Affirmation Reborn

One year ago, Affirmation was at a crossroads. The fundamental question: What role will faith play in our organization?

Two years ago, the Kirtland Conference, organized under the presidency of David Melson, took Affirmation back to the early roots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a way, Kirtland was an acknowledgment of the desire on the part of gay Mormons to come to terms with their past. There are two ways of coming to terms with your past. One way is to make peace with it, and then to move on. Another way is to engage with it, to remember, to let it renew and re-energize your present.

I believe there was divine purpose in God granting stewardship of the Kirtland Temple to the Community of Christ. At least part of that purpose involved their willingness to share the temple with us, to grant us gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Saints access to those sacred precincts. The effect on those of us who have largely been shut out of our temples, out of the places most sacred to us as Latter-day Saints, was electrifying. Kirtland surprised us by revealing how many LGBT Mormons still have a deep yearning to draw from the wellsprings of our faith. In 1835, in the Kirtland Temple, a latter-day Pentecost filled the Saints with light and courage. In 2011 gay Mormons, gathering in the same space, experienced an outpouring of the same Spirit that was poured out on our ancestors in that place.

Once we tasted of that Spirit, we wanted more of it. We learned in Seattle in 2012 that we did not need to gather in an LDS temple to experience an outpouring of the Spirit. All we needed to do was to ask God, "who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not."

One year ago, inspired by the rich outpourings we experienced in Kirtland and then -- to our delight and surprise -- in Seattle, we dared to propose something radical. We dared to suggest that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Mormons could ask for and receive and follow the promptings of the Spirit. We dared to insist that we did not have to choose between being gay and Mormon. We dared to believe that the integrity of our souls allowed that "we through our faith may begin to inherit the visions and blessings and glories of God."

Randall Thacker articulated that vision in terms that resonated with many. Randall was elected president and asked me and Tina Richerson to serve with him as the Executive Committee of Affirmation, and together we extended invitations to all who felt called to this work to join with us.

Randall is a gifted leader, but I don't believe it was ever any one individual or group of individuals who were or are responsible for the incredible influx of new members, new leaders, energy, time and financial resources that came into Affirmation in the coming months. It was the vision.

In the course of leadership gatherings in Washington, DC in January 2013 and in Salt Lake City in April 2013, that vision was hammered out into a plan of action. On the eve of our 2013 conference here in Salt Lake City, during a 2 a.m. Facebook convo with Randall, I looked at the goals we had set only nine months ago, and what we had accomplished since then, and I wept. Back then, they felt like dreams, and now they are flesh and blood reality.

Through the course of the conference I talked to many of the individuals who had been instrumental in bringing those plans to fruition. Again and again I heard the words, "I didn't do that much. I could have done more. I didn't do enough." It was a team effort, not the work of any one individual.

*****

From Seattle (2012) to Salt Lake (2013) conference registrations more than tripled, and our financial assets quintupled. More than 70% of those who participated in the Salt Lake City conference were first time attendees.

More astonishing and moving was the unprecedented numbers of LGBT participants who were accompanied by heterosexual family members, friends and allies -- mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and ward members.

The first night of the conference, the documentary Families are Forever, featuring the family of Tom and Wendy Montgomery, was presented. The Montgomery's were present with their gay teenage son Jordan. In the documentary, Tom and Wendy posed the painful, poignant question: Is there a future for our son in the Church? What is Heavenly Father's plan for his gay sons and daughters? I presented an award to the film's producer, Caitlin Ryan, a Roman Catholic ally I am proud to call my sister in Christ. As I did, I turned to Jordan, sitting on the front row. "We may not fully understand what it is, but our Heavenly Father does have a plan for us. It is our privilege to work it out and to learn what that plan is." The Spirit was thick. Pure joy was beaming from Jordan's face. He knew that whatever his future might be with the Church, his family and hosts of friends would be there with him and for him. Unconditionally.

Later in the conference, I attended a workshop on transgender Mormon experience. I wept at the grace and faith evident in the testimony of Sara Jade Woodhouse, who recognized that even with the intense pain and loss she had suffered as a transgender woman who came of age decades ago in southern Utah, there was good in her life that could not have come without the pain. I wept at the hope and the fervor of Grayson Moore, a transgender young man whose mother, Neca Allgood, had learned to become his fiercest advocate and defender. I honor Sara's bravery as a pioneer, and Grayson and Neca's model of what LDS family values should be all about.

Our sages were there, those who over decades of faithful witness have believed in us when no one else would, when even we had a difficult time believing in ourselves. Saturday morning, Carol Lynn Pearson, who has spent decades lovingly witnessing, hearing and telling and retelling our stories, bore us testimony of our story as she has observed it. We were not unworthy, undeserving and excommunicate. We were heroes. We -- reluctantly or not -- had accepted a call, faced our darkest demons, recovered the elixir of life, and were now called to return to our tribe to share with them the healing that both we and they most desperately needed.

Bob Rees, another of our mentors, presented a workshop with me and three other lesbian and gay Mormons who are active in the Church: Sam Noble, Ellen Koester and Tina Richerson. The title of the workshop was "Restoring our Relationships with the Restored Gospel and Church." Bob spoke compellingly of how the principle of restoration could operate in the lives of LGBT Mormons, healing injury and repairing brokenness. I and the other LGBT participants shared insights from our experience staying connected to the Church or returning to the Church. Basic principles of the gospel, first principles of faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, hope, patience and love had helped us navigate the treacherous challenges of coming out in communities blinded by homophobia. In turn, the challenges we had faced and overcome as LGBT Mormons had deepened our understanding of the Gospel and the Church. No magical answers, no doctrinal formulas; just faith, hope and love. The workshop participants were invited to share their own stories of restoration. The stories revealed pain that was still raw, but also that deep, deep yearning for faith and connection. The workshop was offered twice, because it had garnered the largest numbers of conference pre-registrants. Many of the participants stayed for both sessions of the workshop.

Other panels/workshops, which I unfortunately can't comment on since I didn't attend, included "Growing Up LGBT in America" (with HRC's Ann E. Nicoll and Sharon Groves); "Follow Your Heart: Breaking Through Stereotypes and Confronting Shame, a Guide in Being a Fearless Lesbian Mormon" (with Tina Richerson, Hollie Hancock, Berta Marquez, Kim Mack, Anna Empey and Amy Larson); "Circles of Empathy" (with Kendall Wilcox of the Far Between Project); the "LDS Family Fellowship" panel (with Kathryn Steffenson and the Abhau family, Oviatt family and the Weyman family); a panel on "Spiritual Partnerships" (with Karin Hendricks and Tawyna Smith); "Building Local Communities for LDS LGBT/SSA Individuals, Family and Friends" (with Bryan Hendrickson and Bryce Cook); a BYU USGA panel (with Adam White, Keith Trottier and others); and "Healing Our Spiritual Selves" (with Karin Hendricks, Tawnya Smith and Alaina Hendricks). In the afternoon there was a family/parents discussion group with the Montgomery's, Abhau's, Weymann's, and Oviatt's).

Over lunch, Daniel Parkinson presented a montage of testimonies of LGBT Mormons who had, at the end of deep heartache, often on the verge of suicide, turned to God and been rewarded with powerful personal assurances of divine acceptance and approval.

As in previous years, the heart and soul of conference was in our worship and testimony together. Prayer, hymns, and the conference choir (rehearsals and performance) were heartfelt. The first evening choir rehearsal, I couldn't make it through our singing of "The Spirit of God" without getting choked up at the thought of what it meant to us for the Lord to "extend the Saints' understanding" through returning "visions and blessings" and our anticipation of a day when "the lamb and the lion shall lie down together without any ire." The testimony meeting, this year held Saturday evening to a standing-room-only crowd, was filled with raw authenticity; belief and hope rendered all the more poignant by honest admissions of doubt; a man who wept as he told of an experience in which God healed shattering self-hate. Peter VanDerWalt who had traveled all the way from South Africa, reduced many of us to tears as he told of how he had read the Book of Mormon with the intention to prove the absurdity of religion, and had come away with a testimony of God.

At the "Evening of Affirmation" Saturday night, Judy Finch, featured on the MormonsAndGays.org website, told the story of how her understanding unfolded through decades of wrestling to come to terms with the homosexuality of a son and a grandson. Steve Young used an analogy of faith that LGBT Mormons could relate to when he described the experience of "throwing blind," striving for a goal that you can't see. His wife Barb Young spoke passionately about the pain caused by Proposition 8, and the story of a heterosexual LDS friend of hers whose life and understanding were transformed by the forgiveness of her lesbian next-door neighbors.

Both Friday night and Saturday night, Benji Schwimmer shared his own testimony of the power of authenticity and love, through words and then through dance. My feet didn't dance, but my heart did.

*****

The conference isn't over yet. We will be gathering at the Tabernacle later this morning, and then for a final luncheon in which Mormon ally Erika Munson will speak to us. I risk being a zombie today, having forgone my night's rest in favor of publishing this post.

I could not sleep partly because I miss my husband, whom I wish could have been here with me to witness this richness of love and exuberance and hope. But it was also that I lay in bed, the visions and blessings of the last few days washing over me, replaying again and again in my mind and heart, drawing out tears of gratitude. This conference exceeded all our hopes and expectations.

Affirmation experienced a kind of rebirth this weekend. We've gone back to Affirmation's roots, to the hopes and dreams of Affirmation's founders in the 1970s that LGBT Mormons might find faith, hope, and love against all odds in a Church that denied the possibility of gay Mormon virtue. We've gone back to the roots of our faith as Latter-day Saints, blossomed from the yearning of a 14-year-old farm boy for wisdom greater than that he possessed, who dared to "ask of God."

We too dare to ask.

Dynamic Tension: Affirmation's Constituency and Mission

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.