Affirmation, the world's oldest and
largest organization of, by and for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender Mormons and their families and friends, has, since its inception in the late 1970s, had
to deal with tension along the spectrum of how individuals understand
their Mormon identity and manage their relationship with the LDS
Church. Bluntly put, Affirmation has always experienced tension
between those who are fundamentally committed to the LDS belief
system and to some form of connection with the institutional Church,
and those who see the LDS faith and Church at fundamental odds with
being self-affirming as an LGBT person. As a result, in its three and
a half decades or so of existence, both at the international and
local levels, the organization has experienced a number of pendulum
swings between approaches that are, on the one hand, secular,
activist and confrontational, and, on the other hand, devout,
conciliatory and committed to the Church.
There has been a tendency for
individuals on both poles to see these “modes” of managing the
tensions implicit in being gay and Mormon as fundamentally at odds.
The assumption has been that the organization has had to choose
between being fundamentally secular and activist or being
fundamentally religious and devout. If the organization emphasized
the former approach, it is often assumed, then those who valued their
ties to Mormonism would not and could not feel comfortable
participating in the organization. If the organization favored the
latter, it is correlatively assumed, then those who saw their primary
commitment as secular activism would secede from the organization.
This “either/or” approach or mentality is unwarranted,
unnecessary and harmful to the organization, for three reasons.
First, an organization that prioritizes
one approach over the other cannot effectively reach or serve
Affirmation's stated constituency: LGBT Mormons.
There will always be LGBT Mormons in both categories, and an
organization that chooses one approach over the other will always
fail to serve a significant portion of those it claims to serve.
Second,
very few if any members of Affirmation have always been or will
always be adherents of one approach over the other. People can and
do, in their individual life journeys, experience their own pendulum
swings between faith and doubt, confrontation and conciliation,
activism and quietism. Some leave faith and then come back. Some
experience a conversion, and then later wrestle with doubt. If
Affirmation chooses one pole over the other, it will effectively only
serve people in one mode of their life journeys, and will fail to
support folks at the most crucial times in their lives: when they are
in transition!
Third,
and most importantly, despite the persistence of perceptions to the
contrary, significant goals of individual members of the organization
can best be accomplished if the full range of view points and
responses is present within the organization. In short, we need each
other, and our fundamental goals are not as incompatible as we
sometimes assume. It is this last point that this essay will explore
in a bit more depth.
What I
offer here is obviously a bit of an oversimplification. I'll draw the
two poles or modes as “ideal types,” in their most extreme mode,
in order to demonstrate my point. Obviously, real-life members of the
organization may have more nuanced views and approaches to the
fundamental problem.
I'll
start with the “LDS devout” ideal type (since that's the type I
currently identify with). Folks in this category fully identify as
Mormon or as LDS. They might describe themselves as having some sort
of “testimony” of the Gospel. They value their connection to the
Church, and this implies some deference to the lines of priesthood
authority and leadership in the Church. They hope for positive
relationships with Church leaders and members. They hope to be
involved, as much as possible, as active, faithful Church members.
They recognize the Church's long history of poor treatment of LGBT
individuals, and they recognize that many Church doctrines and
practices (specifically focussed around temple marriage) don't seem
to recognize the legitimacy of gay identities or relationships. But
they still don't see this as an insuperable obstacle to the full and
equal participation of LGBT individuals in the Church. In the history
of the Church, past teachings have been refined or revised in light
of expanded understanding; and the Church still holds to the doctrine
of continuing revelation.
Goals
of individuals in this “LDS devout” category typically include:
- to live a devout life that includes prayer and worship with others of like mind (both gay and straight) and to feel and respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit
- to find some personal spiritual/theological resolution to the dilemmas inherent in being gay in a Church that in its public, institutional forums makes little space for being gay
- to participate in dialog with Church members and leaders about homosexuality, with a goal of greater inclusiveness in the Church
The
other ideal type might be called the “secular activist” type.
Though
I don't currently identify with this type, I did for almost two
decades, so I think I am capable of treating it with empathy. Since
the purpose of this paper is understanding, I encourage any who
currently identify with this ideal type to let me know if my
presentation of it is deficient, as my goal is to develop a common
platform within Affirmation across these two poles of “devout”
versus “activist.”
“Secular
activist” members of Affirmation have disaffiliated from the LDS
Church, and no longer believe it to be “the” or even “a”
“true church.” However, they may have family members or friends
who are active, believing LDS, and may hope for positive
relationships with those individuals, even if only on the basis of
“agreeing to disagree.” They may consider themselves “culturally”
Mormon, in much the same sense that “secular Jews” consider
themselves Jews. Their primary concern in relation to the LDS Church
revolves around the active harm they see the Church doing by
inculcating LGBT youth with negative attitudes toward homosexuality
that will eventually lead to severe internal conflict, including
depression and suicide, and contribute to other social problems such
as homelessness among LGBT youth, and various other forms of
self-destructive behavior among LGBT youth and adults. Their personal
solution to the problem of uncharitable and inequitable treatment of
LGBT people in the Church has been to remove themselves from the
Church. If the Church maintained political neutrality, that might be
enough. However, to the extent that the LDS Church gets involved in
political campaigns to deny equal rights and equal treatment of LGBT
people in the larger society, they feel a moral obligation to protest
and resist such efforts. They feel that as former Mormons, they are
in a unique position to be able to address what they see as some of
the more extreme abuses of the Church.
Goals
of individuals in this “secular activist” category typically
include:
- getting a sense of personal closure in relation to their former faith, and then moving on, perhaps with no faith at all, or perhaps in another community of faith that they see as more welcoming of LGBT people and more congenial to their values
- “saving” LGBT Mormon youth from “internalized homophobia”
- working for full political and social equality of LGBT people or working to serve the LGBT community (through political efforts to pass anti-discrimination laws and/or marriage equality, and through AIDS outreach work, outreach to homeless youth, etc.)
Of
course the constellation of concerns I've identified within these two
“ideal types” are not mutually exclusive. A devout member of the
Church with a testimony could also believe in marriage equality and
be concerned about helping homeless youth or people living with AIDS.
A person who has left the LDS Church and is no longer affiliated with
it in any way might still value aspects of his or her Mormon
upbringing, and might value various forms of worship, personal piety
and spiritual expression (albeit in a community of faith other than
the LDS Church). That's why, I think, it's important to address some
of the “fears” and “stereotypes” that typically drive tension
and conflict between folks who identify with one of these poles or
another. My purpose in identifying “fears” and “stereotypes”
is not to perpetuate them, but hopefully to deflate them.
Individuals
who choose to affiliate with the Church are not “mindlessly
obedient” to the dictates of Church leaders. They haven't “turned
off their brains” or closed themselves off to “rational
critiques” of Mormon belief. The fact that they choose
to affiliate is usually actually a sign of the opposite; that they
are willing to wrestle to find a thoughtful faith that
works for them. They are not
unwilling to dialog, but they do tend to get weary of constant
carping about everything that's negative in the Church. They are not
unconcerned about social action; in fact, they may be very activist.
But they seek ways to do activism that involve building alliances
with faithful Church members and that avoid harsh public criticism of
the Church or its leaders. They do not have it as a goal to “force”
members of Affirmation to “believe” a certain way; but they do
want the organization to be friendly to expressions of traditional
LDS devotion, and they want the organization to present a public face
that will not automatically turn off their active LDS family members,
friends, and fellow parishioners.
Individuals
who choose not to affiliate with the Church are not “angry
naysayers” or people who have “left the Church but can't leave it
alone.” They are not “anti-Mormon.” Rather, they see dissent
and criticism as constructive, as something that could help those
active in the Church make it a better Church if they were only
willing to listen. They do not deny Mormonism a rightful place in the
world; indeed, they see their commitment to separation of Church and
state as Mormonism's likeliest, best guarantee of that rightful
place, given that everywhere but in small portions of the
Intermountain West, Mormons are less than 1-2% of the population.
They don't want Affirmation to be unfriendly to individuals who
identify as Mormon. In fact, they recognize that Affirmation will
fail in its mission long term if it doesn't appeal to people in this
category. But they want to be able to express themselves without
feeling they have to censor themselves, and they don't generally have
much interest in participating in activities where LDS-style devotion
is a prominent feature.
Having
gotten some of that out of the way (certainly not in any
comprehensive way), I think it's worth pointing out now how having
both types of members active and visible in the organization will be
critical to serving Affirmation's primary constituency,
and achieving the goals that different members of the
organization have.
First,
I hope it will be more obvious now than it was when I earlier stated
it in this essay that having a diversity of viewpoints in the
organization will actually be more functional for individuals who are
wrestling or struggling or in transition in relation to their faith
and/or sexuality. Seeing that there are a variety of healthy ways to
respond to the challenges of being LGBT and Mormon will give
people choices. It will empower
individuals to make their own decisions about precisely how faith
fits or does not fit into his or her life. They will see different
ways to manage choices about relationships, and seeing the outcomes
in others' lives of trying to manage these choices in different ways.
They can encounter individuals who are single and dating, or
individuals who are celibate; individuals who have been or who
currently are in so-called “mixed orientation marriages,” as well
as individuals in same-sex marriages or committed relationships. They
can encounter individuals who are finding various positive ways to
make LDS faith work in their lives, and judge for themselves whether
they find it healthier to sever their ties with Mormonism. Personal
authenticity and autonomy can only be enhanced through participation
in a healthy community that embraces diversity. Authenticity
(honesty) and autonomy (or “agency” in Mormonspeak) are strong,
positive values for folks on both ends of the spectrum discussed
here.
For
those who value constructive dialog with the Church, it will be good
to have relationships with individuals who have left the Church. The
Church needs to hear the stories of disaffiliated LGBT people to
fully understand the nature of the challenges faced by LGBT LDS
people. Political activism will have the effect of promoting
discussion in the Church, even when that discussion starts out in a
negative way. For instance, the backlash experienced by the Church in
the wake of Proposition 8 has had a leavening effect on dialog within
the Church, and has motivated large numbers of Church members to open
up a dialog they were previously unwilling to engage in.
For
those outside the Church, who want to see the Church “do less harm”
to LGBT youth, the presence and activity of devout LGBT members can
only be seen as a positive thing; they should be supportive and
encouraging of those who find ways to be present and visible in the
Church. Those individuals' presence will also promote the kinds of
dialog that might eventually persuade Church leaders to be more
conciliatory in the public, political sphere. The Church is unlikely
to feel motivated to examine teachings and doctrines that have a
history of causing heartache and harm if they don't see a solid core
of LGBT individuals who have a deep love for the Church and are
committed to it, even as they struggle with some of its teachings.
Affirmation
needs to be an
organization where devout LDS LGBT people can come together to pray,
sing hymns, wrestle with faith questions from a faithful perspective,
and find support in the challenges of being LGBT and faithful.
Affirmation also needs
to be an organization where people can come together and unburden
their doubts, ask difficult questions, and process difficult emotions
(including anger and grieving that come along with leaving the Church
or experiencing family rejection). An organization that would do all
those things would serve all
of its members far better.
In the
last few years, Affirmation has been moving toward a more Church- and
faith-positive position, and this move has attracted a large influx
of members, energy and new leaders. It has also turned some folks
off. Some have posed the question: Will Affirmation now become
unfriendly to questioners or those who have disaffiliated from the
Church? The only honest answer, I think, is it could but it doesn't
have to. I've tried to make a case here for why it shouldn't,
and I do so as one of the advocates of incorporating a stronger
faith-positive component into the organization. It would be nice to
see Affirmation find a healthy balance and an optimal, dynamic
tension between the two poles described here, rather than constantly
being in some devout-LDS vs. secular-activist pendulum swing.
The
kinds of tensions that Affirmation is experiencing are not unique in
the Mormon world. Other organizations such as the “Mormon Stories”
and “Circling the Wagons” communities, “Mormons Building
Bridges,” and the “Sunstone” symposia and affiliated
communities have wrestled with the same tensions. I believe that
developing a core ethic of empathy along the lines developed by the
“Empathy First Intiative” and “Circles of Empathy” may be a
key to moving forward. The better we can do at asking questions
rather than making assumptions, and allowing for changing
organizational dynamics without assuming the worst about these
changes, the more staying power and dynamism we will have as an
organization.
