The Eye of the Needle: Original Post

***This post was originally part of another blog that is not currently being published.***

January 7, 2016     

Dear Reader,

I am not beginning this blog exactly the way I intended to, back in May of 2014 when I wrote the first of many versions of a document summarizing my journey through the labyrinth of the Mormon Church. In fact, this is an entirely different blog than the one I intended . . .

. . . but this is a safe and open space where I am driven to share some recent thoughts that have been multiplying in my mind since the revealing of the latest LDS policy update regarding "same-gender couples." I heard it first from a friend, and then read it in the Washington Post. And then it seemed that it was everywhere.

These thoughts I share in this post are pieces of journal writing I have untidily woven together, but they are all connected in some way, and they need to be released from the constricted pathways of my mind.

These words are not just thoughts. They are pieces of my heart. They come from a place of knowing and seeing, a place of understanding. They may be gnarled, but they are rooted in love.

I consider myself to be open and transparent about most aspects of my life, but I am choosing to withhold my real name at this time. I do this for several reasons, but mostly I do it to respect the traditional LDS church members in my life who may not accept (right now) the information I am sharing in this post. It may seem I lack integrity, but I feel that this most truthfully honors my situation at this time, and I intend to reveal my real name in the near future. I am certain that there will be some who recognize who I am simply by reading this and finding me in it. And that is all right. If this is you, I ask that you honor my decision not to identify myself at this time, but I am also willing to risk having my identity revealed. I feel inspired to speak my mind, and I am willing to accept the repercussions of this decision. I have been thoughtful about this for months (years, really). I have decided that the potential benefit of my intention to take a step out of the darkness into new light outweighs possible costs. 

There are two truths I will reveal now. Paradoxically, there are not many who know these facts about me. However, they are significant aspects of my life, and I consider them important to the context of this post. 

1) I have felt truly bisexual since I was a child, but I have not come out openly about it (yet), and I have never chosen to be sexually intimate with another woman -- even though I feel I am more attracted to women than men. Most accurately, I am attracted to people, and gender is not the most important factor. Based on my life experience and my worldview, I tend to trust more women than men, and I prefer the female body to male anatomy. However, there have been some men I have loved in a way I have not yet had the opportunity to discover with a woman. 

2) I gave birth to a child who has never lived with me. I found myself pregnant at a time when I knew I could not be a good mother to this little one. I chose to have a family adopt the baby, and it is a very open arrangement. While open adoption has recently become acceptable - even preferable - in the LDS church and culture, it was very rare and controversial in the past to have anything but a very closed adoption (LDS or not). I am grateful that my child knows me and sees me on a regular basis. Still, choosing not to parent this child is the most difficult choice I have ever made (I still make it every day), and it has felt heavier than death at times. It constantly breaks and expands my heart.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 7, 2015: initial thoughts I recorded in my journal when I discovered the news of the latest LDS policy update, clarified officially by church leaders here.

It is a sinking feeling, like suffocating . . . like someone has been trying to confine me in a dark hole . . . and I have been struggling to be free. It is not a new feeling, but a familiar mixture of emotion that has been stirring inside me for years. The LDS ship I once felt safe in (like the ones described in the Book of Mormon story about the Brother of Jared), used to be tight for me in a cozy way. Now it just feels tight.

Later in November, 2015

All of my mixed emotions are rising to the surface in a way that will not let me be still.

It started out as frustration and disgust 

. . . and then the feelings began unfolding 

. . . sort of in this order, but also kind of in a circle:

- not-surprised-but-shocked, all in the same moment (whatever that emotion is)
- denial
- anger
- confusion
- grief
- deep, deep sadness
- compassion
- rage
- non-acceptance
- more non-acceptance
- acceptance that this is happening, but not what it means.
- peace that there is meaning in the process

I do not know what to express, and what to save for another day. 

Many of the LDS church’s decisions – particularly those that are politically controversial - seem to be driven by fear instead of inspiration. They insist that there has to be a "them" for the "us" to succeed. This is not right. This type of reaction comes from ancient survival mechanisms at the base of the brain. It is not human to treat people this way. 

December 2, 2015

For me, the feeling is similar to watching a very unstable Jenga game being played out over the past several years (or at least that is when I started noticing it). I have come to that point where I can see that there really is not a foundation left to support the unsteady blocks barely hanging on at the top of the tower.

This latest policy update may be "the straw that broke the camel's back" for me -- or is it really more like that one scripture in Matthew 19:24-25 (of the King James version of the Bible) that basically says it is nearly impossible to be saved?

24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (I am aware that "for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" may not have been the original meaning.)

At this point in history (or at least today), I would maybe change it a little, like this: "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for anyone who does not belong to a traditional family (well, at least those who are gay parents) -- to enter the kingdom of God . . . who then can be saved? . . . a rich man? Yes. It is easy for him, as long as he pays his tithing and shares his wealth. Someone who molested a child? Yes, it is pretty easy to repent of this as long as you are needed as a priesthood holder. But gay couples who raise children? They will not be saved." 

Honestly, can a kingdom like this truly exist in heaven? The God and the heaven I am beginning to understand in my soul are not interested in levels of glory or "protecting" children by actually creating a conflict where they have to choose between their real family and and an idea of family that they learned in church.

I am not typically this cynical. But it was an ironic day at work. You know, the type of irony where I thought I was going to feel solidarity among those I sat with, discussing life's difficulties. Instead, I felt somehow that no one really cared about the impact of the policy at all, like it wasn't even on their radar. I don't blame them, or anyone else for this reality. But what had become old news - or had barely crossed the minds of these people - seemed to be glaring at me from the corner of the room with a brutal and bloody face. I am not able to shake what this disturbing policy update means for the future of my involvement with the LDS Church.

Later in December, 2015

Scarcity, shrinking from abundance. 

Hierarchy, holding back equality. 

Rigidity, resisting flexibility.

Fear, fighting against love.

We can do better than this with our highly developed brains and our capacity for compassion. 

I do not know how I can take any more steps away from the church without actually leaving it. I do not accept what is happening, even if I am no longer an active member of the church. I am an integral part of the system because I value my background, and I am genuinely connected to many Mormons. I am not one of those people who can just silently leave the church without leaving a part of my soul. As I step back from an institution that no longer feels safe to me, I will not avoid or abandon - not my values or spirituality, and not people. I will continue to seek spaces where those who believe differently from each other can sit together and see each other, where there is no "us" vs. "them." In those spaces, "us" is everyone. I am still able to find that in individual and small group environments, but the general political arena is filled with too much hate for me to feel safe - whatever side people choose on a number of controversial issues.

But this is not just a political issue. It is so very personal, and I must share my feelings about it in some way. Even if I am not ready to share all of the specific circumstances that make it personal, I want to speak my truth in the ways I can at this time.

From my perspective as a researcher, issues within the LDS Church system that have never been addressed (or have even been blatantly ignored) are surfacing now because they desperately need attention. Perhaps the organization - including those at the highest levels - needs to pause and take a deep look into the mirror of its own traumatic history - not the least of which includes being persecuted for attempting a very non-traditional marriage pattern, and its people feeling like strangers in their "promised land." As a system, it seems that the church, out of the necessity to survive after fleeing constant danger, never had the opportunity to slow down and acknowledge the horror it - they as individuals, families, and congregations - collectively experienced. They were treated as "others" in some pretty brutal ways, and there are lingering effects that continue in the form of defensiveness and oppression, circulating throughout every level in the church system.

This latest LDS church policy update seems like an attempt to "separate the wheat from the tares" in order to preserve a traditional family ideal that does not include or represent the multitude of ways to be a loving family in our world - past, present, or future. It is hurtful and damaging. It is the work of men, not God. The God I believe in would never use shame and devaluation to get people to conform, or to “protect” children. The God I put my hope in every single day would not punish children and loving families in this manner. I consider myself a highly spiritual person, and I rely on a power far greater than myself to guide me. I do not feel guided by this madness, professing to be holy when it is not holy.

People of all kinds need to feel connection and belonging, especially those who have been deprived of it or excluded from it through abuse, neglect, discrimination, or other forms of oppression. Every single person should have the opportunity to experience unconditional love -- love I have witnessed in many types of “non-traditional” parenting situations, including families with two moms or two dads. I do not have personal experience with every type of family structure, but I do know that if you are human and you do not have a specific disorder that limits your brain's capacity to allow for a demonstration of love, you can be a wonderful parent. People with severe physical limitations can love their children. Even with all of my shortcomings, I have experienced great love in a parenting situation that feels anything but traditional -- in more ways than most people know. It sickens and saddens me to see this type of discrimination against so many who could be leading (rather than being considered apostate by) the LDS church when it comes to the practice of Christ-like love. 

These courageous couples come to mind: http://voicesoflove.org/

John Bonner comes to mind, whose letter to LDS Church Leadership was recently published in the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3147309-155/op-ed-see-us-and-know-us). 

Expanding the definition of family to include any combination of members that are capable of providing real love to a child is not a threat to society. This is not what truly increases the possibility of harm to children. We know this from what we are learning (through trial and error) about open adoption and foster care, including some incredible stories of gay couples involved in these parenting situations. So what is the real risk to the children in our societies? Children are more likely to be harmed when parents are lacking protective resources, such as safe housing, education, healthy food, access to good healthcare, and strong support systems. Children are especially at risk of being harmed when they are deprived of love and are labeled in a shame-based manner as "less than" - even when other protective factors are in place. When this labeling occurs in a religious context, the potential for internalizing shame increases with the intensity of expectations, especially those that stem from strict rules maintained by a tightly knit religious system. This has been happening in the LDS church with many issues, but it is so blatant with the latest message, communicated to innocent children and many loving parents in marriages.

LDS members actively involved in "same-gender” sexual relationships have already been considered sinful, according to the teachings of the church. That belief has been problematic enough, causing great agony among some of the most dedicated and sincere members of the religion. Many have chosen not to actively pursue a lifestyle that goes against church standards. Some of these people have been more obedient and faithful than I could ever be in that situation, and far too many have literally died trying to live a “straight” lifestyle when it went against the authenticity of their being. And those who have decided to be actively gay, or who have openly expressed their transgender experiences, have been judged as weak and not "choosing" the best path for them. Adding judgment of children to the cross of shame that these people are already bearing is unbelievable to me. I guess that is where the feelings of shock and confusion come into play.

Authentic love is not a virtue that can be confined, and I have witnessed how expansive love can be when people allow it to flourish – whether it be in or out of a religion, in or out of a traditional family. Abuse, however is one of the most confining behaviors that exists, and yet it does not receive adequate attention in the LDS church.

If a church is so concerned with protecting children and protecting the family, then its focus on sex needs to shift from concern about the sexual activity between adults of the same gender to the sexual abuse that is occurring on a regular basis within the LDS church. The perpetrators are often considered “worthy” priesthood holders, and the abuse often occurs in “traditional family” homes. While I am very aware that this type of abuse can happen in any situation, the insidious manner in which it plays out when a man of any age who “holds the priesthood” is the perpetrator, and children are silently suffering – hiding -- in their so-called “safe” homes – often “blessed” and “protected” by the very people that hurt them (I am well aware that both women and men can be hurtful, and I am also aware that family members are not always the perpetrators) . . . this is what needs to be vigorously addressed.

Directly addressing sexual abuse in families and cultures where it is still a common form of oppression needs to be a top priority in the highest levels of leadership and organization of a church that so loudly claim to value families and children.

The focus on continually suppressing and attempting to control sexual thought and behavior has not seemed to decrease sex-related problems in the LDS church, including pornography use, relationship infidelity, and sexual abuse. While there may be a healthy way to use pornography to enhance sexuality - and I believe there are humanistic forms of it - most of it is based in an industry that is dehumanizing, oppressive, and abusive. Those involved in it are often disconnected from their emotions and the people they are viewing, in such a way that violent tendencies are increased. 

There has not been a system-wide improvement regarding how to teach children and youth about sexuality in a healthy way, including how to acknowledge people without focusing on how “appropriate” their appearance is. If anything, the emphasis on the lustful and detached aspects of sex - as a fear-driven method of teaching people to avoid it - has magnified sexual objectification and taught people a confusing, conflicted language that sounds a lot like “God loves all of his children equally, but if a girl is wearing a sleeveless shirt, she is not as good as one who is wearing sleeves.” This type of teaching has reinforced impossible appearance standards (not to mention a male-dominated patriarchy) and encouraged a nearly impossible temptation paradox, where sexual desire and curiosity exist in such a disconnected manner that people are unable to manage the intensity of their desires with realistic coping mechanisms. If sexual abuse is added into that equation, the risk for isolation and self-hatred is exponentially increased. 

And what about "same-gender attraction" added into that suppression-control-shame equation? What is the message that keeps getting pounded into Mormon pulpits and minds, while the gospel of Jesus Christ is shoved to the side? This is what I hear buzzing through the conflicted Mormon hive: "We unconditionally love you gay people, but you are still less holy . . . less worthy than us if you don't try to be less gay. And just to be clear, we will keep reminding you that if you admit that you are acting on your gay feelings, you are not allowed the same privileges as those of us who publicly identify as heterosexual." 

I find it incredibly unjust and unmerciful to people who are loving parents - no matter their sexual orientation or marriage status or anything - to deprive their children of name blessings and baptism, if that is what is desired. Do not get me wrong -- I am not against the LDS church changing the age of baptism to an older age for everyone (no matter what family situation one is in), since eight-year-olds are generally not capable of understanding their decisions outside the context of their parents’ interpretation of the religion. However, my awareness has suddenly been heightened regarding the fact that I have children who were able to get baptized into the LDS religion without question. Even though I was divorced, the right my children had to get baptized was not put into question for an instant. Even the father of my children, who was baptizing them, was not judged unworthy based on his living situation. It was assumed that neither of us were as sinful as someone who was living with a romantic partner, unmarried. If it has been today, it is likely that it would be assumed that we are more worthy than an actively gay couple. What made me more worthy than a couple living together who is not married? What makes me any better than two moms or two dads raising a child? 

Honestly, I think I would be a better mom if I had any kind of partner living with me and supporting me - as long as he or she was not abusive, we worked well together, and that person loved my children. I really mean this – I would be happy with a partner of either gender. And the reasons have very little to do with sex. 

This policy update that assumes levels of worthiness based on sexual orientation is fear-driven and it clearly discriminates against many people who are often far more worthy of the parenting task than I am.

I hope I can be supportive of anyone who is suffering because of this recent change of policy. I hope I can show the love that I feel so deeply, and yet which I do not feel I can adequately express to those who might need it most at this time. I hope you know who you are.