Pants and pink boxers

Mormon civil wars are not common, but there are some rumblings from time to time over history or doctrine that can enflame passions. The events of the last week – centered on pants – have generated a little more than the usual excitement. What happened? About a week ago, several LDS women organized a Facebook event inviting women to wear pants to Sunday services as a statement about gender inequalities in LDS culture. Supportive men were invited to participate by wearing purple shirts or ties to church.

By about midweek, roughly 1500 people had joined the event – a sizeable number, but clearly one that represents only a very small percentage of church membership. Within short order, it appeared, opposition and disapproval bombarded the original Facebook site. Comments included statements that the event was silly or juvenile, or that women didn’t need to try to be like men, or that the type of clothing a sister wore to church didn’t matter in the eyes of Jesus. Some of these comments had received thousands of “likes”. In fact, I recall seeing the “like” count tick up quite rapidly as the page was automatically updated every few seconds. Clearly, a backlash was in the making.

Valid debate aside, things also got stranger and uglier. In a spirit of shocking vulgarity, one of the comments left by an antagonist on the original page advocated lethal violence against all “minority activists”. Then, about mid week, the original Facebook page that advertised the event disappeared. Some speculate that the page was bombarded with so many complaints that it was taken down. If so, this was an ironic outcome since the pants advocacy was really fundamentally about having a greater voice in Mormonism. Later, I learned from an on-line discussion (though this would be impossible for someone like me to verify) that a bishopric in Colorado held an emergency meeting in which it was determined that a list of women wearing pants should be assembled so that “worthiness interviews” could be conducted. Such a tactic, if true, sounds closer to totalitarian intimidation than anything Christian leadership should be involved in. Apparently pants had become a real pain in the ass for some in conservative Mormonism.

Now briefly on the matter of pants, the LDS Church currently has no set rules on what women can and cannot wear to church, except that members should make an effort to be respectful and reverent. Those are the official rules. Sometimes however, because of strong social expectations that tend to permeate Mormonism, something as innocuous as pants versus dresses can become a big issue for some Latter-day Saints. The doctrine and the culture can get mixed up in the minds of members such that things like taking the sacrament (communion) with the proper hand (righties only), and the color of men’s shirts when they officiate in priesthood functions (white is respectful), and the kinds of language approved for prayer ('thee' and 'thine' are in; 'your' and 'yours' are out) take on a life of their own. Those cultural practices become quasi-doctrine and if a member strays from them, they might get a visual or vocal pat-down from someone in their local congregation.

With these details behind us, why the orthodox backlash? I can only speculate, but at least I can use history and collective personal experiences to guide those speculations. First, Latter-day Saint culture is very uncomfortable with dissent and criticism. This derives from some key doctrine: Mormons are taught that the Church is perfect and that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth. There is also a belief that the LDS Prophet, though human, teaches infallible doctrine, at least in settings like general conference. The cultural manifestation of this belief is that a fair amount of adulation goes on. Ordinary church members praise local leaders such as bishops and stake presidents, and local leaders revere the Apostles, and the Apostles bear public testimony of the Prophet and so forth. The corollary to this bottom-up reverence is that Mormon authority flows downward. Apostles are called by the Prophet, so they should be respected; stake presidents are appointed by general authorities, so they should be followed; other local leaders are called under the inspiration received by stake presidents, so they should be sustained; and so forth. This is all well and good if all of these men are really God’s servants and really teach nothing but truth.

Criticism doesn’t sit well with any of this. To criticize Church leadership at any level is to directly challenge their authority to act or speak in the name of God. More subtly, to fail to conform to specific Mormon practices (some rooted in official doctrine, others rooted more in culture as we’ve discussed above), shows a lack of faith in the divine calling of Church leaders or a lazy or disrespectful attitude. Constructive criticism or dissent has little role in this more orthodox version of Mormonism because God’s church is already reflective of God’s will and if changes were to be needed, they would happen through revelation through appointed leadership channels.

A second reason for the conservative backlash of the last week may stem from the very rigid views that orthodox Mormonism has about gender roles. This gets beyond pants and more to the heart of why some women organized the Sunday event in the first place. Gender is a really big topic in Mormonism touching everything from polygamy to working versus stay-at-home moms to homosexuality. In the case of pants, some of the backlash may have been a rejection of the notion that women do not already have all of the rights, privileges, and opportunities that they could ever need within Mormonism. True, I suspect that many women are perfectly happy in the roles and opportunities that are currently provided for them in the culture and doctrine of the church. But some are not. Some women may want greater leadership opportunities (currently women can only lead other women or children, never men). Some women may want greater validation if they choose to have a career and be a mother. Some women may want priesthood authority, just as the men have. A very enlightening perspective on some of the inequalities that women can face in Mormonism was put together on this website. Among the listed items are the lack of examples of women in scripture, the paucity of voices of women in church leadership meetings and general conference, and the vulnerable position that women in settings like confession and church discipline that are presided over only by men.

The final reason I’ll venture for this orthodox backlash against pants (again, very speculative on my part) may be due to Mitt Romney. Huh? Here is the line of reasoning: Mormons have historically been a very misunderstood and persecuted group of people. The early Saints were driven from settlements in Illinois, Missouri and Ohio and eventually settled in the barren Salt Lake Valley where they had the benefit of physical distance from hostile citizens. Shortly after settling in Utah however, the persecution ramped up again. This time antagonism came from the government, but now in connection with polygamy. A more peaceful balance between Mormonism and the rest of the world really wasn’t achieved until the 20th century, but even today Mormon doctrine is still regarded as strange by many people and many still know little about the church. So in part Mormon identity has become connected to the concept of being besieged and persecuted because of the long tradition of hostility directed towards the faith. Then arrives Mitt Romney recently in American politics, and Latter-day Saints finally have an unprecedented opportunity for acceptance. But, dashing the hopes of many Latter-day Saints, he is defeated in the presidential election. So putting these loose pieces together, the hypothesis is something like this: revolutionary doctrine -> historical persecution -> defensiveness -> a strong ethos of inter-group loyalty -> sour grapes about Mitt Romney + (dissent = bad) -> not happy with women in pants.

…

Given that I have a little bit of a rebellious streak, it was natural that I wanted to participate in pants-to-Church Sunday, even though I have not really attended Church very much since coming out as gay. I wasn’t brave enough nor warm blooded enough to go without pants, nor did I have a purple tie or shirt, so a blue shirt and pink tie had to suffice.

Well, it turned out that the whole event was a non-event in the sacrament meeting that I visited yesterday. Without staring down the congregation too much, I could discern only one sister in pants, and perhaps a single purple tie out of the corner of my eye. In my moderately-sized fairly sleepy town with several Mormon congregations, there was no revolution in the making. Some of the most noteworthy things during the meeting were the return missionary giving a talk while seated (he started feeling light-headed early on) and the billowing cumulous cloud of curly hair atop the young man that came by to offer me the sacrament. Oh, and there were my pink boxers, hidden evidence that I’m not quite the Mormon I used to be.

There is a degree of solidarity among the different groups that seek a greater voice and flexibility in Mormonism, whether they are academics, feminists, or gays. And because they share concerns about Mormon rigidity over gender roles, discontented women in the Church and disaffected LGBT Mormons share a common bond. Both groups tend to suffer from the insensitivity that bleeds into LDS culture from time to time, whether that is done in outright antagonism or because of the less insidious, but no less problematic, matter of ignorance. Some LDS women and gays are discontent because they feel that Mormonism is antagonistic towards their individuality. They do not exactly fit into the ideal family or pre-approved gender expectations.

Yet the dynamics of struggle in the church also differ for disaffected women and gays. For women, biological sex and gender are something that cannot be hidden, so a woman can constantly be a potential victim of scrutiny by others. If her degree of femininity is “lacking”, or if her life choices are somewhat different from the expected norm, she may be immediately open to criticism, even (? especially) from other women. However, the roles of women as mothers and wives are revered in LDS doctrine and culture, so at least her fundamental value as a human being is reaffirmed throughout Mormonism. For some women who tend to gravitate towards less “traditional” paths, the price of that affirmation may seem to be conformity to other’s expectations.

Human sexuality on the other hand is generally a very private matter and is often not discernable in a public setting. While the invisibility of sexual orientation can be a refuge for LGBT people determined to stay in the closet, it has also meant that gay issues have long been neglected in the Church. Issues that are neglected tend to only progress very slowly. Insensitive or even hateful comments may come from fellow Saints who have no idea that their words are being heard by LGBT people right next to them. The silence of sexuality tends to turn inward into cancerous emotions that suggest things such as: God does not love you; you are unworthy because you cannot change these attractions; you need to hide who you are so that no one ever knows this vile secret you carry. When Church members associate homosexuality with words like ‘unnatural’ or ‘perverse’, even the sense of worth of a gay person’s life can be questioned.

I will never know the struggles that women have faced or continue to face in a world that doesn’t always recognize their equality. As a man I can choose a career or fatherhood or both with little criticism from broader society. But as a gay person, I did not choose the sexuality that I have. It comes with its own set of challenges and limitations. A woman’s sex is constantly visible, like her pants at Church, subject to discussion and debate or maybe a smile from another person that sees beyond notions of set roles and responsibilities. My sexuality is largely invisible, like my pink boxers, but it is as close to my true self as all my other core attributes. Women in pants and men in pink boxers. Can’t the Church celebrate all of us?

Decisions Decisions

Decision making isn’t my specialty. And unfortunately, I am in a season of life where there are some pretty important decisions to be made – the future of my marriage, employment, and where I will live. There is a lot that is out of my hands too. For instance, on the career front I can choose where I will apply, but the available positions and the eventual offers or rejections are beyond my control.

This is definitely a season of uncertainty for me. I have mixed feelings about uncertainty. On the one hand, uncertainty enables possibility. And possibility is the foundation for optimism about the future and a desire to work hard to achieve goals in life. Also, pleasant surprises come because of possibility. On the other hand, I am a scientist. I like data, and the more information the better. Maybe I have this deep seated (if naïve) notion that if I have enough information, I’ll know what to do. But scientists never have enough data…

Uncertainty is built into life. But, my discomfort now is that virtually everything about my future is uncertain – my next job, my wife’s job, the duration of my marriage, where I will live, where my wife and kids will live, and if I divorce, whether I will find a gay relationship that is mutually edifying for me and my partner. It has been sort of overwhelming lately. Big decisions like these tend to put us on certain trajectories in life. While sometimes those trajectories are reversible (finding a new home for instance), others like having children are essentially permanent. I’d like to make good decisions on these important issues.

I’m not sure how much I rely on spiritual mechanisms to help me make important decisions. Is intuition, prayer or consultation of holy texts helpful? I tend to be very skeptical of religious mechanisms now, though less so about broader concepts of spirituality. I also know that no amount of data can produce a roadmap for my life. I think my best foundation currently is simple principles like love, hard work, cooperation and optimism.

I’ve had a good life. My path so far has been unexpected, but it has been one of learning and opportunity, success and failure. The second half of my life may be quite different from the first half. But I hope there will be some common themes: learning, love, and pleasant surprises. Someone very close to me has encouraged me twice recently with the words, “things will work out”. I hope that is true.

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.

Conversations about the future

…some thoughts recorded over the last two months or so which will be edited eternally if they are not posted…

It has been several months now since I have told family members and a number of close friends that I am gay; a few have known for a little longer. I think that I am more eager than my friends to bring up questions about the future of my marriage and family in these conversations. Most friends have thus far shied away from directly offering opinions (if they have them at all). But at certain times I feel the need for feedback, for information and perspective that would help me map the emotional and relationship terrain ahead. Of course I don’t expect anyone to have any solid answers for me. How could anyone possibly be able to figure out all of this out, especially when it has not been directly experienced?

A number of close friends have been pretty direct in private conversations with my wife, however. She is an amazing person who has garnered deep respect from people that know her. One close friend of my wife who has read this blog wondered a while ago why I have not expressed remorse about the difficult situation that I have put her in by marrying her in the first place.

It is true that I have said very little even in private conversation, but I am saddened that our situation is so difficult on my wife. I’ve had some deep emotional experiences thinking about the pain that I have put her through and the uncertainty that she now feels. I’ve made life difficult for her despite her generous protestations that I have been a good husband over the years. Over the course of our marriage I’ve given her the best I am able to offer: honesty, hard work, apologies, adventures, some laughter, and years of setting aside my natural romantic and sexual interests. On the other hand, I’ve not given her things that are really hard for me to offer: complete emotional dedication, marital passion, and complete sublimation of my sexual identity. I truly don’t want her to suffer; one of my guiding spiritual values is to avoid harming others. I’m willing to incur difficulties for others; I am often willing to pull more than my fair share in a relationship.

I truly wish that I had had the courage to confront my sexuality in a more serious way before we were married. I think I did my best at the time. At that time the Church path was such an omnipresent structuring force in my life, that I don’t know how I could have realistically accepted that life might have options for me other than heterosexual marriage or life-long celibacy. Today I think a more courageous decision would have been to forgo heterosexual marriage as a future option for myself. But the missing pieces of cognition at that point in my life were a much deeper understanding of my sexuality, an understanding that faith, time or hard work truly wouldn’t be able to change my sexuality, and a belief that I really could be happy in a same-sex relationship. Those critical points, though so much more transparent to me today, run contrary to two fundamental tenets of the Church that are taught ad nauseam: if you have enough faith anything is possible, and if you are obedient to the commandments, you will be blessed. Steeped in these beliefs, to accept homosexuality was to give in to failure. Church leaders put significant pressure on single guys to get married and not delay starting a family. Some gay Mormons emerge from this pressure cooker choosing a life of celibacy, but I don’t think I ever felt that was going to work for me.

There are times when the spiritual ideal of ‘no harm’ comes in direct conflict with other very important facets of life. How does one prioritize these values and needs? Sexuality and the broader issue of attraction are so integral to the expression of individuality that they cannot be ignored or minimized without substantial effects on the development and well being of a person. Sacrifice is an integral component of deep relationships, but should there be limits? Is it healthy for a marriage to be a relationship where sacrifice is the principal pillar on which it stands?

When a satisfactory compromise of conflicting identities and divergent needs can be found in a mixed orientation marriage, a workable relationship may emerge for both spouses. The usual optimal manifestation of sacrifice in a relationship involves both partners giving some and taking some, but both finding that growth in the relationship compensates for anything that was given up. It is difficult to think of such a compromise when matters of identity and love and self-esteem are involved. Can the gay spouse choose to be half gay or to be half married? Does the straight spouse want or deserve half a companion? Those kinds of options don’t really make much sense in the traditional conception of marriage and monogamous relationships.

It cannot be easy to be a straight spouse married to a gay person. Does the straight spouse doubt her attractiveness, her past decisions, her future dreams, her identity? Does she blame herself for the complex circumstances of a mixed-orientation marriage? I can protest that I am the one with the problem, that our troubles with intimacy are solely due to me, but that does not remove the emotional difficulty that my wife experiences. She is not the source of our challenges, but she a full participant in their consequences. We have both been strongly influenced by a Church culture that emphasizes that faith and obedience can solve anything. But, when faith and hard work fail to heal something that is not broken – when faith and hard work are useful tools applied to the wrong problem – disappointment and frustration can set in.

As we come to a place of greater comprehension about my identity and greater honesty in our relationship, we come to a crossroads as well. Like a scientist with new data, the old ideas should be reassessed. We have to ask of our relationship: what are we fighting for or working towards now? Are we fighting for what is best for us? Are we going to choose one valid existence over another? Are we working to honor someone else’s hopes and dreams for us? Are we fighting mainly for a concept?

Where do we walk from here on out? At some point final decisions will be made and we will move forward. It is not realistic to think that we’ll stay on the fence forever; that is not an outcome that will be emotionally healthy for either of us. While some may disagree with the decisions we will eventually make, I have confidence that those who genuinely care for us and who invest the time to understand the complexity of our situation will wisely leave judgments to us. Coming out involves risks with unforeseen consequences. The world may not yet be sympathetic enough to the gay experience to forgive a gay married man for not getting things right the first time around.