reminded that the Church often preferentially uses the sanitized terms “same-gender attraction” and “same-sex attraction” in reference to homosexuality. I suspect, that like other things in Mormon culture (evolution and anthropology, free-masonry, and quirky or disturbing events in Church history) there can also be a tendency to avoid anything more than scratching the surface of controversial or complex topics.

I’m not a sociologist or reproductive biologist, but I’m going to try some clarification:

Biological sex. Sex – as a term of identity or classification, not reproduction – refers to the biological sex into which a person can be categorized. At the genetic level it refers to the type of sex chromosomes that a person has in each cell of the body. There are only two genetic configurations of biological sex, XX and XY, right? Wrong. In a small percentage of the human population, there are a few other chromosomal patterns (e.g., XXY) that can occur because of variation in how chromatids separate during meiosis. Aside from the genetic encoding of biological sex, people have reproductive organ systems and secondary sexual characteristics that usually correspond to the male or female biological sex. Like genetic variation, however, a certain percentage of people do not have distinctly male or female reproductive anatomy. Some people may be born with intermediary sex organs, for instance. So genetically and developmentally, most humans fall into a simple male/female dichotomy, but all do not.

Gender. The word gender is often used interchangeably with sex to refer to the two most common biological sexes in mammals: male and female. Another use of the word gender is in reference to a set of behavioral and identity attributes that are usually associated with a particular biological sex, but not as a synonym of biological sex. In other words, gender describes behaviors and personalities. It is thus in part a social construct; the ideas of what is feminine and what is masculine are more culturally determined than biologically immutable. An individual’s gender is an expression of a set of masculine or feminine traits. In a very general sense, masculinity corresponds with biological males and femininity with biological females. However, a couple of important lines of evidence support the idea that gender is as much social as it is inherently biological:

   (1) Over time the roles of men and women in families in western society have changed. At work and in the home, patterns of women’s and men’s behaviors and responsibilities are different today than they were several decades ago.  
   (2) Definitions of masculine and feminine roles, attributes, and behaviors vary from culture to culture. In the Judeo-Christian west, we often arrogantly think that our sociological patterns reflect fundamental human, even divine, optima (truth) and ignore the diversity of cultural expressions of things like gender.
   (3) Most individuals are a complex mixture of “masculine” and “feminine” traits. Even if there was some cosmic law that decreed that compassion, for example, was a solely “feminine” trait, or that assertiveness was a solely “masculine” trait, gender-wise most human beings would be a complex chimera of attributes.  Thus there would be all kinds of genders.

Sexual orientation.  Sexual orientation refers to the biological sex to which a person is attracted. Heterosexuals are primarily or exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, homosexuals are attracted primarily or exclusively to the same sex and bisexuals are attracted more or less to both sexes. Orientation often does not solely involve sexual attraction, but can include emotional and spiritual attraction as well. Asexuals are not very interested in sex, but may have heterosocial, homosocial or other attractions.

Sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with gender identity or gender attributes. True, a number of gay men for example, are more “feminine” with respect to certain behavioral attributes, but plenty of other homosexually-oriented men exhibit mostly traits that are usually associated with masculinity. I generally count myself as one of these latter types of gays (though my lack of interest in football and NASCAR races are two strikes against my masculinity). Some heterosexual males are more feminine, and some straight women are more masculine than others.  The flamboyant male homosexual may get a lot of media attention and be the nucleus of stereotype formation, but gay males represent a spectrum of personality types. A gay LDS blog writer discussed being both gay and generally masculine here.  Another, humorous, blog entry discusses the gender-sexuality confusion that exists to some degree in LDS culture here.

Sexual identity. Terms such as “straight”, “gay”, “lesbian”, and “bisexual” are identity labels that individuals choose to apply to themselves. Sexual identity is more reflective of sexual behaviors than sexual orientation. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are sometimes not the same. For instance, some gays live celibate lives or are married to a person of the opposite sex; these individuals, frequently for religious reasons, may self identify as straight even though their orientation remains homosexual. Closeted gays are likely to identify themselves as heterosexual even though inclinations, fantasies, etc. link their orientation clearly to homosexuality.

---

Unfortunately the Church seems to be very much in the dark about sexual orientation. I think this arises because the Church views sexuality though a single narrow lens – one informed principally by a modest number of passages about sexuality in an old text from an ancient middle eastern culture. The Church's perspective has also been informed by social developments in sexuality and American family life in the last several hundred years, but like other social issues, it seems to be at least a decade or two behind more mainstream perspectives. The Church adamantly insists that it does not bend to political or social pressures in matters of doctrine, but changes in Church policies like polygamy and extension of the priesthood to males of African ancestry, strongly suggest otherwise historically.

Older Mormon texts that treat homosexuality (e.g., President Spencer W. Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness) are contemptuous and contain misinformation. There is a real dearth of positive and scientifically-informed discussion of homosexuality in local Church classes and in more general settings such as General Conference. Homosexuality has been so marginalized and stigmatized in Church culture for so long that it can be a hostile and intimidating environment for homosexual Church members. These negative conditions are not universal, but they are pervasive enough to create generally unhealthy conditions for many out gay Latter-day Saints. LDS members who deny their sexuality or treat it as an undesirable affliction or temptation generally can manage to stay active members, but they internalize the dissonance between the doctrine and their orientation. There are a few gay members who have found ways to reconcile their non-heterosexual sexual orientation with continued activity in the Church. If such believers are homosexually active however, they are likely to only be able to do so as excommunicated members with limited Church privileges.

Discussions of homosexuality in the Church should incorporate sensitivity to the terminology that is used. This is not because all homosexuals demand political correctness. It is because gross misunderstanding of these terms reveals an underlying ignorance about important dimensions of the human experience such as gender identity and sexual orientation. Definitions of the terms given above can vary from group to group, but if they are seldom discussed in Church settings in the first place, ignorance about the nature of sexuality and the real experiences of gay people will continue.  Visceral disgust towards homosexuality may drive some member's rejection of homosexuality and gay persons, but ignorance is probably a more pervasive problem.

Radical changes in the Church’s position on homosexuality seem unlikely, at least in the near future. The Church’s doctrines about the family and morality are too entrenched in what it means to be Mormon that a radical shift in direction in this area would be an unacceptable earthquake that would rock the Church. But the Church’s emphasis on missionary work, and the fact that ultimately Church leadership is to some degree sensitive to the needs and views of its members (which needs and views are invariably influenced by the broader society in which its members live), suggest that modest changes in position with respect to homosexuality in the future are possible. At a very minimum, the other important doctrines of Mormonism – namely, the love of Christ – demand that members and the leadership take a more tolerant and inclusive approach to gay people. Mormon families casting out gay children is shameful. Mormon parents refusing to meet the gay partners of gay children is petty and damaging. Disparaging comments about homosexuality in the halls of Church buildings are unacceptable.  Thankfully Church culture is making some progress, even if as one friend discussed, the pace of progress seems glacial.

Positives of the LDS Church

I have been distancing myself from LDS doctrine for several years now.  This originated from concerns that had more to do with such things loss of faith in Mormon cosmology and the conflict between generally accepted scientific data and church teachings than anything to do with homosexuality.  That can of worms came later.

Because I have committed substantial fractions of my time, income and energy to Church activities for many years, my connection with the Church will always have an effect on my life going forward, no matter my future level of belief or activity. In an honest assessment of what the Church means to me currently, it is important for me to remember the many positive aspects of the doctrine and social structure of Mormonism.  Because distancing oneself from the Church can run concurrent with a degree of disillusionment, it is probably a natural reaction for a withdrawing member to focus for some time principally on the problems that one now feels were whitewashed during all of those years of faithfulness.  I am still sort of in that phase.  However, neglect of the good in the Church would be an oversimplification too.  Here are some positives that I find in LDS doctrine and culture:

1. There is a genuine and deep well of love and service in the hearts of many Latter-day Saints.  I have met countless wonderful individuals through my affiliation with the Church. In fact, it was the example of acquaintances in high school that led me to investigate the Church in the first place and move towards the decision to be baptized.  The Church truly attracts wonderful people to its congregations and helps improve the lives of its members.

2. Many core doctrines of the Church represent foundational principles that help individuals and societies solve problems, find meaning in life, and work towards a common good.  These include charity, forgiveness, hard work, sacrifice, cooperation and service.  These principles have been impressed strongly on my mind and they are important components of my spirituality.  They are the essence of the life that Christ lived and they cut across doctrinal and historical differences.

3. With its emphasis on morality, the Church indirectly promotes the more basic idea that human happiness derives in large part from believing that one’s conscience is in harmony with a higher truth.  The specifics of LDS morality may be debatable from scientific, historical or social perspectives, but I think that the general idea that a fulfilling life necessitates a good conscience is a valuable template for making decisions throughout life.

4. The Church promotes self-discipline and self-improvement.  These are keys to finding personal happiness and improving our ability to contribute to society.  Although LDS approaches to these topics may not be the most balanced at times (and some members turn these elevating principles into self-defeating perfectionism), society will truly be better off if we each have a genuine desire to improve and grow each day.

5. Through the Word of Wisdom and other teachings, the Church teaches that the body is sacred and that maximizing health is important for personal happiness and the ability to serve others.

6. LDS teachings emphasis self-worth.  This is very important in today’s world where selfishness, self indulgence, competition and power can be emphasized to destructive degrees.

7. LDS doctrine places great emphasis on the family.  While the LDS conception of family is too narrowly construed, and some Church members appear to place allegiance to the Church above charity for God’s children (instances of LDS parents alienating gay children are an excellent example), I believe that it is true that one of the most rewarding aspects of life is the close relationships that we forge with others.

The Church is successful as an organization because it promotes a cohesive social structure filled with many positive teachings.  As a good friend once explained, it is a paradigm for making sense of the world that works on many levels for its members.  When that paradigm (or model) is stretched to more extreme positions, when the Church fails to support and embrace those perceived as being on the “fringes” of Mormon culture, or when faith and obedience overpower reason and productive inquiry, it will proportionally lose its power over the hearts of its members.

Marriage, gays and the Mormon Church: a tangled relationship

The Church and my marriage have a tangled relationship. I joined the Church shortly after high school.  I had a number of concerns about the doctrine, but I put those aside mostly during my first year following baptism. I returned from a mission and had a fairly strong testimony for the next several years.  Fundamentally, if I had not accepted Church teachings to the degree that I did in my early 20s, I may not have even seriously considered marriage. During this period, I wanted close relationships with others, but that effort was principally focused on close friendships with guys. There were also some female friendships as well.  I am generally comfortable around women and have formed some close relationships with females, but it has always been difficult to summon a profound interest in what they are doing and who they are. College and graduate school were a big part of life back then too.

The pressure to find an eternal companion during my mid-20s came from two sources: (1) Church doctrine and pressure from Church leaders (e.g., local leaders encouraging marriage during Sunday meetings) and (2) the fact that many of my close friends and members of my single’s congregation were either married or were actively pursuing that end.  Because this was a period of life were I was very much committed to the Church (and because I tend to be accomplishment-driven), much of my thought was channeled into meeting Church expectations and going along with the program of a typical Mormon male’s life: temple, mission, marriage, kids, and career. I knew something about my sexual inclinations in my mid 20s, but living life as a gay man with a gay partner was something I knew nothing about, so it was never an option in my mind at that stage of life.  I also didn’t want to be left behind as all of my friends began to marry.

So, I found a sweet, wonderful woman and got married.  Did I marry just anyone?  Definitely not.  I married a person with whom I had already formed a close friendship and with whom I was very comfortable on a personal level.  I was attracted to my wife spiritually and socially too.  Physical attraction was not strongly present, but neither was it completely lacking.  I sought out spiritual confirmation of my decision and marriage to this person felt right at the time.  It is interesting to think that perhaps my wife is the only woman I could have or could ever marry.

Today I find myself with a conscience much less sensitive to the pressure of the Church’s programmatic expectations. I have learned to let go of the guilt of disbelief and non-performance. That guilt did not serve to bring me happiness, though the things that I did in response to the guilt may still have brought satisfaction to me and others. Replacing guilt with a more beneficial motivation such as love would be a wonderful way to stay an active and productive member of the Church, but I still lack belief in so much of the doctrine, that I don’t think being too involved in the Church program is going to work for me presently.

If I disentangle the Church from my marriage, what happens? 

First, I think that some of the meta-physical motivations to remain married disappear for me.  For example, I don’t believe that marriage to a woman is required for either happiness here on earth or final admission to God’s presence.  I don’t believe in the extreme anthropomorphic conception of God prevalent in Mormon doctrine that posits the eternal nature of gender and a heavenly social organization that parallels the family structure of humankind.  Rather, as a gay man, I believe I have the potential to form a deep and meaningful union with a man should that opportunity be a part of my future.  That union has the potential to be every bit as edifying as the marriage between a straight man and woman.  Contrary to the narrow interpretation of happiness promoted by the Church, I am now open to the idea that a multiplicity of paths exist that can bring fulfillment to human beings.  For most gay individuals, maximum happiness in human relationships will probably involve intimate relationships with a person of the same sex.

Second, as long as we stay married, my wife and I can move beyond the Church’s heavy-handed role in defining the structure and nature of our relationship. As a mixed orientation couple, we do not have a typical marriage anyway.  Trying to stuff our relationship into the mold that works for some heterosexual couples is likely to bring unnecessary hardship.  For as long as our relationship remains a marriage (I worded that deliberately because I think we will always have a close relationship whether we are formally married or not), we need to make it our own. It needs to fit our needs and our limitations.  As I recall the spirit of the sealing ordinance, it appears that a temple marriage is really supposed to be three way relationship between two mortal partners and God.  Unfortunately, the Church inserts itself as a fourth-party, overseeing and micromanaging the three partners in the relationship.  I don’t really like that; I wonder if God is a little suspicious of the arrangement too.

Finally, if my wife and I decide to separate, we can move beyond the paradigm of failure that might be promulgated by some Church members.  In other words, free from the doctrine of a man-woman union as the only path to God, I would not be obligated to view our marriage as a failure because it did not last our entire mortal lives. As I mentioned above, I think that my wife and I will always have a special relationship.  It is possible that we may grow even closer in some ways as we decide to look for romance elsewhere but remain close friends and partners in raising our wonderful children.  We are totally in control of our reactions to future change, so we can define how successful and happy a potential separation might be.

In all of these thoughts about marriage, a key question remains: are my spiritual impressions to marry in my 20s (when I was in near complete ignorance of homosexuality) going to be necessarily the same kind of inspiration for me going forward?  I think that it is completely within the realm of possibilities that my spiritual promptings to marry my wife were valid earlier in life, but that my future may yet involve another path. I am changing and growing, learning and having new experiences.  And because I can only know the mind of God through my own opaque filters of limited experience and personal weakness, I can only obtain spiritual direction to the degree that I am prepared for the answers.