Party Tomorrow

I just sent an email with our address and directions to our home to everyone who RSVPd and indicated that they needed that information.

If you're planning on coming to the party tomorrow and got missed for any reason (that is, didn't get the email), please email me at (mormoninthecloset at gmail dot com) and let me know so I can get an email sent off to you.

We're looking forward to seeing many old friends tomorrow and meeting many new ones!

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Family Ties

Everyone knows how important family is in the LDS belief system--it's one of the things Mormons are most known for, and the Church has made concerted efforts to promote its image as a pro-family church, from public service spots ("Family: it's about time") to carefully orchestrated political campaigns to promote "traditional" families in various states across the country. The prime objective of our eternal journey, from an LDS perspective, is to spend the rest of forever with our families.

It breaks my heart when I hear of families torn apart due to the inability or unwillingness of some members of the family to continue to accept other members who may have made decisions that are seen as "sinful" or "wrong". The oft-quoted mantra "love the sinner, hate the sin" is too often taken too far, and the "sinner" is made an outcast--disowned and disgraced and left to drift alone without the stabilizing support of the family he loves.

The concern I hear most often expressed is that acceptance of the wayward child implies acceptance or endorsement of his actions. This is articulated in Same-Gender Attraction, an LDS Newsroom publication in which the LDS Public Affairs Department "interviews" Elders Oaks (of the Quorum of the Twelve) and Wickman (of the Seventy) on the subject of homosexuality:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

Of course, the very question (as it is phrased) pre-assumes that there is a point where showing love crosses a line and implies an endorsement of (undesirable) behavior. I'll address that point in a minute. Here's Elder Oaks' answer:

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

I appreciate the qualification that no single answer could possibly apply to every circumstance. That said, there are two aspects of Elder Oaks' response that concern me...

First is the assertion that "surely if there are children in the home ... the answer would likely be [don't bring your partner home]". Sarah and I are certainly not strangers to the assumption that exposing children to homosexuality is a bad idea--we've been criticized by family members and other acquaintances for coming out to our kids and for allowing them to get to know our friends at the MoHo parties, etc. It seems to be simply accepted as a truism that children aren't capable of understanding the concept of same-gender attraction, or that allowing them to be aware of the existence of homosexuality will automatically necessitate detailed tutelage in the intricacies of gay sex.

In truth, our kids barely even blinked when they found out that I'm gay. When asked if he had any questions for us (immediately after we came out to him), our 11-year-old (he was 10 at the time) simply responded "can I play on the computer now?". Our children have grown to love our many new friends (who come from a variety of situations and who have made a wide variety of choices in their lives), but they still understand and believe in the doctrinal precepts they have been taught--even those that are contradicted by some of the "examples" that they see in our good friends.

My second concern is the qualification that might be placed on a visit: "Don't expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation."

I read an interesting article or blog post the other day that I have been unable to locate to link to (if anyone recognizes it from my description and can provide a link I'd appreciate it!). It described the difficulty that we as members of the Church have in admitting that we are not perfect, and that our families are not perfect. It gave a "for instance" of a family with a son who is past mission age--a son who has no intention of serving a mission. How many parents in that situation will tell friends and family (despite the fact that they are perfectly aware of their son's intentions) "Oh, he's still saving up so that he can pay for it himself". It's so difficult to admit that we've raised a son who isn't going to go on a mission (and therefore admit that we're not the perfect parents that others think we are) that we're willing to tell a small untruth in order to perpetuate the illusion as long as possible.

When parents refuse to be seen in public with a gay son and his partner, are they truly concerned that to do so will imply approval of his relationship? Or are they actually afraid that revealing his relationship will lessen them in the esteem of their friends and neighbors?

Elder Wickman adds his own response to the question:

ELDER WICKMAN: ... The only thing that I would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s anguish over this situation.

I refer to a shift from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle, both with him and with others. It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin. That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate. An even bigger error is now to become defensive of the child, because that neither helps the child nor helps the parent. That course of action, which experience teaches, is almost certainly to lead both away from the Lord’s way.

In other words, be careful about loving your child too much, because if you're too accepting of him when he's choosing to sin, you'll almost certainly fall away yourself.

Is this true?

And if it is, is this a bad thing?

In No More Goodbyes, Carol Lynn Pearson tells the story of a family with a gay son who is unable to find a comfortable place for himself within the Church, and so he ends up leaving. His parents and siblings remained active, but they accepted his decision and continued to love and support him as a member of their family.

Then, in frustration:

...their son James asked for a family meeting. He said, "I don't understand, you keep saying that Judd doesn't have to go to church be he's gay and that's an extenuating circumstance. But don't you think the fact that I have an older brother I honor, respect, and look up to, and this is a church that doesn't have a place for him--isn't that an extenuating circumstance?

It is for me and I won't be going back."

That was a watershed moment for the parents, and they looked at each other and said, "You know what? We're not going either. If this is an organization that will not support this amazing individual who is our son, Judd Eccles Hardy, then we will not be going either."

No doubt many members of the Church would be appalled by this story--an entire family following their gay son out of the Church?

And yet, how many of those members celebrate another member of the Church who made a similar decision, and even honor him specifically for that decision? His wife made a deliberate decision to break one of God's commandments, and for doing so she was excommunicated (in a sense). The husband could have remained faithful. He could have told his wife that he loved her, but could not condone what she had done and could not support her in her decision. Instead, he chose to follow her and remain with her, and he too was exed and lost many of the blessings and the intimate relationship with God that he had enjoyed.

I don't imagine the decision was an easy one, but our doctrine says he made the wiser choice, because we wouldn't exist if Adam hadn't remained with Eve.

I can hear the protests: "But Adam and Eve were supposed to partake of the fruit and leave the Garden--it was part of the Plan!"

... And who are we to say that God's plan for the Hardy family didn't include them leaving the Church to rally around their gay son Judd?

A few months ago we took a (MoHo) friend who was staying with us to a family gathering, which resulted in some interesting confrontations and conversations with my family on this whole gay thing. At dinner, because he didn't know anyone, we sat our friend between Sarah and I, and (I was told several days later) because he and I were sitting next to each other someone in my family wondered if he and I were "together".

My initial reaction was simply an incredulous (and perhaps slightly offended) "WTF??" Did my family seriously not know me at all, such that they really would seriously think that I would have found myself a boyfriend? And did they seriously think that Sarah would be ok with that, to the point of happily chatting with him all evening?

As time went on, though, my feelings about the issue have changed a bit...

What if he was a boyfriend? What if I had decided to find a partner, and Sarah was ok with that? How would I feel about my family's reactions to and treatment of him? Of their fear of exposing their children to anything gay-related? How would I want my family to react, and to treat him/us?

Those questions may never need to be answered, but I'll try to believe that my family could show the same level of love and support that the Hardy family did--not that I would expect them to demonstrate that love by leaving the Church, but I would hope that each of them (and each of us--all of us) can love our family members unconditionally and completely, without concern for how our love "appears" or what it might "imply".

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Party Reminder

The MoHo party is this Saturday.

If you don't know what a MoHo party is: Sarah and I host a get-together in our home once a month for anyone who wants to come. Basically, if you can read this (or have it read to you), you're invited. The only qualification at all is that you're "gay-friendly"--that is, if you have any judgments about the choices that some of our other guests may have made in their lives, we ask that you leave them at home. Everyone is welcome, and we want everyone to feel comfortable and accepted.

If you don't know where we live, just shoot me an email (my address is in my Blogger profile) and let me know you're coming. I'll add you to a list, and on Friday sometime I'll send out an email with our address and directions.

If you do know where we live, I still wouldn't mind an email or a note in the comments on this post if you're planning on coming, just so we'll have a general idea of numbers, but this is optional.

There's no specific start or end time for the party. People usually start showing up between 6:30 and 7:00, and the majority of the guests have usually left by midnight.

Nobody should feel obligated to bring anything, but there are always some who appreciate the opportunity to do so, and I appreciate the help with the food. If you do want to bring a food item, I would definitely appreciate a heads-up (via email or comment to this post) so that I know approximately how much food others will be bringing (and how much I should make to ensure that there's plenty). Bonus points if you give me some idea of what you might be bringing, so that I can try to ensure that we've got a good balance of sweet and savory. :)

We really enjoy these opportunities to get to know our blog friends, and we've had several people tell us that they appreciate having a place where they can relax and be themselves where they might not normally be able to do so. We hope to see many of you at our place Saturday evening!

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Love and Marriage

From all outward appearances, Sarah and I have managed to "beat the odds" and create/maintain a successful mixed-orientation marriage (and perhaps I should clarify that when I use the phrase "from all outward appearances" I am in no way intending to imply that there are hidden circumstances that would indicate otherwise). In general, we are happy, and in fact I would guess that our conflicts and difficulties are no greater in quantity or magnitude than those of any other happily married (straight) couple.

Due to our visible success, it's happened several times that a young man who "struggles with Same-Gender Attraction" has contacted me privately asking for tips or advice on how to fall in love with a woman, or how to get married, or how to make a marriage work. Sarah has gotten similar emails requesting a woman's perspective on the issue.

Although I would love nothing more than to answer these emails with an easily-followed list of instructions that would ensure marital bliss for any gay member of the Church, I feel obligated to be honest and direct in my responses, and unless I feel strongly that it should be otherwise, my answer is always the same:

Although Sarah and I are making this work, I am reasonably certain that if I found myself returned to my 21-year-old self, faced with the decision of whether or not to propose to Sarah, but retaining all of the knowledge and experience that I have gained over these last 14 years, I would not ask her to marry me. I am absolutely certain that if I found myself in that situation I would be totally open with Sarah in explaining my situation and the reasons why I thought marriage would not be a good idea. If, fully informed, she still believed that she wanted to be married, I might consider the possibility, but again, there's a very good chance that even then I would think it for the best that we remain nothing more than best friends.

And so, although Sarah and I are making this work, I absolutely do not recommend a mixed-orientation marriage to any gay person. There is too much potential for someone to be hurt, and the potential increases dramatically when children enter the picture.

... More than once, when I have shared this opinion I have been berated or criticized for having such an "anti-Gospel" attitude. Marriage, after all, is the pinnacle of our progression here on earth, and in recommending against it, I am recommending against the single-most important step toward exaltation.

I've never really understood the opposition to my position, or the passion with which some people respond when they learn how I feel. As I understand it, my recommendation coincides perfectly with the Church's current policy on the subject.

The Church's current pamphlet on homosexuality, God Loveth His Children, says that "In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender", and in the Public Affairs interview titled "Same-Gender Attraction" that the Church published a couple of years ago, Elder Oaks said that a gay member of the Church "could not enter marriage in good faith" unless they have "shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God".

Both of these statements quite definitively state that marriage should not be considered unless attraction (or even "great attraction") is present. I believe it is safe to assume that both statements are referring to a romantic attraction, which (in my mind) would encompass all of the physical, emotional and spiritual feelings that accompany the phenomenon that we call "falling in love".

I won't claim that it's impossible for a gay man to fall in love with a woman. I'm sure that there are some who have had it happen to them. But in every mixed-orientation marriage I have observed (including my own), the most common lamentation from either spouse (by a significant margin) can be stripped down to the basic statement: the husband is not completely "in love" with the wife. Even the "successful" couples are not successful because they have found this attraction, but rather because they have found a way to make things work without it.

And what of those gay men who believe that they are "in love" with a girl?

I would still advise extreme caution, and here's why:

Sarah and I dated through the majority of our senior year of high school and for nearly a year following graduation, until I left on my mission. We wrote each other while I served my mission (or at least she wrote me--I'm not much of a letter writer), and when I got home I was required--by my own expectations, if nothing else--to make a decision about our future together.

When I examined my feelings for her, I discovered that I felt differently for her than I had ever felt for a girl before. It was obvious to me at the time that I was in love with her, and so it was obvious to me what the next step should be, and I asked her to marry me (more or less).

Fast-forward thirteen years to last summer, and my eyes have been opened. I've admitted to myself that I'm gay, and I've reexamined my past, particularly my feelings for Sarah. If I am being honest with myself, I have to admit that the feelings that I felt for her at the time that we got engaged never included any sort of physical attraction. Please don't misunderstand--I felt at the time (and still believe) that she is an attractive woman. But thinking that a woman is attractive (i.e. beautiful) and being attracted to that woman are not quite the same thing. Although on many levels I loved her (and still love her) more than I have ever loved anyone, I could not have honestly said at that time that I felt "a great attraction for a daughter of God".

Thirteen years ago I would have sworn up and down that I was completely and fully in love with Sarah. I would have been wrong. Luckily for both of us, other aspects of my love for her are strong enough that our marriage has survived and even thrived, but it hasn't been without its challenges, and (here's the part that's hard to write) we haven't actually "made it" yet.

See, the Church's policy on marriage can basically be boiled down to "don't get married until you've 'overcome' your Same-Gender Attraction". We can define "overcome" in many different ways, but no matter how we define it, the truth is that there is no conclusive way to know that we've "overcome", and in fact it's almost a certainty that all of us will be "overcoming" repeatedly and constantly until the day we die (and possibly beyond).

... or until we decide to give up the struggle--which is why the divorce courts have processed so many mixed-orientation marriages in which the husband had "overcome" his attractions at least once, or felt "attracted" to his wife at some point.

I hope that this hasn't come across wrong... the truth is that Sarah and I are happy together and that we have no plans to separate. I have no plans to quit the fight or give up on my marriage, and I'm fairly certain that Sarah is with me for the long haul. But I've only been "out" to myself and to her for a year, neither of us can guarantee that we'll both feel the same way a year down the road, or three years, or ten, and in reality, our marriage can't be declared a "success" until we've made it to the end.

Unfortunately, the pressure that a young man feels to marry is no less for a gay member of the Church than it is for a straight one, and so I expect there will always be MoHos wondering how to marry and how to make marriage work. Some of them are determined, and won't be discouraged. To them (and to all of us who are already married, whether we married before we were "out" or went into marriage with our eyes open, as aware of the challenges we would face as it is possible to be) I offer encouragement and support and best wishes for success--because as long as the odds for success aren't zero, some of us are going to make it! :)

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Where Can We Turn For Peace?

I haven't been much of a blogger lately, have I?

It's largely because I've been busy... I've had more to do at work than usual, plus some freelance stuff on the side, so I've had little time to sit down and blog.

But it's probably also because I haven't really felt like I've had anything to say... at least until recently. But lately I've had all sorts of thoughts in my head, arranging themselves into potential posts, and it's only been a lack of time that's kept me from putting them down in words, so (hopefully--provided I can find/make some time) things won't be quite so dead around here over the next several days.

So... what to tackle first?

I'm at right about a year since I came to terms with being gay (I don't remember the exact date), and I've put a lot of time over that year into observing people. When I first accepted my orientation I devoured the stories of other gay Mormons from websites, books and blogs like a starving man set in front of a lavish feast. Eventually I managed to take the edge off my appetite, but I've never lost my desire to get to know others with whom I share the common traits of homosexuality and Mormonism--to learn their histories and discuss their evolution and get a feel for the person they have been and are becoming.

So I've gotten to know a lot of people to one degree or another, and it's been long enough now that I've even been able to observe some shifts in attitude and some major life-altering decisions in the making (whereas at the first I was only able to read about these decisions after the fact).

I think I've now gathered enough data that I can fairly confidently propose a "MoHo Theory" involving beliefs, behavior and choices, based on the trends I've observed. Of course, I'd like to preface it with a disclaimer that this theory is based only on my own observations, and that it's really more of an opinion that anything else. I'll concede that there are almost certainly exceptions to the rules I'm about to propose. But disclaimer notwithstanding, I think there's some validity to this theory.

It goes something like this:

1. A gay member of the Church cannot find lasting happiness and peace while he believes his orientation is something to be overcome or corrected (i.e. while he believes that it is his duty to lose his attraction to men and become attracted to women).

2. A gay member of the Church who has accepted his orientation will continue to struggle with the conflict between his attractions and the Church's policies on homosexuality until and unless he makes a definitive decision to follow his attractions and seek a (same-sex) partner, going against Church teachings.

I'll elaborate on each of these points...

Point one of my MoHo Theory states that "A gay member of the Church cannot find lasting happiness and peace while he believes his orientation is something to be overcome or corrected." My own experience provides ample support for this claim, as I spent many years hoping and believing that with time and effort and faith I would stop noticing hot guys and really develop the attractions and desires toward my wife that I was supposed to have. I believed myself to be happy, and I would have asserted that I was "at peace", but at the sight of a cute guy I would have known in my heart that this was not the case.

It wasn't until I accepted the fact that I am gay, and came to believe that I am the way I am supposed to be--that no change is required or expected--that I learned what true peace and happiness are. I discovered a sense of wholeness and self that I hadn't known I was missing.

I was lucky. I acknowledged that I was gay and learned to accept the fact in the same instant, assisted by the Spirit. A person who acknowledges their attractions to the same gender but still believes them a defect to be overcome will find it far more difficult to be happy and peaceful than I did in my ignorance and denial for all those years. I know this to be true because I know dozens of these people, and my heart aches for them. I wish I could somehow make them see that they are perfect the way they are, and that the path to wholeness and peace comes through acceptance, not change, but many of them resist that idea as vehemently as they resist their homosexual feelings and attractions.

I am aware of one person (though I don't know him personally) who seems to be an exception to this rule, and who even claims to no longer be attracted to men, but to be attracted to women instead. By all appearances he is happy, and I sincerely hope that he is indeed an exception.

Point two will require a bit more discussion... I've asserted that "A gay member of the Church who has accepted his orientation will continue to struggle with the conflict between his attractions and the Church's policies on homosexuality until and unless he makes a definitive decision to follow his attractions and seek a (same-sex) partner, going against Church teachings."

Let me clarify that a bit...

First of all, with very few exceptions, I'm not sure that a person can find peace by choosing the other way. That is, I'm not sure that a gay member of the Church can simply definitively declare "I'm going to be a celibate, active member of the Church!" and be done with it. It's been my observation that a person who has made the decision to remain active in the Church will have to continue to make that decision over and over again, probably for the rest of his life.

On the other hand, a person who chooses to find a partner may very well find peace and happiness in that decision, and assuming he is not constantly pressured by external influences (family, etc.), he may very well never look back and regret the choice he has made. His struggle can cease.

Critics will state that the happiness and peace that this person has found are not "real", because they are not centered in the Gospel. Those who are more charitable will concede that a gay couple can indeed be really and truly happy, but that their happiness is short-lived, from an eternal standpoint. My personal feeling is that a gay couple can indeed find true happiness and joy, and that I will leave the question of eternal happiness between the couple and God.

At any rate, in my opinion the temporal or eternal nature of the happiness that our gay Mormon may find does not have any direct bearing on this rule as I have stated it. In fact, I haven't stated that the first individual (the one who has chosen the Church) will not be happy--only that he will continue to struggle, which in and of itself implies a distinct lack of peace, but not necessarily of happiness.

In this rule, too, my own experience has provided some verification. I am a gay man who is married and who has remained faithful to his wife. I have, in essence, chosen the Church's path. It would be dishonest of me to claim that I have found peace in this decision. Indeed, I find myself facing its consequences on a regular basis, and I do not expect that I will ever simply be able to say "this is what I have chosen, and that's that". (Well... I suppose I could say that, and even mean it from a decision-making standpoint, but saying it and even meaning it would have no dampening effect on my occasional desire for something else).

I've seen many other examples of individuals who have chosen either path, almost always with the same results. Those who choose the Church's way face a lifetime of struggle, while a majority of those who choose the other path find love and joy and contentment (and it could be argued that those who choose to date, etc., but still struggle with their decision, haven't really made a definitive decision at all).

I should note that I've left one group out--those who leave the Church and embrace their orientation with a plunge into the more stereotypical behaviors that are often associated with homosexuality. I haven't had much opportunity to interact with or observe those who have made this choice, so I can't speak for their happiness or peace.

In this rule, too, I do know of at least one exception--a man who has committed himself to the Church and yet seems happy and content in his decision. In the vast majority of my experiences, though, this rule--like the first--holds true.

I'm really not sure if there's a point to all of this. I have no call to action... no suggestion for improvement of the plight of us poor gay Mormons. Mostly I just wanted to put my observations down on paper, and perhaps invite some input and feedback from others who might have their own theories or ideas to share.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Moderation in All Things

Quite often lately I find myself wishing that there was some punctuation mark that struck a balance between a period and an exclamation point.

It usually happens in chats, and also often in blog comments. I find myself feeling somewhat enthusiastic in my communication, and instinctively my little finger reaches for the exclamation point, and then I scan through what I've already written, and I find it already liberally salted with bangs, and I realize that I sound like a raving lunatic.

But the alternative--periods at the end of every sentence--is so staid and passive and boring. There's no enthusiasm in a sentence that ends with a period. All there is is "meh".

If you're ever chatting with me and I sound way too hyped or way too detached, it's not my fault--it's just my punctuation.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Two's Company, Three's a Crowd, Forty-Five is...

...A MoHo Party?

Maybe we should may gay cinema a regular feature. At least, I assume it's the movie (and not just my charming personality) that has people flying in from both coasts to come to the party tomorrow night. At last count, the total tally of "yes" RSVPs is 45 (if I count the "I'm bringing a couple of friends with me" responses). Add in the "maybes"...

I'm not sure we've ever had as many people in our home as we will tomorrow. :)

What makes it even more exciting is that approximately half of the people who are coming are people who I've either never met in person (who I know only from online communication) or who I don't know at all. I would have been shocked to hear myself say this a year ago, but I've grown to love meeting new people and making new friends, and tomorrow will provide plenty of opportunities for both.

If you're planning on coming, and don't know how to get to our house, and haven't let me know that you need an address and directions, now would be a good time to do so. :) I've just sent an email with that information to everyone who has requested it (as far as I can recall). If I've missed anyone, please let me know.

Several people have offered to help with food, and I greatly appreciate the offers--especially with the size of the crowd that will be attending. If it's not too much to ask, I'd appreciate if those who plan on bringing something can let me know (either in the comments on this post or in a private email--address in my profile) so that I've got a general idea of how much food is coming (and therefore how much additional food I need to prepare).

See you all tomorrow!

Blogged with the Flock Browser