On Christmas: "In An Increasingly Dark World ..."

"In an increasingly dark world, we can be a bright light to those around us and a shining example of Christlike love." 

~ LDS Church Website

Introductory Note: I have expressed the following thoughts as an open letter to my children in response to something I recently read on the official website of the LDS Church.

Dear Children,

When I read the words set out above, I knew I had to write about them. They appear on the official web site of the LDS Church in connection with a program the Church has announced of encouraging their members to do specific activities every day during the month of December in order to be "a light to the world."

Normally, I wouldn't have even heard about this program because, as you know, my interactions with anything Mormon have become increasingly distant and infrequent since I officially resigned my membership five years ago. But one of you mentioned it to me, and I had heard a brief reference to it on one of our local news channels; so out of curiosity I went to the Church's website.

The very first words I read on the page dedicated to the program were those appearing above, and I didn't read anything further ... for quite some time. The reason: this sentence, which sounds so innocuous, immediately struck me as representing so much of what I find troubling about Mormonism and how it has affected me and you in the past and still affects you today, some more than others. For the first time in a long time, I have decided to write on my blog about Mormonism, and because I have discussed some of these issues with several of you in recent years, I am framing my response as an open letter to you. 

I know very well that Mormonism teaches that we live in the end times and that the world is becoming increasingly wicked and that the gulf between "good" people and "bad" people is growing ever wider. But was the phrase, "In an increasingly dark world," really necessary as a lead-in to the above-quoted sentence? Wouldn't it have been so much more uplifting if it hadn't been prefaced by this dark thought (i.e., "We can be a bright light ...")? Why was it necessary?

I suggest the answer is, in part, because of the belief that good cannot exist in the absence of evil. As a well-known phrase from the Book of Mormon puts it, "there must needs be an opposition in all things." So much of Mormonism, as well as much of Christianity as a whole, seems to be not so much "for" something as "against" something. There is so much good in Mormonism, so much "for-ism," which generates light and love; but it is all too often overshadowed and negated by the "against-ism," which tends to generate darkness and hate. 

The belief in the end times and the increasing wickedness of the world also teaches us to view the world as a dark place, divided into good and bad people, that is all too often a place to be feared rather than embraced. Some of you and I have had numerous discussions the past several years on this point - how this belief engendered in you (and me for a good many years) a fear of the world around you and a tendency to view everyone and everything as "black" or "white," "good" or "bad." Among many other things, this worldview teaches people to view others as suspect, blinding them to the light, life and goodness that exists everywhere in the world if one but has the eyes to see it.

Which leads me to my next point. I find the whole idea of being a light to others a bit offensive. I know very well how it is meant in the Mormon context, but quite frankly - and I know most members of the Church wouldn't see it this way - it's more than a bit arrogant, self-centered and opportunistic. It is, after all, nice to think of oneself as being a light to others and "a shining example of Christlike love." But if Jesus of Nazareth was anything, he was someone who didn't so much seek to be a light to others as to be a kindler of the light within others. (In this regard, think of Mark. He would never have set himself up as a light to others, but he respected the light within others - as equals - and sought to honor that.)

In far too many instances, these attitudes of insisting on being examples to others prevents those who seek to follow Jesus of Nazareth from seeing what he would see - the inner light, beauty and knowledge within those for whom we so earnestly but arrogantly seek to be an example. I have seen so many manifestations of this, from being a missionary to being a father.

So I hope that you will always live your lives FOR something, rather than AGAINST something; that you will not live your lives out of fear but out of love for both yourself and for others, as well as the world at large; that you will resist the temptation to divide the world into "us" against "them"; that you would honor the light within others as well as honor it within yourself; and that, rather than seeking to be an example to others, you would seek out how others can be an example to you. 

* The lead photo was taken in August of 2016 of a stained glass window in the Benedictine Monastery of Saint Mary on the island of Mljet in Croatia. 

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.)

Of Maui, 10-Year-Olds and Deep Questions

We were sitting in the waiting area at the Salt Lake Airport. Two youngish couples were seated behind us. Their wives had gone off somewhere, leaving the two men to talk. They were talking about their careers and whether they'd be able to stay in the Salt Lake area. It sounded like both families were perhaps facing financial challenges.

The subject of their conversation switched to their callings (for non-LDS, their jobs in their local LDS congregation). Both couples were teaching 10-year-old Primary (Sunday School) classes. They talked about the boys in the their classes (sometimes challenging) and the girls (well-behaved) and how much they enjoyed working with them. "They're a good age group," one commented. I silently concurred.

Then one of them mentioned a boy in his class who "asks deep questions." "Yeah," the other said, "I have a kid like that in my class, too." I was curious what would be considered a "deep question" for a ten-year-old boy. One of the boys, I heard, lived with his grandmother. Another came from a troubled family.

Neither man really described the questions these boys had asked. But one volunteered how he had handled it, which consisted of redirecting the boys' attention to what was in the lesson manual and/or by singing a song.

I thought about those boys and about the message that had been conveyed to them: Don't ask deep questions. Life is better if you keep those thoughts inside you. Just stick to the lesson manual. You're a recipient of information to be dispensed. Simply learn the lesson someone else decided you need to learn, sing a song and go along. You'll see: life is better this way.

Not every Primary teacher, of course, would have responded this way. But unfortunately, there are all too many teachers who would have responded just as these two men did. This sort of approach is endemic in the Church from cradle to grave. It wants teachers to stick to the manual. Don't wander into the messiness of the lives of people. (I, for example, during the course of almost 30 years of sitting in men's priesthood classes (both elders' quorum and high priest), rarely felt that the real issues of being a father and husband were discussed.)

I thought of my own ten-year-old son. He is the type of boy that, by nature, "thinks about things" and sometimes makes some rather profound observations. He is one of those boys that asks deep questions. His life these past four years has been one of upheaval, change and adjustment, and his family is now anything but conventional. It doesn't fit inside the box. And I wonder if he ever asks "deep questions" and what his teacher's response might be.

I'm thankful that he - along with each of the others of my younger children - knows he doesn't have to rely on his teachers. I'm grateful that there are others who support and love him for just who he is and what his family now is. I'm pleased that he knows that it's ok to think for himself and that deep questions are not only entertained, they're encouraged.

Watching You Disappear, Slowly

I did a lot of thinking and reflecting this past weekend which - among other things - has prompted me to post part of an email that my younger sister, Martha (pictured above), sent to me shortly after I came out in the fall of 2010. She was my staunchest supporter during that difficult period, and she helped me to gain perspective on who I was and who I am.

I had written to Martha to ask her to tell me what she remembered of me before I converted to Mormonism. Her response was, well, stunning to me, and I have re-read these words a number of times since then, most recently this past weekend. Thank you, Martha ... again.

I feel as if I am rediscovering you, yet at the same time as if I am getting reacquainted with a brother I had lost touch with years ago. You know, this person is the one I've always held in my heart: you whom you are revealing is not anyone new to me.

I've always known who you are: your delicate and refined elegance and passion, your profound intelligence and wisdom, your deep admiration and appreciation of beauty. 

This is the brother I have always loved. It is the one I feared losing all those years ago when you wrote me a letter, telling me you had joined the LDS Church. I felt that I was going to lose you, but I never felt that I lost knowing who you truly were. You may have never known that deep sense of loss that I felt. I hope that this doesn't surprise or shock you.

After you joined the church, I felt as if I was watching you disappear, slowly ... with fragments of you disintegrating beyond my reach. You know the sensation of what you see in movies: when someone is falling and someone is reaching their hands to catch that person ... like off of a cliff and then the hands join, but the clutch weakens .... and the person above the great "vide" disappears. 

This is how I felt when I received your letter at school all those years ago.   I stood there shaking as I read your letter with tears running down my face ... it was if you had announced to me that you had died. I felt that I had lost you forever.  The letter was so serious and severe. You had gone from being so happy, smiling, understanding and LOVING to someone so cold, intolerant and always frowning ... At least that was what I perceived.

The memories I have of you from my childhood and youth are loving and fun ones:  walking with you in the snow with my hands in the muffler that you had bought for me. Looking up at you smiling and talking with me about I don't know what... but loving to be with you. I remember laughing, remember you smiling.

I remember riding in your chic car and singing, eating, talking and laughing.  Watching you laugh when I’d tell a joke.  Hanging out at your place when home from school, listening to music and dancing and you singing, or watching you read and just hanging out admiring your intelligence and zen-ness ... all so loving and peaceful

When I visited you in later years [i.e., after marriage and the arrival of children], I felt as if your life had been sucked out of you. You always looked unhappy. I remember saying something about this to my husband the last time we were there, which has now been some time.  

I felt that for someone supposedly so happy with church and family, you seemed so miserable.

In what had once been a joyous face full of laughter, I now saw Mom’s pout. Instead of the brother with whom I always was openly affectionate and loving, I now saw someone who couldn't sign letters or tell me that he loved me ... would simply give me a cold pat hug ... I was devastated. I hope you don't mind the sincerity in my words.

This is also healing for me because I honestly felt that you had died all those years ago when you joined the Church.

So, this brother I am reconnecting with today, who loves his body and is accepting of affection, who doubts and questions, who expresses his love and feelings, who expresses his creativity with pictures and words ... who weaves in humor and jokes .... this is my brother I saw disappearing … The one I’ve always held in my heart.

Photo: Mt. Washington, New Hampshire, summer 1977: Ruth (my step-mother), Me and Martha

For John: Know This, That Every Soul is Free

I originally wrote the following post in September 2011. I am republishing it today as a tribute to John Dehlin, a courageous man who was a key figure in my life during the year after I came out. I had the opportunity to work with him and others in organizing the first Circling the Wagons conference. He has single-handedly made a huge difference in the way Mormons think of gay and lesbian people, and his work in this regard was recognized by Equality Utah when it named him "Ally of the Year."

He now faces discipline from the Mormon Church for, among other things, publicly supporting marriage equality. It is extremely likely that he will be excommunicated later today. This post is for him and for all those other souls who yearn to be free.

*******

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

How often have we heard a variation of this statement, whether from a fellow members of the LDS Church, from a bishop, in a Gospel Doctrine class, from a stake president, or even in General Conference?

This statement was contained in a ward teacher message published in the June 1945 issue of the Improvement Era (the equivalent of today’s Ensign).  It prompted the pastor of the Unitarian Church in Salt Lake City to write a letter to then-President of the Mormon Church, George Albert Smith, which read in part as follows:

Dear President Smith:

It has been one of the great privileges of my life to have lived for the past four years in Salt Lake City, and to have become personally acquainted with many of the leaders of the L.D.S. Church. From them I have learned many things, and the spirit of friendliness which is found in our relationships is a source of unending delight to me. It is because I have found you and the other leaders so very charitable and sympathetic that I make so bold as to write you this letter …

Last June there was delivered to my door a short religious editorial, prepared by one of your leaders, entitled “Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church.” Its message amazed me a great deal, and with the passing of weeks my distur[b]ance became very acute. It might have passed, except that several members of your Church have come to me to discuss the subject …

Permit me to quote the passages which seem to be brought most in question:

“He (Lucifer) wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking’.”

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy….”

I do not know who is responsible for this statement, but I am sure it is doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders …

Several years ago, when I first became acquainted with the L.D.S. Church, I read extensively in the texts, and there are many passages which may be used to give a better expression to the vision and genius of your Faith. I cite but one, although there are many others which are familiar to you.

Quoting from the Discourses of Brigham Young, as Selected and Arranged by John A. Widtsoe, in the Chapter on “The Priesthood”:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

This quotation from Brigham Young is a wonderful passage, and it has been on the basis of such freedom that persons like myself have grown to have a deep feeling of kinship with the L.D.S. Church. It is in keeping with the high traditions of my Unitarian background that the gains made by my fellow workers are seen as gains for us all. It is a source of regret to all of us when one stone is discovered to bar the way to deeper faith within any soul.

With an assurance of my continued good-will and friendliness,

Most cordially yours,

J. Raymond Cope

President George Albert Smith, in response to this letter, wrote the following:

My Dear Dr. Cope:

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on “a short religious editorial prepared by one of our leaders entitled “Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church.” You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: “I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please.” This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498) Joseph Smith said further: “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

“Know this, that every soul is free

To choose his life and what he’ll be,

For this eternal truth is given

That God will force no man to heaven.”

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith

While I appreciate the words of President Smith, which reaffirm some of the supposed bedrock basics of Mormonism, I feel a certain amount of sadness and resignation that the spirit and mindset that resulted in that message being written 66 years ago was alive and well enough in the Church at that time to be so expressed in a Church-wide publication.  I feel even more disappointment to know that this same philosophy and mind-set is alive and well and thriving in the Church today – at all levels.

I sometimes wonder whether, in the Church, there is more worship of the “trueness” of the Church than of he who is supposedly the head of it.  Have Brigham Young’s worst fears been realized?

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.

Resignation: Doctrine Cannot Be Separated from History

I left off my last post by describing the angry feelings of betrayal that I experienced after having read Fawn Brodie’s No Man Knows My History. It wasn’t so much that I was reading things I’d never heard of before – although there were more than a few surprises. What Brodie did is look at Joseph Smith’s history and the early history of the institution of the LDS Church (which are pretty much one and the same) from a different perspective. She told the story that chapel Mormons never heard. The other side of the story. And it was pretty compelling.

In early 2012, I read D. Michael Quinn’s two books about Mormon Heirarchy, i.e., Mormon Heirarchy: Origins of Power and Mormon Heirarchy: Extensions of Power. As was the case with Brodie, Quinn revealed a very-well researched and documented account of early Church history that was very different than the one I was accustomed to reading. Also like Brodie, there were more than a few arched eyebrow moments when I read something I’d never heard of before but that was clearly solid history. 

Reading these books helped me to shake myself loose from the vestiges of belief I still had. As I expressed in my last post, my problem was that many of the core LDS doctrines – particularly those preached before the Nauvoo period – had made sense to me. The restoration argument was very plausible. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the doctrines it taught were plausible. Other doctrines developed by Joseph Smith were not only plausible but were attractive to me. 

But as I read, the evidence mounted. And so did my anger. 

• Anger at the Church for deliberately deceiving its members about who Joseph Smith was and what he did during the 1820’s. 
• Anger at the Church for deliberately and consciously advancing one story of how the Book of Mormon was translated while history reveals a different account (the seer stone in the hat method). 
• Anger at the Church for concealing how early “revelations” were later changed to accommodate evolving doctrinal developments. 
• Anger at the Church for deliberately glossing over glaring “problems” with the Book of Mormon that were presented to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as early as the 1920’s (by B.H. Roberts).
• Anger at the Church for deliberately concealing information about Joseph Smith’s evolving doctrine of polygamy that began in the early Kirtland period.

I could go on and on. 

It was this evidence and this anger at being duped in so many ways that made it much easier for me to sever the remaining cords of belief in an institution and belief system to which I had given much of my life.

The First Vision? How could I believe in this doctrine if Joseph Smith himself described it in at least four different ways? How could I believe in this doctrine if his family knew nothing about it or about the visitation of Moroni in 1823? Rather, the evidence pointed to the fact that this doctrine, like all of Mormonism, was evolving into something quite different than it had originally been conceived of being. 

The Book of Mormon? How could I believe in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith himself never preached from it and uttered his thanks to be rid of the last remaining written manuscript when it was put in a time capsule in the Nauvoo House? How could I continue to believe in it when the church that evolved in the 1830’s and early 1840’s bore little resemblance to that described in the Book of Mormon? 

Joseph Smith? As the evidence mounted, I found a Joseph Smith emerging that was very different than the one depicted today by the Church. What was I to think of him? 

No matter how much some of the “doctrines of the restoration” are appealing, they cannot be divorced from the poisoned well from which they originated. (And let me state that I am not interested in debating the matters I have referenced in this post. The purpose of this post is to tell my story, not to prove it to someone else.)

When I was investigating the Church in 1983, I was once told that “it’s really very simple: if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Church is what he said it is.” In 2011-2012, I reversed this pithy little statement: If the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet. Conversely if Joseph Smith was not what he purported to be, then the Book of Mormon is – ultimately – a fraud. In both these cases, if Joseph Smith was not what he purported to be, then the “doctrines” that he advanced were not revelations from God. It’s really very simple.

That’s what I told myself in the spring of 2012. I came to a point where I told myself that I didn’t have all the answers, but I didn’t need all the answers. I knew enough to know that Mormonism is no more “true” than is Methodism, or Presbyterianism, or Catholicism, or any number of other “-isms.” In anything, Mormonism was even “less true,” because, ultimately, it is based on historical lies and deceit. No matter how appealing some of the Church’s doctrines may be, these teachings cannot be separated from the historical context in which they arose.

Thus were any remaining, lingering threads of belief I had in the Mormon Church severed … forever.

Resignation: An Expression of the Divine

In my last post, I described how angry I became when I first started really confronting the early history of the LDS Church in November 2011. This confrontation proved to be crucial in the process of severing all spiritual, emotional and intellectual ties to the Church. What I learned is that LDS doctrines, however appealing, cannot be separated from the historical circumstances in which they arose or were formed.

Appealing doctrines?

Yes. I was an adult convert to the LDS Church, and among the reasons I joined at age 24 was because the doctrine, in the words of Joseph Smith, “tasted good to me.” 

In January 2011, when I was beginning the process of coming out, I wrote a post on my Invictus Pilgrim blog that explained how I felt about some of the Church’s doctrines. The following is an edited version of that post, which was entitled “An Expression of the Divine.” I would like to stress that what I wrote almost 3-1/2 years ago was a reflection of where I then was, not where I am today. 

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

The title of this post comes from a statement written by artist and writer Wes Hempel, with whom I had struck up a correspondence.  He had used this phrase in a discussion we were having of President Boyd K. Packer’s recent General Conference remarks. “If homosexuality is not a choice but is instead intrinsic,” Wes wrote, “the inescapable conclusion is that homosexuality is not ‘impure’ or ‘unnatural.’  Rather, it must be just another aspect of God’s creation ... [which] alongside heterosexuality … must be an expression of the divine.”

I would like to use Wes’ words to frame an articulation of some thoughts I have had recently.

I should first of all say that I was not born into the LDS Church.  I encountered Mormonism shortly after I graduated from college at a time when I was searching for meaning and direction in my life.  I had been raised in the Catholic Church, but had joined a mainline Protestant church when a senior in high school. Later, I had a brief but satisfying affair with the Episcopal Church.  By the time I met the missionaries in 1983, I was flirting with going back to the Catholic Church.

In college, I took a number of religion and philosophy courses that both challenged and enriched the belief structure I had been raised with and which I had later added to and modified.  I guess you could say that I was somewhat unusual for someone my age, in that I had devoted a lot of thought, time and effort to the study of organized religion in an effort to find my place in the world. So when I was introduced to Mormonism, several of its doctrines strongly appealed to me (not to mention its claim for absolute truth), such as the following:

The Eternal Nature of Man.  Unlike any other religion or belief system, Mormonism taught that each human being is an eternal person, that before being clothed in a mortal body, my spirit had existed in a “pre-existent” state and that, furthermore, my spirit had in that state been clothed in a spiritual body.  "All spirit is matter,” wrote the Prophet Joseph Smith, “but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes … This spirit element has always existed; it is co-eternal with God.”

Furthermore, Mormonism taught that, prior to being organized by God into my spirit body, the “essence” that is me existed as intelligence.  “We know,” wrote Joseph Fielding Smith, “that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual.”

The Godlike Nature of Man.  Closely connected with the Mormon teaching that we are spirit children of God is the belief that, because of this heritage, we possess attributes of God within our very spirits.  “Our spirit birth gave us godlike capabilities,” wrote President Lorenzo Snow. “We were born in the image of God our Father; He begot us like unto Himself. There is the nature of deity in the composition of our spiritual organization; in our spiritual birth our Father transmitted to us the capabilities, powers and faculties which He Himself possessed -- as much so as the child on its mother's bosom possesses, although in an undeveloped state, the faculties, powers, and susceptibilities of its parent.”

The Dual Nature of Mortal Man.  Mormonism also simply cut through the Gordian knot when it came to the age-old debate among philosophers as to the true nature of man:  was the body merely a corrupting force of our “true” selves, our “spirit”, and thus something to be despised?  No, answered Mormonism.  We were sent here to this earth so that our spirits could be clothed in a mortal body which the spirit would, during the resurrection, reclaim and which would then be made immortal and glorified to a degree that would bring each of us eternal happiness and joy.

The Purpose of Life.  Far from proclaiming mortality to be a vale of tears, Mormon scripture shouted the truth that “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy”! (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:29)

The Destiny of Man.  Mormonism also rejected the false dichotomy of heaven vs. hell.  In a blaze of light and revelation, Joseph Smith’s vision of the degrees of glory, an account of which appears in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants (Mormon scripture), consigned the traditional Christian view of heaven and hell to the dustbin of history.  Except for “sons of perdition” (which I will not address), all will be resurrected and eventually inherit a degree of glory in the eternities that is commensurate with and designed to give ultimate joy to each of God’s children.

These doctrines lie at the heart of what Mormons alternately call “The Restoration”, the “Gospel” or the “Restored Gospel.” Each term refers to truths that Mormons believe are eternal but which had been lost for centuries due to apostasy within the Christian world.  These doctrines, among others, are what have led thousands, including myself, to join the Church.

The "Family" Trumps All

These doctrines, however, are given only passing reference in the Church today.  To the extent they are considered or referred to, whether “in the trenches” (in ward sacrament meetings or Sunday School lessons) or from the pulpit of General Conference, they typically serve as backdrop to what in my view has become the all-important, all-consuming Doctrine of today’s Church:  The Family.

The Church’s emphasis on “the Family” colors and drives every activity in and aspect of the Church, from Family Home Evening to Proposition 8 to the ordinances of the LDS temples.  It is this emphasis that, I submit, has led to the Church’s historically harsh position with respect to homosexuality and its involvement with several initiatives to fight gay marriage.

I believe it is also this emphasis, coupled with the Church’s (commendable) emphasis on meeting the temporal needs of God’s children through practical service and humanitarian work, along with its corporate approach to missionary work and temple “work”, that has led to the “pedestrian-ization” of the Gospel, particularly as the Church continues to seek to be accepted into the North American mainstream.

Even though I have become disaffected with orthodox Mormonism and the mainstream church, I still believe in the doctrines I have described above.  I still believe that these doctrines are like rich veins of precious philosophical ore, waiting to be explored and mined.  I feel this is particularly true with respect to how these doctrines relate to the concept of homosexuality.

I’d like to issue a challenge Mormon thinkers to consider this question: If one is born gay (which I very definitely believe is the case), and if one accepts the premise that homosexuality is not some sort of biological abnormality such as Down Syndrome but rather a reflection of one’s pre-mortal identity (which I believe), then what implications do these postulations have concerning the nature of God, a gay pre-mortal identity (and how such an identity was acquired) and (perhaps most importantly) a post-mortal gay identity?

In the meantime, I wish to simply adopt Wes Hempel’s statement as an expression of my own personal creed:  I was born gay, and this is not only a part of my eternal identity, but also an expression of the Divine.

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

In my next post, I will explore how confronting the history of the LDS Church and of Joseph Smith allowed me sever any remaining emotional, spiritual or intellectual ties to the Mormon Church.

Resignation: Confronting Church History

This is another in a series of posts chronicling my decision to formally resign my membership in the LDS Church and my confrontation with Church history and doctrine that followed my resignation.

I had submitted my letter of resignation. I had formally left the LDS Church, but I knew when I resigned that the Church, or rather a lingering - albeit tattered - belief in the Church, had not left me. As I've written in the previous posts in this series, when I resigned, I still didn't know what I believed about Joseph Smith, about the history of the Church, about the Book of Mormon, about temples, about a number of things. 

Leaving Was Not Enough

I was an adult convert to the Church. I had invested 28 years of my life in believing the Mormon Church was what it claimed to be. I found that it was one thing to leave a church that I felt had turned its back on me and in which I could no longer fit; but it was quite another to stop believing in things I had ardently believed, that I had taught my children, of which I had born testimony, that had seemed so rational and so believable for so long. Relinquishing long-held beliefs was far more difficult than mailing a letter to Church headquarters.

For a while after resigning, I thought that I could just leave these beliefs behind. But merely relinquishing them somehow felt like I imagined excommunication would feel like ... in that I hadn't "acted" of my own volition, but had merely "reacted." 

Relinquishment wasn't enough. I had to go back and face the beliefs and, if necessary and appropriate, renounce them, thereby paving the way (as it turned out) for healing from what the beliefs had done to me. I say "if necessary and appropriate" because I did not start out with an "agenda." I merely opened my mind, and the result followed of its own accord.

Opening My Mind

In the 28 years that I had been an active member of the LDS Church, I had never allowed myself to read anything that was even remotely "anti-Mormon." Over the years, I had read widely about the history of the Church, about Joseph Smith and about the doctrines of the Church, but all from sources that were sympathetic to the belief that the Church and Joseph Smith were what and whom they purported to be. 

I knew a lot about the history of the Church. I'm not trying to be boastful, but merely state a fact. I had read virtually every "friendly" biography of Joseph Smith, including Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. I had read biographies of almost all of the presidents of the Church as well as many other books about the history of the Church. I had believed the Brethren when they had said that "detractors" from Joseph Smith and "apostates" had been led away to write and speak untruths about Smith and the Church, both during his lifetime and later. 

After all, if Joseph Smith really was what he proclaimed himself to be, and what many believed him to be, then it makes a certain amount of sense that many would seek to destroy the Prophet's reputation and cast doubt on his prophetic calling. The same could be said of Brigham Young, Smith's successor as president of the Church. The history of the Church as presented by those friendly to it made sense - in a sort of a way - and I would not entertain any notions that this history was not what it purported to be.

Starting to Read

The first book I picked up after I resigned of which I read parts was Under the Banner of Heaven. Mark had recommended it to me, but I quickly lost interest in the modern-day polygamists described in the book. What I found interesting was its depiction of the history of polygamy in the Mormon world. On 22 November 2011, I made the following entry in my journal:

“I am now reading Under the Banner of Heaven, which is basically about polygamous sects but also goes into the history of the Mormon Church. I thought I knew just about all there was to know about church history, but I read some things yesterday I had never heard of. Needless to say, they challenged my understanding and knowledge of church history. I’m only scratching the surface, I’m sure. I have quite a journey ahead of me. 

“As I was thinking about this yesterday, I realized that I would never have ‘gone there’ in the past – even though I considered myself a ‘liberal Mormon,’ [at least intellectually] because it would have been too challenging. I couldn’t afford to shake my testimony – it was the one thing I clung to in order to bring sanity to my life of denial, conflict and shame. Paradoxically, it was also the one thing that tied me to my life of denial, conflict and shame.”

No Man Knows His History

Later in November, I started reading Fawn Brodie's landmark biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History. I well remember going into Barnes and Noble and almost feeling like I was purchasing pornography – it was so taboo. Or at least in my mind at that ime. 

I had heard of her book, of course; but I had also read Hugh Nibley's rebuttal as well as other negative commentary written by defenders of the Church. It was the typical sort of stuff: slinging mud at the author, but leaving her basic message unchallenged. Brodie, however, was no "anti-Mormon." At the time she initially wrote History, she was a young historian (in the 1940's), but she would later achieve fame and recognition for her landmark biography of Thomas Jefferson. 

What I read in Brodie's book infuriated me. I don't know now many times I said to Mark (who is not, nor ever has been, Mormon), "I was so gullible!" Brodie told the other side of the story that had been constantly denigrated by the Church and its various apologists. But she also told the story that was never in the official or friendly accounts because it was too damning. I felt like I had been duped. Mislead. Lied to. And I didn't like it.

Resignation: Grace and the Courage to Be

“Sometimes it happens that we receive the power to yes to ourselves, 

that peace enters into us and makes us whole, 

that self-hate and self-contempt disappear, 

and that our self is reunited with itself. 

Then we can say that grace has come upon us.”

“The courage to be is the courage to accept oneself, 

in spite of being unacceptable.”

~ Paul Tillich

This is another in a series of posts chronicling my decision to resign my membership in the LDS Church and to confront the historical origins of the Church. As mentioned in my last post in the series, the first Circling the Wagons conference was going on while I in the process of resigning. I wrote this post in November 2011 about the interfaith service that was held as part of the conference.

The above two quotes were both written by Paul Tillich, a noted Protestant theologian and philosopher, and I think they aptly and beautifully capture much of what was expressed and felt at this past weekend’s “Circling the Wagons” LGBTQ conference, sponsored by MormonStories.org and held here in Salt Lake City.

The conference was successful beyond expectations by any of a number of measures. The Deseret News pegged attendance at 300. I personally know of attendees who had come from Washington, D.C., North Carolina, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, California, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon, along with many from Utah. In addition to gays and lesbians who attended, there were many, many family members and other members of the Church who attended in order to learn and support loved ones.

Throughout the weekend, many plain and precious truths were conveyed, hearts were touched, friendships formed, and love shared. As was expressed by a number of presenters and attendees throughout the weekend, we all felt like we were part of something historic.

The Interfaith Service was no exception, though it was somewhat discordant. There we were, sitting in Skaggs Memorial Chapel at the First Baptist Church, singing LDS hymns. The organist was a gay Mormon who will be married to his partner this week. The chorister was a straight LDS woman. The man who conducted the service is an openly gay member of his ward. The congregation consisted of gay men, lesbian women, families with children, parents of gay children, straight men and women, friends of their gay brothers and sisters.

We heard inspiring talks given by Kevin Kloosterman, an LDS bishop who had traveled from the Midwest to attend and speak at the conference, by Rev. Mary June Nestler, the Canon of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah, and by the Rev. Jimmy Creech, who had been one of the keynote speakers the day before.

Though there were many notable moments, the highlight of the service for me came when Julia Hunter, a lesbian Mormon who is a professional violinist, was joined by a young gay man who was long-time friend and fellow musician (Julia laughed when she said they had gone to the prom together in high school) to play a piano-violin duet of a medley of several Mormon hymns. As I sat there, transported by the beauty of the music, I contemplated the words of the hymn Julia was playing, “There Is Sunshine In My Soul Today.”

In the row in front of me, I saw sights that are common in any LDS sacrament meeting:  a couple, sitting close together with one’s arm around the other person in an expression of tenderness and love. Next to them, I saw a young couple, the flower of LDS youth. As the young man leaned forward in the pew, the other’s fingers ran up and down his back – a sight seen over and over again in wards throughout the Church.

This scene was different, however, for both of these couples consisted of gay men. The older couple, partners, expressed deep love and affection as one rested his body within the embrace of the other’s arm. The younger couple, boyfriends, were both returned missionaries, both handsome, clean cut young men. One had given the opening prayer for the service. Halfway through “Sunshine”, after his boyfriend had been gently running his fingers up and down his back, he sat back up in the pew and put his arm around his boyfriend.

It was scenes throughout the weekend of gay couples openly expressing affection for each other - scenes that we would take for granted in an LDS meetinghouse among heterosexual couples - that I think was one of the most powerful messages of the conference. Even for us gay folks, as well as our straight allies, these scenes took aback a bit at first; we're not accustomed to seeing this in a "church" or "LDS" setting; but then we think, "Yeah, this is what it's all about," and it just seemed (as it was) so natural, so right, and yet such a powerful representation of what all the talks, songs and discussion are all about.

These were the thoughts running through my mind while the violin and piano played on, transporting all of us higher and higher with beautiful musical runs that evoked feelings of ascension and transcendance. It was during these moments that I felt what I am sure most people in that room felt:  a spirit of love, a spirit of peace, a spirit that confirmed that we are loved and accepted for who and what we are, a spirit that drove away self-hatred and self-contempt. It was, as Paul Tillich wrote, a moment of grace, and I think we all felt it.

I could write about what Rev. Nestler had to say about the Episcopal Church’s journey to full acceptance of gays and lesbians. I could write about the powerful words Jimmy Creech shared about no one having the power or the authority to tell us who we cannot love. I could write about those things. But what I personally think was most memorable about that service was what we felt … as a group of gay and lesbian Mormons, together with their friends, families and allies, gathered to worship together in a small chapel in a Baptist Church in Salt Lake City … and what we left with:  a greater courage to be, to accept ourselves in spite of being unacceptable.

Postscript: At the time I wrote this in November 2011, I still very much considered myself to be a Mormon - culturally if not literally. This was before I started investigating and confronting the history of the Church, before I became disillusioned and angry at lies and deception and betrayal.

Resignation: "There is No Home For You Here"

This is the fourth in a series of posts that chronicle my decision to resign my membership in the LDS Church and my confrontation with Church history that followed. Unlike the previous three posts in this series that were originally published on another blog in the spring of 2013, this is a new post.

Within a week or so of mailing my letter of resignation, I received a form letter from the Membership Records Department of the Church:

Perhaps I should say again that I didn't feel I could just go inactive in the Church. For me, it was a matter of personal integrity. I just didn't want the feeling that I was responsible to some church authority for the way I was living my life; nor did I want the feeling of looking over my shoulder to see if some church leader was going to send me notice of a disciplinary hearing. I wanted to be free of all that. Period. 

I know other gay Mormon men who have been excommunicated but still believe in the Church. I know of others who were excommunicated and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Church. Others have simply gone inactive; they are still members but don't associate with the Church. Still others have, like me, chosen to resign their membership in the Church. I respect each of these decisions; it is a very personal matter. I have never regretted my decision to resign.

As the above letter describes, the Church doesn't give up easily. Resignation requests are always referred to local church leaders, i.e., the bishop and stake president. By the time my then-current bishop was contacted, I had already moved in with Mark, but I deliberately used my old address. Sure enough, the bishop came by the house and talked to my old housemate, who assured him that I was deadly serious and totally confident in my decision to resign.

So, a couple of weeks later, I received the following letter from the bishop that had been sent to my old address:

Enclosed with this letter, however, was a personal one, hand-written by my former bishop. I have to say I was deeply touched by and appreciated his words and the sentiment behind them:

It was somewhat ironic that the letter was dated the day my daughter Hannah was married in the Salt Lake Temple. Of course, I wasn't in the sealing room, but I was there when she came out, looking radiant. I didn't know until much later of the ordeal she experienced within her own heart and soul with regard to the temple. But she also didn't know until much later what was going on regarding my decision to leave the Church. 

My resignation also occurred in the midst of the first Mormon Stories Circling the Wagons Conference, an event which I helped plan and in which I participated. I will share some of my thoughts about that conference in the next post in this series.

In early December, I received the final letter:

Thus, the end of a 28-1/2 year period in my life. I didn't know what the future would hold, but I was confident that I had made the right decision.

The Mystical Bonds

This is the third in a series of posts, originally published in the spring of 2013, that chronicle my decision to resign my membership in the Mormon Church and my confrontation with Church history that followed.

It’s amazing, the power that myth has over us. My marriage to my former wife was, as I have previously described, the central myth of my life, in the sense that it gave it meaning, purpose and structure. She and I felt and believed that it was God’s will that we be together, and this belief was supported and sustained by what we viewed as powerful spiritual experiences prior to our marriage. In much the same way as the miracles of the Exodus created and sustained Israel for centuries, even millennia, these pre-marital spiritual experiences were the glue that held our marriage together and gave me the faith to keep moving forward despite considerable obstacles.

I realized as I was writing this post that there were no further powerful spiritual experiences after we married. As is the case with countless other myths, we looked back to those original experiences as definitive, regardless of subsequent circumstances. I also came to realize that had my wife and I married under “normal” circumstances, our marriage would likely have survived only a few years – if that long. We had virtually nothing in common outside of the Church, and then there was the fact that I was gay, trying (honestly, sincerely and desperately) to be heterosexual. 

As I have written, the central myth of our "celestialized marriage" was supported, sustained and controlled by another myth, i.e., the truthfulness of Mormonism. I could never allow myself to question the doctrine of Mormonism and thus the truthfulness of the Church, because doing so would threaten this central myth. 

So, even though I was deeply unhappy in the Church and there were many things about it that I did not like, I never allowed myself to “go there.” I couldn’t afford to shake my core testimony because it was the one thing I clung to in order to bring sanity and meaning to my life of denial, conflict and shame (as a gay man). Paradoxically, it was also the one thing that shackled me to my life of denial, conflict and shame.

My coming out was the A-bomb that dealt a critical blow to both my testimony and the central myth that had governed over 25 years of my adult life. But though mortally wounded, my internalized belief system in Mormonism clung to life. Though I had lost any belief at all in the divine calling of the Brethren (the highest-ranking leaders of the Church), there were certain things that were very difficult for me to let go of. I frankly didn’t know what I believed with respect to the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I had no explanations of how both could not be what they purport(ed) to be.

And, not surprisingly, I found my belief in the temple sealing ordinances tenacious. The hold, the power, that the sealing bonds have on Mormons – whether currently practicing or not – is profound. Though there are many aspects of the modern “Mormon Myth,” I would submit that the concept of the eternal family lies at the center of the myth, in that it is the most powerful motivating force of the entire religion. And at the very heart of that center stands the temple, the nexus between mortals and the Gods where the sacred ordinances of eternal family creation are performed. 

So as I considered resigning, I was concerned about what effect this action might have on my already strained relationships with my children. Beyond this, I was concerned – at least for a time – about the temple ordinances that had “sealed” my children to me.  What effect would my resignation have on those ordinances, I wondered?  

But then, almost immediately, I realized that I was still giving credence to a belief system in which I had lost faith. I realized how deeply I had become enmeshed in a system that had taught me that my relationships with my children were dependent on rituals, rather than on strong, true and authentic emotions and experiences.

I pondered how I had bought into this system, which had encouraged me to subject my relationships with my children to its demands, that taught me to constantly judge my children and myself, that “ritualized” my relationships with them. How different things would be, I mused, if my religion emphasized that what “sealed” me to my children were not rituals in a building, but rather feelings of love and acceptance, of validation and caring, of tenderness and devotion.

And so, as the days rolled by in the summer of early fall of 2011, I examined my feelings anew. Why did I want to resign my membership? Because I felt like a hypocrite. Because I was tired of the feeling of looking over my shoulder, of receiving a letter summoning me to a disciplinary council. Because I knew instinctively that I needed to ‘throw off the chains with which I am bound,’ to use a scriptural term.

Beyond all of this, however, was the feeling of actually doing something proactively, rather than waiting for events to force my hand. Even though I still didn’t know what I believed about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, I knew I no longer wanted to be a part of the Church. I knew I needed to sever that tie in order to move on with my life.

And thus in late October 2011, I sat in front of my computer, staring at the blinking cursor. Then I typed the last line of my resignation letter.

 “As I am no longer a member, I want my name permanently and completely removed from the membership rolls of the church.”

I printed out the letter, checked it for errors, addressed the envelope and left both lying on my desk. I went outside for some fresh air. The enormity of what I was doing weighed upon me. I felt physically ill. Mark, who was preparing to leave for work, was consoling, comforting and supportive. He gently encouraged me to go ahead and mail the letter right away and get it behind me to put an end to the suffering I was experiencing.

After Mark left, I folded the letter, put it in the envelope, sealed it, and stared at it for a few moments. Then, I got in my car and drove to the post box down the street. I was afraid that if I left it for the mail carrier, I’d change my mind. I got out of the car, walked over to the box, pulled back the lid and dropped the letter in. As soon as I did so, my feelings of nausea and anxiety left. I took two deep breaths, got back in my car and realized as I was driving away that I felt wonderful. I have never, not even for a moment, regretted that decision.

Even so, I still had a lingering belief in the Book of Mormon and in Joseph Smith ... I decided I would simply let this belief lie for the time being. But that was soon to change.