For Those Who Don't Know What It's Like to Be a Doubter

     With the recent news of Kate Kelly and John Dehlin facing possible excommunication from the Church, I have experienced a mix of emotions myself, and observed mixed reactions from believers and doubters alike on social media. I was heartbroken, especially because of the value I found in John Dehlin's Mormon Stories Podcast when I was struggling most with my doubts. I treasured having a source of information that was totally honest, without any ill-will toward the Church. As I have been weighed down by the sadness of the news, I've also been tempted to respond with anger towards those who don't understand my perspective. I've seen a lot of comments, especially in reference to Kate Kelly, along the lines of "She just wants attention!", "If she doesn't like how the Church is, why doesn't she just leave?" and, "So silly. Doesn't she know anything about the gospel?"

     I exercised a great deal of self-control and decided not to comment on such threads as I knew it wouldn't get anywhere. But I felt I should clarify a few things for those who find themselves more in line with those kinds of comments. I've probably said similar things myself at another time in my life. The main issue I want to address is why people don't "just leave the Church". Because that must be so easy, right? "Just leave." As someone who has stepped away from my activity in the Church, let me express a little of what that is like.

     Growing up in the Church is kind of like growing up in a small country with a rich history and culture. You grow up accustomed to a certain cuisine, language, music, an entire shared sense of spirituality with all the same stories to tie you together as a community. When you are young, you are nurtured with love not only by your family, but by your neighbors and even community leaders. You are flooded with love for your country and proudly wear its colors, and you are praised mightily for this, strengthening the bond. You are taught that your country is better than all other countries and that it is the only country that takes such good care of its people. But as you grow older, you find out that there are more kinds of people than one. You find out that things are not so simple. You find out that certain kinds of people aren't allowed in. And you find out that entire groups of citizens are quietly suffering, and that although the tight government control makes for a very unified and seemingly peaceful country, there is also little freedom.

     In time, you may discover enough uncomfortable information that you begin to feel deeply that the way things are run goes directly against all the core principles you were taught growing up as a citizen of this place. This conflict, and your love for your home, causes you to want to bring integrity back to your country. You need some way to reconcile the conflict between your government's principles and its behavior. You reach a point where you have to decide whether to leave it altogether, or to stay, and through your patriotism try to make it the country you always believed it was and know it could be. The idea of moving to a new country is terrifying and lonely. Everyone you have ever loved is in this place and all that you know is here. You are still loyal to the principles you thought it stood for. What should you do?

     It's not an easy position to be in. It's not as if doubters wake up one day and say, "You know, I really hate the Church. I should just get out of here." Those who leave must learn how to live in a whole new "country", which is disorienting and difficult at times. Those who stay must find a way to carve out enough space to be themselves and stand up for what they believe. Whether we stay or leave, the Church is still who we are; we can't just pluck it out of us, just as you can't snap your fingers and make your family's influence on your identity disappear (nor would you want to, even in times of conflict). We struggle between our loyalty to our principles and our loyalty to the Church. We want everyone to be able to stay with their integrity and dignity intact. We want the Church to be a place where people are actually free to listen to their minds and their hearts; where personal revelation isn't just a nice idea, but a functioning reality for every Saint.

     I'm fine with the Church saying, "This is our doctrine on the Priesthood, period." But to excommunicate those who express different beliefs is to say that you're not allowed a voice unless you conform, now. Whether you're a government or a Church, I don't believe exclusivity helps anyone or makes the world a better place. I don't expect those in the main stream of the Church to agree with Kate Kelly and John Dehlin. I just hoped people would respond with a little more compassion; to at least recognize that this isn't just an opportunity to put others down to make yourself feel right, or more righteous. It's an opportunity to mourn with those that mourn and recognize that this isn't easy for anybody. 

     

Good Morning!

Good morning, world! I know I just wrote a blog entry yesterday but it's a beautiful cloudy morning  and I'm feeling amazing with the cool breeze floating in. I just felt like expressing some things. For the first time in so very long I'm feeling a real sense of peace again in my life. I have that amazing feeling inside that comes from knowing I'm right where I belong.

If I have to be completely honest, I've felt like my life has been kind of grinding and confused since I graduated from college. I felt like a baby bird being happily tossed out of the nest with everyone around me saying, "Congratulations! Now fly!" And I just didn't know how. I've never felt prepared for adulthood. I struggled so hard for a sense of self, which surprised me, because I thought I was so sure of who I was. Being too sure can really make a person vulnerable to getting knocked on their ass, huh?

It took me a long time to figure out that what is needed is to embrace the ambiguity and be willing to start from where you are and work at something. I've spent a lot of time just trying to figure out where I was. In the midst of feeling lost I recognized that most people feel lost in some way. We have different names for it, but whatever you call it, being lost is really a valuable experience and makes being human so much more interesting. Think of how much smaller the world would be and how much less we would know if people never got lost.

I am so in love with the chaos and absurdity of being human. The pain and splendor of love, the yearning for meaning that drives us to create patterns in the world around us, the discomfort of disagreement, and the sheer joy of having senses, humor and emotion all coalesces in this colorful existence that morphs and changes through time. People change through time, if we let them. I'm changing, and I like it! Don't get me wrong, I like who I was before, too. In fact I'm still me in the ways I think are essential. And that's what's so great- I'M ME, so I can decide what's essential about me and decide what to change. It sounds so basic and obvious, but the freedom to define myself for myself is earth-shattering to me.

The rain is coming and it's going to be here all day.  I'm glad for the drink.





Also, I'm in love with this song. (Ok, the whole album, but this song is my current favorite)

In the Morning of the Magicians by The Flaming Lips

My Problem With Anger

        It’s been nearly two years since I stepped away from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the faith I have loved passionately my entire life. About a year ago, after a lengthy conversation about this with a close friend, my friend gently urged me to consider who I was becoming in this process and observed that I had revealed some unresolved anger. When he said this, my heart sank. I felt aware both of his loving concern and my own desire to avoid becoming a bitter person, as well as my own concern that my friends would write me off as “angry” and not actually hear me. 

In the grand scheme of things, I have found that speaking my truth and then letting go is  healthier than trying to force somebody to understand something they haven’t experienced. But this issue of anger(and negative emotions in general) has been a consistent point of interest for me as I’ve grown into my new self and seen others of my friends who have “fallen away” interacting with active Mormons. Looking back I can see how Mormonism shaped my ideas about negative emotions and how I responded to those emotions in unhealthy ways, which largely contributed to my depression and anxiety. I write about this, not to condemn Mormonism per se, but in an effort to point out something that might help others, as well as myself, be a little more healthy in how we think about our emotions, especially anger.

My approach to anger in my younger years was heavily influenced by several scriptures and teachings of the Church. The first verse that comes to mind is 3 Nephi 11:29:  

“For verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another;”      

Of course, there is wisdom in avoiding a “spirit of contention”.  To me, this implies somebody who is just looking for a fight, or somebody who stands to benefit selfishly by distracting people with anger and in-fighting. And that is an interpretation I can stand by and agree with; but is that how we apply it? Another verse may provide a little more nuanced insight to some problem-areas in our beliefs about anger. Matthew 5:21-22: 

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” 

Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount has to be one of the most beautiful sermons ever given in history, and I can’t count how many times we read this verse in Sunday School and Seminary. Again, I stand by these verses as true and insightful. But what I find most telling about Mormonism’s problem with anger is the Joseph Smith translation of this verse. For those who are unfamiliar, Joseph Smith acknowledged the problem of the Bible containing mistakes due to its ancient origin and having passed through so many translations, so in order to correct these mistakes he went through and changed small portions of the text, using revelation to “re-translate”.  He changed the words in Matthew 5:22 to read, “whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment…”, omitting the words, “without a cause”.  I believe this to be the most telling tweak in terms of how we, as cultural/doctrinal Mormons, handle our emotions. 

On the one hand, I see value in the distinction in that anger is something we need to be able to manage, regardless of our reasons for being angry. The reason for our anger may not leave and we can’t always wait around for an apology. We have to deal with that anger and move on.  However, that’s not exactly what the Joseph Smith version of that verse actually says. It actually says that God commands us to never be angry. Hmm…how has that gone for you guys? It hasn’t really worked for me. And believe me, I’ve been trying (and praying for help) my whole life.  

The first time a therapist told me that anger was a perfectly normal, healthy response in life, I just sat in silence for a while, both stunned by the obviousness of it and feeling like I could breathe for the first time. Negative emotions can be so unpleasant, and adding on top of that the belief that they are of the devil puts a lot of pressure on a person. One thing we have to start understanding is that the most powerful glue that binds us to our negative emotions (and bad habits in general) is shame. I’ve seen first hand that feeling guilty about being angry only leads me to fixate on it in an attempt to blot it out. Even when I tried to let go of it, my viewing anger as an evil thing made me afraid of it, which led me to hide it from myself and others, rather than actually negotiating with it, understanding it and working through it. Expressing anger in a healthy way is key to working through it. If we approach anger as a normal emotion requiring sensitivity, rather than Satan’s influence, it’s easier to own it and take responsibility for it. If we’re afraid of anger, we might be more likely to take the passive route of blaming someone else by saying things like, “You always…” or “You never…”. When we own it, we say things like, “I get so angry when….” It’s also helpful to find other healthy responses to the anger that give us the freedom to express it while being less hurtful to others. A physical action like going running or punching a pillow(as cheesy as this sounds) can also be helpful.

One of the reasons unhealthy responses to negative emotions can be such an issue in the Church is that there is a constant reminder that righteousness=happiness and wickedness=misery. The gospel is intended to be a guide for how to live a happy life and be a good person, but teaching it in this rigid, one-size-fits-all way sometimes naturally leads us to morally judge ourselves and others based on whether we are exhibiting positive emotions or negative emotions. This is an automatic recipe for shame, fear and self-loathing when we are inevitably confronted with negative emotions in our daily lives. And that shame can cause us to fixate on the negativity, solidifying the anger rather than resolving it, as well as causing anxiety about our own worthiness. 

While this isn’t something that everyone experiences within Mormonism, it’s an experience that I’ve heard many describe and it’s one of the reasons I personally had to step away. Since then I have noticed how this shame extends beyond how we treat ourselves into how we treat each other. Often when someone expresses something about Utah, or about the Church that has been very damaging to them, the stand-by response by those who feel defensive is to point out that the person is angry, thereby delegitimizing whatever it is that they have just expressed. Within this logic, since anger=evil/the devil, the conclusion that anything someone says when they’re angry can’t be trusted. In reality this argument is a manipulation to get the upper hand, whether it’s done consciously or not. 

It is important to allow people(especially loved ones) the freedom to express their anger in honest, healthy ways. This isn’t always easy. Sometimes when I hear certain teachings over the pulpit that have specifically led me down painful and damaging paths, I feel angry that those ways of thinking are still being perpetuated. But I also recognize that some people find those teachings truly uplifting and helpful in their lives. The fact is, different people are affected by things differently and there’s nothing we can do about it! That’s the challenge of co-existing with people who are different from ourselves. 

If someone expresses anger it doesn’t mean they’re saying you have to feel the same way. Their anger doesn’t mean they are deceived by the devil, and it doesn’t mean that you have nothing to learn from them. It means that something is hard for them and they need to let it out and move on.  Telling someone they are wrong because they are angry is a lazy and uncharitable way of shutting them down rather than actually taking the time to listen to what they are saying. If you are in a situation where you don’t feel you can be the one to support this person at this time, take ownership of that and be honest. (That’s ok) Maybe you are feeling too fragile, or your feelings are hurt by their anger and they should be talking with someone else about their anger. Own up to that and kindly be honest. But also keep in mind that ideally we “hope to be able to endure all things” and that if someone asks us to go a mile with them, we should go two. (13th Article of Faith; Matt 5:41) 

A year ago when I was talking with my friend and he encouraged me to think carefully about who I was becoming, I took that to heart. He was sincere. He didn’t shut me down. I knew he couldn’t fully understand my feelings, but he listened to me. And he was right. I had unresolved anger. Since then I have been working hard to make peace with my anger and acknowledge that although it is painful, it is also really normal and valid. In doing this, I’ve found it easier manage my negative emotions, rather than letting them control me.

The Problems With an Economic View of Sex (Ending the Battle of the Sexes)

I haven't posted in a while but I found a topic on which I could not remain silent. Sex and commitment. I recently saw this video entitled "The Economics of Sex" and it was the perfect impetus for taking a critical look at some of my beliefs about sex and men and women. My conclusion is that this video reinforces exactly what is wrong in our conversation about sex. It presents an argument for why people need to be more careful to keep sex connected to commitment, which I think is a great idea. But the way they interpret sex to make their argument is, to me, a major part of the problem.

Let me try to give a basic summary of the argument posed in this video. First of all, this video only addresses the average heterosexual male and female. Within that context, the argument goes, sex is an exchange wherein men and women give and receive different things. Studies show that on average, men have a higher sex drive, are more sexually permissive and are less likely to connect sex with romance. In other words, men seek sex for itself. On average, women seek sex for love, commitment, affirming their desirability, and for the sake of relationship stability. In other words, women seek sex, not for the sake of sex, but as a means to an end which we could call "commitment". As our culture has changed and with the availability of affordable contraception, people are having sex more often and in less and less committed relationships. The result is that in the "sex economy" the "pricing" has been thrown off in that men get what they want for "cheap" (women are willing to have sex without men having to "pay" the "price" of commitment) while women are less and less able to receive the commitment, or the real reasons they tend to seek sex in the first place. This leads to instability in a critical social unit, the family. And it leads to women losing out. The conclusion, then, is that women need to band together and be willing to refuse sex and raise the "price" again in order to encourage a return of commitment and family stability.

I had so many issues with this argument, but I won't go through all of them. The problems of trying to interpret human motivations with economics are so monumental, and I don't have the sociological, psychological and statistical information at hand to address this issue. All I can say here is that the economic interpretation of humans is extremely narrow and missing out on a lot of other pertinent information that would help interpret the data quite differently than how it's presented here.

The most glaring omission in this video's description of how male and female sexuality differ is that a large portion of those differences are social constructs, and even subject to change. It's hard to measure exactly how much of it is social construct and how much is biological, but to act as if men's and women's desires and choices about sex are purely biological and fixed is absurd. You don't have to get very far into the video to find this fatal flaw in its philosophy. Changing this one point affects the rest of the argument. Here is the description of men's sexual behaviors/attitudes.

“On average, men have a higher sex drive than women. Blame it on testosterone, call it whatever you want. But on average, men initiate sex more than women. They’re more sexually permissive than women, and they connect sex to romance less often than women. Nobody is saying this is the way it ought to be; it’s just the way it is.”

Ok. I'm calling it what I want. A social construct. Men initiate sex more because of how we define masculinity and femininity.  And those concepts are fluid, if we allow them to be. Saying that this is how men are and that it's unchangeable is the same thing as saying this is the way it ought to be. Telling women that men inherently get more out of sex itself and that this is "just the way it is" is actually telling women that sex is a competition that they will always lose. It tells women that commitment is the consolation prize for sex, twisting the nature of commitment and devaluing their ability to enjoy sex. It tells women that sex is a tool to get what you want. And I don't buy that it has to be that way.

The argument for the economic view of sex heavily implies that the sexual liberation of women is a negative thing and that it will ultimately lead to their undoing and the undoing of society. While I think the sexual liberation of women is a positive thing, I can understand people feeling uneasy. As social change happens, some things can get off balance for a while. I agree that serious, committed relationships leading to stable family units are critically important to the health of society. But so are healthy, liberated women.  While encouraging women to withhold sex is one possible solution to the commitment problem, it is also a step backward with very negative consequences as well.

I think whether you are a man or woman, being careful and selective about who you have sex with is healthy. Viewing sex as sacred or special is something I highly value.  To turn sex into a commodity, a transaction or a power struggle is fundamentally destructive to a healthy relationship between the sexes in our culture. In fact I believe it is THE fundamental sickness in the male-female relationship. Here's why. Feminism came along and people started to say, "Wait a minute, our ideas about men and women are largely holding women down and oppressing them. We shouldn't shame women into being passive weaklings who don't have a voice or a choice! We need to liberate women!" This was and is a critical first step, and while we still have a long way to go, we've made a lot of headway. But there aren't very many people who are talking about what the next step will be. And we need another step to follow feminism, because if all we do is liberate women we will end up stuck with a lopsided society. This is why people are afraid of feminism. As the world becomes more feminist, traditional masculine roles become more obsolete and there is a possibility that men can lose out in some regards. Rather than moving backwards we need to keep moving forwards and acknowledge that at some point we need a "masculinist" movement. Just as it is unfair to tell women that they can only have sex to get commitment, it's equally unfair to tell men that the only motive they can have for commitment is to get sex. Perpetuating a macho definition of masculinity holds men back in their obsolete and unhealthy role of "oppressor" when there is no one left to oppress.  Rather than telling women to get back in the role of the oppressed, let's liberate men to be the sensitive, emotional beings that they are. Let's end the battle of the sexes and admit that we aren't inherently at war with each other. We're here to relate, not to compete. Sex is a relationship, not a competition.

If we allowed men to liberate themselves from outdated definitions of masculinity and stopped shaming boys for the qualities that are so useful in healthy, committed relationships (namely expressiveness, emotionality, sensitivity, meekness, etc) we wouldn't have to control women. Men could control themselves. And we could all come to a greater actualization of ourselves, not just as men and women, but as humans. We are all expressive, strong, powerful, sensitive, vulnerable, inquisitive, aggressive, passive, confident and meek. Because that's what it is to be human.

I believe if there was legitimate equality sex wouldn't have to be about a power struggle, and with that there wouldn't be anything to prove. Sex could be a relationship, pure and simple. And that is where the inherent connection between sex and commitment really lies.

Empowering LDS Women

Hey, readers!  I recently wrote a guest post for one of my favorite blogs, "Empowering LDS Women" and it just went up last night.  I recently shared here on my blog that I've been less active in Church for some time.  This guest post is about my experiences growing up Mormon and why being part of the Church empowered me as a woman.  Let me know what you think!

http://empoweringldswomen.blogspot.com/2013/05/gifts-from-lds-upbringing.html

Daydreams of Being a Skateboarder

I've spent the last few days working through a stomach flu and being stuck inside.  I'm now at that point where I'm feeling a million times better but I have to be a little careful because it's so tempting to run around like a maniac and overdo it. So what am I doing instead of running around like a maniac? Watching skateboarding videos, of course.

I don't skate. I'm an outsider looking in, so for those who actually skateboard, I might just sound like an idiot, or maybe I'm just stating the profoundly obvious, I don't know. Ben grew up skating most of his life, and has recently been doing a little bit again. He has always watched skate videos. I started watching too. At first it sort of all looked the same to me, and while it was impressive, I didn't really see how someone could just sit and watch other people skateboard.  I could do a 5 minute video, but three of them back to back?  Not so much. Until something switched and I started noticing things that I appreciated.  While I still couldn't name each trick, I started noticing how they did their tricks; their style. And the artistry of the video-editing in skate videos started to blow my mind a little.  Over time I realized I was developing favorite skaters and favorite video sections.  And I found that I wanted to watch them MULTIPLE times. Who knew? As an outsider, here is my brief opinion of what makes skateboarding so awesome and why it should be more broadly appreciated than it is.

It is as much an art form as it is a sport.  It's actually really similar to dance in that while it is brutally athletic, it's also expressive.  The attention to detail is intense; having to apply just the right amount of pressure at the right time and place to flip the board exactly right all while maintaining the right speed and balance for both a physical and visual affect.  The video component adds to the whole visual art of it as well. It involves just watching and appreciating how tricks look when done in different locations, on different surfaces, and from different angles, even in different lighting. In addition to video-editing, there is music.  Oh, the music! Skaters get to pick which song they want to go with a particular section they've been shooting. And to me, this is where you get to see if a skater really knows himself well.  I can never get into sections that have thrasher music- but that's just a matter of personal taste.  I guess my reason is that thrasher music does little to express a rhythm for me.  My favorite sections are often the ones where a skater can pick a song that has a rhythm and a feel that just matches the way he skates.  Skating definitely has rhythm. And depending on whether a particular skater specializes in a lot of smaller stuff (smaller not necessarily being less impressive), or jumps a lot of big gaps or what have you, that rhythm varies from skater to skater. Some of the best videos come about when a skater knows his rhythm and style and can pick music to match.  While I still don't have extensive knowledge of skate videos, my absolute favorites thus far are Cory Kennedy's and Marc Johnson's sections in Pretty Sweet, as well as Andrew Reynolds' section in Stay Gold. I couldn't get a hold of any sections from the Pretty Sweet video on youtube (we bought it on iTunes). I did, however, find the Andrew Reynolds one on youtube. He skates some big gaps in this video, and I think the music fits perfectly with that.

Why isn't skateboarding more widely appreciated?  There are too many reasons to go into, and it gets weirdly political too. Unfortunately, there are some skateboarders who get caught up in alcohol and drugs and end up getting in trouble all the time and they're the ones people look at and say, "Skateboarders are a bunch of dangerous punks." There are always the bad apples that give everybody a bad name. There have been attempts to make skateboarding more mainstream, like the X-Games. My issue with that is that it removes most of the things I like best about skateboarding. It tends to leave it kind of stale and soulless, although admittedly still impressive. To me it seems like the X-Games wants to make skateboarding about the angry/rebellious image, about competition and money and energy drinks.  And I guess a lot of skateboarders do like those things. But if you look at skateboarding itself, as this thing that began organically from people just being creative, it's not money-driven, angry, or even competitive at all.  It's cooperative.  It's about taking all these pieces and creating something new out of them that didn't exist before.  They took roller skate wheels, attached them to a board and began redefining space. Railings, stairs, bushes, mailboxes; I've seen all these things made into something totally different in skateboarding. And when you watch videos, what are all the skaters doing?  Are they trash-talking and competing?  Nope.  They're cheering each other on, and supporting each other.  They're celebrating when another skater finally lands a trick he's been trying to get all day. When you watch interviews with the skateboarders themselves, they spend time talking about other skaters who inspire them and whose work and attitudes they appreciate. That's kind of what I like about it so much. While I do think skateboarding deserves wider appreciation, I'd be satisfied to leave it as it is if it means it can maintain its cooperative, expressive and artistic nature.

Also, this:

Date Yourself

I'm officially in the off-season from work, so I have a couple months to be as productive with my time as I wish. I'm recalling a lesson that Ben and I taught together to the Relief Society in the Singles Ward we served in. At the time, there were a ton of stellar single women who were often frustrated because guys never asked them out. So we taught a lesson called "Date Yourself". We talked about the value of getting to know oneself and love oneself and finding satisfaction inwardly before going out and trying to find all those things with someone else. Liking yourself and knowing yourself will never be a waste as it can only improve your relationships with others.

I've been spending more time with myself this week and I'm rediscovering that, hey, I do like me! I went for a hike and took photos. The sun beating down on me was like a welcome visit from an old friend. There's nothing like sunshine to make me love being me. I love that I have skin that can drink in the warmth. I love I have limbs that can take me places. I also listened to music, which I haven't done in a long time. I don't know if everyone feels this way, but I think my willingness to be emotionally vulnerable allows me to enjoy music in a unique and intense way. I did some cleaning, which isn't exactly a blast, but it did feel good to be otherwise productive.

I've been through periods of time when I really didn't like me, when I really thought I wasn't enough. I've spent a lot of time trying to force myself to be better than I am. Improvement is a worthy goal. But my own quest for perfection often led me to inwardly do violence to myself without realizing it.

So here I am, just taking a moment to share the happy news. I like me today!

A Change in My Life

I have always had an obsessive need to be understood.  That's what I always thought, anyway.  But perhaps more accurately I've always had an obsessive need for others to think well of me, and misunderstandings which led people to think I was uncaring or somehow unworthy always hurt me to the core.  I'm learning that while I do care a great deal about people's feelings, I also need to learn to let go and allow people to think of me what they will.  It's time to learn how to find solace in knowing who I am, rather than seeking solace in the approval of others.

With all of that, I feel it's time for me to be straight-forward with my friends and acquaintances about who I am, and where I am in my life; not for the sake of asking opinions or getting any feedback, but for the sake of living my life wholly, undivided, and without pretense.  Without constantly worrying about being judged.  It's time to let go.  This is a very hard thing for me to say, but for a while now I have been less active in my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Ben and I haven't been attending Church for the last eight months or so.  The reasons are far too numerous, and some too personal to share.  We still love and treasure so much about the Church, and we love everyone we have attended Church with in our wards and stakes.  While this is something Ben and I are going through together, I will restrict the rest of my words to my experience alone, as I really only speak for myself.

This has been a very difficult process for me, with a great deal of loss and grieving, but also a great deal of hope and joy shining through.  It is hard to be away from things that I have known and loved my whole life, from things that are so familiar and comfortable to me.  My friends who have never been Mormon may not ever understand how much meaning and beauty and happiness can be found in a Mormon life, or how important that meaning will always be to me.  But it is something I carry with me.

While I do not know for sure what the future will hold, for now my life is very different than it has been.  I'm doing my best to keep my heart open, and I still believe that God loves us very much.  I still see many blessings in my life for which I am truly grateful.  I continue to seek guidance from the Lord in helping me to be the best, healthiest and happiest version of myself I can be.  As my beliefs have shifted over time, I have been acutely aware that most of those who know and love me might feel confused or saddened about this change.  Nevertheless, I feel compelled to exercise integrity and live in harmony with those beliefs.  I also feel compelled to express these things publicly because I don't want to feel as though half of my life is a secret.  I know I cannot live that way; constantly trying to hide or explain away everything I do that others disagree with in an attempt to retain their approval.  I cannot lie.  My friends deserve more than that.

For those of you who know me best, you already know I can get carried away with explanations, wanting to make every detail perfectly clear.  At this point an attempt to explain how my beliefs have shifted and why I am making the decisions I am would be a very bad idea.  I am not a woman of few words and it would take far too many of them, and far too much emotional energy for both you and I to go through it all.  I cannot explain myself to you.  All I can do is let you know that my life is changed, and I am changed.  I am sorry to those of you who feel let down or disappointed by this, or by me.  Know that I still support you in your faith, and that I'm still proud of my Mormon heritage.  I am still proud when I hear of my friends getting mission calls and getting married.  I'm still happy for your milestones and contributions in the Church and the world.  Know that I am still in the process of becoming.  And despite my many flaws, I believe it's going well and that I am where I am meant to be.

Judgment and Meaning

https://www.facebook.com/events/144815455666087/

     ^That my friends, is a nice little Mormon facebook controversy that's been circulating much more widely in the last day or two.  Isn't it fascinating that EVERY little disagreement among Mormons or with Mormons immediately becomes "a controversy"?  I find that fact particularly fitting in this case. That up there is a link to a facebook group of Mormon feminists who are inviting Mormon women everywhere to wear pants to Church this Sunday, while the cultural norm is for women to wear dresses or skirts.  If that's the only description of it that you hear, it sounds like women are trying to say that they should have the right to wear pants.  In some ways that is true.  However, if you read the very first paragraph on their page, it makes it clear that at least one of their main purposes in staging "Pants day" is to make the statement that when we come to Church we shouldn't be judging each other based on the clothing we are wearing.  They explicitly state that the Church officially doesn't discourage women from wearing pants, but that we often overtly or silently judge each other upon this cultural expectation. They are trying to say that we need to stop making moral judgments about each other based on something as silly as wearing pants or skirts.

     As soon as this page got passed around widely, what began to pop up?  Big debates about whether or not women should wear pants to Church or participate in this event.  I've even seen some people who disagree with the idea say things like, "Why do they have to make Church about what we wear instead of just being about worship?"  To which I say, That is their whole point!  If we all just refused to judge anyone for participating and decided to stop worrying about what people are wearing, then the entire thing would be over, period.

     And I must confess, this is one of my struggles with being part of the Church.  EVERYTHING must be meaningful.  In other words, everything must be either good or bad.  There is no such thing as something just being.  Rather than just taking things in as they are, and letting them be what they are, we have to interpret everything as having a positive meaning or a negative meaning.  On the one hand, this can in some ways make life feel amazingly and vividly meaningful.  On the other hand, it can begin to collapse upon itself when an individual begins to feel constant social pressure about valuing things differently than others.  In such a situation it seems one cannot choose a behavior without also having to consider how this behavior will be interpreted by everyone else, which can get exhausting.  I sometimes long to relax and just be.  This is why meditation is so healthy.

     I've heard the purpose of meditation described this way.  There is a philosophy that the mind and the brain are two different things.  The brain receives input through our senses, and the mind interprets that input and makes judgments about it.  Both of them are tools, and every tool needs to be at rest occasionally to keep everything functioning well.  What we tend to do is let the mind do too much.  We start trying to let the mind take over the job of the brain and it seems that judgment occurs before perception.  This creates problems and prevents us from seeing things as they are.  The purpose of meditation is to quiet the mind, and for a period of time STOP making judgments about everything that enters our brain.  Taking time to be non-judgmental and to just observe mindfully is critical to mental health.  Having time to just let things be what they are helps us maintain equilibrium in a world filled with paradox and cognitive dissonance.

     One of my personal struggles as a Mormon is that in our scriptures we are told not to be judgmental of each other, yet nearly every teaching in the Church is about what we should and should not do, and making judgments about what is good and bad.  It is so ingrained in us as human beings to apply rules to everything and everyone.  Telling Mormons not to pressure each other and judge each other seems almost laughable.  We do it SO MUCH.  I do it too, even though I know it's wrong.

     The Church does not look kindly upon moral relativism, for good reason.  We all want to protect ourselves and each other from unhealthy, dangerous, or just plain wrong behaviors.  We want to feel safe by having clearly defined rules that in some way guarantee that we aren't going to head down the wrong path.  And I firmly believe that there are indeed paths that are wrong for everyone.  (Genocide might be one example?)  I'm just currently trying to understand if there is such a thing as one path that is right for everyone.  The Church says yes.  And this might be true, but how can I believe that and not judge others?  My desire to not judge others isn't only based on scripture, but on my personal experience.  I know how painful it is to not be allowed to interpret my own experience for myself.  When someone with a different world-view tries to tell me the meaning of my beliefs and actions rather than letting me tell you my own meaning and intent for my beliefs and actions, I feel as though someone is taking away my most critical God-given right: freedom of the mind and freedom of conscience.  What am I and who am I if I can't speak for myself?  I NEVER want to make another human being feel that way.  It is devastating.  THAT is why I don't want to judge people, and why I don't want to be judged.

     If you're feeling confused by what I mean when I say "someone interpreting my experience for me", let me give an example.  For the sake of brevity, I'm going to over-simplify here, and I'm aware of that.  Please don't be offended.  In politics, many conservatives believe we should not tax the rich to create social programs for the poor.  If we let many liberals interpret this position, they would say these people have no compassion and are "mean" and "selfish".  Maybe that is true some of the time.  But it is a judgment that doesn't consider the intent or the context of the person who was stating the position in the first place.  This is what I mean by judgment being someone else's interpretation of your experience.  If you actually know a particular conservative with this view-point and you really look at who they are as a person, you might discover that they aren't selfish or mean.  To the contrary, you may likely find someone who is deeply compassionate and full of love, but who sees things differently.  I know one such person.  She believes that it is her personal responsibility to help those less fortunate than herself and she is consistently generous with her donations to good causes as well as in her face-to-face interactions with people who are in need.  The reason she believes we shouldn't "re-distribute wealth" is that she feels that we need to be accountable as individuals for caring for the poor, and that we need to be taking the initiative on our own, rather than have the government do it for us.  There is no disagreement about compassion.  The real disagreement between this idea and the idea that the government needs to step in has more to do with our understanding of what poverty is, the scale of the problem, and whether it is functionally possible for individuals and private organizations to address the whole problem.  We can try to understand the facts, but we cannot possibly make a moral judgment of someone based on their opinion.  We may be right or wrong about the facts, but it makes no sense to label each other as moral or immoral because we disagree.  How dare we tell someone that THEY lack compassion, when they know full well their hearts are full of compassion?  We cannot interpret what is in their heart for them.

     So why are we forever interpreting people's behavior for them?  How can we possibly say that there is one unified and true way to interpret people's behavior when there are millions of different possible reasons and motivations for one singular behavior?  How can we tell someone that what they eat, drink, wear or say must conform to one standard for the sake of one higher meaning, when there are millions of ways to approach those behaviors?  How can we judge?

Identity and Choices

     The Church recently published a new website about homosexuality.  I just spent some time watching some of the videos, and I found it fairly interesting.  My already existing respect for Mormon homosexuals who choose to stay faithful in the Church was magnified.  And I truly don't say that as some underhanded way of judging those who leave the Church.  

     In fact, let me digress for a while and talk about that.  I think it can be natural for us Mormons to respond to someone leaving the Church by thinking things like, "Well, they just didn't work hard enough" or "...if they just hadn't misapplied this principle or that doctrine they wouldn't have been so deceived" or anything that starts with, "If they just...".  Any one of those things could be true.  But you may not fully understand or appreciate where that person is in their journey.  Life is a paradox, and there are more paradoxes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ than just about anywhere.  It's those paradoxes that cause me the greatest struggles with my faith, but it's the same paradoxes that make the faith so compelling and beautiful, because they somehow have a way of revealing some deeper truth.  The Church may not always like to talk about them as paradoxes directly, but think about it.  The only way for the Plan of Salvation to succeed was for Eve to disobey God's commandments regarding the Fruit.  We're here in mortality to become like God by learning from our own experience, and we're commanded to be perfect.  Who learns anything by being perfect all the time?  We learn by making mistakes.  (This is only intended as a statement of fact, not as some excuse to ignore one's conscience.)  After all, wasn't it Eve's conscience that led her to disobey God?  I'm not saying we should use this to justify anything.  My point is, we can call something a mistake, and we can even say it's wrong, but with God's mercy you never know where it will lead.  

     Especially as it pertains to homosexuality, another thing to remember is that the heaviness with which these issues weigh on people's minds has led far too many people to think that suicide is a valid option.  Before you react to someone leaving the Church with "If they had just...", think about that for a moment.  A person can literally drive themselves insane by forever saying "If I had just...".  I think we need to be very careful about putting that kind of pressure on someone.  My personal feeling is that if it came down to someone either having suicidal thoughts or walking away from the Church, it might be time to walk away.  Perhaps in time they will find their way back in a healthier way.  Or perhaps they will just live and that's enough.  I don't believe a person can sacrifice their mental health and be spiritually healthy.  And "walking away" from being gay isn't an option.  We should appreciate that; I think God does.  Only he knows how to judge us.

     All of that being said, back to my respect for gay Mormons who stay fully faithful in the Church.  I know plenty of people who believe that it is a betrayal of oneself for a homosexual to remain fully faithful in the Church.  In other words, that choosing to never have sex with someone of the same sex when you are homosexual is living a lie.  Maybe there are cases where that is true.  But I also think it's important to think of the whole person and to consider that we all have different parts of us that rub up against each other and often conflict, and that in such cases we either have to find a way to create harmony between those parts of ourselves, or simply prioritize which parts matter most to us.  This is never easy.   And sacrifices must sometimes be made.  A lot of people will think that sounds cold.  But I think we must respect each other's choices.  We may not understand them because we may not understand why that other part of their identity is so important to them.  Whether or not you agree with the Church's stance on homosexuality, is it fair to blame gays and lesbians for the choices they make to follow its teachings?  Have you asked them why they do it?  Maybe they actually get more out of being Mormon than you realize.  If they truly feel that how they respond to their sexuality has an influence on their spirituality, and their spiritual experience in this life is that critically important to who they are and how happy they can be, why should we judge them for their choice?  Do we go around telling Nuns that they are betraying themselves?  I agree that we should be liberated from the control of others, but when an adult thoughtfully makes a choice for himself or herself, who are we to say they aren't free?

     I agree that it is a betrayal of oneself to deny one's feelings.  If someone hides from themselves or ignores or denies that they are homosexual when they are, that can become a really unhealthy situation.  I think it is critically important for people to love and accept themselves as they are.  To accept that their feelings are what they are and not hide from that.  But I know gay Mormons who can say, "Yeah, I'm a guy and I'm attracted to guys.  I'm even attracted to that guy over there.  But I'm choosing to live a Mormon lifestyle because it's too rewarding, and too much a part of who I am to give it up."  And that's just fine with me.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

     Also, this blog is part of my attempt at expressing myself honestly despite the fact that everyone will probably disagree with me on one or more points here.  Mormon friends may disagree with different points than non-Mormon friends, but none of this is intended to start an argument or upset anyone.  It's just me figuring out where I am on the issue for now.