Invictus Pilgrim Memoir: Praying the Gay Away

This is a continuation of the post from the day before yesterday. On 2 December 2010, I wrote a blog post about entries from my journal during the months leading up to my decision to marry my wife.

************

“When I came into the Church [one journal entry read], I thought for a long time that my very nature had changed by accepting the Gospel. I had convinced myself that I was really a great guy and everyone around me fed those feelings. I was such a “special,” “special” “golden” convert. I built myself up to the point where I felt that I was indeed special … I thought I couldn’t fall because my nature is good.  Well, I found out that I can fall …”

I thought that joining the Church would give me a highway out of homo hell. I basked in the love and acceptance I was given as a new convert and truly believed that I was a “golden boy” who would “go far” in the Church. Then, I got out on my mission and started hitting some pretty monumental gay speed bumps. By the end of it, I knew that I was still gay; or in my own words, I was “fallen” (and I didn’t even get to do anything).

I wrestled with what I should do about marrying this woman. On the one hand, I felt like marriage would be a mistake; on the other, I thought maybe this was how God was going to “cure” me, i.e., through the love of a good woman and my own dedication to following the “priesthood path.” In other words, “faith precedes the miracle,” and I would “receive no witness until after the trial of my faith.” 

“I am passing through hell, or so it feels like at times. I have never come so close to feeling that everything could be lost. I’m so very, very confused … The choices facing me are: (1) abandon the standards I have strived to maintain for almost three years, leading to a life of inactivity and possible excommunication, or (2) marry [my wife], or (3) ? … The time has come for me to accept my past and who I am. If I want to stay in the Church, then I’m going to have to make some compromises. I do want to stay in the church. I want to feel the power of the Atonement change my nature – but I know it can rarely be done overnight.”

You will note that I was considering life as a gay man. Again, I emphasized my need to accept the fact that I was (and always had been) attracted to men, but not so that I could affirm my gayness but as a prerequisite to “feel[ing] the power of the Atonement [as it] change[d] my nature.” 

In other words, I had swallowed the Church’s line: homosexuality was a choice, and I was being confronted with a choice. I could choose to accept the fact that I was gay, then “apply the Atonement” so that I could be changed/cleansed of this affliction; or I could choose to accept the fact that I was gay and choose to not put forth the effort to change, i.e., "give in" and live life as a gay man. Or I could try to asphyxiate my gayness and tell myself that I merely experienced an attraction to men which could be overcome through marriage and commitment to the priesthood path.

I opted for faith and asphyxiation.
__________________

(Note: I'm working on writing a memoir about the year I came out. In order to help me stay on task, I've decided to publish this ongoing series of posts based on the blog - entitled "Invictus Pilgrim" - that I kept during that year.)

Mixed-Orientation Marriages: Falling Away

I keep noticing that one post I did a year ago entitled A Callous Dumbing Down of Mixed-Orientation Marriages keeps getting a lot of page views every month. Because of this, I am republishing a post that was originally posted on my Invictus Pilgrim blog (now closed) in hopes that it may benefit someone.

***********

James is a gay Mormon man in a mixed-orientation marriage who recently wrote to me. What follows is part of James’ story. You will see that I have asked for input from readers. Please reach out to James through your comments. He could use our support.

“I am in my early 40’s, and my story is typical of others I have read about.  As you blogged this week in behalf of "Dave", I found myself reading the responses with great anticipation to finding the answer to my identical questions.  I must say that I found quite a bit of clarity within the responses; however, I'm still longing for someone to tell me that it will all be ok and that I will find favor with God pursuing a gay lifestyle.”

Question to Readers: I would like to invite readers to share comments and their own experiences of how (a) they came to a point where they received assurance that God is “ok” with their gayness or (b) they came to a point where they decided they neither wanted or needed divine “approval” of their gay identity.

“I, like many of your readers, grew up knowing that I was different. I wanted to be like the other guys who were so masculine and athletic but I always fell short. I wanted to be attracted to women but it just didn't happen. I, too, went on a mission after bargaining with the Lord that I would give him my very best for two years in order to be freed from the clutches of my gayness. I worked my ass off and the day I left my mission, I knew it would never go away. What a ginormous letdown.”

Question to Readers:  Did anyone else go on a mission with similar feelings, hoping that the mission experience would get ride of same-sex attraction? What was your experience?

“I continued to keep my dark little secret, no one knew, but plenty of people speculated. I attended BYU under the assumption that living in that controlled environment would help my situation. It didn't, it made it worse. I dated woman after woman, hoping to find someone who, if she found out my deep dark secret, would have some level of compassion and understanding.

“I never told my soon-to-be wife about my attraction to men. I had the misguided belief that for this marriage to work I had to jump in, feet first and NEVER look back. 

Question to Readers:  I certainly had the same approach to marriage, believing that I had to give it my all, including my Self, in order for me to experience “success”, i.e., in spite of my gayness.  Can anyone else relate/share their experience?

“The woman I married was intellectual, stunningly beautiful, full of optimism and a very faithful Mormon. Her father taught her to be loving and non-judgmental. At the time I thought it was a perfect fit, especially if I ended up coming out of the closet: I figured that if she ever did find out about the real me, there would be some level of understanding and she would be successful at finding someone else. I never told her about my attraction to men.  I deceived her and everyone else, including myself, all under the premise that if I followed the prophet, I wouldn't be led astray. What a crock!

“About three years ago, a perfect storm formed and I just couldn't resist my natural urges anymore. I indulged in an unforgettable affair with an unforgettable man. We fell in love. He, too, was married but gay.  e sought opportunities to spend time together, fell in love and shared intimacy in a way neither of us had ever experienced. 

“Eventually, my wife discovered the affair and the identity of my lover. She threatened to expose him to his wife if he ever contacted me again, and that was the end. She then went to our bishop and our stake president and, not content to stop there, told her parents and her siblings and, for good measure, not one but two general authorities. The closet door was flung wide open. There I stood, naked, vulnerable, exposed and very, very frightened while feeling the enormous loss of losing the precious love I had discovered! 

“For her part, my wife was crushed, disappointed and heartbroken. She thought that the “problem” was with her and that she had driven me to have a gay affair. She begged me to stay for various reasons, none of them particularly healthy. We seriously considered divorce; however, primarily for the sake of our children, for financial reasons and, particularly in the case of my wife, for the sake of appearances in our conservative, close-knit Mormon community, we decided to stay together.

“Two years later, I continue to live a double life filled with inauthenticity and deceit - knowing that I am gay but pretending to be something I’m not - in order to protect those around me from the pain, shame and disappointment that would come from me leaving the marriage. As a result, I have dealt with extreme emotional despair including depression, raging anger, fear, hopelessness, more anger, injustice, betrayal by God, betrayal by the church, anxiety. . . . and so on. I even considered driving my car under a semi truck on the freeway in order to escape the bone crushing pressure and pain.  But, as I thought of my children, I reconsidered and decided to stick around.

“Then there is the letting go of a testimony and tradition of the LDS church. As a result of my wife's anger and her uncovering my secret, I was disfellowshipped from the church and remain so.  I have worked a life time to understand and embrace even when it flies in the face of all conscious reasoning and logic.  I was dedicated to the church in every way, one of its finest members by way of loyalty and service.  My testimony of the “church” is completely destroyed.  I have a testimony in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it relates to . . . well, Jesus Christ; however, anything institutional I just don’t buy into anymore.  How can something that is supposed to be so right be so corrupting and wrong? 

“I feel like this situation is impossible and that there is no good resolution. There are other problems in our marriage that have contributed to an almost hopeless situation. On some days I feel like giving up. Honestly, I am not living my life day by day anymore; I am now hour by hour. I have lost everything - career, homes, businesses, self confidence, self actualization. The only thing I have going for me right now is my family. On the one hand, I cannot bear to change my circumstances any more than they already are or are about to become. On the other hand, both my wife and I are miserable." 

Question to Readers:  Have any of you come to the point where you knew you couldn’t go on “the way you weren’t” and, though seemingly insane and impossible, stepped or fallen through the looking glass into a world where your sexuality was finally accepted as a reality?

“During a recent, sleepless night, I lied in my bed, staring into the dark, contemplating how my life has fallen apart. Then the thought came to my mind. . . ‘your life isn't falling apart, it's falling away.’ Since that time, I have pondered over these words that came to me, and I have thought of the quote by Anais Nin:

“And the time came when the risk to remain tight in a bud

was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.”

“So … here's to new beginnings … to taking that step off the edge into the abyss.  To finding meaning among all the devastation …”

****************

In a subsequent post, I will publish comments that were made to this post. I also encourage any who so desire to answer my questions anew by leaving a comment.

It Took a Woman

It took a woman to acknowledge that homosexuals are human.

There is so, so, so much that could be written about what leaders of the Mormon Church said during the past week about "religious freedom" and (oh yeah, we almost forgot) non-discrimination toward LGBT people. Most of that - at least by me - would be negative. But I'm not going to go there ... much.

The thing that most impressed me about all that has happened in the past week was that it took a woman - Neill Marriott, 2nd Counselor in the General Young Women's Presidency and a member of the Church's Public Affairs Committee - to say what none of the three apostles who were involved could or did say: gay people are real and they have been wronged:

"[The gay rights] movement arose after centuries of ridicule, persecution and even violence against homosexuals. Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person’s sexual orientation."  

Two sentences. Thank you, Sister Marriott, for saying what the men couldn't (or wouldn't) apparently say. Though it is only two sentences in a sea of moralizing, at least you let us into the room. 

Of Essays, 14-Year-Olds, Gays and Revisionism

The LDS Church recently published another anonymously-written essay on its website about Joseph Smith's marriages to girls, currently-married women and other females. The New York Times even ran a front-page (above the fold) story about it. I, along with many other Mormons who tend to be more well-read in Mormon history, was not surprised by anything in the essay. I already knew about it. But it was interesting to read the (few) comments I browsed through in various places in reaction to this publication.

Here, too, I wasn't surprised. That doesn't mean, however, that I was not dismayed and even a bit angry. Why? Because of comments left by people - a lot of whom seemed to be younger - that this was no surprise to them, that they had been taught all this in seminary (wrong) and that it doesn't make any difference. In other words, it's ancient history; move on.

The ignorance of these people is astonishing. And that's what it is: ignorance ... combined with arrogance and willful blindness. Oh, and did I mention revisionism?

I don't really follow Mormon issues all that closely anymore, but what I read reminded me of something that was (and to an extent still is) close to my heart. What is that? The revisionism that has taken place within the Mormon community (and hierarchy) - even within the gay Mormon community - concerning the Church's historic stance on homosexuality.

In this regard, I'd like to republish below a piece I wrote in August of 2012, originally entitled "Apologetics vs. Apology," that addressed this subject.

********************

“There hasn’t been a major change in doctrine like some people suggest.”

~ Joshua Johanson

Speaking at the recent [8/2012] FAIR conference concerning same-sex attraction

Joshua Johanson is a youngish Mormon who is married to a woman but admits – publicly and loudly – that he “has” “same-sex attraction” (SSA).  A couple of days ago, he presented at the annual conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) held in the Salt Lake area.  

There is much that could be written about Johanson’s remarks, but I wish to focus on the sentence quoted above and some comments along the same line that Johanson left on a post I published on Main Street Plaza (MSP) over a year ago.

The MSP post generated over 160 comments, many written by Johanson (“An Inner Light”).  Again, there is much that could be written about all that he and others expressed on a number of issues relating to Mormonism and homosexuality, but I want to focus in this post on only one:  Johanson’s revisionist view of Mormon doctrine concerning homosexuality.   

In typical apologist fashion, Johanson goes through an extensive number of rhetorical gyrations in the numerous comments he left on the post (and in his FAIR presentation) in order to advance the position that Church leaders have never condemned homosexuality per se, only the practice of engaging in lustful homosexual sex acts.  He argued that Elder Packer’s infamous speeches in the late 70’s (as well as his October 2010 address) were misinterpreted by the men and women who heard and read his remarks.  He does this to prove (mainly to himself) that the Church’s position on homosexuality has never changed; it was just misunderstood.

Though I don’t doubt Johanson’s sincerity, I took strong exception to his position, because to me it was revisionism, plain and simple.  I summarized my thoughts in the following comment:

"I’m sorry [Peculiar Light], but I have felt a growing, very strong reaction to your comments, which have the effect of minimizing what for generations of Mormon men were deeply significant statements and teachings – teachings that altered their lives; teachings which conveyed that to have same sex attractions was sinful, dirty and (to use Packer’s recent phrase) “impure and unnatural.” I know – I lived through that era. I was there. 

"So to read statements such as yours, it’s the height of apologetics: whitewashing. Denial of what really happened; what was really said. It’s deeply disturbing. Do you think that BYU conducted those electric shock therapy sessions because only homosexual *acts* were viewed as wrong? No! They conducted those sessions to try to condition responses to erotic male images. They were trying to kill same-sex attraction in their victims.  

"To advance a theory now that the Church didn’t really teach what it did in fact teach, that it was all semantics, minimizes the trauma that countless men went through and are still feeling the effects of. It relieves the Church of responsibility for what it did, and it relieves the modern thinking member of the Church of responsibility for contemplating WHY the “doctrine” has changed so significantly over the past few decades …”

Apologetics vs. apology …

A couple of months ago, I received an e-mail from a guy I know who is about my age, is married (to a woman) and is gay. We have corresponded for well over a year.  By way of background, he was raised in the Church, but knew he was gay. He came out for a number of years, but then met a woman with whom he felt he could make a life and “live the Plan of Happiness” (i.e., be a devout heterosexual Mormon).  They got married and had children.  Now, however, though he loves his wife, he feels somewhat trapped.

“I was cleaning out some old magazines and books,” he wrote, “when I came across an issue of the Ensign dated November 1980 (conference issue).  On page 94 there is an article by President Spencer W. Kimball [president of the Church at that time] entitled "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality."  I want to quote some parts.”  

This friend then went on to quote extracts of President Kimball’s address.  Kimball, though feeble, was president of the Church when I converted to Mormonism.  His books, sermons and other writings and pronouncements were extremely influential in my early days and years in the Church, as they were to countless other men of my generation who either were raised in or joined the Church during the 70’s and early 80’s.

Though I was familiar with President Kimball’s teachings, and though I have reviewed many statements about homosexuality made by leaders of the Church over the last 50 years, I do not recall reading this address that my friend referred to in his email.   I want to quote from it at length because it so clearly reveals the teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality during this period, teachings which dramatically affected me, my friend and tens of thousands of other young Mormon men (and women).

“The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.  

“Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled …   

“This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome.   

“This is a most unpleasant subject to dwell upon, but I am pressed to speak of it boldly so that no youth in the Church will ever have any question in his mind as to the illicit and diabolical nature of this perverse program. Again, Lucifer deceives and prompts logic and rationalization which will destroy men and women and make them servants of Satan forever …    

“‘God made me that way,’ some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. ‘I can’t help it,’ they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be ‘that way’? Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do …” 

My friend had highlighted numerous objectionable terms used by President Kimball, but if I were to do that, the entire passage would be highlighted.

He continued:

“I could go on.  This makes me sick and I started shaking when I read it again for the first time in many years.  Is it any wonder so many of us fought with ourselves for so long?  Is it any wonder we put on the mask and thought if we acted the way we were told to that eventually we could be cured?  

“If the church really wanted to change, really wanted to heal wounds, then they would recant these types of messages and extend an olive branch to the downtrodden.  Instead we just get a general "love the sinner but not the sin."  Or the equally loving 'hey, you're OK just they way you are, just don't act on it.'  

“Anyway, it does make me realize how hard I fought, and why I fought.  I wanted to please the prophet, my prophet.  In the end I was just betrayed. "I'm sorry" could go a long way towards healing old wounds, but it won't happen.”

He’s right:  it won’t happen. Not only that, but it is infuriating to hear Church leaders (and members such as Johanson) soft-pedal rhetoric like that of President Kimball – a man revered within the Church as a prophet, seer and revelator – and Elder Packer and others.  At the time of Kimball’s address, Church leaders – both local and general – encouraged young men who “confessed” to homosexual “inclinations” to go ahead and marry (but not to tell their prospective wives anything), claiming that once they did so and experienced heterosexual sex, they’d be cured.  Now, apostles of the Church claim that this counsel was never given and that the Church is interested in protecting “the choice daughters of God.”  Well, they sure weren’t 30 years ago.

There will be no apology because to do so would be to admit that President Kimball – and many other leaders recognized as prophets – were wrong.  And that will never happen.

What apparently will continue to happen, particularly if left unchallenged, is apologistic revisionism.

A Gay Mormon on Castro Street

No, I'm not talking about me. I'm no longer a member of the LDS Church.

I'm talking about a handsome blonde man in his early 20's that we met in a shop on Castro Street yesterday evening. I had bought a Christmas ornament there last year when we were here, and I returned to purchase another one. As we were paying for our purchases, the man asked whether I collect Christmas ornaments, which I found unusual. Then, he asked where we are from. 

"Salt Lake City."

"Are you LDS?"

I experienced a knee-jerk reaction and said, "No!" I was then surprised to hear him say, "I was LDS." I quickly back-peddled a bit and said, "Well, I *was* LDS."

"They expected me to be celibate all my life," he replied. "I just couldn't do that." I felt like he was, in a way, reaching out to us for a bit of understanding and validation. I wanted to hug him, but that would have been awkward. So, instead, I reached out my hand to shake his and said, "Well, you made the right decision."

Walking down to the Castro from our apartment

Yesterday had started out very early. Mark and I got up at 5:00, loaded up the truck, then headed down the street to Orphan Andy's restaurant for breakfast before heading north to Marin County.

It's a tiny little cafe in the Castro, open 24/7, that probably seats 50 people max. Retro, but it appears to have original fixtures that are spotlessly clean and well maintained. Mark and I chowed down on some of the best pancakes we've ever eaten and on omelets that were chocked full of meat - mine bacon, Mark's ham. And the prices were extremely reasonable.

We then headed north to San Rafael, the starting point of our century (100-mile) ride. We were so well-fed that we were able to skip the first two rest stops, then stop briefly at the one at the 54-mile mark. Unlike last year, we had no bike trouble at all. It was foggy and overcast for most of the ride, but at about the 85-mile mark, the blue skies and brilliant sun because visible.

Back in San Francisco, we decided to go back to Orphan Andy's for dinner, mainly so that Nathan could see it and because it was convenient. We were far too tired to go anywhere else in the city.

These next two days will be devoted to showing Nathan around San Francisco. Chinatown here we come. We're glad we brought warm clothes!

Why I Left the Mormon Church

I originally published this post on my "Joseph's Journeyings" blog (now closed) over a year ago. I have been thinking about re-posting it for some time, and recent events in the Mormon world - i.e., the possible excommunications of John Dehlin and Kate Kelly - have prompted me to go ahead and republish a series of posts addressing why I left the Mormon Church and why I joined it in the first place. 

I met John Dehlin at the first Mormon Stories Conference in Salt Lake in June of 2011, an event that left a deep impression on me while I was trying to figure out how I felt toward the Church. About a month later, over lunch with John at Maddox's in Brigham City, the concept of the first Circling the Wagons Conference was born. Over the following months leading up to the conference, I learned first-hand of John's deep commitment to the Mormon LGBTQ community. I am deeply grateful to John for what he has done for this community and the impact he has had on me personally. Thank you, John.

****************

As I sat at my desk in October 2011, my laptop in front of me, I felt sick. My chest was constricted, my breath short. I didn’t know what I had expected, but I don’t think I expected this. I was starting to feel nauseous.

This letter is my formal resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, effective immediately.

I had wrestled with this decision for months. 

I stared at the screen in front of me, the cursor blinking, reflecting upon the events that had brought me to this point …

Background

I joined the LDS Church in Slidell, Louisiana on May 14, 1983. During the past two years, I have thought deeply about why I joined the Church.

Certainly one of those reasons is that I was gay. I wouldn't have used that word back then. But I knew I was "attracted to men," and I have chosen to use the word "gay" now because I feel I need to affirm who I really was then, and indeed who I was since birth. I was gay. But I wanted a family. I believed the Church when it said homosexuality could be overcome.

A little over a year after my baptism, I entered the MTC to prepare for a mission to France. I was 25 years old at the time; I would turn 26 in my first area. It was while I was in France that I learned that "the gay" cannot be "prayed away." I realized my attraction to men was something I would likely have to deal with my entire life.

I was married to a woman within a year of returning home and set forth on a journey that would see me striving to be a faithful priesthood holder, husband and father. I held many callings along the way, including Elders Quorum President, Young Men's President, Gospel Doctrine Teacher, Executive Secretary and member of the stake high council.

Meanwhile, my former wife and I welcomed six biological children into our family, later to be joined by three children adopted from Russia and a biological surprise, my youngest son. For all the years of my marriage, until shortly before the end (due solely to an inability to pay tithing), I held a temple recommend. Over the years, I researched and submitted over 10,000 names to the temple. I was a faithful member who was striving to do all that was expected of him in order to be a good Mormon.

All of that, however, was about to change.

Inborn Tendencies Toward the Impure and Unnatural

In October 2010, I was blasted out of the closet by a conference address given by President Boyd K. Packer, the second most senior apostle in the LDS Church, the man who would – if he outlived him – succeed President Monson as president of the Church. In the midst of a talk about moral purity, Packer had read the following sentences:

“Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father.”

As I have written before, hearing these words set off an earthquake inside of me. Strong aftershocks came as I witnessed the uproar that followed his address and read the hateful homophobic comments that rank-and-file members of the Church wrote in social media in “support” of President Packer, such as the following post on the We Support President Packer Facebook Group:

"I love this! People try so hard to make sin acceptable and people are just giving in!!! What is next....crack head rights? Child molestation rights? Drug addict rights??? The only reason why gays fight so hard for 'rights' is because they KNOW it is wrong!!! They are just trying to make it better so they don't feel so guilty! The church is the one thing in this world still pure and we will not bend to silly stupid people getting upset at the truth!"

When the dust settled, I had left the closet forever. I realized that I was no longer willing or even able to repress who I am, that my homosexuality is a fundamental part of who I am as a person, and that I was tired of feeling guilty and dirty about it, and feeling, in President Packer’s words, “impure and unnatural.”

Prophets, Seers and Revelators? Not so much.

But that was not all. I realized that my belief in several key tenets of Mormonism had also been shattered that day. I no longer believed that the leaders of the LDS Church were what they claimed to be – inspired “prophets, seers and revelators” who spoke the mind and will of God. Certainly, I knew that Packer was not inspired because his statements had contradicted not only official Church policy, but also my own personal witness that God accepted and loved me for who I was – a gay man.  (Not a man with “same-gender attraction,” but a gay man.)

Belief in this keystone of Mormonism – continuous revelation – was further eroded as I reviewed, in the weeks following Conference, what various leaders of the Church (including and especially President Packer) had said over the years about homosexuality. How could leaders claim to be inspired with respect to homosexuality when the Church’s stance had so obviously softened over the years? And if they are so obviously not inspired when it comes to homosexuality, how could they claim inspiration with respect to other matters?

The next major casualty was the entire “Plan of Salvation” – the Mormon belief structure that surrounds the key questions of life. How could I, as a gay man who has finally accepted and affirmed himself, his sexuality and his identity, possibly continue to accept this structure that treats heterosexual marriage as the ultimate goal of my eternal existence?  

Furthermore, how could I possibly accept the insulting and degrading doctrine, voiced by some general authorities of the Church, that I will be miraculously “healed” of my homosexuality in the eternities (if I am “worthy”), much like a child with Down Syndrome or someone born with a physical handicap or deformity?

Beyond all of this, how could I possibly remain active in a religious organization that so obviously stood for much of what I’m not and that would excommunicate me for living the way I’m wired?

In the months that followed, my former wife asked for a divorce, I moved out, and I stopped going to church. I was ambivalent about Mormonism after having joined the LDS Church at age 24 and dedicating the next 28 years of my life to living the Mormon way of life, i.e., the Plan of Happiness (heterosexual marriage and faithful activity in the Church) and the Law of Consecration (devoting one’s entire life to the Church).

The Central Myth

I had never been particularly happy in most of the wards (congregations) of which I had been a member over the course of the previous 27 years - something I didn't really realize until after I left the Church - constantly feeling like I didn’t belong, constantly coming home frustrated from church, wondering why I went; but I had nonetheless clung to the (false) aphorism that the Church is perfect but the members are not. The Gospel is true, but Gospel Doctrine class may very well not be.

I had stayed all those years (I later realized) because the truthfulness of the Gospel was central to the truthfulness of the myth that lay at the heart of my marriage: that God had brought me and my ex-wife together and ordained that we be together not only in this life, but in the eternities. (I would later come to refer to this as my “Celestial Shotgun Marriage,” but that is a subject for another time.)

The point is, I never allowed myself to doubt the truthfulness of the Church because doing so would bring into question the central myth that had brought and sealed my wife and I together, despite our obvious differences, despite the fact that I was gay (marriage would cure me of that), and despite the fact that I detested many things about the Church. These thoughts were reflected in many passages in my journal over the past 18 months, including the following one:

"What kept me in the Church all those years was the mythological foundation of our marriage. The beliefs that we were chosen, special, yoked together by God himself - these are the beliefs I clung to, not a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. I needed that myth to be true. It was the central pillar of my life, the thing that gave meaning (or so I thought) to my life. I clung to the Church because it supported that myth, not the other way around."

But all of that was changing.

To Be Continued …

Thrusting and Parrying With the Bishop

I had just sat down to watch Queer as Folk.* Brian was engaging in his favorite activity. My phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number, but I answered anyway, muting the volume as I did so. It’s a good thing I did: it was my new bishop, calling to see when might be convenient to drop by for a visit. Hmmm. I was distracted by what was happening on the TV screen. “How about next week,” I finally replied. He said that would work. 

“Oh, by the way,” he added, “I understand you play the piano?” Hmmm. “Yes,” I hesitantly replied. “Do you think you could play for priesthood sometime?” Hmmm. “Um, sure,” I responded, my brain trying to figure out just how he had discovered that I played the piano. I strongly suspected my roommate and began imagining the various ways in which he could die. 

When I confronted him the next morning, however, he said that he had not told him. That could only mean one thing: my new bishop had talked to my former bishop in my family's ward. This plus the fact that my records had not yet arrived made me somewhat apprehensive as our appointment approached. Would he outrightly ask me if I am gay? Would he ask questions about “morality”? My roommate assured me that he would not. Nevertheless, I rehearsed certain responses to hypothetical questions with a couple of other friends. I was somewhat apprehensive, but only because I didn’t know what this new bishop new and where I stood.

The Bishop arrived at the appointed hour, and I motioned for him to sit down in our living room. He was dressed casually; no suit and tie. That was a good sign, I thought. I felt good. I was prepared. 

“So,” he said, after sitting down. “Tell me about yourself.” The opening thrust. No way. I wasn’t about to respond to such an open-ended question. 

“Well,” I responded, parrying, “it sounds like you’ve talked to my former bishop, so you probably already know a lot about me.”

And so it went for the next hour. He would ask a probing question, and I would parry. In the process, we talked about a lot of things: his profession (he had been a practicing attorney, as was I), how I felt about the Church, where my testimony is at, whether I would play piano for priesthood opening exercises (reluctant agreement, when I’m there), whether by chance I also played the organ, etc., etc.  But … I sensed that he knew I am gay and was waiting for an opportunity to engage me on this issue.

Finally, he decided to make a decisive move. “Your former bishop has suspicions about your sexual orientation,” he announced. 

At this point, I knew I couldn’t parry anymore without getting into a ridiculous situation, so I did the next best thing: I proceeded to take control of the story. I gave him the 10-minute overview of my life: that I had known since I was 12 that I am attracted to men; that I had repressed this attraction all through my teen years and early adulthood; that I had joined the LDS Church believing that it would provide a “cure”; that I had married, trusting in the Church’s teachings that marriage would “cure” me; etc., etc.

So, my roommate was mistaken about whether the bishop would ask directly whether I am gay, and he was also mistaken about the second question he said the bishop wouldn’t ask me. He asked the same questions he had asked of my roommate last fall: what are my intentions; do I intend to “act” upon my attractions; etc. More gamesmanship. 

In these discussions, the bishop used the term “SGA” (same-gender attraction, the Church’s current term of choice for being gay) several times. Each time he said it, it was like fingernails on a chalkboard. I finally got to the point that, if he had used it one more time, I would have informed him in no uncertain terms that I find that term insulting. I didn’t want to have to do that, however, because I really felt that this guy was trying to reach out and that he had a comparatively open mind. He also seemed to care.

We talked about other things, such as the change the Church had made the previous fall to prevent fathers who weren't "temple worthy" from participating in Melchizedek priesthood ordinances involving their own children. He argued that this move did not represent a negative change but a positive one. I begged to differ. He said he would look into it.

Then came the first of two questions that blew me away.

"So, what can we do to get you back to the temple?" I was flabbergasted. He had obviously not been listening or was making what I'm sure he considered a bold move to "soften my heart" by reaching past everything we had just talked about. It struck me as a spiritually arrogant - though well-meaning, of course - move in that he thought he could connect with what he assumed were the remnants of my testimony. He was wrong.

"I have no interest in 'going back to the temple'," I replied. I think this shocked him. Here was someone (me) who had been extensively involved in genealogical and temple work - having submitted over 10,000 names to the temple over the past 28 years - who was simply walking away.

The second question, however, was even more shocking that the first. “I’m just curious,” he said tentatively, “did you, in your young married years, ever pray that these feelings of attraction to men would go away?” 

I was dumbfounded. First of all, I found it difficult to believe that a bishop who seemed to be pretty hip with respect to gay, er SGA, issues would ask such a question. Secondly, I couldn’t tell whether he was asking because he wondered whether I had tried to “pray the gay away” or because he was gathering information for his own benefit, to confirm a belief that he had already formed that “praying the gay away” doesn’t work. 

What kept me from blowing up was his obvious sincerity. But I couldn’t help throwing my head back and saying, “Oh, God!” It was an involuntary reaction. “That is universal among young gay Mormon men!” I exclaimed. “Everyone prays, and fasts and prays, and then prays some more! But I don’t know of a single instance where that particular prayer has been answered.” 

“I do know, however,” I continued, “of instances where gay men have finally realized that they were perhaps asking the wrong question; and when they instead asked God if it is ok that they’re gay, they’ve receive a witness that He’s fine with it.” I think this was a bit more answer than the bishop was looking for, however (just as was the opinion I expressed that the policies and doctrines of the Church dealing with homosexuality will continue to change, especially after certain members of the Twelve have passed to their reward).

By the time he left (after asking me one more time whether I’d be willing to play the piano for priesthood - never mind everything I'd just said), the bishop had been there for two hours. I was exhausted. But at least I now knew where I stood, I was out to him, and I had successfully severed my connection to my former ward, which had a liberating effect on me. I was ready to move forward, whatever that will ultimately mean.

Postscript: As it happened, I never attended that ward again. Four months later, I resigned my membership in the LDS Church. I had no quarrel with the man who came to see me that June night. He was a good man.

* This is a slightly edited version of a post that was originally published in June 2011 on my Invictus Pilgrim blog.

LGBT Mormons: Different Dreams

Photo by Rachel Broom

This post was originally published on my Invictus Pilgrim blog (now closed) in August 2011.

I love the movie Gettysburg. I vividly recall the first time I saw it 17 years ago. There are many poignant moments in the movie, so many sermons on character, life, heroism, tragedy, idealism, defeat, victory.

Lately, I found my thoughts turning to a scene in the film involving Colonel Fremantle, an officer in the British army who was detailed to General Longstreet’s command as an observer. It was not an extraordinary scene, compared with others in the film. It was, rather, a vignette that made a simple yet profound commentary on what differentiated the southern states from those in the north.

In the vignette, Colonel Fremantle observes to General Longstreet that both sides spring from a common mother, that they are all, really, just transplanted Englishmen. “Same God,” muses Fremantle, “same language, same culture and history, same songs, stories, legends, myths … but different dreams … different dreams.”  Here’s the scene:

My thoughts recently turned toward Colonel Fremantle's comments as I contemplated the plight of LGBT Mormons. We are/were raised with the dream of growing up, going on missions, then coming home and finding an eternal companion, with whom we can then start and raise our own family. We are taught that this is the ideal, that this is what our Heavenly Father approves of and desires us to have.

The importance of the dream is emphasized in every General Conference and is the subtext of countless sacrament meeting talks, Sunday School lessons, seminary classes and firesides. Young Women are raised to prepare themselves to fulfill their part in the dream; young men as well.

For LGBT Mormons, however, this dream often turns into a nightmare as we are haunted by our inability – to one degree or another – to fulfill it. We have been taught that beside this dream, there is no other. The dichotomies that fill the Mormon worldview reach their apex in this central dream, this central myth.  Unless we subscribe to and fulfill this dream, we have not, according to what we are taught, fulfilled the measure of our creation and are, in effect, sub-human.

What has come forcefully to me, however, is that we have different dreams. We - all of us Mormons - share, to paraphrase Fremantle, the same language, the same culture and history, the same songs, stories, legends and myths. Yet, we who are LGBT have different dreams.

It is high time that we affirmed those dreams, that we let ourselves embrace them and live them with the same degree of purpose as our heterosexual brethren and sisters, and thereby fulfill the measure of our creation. And in so doing, we do not need to cede or abandon to those who espouse the “one, true dream,” our shared Mormon culture, history, songs, stories, legends and myths. We can hold on to these, keeping what we want, letting go of what we don’t, while we pursue our own dreams.

Changing the Stance Toward Gays: What the Mormon Community Could Learn From Pope Francis

"If someone is gay ... who am I to judge?"

~ Francis

Pope Francis has made some remarkable statements about gay people - remarkable in the sense that his voice is much more compassionate than those of his immediate predecessors. (See, for example, this most recent statement here.) Yet, he has indicated that he does not intend to change the Catholic Church's doctrine concerning homosexuality, which is very similar to that of the LDS Church, i.e., it's ok if you're gay, but not okay if you physically express your sexuality.

The Catholic position is also similar to that of the Mormon one in that the doctrine of both churches is deeply, some might say implacably, grounded: the Catholic position is based not only on its understanding of certain biblical passages but also on centuries of moral philosophy; the Mormon position is based not only on its understanding of certain biblical passages but also on latter-day revelation.

The Historical Stance

But, writes Jesuit priest John P. Langan, who is the Cardinal Bernardin Professor of Catholic Social Thought at Georgetown University, this grounded doctrinal position doesn't necessarily mean the Catholic Church cannot alter its stance toward gay people. Writing in the current issue of America Magazine, Langan leads his essay with these words which I hope would give any Mormon reader food for thought:

"The stance of the [Catholic] church toward gays and lesbians and their distinctive activities was seen as negative, leading to judgments and condemnations. Of decisive importance was the negative moral judgment on homosexual acts as intrinsically evil. Even though the magisterium [the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church] had distinguished between homosexual acts and a homosexual inclination, the intrinsic moral evil of the acts meant that while the sexual orientation was not sinful in itself, it represented an inclination to do sinful things and so had to be resisted [emphasis added]."

I think it is fair to say that Father Langan could have been describing the "Mormon Magisterium," i.e., the First Presidency of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in the above passage. The Mormon Magisterium has only relatively recently made the the step of distinguishing homosexual inclination from homosexual acts, but I think it is fair to say that the Mormon Magisterium as well as most lower-level leaders in the LDS Church would agree that while the sexual orientation is not sinful in itself, "it [still] represent[s] an inclination to do sinful things and so [has] to be resisted."

What Father Langan suggests Pope Francis is doing is "prodding us to think about what the stance of the church toward homosexuality should be, rather than what it generally has been" [emphasis added]. He writes:

"A 'stance,' as contrasted with beliefs or theoretical positions, normally brings with it a realization that other factors are at work. It involves a response to positions or movements in the broader social and intellectual world ... Adopting or modifying a stance provides an opportunity to weigh other factors beyond a specific judgment on the moral rightness or wrongness of an act ... One can acknowledge the limits to knowledge and arguments once found persuasive. There are signs that Pope Francis is in the process of thinking along some of these lines."

In other words, there are concrete signs that Francis, while not rethinking doctrine, is and will be encouraging the Catholic Church to accept reality. Gay people exist. They are children of God. The Church needs to reach out to them.

Unfortunately, there are no such signs emanating from the Mormon Magisterium.

Changing the Stance

Father Langan goes on in his article to suggest that there are four elements that should mark a new stance within the Catholic church toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

The first is humility. "We must acknowledge," Langan writes, "what we do not know and what we do not understand about the contemporary situation of homosexuals."

Second, Langan asserts that "we must show respect for the dignity of homosexual persons as creatures of the one God and Father of us all, as members of the community of the redeemed and as fellow citizens of the city and the world ... Desires that homosexuals should cease to exist, or that they should disappear from public space, or that laws should be enacted that would deny their human rights are simply not acceptable."

Third - and here I'll quote more extensively:

"[A]ll parties need to show realism in acknowledging the problems of perception and trust that complicate our efforts to understand and collaborate with one another ... There is a profound need for realism in acknowledging the ambiguities that mark our histories, both personal and social ... Expulsion of those with sexual differences from the sacred precincts of the church and expunging their acts and gifts from our institutional memory may express a detestation of intrinsic evil, but it also carries with it an effective denial of common humanity ... Looking seriously at the communities in which we participate will disclose a complex tapestry in which the multicolored threads of the rainbow catch and reflect light, increase splendor and range, and are to be gratefully received."

Fourth, "during this period of scrutiny and reassessment, we must be patient with ourselves, with each other and with the friends and allies of the contesting groups both in the public arena and in the life of the church."

A Pastoral Ministry

What I personally see as the most noteworthy change in the stance towards homosexuals by the Catholic Church is the growing recognition, spearheaded by Francis, that the Church needs to accept the reality of gay people and minister to them. "The new stance on the subject of homosexuality," writes Langan, "should open up possibilities for affirming the human dignity of homosexuals. It should also acknowledge their need for an appropriate form of pastoral ministry ... " [emphasis added]. Langan further writes:

"The principal change would not be in the teaching of the church on the moral acceptability of homosexual activity, but in affirming and practicing pastoral ministry for persons engaged in irregular or questionable unions. Ministry would be carried on in a more tentative, inquiring spirit; it would be more intent on providing care and encouraging growth for persons, many of whom have known many sorrows, than in implementing policies within bureaucratic and legal frameworks."

Similar thoughts were recently echoed by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri who is the general secretary of the Synod on the Family that will be held in Rome in October. The Vatican has been collecting responses from bishops around the world to a survey that was sent out last fall. Baldisseri told the Vatican newspaper that the responses received to date show "much suffering, especially by those who feel excluded or abandoned by the Church because they find themselves in a state of life that does not correspond to the Church’s doctrine and discipline." [Is this sounding familiar?] Quoting from the above-linked article:

"The results compiled by the bishops’ conferences, [Baldisseri] said, show 'the urgency of recognising the lived reality of the people and of beginning a pastoral dialogue with those who have distanced themselves from the Church for various reasons ...' Pope Francis, he said, 'shows, day after day, a new human and Christian approach that stimulates people and prepares them to listen and to accept what is good for them, even if there is suffering'."

Changing the Mormon Stance

In light of the foregoing, I offer the following thoughts:

A Pastoral Ministry. There is no pastoral ministry within the Mormon Church to its LGBT members, unless you consider a website and a couple of manuals a "ministry." There is no central place within the Church where leaders of all levels can turn for resources; no program of training a lay ministry how to minister to gays and lesbians; no leadership from the highest levels of the Magisterium; no statements of a positive nature emanating out of General Conference or from Church magazines. 

In short, there is virtually nothing that the LDS Church as an institution is doing to minister to its LGBT community. Just imagine how fantastic it would be if the Church had an outreach program that featured a "tentative, inquiring spirit" that was "more intent on providing care and encouraging growth for persons, many of whom have known many sorrows, than in implementing policies within bureaucratic and legal frameworks."

All of these things could be done by the hierarchy. But it would require a change in stance by the Mormon Magisterium.

The Role of the Mormon Laity. In the Catholic Church, it is a well-known fact that the vast majority of American Catholics (the "laity") hold views on many social issues that are widely divergent from that of the hierarchy. Mormons don't usually think in terms of "laity" and "hierarchy," but I would suggest that the Mormon Church, even though it has a lay ministry (below the general authority level), has a laity, consisting of rank and file Mormons, the overwhelming majority of which are in no position to effect Mormon doctrine, policy or practice.

Just as in the Catholic Church, it has been the laity of the Mormon Church that has been on the vanguard of change when it comes to the LDS stance towards homosexuality. Through Facebook groups, conferences, and informal exchanges in ward and stake houses across the country (and perhaps in other countries?), hearts and minds are being opened. People are stepping forward to be the ministry that the institutional church does not provide. The stance of the Mormon laity toward homosexuality is gradually being changed from the ground up. Increasingly, families are rallying - or as Carol Lynn Pearson so beautifully put it, circling the wagons - around their LGBT loved ones.

The question remains, will the Mormon Magisterium look to Francis' example and acknowledge the reality that exists among its members? Will it minister? Will a leader emerge who will lead? Will the Church as an institution change its stance?

I suppose one can always hope.