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.

Mormon Essays: Magical Powers and the Cost of Being Chosen

It was another “secret” destination – something I hadn’t planned on or expected during my recent trip out of town for Pride weekend.* I don’t know what exactly precipitated it. I was sitting in a reading by Armistead Maupin, and something he said triggered the realization, which was stunning. I could not believe I had never considered it before.

(* This post was originally published on my Invictus Pilgrim blog in June 2011.)

Why I Joined the LDS Church

This realization explained much of why I had done what I had done – why I had married, why I had repressed my homosexuality, why I had remained active in the LDS Church.

I was a golden convert. When I heard the message of the restored gospel, I readily embraced it. Doing so gave me a sense of purpose at a point in my life when I desperately needed one.

But it went beyond that. I also joined the Church because of the Mormon ideal family. I wanted that.  I came from a dysfunctional family in which there had been a lot of divorce, and I wanted the family that I had never had a child. This desire became problematic, which I never fully realized or understood until shortly before coming out, when I realized that I had tried to re-create in my own family, then “fix,” the family I never had as a child (a complex topic for another post).

I also thought joining the Church would get me out of homo hell. I believed what the Church taught about homosexuality. I believed it was a weakness, a predisposition that could be controlled, then eventually overcome, as long as I was faithful.

Then there was the whole matter of being elect. I was introduced to the Church by someone who thought I was special, golden, elect. This person told me, among other things, that I must have been tremendously valiant in the pre-existence, someone who therefore had a great mission to fulfill in this life. 

The day of my baptism

This person in turn introduced me to a “perfect” family who proceeded to “fellowship” me. This family also thought I was someone special. They welcomed me into their family circle and showered me with love and affection. I also met other church members who were incredibly warm and welcoming. I had never before in my life experienced anything like this.

I used to say that I was loved into the Church. I said this in a positive way, as a compliment to the Church, as a means of demonstrating its truthfulness. After all, “ye shall know them by their fruits.”  What I now realize was going on, however, is that I was basking in the attention given a new convert. And every new convert – let’s face it – boosts existing members’ belief that the Church is indeed true:  after all, if other people are joining the Church, it must be true, right?

The Dark Secret That Was My Thorn in the Flesh

I was deathly afraid of losing this newfound love and affection. In particular, I was afraid those who had introduced me to the Church and those who had fellowshipped and welcomed me would discover my deepest, darkest secret – that I was a homo, a queer, a fag. 

I also believed, because I wanted to believe it – passionately – that I was special. I believed that I was valiant in the pre-existence. I believed that I had a great mission to accomplish in this life. I believed it when she who had introduced me to the Church – a middle-aged woman of great faith who was charismatic and forceful – told me that I had a calling as a father. 

I believed it because I wanted desperately to believe it. I believed it because such beliefs would allow me to treat the same-sex attraction with which I had struggled for years as merely an attempt by Satan to thwart the great mission that was mine to accomplish in this life. Such beliefs allowed me, even propelled me, to believe that homosexuality was no more than a “thorn in my side” – a weakness akin to a predisposition to alcoholism - that would propel me to greater strength. I also believed that I was strong enough – or could be strong enough through prayer and righteous living – to overcome the attractions I felt.

As to my mission in life, I am embarrassed to admit this, but I truly believed that I had the potential to rise to great heights in the Church. I looked into my future and saw offices such as bishop, stake president, maybe mission president and perhaps even more. These expectations were fueled by those who had introduced me to the Church and by members who made comments like, “I’m sure I’ll read about you in the Church News someday.” They were also fueled by my patriarchal blessing, which spoke glowingly, e.g., of the “great work” that Heavenly Father saw in me.

What were the effects of these expectations? They significantly raised the cost of ever leaving the Church. I had to believe that the Church was true, for it provided the reason for believing that I was special, that I was better than other people, that I had almost magical powers, that there was a whole world, Harry Potter-like, beyond the ordinary one in which others (mere Muggles) functioned.

Such expectations, which became aspirations, also significantly increased the cost of acknowledging that I am gay, which would result in the collapse of the entire structure of my life post-baptism.  There was a cost of being special, and that cost was to enter upon a “career path” that required keeping up appearances and complying with a code of conduct. One false move, one careless admission, could mean time in the penalty box or, even worse, that I was out of the game.

The Cost of Being Chosen

However, there was also a toll that was being incurred, day by day, month by month, year by year, as I struggled to maintain this outward persona. It was a dreadful toll, being exacted not only from me, but also from my wife and children. Eventually, I reached a point where payment of this toll was demanded, and the cost exceeded that of any benefits accruing from the path I had so diligently tried to walk.

(One commenter on the original post wrote the following with respect to the above paragraph: "Yes, yes, yes! I have lived this. Then one day you arrive at a point where you realize that the cost of living a lie is much greater than the cost of giving up some of what you believed. Then you take a true leap of faith and find out you can fly.")

All of these thoughts and more passed through my mind in a matter of moments as I sat listening to Armistead Maupin. Suddenly, with great clarity, I understood much about myself, about things I had known but had buried deep within me. 

Then, just as suddenly, I understood that these realizations were a gift from a part of me that wanted me to forgive myself for not coming out earlier in life; for I saw even more clearly why this had not been possible: the person I then was would never have permitted it.

Celestial Glory Shall Be Mine: A Place for Gay Mormons

Perhaps no other consideration provokes more angst in the mind of a gay Mormon who loves the (LDS) Church and believes in the Gospel than that of where he fits into the Mormon concept of eternity.* In other words, does allowing himself to be true to his homosexual nature lock him out of Heavenly Father’s presence in the afterlife.

Exaltation:  Moving the Goalposts

One of the very first songs a Mormon child learns to sing is “I Am a Child of God,” a very sweet little song that contains within its simple melody and honeyed phrases the essence of LDS theology. At a tender age, children learn that they are children of God, that they lived somewhere else in God’s presence before they came here to earth, that they have been sent from that place to this earth, and that their goal is to return to Heavenly Father some day.

The song teaches a number of other principles, some of which I hope to return to; but for this post, I want to focus on the fourth verse, which contains the summum bonum of LDS theology:

I am a Child of God. 

His promises are sure;

Celestial glory shall be mine

If I can but endure.

For faithful members of the Church, merely being “saved” is not enough; the goal of life is nothing short of “exaltation.” Former apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained the significance of this doctrine in his classic, Mormon Doctrine: 

“Exaltation grows out of the eternal union of a man and his wife. Of those whose marriage endures in eternity, the Lord says, ‘Then shall they be gods’ (D&C 132:20); that is, each of them, the man and the woman, will be a god. As such they will rule over their dominions forever … 

“Marriages performed in the temples for time and eternity [unite] … the participating parties [as] husband and wife in this mortal life, and if after their marriage they keep all the terms and conditions of this order of the priesthood, they continue on as husband and wife in the celestial kingdom of God. If the family unit continues, then by virtue of that fact the members of the family have gained eternal life (exaltation) …  

“Mortal persons who overcome all things and gain an ultimate exaltation will live eternally in the family unit and have spirit children, thus becoming Eternal Fathers and Eternal Mothers … becoming gods in their own right” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 117, 129, 613).

It is perhaps difficult for non-Mormons to understand the centrality to LDS theology of these beliefs and teachings. For most Christians, “salvation” is a post-mortal reward that results – in essence – from living a good moral life, from following the teachings of Jesus Christ and from believing that He can atone for mortal shortcomings. 

LDS theology, however, has moved the goalposts way past the concept of mere “salvation.” Though faithful Mormons believe that in God’s house “are many mansions” [which, in Mormon-speak, means kingdoms or degrees of glory] which may be perfectly fine for other people, they believe that – for them - salvation is basically an “all or nothing” concept:  either one obtains exaltation (with all that this term implies – see Bruce R., above) or just forget it. No lower “degree of glory” is acceptable. 

This concept is taught from a very young age and is reflected in the above-quoted passage from the 4th verse of “I Am a Child of God”:  “Celestial glory shall be mine - IF I can but endure” [emphasis added]. This verse also reflects another, companion, precept that is of paramount importance in Mormon theology:  obedience. Obtaining celestial glory is contingent upon “enduring to the end,” obeying all of God’s commandments (especially remaining “temple worthy”) and doing all that is required to reach that goal.

The Centrality of the Temple

Paradoxically, and as an aside, a modern-day Christian might more easily relate to the teachings of the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, rather than current teachings. Joseph declared that “the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (emphasis added; TPJS, p. 121).  He also declared that the first principle of the Gospel to be “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

In today’s Church, however, it is arguable that the cluster of doctrine surrounding eternal / celestial / temple marriage constitutes the “fundamental principles of our religion … and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”; furthermore, perhaps not surprisingly, the “first law of heaven” has in practical terms arguably supplanted the first principle of the gospel.  “Obedience is the first law of heaven,” wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie, “the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest.” And this first law of heaven has been correlated and woven through much of what one currently finds in instruction manuals, conference talks and church magazine articles.

But I digress.

The point is that this “all or nothing” concept is at the root of much of what produces angst, self-hatred, deceit and heartache in Mormon men and women who have the extreme misfortune of having been born anything but heterosexual.

If a young gay man does not marry a woman in the temple and then remain faithful to his temple covenants (i.e., enduring to the end), he automatically knocks himself out of the running for exaltation. He knows this, of course, and as a faithful Mormon, it causes him no end of worrying which can quickly escalate into depression. Apart from everything else he feels because he knows he is gay, he feels a deep and dark dense of failure because he knows he’s missed – forever – the brass ring.

Because eternal rewards are bound up in the concept of family kingdoms (exaltation of families, not individuals), actions of a family member in mortality are seen as affecting not only that family member’s eternal salvation, but also the salvation of his entire family of origin. This leads to parents of gay children not only mourning the “loss” of these children, whom they believe have lost their chance to sit in the eternal family circle, leading to the proverbial empty chair (“No Empty Chairs” being a slogan commonly found on walls in Mormon homes); it also often leads to resentment toward this child for putting the exaltation of the entire family in jeopardy.

Beyond all these theological concerns, however, are the (some would say equally important) cultural concerns. A temple marriage for their children is the fondest hope of many a Mormon parent, particularly in areas where there are large concentrations of Church members. A temple marriage is a sign to the community in such areas that a child is ok, is doing the right thing, is respectable, is on “the path.” Failure to marry in the temple, on the other hand, often becomes the subject of speculation and subjects the child’s parents to embarrassment if not outright shame in the their community (which, of course would often pale in significance when compared with the shame of having a gay son).

A Place for Heavenly Father’s Gay Children

So, what is a young gay Mormon to do?  “Teach me all that I must do,” he used to sing in Primary, “to live with Him [Heavenly Father] someday.” Is there a place for him in Heavenly Father’s home? Why is there so much emphasis in the Church upon exaltation (which, apart from what has been described above, contributes to a culture of fake perfectionism in the Church)? Why does this have to be the end-all? 

The 131st and 132nd sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) are the scriptural sources for the LDS doctrine of three degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom. D&C 131:1-4 and D&C 132:16-17 read as follows:

“In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase … Therefore, when they [i.e., those who are not sealed in the temple] are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”

Though faithful Mormons have a tendency to focus on the plight of (i) those who have merited (through personal righteousness) the blessing of living in the presence of God for all eternity but (ii) have failed to get married in the temple (who wants to be an “angel” when one could be “worthy of a far more … eternal weight of glory”?), the point remains that these are the only passages in Mormon scripture that describe to any degree the two “lower” degrees of glory within the Celestial Kingdom.

Apart from anything else that could (and has) been said about this section, why has nothing ever been said about the other two degrees of glory (except that the inhabitants thereof cannot have increase, i.e., spirit children)? Could we – including the Brethren – not stop and humbly acknowledge the vastness of our ignorance with respect to such matters?

Is there not ample room within Mormon theology to provide a place in the afterlife for Heavenly Father’s gay and lesbian children? 

Did not Jesus himself say that in His father’s house are many mansions? Why don’t we as members of the Mormon community ever talk about those many other mansions?

Couldn’t families (and the whole church membership) benefit from backing away from the all-or-nothing emphasis on exaltation? 

And finally, could not our young gay Mormon, together with those he loves, share celestial glory – the kind he used to sing about as a child? 

I believe he can.

* This post was originally published in the summer of 2011 on my Invictus Pilgrim blog. I explain here why I have decided to republish selected Invictus Pilgrim posts and make them available on this blog.

Mormon Essays: Virtue in Pain

We were, by all appearances, the “perfect” Mormon family.* My ex-wife and I appeared to have a good marriage. Our children were (and are, and always shall be) awesome. We were all active and faithful. The Gospel was at the center of our lives. We were, by all appearances, living the Plan of Happiness.

But things weren’t quite what they appeared to be. 

Both converts to the Church, my ex-wife had I had both felt (i.e., we had a “testimony”) that we were supposed to get married (even though I knew I was strongly attracted to men), that this was God’s will for us and, therefore, what would bring us happiness.  

Like many Mormons, we believed that the rather huge obstacles we would face in the short- and long-term were merely confirmations of God’s will (rather than indicators that we had perhaps made a mistake). This belief, i.e., we can tell how “true” or “right” something is by how difficult it makes our life - that there is virtue in pain - infuses the Mormon worldview. (Not sure how this jives with "... men are that they might have joy.")

This life is intended to be a struggle. 

We are diamonds in the rough, which must be polished by the buffetings of life in order to bring out our true beauty. (But weren't we always diamonds, just not as buff?)  

We have to be tried and tested in all things, and the greater the trials, the greater the glory at the end of the race. 

Challenges are an indication that we are on the right path. After all, Satan doesn’t bother people who aren’t doing Heavenly Father’s will. Right?

How many Mormon households have a picture on the wall of their home that features an image of Jesus and the words, “I never said it would be easy; I only said it would be worth it” (which is actually not scripture but is in fact attributed to Mae West)?

The fact is that my ex-wife and I had very little in common when we got married. We were raised in locations 3000 miles from each other. We were in fact from different countries. We had totally different interests and had had very different life experiences. Common sense would tell us that we didn’t belong together.

What had brought us together in the first place, however, and what had convinced us that we were meant to meet and marry, were some unusual circumstances and experiences that occurred shortly after we met that convinced us that it was Heavenly Father’s will that we marry – despite our differences and despite the warning signs that arose before and after our wedding.  

As we encountered them, we both truly believed that the challenges and obstacles we faced were (i) indicators that we were on the right path, and (ii) refining experiences that would, in the end, help us to overcome “baggage” from our respective pasts and ultimately make us better and happier people. The fact that I (as well as she) was intensely unhappy most of the time was simply confirmation that I was doing something right, that I had done the right thing by getting married.  Right?

We would face many, many challenges in the years ahead. Graduate school. Having children. Dealing with financial stresses and strains that were present from the very beginning of our marriage and would never cease to plague us. Dealing with cultural differences. Unpacking and working through “baggage” that each of us brought into the marriage – baggage that in my case included dealing with the after-effects of child abuse.  Cross-country moves.  Career changes.  Other challenges.

These challenges took their toll on our marriage. There were times when we both felt like we couldn’t go on. Yet, the memory of those extraordinary experiences that had led to our marriage in the first place continued to sustain us; the belief that God had brought us together was the central myth of our marriage. We believed that true happiness would come from continuing to work through the challenges we faced (including, in my case, dealing with my inner homosexuality) and forging ahead on the path that lay before us. Besides, we couldn’t deny those early experiences because that would mean that our marriage had been based upon a fraud – a thought too horrible to contemplate.

Looking back, it was precisely these challenges that (deceptively) united us. I later realized (as I think did my ex-wife), that these challenges merely deflected attention from the “chronic” problems of our marriage. Thus, when these challenges passed, when these hurdles had been cleared, the unifying effect of these experiences evaporated and we were faced with some stark realities that we had successfully swept under the rug for years.

These realities led to conflict that had long been suppressed. Though we had experienced difficulties in the past, it became clear that our marriage was in very serious trouble. We continued limping along, having good days and bad days, more bad than good, sustained by the belief that, since God had arranged our marriage in the first place, we would eventually get through these challenges; we just had to find the way out of the maze and everything would be fine. 

We were wrong.  

As I’ve written elsewhere, my acceptance of my homosexuality was the final nail in the coffin of our marriage. It was only after coming out that I realized the degree to which my repressed homosexuality had probably affected our marriage from day one. I realized that we had been wrong to ignore the warning signs, wrong to view life simply as a challenge to be endured, a cross to be borne, a vale to merely pass through. 

We had sacrificed ourselves to an ideal, and at the end of the day, what we discovered is …

We had sacrificed ourselves.

*This post was originally published on my Invictus Pilgrim blog (now closed) in August 2011. It is the first in a number of posts that I plan to re-publish here. These posts probed my changing relationship to the Mormon Church and my evolving beliefs concerning the truthfulness of Mormonism and its impact upon my life.