Is the "Middle-Way" Actually Possible in Mormonism?

John Dehlin proposes it.

Stage Theory supports it.

Websites have even been created to help
people achieve it.

But is Middle-Way Mormonism really
possible?

Middle-Way Mormon, New Order Mormon, Cafeteria or Buffet Mormon are many words for the same thing - rejecting some or all of Mormon doctrine, and approaching church on one's own terms. For some, this is as simple as rejecting the Church's stance on Prop. 8, while accepting everything else. For some, it may mean being a fundamentalist theologically, but a Mormon outwardly. For some, it means being an active, but rejecting the temple. For others, it may mean being a cultural Mormon only - rejecting all of the doctrine, but staying Mormon because it is your tribe. There are infinite permutations of the "Middle-Way Mormon".

Many try to strictly define what it means to be Mormon. For example, Hawgrrl on StayLDS claims that you can't consider yourself Mormon if you don't obey the Word of Wisdom. A close reading of Elder Holland's 2006 PBS interview indicates that belief in the First Vision and Book of Mormon are vital to being a Mormon. Furthermore, his recent general conference address indicates that you can't be Mormon if you don't accept the Church's version of Book of Mormon history. Various and sundry lessons on apostacy reveal that it is better to shun the unbeliever, then to fall victim to unbelief. Latter-Day Skeptic went so far as to call Middle-Way Mormonism a "Rising Mormon Heresy".

The Mormon Church asks a great deal of its followers, including a 10% tithe of their income, weekly volunteer service, two years and $9,600 (as of 2006) of dedicated prosyletizing service abroad, and strict adherence to a moral "code of health" that places green tea on par with heroine in terms of the potential for bodily harm. In the Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith indicated that a religion that does not require the sacrafice of all things never has power to save. Indeed, temple-going Mormons promise to give everything they own, including their own lives, to the Mormon Church. Examples of this abound in the early church days when married women were taken as the plural wives of Brigham Young, and ousted from their husbands' hearths. For instance, Henry Jacobs surely felt he had sacraficed all God had given him when Brigham Young told him:

"Brother Jacobs, the woman you claimj for a wife does not beling to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, selaed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit."

Little wonder, then, that true-believing Mormons (TBMs) feel frustrated with those who claim all of the priviledges of Mormonism, while not adhering to some of its precepts. For example, the following comments were made to a recent post on Cafeteria Mormons on the Exponent:

As for true cafeteria Mormons, I am happy they are at the feast but there is
something rather sad and pathetic about them in my mind. - Nate Oman

If the idea of a cafeteria approach to the church is applied to academics or to
a career path it begins to be seen for what it is - slothful. - Jared

I know of individuals who tried to be non-temple attending Mormons. After being labeled as apostates, they decided that they didn't want their children being taught to judge their parents. I know of individuals who tried to be Middle-Way Mormon in California during Prop. 8, and ultimately became disaffected. Yes, John Dehlin and others on StayLDS (such as Hawkgrrl, Ray, and Valoel) claim that Middle-Way Mormonism is a very viable option. I admit that I have not met with any true Middle-Way Mormon in real life, so I don't know if these internet personas are merely tricks of cyberspace.

Nevertheless, the sucess stories cause me to ask, if a Middle-Way Mormonism is possible, then what are the environmental conditions necessary for it to be a comfortable experience? (And please note the phrase comfortable - in my mind, religion is meant to be a buoy, not a heavy ballast). Must one: Be a tribal Mormon? Seek to blend in and suppress heterodoxy? Keep the WoW and other Mormon cultural norms?

Turning a page....

This is the second "personal" blog I have had detailing my religious journey. Many of you followed me here from my first blog when I decided to go incognito. When I decided to go into hiding, it was because I was very angry. People say (or, in this case, write) very strong things when they are angry, and I didn't want to necessarily have the sum total of who I am be determined by those angry things.

The problem is, I am not angry anymore. When, from time to time, I do feel roused to anger concerning Mormonism these days, it has usually been short-lived. Has this blog served its usefulness, then? Or do I continue what I've started, allowing myself to let go and move forward, while others journey alongside me?

Recently, I've been studying Eastern philosphies, going back to my Catholic roots, and reading others' personal journeys with atheism. I've been studying Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and pacifism. I am no longer looking for an "One and Only True Church". I've come to feel that different churches play different roles in people's lives at different times. The LDS Church helped me to grow in incredible ways, and I think it is a good religion. But not the only true religion out there. I'm not angry anymore that it isn't what it said it was.

I am continuing my personal quest for peace and oneness with God. I've been on this journey now for 15 years. I thought that I had reached my final destination when I was 20, but now I no longer believe there is just one destination. I feel comfortable embracing Mormonism as I have Catholicism, because they have both shaped me. I no longer feel shame at being neither, and both, Catholic and Mormon.

Today, I am turning a page. Thank you for following my journey. I hope that you stay with me.

What a loaded question

Saganist posted a piece a few weeks back on Main Street Plaza discussing how you answer the question, "Are you Mormon?" In the East, Mormons are largely known for their adherence to the Word of Wisdom. In fact, probably the only time I have had to answer this question has been when I abstained from drinking alcohol at social functions. Since I've never really drank alcohol, even in my pre-Mormon days, and I didn't attend a "dry" university, I had occasions where I had to answer this question well before I was ever Mormon. Being Mormon made it a little easier to address alcohol abstention, but also created all sorts of other pre-judgments about me.

When I was in high school and college, I had a crucifix that I frequently wore on a chain, much the same way many Protestants where crosses or Jews wear stars of David. At the time, I hadn't really realized that Catholics almost exclusively wore crucifixes (i.e., with Christ on the cross), while other Christian denominations wore a cross (without Christ on the cross). I distinctly recall a meeting with my research adviser where he asked if I was a Catholic. I looked at him, confused, and then he pointed to my crucifix. Later, my roommate explained that other Christian groups focus more on the Resurrection, hence the empty cross. My conclusion was that Catholics must focus more on the suffering - hence, the crucifix.

Mormons don't wear crosses or crucifixes, but we still have ways of being able to identify each other - WoW adherence, garment lines, Utah/Idaho connections, missionary experiences, what college you attended, etc. Of course, then there are also the overt signs, such as CTR rings and "Mamas Boys" shirts. It sort of becomes a game to discover whether someone is LDS, based on outward appearances.

My DH and I were recently at a business trip luau in Hawaii, and were chatting with an individual from Colorado State. The weather was quite sultry, and most of the participants were in aloha attire (Hawaiian shirts slightly open for men, tube-top dresses for women). My dress was no exception, although my husband's attire was entirely temple-appropriate. A young man opposite us was the only one in site drinking a non-alcoholic Mai-Tai, and it was clear that he was wearing several layers on top. In the course of conversation, it came out that he and DH were both from Idaho. Ah, the game was afoot! To any other observer, one might have wondered why this young man was going through his entire geneology (linked to Ricks and J. Reuban Clarke), mentioned his two-years spent in the South, said he attended undergrad in Utah, and kept asking my husband probing questions about college, where he was married, why he had also lived abroad for two years, etc. To me, it was clear that he was sizing DH up - was he an active Mormon man married to a non-member? I enjoyed myself immensely as I kept throwing in shark bait for him ("Oh, DH's family settled Bear Lake" or "DH speaks fluent Russian) while I quietly accepted a coffee from the waitress.

Yet, interestingly, the Mormon dude opposite us never explicitly asked DH, "Are you Mormon?" (I think I was likely the wild-card).

I think the questions, "Are you Catholic?" and "Are you Mormon?" have much less to do with Catholic or Mormon doctrine, and much more to do with their respective cultures. Mormons have a unique Utah "heritage," much as Irish-American Catholics can frequently trace ancestors back to the potato famine or Jews trace ancestors back to Jerusalem. All three groups often stress the persecution adherents to their faith have undergone (although in the case of the Jews, no one would disagree). All three groups have distinct cultural choices that mark them as separate - Mormons have WoW and garments; Catholics have Ash Wednesday and crucifixes; Jews have distinct ethnic features and Kosher laws.

All of these things are ways in which we classify others. They are also definitions by which we group and classify ourselves, based on cultural imprints of our upbringing. I realized the other day that I still have never seen Life of Brian, because when I was in high school, the Pope banned it for all good Catholics. I was conflicted about whether to read Harry Potter for the same reason, even though it came out long after I was baptized Mormon. I still consider it sacraligeous for a non-reconciled Catholic to take Eucharist, even though I don't believe in the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I mourned the day Pope John Paul II died. I instinctively pray between noon and 3 pm on Good Friday, and I would never imagine not sending my son to Catholic school. I associate Fridays with fish. I am much more likely to have the words to a Catholic Mass come in answer to a prayer as I am a scripture from the Book of Mormon.

So, while I may have been baptized Mormon, if someone were to ask if I was Catholic, I would have to answer "Yes, but not practicing." If you were to ask if I am Mormon, I would probably answer, "I used to be."

You can take the girl out of Catholicism, but its much harder to take the Catholic out of the girl.

The Bell-Curve Theory

Many of the feminist boards I read have a resounding theme from the commentators: Most of the women in the Church are happy, therefore why rock the boat?

In statistics, a Bell curve describes the probability distribution of data based on the mean (or average). Bell curves are frequently used in college university grading systems. For example, if the average grade on a given exam is 48%, this grade can be "reset" as a B- and the grades distributed based on their distance from the mean. Generally speaking, the mean of a "normal distribution" is 68%, with 32% (16% + 16%) of the distribution falling above or below the average.

Lately I have found myself mentally applying the Bell curve to populations within the church. When a woman says, "Most women in the Church are happy with having large families and staying at home," what I hear in my mind is, "68% of women are happy with their predefined roles".

So, what about the other 32%? Are those of us on the fringes just forgotten?

While I understand the desire to avoid discussing "exceptions," 32% is a pretty large number to disenfranchise. In a Church of 13 million members (yes, I realize this number is a gross over-estimation), that amounts to 4.16 million souls who are just forgotten because they fall outside of +/- 1 standard deviation.

Well, that was completely unexpected!

This post is to update all of you who were actively following the drama with my meeting with the Bishop and RS Pres.'s e-mail. I was going to write a long comment in my previous Lurve Bombing post, but decided a post might serve the purpose just as well.

In the aftermath of my post on Lurve Bombing, which was published in the wee-small hours of Tuesday morning, later that same Tuesday I received an e-mail from our ward Relief Society president (RSP), asking how I was and trying to set up a visit with me. I knew immediately that she was emailing out of concern for my consistent non-attendance at church. Let me point out that my RSP is an extremely good, well-intentioned woman, who generally has seemed very concerned for my needs on a personal level. We've worked together as VTers and could generally be considered to be casual friends - somewhat more than acquaintances, but significantly less than a tried-and-true friend to whom you know you can entrust your thoughts and feelings. I had had enough interaction with her and kindness from her that I felt I owed her (due to our friendship) the kindness of honesty, since she has been sincerely concerned about me and my family for a few months now. She always goes out of her way to find Mr. C on Sundays and ask him if I am well, as well as to give an occasional phone call.

In the midst of discussing with Mr. C how much I should or shouldn't reveal to the RSP, Mr. Curie received a phone call from our (brand-spankin'-new) bishop wanting to meet with us the following evening (Wed. night). All hell then proceeded to break loose between myself and Mr. C. After the dust finally settled, we agreed to a compromise: We would do the meeting with the Bishop HIS way, and I would do the meeting with the RSP MY way, provided that Mr. C's way allowed me to make clear my disaffection if the opportunity arose (i.e., I wasn't allowed to bring it up as an offensive, but could use it in answer to questioning). In other words, hide the coffee, cover my shoulders, and put away the rosaries and my Buddah statue for the Bishop's visit, but the dinner with the RSP was fair game.

Well, to summarize our Wed. night meeting with the Bishop without going into agonizing detail, the meeting was ended with Mr. C retaining his calling in good standing, and me being released from my former calling without accepting a new one. I had the chance to indicate that I am "a rather unorthodox member" and "sort of a femi-Nazi". He seemed to be very understanding, and responded by asking if I had grown up my whole life on the East. I guess that explains it?? Anyway, he also asked "where I saw myself in the ward," and we chatted more along that vein until he left about an hour and a half later. I received a phone call a few days later, asking me if I would be "willing to consider a calling." When I told him yes, he extending to me a calling as Ward Housing Specialist.

My Bishop seemed very low-key, and although I felt comfortable with him and have tentative optimism for the future of our ward, nevertheless I am still slightly worried. I am not sure why, perhaps it comes from my unorthodoxy more than anything. It may also come from a prior interaction with an extremely micro-managing and "patriarchal" bishop. My new Bish made some comments that made me uncomfortable, while other gave me hope. We'll see how much my interaction with him affects my interaction with the LDS church.

Feeling positive after my successful meeting with the Bishop, I responded to my RSP's email. Mr. C and I again talked for serveral hours on how to word it properly. My issues with the church are many, and unreconcilable from the perspective of "re-finding my testimony". However, Mr. C pointed out to me that most likely, the RSP would only be more worried if I told her specific concerns (e.g., I think the Family Proc is uninspired, I no longer have a testimony in the Restoration, I think women in the LDS Church have been repressed from the dawn of its inception, I think that the prophets are good men doing their best who receive more more or less inspiration than other Christian church leaders, etc.) We settled on using similar wording to what worked so well with our Bishop - "unorthodox and feminist".

I explained briefly to her that I appreciated her friendship greatly, as well as her concern for my well-being, and that I did not want that to change. I explained that things were going very well with work, family, and my marriage, but that I no longer felt comfortable attending church. "I am non-traditional, unorthodox, and a feminist," I explained, "and these values conflict with the church's largely conservative values that are focused heavily on traditional roles for women. As a result, I regularly leave church feeling depressed and unhappy." I explained that, as a result of these uncomfortable feelings, I had decided to take a step back from the Church for the unforseeable future. I ended expressing a continued desire to have and be a VTer, and to attend Enrichment activities, since I value the companionship of other women.

Her response was overwhelmingly positive. She told me she appreciated my honesty, and understood, and would love to have me attend wherever possible. She told me my VTing route would be changing, and that I would be getting new teachers soon. She then ended with proposing dinner with her family for Sunday night (tonight). We went to dinner, and again, the visit was overwhelmingly positive. We had a fun time with her and her kids, and chatted about Hawaii, our jobs, the kids' schools, etc. Although, as Mr. C pointed out to me afterwards, there were multiple opportunities for her to bring up my concerns (e.g., I had picked up a prescription before the dinner and therefore "broken the Sabbath," had admitted to working today and skipped church), she did not bat an eye at any of those things.

The kindness and goodness of others sometimes overwhelms me. Some of the most sincerely loving people I have met have been LDS, and I really think the Church has an amazing power for good. For those of us on the fringe, however, its negative impact can be unbearable. Such an odd dichotomy. Regardless, my feelings now are those of peace. For the first time in a long time, I feel quite confident of my decisions, regardless of how anyone else sees them.

Keep Moving Forward!

Its a pretty common modus operandi for disaffected Mormons to feel victimized. Actually, its pretty common human nature to feel victimized anytime you feel you were sold something under false pretenses. This can be particularly true for Mormons who discover that the history of their church that they are taught is not the one that is historically true. Finding this out after having donated time and money (10% of your income in tithes) to the institution can make one feel very victimized indeed.

But are we all really just victims of circumstance?

Thirty years ago (nearly 31... ugh...), I was christened a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I had no say in the matter, no input to give. Without my consent, I was made a Catholic. At the age of 6, I received the Sacraments of Reconciliation and First Holy Communion, and at 9 I was confirmed in the RCC. None of these ages is really "mature" enough to consent to a faith tradition.

When I was 20, I joined the LDS Church. At that time, I was fully old enough and responsible enough that I could have (and probably should have) looked more carefully at the evidence placed before me. I had access to the Internet, and I had good roommates who tried to warn me that the Church had more than met the eye. But I was very moved spiritually and emotionally, and I was fully embraced by a new set of ward friends whose ideals in life seemed to match mine in every way. I had no way of knowing at the time that the branch I was joining was more of an aberration in the Mormon community than the norm. Ten years and tens of thousands of dollars later, I discover that the history and information the Church provided me was not completely truthful. Does that make me a victim of some lemon law? Is there is Better Religions Bureau to take my concerns up with?

Personally, I refuse to see myself as a victim. I'm glad that I joined the LDS Church when I did, even if I am leaving it now. It was a vehicle for my spiritual journey, one that I have since outgrown, similar to my outgrowing of Roman Catholicism. I see my "moving on" as similar to transferring between colleges - each school seeks to impart knowledge, but some are better for the individual at different times than others.

At times I have been very angry, and I believe that anger was valid. I suspect at times I will still get angry, especially with a Stage 4 angry disaffected husband. But religion isn't the goal - peace is.

In the illustrious words of Cornelius Robinson, "Keep moving forward!"

Lurve Connection: The Effectiveness of the "Love Bomb"

"Love Bomb" refers to the systematic friendshipping of a wayward Mormon, the clarion call of the fellow sheep to the lost one. It is also derogitavely referred to as being given an "assigned friend" or being the "ward project". Depending on the situation and the individual, fellowshippers might include the home- and visit-teachers, Relief Society President, Bishop and/or Elder's Quorum President, the Bishop's wife, or some other random person from the ward. In extreme cases, it can also involve the Stake President and Area Authority Seventy (although this is far more common if you are lineage LDS or married to someone related to a GA).

How effective is love bombing for the apostate? Does it work, or is it wasted time and energy? From what I have read of others' experiences, it truly seems that once your testimony is gone, there is no getting it back. Like reaching for the oasis and finding it was a mirage, the untainted view of the Church is "lost, and lost forever". But is there a time when love bombing can work?

I will present my own profile and conclusions based on my life, and then will open the comments for you to answer that question for yourselves.

Dossier of an Apostate
Convert of 10 years. Female, married in temple, 1 child.

Precipitating issues:
Feminist issues (Primary concern) and Historical/intellectual issues (Secondary concern).

My feminist concerns began within a year of baptism when other members questioned why I wasn't married, where I was going on my mission, and whether I hated children (because I was attending graduate school). Dating in the single's ward was hell, because I was educated and "older" (I was baptized at the ripe old age of 20). Issues intensified with my marriage (why was I delaying having children?) and further with the birth of my son 3 years ago. At that point, I started being drilled as to my career decisions and having every statement ever made by Pres. Benson on the issue of Working Mothers re-iterated to me in VT-ing visits. My best girl friend at the time, Linda, wrote a blog post about the evils of working mothers, calling down judgment upon all working moms for "disobeying God and His Prophets". She also made a point of sharing story after story with me of how poor she was growing up but her "mum loved her, so she stayed home." We sort of grew apart after the blog post incident, although I never told her why, and she later moved away.

Attempts at Reconciliation with the Church:
I was ridiculously open about my concerns with the Church. While in graduate school, I attended the weekly Mormon graduate student lunches, where I was the only girl (100% of the time) and only one unmarried (also 100% of the time). There I was pretty much drilled by the "men" about why I was getting my PhD, one individual going so far as to assure me that he would "never in a million years marry someone with a PhD" because he would find it too intimidating. However, I pressed forward and continued to attend the lunches, until they were discontinued.

While married and pregnant, I tried to start a social club for professional and working women at our ward. I found that working women fell into one of three categories:

1, Working and NOM, because of an inability to reconcile Church and career;

2, Working and active, but with a personality that is oblivious to the tensions associated with the work/Church juggle; and

3, Closet working mom, who does not want it known that she works.

I found that I had little support in my group from any of the three groups. When I raised my concerns to group 1, the response was that the Church wasn't True anyway, so who the hell cared what Pres. Benson said? When I raised my concerns to group 2, the answer was "Oh, I have never had anyone every question my decision to work. Oooh, look at the pretty floral arrangement Sister Hydrangea picked today!". Moms in group 3 generally had nothing to do with me, presumably for fear that others might give them guilt by association with the Career Woman.

I went to my VTers about my working issues, and met against Group 3 moms (and therefore could not address my concerns). I went to the RS President about my concerns, and her response was, "Well, we all know that if you could, you would stay home with your son" - as though the issue were one of personal worthiness.

When Prop 8 hit and I started having even more issues with the Church's social issues, I started my historical research. Finding disturbing historical information led me to raise questions to my VTers, in Relief Society, and to the RS President. I also started a blog where I discussed in frequent posts my personal struggles. Everyone in the ward was reading it - as seen in my stat counter - but not a single person from the ward would discuss my concerns with me. Somehow, my not-very-subtle cries for help from my sinking ship were either completely negated or ignored as something embarrassing.

I finally posted my last "real" post on that blog, where I finally said, blandly and boldly, I am considering leaving this church! All of the sudden, several ward members appear out of the wood-work and bear their testimony to me on my blog. NOW you bear your testimony??? NOW, after I have already come to accept that Joseph Smith was not all the Church says he is - you bear your testimony that Joseph Smith was a Prophet? Nevermind that I have been discussing my issues for literally over a year - and until that point, no one from the ward answered any of my concerns. That week, I also received an email from Linda's husband, calling me to repentance for dissenting with the prophet. I then went to my Bishop, who gave me some of the very best advice I had ever received on the topic of working mothers.... but by then, it was too too little, too too late.

The one good piece of "love bombing" I received was from a friend in the ward, Susie, whose father was a CES instructor. Had she talked with me previously, in response to one of my hundreds of blog posts on historical issues, it might have helped. As it was, she talked to me after I had come to write-off apologists and folks working for the Church History department as propaganda makers.

The Aftermath:
The aforementioned post on my disaffection was published mid-June of this year. In mid-August (2 months later), I made my official decision to disengage from the church for a while. The contacts that I received concerning that blog post were all made within the week that it was published. Thus, from June - Aug., despite the fact that I asked frequent (and difficult) questions in RS, I received no love-bombing. By the end of August, I stopped attending our ward meetings.

My RS president has asked my husband numerous times how I am doing - but as of yet, I have gotten no calls from her, no emails, etc. I wore a temple-unfriendly dress for Halloween, and she made a remark that made me indicate that she noticed, but again - no contact.

I published the pictures from Halloween, as well as some others that I had taken in Hawaii wearing a tank top, on Facebook. Within 24 hours, I received another email from Linda, shooting the breeze, trying to catch up (I hadn't heard from her in almost a year). I knew why she had emailed - but she did not make it explicit, and I did not help her. I am waiting for my next "call to repentance" email from her.

Final Conclusions on Love Bombing:
Had someone - anyone! - been able to offer me timely advice during the critical Nov. 2008 - June 2009 period when I was actively blogging and asking questions, I think things would have gone better for me. Whether or not I would have ultimately left the Church, the world may never know. Although I didn't realize it then, what I specifically needed was some sort of female mentor, who could show me "how it could be done" to balance work and Church. I didn't receive that, and in fact, received a bombardment of calls to repentance on my being a working Mom. If I hadn't had that pressure on me to understand the church's relationship with feminism, I never would have started my historical studies and ultimately seen what the Church thinks of "people like me". I also wouldn't have had my understanding of Joseph Smith shattered into smithereens.

Alternatively, meeting someone IRL who was NOM while I was still active would have been helpful during the time period that I was uncovering historical facts about Church history. It wouldn't have stopped the death, but it would have significantly curbed the blood loss, and given me more time.

I also think that the advice I got from Susie and my Bishop were great - but it only came after I had uncovered the worst that Church History had to offer. Its like offering someone who has had a hideous migraine for three days half a Tylenol after the fact. Too little, too late.

The Power of Compassion

In the wake of my recent disaffection, I have been much more vocal about my support of same-sex marriage. This cause caused a lot of contention, particularly on places such as Facebook where my apostacy is not so widely known. Tonight, I got to thinking about where my change on this issue occurred. It wasn't so long ago that I seriously started questioning what my response would be if Prop 8 were in Philadelphia, rather than in California. I recall in those days (it seems like ages ago, really) wondering whether it is better to vote your conscience or to vote in accordance with the Prophet. I think I had decided that it was best to abstain from voting, rather than to cause offense either way. Obviously my feelings have undergone a radical transformation. So, what effected the change?

When I was in high school, my best friend Mary* and I fell in love. We meant everything to one another, I believe. We attended prom together, and neither of us dated anyone else while in high school. Our relationship continued through our first few years of college, although we attended different universities. We would travel to visit one another, enormous distances. As our friends married their high-school sweethearts, I remember in my mind thinking of how wonderful it would be to set up a home with my Mary. We would talk about growing old together, no matter where else our life's paths took us, grey and wrinkly on rockers in a cottage by a stream. At times, the situation was somewhat confusing, since I felt that there was nothing at all wrong with our relationship, but she would occasionally feel guilty about it.

When I joined the Mormon church my senior year of college, in my baptismal interview the Elders asked me if I had ever been in a homosexual relationship (this is a standard question in the baptismal interview, I believe). I was a little surprised by this question, as I wasn't expecting it. I answered "no," since I wasn't currently in a relationship with Mary (I had been dating a guy for the past year). However, that question and its implications haunted me for a long time thereafter.

This was honestly the first time in my life that I had ever considered my relationship with Mary to be "bad" in any way. It seemed like such a strange thing, that something so special as the tender love that we had for one another could be wrong. The phrase "harrowed up" goes a long way to describing my feelings for the next several years whenever I would think about myself and how evil and depraved I must have been. Nevermind that when we were dating (although we never called it that), I knew God smiled on us and had sent her to me. I also tried hard to never, ever think back to my relationship with Mary, casting it aside as a confusing and "evil" time in my life.

When Prop 8 hit the scene at the beginning of 2008, and the Church started taking such a strong stand in it, many of the memories with my sweet friend Mary came back to me. It seemed unfair that the Church would try to forbid other homosexuals from marrying, although I frequently told myself that God (through the Prophet) must know better than I. However, as I started seeing myself within the LGTB community, I began to deeply understand where they were coming from, what they wanted, and why it was not only acceptable, but necessary and just. I understood their plight, because it was my plight. Understanding brought compassion, love, and eventually, acceptance - both of the right for gays to marry, and of myself for my relationship with Mary.

Compassion is a powerful thing. It changes a man from mere mortal to something better than himself. Thank God for that.

*Name has been changed

BYU Eliminating its Women's Research Institute

The Women's Research Institute of BYU (also known as the WRI) is being eliminated effective Jan. 2001. As is the usual fashion when the Church wants to annouce something potentially controversial, the "press release" announcing this change was buried as an archive on BYU's website. Most in the Bloggernacle only found out this information from a farewell article published online by Square Two, published by "various WRI affiliates". This last article makes the following statement:

The elimination of the WRI was expressed as a “streamlining and strengthening” of BYU programs in the area of women’s studies. While the Women’s Studies Minor is to be housed in the Sociology Department (i.e., an interdisciplinary major housed in a disciplinary department), there will no longer be coordinated facilitation at BYU of research and scholarly dialogue concerning women, apart from one university-wide faculty research award and the transfer from the WRI of a small amount of research money for research on women to be given out by the university’s Office of Research and Creative Activities. Within the last twenty years of record-keeping, no other university in the country has eliminated its center of research concerning women. We hope the anomaly of this move on the part of BYU will not be misinterpreted by those who erroneously believe that the LDS Church is not a friend to women and does not consider women's issues to be important. Only time will tell if the envisioned strengthening will in fact take place at BYU.

At You Remind Me of Home, Nathaniel Ray Pickett gives his two cents as to what was really being said in this press release:

First was the statement that the entire WRI will be reduced to one scholarship, and all the rest of its (all too meager) funding will be given to the ORCA grant program, and that the Women’s Studies minor will be moved to the Sociology department. Second was the admittance and plea that BYU knows it is doing something wrong but begging to not be perceived as “not a friend to women and does not consider women’s issues to be important.”

This insight is helpful for those (like me) NOT at BYU and who therefore are unaware of the administrative aspects of this decisions.

Sara Vranes at laughter = medicine contacted the dean of the Sociology department for clarification on the decision to eliminate the WRI:

He had no solid response, just something about how the WRI was no longer fulfilling its mission. Pardon? The WRI brings awareness to the plight of women worldwide through work done by and through BYU students and faculty. Lookie here:

Since 1993, the primary focus of the Institute has been programmatic research in three areas: 1) studies designed to prevent gender-related violence and increase peace in individuals, homes, and communities, 2) longitudinal studies to determine effective ways to improve the lives of women in developing countries, especially through education, and 3) studies capitalizing on innovative technologies in order to create repositories of information documenting the conditions in which women live . . . as well as their contributions to society.

[I]f BYU wants to be viewed as an establish[ed] university, then it should do what Stanford, Yale, Harvard, U Penn, Michigan and Berkley do- have a WRI.

An article on Feminist Mormon Housewives gives an impassioned plea to BYU to retain the program. Here are some of the author Elise's remarks:

Of the approximate 30,000 students at BYU, 48% are female, and 2,691 students are enrolled in the Women’s Studies minor, almost 10 percent of the entire student population. At such a (let’s face it) conservative school, the fact that we even have a Women’s Studies minor is a pretty big deal, and the BYU Women’s Research Institute has contributed enormously to the university community since its founding in 1978. From 2006 to 2008 alone, the WRI funded 132 faculty research publications relating to women. Some of the brightest and most promising students at BYU are involved with this program... The Administration claims that they are “streamlining and strengthening” the program but what they’re really doing is removing all funding WRI used to receive and consolidating it into one faculty research grant and a token amount of funding available for students.

There’s a reason why this is being kept hush-hush. All major universities have a Women’s Studies Program, and shutting down ours is more than just a bad idea, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Money is not the issue: BYU receives generous donations from LDS alumni even in this economy. Additionally, 52% of the WRI budget came from outside, non-BYU sources. This is, in short, another attempt by an overtly conservative administration to shut down any “feminist” activities— because a lack of education makes many people at this institution think feminism is a dirty word.

I agree with Elise up to this point. She then goes on to indicate why the LDS church is actually progressive and feminist for women, but that it is the "bureaucracy of BYU" that pushed this move, and that it is not indicative of the Church at large:

Just because the choices LDS women make based on our faith are considered old-fashioned, doesn’t mean that we aren’t strong, intelligent women who believe in gender equality and everything else feminism stands for. I am proud to consider myself a feminist, and so do many other men and women at this university...

[T]hings like this that make it so hard to be a BYU student. This is not an issue of faith. Most of the students at BYU are faithful adherents to the LDS faith and are not being oppressed or silenced by the Church itself. Rather, it is the bureaucracy at the university level that is the source of the problem for myself and all other like-minded students here. I have found that my faith is one of the greatest sources of my personal empowerment as a women, and that my religious beliefs and my social beliefs complement rather than contradict each other. For BYU students, the solution is not to abandon our faith, rather to find ways to reconcile the beliefs of another generation to the ideals we uphold with as much fervor as we do our religion. Shutting down our Women’s Research Institute would be a step in the entirely wrong direction.

Here is the problem with her analysis: the higher-ups in the bureaucracy that she is railing against here are the General Authorities and the Quorum of the Twelve. You can't say that when something of this magnitude is being done at "The Lord's University" (or less tongue-in-cheek, "The University of the CoJCoLDS") that it isn't reflective of the opinion of the Church as a whole towards women, women's issues, and feminism. I remain baffled by women who can endure this sort of obvious second-class treatment at the Church authorities hands, while simultaneously arguing that they Church itself is not misogynist.

Although I understand that the author (and others like her) is trying to avoid cog dis, at some point these issues will be more than just academic.

Perhaps she will go to graduate school, and be questioned by her bishop - the authorized "servant of God" for her salvation - about her "intentions" with regards to having a family and fulfilling her divine calling of motherhood.

Perhaps she will desire to go on a mission, and her Stake President will restrict her, saying that because she has a (pseudo) boyfriend, that she should be thinking of getting married.

Perhaps she will consider getting a job at BYU, only to discover that her department of choice does not hire women of child-bearing age.

Perhaps she will realize that it is demeaning to women when her 12-year-old son (who still wets the bed) has more "authority" to act in God's name than she, as a 50 year old woman, will ever have.

My other beef with her post is the statement:

Just because the choices LDS women make based on our faith are considered old-fashioned, doesn’t mean that we aren’t strong, intelligent women who believe in gender equality and everything else feminism stands for.

What Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does she belong to that believes in gender equality? The only Mormon church I am aware of makes it clear that women are not equal with men (unless you believe that two groups can be separate but equal, and that by denying women rights given to men, you are actually protecting them).

Ariel at Weightier Matters of the Law, who previously taught at the WRI, offers her perspective on how this "streamlining" (a.k.a. elimination) hurts the Church at large:

I had toyed with the idea of returning to the WRI one day when BYU was willing to put more resources into women’s studies and would finally fund some regular professorships in the WRI. Instead, the administration has decided to eliminate the WRI altogether, supposedly “streamlining and strengthening” the women’s studies minor by relocating it to the sociology department. I am skeptical. While the elimination of such a relatively-unpopular minor may seem like the logical choice in the midst of a serious economic recession, the administration of BYU must consider the long-term results of this choice. Women’s studies is not only a department but a symbol of social progress and a commitment to equality at universities around the world. It can be of no coincidence that the WRI was founded in 1978, only shortly after LDS African Americans were allowed to hold the priesthood and in the midst of debate over the Equal Rights Amendment, an era in which both BYU and the Church were seeking ways in which to express their dedication to racial and gender equality. Has the need for such visual symbolism ceased in this time of Proposition 8? Hardly.

In emphasizing the symbolic value of the WRI, I do not wish to demean the actual academic value of women’s studies at BYU. The WRI has served over the past thirty-one years to pursue specific goals central not only to the feminist agenda but also to the Gospel of Jesus Christ: to promote the education of women, to recognize and eliminate the exploitation of women, and to end violence and abuse of women. In light of these considerations, one might even argue that the goals and achievements of the WRI are of greater social, political, and even eternal importance than those of most other departments at BYU. Yet in eliminating the WRI and burying the women’s studies minor in the sociology department, the administration is marginalizing these aims and reinforcing to the world (once again) that money-making lawyers and accountants glorify God better than engaged citizens sensitized to social injustice and committed to change.

And I think that is perhaps where my opinion is at - more so than any kind of monetary or academic reason, the symbolic nature of the Women's Research Institute should warrant its being kept alive; that is, if the Church were truly at all interested in maintaining the feminist voice within its organization (which I am not convinced of). When the Relief Society was changed from an autonomous body to an auxillary of the priesthood, the process marginalized women. The symbolism of that change is synonymous with the symbolism of the change being effected with the elimination of WRI.

Is this truly the direction the Church would like to see going forward for women in the Church?

For those interested in doing more, there is a Facebook group working to prevent the elimination of the WRI, or you can send a letter to BYU's student newspaper, The Universe. If anyone knows of any protests planned, please let me know as I would be interested in participating. If I'm gonna go down, let it be with a purpose.

Thoughts on the Proclamation on the Family: Temples

In this second installment of a five-part series on the Proclamation on the Family, I will discuss the second aspect of the Family Proclamation: Families are eternal only if they are sealed in the temple

The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available only in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The concepts of Authority and Method are intrinsically tied into this aspect of the Family Proclamation. The Mormon Church claims the authority to bind on heaven because of the restoration of those promises from Elijah to Joseph Smith. The issue of binding marriage in heaven as it is on earth is a particularly interesting one, given the verse in Matthew that reads:

For in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. - Matt. 22:30

Generally speaking, Mormons don't set much store by specific Bible passages that do not agree with their theology, claiming that the Bible is only the Word of God "as long as it is translated correctly". If something doesn't jive with our doctrine - well, then, it must have been translated wrong.

It is interesting, though, to consider the authority claims of the different churches on marriage. For example, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) (the church from which the true church "apostacized") also clearly believes it alone has the authority to act in God's name (through Peter) and bind individuals in marriage. Consider the language from the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, particularly noting how closely the Family Proclamation mimics some of the authority claims and definitions of marriage used:

I. MARRIAGE INSTITUTED BY GOD
Marriage is a contract and is by its very nature above human law. It was instituted by God, is subject to Divine law, and cannot for that reason be rescinded by human law... Marriage is natural in purpose, but Divine in origin. It is sacred... Marriage is monogamic and indissoluble; death alone dissolves the union when consummated. When men pretend to be the final arbiters of the marriage contract, they base their claim on the assumption that this contract is merely of human institution and is subject to no laws above those of man. But human society... originated by marriage, not marriage by human society.

II. MARRIAGE IN THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION
The [Roman Catholic] Church being the Divinely appointed custodian of all sacraments, it belongs to her jurisdiction to interpret and apply the divine law of marriage. She cannot repeal or change that law... The Church derives her power to legislate in matrimonial affairs, not from the State, but from Christ; and acts, not on sufferance, but by Divine right. She recognizes the duty of the State to take cognizance of Christian marriage, in order to insure certain civic effects, but her jurisdiction is superior and Divine origin.

- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 17, 1913, emphases mine

While researching what would be necessary if I decided to return to full fellowship within the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), I discovered that the RCC considers my temple marriage to my husband to be invalid, and not recognized by God. To rectify this situation would require sexual abstinence in marriage, until such time that the marriage could be "convalidated". Nevermind that my marriage is legal in all 50 states and that the Mormon God considers us married for the past five years. The Catholic God believes I have been living in a state of co-habitation and engaging in pre-marital sex. Interestingly, both Catholicism and Mormonism in this regard are identical. Both religions believe that without their authoritative stamp of approval, a marriage is null and void in God's eyes. The difference lay in the purported duration of the marriage: whereas Mormons claim absolutely that their authority gives a temple marriage power over death, Catholic doctrine gives no such concept of an after-life that involves earthly ties (although what is generally believed is otherwise). If questioned, the Catholic church would certainly claim that if any church had the authority to make a marriage be binding in heaven, it would be them.

Interesting side note 1: Both the Roman Catholic and Mormon Church claim that a married individual is living in sin if the marriage is not ordained by their authority - in the US Mormon church, a mandatory 1 year waiting period exists between your civil marriage and temple sealing. Although no reason is given for this waiting period, and it is generally assumed that it is for "repentance" purposes. In other countries where sealings are not seen as valid marriages, the couple must marry civilly or by the state religion first, and then have their marriage sealed within a requisite number of hours/days (presumably without marital relations). If the sealing does not occur within the stated time, then again the couple again must wait a year.

Which makes me ask: What is it about the magical 1-year mark that makes it such that a marriage goes from "living in sin" to "sins have been atoned"? I know of no other sin that, when done long enough, renders its actor forgiven. "Well, yes, I cheated on that exam, but I cheated on every exam for the whole year, so surely that means I am forgiven?"

Interesting side note 2: Although Mormons do not recognize Catholic marriages and Catholics do not recognize Mormon marriages, both groups managed to get together to fight gay marriage (via Prop 8). Perhaps we need to have a third group that does not recognize Catholic or Mormon marriages but does recognize same-sex marriages?

We say that marriages must be performed both by the proper authority and in the proper manner (e.g., in the temple) to be considered valid. It is worthwhile examining what the marriage covenant was that was restored by Joseph Smith. Consider the following:

1. Although we frequently use the phrase "new and everlasting covenant" to refer to celestial marriage today, or alternatively to the gospel, Joseph Smith solely used the phrase in relation to plural marriage (polygamy).

2. It was very clearly taught and understood in the early days of the church - by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and others - that polygamy was required for all men in order to be exalted.

3. Monogamy is repeatedly condemned by the early church leaders, particularly in the Journal of Discourses, as wholly insufficient for salvation. Brigham Young specifically warned men who only married one woman only that their wives would be taken from them and given to others who lived The Principle (of plural marriage).

4. Joseph Smith never intended marriage to be the crowning ordinance of the temple. Rather, the second annointing served that purpose, which ordinance has been virtually eliminated from the modern church.

In other words, assuming that Joseph Smith was given the divine authority from the apostacized RCC to perform marriage, as well as the specific ritual necessary to marry individuals for eternity, the rules that were once required are no longer adhered to. The very meaning of the new and everlasting covenant has changed with time. Thus, either God is a changeable God who changes his marital laws yesterday, today and forever; the True Church is in a state of apostacy once again; or the authority to wed in heaven was never really given to begin with.

Finally, and as a final side note, something that has always bugged me about this topic is the idea that Mormons are the only religion that can marry others for eternity and that somehow adherents from all other religions know this. There are quite a few talks to this effect that have been given, where General Authorities explain to different couples that their religions do not have the power to marry them for eternity. They say to them, "But your pastor said 'until death do you part'!" and POOF! the couple realizes they have to get married in the temple. There are several problems with this is. First, all Christians believe in the Resurrection, and most believe they will see their loved ones again after this life. Don't believe me? Go check out a non-Mormon funeral. I've attended numerous, including that of my Catholic mother and beloved godfather. Just because something isn't explicitly stated in a doctrine doesn't mean it can't be commonly believed. Second, even if you tell someone that you have the authority to do something doesn't mean you really do - look at the authority fight between the RCC and LDS Church with regard to this issue.

The upshoot? I am happy that I was married according to the laws of the land, and I am not going to try to be remarried in every church that says, "Lo, look here! I alone speak for God!"