That Sweet Spot in the Middle

To say that I come from a conservative Mormon background is an understatement. To give you a general idea, I'm from a small farm town in Idaho. I have a large family. We're all active and married in the temple. We were taught old-school 80's Mormon principles (even though I have no memories from the 80's). When I was growing up, my view of the world was very black and white. Either something was completely right, or completely wrong. There was such polarity in views that I rarely saw anything in between.  Let me give you some examples of the ideologies I believed:

LDS: Good
Anything else: Bad

BYU: Celestial Kingdom
U of U: Outer Darkness
(I ultimately chose neither school)

Straight: Right
Gay: Wrong
(There were no gay people, just people who made really wicked choices.)

Small town/Farmboy: Good
City Slicker: Bad
(Not kidding, I actually believed this. My family has a video I watched all the time called The Buttercream Gang that enforced this view.)

Republican: The only right party
Democrat:  Of the devil

Conservative: Good
Liberal: Bad
(I was pretty far to the right. In high school my government class took a test to see where we land on the liberal-conservative scale, with most liberal being a score of 30 and most conservative being a score of 0. I beat everyone in the class with my score of 3. Now I wonder if I were to take that now against those same classmates if I would beat them again, only with the highest score...)

America:  The only place with freedom
All other nations:  unfortunate that they can't be us.

I'm very glad my views have evolved over the years and thankfully I have found that none of these are as I previously viewed. It seems like such an oversimplified, dichotomous way of viewing things, but unfortunately, many people still see things like this. Why does there always have to be polar opposites? What about the middle ground? It's things like this that got me frustrated during the election (don't worry, that is over and done with and I'm not going there). Why can't some people see that just because two groups hold conflicting viewpoints, it doesn't automatically mean that one of them is wrong?

That's also part of what's causing me frustration with the church. It's as if to be a Mormon you have to buy into everything that is uttered in Salt Lake or else you're an enemy of the church. There's little room for free thinking or exploring other ideas. It's the principle of being "either hot or cold, and if thou art lukewarm I will spew thee out of my mouth." If you question or doubt the church, you're crossing the line.

The other day I was talking with my mom. I love her dearly. With my changing views, however, we no longer see things in the same light. The topic of polygamy came up somehow. She was telling me about my great-grandfather who was raised in a polygamous home, and what a bad situation it was since his mom was the second wife and got by on next to nothing while the first wife, her sister, lived like a queen. Out of the blue, I changed gears in the conversation and said:

"What I don't understand about polygamy is why did Joseph Smith marry women that were already married to other men?"

Naturally she was defensive and asked me where I heard that. I told her, and she then said:

"I wouldn't believe anything regarding church history unless it comes from the church itself. People made up all sorts of awful things about Joseph Smith, much like how people make up horrible things about Mitt Romney today."

Yes. She actually compared Joseph Smith to Mitt Romney.

Anyway, I digress. Back to the idea of polar opposites. Since being a newcomer to the Mormon gay community, I've noticed that such a divide exists here too, regarding one's approach toward homosexuality. There's either the affirmative approach or the reparative approach (I hesitate to use the word reparative because it seems like such a charged word. I don't fully understand all the semantics, but I'm referring to the efforts to suppress or change homosexual attractions). Initially I found myself wanting to assign one method good and another bad, however, I've come to see the positive in both.

The reparative approach seems to offer the most to someone like me who comes out after being married, giving one hope that they can have a healthy, intimate relationship with their spouse and perhaps even eventually be free from homosexual feelings. Everything they value falls in line with the teachings of the church. So if I were looking for a support community you would think that this would be the one I would choose, but this is not so.

A handful of things about this approach don't sit well with me. First is the studies that show how reparative therapy can be damaging. I saw a video of Lee Beckstead on FarBetween as he was discussing his findings as part of a task force with the APA. He said that they found that reparative therapy was damaging and one of the recommendations they made is that patients should stop being told that they can change. Another thing I don't like is that they seem to push mixed-orientation marriages. It seems all their poster boys are in happy mixed-orientation marriages. I understand that Josh Weed has stated that his situation is not to be used as an example for everyone. Perhaps this is not intentional, but as I was looking through the Northstar website I came across a section that had quotes from General Authorities. The first was one by Pres. Hinckley about how marriage should not be viewed as a form of therapy for homosexuality. The rest of the dozen or more quotes were all about the importance of marriage, and to how to strengthen it, and were of leaders urging the brethren of  the church to get married. Talk about a mixed message. I've found for myself that M.O.M.'s are not such a good idea, and I wouldn't want to be a part of something that encourages it.

I also don't like how among this approach phrases like "struggling with same-gender attraction" are used in the same manner as one struggles with cancer. Homosexuality is something that is a part of who I am, not a wretched curse that must be broken. I also have a hard time buying the notion that I won't be attracted to men in the next life, and I will be completely attracted to women. It just doesn't make sense to me. Please understand I'm just giving you my personal feelings about these ideologies. I still have a lot to learn, and I could be misinformed. I could even change my mind about it later on.

The affirmative approach is the kind of thinking that has brought me the most inner peace. It has helped me reach a great deal of self-acceptance when I used to be full of so much self-loathing. The affirmative notions do seem to be on the fringe (or completely out of the church), but that's where my own beliefs are headed right now anyway. One problem is that they don't seem to fully address the issue of chastity. Another problem for me is that there doesn't appear to be a place in this type of support group for a young married man who is choosing to remain married (for now).

And so I am very conflicted and confused. In the FarBetween clip, Lee Beckstead said something to the effect that the ideal approach would be to combine the best of affirmative and the best of reparative. I'm still trying to sort out what that approach would be like. It seems a bit absurd to suppress every single homosexual thought or feeling and dismiss it as a temptation from Satan. Nor would it be a good idea to affirm and give in to every homosexual thought since that's "just the way I am." I like the approach of moderation in all things. I may not know exactly what that means, but at least it's where I'm comfortable.