The Velvet Rage: Shame, Self-Hatred and the Pursuit of Validation

“Whatever it was – at the time we still may not have known what it was – we decided must be hidden completely from view.  Although we are older now, we are still driven by those insatiable, infantile drives for love and acceptance.  In order to survive, we learned to become something that we thought would be more acceptable to our parents, teachers and playmates.”

Today’s Invictus Pilgrim Book Club post continues a discussion of The Velvet Rage:  Overcoming the Pain of Growing up Gay in a Straight Man’s World, by Alan Downs, Ph.D.  I covered the Introduction in the last post on this book; today, I discuss material from the first three chapters, which explore the phenomena of shame and the desire for validation in the life of a typical gay man.

I could personally relate to much of what Downs wrote in these first three chapters.  After describing what many gay boys experience at the hands of their peers, he makes the comment that this treatment (bullying, called a “sissy”, etc.), together with a fear of rejection by parents, engrains in young men a strident lesson:  That there is something about them that is “disgusting, aberrant and essentially unlovable.”

 “We needed love and we feared that there was something about us that made us unlovable.  It was an experience that became an integral part of our psychology that has stayed with us most of our lives.  We became utterly convinced that there was something about us that is essentially unlovable.”

I have lately been exploring feelings of shame and have come to better realize just how deeply engrained in me is this conviction that I was/am essentially unlovable.  In my own case, I believe that the seed of this conviction was planted when I was just an infant and toddler, then was nourished as I grew into a boy and experienced abuse in the home.   This shame grew exponentially when, as an adolescent, I realized that I am gay.

What are the effects and consequences of this shame?  Downs summarizes some of them:

 “We became dependent on adopting the skin our environment imposed upon us to earn the love and affection we craved.  How would we love ourselves when everything around us told us that we were unlovable?  Instead, we chased the affection, approval and attention doled out by others … We survived by learning to conform to the expectations of others at a time in our development when we should have been learning to follow our own internal promptings.  We became puppets of a sort – allowing those around us to pull the strings that made us act in acceptable ways, all the while knowing that we couldn’t trust ourselves.”

This passage couldn’t have described me better.  I have often commented during the past year that, for most of my life, I have felt like an actor on a stage, performing a role/roles and seeking the approval or validation of others, but feeling utterly empty inside.  Shame essentially denies the self as unlivable and unlovable and pushes it away, deep down inside ourselves.  Writes Downs:

“Not surprisingly, the long-term effect was an inability to validate ourselves.  The ability to derive internal satisfaction and contentment didn’t emerge from our adolescence as it should have.  Instead, we sputtered along looking to others for the confidence and well-being that we needed to protect ourselves from being overcome with shame.  What normally becomes an internal, self-sustaining process of self-validation in the healthy, young adult remained infantile within us, and we instead became sophisticated in the ways of coercing acceptance from the world around us.”

What many don’t realize is that, like the effects of child abuse that are woven into the very fabric of one’s being, the effects of shame induced by growing up gay also have long-term effects that can – if unaddressed – affect us for decades:

“An emotional wound caused by toxic shame is a very serious and persistent disability that has the potential to literally destroy your life.  It is much more than just a poor self-image.  It is the internalized and deeply held belief that you are somehow unacceptable, unlovable, shameful, and in short, flawed … Because we are very vulnerable to shame and because it is triggered so easily within us, our lives become solely focused on avoiding shame and seeking validation … The consequence of this is that [the] true self remains undeveloped and hidden deep within … Who [one] is, what [one] really likes, [one’s] true passion, and more are all colored and buried beneath the façade [one] has developed to avoid shame.”

For me, joining the Church as a young man seemed like the perfect vehicle to salve my deep sense of shame, to achieve validation and to adopt an identity that I could put on like an off-the-rack suit. 

Like survival mechanisms adopted as a child which work for a while but later prove detrimental and unhealthy, joining the Church provided me with much-needed validation, love and personal meaning – for a time.  But, ultimately, it reinforced my deeply-held belief that I was unacceptable, unlovable, shameful and flawed.

Now, I am engaged in a process of seeking my true self, of trying to figure out what has happened to me throughout my life, and of learning to love myself.  Reading Velvet Rage has helped me in this process.

Simply Sunday

“The task of any religion is not to teach us
who we are entitled to hate,
but who we’re required to love.”

~ BYU USGA Letter
(written in response to anti-gay letters in the Daily Universe)

“Be curious,

not judgmental.”

~ Walt Whitman

"The only reason people hate gay people
is because their leaders tell them to."

~ Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA)

"No one has the authority
to tell us whom we cannot love."

~ Jimmy Creech

"No one has the authority
to tell us how God feels about us."

~ Carol Lynn Pearson

“Conscience is the most sacred
of all property.”

~ James Madison

Out in the Silence

Last night, I watched a documentary about what it means to be gay in small-town America.  I was reminded – forcefully – that religion-inspired homophobia and bigotry is just as bad elsewhere in the country, if not far worse, than here in the shadows of the Everlasting Hills.  I was also reminded that the best way to combat bigotry, misunderstanding and fear is to stand up, then reach out.

“Out in the Silence” tells the story of what happened when a gay man, Joe Wilson (who would be a near contemporary of mine), decided to put an announcement of the marriage to his partner in the newspaper of his hometown of Oil City, Pennsylvania.  Joe had left the small town many years before and had lived in Washington, D.C., but felt a desire to share this important event in his life with those whom he had grown up around.

He wasn’t prepared for what happened.

Letters to the editor started pouring in, protesting the inclusion of the wedding announcement in the local paper.  Then Joe received a letter that would change his life.  It was from a mother from Oil City who had a teenage son – CJ – who had recently come out.  He experienced terrible bullying at school, and she wrote to Joe out of desperation, hoping that there was something he could do to help them.  Inspired, Joe decided to make a trip back to Oil City to see if there was in fact something he could do.

Thus began a two-year documentary project that examines not only the lives of this mother and her son, but of a lesbian couple in town, of a local religious activist, and a local pastor whom Joe befriends.

I found the film engaging and inspiring.  First of all, it demonstrates the difference that two gay men can make by simply standing up and not only declaring, but also celebrating, who they are.  The story started with a simple wedding announcement.  If Joe and his partner had not taken that simple step, there would have been no story.  There also would have been no story if CJ’s mother hadn’t reached out and if Joe and his partner had not decided to get involved.

Once in Oil City, Joe reached out, not only to CJ and his mother, but also to a pastor and his wife who had written a letter to the editor, complaining about the wedding announcement.  Throughout the course of the documentary, we see how both Joe and the pastor were changed through their sincere efforts to better understand each other.

Joe also reached out to a local religious zealot and we witness his futile efforts to try to pierce through her militant bigotry.

Lastly, Joe reached out and befriended a local lesbian couple and shared in their efforts to reach out to the larger community.

Through all of this, the lesson that loomed large for me is that change will not happen in our society unless and until we demand it.  Not necessarily in a belligerent way, but through standing up proudly for who we are, making no apologies, then reaching out confidently to those around us, seeking to build bridges of understanding, to educate, to lessen fears and – in some cases – to befriend.

Obstacles to Change in the Church: Inspired and Enforced Ignorance

A couple of days ago, I wrote about how various speakers at the recent Circling the Wagons Conference in Salt Lake City encouraged LGBT members of the LDS Church and their allies to stay in the Church and to work for change from the “ground up.”  I then discussed one major obstacle to such change, i.e., that the Mormon Church has a theocratic, rather than a democratic polity. 

Some of the comments to that post were of a type I would have expected, particularly this one:

“A 'ground-up approach' would indicate that God's Church is a sorta democracy. We do not get to vote, in the Church, on what is right or wrong. It's God's KINGDOM not his DEMOCRACY. HE makes the decisions and lets us in on it through his Prophet.”

This comment points out another major obstacle to change within the Church, viz., the attitudes, prejudices, and ignorance of other members of the Church.

For example, in the comment I just quoted, the author obviously believes that Christ “tells” President Monson what to do, or in his/her words, the prophet “lets us in on” what Christ’s decisions are with respect to the running of the Church. 

With due respect, this is an uninformed and naïve view.  Anyone who knows anything about how the Church is run is aware that major decisions are made by consensus among the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.  For example, even President Kimball couldn’t just say, “We’re going to allow blacks to hold the priesthood.”  That change had to go through years of tortuous negotiations, back and forth among various of the Brethren, waiting for certain of the apostles to either die or change their mind.

And would this person really believe that God himself told President Monson to wade into the Proposition 8 fiasco in California?  Probably.

Of course, there is bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance throughout society.  I think, however, that there are (at least) two major differences between general society (as well as other Christian denominations) and the LDS Church when it comes to LGBTQ issues. 

The first is that many members of the Church typically either (i) don’t do their own thinking but simply parrot what they think the Brethren have said on these issues and/or (ii) cloak their own prejudices and bigotry with the mantle of the “prophets” – in both cases appealing to a “higher truth” that trumps any other viewpoint. 

There are, for example, many otherwise well-meaning and wonderful members of the Church who simply accept what Spencer W. Kimball wrote and preached 40 years ago and haven’t tuned in to the more nuanced doctrinal positions that the Church has taken in more recent years to issues involving homosexuality.  These people might be open to learning and thinking differently if appropriate information was to be provided to them.

On the other hand, there are those members of the Church who stridently and militantly go forth to do combat against the godless hordes of homosexuals who are part of Satan’s great plan to destroy any decency or morality in society.  These persons revel in what President Kimball wrote.  They delight in using words like “abomination” and “disgusting” and phrases like “sin against nature.”  They cloak their own personal bigotry, prejudice and ignorance in the mantel of past prophets and then use misinterpreted biblical passages and “prophetic utterances” as clubs against those who are the targets of their righteous indignation.

Sigh.

Again, there is bigotry, ignorance and prejudice with respect to LGBT issues throughout society.  But the appeal to prophetic authority, to the TRUTH, makes these all the much more difficult to combat within the membership of the LDS Church, particularly when – as it sometimes happens – the persons holding such views are in positions of authority.

Which brings me to the second major difference between society in general (or other Christian denominations) and the LDS Church when it comes to LGBTQ issues, viz., the constant threat of Church discipline for those who express views on these issues that are deemed to be “not in harmony” with those of the Brethren (or the stake president).  This discipline can range from withholding a temple recommend, to disfellowshipment, to excommunication.

And what makes it doubly sinister is that the application of this discipline varies from ward to ward, from stake to stake, depending on a variety of factors.  For example, I have a very good friend who is relatively active in the LDS Church, is openly gay and lives in a more “progressive” area of Salt Lake City.  He believes in the Church, believes in the Restoration and believes that the Brethren, albeit human and flawed, are called of God to lead and guide the Lord’s Church. 

Nevertheless, this man was recently told by his bishop, in the course of a conversation about the Church’s stance toward homosexuality, that if he (my friend) lived in another stake, he would likely be called before a disciplinary council (i.e., put on trial by his local Church leaders) – not because of immoral conduct, but because of what he has said publicly about the Church and homosexuality.

I know of others here in the Salt Lake City area, not gay themselves but allies of their LGBT brothers and sisters, who live in different stakes who have had the privilege of attending the temple taken away because these members have refused to stop publicly advocating for gay marriage or otherwise supporting gay rights.

One hears other stories, such as the gay man who was disfellowshipped for stating over the pulpit at a fast and testimony meeting that he is gay.  At the same time, one reads accounts of others coming out in fast and testimony meetings in other parts of the country, and there are no adverse consequences.

These are formidable obstacles to change within the LDS Church, community and culture.  They may in some cases be insurmountable.  But for those who care enough to seek to effect change, it would appear that the very best tools they can use to combat ignorance and prejudice are (i) correct information (e.g., the latest scholarship about the true meaning of biblical passages that purport to condemn homosexuality; what they Brethren have really said and are saying about homosexuality; what science has to say about sexual orientation; what sociologists have to say about same-gender parents; etc), and (ii) (referencing Carol Lynn Pearson's talk  at the Circling the Wagons Conference about the hero’s journey) the elixir that gay Mormons and their friends, family members and allies bring back to the tribe from their hero’s journey, which in my view consists of  tolerance, enlightenment and authentic love.

Obstacles to Change in the Church: Democracy vs. Theocracy

One of the big themes that emerged during the Circling the Wagons Conference 10 days ago, as initially expressed by Carol Lynn Pearson in the Friday afternoon workshop, was “we are the change we seek.”  At various times and in various ways, a number of the speakers and presenters at the Conference encouraged gay Mormons and their allies to stay in the Church and bring about change (i.e., with respect to the Church’s treatment of LGBT persons) from the ground up.

On Monday, I wrote about some of the “stepping stones to change” that could possibly occur.  But I think it would Pollyannaish in the extreme to ignore the very real obstacles to change that exist within the LDS Church, speaking of both its institutional leadership as well as its general membership.  In this and subsequent posts, I’d like to explore some of these obstacles.

Perhaps the most significant obstacle to change within the institution of the LDS Church is that it has a top-down authoritarian structure.  During the course of the conference, Jimmy Creech shared some of his frustration over the way in which his own United Methodist Church has dealt with same gender-loving people.  On Sunday morning, the Rev. Canon Mary June Nestler of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah described the struggle that her church went through to end discrimination against LGBT persons and welcome them into full fellowship within the church. 

It was fascinating to listen to both of these religious leaders describe their own personal efforts to bring about change within their respective traditions.  It was inspiring to hear Jimmy Creech explain that he has worked and continues to work to bring about change in his own denomination, despite 25 years of frustration and being stripped by that denomination of his ministerial credentials, because he loves the church and because there is so much that was good about his church.  He wanted to work to make it better, to remove the stain of bigotry left by the church’s official treatment of same gender-loving people, and he knew that his efforts – along with those of other like-minded Methodists - would and will eventually bring about change in that denomination.

In the case of Rev. Nestler, it was intriguing and also inspiring to hear her describe the national conference at which the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson (the first openly gay bishop within the Episcopal Church) was approved.  She made a comment about the approval process being somewhat “messy,” but she emphasized a point that Latter-day Saints should both appreciate and ponder, i.e., that the movement of the Spirit was manifested in the debates and the eventual outcome.  In other words, to Episcopalians, God’s will is made manifest through his people, not necessarily to his people.

Why should Latter-day Saints be able to appreciate this point?  Because this is official LDS doctrine with respect to the founding of the United States of America and, in particular, the writing of the U.S. Constitution:  God worked through the men who were engaged in hard-knuckle negotiations during the drafting and adoption of the U.S. Constitution in order to bring to pass His will:  a divinely-inspired document that would facilitate both the Restoration and the spread of religious freedom around the world.

Why should Latter-day Saints ponder this point?  Because if God is able to bring to pass and make manifest his will through a secular political process, why cannot He do the same through an ecclesiastical political process? Hmmm …

Inspired as I was by the comments of Jimmy Creech and Rev. Nestler, I knew that the exhilarating and very human process they were describing could never take place in the LDS Church.  Doctrine and questions of how Mormons as a religious community should address various social issues are never discussed, let alone debated – at least not “officially.”  Mormons are told what to believe and are told  how they should treat their neighbor. 

In fact, Latter-day Saints are admonished from time to time to be nicer, more tolerant and more open-minded (e.g., some of President Hinckley’s comments in this regard).  From time to time, the Church announces a position on an issue, e.g., with respect to immigration, but this is the hierarchy’s position, not a stance that has been discussed and debated within the general membership of the Church.

Rev. Nestler pleaded during the course of her comments at the Interfaith Service for gay Latter-say Saints and their allies to stay in the Church so that they could be agents for change.  But Mormons are not Episcopalians or Methodists or Presbyterians or even Baptists.  The LDS Church’s “polity” is a theocracry, not a democracy.  There is no movement of the Spirit among the general membership; rather, there is a pronouncement of the Spirit from above.  Validity and truth exist only through the pronouncements of the Brethren; certainly not in the unwashed masses.

In this respect, being an LGBT Mormon (or an ally) is very much akin to being a liberal Democrat in Utah.  You may have the right to speak your mind and work for change (which is not entirely true within the Church context, as will be addressed in a future post), but because of the overwhelmingly conservative culture and the anti-democratic electoral processes of this state, the chances of you effecting change are slim to none.  True, in certain gerrymandered ghettos where there is a higher concentration of Democrats, the possibility of change is much higher.  In the same respect, there are certain stakes of the Church, e.g., Carol Lynn Pearson's Oakland Stake, where there is a higher concentration of same gender-loving persons and a more enlightened approach is implemented.  But in Utah as in the Church, effecting real change remains an extremely daunting task.

Selfish and Alone: Indulging My "Weakness"

“I think it's so revealing of what type of person you are when here you are trying to speak as if your a spiritual guy and all throughout your blog you have pictures of half naked boys. What an oxymoron. When all of the fun from indulging your weakness is gone, and if you ever wake up and find out that the lies you have been telling yourself that this type of choice of life will bring you happiness, when you wake up to the fact that you lost all that was true happiness and the family that you gave up due to your desire to feed your weakness over what is true... Let see how happy and peaceful you will be after you have lived your life selfish and alone. I have a cousin in the same situation, he has gone from one partner to another looking for happiness and peace trying to replicate the peace that can only be felt by living the gospel. But guess what, he and you will never find it doing what you are doing. No matter how many lies you guys tell yourself about it's okay to indulge your weaknesses and no matter how many times the homosexual cloture [culture?] try to replicate a real family in all the different perversions that are out there now, no matter if you try and pick and choose which part of the gospel you choose to live, you will never truly be happy. Not because God hates you, no, it's quite the opposite in fact God still loves you no matter what you do. Most wise people know that that type of life is not full of happiness, it's a sad, selfish, unhappy life, just like a lot of my friends that are gay. So good luck, your in for a very hard life. Life is hard enough, it's harder when you make foolish and unwise decisions... Just in case any of you including the readers of this blog are confused, either all of the gospel is true, or none of it is. No matter what lie you tell yourself to think that you can only live and believe in a part of the gospel and the other part you just tend to dismiss, well I feel sad for you all, because I am sure countless of people that love you guys have warned you including God. You can either take my comments as if I am speaking to you as a jerk, or you can read my comments as Someone who cares enough to tell the truth and wake you up from your path to a sad and very lonely eternal life without your family.”

Thus wrote a commenter this past Sunday with respect to a post I published a few weeks ago.  This person, who posted anonymously (of course), appears to know me and I have my suspicions who wrote it:  someone who at one time was a close family and personal friend but who now, obviously, is no longer any friend of mine.  Someone who is a staunch member of the LDS Church and who believes himself to be the defender of all that is right and true against the latter-day hordes of homosexuals who seek to destroy all that is virtuous, lovely and of good report in the world.

Unfortunately, I think Mr. Anonymous’ thinking is typical of many Latter-day Saints.  It is for this reason that I think it might be instructive to deconstruct his comment to take a closer look at what appear to be the thought processes, assumptions, biases and bigotry underlying the comment.

What’s in an oxymoron?

“I think it's so revealing of what type of person you are when here you are trying to speak as if your a spiritual guy and all throughout your blog you have pictures of half naked boys. What an oxymoron.”

I think Mr. Anonymous revealed a fair bit about himself in his introductory sentences.  First point:  I never have claimed, once, to be a “spiritual guy.”  I write about spiritual subjects, and of course, the very thought of gay man presuming to write about “spiritual” subjects ignites the righteous indignation of the True Blue Mormon (TBM).  Why is that?  You and I both know why:  “spiritual” subjects are off limits to the low-life, degraded, filthy persons who have the audacity to embrace their homosexuality as anything less than a curse from Satan himself.

Second point:  the use of the term “half-naked boys” tends to indicate to me that the person who wrote this comment is an older man, probably in his 60’s and probably a closeted gay man himself.  Why?  None of the pictures on my blog are of “boys”.  They are all of men in their 20’s and 30’s, sometimes older.  To refer to such men as “boys” evokes a commonly used gay appellation. 

But, while I’m on the subject, why have I used such pictures?  This is something that straight people don’t typically understand, and it is something that typically sets homophobic men on edge:  gay men perceive the male body as something of beauty, something to be celebrated – the same reason why the great artists of the last three millennia (at least) have focused on the male form:  because it is seen as a thing of beauty.  Not eroticism, per se.  Of beauty.  It is those who fear the male form who resort to phrases such as “half-naked boys.”

Oh, and just for the record, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “oxymoron” as “a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.”  Mr. Anonymous’ use of this term is inappropriate (i.e., wrong); but I know what he’s getting at.  He’s saying that homosexuality and spirituality are mutually exclusive.  Well, I’ve got a message for Mr. Anonymous:  in your narrow, limited little world, I’m quite sure this is true; but your narrow little world cannot be imposed on the big, bright beautiful world beyond the confines of the spiritual cell in which you dwell.

Indulging Your Weakness

“When all of the fun from indulging your weakness is gone, and if you ever wake up and find out that the lies you have been telling yourself that this type of choice of life will bring you happiness, when you wake up to the fact that you lost all that was true happiness and the family that you gave up due to your desire to feed your weakness over what is true... Let see how happy and peaceful you will be after you have lived your life selfish and alone.”

Where to begin?  Sigh.  How about with “weakness.”  Mr. Anonymous, I know you choose to view homosexuality as a “weakness”.  I’m sure this gives you a great deal of comfort.  But I’m afraid you are in for a bit of disappointment and intense conflict in the future:  the LDS Church has already changed its official position to acknowledge the reality of “same-sex attraction.”  It no longer views homosexuality as a “weakness” and has stated that self-avowed same-sex-attracted persons can hold callings, hold temple recommends and otherwise participate in the “fullness of the Gospel.”  What’s the expression?  Oh yes:  “Deal with it.”

And then there’s the sex thing.  Homosexuality, to people like you, is all about sex, sex, sex.  Get your mind out of the gutter, Mr. Anonymous.  If you would open your heart and your mind, as some of the Brethren have attempted to do, you would recognize that homosexuality encompasses a whole range of human emotions, thought processes and – yes – desires.  People like you try to demonize homosexuals, making it easier to dehumanize people whom, on a good day, you claim to be your brothers and sisters.  Is this what your Savior would do?  Hmmm.  Think about it.

"Giving Up" My Family

Again - just for the record, Mr. Anonymous, I did not “give up” my family in order to “feed my weakness.”  How dare you make such an ignorant, presumptuous, false and utterly contemptible statement!  I suppose it feeds your narrow-minded, bigoted, hateful view of homosexuals and homosexuality to believe such a thing.  

But if you really possess the power of discernment (never mind an open mind), which I’m sure you claim as one who has been given the gift of the Holy Ghost, you would know that your statement is nothing but a deceitful, self-serving lie.  Perhaps if you'd bothered to actually read my blog instead of just look at the pictures, you would have seen that (i) my wife and I were on the brink of divorce before the "gay thing" ever came up, and (ii) she was the one who asked for the divorce, not me.  

"Selfish and Alone"

The last sentence of your comment that I'll consider today reads, "Let['s] see how happy and peaceful you will be after you have lived your life selfish and alone."  My goodness, such a charitable thing to say!  Besides the obvious venom imbued in this statement - which, unfortunately, is not atypical of many LDS who feel that they have license to treat their LGBT brothers and sisters with contempt - there is impregnated the equally prevalent  belief of many LDS that happiness outside the "Plan of Happiness" is simply not possible.

But leaving aside the colossal arrogance of this statement, there is also hidden within it the resentment that lies within the hearts of many LDS who are patiently slogging along with their shoulders to the wheel and who detest those who are out there "having fun," i.e., not adhering to their own narrow view of morality and the world.  These people conveniently ignore the Savior's injunctions to "forgive all men" and "love one another," and instead arrogate to themselves God's prerogative of not looking "upon sin with the least degree of allowance." 

Oh, and then there is the whole "selfish" thing.  But I think I'll leave that to a subsequent post in which I will also address, Mr. Anonymous, some of your other choice statements.

To be continued …

Stepping Stones to Change in the Church

One of the big themes that emerged from the Mormon Stories Circling the Wagons Conference here in Salt Lake a week ago was “change”:  not that we as LGBT “Mormons” can or should change, but that we and our allies in the LDS Church can make a difference and help change the Mormon landscape for the better.

Looking Through the Eyes of God

At Friday afternoon’s workshop, Carol Lynn Pearson made what I considered to be some pretty bold statements in this regard.  First of all, she stated, in response to a question from the mother of a recently-out gay son that gay Mormons – as well as all of us, for that matter – need to look at ourselves through the eyes of the Lord, as opposed to the eyes of the Ensign (official Church magazine) or the eyes of our bishop (or stake president). 

While this may sound like an innocuous statement to many, particularly to those who may read this who are not LDS, Mormons are generally not accustomed to self-defining their own personal relationship with Deity, but rather tend to allow themselves and such relationship to be defined through the eyes of the Church or those in authority over them within the Church.

Through this rather simple statement, Carol Lynn identifies the first prerequisite for change within the LDS Church as regards LGBT issues:  gay men and women must have the courage and the will to not allow themselves to be defined by the institution, its doctrine or its members.  They must, if they wish to retain any relationship with the Church and its culture at all, step outside the box and establish their own, direct relationship with Deity.  The same holds true for allies within the Church.

No Place for Authority

Carol Lynn subsequently made another statement in that same workshop which takes this concept a step further:  “There is no place for authority [within the Church] telling me how God feels about me.”  

Again, this may seem like an innocuous statement to those outside the LDS Church, but to those within, they know just what a revolutionary concept this is.  From a very young age, Mormons are taught implicitly as well as explicitly that the Church and – most importantly – its leaders are the gatekeepers to God’s love for us.  In order to allow change within individual gay Mormons and to facilitate change within the Church, members must embrace this concept, i.e., that Church authorities cannot dictate how God feels about gay members of the Church and their allies.

We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For

At yet another point in Friday afternoon’s workshop, Carol Lynn hit upon what became a theme throughout the rest of the Conference when she said, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”  In other words, don’t wait on the Brethren; move forward.  Carol Lynn cited, both Friday afternoon and throughout the rest of the conference, examples of change from her home Oakland Stake, of things that can be done within existing constructs. 

Of course, the Oakland Stake is not the rest of the Church.  It is located in an area with a large gay population, some distance from Utah, where members of the Church have been acclimated to issues affecting same gender-loving people.  LGBT Mormons and their allies shouldn’t be so naïve to think that their own stake or ward can be as progressive as the Oakland Stake; it’s possible, but unlikely.

Carol Lynn’s point, however, remains valid:  if those in the Church who care about LGBT Mormons and about the Church’s stance toward homosexuality merely sit back and wait for “the revelation”, i.e., wait for the Brethren to initiate change, well, there will be no change. 

Changing the Unchangeable

Despite the refusal of rigidly orthodox Mormons to acknowledge this, the historical record (with respect to a number of issues) is clear:  societal pressures (both from within and without the Church) have had a direct effect on Mormon doctrine and mentality.  Examples:  polygamy; garments; the Temple ceremony; Blacks and the Priesthood; the role of women in the Church; and, dare I say it, homosexuality itself.  Yes, despite the refusal and/or inability of certain “camps” within the Church to see the obvious (e.g., Evergreen and North Star), the official policies of the Church toward homosexuality have changed in the last 40 years.

Carol Lynn Pearson and Dr. Bill Bradshaw are both stellar examples of those who have not waited for change but, as faithful Latter-day Saints, have both stepped outside the box and have acted proactively as allies of LGBT LDS.  Their efforts, as well as the efforts of countless others within the Church who have been touched by issues of homosexuality and have been unable or have otherwise refused to remain unchanged, have made, are making and will continue to make a difference.

Mormon Stories FB Group

I think that Mormon Stories, led by John Dehlin, has made a huge contribution to this change by hosting the Circling the Wagons Conference.  The very premise of the conference – as is the case with much of what Mormon Stories does – is that ordinary members of the Church can and should talk about issues that impact their lives as Latter-day Saints. 

This is also the premise of the Mormon Stories’ LGBTQ, Friends and Allies Facebook Group.  Though there are many places on the web that discuss issues of homosexuality within the Mormon context, this is the only place of which I am aware that unites gay and lesbian Mormons, along with their allies, sympathetic friends and family members, in a place where these issues can be discussed. This group has tremendous potential, and I encourage those who are not already members of this group to join here; and for those who are already members and for those who join, consider telling others in your wards and stakes about this group.    

The Challenge Ahead

All the foregoing being said, and though the stepping stones discussed above must be taken and are available, there remain real obstacles to change within the Church, some of which were discussed at the Circling the Wagons Conference, but many of which were not.  It is to a discussion of these obstacles I will turn in a later post.