Hi, I'm Big Eddy!

I suppose there are two reasons I am writing this. The first is to have something in writing to give to those who sincerely wonder why I am where I am in relation to beliefs I have held at times in my life. I wanted this to be able to provide an effective way to explain some key facts and ideas relative to my growth and growing system of belief.

It has remained one of the most intense agonies of my life that those whose lives crossed paths with mine, and have become important to me, have had a need to reject me because I believe what I do. I have had to sever an entire portion of my life, with all the friends and important people that were a part of my life. I have repeatedly felt the pain of watching them go through a mental process ending with something that described me as "dangerous," "off the deep end," and even "of the devil." I have felt their rejection and have lost meaningful relationships and have no trust that I can salvage any of them as so much of my life has been involved with the LDS Church. If I had worked for an insurance company many of my friends and important people would have been met through the work relationships. If I had then changed jobs to another such company I would not have lost the friendship and respect of those people. Most of my friendships and the people who are so important to me were met through my employment also. However, because I have changed some of my beliefs, I have lost my entire past list of loved ones. I realize that my situation is more complex than if I had been an insurance agent. But the pain is no less real, the disappointment no less keen. I see people I have known and they don't ask the questions that need asking. Had I been an insurance agent they would ask why I switched companies. There would be no discomfort, etc. When I meet such people now, the discomfort is tangible, but nothing is said. I have wondered much at this. I sense fear. Fear of "putting me on the spot" perhaps, but sometimes, as happened 2 days ago when I was at the gym, I sense a fear of finding out things people don't want to know. Both of these make sense to me but I still wish it were otherwise and still wish I knew a way to change it. Recently one dear friend finally did ask the type question for which I long. She asked me to explain "the process by which someone with a testimony of the restored gospel can move beyond church activity and still have hope of the eternal reward we have all learned to desire." Providing what, to me, is an answer to this question is my first purpose.

The second reason to write will be difficult to verbalize. I suppose that writing this is pushing me to try to verbalize it and make sense. I have believed firmly in the things I believed in; and I still do. That sentence does not make a whole lot of sense but I hope it will as I go on. I hope that those who know me will still believe that the fervor with which I did the things I have done was real. I acted out of a true sense of belief, faith, enthusiasm and zeal which was and is real. The motivation for it was inner and a part of me. It was not fake or done for ulterior motives. In saying that, I am aware that motivation is always very complex and a mix of what we could call altruistic and more "selfish" motives. In all that I did the motivation was this mix. (One of the most remarkable and enlightening parts of my journey has involved motives and my evaluation of mine. This evaluation has been ongoing and sincere. It has led to some of my keenest awareness of humanity.) Still, it is an important part of this writing to express that my old motives and the zeal with which they were expressed are still real and intact and have not changed. This is important as my path has been consistent and congruent. The integrity of the growth process was always there. There have been no leaps that, in essence, "changed tracks." Such leaps as may arise from feeling offended or disappointed. Leaps that could be motivated by anger or a desire to hurt back or even avoid painful places and things, or to "prove" that I am right and another is wrong. The flow of motivation has not changed and I am still me. My path has been consistent; the list of people I walk it with has not.

To make further sense of this reason I have to add something that most people who know me don't know. In all that I did, and for what I stood, through much of my path, I had little peace and knew little self value. There was much pain. Pain that I did not understand if my path were so "true." Most do not know of this. My family does. My wife has seen my incredible depression over the years and my children have seen me put my fist through walls and to say things to them that have been so hurtful. I could not let others know of my pain as I thought it was a mark of my failure to walk the path with diligence and rectitude. I believed it was my lack and inexperience that would fill in the parts missing. It was my weakness that prevented peace and fullness. It was as I had been told about the LDS Temple rites; if I did not fully understand them and find all the glory in them it was because I was lacking, that I was not righteous enough. So, I tried hard to fill in the lack. During a 18-month period while living in Florida, I fasted one day each week and prayed to know and to feel the importance of the atonement. I realized that I did not have a feeling of the import of that doctrine. I did not understand it or value it. I tried to change that. I know now that I tried as hard as a person need do so. I read much about the subject, thought much about it and worked to know of its truth and import. However, as I did so I became even more sure that we were dealing with some cosmic "swapping of pain" that makes little sense to me. I knew that if my son made a mistake, and that by making that mistake, he learned something of great value, then I did not need to spank him just to have "justice." As a father I could value his growth above his need to be "punished." My question continued to be, why cannot God see this also. As I continued to fail in gaining a "testimony" of the atonement, I continued to believe that it was my insufficiency. This is what I had been told; That it was my insufficiency. I now know different and this becomes the second reason for writing. I look back with much pain that there was no one with the knowledge or courage to say to me something like; "Maybe the problem is that there is more to the story than what you have been given. Maybe there is more growth yet to come, maybe even a whole new way of beholding truth, and growth. Maybe there has just been no one to show that way."

I now realize that I came home from my mission believing that I had arrived. I thought I knew the whole pattern; that I possessed enough testimony and etc. to, as I thought, "just go on now and live it." I had no idea that there was more growth; fantastic vistas of thought and feeling that were yet to be found. If I had been able to have been told by someone, to be shown by someone's example of true wisdom that there is something beyond what I knew then, I believe, I would have been saved much time and pain in this journey. Instead, I was given to believe, by those who had "a fullness of truth" that to seek beyond what I had been given was evil, was to "go beyond the mark." So I did not try to find more growth, just tried to find peace within a constant framework that, I believe now, was incomplete; necessary as a step, but not the fullness that it purported to be. I did not "lose my testimony" as some have asserted about me. I find that whole notion to be completely absurd. I have powerful things of which to testify. I continue to live these things and to be guided by them. I use that same inner motivation and zeal to accomplish all I do every day. I do much good. I sit with marvelous human beings every day and feel of their divinity. I have more of which to testify now than I ever did. Just very few to whom I may say it safely and wisely.

My second reason for writing, then, is to supply others, if possible, with something I now know I needed back then. I needed reason to believe, and to see, that the cognitive framework of doctrine I knew was only a step. I needed someone to say, by word and deed, that growth will not stop at the end of the "junior high school" of faith and mysticism. My years of pain had much to do with me, and my family, repeating a fifth grade of spirituality over and over and over. Nothing new was given to me. No reason to seek further to look ahead.

I was given "examples" of spirituality and godliness, it is true. As I got closer to these examples I found that they were not ahead of me. They did not know anything, nor did they possess any aspect of growth, any real aspect of wisdom that I did not. I was more and more disappointed that there was nothing more. I began to suspect that their "growth" was mere image, (i.e. a close relative who was bodyguard to Thomas S. Monson telling me his experience of what it is like to be close to that man.) I began to see that the result of their "growth" was not the solution of problems, the lifting of burdens, the amelioration of the condition of mankind--true wisdom. I began to suspect that the result of their "growth" was to aggrandize them, their position and often their lack and fear. In saying this, I am not indicating that I was merely "disappointed" or offended because leaders were not what I wanted them to be. What this observation gave me was the knowledge that "there is no fullness here." That there had been, and is, value in it I could not deny. This understanding of the concept of value has been of great importance in my journey.

I did not know how to respond to the realization of this lack as the examples of what the path held further down the path were not found in the "Church." In fact, the examples that, I believe, do exist were branded as "outside the fold," "evil and corrupt," or even "cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive." I want, with this writing, to say something important and in a way that may help others who were, or are, where I was. I want to say, "THERE IS MORE, MUCH MORE." Almost every day I face the challenge of to whom to say this. To whom and under what circumstances do I tell my truth, "bear my testimony". I see people in my office almost daily whose lives would be enhanced if they knew that they needed to seek and see things in a new way. I am committed to being careful and thoughtful about the idea of with whom I will share my path. I believe that the doctrines and practice of the LDS Church can be very valuable to many, and maybe to most people, at one point in their journey. As will be seen in the rest of this paper, doing harm to others to prove that I am "right" is not to be; it would be a turning away from my path. However, backing off from sharing what I believe would benefit someone, when I believe the time is right to share it, is similarly not to be. It is this; the sharing of something good; something more, something beyond, something that I wish I had had years ago. I want to try to supply that. This is reason number two.

THE PATH

When I was six or seven I had an experience that was quite painful. It was the beginning of the path. I was at the home of a friend playing. We were in his living room when the doorbell rang. We went to the door when his mother answered it. There was a man standing there who had a flat cardboard box in front of him and was held up by an old necktie that was tied to the edges of the box and looped around his neck. He was shabbily dressed and looked tired and sad. He made some vocal noises and handed my friend's mother a sign. I read the sign written with a marker on another piece of cardboard. It said something to the effect that he could not talk, that his wife was sick and he needed money. He was selling the items arrayed on the box and would appreciate any help we could give by buying his items. I don't remember how long I stayed there. It was not long. The next thing I remember was being at my own home and telling my mother that the man was coming to our house. I begged her to buy from him. I remember watching my mother talk to him and buy several of his things. I was so sad and sick that I went to my room and curled up on the bed. I remember my mother coming in to talk to me as I sobbed. I don't remember what she said but I do know that the pain I felt that day has never left me. I recall a feeling so intense about the plight of other human beings that I could not, then or now, fully contain it. I have never been able to ignore it. I knew then that my path was to involve people. I knew that I could never ignore such a scene nor ignore the things and ways of the world that produce, contribute to or seek in any way to minimize such human misery as I believed I beheld that day. I fully realize that the entire incident could have been the act of someone who was preying upon the pity of others to try to make money. This matters not. People do hurt. There are many things that combine to cause intense misery to others in the world. I only know that I felt it then and that the reality of that misery has been the thing that has motivated my walk along the path; that the path itself involved doing what I can do to help ease this type pain.

When I was seventeen, I had a girlfriend whose cousin had lost both kidneys to disease. I learned about dialysis and learned about what she had to do to stay alive. I went with this girlfriend to visit her cousin in the University of Utah Medical Center after she had almost died of some complications. I heard her talk of death, I saw her pain and worry. I thought at that time that to be able to heal her body would be great, to be able to deal with the pain of her soul would be magnificent. I felt again the pull of my path.

Through the teenage years I felt my own pain. I was acutely aware that I felt things very deeply and often had not the faintest idea of what those feelings meant or from whence they came. I knew they were real. I knew that I was a disappointment to my parents and that whatever my effort, or my excuse, it was never good enough. I rebelled against the idea that I was not enough and I rebelled against those who conveyed the message. I was angry; I still am, at the pain that I felt. The pain was not fair. This I knew for I knew the quality of my heart and I knew that my life was not about hurting anyone or "sinning" but about being able to be me. I felt that I could not be me. I pushed hard against my parents and against their church from whence came so many rules and so much feeling of condemnation. Finally I could not take anymore rejection and feelings of being a failure. I gave up and complied with every rule and every expectation of my parents and the church. As I began to comply, I studied and learned. I felt the first measure of peace I had known. I loved the doctrines of compassion and the worth of souls. I felt like I could indeed go on a mission and "spread the word." I also liked finally being on the inside instead of the out.

While on my mission I was sitting in a congregation and singing a hymn that in Japanese is very beautiful but in English is rather corny. The last line of this hymn is "God is love." Something screamed inside me. I felt so much anger at this line. That was not my experience. God was force and shame and rejection and manipulation and pain; my concept of God had nothing to do with love. I realized I did not know what love is and I could not apply it to my concept of God. This started a 10 year long push to understand love and what it has to do with my concept of God. I still have the notebook I started the next morning wherein I outlined what I was trying to find. It is a signpost along the path.

Somewhere along the way, amidst these type experiences, the path became clear to me. If I were to try to sum it up it would be that my desire and my joy were to fully understand what humanity is, what being human means, and then to work daily to help others to become and experience what being human has to offer. I suppose it is this last part as much as anything that has made me question much of what LDS influence gives or subjects people to. The idea that being human offers us something; many things involving experience, learning, joy, exultation, misery, sorrow, passion, wisdom and awe. If an influence worked to deny the right to a fullness of these, then, in my mind it was not "good" for people. In a religious education class I was teaching, a student asked me to define what was moral or good. I decided that, for me, it was, "that which will bring the greatest benefit to the largest number of people over the longest period of time". This, I believe, and still do, is another signpost along my path.

Another signpost came with force to me when I was teaching a class on the Doctrine and Covenants. I had, by this time, noted with some sadness and questioning, that many leaders of the church did not seem to see the importance of the path and the use of gospel knowledge to accomplish what I believe to be truly good. They seemed to be more interested in furthering their own church "career" or solidifying their personal power base. I had decided that these people are acting as people and it reflected nothing upon the gospel or the message of the LDS church. Section 81 records a "revelation" given initially to Jesse Gause, who was appointed as a counselor in the presidency of the "High Priesthood." Later, after Gause left the church the revelation heading was changed to indicate that the message was given to Fredrick G. Williams. (For further information about section 81 see Cook, L.W., The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Provo, UT: Seventies Mission Bookstore, 1981.) In this section Gause was directed toward that which would be the highest good he could offer. It states: "Wherefore, be faithful; stand in the office which I have appointed unto you; succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees." I believed, and stated to many people at that time, that while others may seek office and etc. I would take these words as my guide and believed that the greatest good I could do would be to succor the weak, lift up the hands that hang down and strengthen the feeble knees. This seemed to summarize the goal of my path.

THE QUESTIONS

In my efforts to accomplish the objectives set forth by my path I began to work with various people, mainly my students. I found that I was very effective in lifting up hands that hang down and strengthening feeble knees. I believe this is because I was, and am, committed to their good; I listened, did not judge and could often see clearly the real reason for their struggle. It seldom, if ever, had anything to do with "sin." More often it was about their struggle, an honorable struggle of an honorable human being amidst the complexities of living day-to-day. I could see that what was needed was encouragement, coaching and compassion. I often was not only alone in offering this to church members but was suspected and criticized for so doing. It began to become clear that the influence of the church was often to make the struggle more difficult. I saw a lack of wisdom and understanding exercised on the heads of hurting people and realized how often they, and their pain, were being minimized; seen not as honorable and worthy of being helped.

I give two examples: I was impressed by the love and goodness of a woman who, while a single mother, of teenagers, and legally blind, worked tirelessly for the good of her family and the members of her ward in the center of Tampa. I noted that this woman had little of what a woman may want to call her own. She had no husband, no attention, no love of a good man; just lots of duty. In the course of her duty she found a man who was in a similar struggle. His wife was dying of a terminal illness and he had tended her for a long time. These two struggling humans became friends. They became close friends, and the man's dying wife was not only aware of the relationship but sanctioned it as she saw their happiness and her own coming demise. As this situation progressed the wife did die and the two were excommunicated from the church and suffered much. They went through their "process of repentance" for a year and were married and later re-baptized into the church. They are, I believe, still together and still active in the church. I wondered about what we accomplished by adding to their struggle by castigating them publicly "casting them out." I wondered what the Lord gained by doing this. I wondered about calling what they did "sin." I saw two wonderful human beings working out their own happiness and walking their own path. I did not see them hurt anyone, just continue to do the good they could. Now, however, they have a measure of joy they had not had for many years. A joy, I believe, they had earned. I am aware that as an institution we feel a need to make sure no one's example of misconduct goes unpunished. However, this seemed to me to be much more a time to educate each other about the complexities of being human and give others to believe that God can see those complexities and can respond with compassion-much like Christ who chastised a mob and saved a woman taken in adultery. I saw this woman's son turn against her in his heart because the church set the example for him, an example of misreading her, blaming her and rejecting her. He was not led to see all the good she had done and for which she stood and has always stood. I saw no godliness in the treatment of this woman.

I was asked to work with a man who had molested his sons. This was the first time I worked closely with a child molester. I was willing to truly listen to this man and to understand his struggle. He had been much abused as a child and his confusion about life and love ran much deeper than thoughts in his head. His very feelings had been twisted by his experience, not by his choice, not by any act of his. I could see that his actions came out of this struggle. I was present as a support for him the night he was excommunicated from the church. After the "court," no one talked to him or offered anything but an officious desire to get on with the next item of business. I did not see anyone try to understand him or to act in wisdom toward him. I realized that there was much to be learned by struggling with him and being close enough to him to fully feel the quality of his heart. I am well aware of the magnitude of his crime. However, it was another case where the complexities of being human screamed at me to be seen and dealt with wisely. I began to notice the fear of complexity that abounds in our world and I began to believe that any organization which claimed to be God's "one and only true church" would not run in fear of these complexities but would meet them head on with wisdom and charitable hearts. The question why this is not done began to bother me.

Mormon psychologist Allen Bergin stated:

A final evidence that agency can be severely limited and that this can occur without the person himself making wrong choices is indicated by our knowledge that child-rearing events can shape future responses so powerfully as to virtually eliminate personal responsibility. (italics mine)
"Toward a theory of human agency." The Commissioners's Lecture Series, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1972.

When I first read this I recognized an aspect of the complexity of human life that I had noted in the above case. There are things that happen to us to limit our agency and hence our responsibility for "sin." When this happens, what is to be done? If one is not responsible for actions how are they to be handled? With what aspect of the heart are they to be dealt? Is protecting the "good name" of the church to be our guiding principle? What of compassion for that human? I have seen few in the church, members or leaders, willing to struggle with this reality. The fact that agency is not a light switch; it is not a thing that is either on or off but is on a continuum stretching from a condition of full awareness and ability to choose for the self to a condition where one is so controlled by the past and/or by trauma that there is no personal responsibility. This makes the issue even more confused. Where in all this is "sin?" What of a young man with tourettes syndrome-a disease where a person's ability to suppress impulses is impaired. This is the disease which, in one of its forms, causes, or rather permits, by destroying the ability to stop impulses, a person to curse and swear publicly. There is no mental disease as simple as having or not having a certain germ in the body. Mental diseases all lie on the frustrating continuum that pushes us to deal with an incredible complexity when dealing with personal responsibility. In all this I saw, much too often, that "God's church" acting in ignorance of some basic realities about people acted to hurt those people and bring more pain into their lives.

As I worked more in the mental health field I was confronted by the extremes of human experience. I had to deal with things outside the narrow focus most of my past friends saw as life. As I did this I was pushed to see, ever more clearly, the inadequacy of what I had believed. I remember a 12 year old girl who was raised in a family where she was molested and raped by any member of the family who wanted to have at her. She was, in essence, an animal; living to survive moment to moment. I knew that she committed much "sin." I had to try to make sense of what sin is in this circumstance. I worked with a group of BYU students who had become so alienated at the school that they started acting out their pain and got involved in Satan worship. I began to know their stories intimately. Several of the boys were gay and the girls had all had sexual experience of one kind or another. Due to their experiences outside the narrow path of accepted morality they all felt that there was no way they could fit into BYU society. They were outcasts "human dings." And so, they began to act like it; but I knew that in their hearts was only the desire to make it, to survive, to be happy. There was no evil intent; they were confused and struggling--not evil. One of these girls had been molested twice when she was younger by older girls. When 17 she began to worry that she was lesbian. Why had those girls touched her? To whom could she go for consolation and relief of her worry? Her father was a Stake Patriarch and her mother a strict prude. She could not go to them. They had not the wisdom to help her no matter how much they loved her and wanted to help. Her way of proving then, that she was not a lesbian was predictable and subconscious. She slept with many males. She had visited her bishop and was "forgiven" but still did not feel she could ever fit into the rigid "morality" of BYU. I sensed that there were many who where alienated and needed someone to reach out to them in a way that could enfold them and ease their pain. I sought out someone official at BYU with whom I could share this worry and explore what could be done. I talked with a woman who was, in essence, vice-dean of students. She totally scoffed at the idea of alienation and stated to me that those hurting kids just needed to be told they are children of God. After all, that is all she ever needed when she felt "bad." I was amazed at the inability to comprehend the complexity of their lives. I tried to explain the difference between cognitive knowledge; that which our head may "know," and affective knowledge; that which our heart feels as real. I knew that regardless of what I would teach someone's head about God, if I did not treat them in a godly way, they would know only damage from the concept of God; after all, I had been there. As I tried to explain these things I realized I was talking to a child. She had no way of comprehending deeper issues of humanity. I was amazed. How had such an ignorant person risen to this position. As I looked around, and as I have noticed since, there is no spiritual adulthood, no wisdom in the leadership of the LDS Church. Later, I watched with sad amazement as one of these boys was expelled from BYU one week before the end of the semester. He had flunked every class and would not be coming back anyway, but the "honor code" office opted to act in the dishonorable way of shaming him publicly and sending him home in disgrace. This, without ever having the slightest notion of the pain of his life, the terribly confusing problem with which he struggled every day. A Salt Lake City talk-show host jokes all the time about how, in Utah, adulthood has never been legalized. When dealing with spiritual things I believe this completely.

One example: I had read of many different models of growth processes devised by some very thoughtful and evolved human beings. They had proposed these various models to explain things like ego development, the development of faith or character or wisdom These were all similar and fully described the journey I had been on. The models all basically involve four steps. In the beginning we are all in chaos. To get out of chaos we begin to catagorize "things." The easiest way to catagorize is in terms of opposites; good/bad, black/white, inside things/outside things, big things/small things, and so on. Thus begins polarized thinking, which is a very important step in the process of growth. There is great safety in this step. After all, we have all the answers and the way is simple. There is nothing to fear. I taught with a man who had hardened in this stage. He had the entire world and all its problems wrapped in neat packages and he knew the answer to everything. As we would sit and eat lunch I would toss out examples I encountered in the extremes that I mentioned above. His pat answers clearly were inadequate in the face of such complexity. They were not "wrong," just inadequate. This whole thing disquieted him and one day he stated, "I don't want you to tell me anything else, it just confuses me." There it was. In essence he was saying, "I want to be safe not wise; I will not confront that much complexity but I will stay in denial of it."

As an educator for the Church I was present when Boyd Packer gave his, now famous, set of instructions regarding the teaching of "faithful history." We were instructed to teach only the "faithful" aspects of church history. We were to leave out anything that would cause someone to question. I was, and am, amazed at this fear. While I fully agree with the idea of "milk before meat," I am also fully aware of the danger of "no meat ever." When, in Packer's plan, would meat be given, chewed on, digested and marveled at. If the church was actually "true," what had we to fear? I have yet to see any meat on the agenda of gospel doctrine classes or in high priest quorum meetings. I was a member of, and watched such a quorum that was full of BYU professors and others who were very knowledgeable in their various fields of study. They would come together and would talk in the most inane ways. It was exactly as my brother describes when he says, "We go to church and put on our stupid hats."

There are two more steps in the various models. After the polarized thinking step comes, if we are willing to face it, a time of deep questioning as we begin to see that the simplistic black and white way of thinking is inadequate to truly solve the problems arising from all the complexities and ambiguities we encounter if we observe with compassion and understanding. This time of questioning is very difficult and feels very unsafe. Many people think they have returned to the stage of chaos. Many are accused of returning to chaos when they are observed from the outside by others. I hear such things as; "he has gone off the deep end," or "lost his testimony," or "thinks too much," or "wants things to be more difficult than they are." It is truly safer to stay in the second stage and I often wish I could go back. It was much easier then. But it would be like returning to believe in Santa Claus. I cannot go backwards.

As a person lives in stage three and continues to confront the complexity, to wonder, to seek and to continue to question the old accepted "doctrines," that person will enter stage four which is difficult to explain. When I teach about it I simply call it the wisdom stage. I believe it is most aptly described as an almost mystical understanding about everything around us. I have a hard time explaining it but I know it when I see it. In this stage there are no simple answers but seem to be powerful guiding principles. Lawrence Kohlberg referred to this stage as "principled morality." My question here is; Why, with all the study, meetings, teaching and reading with which the lives of devout Mormons are filled, do members of the church so seldom reach that stage.

I believe it has to do with fear of losing control of people and the fear of complexity. If we allow people to advance to stage four, they will not allow themselves to be controlled by anyone outside themselves. They will not surrender their authority to anyone. The application of these principles is a very personal and individualistic aspect of living. It is not possible or wise to need to control what people do when they have evolved to this stage. However, this is what I see LDS leaders committed to do-keep all members from reaching this stage so they will remain easy to control.

I also believe it has to do with the fear of complexity. I see this limiting fear of complexity in many areas. I have had the pleasure of working with many wonderful men who are gay. One of my best friends in high school was gay. Back then I was fully into the "do your own thing," thing. So, I accepted him and just attempted to understand him. I saw his struggle as he tried to "change." I marveled at how hard it was for him to do what came so natural to me. I decided to help him change. I remember the simplistic way I told him that we would double date and get him involved with some really good looking girls and then he would be able to drop this "nonsense." He began dating a most beautiful girl and the way he talked about her began to teach me something. One day we were driving in Salt Lake City and he noticed a man walking along the side of the road. He made some comment about the man's physical appearance and I had an interesting epiphany of sorts. I could feel what he was experiencing, it was exactly what I felt when I would see a scantily clad beautiful girl. I began to understand that he felt many things very differently than I and that he could not change that any more than I could become sexually aroused by a male. As a mental health worker I accepted the challenge to struggle with this issue. I have sat knee to knee with many wonderful men and been a part of their fight to be "normal." I have witnessed incredible effort to make changes. I have dealt with men who have been willing to have their bodies wired to machines and then receive painful shocks in the hope that they could alter the deep structures that dictate to whom and to what they were attracted. I saw these measures fail. I have seen men knock on that door Boyd Packer talks of till not only were their knuckles bloody and battered but their entire bodies were racked with every imaginable kind of pain, shame and self-denigration.

One of these men was a returned missionary who served a very honorable mission to Germany, and did so in the hope that if he acted as he knew God wanted him to, then he would receive some help to overcome what he had known about himself since he was small. He did everything honorable and upright and still had no change of his feelings. As all this did not work and the years passed he became suicidal at times. When one of those episodes ended him in the hospital I was talking to his father, a devout and highly educated man. He knew his son; knew of his sincere goodness. He knew of his son's desires for righteousness and knew clearly that his son was not "choosing" evil. That day in the hospital he said to me with incredible pain, "I used to think I had all the answers, now, I don't even know what questions to ask." His confusion resulted from years of accepting pat answers supplied by "authorities" regarding such complex issues as homosexuality. Now, he was face to face with it and realized that the "authorities" hadn't the faintest idea what they were talking about. He had read, as I had, what his son wrote on November 15, 1992. I quote it here with his son's permission.

Its time at last to take a stand.

I am a person of worth. But you say, "that cannot be true! After all you are, uh . . . gay." So what? Should I hang my head in shame? What will everyone think-friends, aunts, uncles, mom dad, GRANDMA? What about your heritage? Men and women who lived and died for virtue? You know you will never be able to pass on the family name. The joy of holding a babe in your arms.-a child of your own-it will never be yours. Face it. You are downright defective.

You just never were like the other boys-playing ball, talking of fast cars, cruising chicks and so on. You don't belong. You are not a part of us. You can't even throw a ball straight . . . and now you say you are a fag. Yup, we knew it all along. You're just going to have to change. Gay is bad. God don't like gays and I don't either. You say you can't change? That's bull. Everyone can change, if they want it bad enough. You must not want it bad enough, or else you would change, get married , and get on with life. You're just plain weak. I wish you would just get it . . .

STOP!

I am gay. Gay is good. God loves gays. Why shouldn't he love me? After all, I am a person of deep inherent worth. I love other people. I love beauty-the brilliance of nature, the heartwarming melody, the beaming smile of deity. To hold the hurting child in my arms, giving comfort-that is the greatest joy of my life. . . . Being gay does not mean I am a pervert, a sodomite, or otherwise freak of nature. I am a human with human feelings. The only thing that distinguishes me from the other 90 percent of the male population is that for reasons I do not understand, I happen to have feelings for members of my same sex. So what? Is it fundamentally wrong for one man to feel, have feelings, for another man, by the mere reason of gender? No, I think not. AS a matter of fact, I know not. . . . Yes, I am gay. But I am also a wonderful and inherently decent human being. No longer shall anyone dictate to me otherwise.

I have talked to many church leaders about this issue and have encountered the most incredible ignorance and cruelty, all wearing the mask of "inspiration." I know as I have known all things spiritual that those leaders have no answers; that they have not even addressed the question, that they are just simply scared. (How's that for a testimony) Then to hear Packer state that the three greatest threats to the church are "homosexuals, intellectuals and feminists," amazes, appalls and sickens me. They are the three greatest threats to him, perhaps; to his power in the world. The gay man who wrote the above is not a threat to anyone. It became clear to me that such things as Packer uttered are marks of his lack; lack of wisdom, lack of compassion, lack of courage to face complexity. They are marks of his fear; fear of losing power, fear of not having all the answers, fear of being wrong. My question; if this is God's one and only true church why is it characterized, and led, by such incredible, infantile fear. I realized long ago that to follow such ridiculousness, and to teach it, I would have to abandon my path. It was clear that the official line of the church, spoken by Packer, was going another direction altogether.

Finally, I come to the question of elitism and the doorway to it, the temple. Noting all the above it became more and more clear to me over the years that we are dealing with people's perceptions. As I studied and observed without judging people, it was obvious that we must take into account the differing meanings people assign to things. The process of assigning meaning is an emotional one and is most often very subconscious. At one point I learned that 70% of women who were molested as children end up leaving the religion of their youth. As I worked with women who were abused I began to understand why. All too often the experience of abuse is wrapped around other life experiences. Often those experiences include religion, feelings of guilt, shame and beliefs about sexuality and morality. Their concept, their affective concept, of who God is, had often become an integral part of this meaning making exercise. I began to see that all of us can not deal with God, we only deal with our image of God, our perception of God, for that is all we have. It is the same with other people. We deal, not with the absolute of another person, but with our image of that person; an image that is held and lives inside us. My work often is almost entirely about the effort to get my image of a person to match closely the reality of that person.

When the complexity of dealing with personal perceptions becomes known and accepted and when the awesome nature of this is known and felt in a mystical way that sings of its reality, it is easy to see that "true" and "false" have entirely new meanings. What objective truth can there be and how do we communicate anything through the complexity of the affective meanings people have assigned to anything and everything. I think often of a little boy who I watched be literally abused in church. His family would sit on the first or second row in sacrament meetings in the ward where I grew up. If these children acted like children they were treated in very cruel ways. They were shaken, slapped; and once I watched this father hold a pillow over a 2 year old's face until the boy passed out. I have wondered what meaning, in his affect, his emotion, that boy would give to church. No matter what we teach his head, in his feelings the church, I fear, will always feel like a place one goes to get beat and tortured. I wonder what his image of God will be. I began to understand that no matter what I had been taught, in my head, about God, my experience of "him" was not love. That is why my insides pushed so hard against that line of the song. I was being forced to face my own affective understanding and to make sense of it all.

Given this complexity of multiple meanings affectively assigned, how are judgements to be made. I have been sickened by the elitism of a system that cannot take this complexity into account. If there are ordinances that one must have for salvation, and if one must comply with a set of rules in order to receive those ordinances, then I surely want to be the person raised in such a way that accomplishing those things will be easier. I have worked with gang kids from Chicago and Los Angeles. I know that we will work years to overcome the results of their life experience, and they are only teenagers. I have seen the quality of their humanity and I know that they are loved, deeply and sincerely loved. But many of them will never have the chance of receiving what, if Mormons have the truth, must be received in order to be "saved." They will spend their lives getting to a point where they can begin to comprehend the things one raised in a quality home with loving parents knows automatically from their birth. These people will not be able to enter the temple or receive the "highest orders of godliness." Now, if we truly believe that they will one day receive all those ordinances and that they will have a full "chance," that is one thing. If this is the case then I would expect to see no elitism in this life. The whole temple thing creates a system of an elite corp of "Gods Chosen" who are where they are largely because of where they had the good fortune to have been born. Now, we may be able to say that they were born where they were because they were more "valiant in the pre-existence," but then I would expect some aspects of godliness to go along with that notion. I would expect that we would be reaching out to the living who have not the chances we have, more often, more effectively and with greater compassion than we do. I would expect that admission to the temple would not be such an "elite-corp-causing" thing as it is. I would expect that everyone would be more aware that they were where they were for reasons that would impel them to be more compassionate and of greater service to all classes of humanity. I do not see any of this. Instead I see reasons to vilify and to separate "those" people from "the chosen." I see, for example, tattoos and body piercing made into just another way to draw lines between "good people" and "bad people"; and what a petty line.

Along with the temple issue being less elite, is the idea of what the temple ordinances are really all about. As I have walked my path I have stopped and beheld vistas of human meaning that are deep and beyond expression; they are mystical in nature. I touch the divine daily in my work with other human beings and have no question that there is nothing as important as a human being. There are profound feelings that accompany this understanding. When I think of times I went to the temple and heard "temple work" spoken of as "the mysteries of godliness" and the "highest ordinances of the kingdom," I sense a poverty of spirit that is amazing. I truly do not see my God wasting human energy learning secret passwords and handshakes that are absolutely meaningless. What good we could do if we took all those hours of human effort and put that to teaching children to read; working one on one with poverty cases. We would then be spending that time sensing what I believe, are the highest orders of godliness; to enter respectfully and with dignity the heartland of another human being; one who is desperately in need of our help. This, and to marvel at the complexities and wonders of the human heart and soul under all type conditions, would be more aptly called the mysteries of godliness. And then, to be able, through the wisdom learned along the path, to ease the burdens and to lift up the hands that hang down in ways that will last and will truly constitute help; these would be the highest acts of godliness. When I compare that vision to watching a bunch of bored people try to stay awake in something they have heard a thousand times, and learning silly things that are meaningless, I find only that which makes me sad and sick.

I have joked about setting up a little booth on the streets of Salt Lake and teaching signs and tokens to the "unworthy." I tell this to certain people because I know their response. They say to me that God cannot be fooled and these people, even though they know the secrets, will not be allowed to enter. My question then is why do we do it if it is that meaningless. I long since abandoned the idea that I was just not spiritual enough to understand the true nature of it. I find that to be ludicrous beyond belief and I dare anyone to please explain it to me. I have spent many years of study and refinement of soul. I believe if there was more to see in it that I would. I have asked many this question and have only met with more questions and hidden confusion. The truth, to me, is that there is no godliness there. There is only a system copied from masonry that is entirely designed to create a feeling of elitism so some can meet an unevolved need for some kind of superiority.

These questions, not that someone offended me, are what caused me to look beyond what Mormonism offers in my desire to continue on my path. The issue became one, not of right/wrong but of adequate/inadequate to answer the questions of humanity. Further, each of these questions arose out of the observation that the fruits of Mormonism; the ultimate goal of the organization's leaders, as illustrated by their example and teachings, are not on my path but follow some other course. Noting this, how could I stay?

THE ANSWERS

As these various observations were made and the import of them was confirmed I had to ask what I would do about it. Initially, as noted above, my view was that these problems were anomalies arising from the foibles of men and women who lead; that the problem was not institutional but personal. My belief at that time was that the system was still "God's Church." After all, look at the amount of good that is done and that will be done through the workings of the church's various programs and influences. I continued to do as I had done; to walk my path and trying to do what I could to add benefit. All this was basically in place when I left Florida. For years after leaving Florida, I tried to find the way to stay a Mormon and still walk my path. Few knew of the growing frustration and sense that this organization is basically and inherently inadequate to do what I knew needed doing in the end. At that time I reasoned that there may be some changes needed and that there is still a political machine involved in the church that may be influenced toward a more healthy approach; but not from the outside. I believed changes must come from inside and the only way I could help was from the inside. I remained active even though I stopped attending the temple after moving to Utah. I was teaching religion at BYU and realizing that the temple ordinances were basically childish and operating to free people from fear, not to add understanding to their concepts of the divine. I told no one that this is what I was coming to believe. I wanted to have an influence for good that would help the church to be more responsive to actual needs. This desire is what led me to approach BYU leadership in an effort to help alienated students.

While doing this and teaching religion in a new way; a way that celebrated mysticism and spiritual sense, not cognitive memorizing of facts, opinions, and dogma, I could feel the path taking a new course. I was ready for this. I taught religion in a way that was intended to try to get students to see that spirituality was far different from cognitive pursuit; that spirituality cannot be contained in a cognitive "lesson." I taught that spirituality was to be followed with the heart. Consequently my classes were vastly different from others at BYU. I had no interest in swapping quotes with other teachers. I did not care what different "authorities" had to say about every small thing. I wanted students to feel! When I taught of the resurrection we sang for an entire hour. What they could feel, if they could feel it, would be much more meaningful than any group of words no matter how eloquently put together. I did also teach of cognitive facts, names, dates and etc. but only as a vehicle to appreciate (an affective experience) the real essence of spirit, that which moves our center so fully as to alter our intents, our meanings, our reality.

When I talk of mysticism it may be hard for many to understand what I mean. I don't know how to say it with words. I remember teaching many students of my experience of the spirit when I would tell them that I knew what it felt like to "read a sentence and understand a paragraph." When I had those experiences I was feeling the pull of the mystic path. There is a way of understanding that surpasses that which I understand with my head. I have read many try to define mysticism with words. I have not found anything to suffice. I will say that those who have felt the spirit working in the silent chambers of the heart have felt what it is about. I, for one, found that to follow where that led did not lead me to the temple or to the doors of the church. It led me to AA meetings, to sit with people whose struggle was not understood and not handled with wisdom, and to try with all my "heart" to comprehend who and what they really are, why they struggled and the true nature of the "desires of their heart.". I found the divine. I found my path continuing. I would then return to a church meeting and find not only the absence of that divinity but a desire to kill it out of fear of it. I found too many who feared the mystical experience because it is affective in nature, because it defies control, because it is about passion. I saw meetings where we spoke long and tediously about nothing and then had to skip the verses of the hymn because we were "out of time." We skipped the part that counted for the part that is meaningless, repetitious and boring.

Matthew Fox wrote of the excavation and restoration of an ancient cathedral in France. When they got to the original floor level they found a depression, a ring, that had been literally danced into the stone in acts of worship. I understood David's dancing before the Lord as the Arc of the Covenant was brought into his city. I realize that at times this type physical expression of awe and wonder is all there may be to fully experience "what it is all about." I find not only a paucity of this experience in Mormonism but a fear of it. I watched with literal horror the "Hosanna Shout" performed at the dedication of the new conference center in Salt Lake. I saw Pres. Hinckley perform, what is intended to be a literal shout of joy, wonder, praise and exultation, with a perfunctorialism that smacked of boredom and testified of complete non-understanding of spirit. I expected him to yawn in the middle of it. I saw the audience not have any way to respond to what was initially intended to be an awesome experience with a lack of being moved that saddens me. I saw the cameras pick out the one man who stood up at the singing of "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning." His poor wife did not know what to do. She looked around at the other "sheep" who were not standing and tried to get her husband to sit back down. No where did I see evidence of the way the spirit will yank response from the very being of people. It cannot and should not be held back. But, this would be passionate, intense, a true felt experience, and as I have come to know, this type experience scares the hell out of the leaders of the church. They fear its intensity and power to move because they cannot control and cannot have it. I was appalled.

This is not about people not understanding what they are being taught. This is not about people misusing a truth or a pure system. This is about leaders not teaching anything, not modeling anything, not being in a place to be able to even conceptualize what it is really all about. This is not personal, it is systemic. It cannot be my path, and, to the extent that it mitigates against my right to continue along my path, it must be resisted and the errors seen and pointed at.

It was this type experience that led me to know that I cannot stay inside. This, and the way that my path was seen from the inside. I was treated with contempt, fear and rejection repeatedly by the members of my ward. I found that this as the way members were led to see me, I could do no good to anyone, least of all to me, while inside. I had to quit. I felt the power of the words of Sam Keen, and the relevance to my path metaphor.

To my mind, a kind of mild-to-severe schizophrenia results from trying to keep one foot in and one foot out of an authoritarian church or belief system. A person, like a nation, cannot long exist half-slave and half-free. If we nibble at the fruit of the tree of knowledge but still cling to the security of Authority, we are caught in the impossible position of trying to take a journey and stay home at the same time." (p. 102)
Keen, S. (1994). Hymns to an unknown God. New York: Bantam Books.

CONCLUSION

While there has been much frustration and anger along the way, anger and frustration are not my reasons for leaving the Church. I found that staying had no value to me any longer. I remember my brother-in-law asking, at one point, if I no longer thought the church was "true." I had to try to express what I see in the word "true." I know that truth is as one person perceives it and that my "truth" may be so fully misperceived by anyone else as to constitute a complete denial of what I actually hold as "true." I stopped using the term altogether. I tried to explain that rather than asking if it is "true," I ask myself now if it has value. The truth question bogs me down in myriads of perceptions and misperceptions; personal meanings and emotional entanglements. I find that I have the authority to ask if it, or anything, has value for me at the present time. This must be the question; a very personal and individual question that only one person can answer for that one person; does it have value at this time? Mormonism does not, for me, at this time. That does not mean that it is "wrong," "false," or of no value to or for anyone else. I am fully okay with anyone saying truly, after looking at things with honesty, that being a member has value for them. I will fight for their right to be a loving part of the organization. I often advise or suggest to people that they get involved, be active, seek their bishop for help, when I really think it will have value for them. In like manner, when I see, and truly believe, that being strongly identified with Mormonism, has no value to people; that it may be what is causing problems, I believe it wise and "my job" to ask them to question the value for them. Such is the case when I see people who have, for years, surrendered their authority over their lives to others; people who have, through this process, stopped being their own person and are now depressed and lost I see people who through the loss of their own authority are damned in their progress. They cannot see how to continue to grow and continue to feel the spirit of their own humanity. When this is the case, I believe they need to ask very serious questions and then decide, not the "true or false" issue, but the value/no value issue. I have seen many who ask this question and opt to get out and are blessed by so doing. I have seen others who ask this question and opt to stay in but to stay in a totally new and more effective, more valuable way, to them. How they will resolve the issue of value is not mine to decide. I take no stance in what they "should" do. I am no more the authority for their life than is anyone else. I have absolutely no stake in it and I don't care as long as they are free from shame and pressure from without in making this decision. It is when I see Church leaders who try to convince others that they have no right to question, no right to decide, no right to be different that I see the true face of fear and its results. In this I see the inadvisability of a system, any system, that teaches, with great pressure, shame and fear of being "on the road to apostasy," that their leaders are above and beyond question. I do not believe it evil speaking of anyone to disagree and point at differing paths. I have not only that right but that obligation. Any system that holds its leaders to be above the questions I may ask of them, the criticism I may hand them, places those leaders in grave danger. We do them no favor by disallowing criticism and wise questioning. They are in the path of the bulldozer wearing the sign that says, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We are, by so doing, acting in a way that will destroy people and I find no value in this.

Albert Ellis, in a response to Allen Bergin, professor of psychology at BYU once wrote:

Devout, orthodox, or dogmatic religion (or what might be called religiosity) is significantly correlated with emotional disturbance. People largely disturb themselves by believing strongly in absolutistic shoulds, oughts, and musts, and most people who dogmatically believe in some religion believe in these health-sabotaging absolutes. The emotionally healthy individual is flexible, open, tolerant and changing, and the devoutly religious person tends to be inflexible closed, intolerant and unchanging. Religiosity, therefore, is in many respects equivalent to irrational thinking and emotional disturbance." (p. 637)
Ellis, A. (1980). Psychotherapy and atheistic values: A response to A.E. Bergin's "Psychotherapy and religious values". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 635-639.

G. Walls, also in response to Bergin, stated:

Value systems are usually compared on the basis of the respective advantages that accrue in those systems to individuals, society, or both. Kitchener suggested that the criteria for judging values should be rational. However, theistic values are based on divine authority rather than rational justification, and ‘people who believe in God . . . try to guide their behavior in terms of their perception of his will' (Bergin, 1980, p. 99). A theism that claims to follow ‘God's will' presents an unassailable front behind which fallible values gain permanent protection. Only humans can perceive God's will, and thus humankind still remains the author of its value systems. To the extent to which ‘divine authority' is cited as justification for value decisions, we are allowing values to be asserted without rational defense."
Walls, G. (1980). Values and psychotherapy: A comment on "Psychotherapy and religious values." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48. 640-641.

Sam Keen concludes:

BLOCKQUOTE
__Avoid anyone who demands obedience. Obedience is a virtue for children and a civic obligation, but not a good way to spiritual maturity. . . . Observe whether difference of opinion, challenge, criticism, and discussion are encouraged or discouraged. Can those in charge acknowledge that they don't know the answers to important questions: Does the leader ever admit that he (it is almost always a he) can be wrong and his critics right? A spiritual community should be open to whatever truth comes knocking on its door. . . . Reject immediately any leader or religion that identifies the home-land with the holy land, the folk with the people of God, the enemy with the evil empire. . . . Test how much humor and poking of fun about beliefs, slogans, and dogmas is permissible. The absence of humor is an almost certain sign of psychological rigidity, fanaticism, and impending spiritual and political tyranny. The first thing deadly serious leaders and organizations do is forbid satire, repress the clown, silence the jester, and kill levity. . . . Mirth and merriment save us from taking ourselves too seriously and protect us from the idolatry of assuming that our churches, rituals, and formulas are themselves sacred rather than symbols that point beyond themselves to the unknown God." (p. 114-115)
Keen, S. (1994). Hymns to an unknown God. New York: Bantam Books.

I understand that someone may criticize all I have said above on the basis of their belief that the Church is led from the top down not from the bottom up and that the organization of God has no need for me to stretch forth my hand to "steady the ark." To that I would answer with a resounding caution. When one claims to be God's one and only, the ultimate truth, then bear in mind that there is no "wiggle room." There is no chance of saying that we were a fullness yesterday but not today; that the "Prophet" made a mistake; that this is the fallibility of man. Who knows, this may be another of those times that Dallin Oaks makes a statement and later retracts it adding, "I cannot support the truthfulness of that statement." It was his own statement! If, you speak for God you cannot say, "Oops, I goofed." As soon as that stance is taken we are right back to where I still am the one to decide for me, whether this is the time one speaks for God or "goofed" again. It comes back to my right to hold my own authority, to decide what is right for me. I have that right, I claim that right.

It is my hope that anyone who reads this will realize fully the following:

1. I have not lost my testimony.

2. I am not evil in intent or effect.

3. I hold the right to choose my own course and reserve you the same right.

4. I will be the authority for my life as that is the only way that I can be truly "accountable." ( A woman participating in a group for families where the husband had molested the children told us one night; "I have done everything the prophet said so none of it can ever be my fault.")

5. I am still growing and learning and am open to anyone with anything of value to say.

6. It has no value to come to me with nothing more than an authoritative appeal. (See #4)

7. I am working, and will continue to work, for the benefit of people around me as I find nothing in the world as valuable as people.

8. I am not scary but will resist anyone who works in anyway to destroy the opportunity for people to grow by their own experience.

9. I recognize that life is complex and I am not afraid of that complexity.

10. Dealing with complexity means we must listen to each other, try hard to understand one another, and be willing to work for that which will benefit the largest number of people over the longest period of time.

11. I believe there are writers/thinkers in the world with much more wisdom and on a much higher plane of evolution than the "general authorities" of Mormonism.

12. I believe that there are and can be many paths as each persons experience is so different and that each path is valuable.

13. I do not believe that any one organization can be the "one and only." Not in a world of so much complexity as we have.

14. I do not believe the Mormon church is true or false, right or wrong. I do not believe anything is that simple. I believe it may have value for people at certain times.

15. I believe that Mormonism is not complete and not a fullness, that it is a valuable step at the right time but to limit myself to that step only would be like repeating fifth grade over and over. It was great at that step but is only one step.

16. I believe that the same spirit that led me into Mormonism led me beyond it. It is the same path.

Now, 40 or so years later, I still see in my mind that man standing at the door asking for help. I see him as a symbol of the need for me to be involved in the same work I have always done. He is a symbol of my path and my drive to follow it. It is this path that has never changed. I always taught my students to seek the truth, to walk the path of true good wherever it led. I told them that I was LDS because that was where my path led and if my path ever led elsewhere I would go there. I am going there and will not stray off my path. In my metaphor of my path I have also clearly felt that there are many who tired of the path and are now ensconced in little hovels off the side of the path. As I walk by they reach out with sticks and whack my legs as I go by. I cannot help that their fear stopped them. I cannot be responsible for their lack of courage to face that life is complex and has no simple black and white answers. I have to walk past them. Many times this has caused incredible pain as they object strongly and want me to believe that the path does not continue but stops there because they stopped there. Many LDS leaders fit this category, many do not. They are not my responsibility. But, where they are, in my opinion, in error, when their fear blocks the path and will not allow me to do the good I know I can do, I will resist them and point at their errors. The path leads past them.

Bigeddy

November 14, 2001