 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No Longer Welcome An account of my excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
By Alan Blodgett
Contents: I am a fifth generation Mormon. I was born in 1933 in North Ogden, Utah, on land that had been in the Blodgett family since 1851. I attended elementary school in Ogden. In 1947 my family moved to eastern Oregon where I attended high school. I received two degrees from Brigham Young University, majoring in accounting and business, and served in the US Army. I did not go on a mission. While I was in the Army, I married the one woman in my life. She became the mother of my four children. We have fifteen grandchildren. In 1962 I became a Certified Public Accountant. At this time I was asked by a counselor in the First Presidency to accept employment at church headquarters as an auditor to assist in the church's overseas building and education programs. This job began a 23-year career at church headquarters, first as an auditor, then later as assistant comptroller, comptroller, and Managing Director of the Financial and Investments Departments. I left church employment in January 1985, to become president of a financially impaired savings and loan institution. The job ultimately led to a position with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) where I managed troubled savings and loans and worked out their resolutions until 1996. After this I become controller of a construction equipment fabrication company in Portland, Oregon. On March 31, 1999, I retired from this job. Eight days later the church excommunicated me. As a youth I suspected I was a homosexual. As an adult I became certain. Even so, for 28 years subsequent to my marriage I was successful in holding this issue in abeyance. My wife and I both realized that something was missing in our marriage, but we were committed to each other and to our children. However, after our children began leaving home, our relationship started to falter and became increasingly troubled during the 1980's. Fearing the failure of our marriage, and not wanting to be employed by the church when it happened, I left church employment. My wife and I separated in early 1988 and later divorced civilly. I met my partner, Jerry McCormick, later that year, and we have maintained a home together in Portland since then. Jerry is a nurse with a remarkable talent in caring for the aged and the physically and mentally handicapped. I am open about my love and appreciation for him. I have a good relationship with my children, grandchildren, former wife and other members of my family. My mother and father were married for 36 years until my father's death in 1969. My mother has been very active in the church; my father never attended after his childhood. I was active in the church from my childhood until 1991. Prior to 1988 I held many ward and stake positions, including serving in three bishoprics and a high council. My work required me to divide my time between Salt Lake City and Portland and when my wife and I separated in early 1988, I chose Portland as my primary residence. For the first three years I lived in Portland I occupied an apartment in the center of the city and regularly attended church services in the Market Street Branch, Beaverton Oregon Stake although I declined accepting a church calling. In 1991 my partner Jerry and I moved to our present home, which is near downtown Portland, located in the Gabriel Park Ward, Beaverton Oregon Stake. I did not feel welcome in this ward and attended only a few meeting there. HIGH PRIEST GROUP LEADER RON BROWNING The beginning of the action leading to my excommunication began in early June 1997. The High Priest group leader, Ron Browning, and an assistant unexpectedly came to my home for a visit. This was the first personal contact I had had from a Gabriel Park Ward priesthood leader since I had moved into the ward six years earlier. My job with FDIC had taken me to Denver for a year and my church membership apparently followed me and was sent back to my Portland ward after I returned. Brother Browning said they had come to welcome me into the ward as a new member. Later, I couldn't help but wonder if a secondary reason for the visit was to learn more about the way I lived. Whatever the reason, Ron Browning is very much a gentleman. He is pleasant, interesting, understanding and informed. By the time of my excommunication, he had become bishop of the ward. I have a deep respect for him. I explained to Brother Browning that I had become inactive in the church, and while I attended meetings from time to time, it was usually in the wards of family members or friends or at a meetinghouse nearer to where I lived. I also told him of my brief involvement in the ward at the time I moved into the area but that I had felt unwelcome in the ward and stopped attending. By way of background, the Market Street branch president, his wife and others always warmly greeted me in the branch. During the second year I lived in the branch, the branch president visited me at my apartment and learned that I shared my home with my partner, Jerry. The branch president continued to be cordial, but never again asked to participate in branch activities. Shortly after moving to the Gabriel Park Ward, the bishop called to tell me that my membership records had been transferred to the ward and to advise me when and where the meetings were held. The bishop seemed rather formal and quite impersonal. I couldn't help but wonder if the Market Street branch president had told him about my living arrangements. I attended the ward services for a few Sundays but not once did a member of the bishopric or the high priest quorum leadership greet me. Several of the Gabriel Park Ward members had been on assignment to the Market Street Branch and knew me and must have pointed me out. I felt that I simply was not welcome in the ward, and did not attend the ward again until six years later, after Brother Browning's visit. I don't recall whether I told Brother Browning at our first meeting that I was living with another man, but it should have become evident to him during his visit. Brother Browning encouraged me to attend Priesthood meetings and provided me with the meeting schedule. STAKE PRESIDENT ROBERT FULKERSON On June 23, 1997, the week following Ron Browning's visit, I received a telephone call from Robert Fulkerson, who stated he was President of the Beaverton Stake. He asked if he could come by and see me at home the next night. When I pressed him for the purpose of his visit, he said he would like to meet me and had received a telephone call from Elder Glenn Pace (a general authority and president of the Northwest Area) who told him I might be living in an "alternative lifestyle." I told him it was all right for him to visit but found myself somewhat upset for what I felt was an arrogant attitude. His final remark was, "I will be by about 7:15 tomorrow evening, and I will likely bring the bishop along also." As one might expect, the meeting was very much on my mind the rest of the evening and all the next day. I rehearsed every possible script, ranging from being hostile, to crusading the gay cause, or to saying nothing. I wondered if the church had finally decided to deal with my membership because I had become highly visible as a national officer of Affirmation, an organization of gay and lesbian Mormons, and Gamofites, an organization of gay Mormon fathers. I told myself that it didn't really matter what the church organization did with my membership, I would always be a Mormon at heart. In truth, however, it did matter, and I was distressed by the prospect of being separated from the Church. I prepared myself for what I believed might be a brief visit during which I would be handed a letter announcing the time and place my case would be considered by a disciplinary council. At 7:15 the next evening the doorbell rang. I invited the stake president and the bishop, Dean Douglas, into my home. They appeared a little too formal in their dark suits to be visiting on a summer evening. My first reaction was, "I misjudged the president." I could tell immediately that he was not an arrogant man, but a warm and genuine person. The bishop, who had been in office only since April of that year, seemed equally as pleasant. Our initial talk was about professional matters; the stake president and I have both been involved in banking and have a number of experiences and acquaintances in common. I commented that after living in this house for six years and never having a priesthood leader visit me before, I was surprised that I would have the high priest group leader one week, then the stake president and bishop the next. The stake president told me that Elder Glenn Pace had not only advised him that I might be living an "alternative lifestyle", but that he might want to be in contact with me as well. My conclusion was that church headquarters was subtlety directing the stake president to look into my living arrangements and deal with my membership. I decided to be open with the stake president and bishop and mentioned Jerry, my partner of nearly ten years, and referred to myself as a gay man in order to get away from a term I dislike, "alternative lifestyle." Both the stake president and bishop seemed to be genuinely interested in my personal situation and my thoughts regarding the gospel and the church. They did not express judgment or condemnation. They listened to me state my strong belief that the church should extend a hand of fellowship to its gay and lesbian members. I maintained that the church was losing much by excluding the fine and talented group of people in the gay and lesbian Mormon community, that it was a tragedy for the church and also for the individuals. The stake president obviously had a rather good understanding of the gay situation and asked thoughtful questions, including one about monogamy among gays. The only heated comment, on my part, came when it was suggested that Evergreen was an organization that might help an individual change his or her sexual orientation, or at least change their behavior. I expressed my view that there is no evidence that a gay person can change his or her basic feelings, and that to offer people a false expectation is wrong. In parting, the stake president asked me if I saw a way that I might again become more involved with the Church. My response was that I was unlikely to change a great deal, and as much as I hoped for it, the church was also unlikely to significantly change its attitude toward gays; so I didn't foresee being welcomed by the church in the foreseeable future. Even so, the bishop invited me to participate in the July 4th activities being held by the ward and to attend church services. After a pleasant hour the stake president and bishop departed. I felt that our discussions had allowed them to gain a better understanding of what it means to be gay. I couldn't help pondering what might happen next. Whatever that might be, I would still be pleased that the stake president and bishop had taken the time to listen to me. I felt that they would take action, if it were left to them, only after a great deal of thought. I did attend the Gabriel Park Ward July 4th celebration. Both Bishop Douglas and President Fulkerson, also a member of the ward, warmly greeted me. The bishop invited me to sit with him and his family, and we had an interesting chat while eating. A few weeks later President Fulkerson called to invite me to an ice cream social at his home following a stake activity. He emphasized that I was welcome to bring my partner with me. I attended, but alone, and was graciously received by President and Sister Fulkerson and the others from the ward who were present. Over the next several months I attended church meetings more regularly than I had since leaving the Market Street Branch. I became casually acquainted with a number of the ward members, including Myron Child, a counselor in the bishopric. Hardly a Sunday went by, however, that I didn't hear a comment condemning homosexuals, feminists, and others who support liberal causes such as freedom of choice, birth control and sex education in the schools. Marriage was extolled as the only way to gain exaltation. A multi-stake single adult workshop I attended seemed to focus on finding a marriage partner, whereas I felt more emphasis should have been given to discussing ways that a single person can have a meaningful and useful life. The last meeting I attended was a stake conference session on January 18, 1998. Soon after I wrote to a friend, "A couple of the speakers were pretty good, particularly the stake president. He is a good guy, and I have appreciated getting to know him." Two weeks later on February 3rd, I was called in to the stake center to meet with President Fulkerson in his office. This proved to be an eventful meeting, for it changed my attitude toward the church significantly. President Fulkerson was considerate and pleasant as he had always been. The meeting lasted an hour and 15 minutes and ended because others with appointments were being kept waiting. We discussed many things including my involvement in Affirmation and Gamofites. I told him that, in my view, a primary purpose of these organizations is to convey the message that a homosexual person can continue to have the Gospel of Jesus Christ in their lives and cherish their Mormon heritage even though they feel condemned by the church leaders and, at times, even by their own families. We discussed my relationship with my partner, and I told him how important he had been to me over the ten years we had been together. President Fulkerson summed up matters by stating again that he had contacted me because of a telephone call he had received from Elder Glenn Pace; and while he personally preferred not to judge me because there were many things he did not know or did not understand about homosexuality, it was nevertheless his duty as a stake president to follow the procedures of the church as set forth by its leaders. He encouraged me to become active in the church again, to attend meetings and to prepare myself to receive assignments. He left me with the feeling that an intimate, but non-sexual, relationship with my partner might be acceptable, but that it should be kept as a personal matter, and that participating in church activities with my partner could be a problem. He, choosing not to take any action at that time, said he would like to give more thought to the matter with the benefit of our discussions and that he would call me in again. I left the meeting with President Fulkerson with a sense of despair. I was being forced to conclude that there was no place for me in the church. Even though the president was considerate and understanding, it was clear that my fate would be dictated not by his personal choice, but by the policies and procedures of the church. The only options being given to me were either to return to the darkness of the closet and outwardly pretend to be straight, or to abandon my relationship and live the remainder of my life alone. Fellowship in the church was not mine to be had. On March 19th, I wrote the following to a close friend: While I was impressed with the kindness and thoughtfulness of my Stake President during our visit and appreciate him in many ways, I must confess that his message sounds louder and louder in my ears each day as I contemplate what he said. The bottom line of what he said was: There is no place in the church for a gay man. The simple fact is that if we wish to enjoy fellowship we must pretend to be straight. For a time I was thinking that perhaps I should become more involved in church activity and find friends within the ward and stake. The way I feel now, to become actively involved in the ward is likely to bring more grief than happiness. I recognize the church has the right to decide what type of persons they will fellowship. However, in excluding classes of people (intellectuals, feminists and homosexuals) outcasts are created. As an outcast we must decide if we can accept standing on the outside and merely looking in; or should we walk away and find a more hospitable environment. I can see why an increasing number of people are asking to have their names removed from the membership rolls rather than accept the "outcast" label for themselves. I never thought I could voluntarily withdraw from church membership but I am no longer so sure. I am acquainted with many who have resigned their membership to put behind them the sense of being rejected by the church. They simply no longer wish to be a pariah as a consequence of their being honest and open about their feelings. The February 3rd meeting was the last time I saw President Fulkerson. A few months later his employer reassigned him to serve a tour of duty in Hong Kong. Midway through 1998 he was released as stake president and replaced by Myron Child who had been a counselor in the Gabriel Park Ward Bishopric. For many months I heard nothing. My home teachers, wonderful neighbors whom I had known since the Market Street Branch days, came by regularly and kept me posted on changes in the stake presidency and ward positions. Bishop Dean Douglas was also transferred by his employer and was replaced as bishop by Ron Browning, the former high priest group leader. I thought that since I had gone back into inactivity, perhaps nothing would happen with respect to my membership, just as nothing had happened during all the years prior to my first meeting with President Fulkerson. That was not to be, however. On November 21, 1998, I received a call from Rick Wilson, Executive Secretary of the Beaverton Oregon Stake, requesting that I meet with State President Myron Child at his office the next day at 1:30 PM. He said he did not know the purpose of the meeting. I met with President Child as requested on November 22nd. In contrast to meetings with the former stake president, President Child spent little time on pleasantries and got right to the point. He explained that President Fulkerson had turned over this unresolved matter to him and that it was his responsibility as the new stake president to follow through. President Child said, "I understand from President Fulkerson that you were living in an alternative lifestyle. What is the situation today?" I replied, "Exactly the same as when I met with President Fulkerson. My lifestyle has not changed for nearly 11 years. I am a gay man, and I live with my partner whom I love." He then asked, "Is it a sexual relationship?" I responded, "That is a private matter, and I don't care to comment about it. You shouldn't make assumptions about this, however, for they could be wrong." The president said, "The church teaches us that homosexuality is wrong." I asked him, "Where did Jesus -- or Joseph Smith -- speak against homosexuality?" He then paraphrased President Gordon B. Hinckley's recent statements on homosexuality. The actual statement given by President Hinckley at the preceding October General Conference was: People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are. I responded, "I disagree with President Hinckley. The church is wrong not to extend fellowship to all its members, even those who are gay or lesbian. All God's children are needful and deserving of the gospel." I argued that the situation for gays is very different than that of single straight individuals. According to church policy, a straight person can date with the hope or expectation of marriage. For a gay person, dating a person of the same sex is not considered proper and there is no hope of entering into a satisfying and loving relationship that is sanctioned by the church. I could see that nothing I said made a difference to President Child. The prophet had spoken, and his word was not to be questioned. President Child stated that we are commanded to marry for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth. When I replied that I had married and was the father of four children and had 15 grandchildren, he asked me if my partner (who has never been a member of the church) had been married and had children. "No," I responded. He then asked, "Isn't your relationship with your partner keeping him from fulfilling this commandment?" After meeting for about 15 minutes, President Child advised me it was his duty to hold a disciplinary action, and I should expect to receive a letter from him announcing the date, most likely after the holidays. He said I could attend or not attend as I wished. I was taken back by his abruptness which was in stark contrast to President Fulkerson's warm manner. As I rose to leave President Child professed friendship. I responded that I did not see his actions as those of friend. I departed without the traditional handshake. The month following my first meeting with President Child was a period of soul searching and questioning. Why was I now being singled out for discipline and likely excommunication? President Child had commented that mine would be the first disciplinary action initiated since he had become stake president. Certainly I wasn't the only member of the stake to be living in a non-marital relationship. I had been living openly with my partner for the past ten years and church leaders had long known that I was gay so why was this becoming an issue now? I wondered if the church might be punishing me because they regarded me as an activist. I also wondered if church leaders had intended all along to take this action, but had waited until enough time had passed that the things I had learned while I was a senior employee of the church would have less of an impact if I were to discuss them openly. I doubt that I will ever know for certain what sparked the action against me. A second question I asked myself after my November meeting with President Child was: "What should I do?" I not only spent many hours pondering this question, but posed it also to numerous friends, acquaintances and family members in personal discussions or by means of the Internet. Their suggestions and encouragement were numerous and varied. All are to be thanked, but four individuals deserve special mention for the comments, resource materials, and editing assistance they provided me. They are Lavina Fielding Anderson, my "Relief Society President Forever" and a marvelous source of wisdom; Robert J. Christensen, a fountain of ideas and a master with words; Larry Mann, a philosopher of great vision; and Jay Bell, a master of research. The alternatives suggested to me by friends included 1) doing nothing while ignoring the whole process; 2) making this a media event to draw support for the gay and lesbian cause; 3) engaging legal counsel to seek redress for slander and damages; 4) seeking the intervention of general authorities I know; 5) using whatever ammunition I had gained from years as a church financial officer to damage church leaders; and finally 6) reasoning with the stake president, that there was no ground for excommunication according to the newly-issued Church Handbook of Instructions or in the interest of equity and fairness. I decided on the latter approach. In mid-December I received a Christmas card from the ward bishopric with the message: "May the hope that was born that silent, holy night remain in your heart throughout the year." This inspired me to write a lengthy letter dated December 20th to President Myron Child and to Bishop Ron Browning. In this letter I stated that I neither wanted to lose my membership nor did I think it would be right. I hoped that greater good and greater justice would come from my being left a member of the church than from cutting me off. I commented that based on my reading, the newly issued Church Handbook of Instructions (then available on the Internet) did not provide a basis for my excommunication. I stated that I was going to resist losing my membership for I considered myself to be a Mormon to the core, and I believed myself to be a good person. Perhaps I should have stopped there, but I couldn't resist expressing my view that church policy with respect to gays and lesbians is neither practical nor realistic, even though I know full well that many of the church leaders regard disagreeing with them to be an act of disobedience. The views I expressed were to be repeated in my presentation to the disciplinary council and are contained later in this report. The holidays came and went, and I did not hear from the stake president as he had told me I would. I suspected he was holding off going forward until after he had shared my letter with someone at church headquarters and had received a reply. After a long silence I was called in again by President Child on February 21st. At this meeting the President Child was more cordial than the first time we had met. He thanked me for a Christmas card and the letter I had sent to him. The following account of the meeting is based on my notes: President Child said his opinion had not changed. He then led out by asking me to answer two questions. The first was, "Do you believe the Church is a fallen Church?" And the second, "Do you believe that Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God?" My answer to the first question was, "Of course not, but this doesn't mean I must agree with everything the church does." To the second question I replied, "My answer to your second question is that I sustain President Hinckley as president of the church, and as prophet, seer and revelator, but I do not always agree with him. I specifically disagree with his statements on homosexuality." I made an attempt to get President Child to understand my view of why gay and lesbians should be extended fellowship even when they are in a same- sex relationship. It seemed to me that President Child had little interest in listening to or understanding my views. It appeared to me that he saw things as black or white. The church is true; therefore when the prophet speaks, he speaks for God. Period. President Child referred several times to "gay tendencies," each time expressing the view that persons with such tendencies can change if they desire to do so. I expressed strong disagreement on this point. The summation made by President Child was that since I am a self-professed gay man and since I live with another man whom I say I love, it must be presumed that I am living contrary to the teachings of the prophet. He then stated that he believed he had no alternative but to take action on my membership. Perhaps over reacting, I exclaimed, "It is wrong for you to take church membership away from someone who wants to be a member, and I believe it is discriminatory! It is because I am a gay man. There must be thousands of other church members less worthy than me, yet nothing is being done about their membership!" The stake president's reply stunned me. "What if we allowed you to mingle in the church, how would the youth interpret it? Many might feel your lifestyle was OK and want to follow it. This simply cannot be allowed. The prophet has declared that living as a gay person is not acceptable. Those with gay tendencies can change if they want to!" I then asked him outright, "Are you saying I should leave the companion I love and have been with for 11 years?" "That would be best if you are sincere about wanting to remain a member of the church," he responded. I felt the former stake president was sincerely seeking understanding. With President Child, I felt no amount of discussion was likely to change his views. The prophet had spoken out against gays sharing their lives with each other! No further consideration was in order. The date proposed for the disciplinary council meeting was March 11th. Since I was in the process of retiring from my place of employment and had heavy commitments through March and wanted time "to prepare my defense," I asked for a delay of one month, which I was granted. The disciplinary council meeting was then set for April 8th. I was then asked, "What do you have in mind in presenting a defense?" I answered, "I don't know yet." "Let me know if you plan to bring others with you, would you please?" President Child requested. Then he added, "I really want to help you!" "I can't believe that. What you are doing is wrong. But you must do what you believe to be your duty," I replied. The meeting ended. After leaving the February 21st meeting with President Child, I realized I did not know what the specific charges against me would be. I therefore called President Child March 2nd and asked him what the charges were going to be so I could better focus my defense. He replied, "Conduct unbecoming a member of the church." I then asked, "What is the conduct that you find unbecoming." He was silent for a moment then said, "I will get back to you on that." I then asked him, "Tell me why a church court is necessary. To my knowledge no complaint against me has been made, and I have never confessed to anything." He paused and said, "I will get back to you on that also." I then asked, "Since church courts are now called disciplinary actions, why am I am being disciplined?" He didn't respond. I asked if I could have as many witnesses present as I felt would help my cause and perhaps a lawyer. He paused and said witnesses would be allowed within reason. I started to ask him if he had shared my December 20th letter with the area presidency or church headquarters, but he ended the conversation before I could complete my question, saying he needed to pick up his wife from the hospital where she had undergone surgery the previous day. At this point I had little doubt that I would be excommunicated, and the thought actually gave me some relief. I did not intend to give in, however. It disturbed me that I was being singled out because I had admitted to being gay, and not because of any known "misbehavior." It disturbed me even more that there are thousands of gay men and women who are denied church fellowship and that seems so un-Christ-like. If the church is indeed true and if it is the vehicle for the gospel of Jesus Christ, then shouldn't it be open to all who seek to be His disciples? President Child did not call me back as he promised to do. The next I heard from him was in the form of the following letter delivered to my home on March 8, 1999. It was hand delivered, ironically, not to me but to my partner Jerry who answered the doorbell. Jerry told me, "A couple of nervous middle-aged guys were at the door and called me Brother Blodgett. I told them I wasn't Brother Blodgett; then they handed me this letter and asked me to give it to you." I was in the next room when this happened. The letter dated March 7, 1999 reads:
Dear Bro. Blodgett,After reading the letter, two things troubled me. First, I still had not been told by the stake president what the conduct was that he found unbecoming. Secondly, the term "because you are reported to have participated in conduct...." I had not been told of any report, and if there were such a report, shouldn't I know of its contents in preparing my defense? I then referred to the Church Handbook of Instructions and noted the wording of the letter was exactly the same as the example given in the instructions. This lessened my concerns. I wrote the following letter to President Child on March 9th:
Dear President Child,On March 13th I called President Child to obtain a response to my letter. I asked him again what the specific charges against me would be. He responded, "No other charges, just that you are gay --The things we talked about." I asked him if he agreed with the wording in my letter, and he said, "Yes." To confirm what I had understood him to say earlier, I next asked him if mine was the first disciplinary council he had held since becoming president of the stake. He answered, "Yes, except for a council held for the reinstatement of blessings." I said, "There must be others in addition to me in the stake who are living in relationships outside of marriage." He replied, "There probably are. I am not aware of them." On the same day I sent the following letter to President Child to confirm that I understood him correctly:
Dear President Child,From the time of my first meeting with President Fulkerson, I had kept many friends and some family members apprised of what was going on. In fact, an account of my first meeting with President Fulkerson had been published in the August 1997 edition of Affinity, the Affirmation newsletter. I had kept many close friends advised each time something of significance happened. The supportive responses I received were gratifying. I have a binder of e-mail messages expressing friendship, offering support and sharing ideas and beliefs. Most of my family did not know what was happening. I felt they should hear about my anticipated excommunication from me rather than someone else. Most of them are devoted and active members of the church, so I wasn't sure what their reaction would be when they found out. I did not think it would be a great surprise to any of them since I have been open about my relationship with Jerry from the beginning, and they all know the attitude of the church toward such a relationship. Therefore, on March 16th I sent the following letter to my former wife, my four children, my two brothers and two sisters:
All of you should know I received a letter from my Stake President last week advising me a disciplinary council will be held on April 8th "in (my) behalf with the possibility of disfellowshipment or excommunication because of conduct unbecoming a member of the church." I spoke to the Stake President by phone Saturday. He stated the action is based on my being a gay man and living with Jerry. I have little doubt I will be excommunicated.I was gratified by the responses I received. Although I didn't hear immediately from all of the nine persons to whom the letter was sent, I ultimately did see them or talk to them by telephone. Each one has shown me the same love and respect as before. Most said nothing about the matter unless I brought up the subject. A brother, a sister and a daughter did express concern about my relationship with the church. My greatest concern was for my mother and what her reaction would be when she learned of my excommunication. The gospel is very important to her. At the same time she is an understanding and compassionate person. I knew she was proud of the status I had achieved while employed by the church and of the positions I had held in my ward and stake. She has known Jerry, my partner, from the beginning. Early in our relationship my mother, Jerry and I went on a weekend trip together, and she help us move to a new apartment. Jerry has always been welcome in her home, and she expresses her love for him, the same as for other family members. Up to this point I had never felt comfortable discussing with my mother the fact I was gay, even though I knew she was aware of it. When I tried to broach the subject, it seemed she steered the conversation elsewhere as if it was enough for her to know, but we didn't need to talk about it. After my excommunication, I did discuss what had happened with my mother, a discussion covered later in this report. The more I thought about the upcoming disciplinary action, the more I felt it was wrong. To begin with, the policy of the church was wrong. No one who seeks after the gospel in sincerity should be excluded. The scriptures, if carefully studied, do not support the church position. I have concluded the attitudes of church leader toward homosexuality are largely based on prevailing social attitudes and not on commandments given by the Lord. I believe church leaders have a much better understanding of homosexuality and sympathy for gay and lesbian members than they let on. Some, I am sure, privately agree that a change in church policy should be made, but they are fearful that a change will be unpopular with certain of their fellow general authorities and with a large number of church members. The gay and lesbian issue is simply not an urgent enough or popular enough issue for them to take it on. I thought it was virtually certain that the action against me, if not initiated by church headquarters, was certainly being undertaken with the knowledge and concurrence of senior general authorities. While I strongly believed that President Gordon B. Hinckley already knew of my scheduled disciplinary action, I wanted to be sure that he was made aware of it from my perspective. I decided to write directly to President Hinckley, with whom I had had a close association during the many years I was an employee of the church and had lived as his neighbor on the Salt Lake City north bench. Eager to have the letter personally read by President Hinckley rather than only by a staff member, I attached the following note:
To President Hinckley's Secretary, The March 17, 1999 letter to President Hinckley read:
President Gordon B. HinckleyThe only response to the above letter came from my home teacher to whom I had sent a copy. He and his wife are wonderful friends. I kept them advised of all that was going on. He called regularly to offer support and encouragement. Too bad he wasn't my stake president. My next undertaking was to prepare for the disciplinary council meeting. From the beginning I had been collecting ideas and material, all of which needed to be organized into a presentation. A number of friends were extremely helpful. They cheered me on; their expressions of love and support were most comforting. They provided me with a wealth of material and ideas. They helped review what I had written for content and correctness. I was so wrapped up in my preparations that I even discussed my impending "trial" and defense with non-member friends, neighbors, houseguests and anyone else who would listen. Several non-member friends could not understand why I cared, thinking that I shouldn't want to be part of a church that was so homophobic and uncaring for its gay and lesbian members. I explained that for a fifth generation Mormon, the church is simply not something you can walk away from. Mormonism is as much a part of me as being an American is. During this time there were many other things going on that helped me maintain some perspective. Being over age 65 I retired from work with the farewells, dinners and all else that retirement entails. Someone commented, "It is a good thing you are retiring, you need the extra time to work on being excommunicated." I was given a new computer as a retirement gift and at the same time we purchased a new iMac computer for Jerry. Getting the new computers running properly was as frustrating as my stake president not "listening to reason." We had houseguests to entertain and did some traveling. What I considered as my "church job," being national treasurer of both Affirmation and Gamofites, kept me very involved and took considerable time. During the wait, I made several basic decisions with respect to the disciplinary council meeting itself.
The evening of April 8th finally arrived, and I made my way to the Beaverton Stake Center to attend the disciplinary council meeting. Different from what I had expected, the events of the evening turned out to be a positive experience for me. I felt compassion on the part of the stake presidency, high council and bishop who were present. They gave me ample opportunity to express my strongly held views that gay and lesbian members should be fellowshipped by the church, and their committed relationships with each other should be sanctioned. Even though they concluded they must excommunicate me based on their understanding of church policy, I felt their sincere desire to understand my thoughts and feelings. I was touched by their expressions of goodwill and by feelings of brotherhood as the meeting concluded. When I arrived, I was asked to wait briefly outside the high council room and then was ushered into the meeting by the stake president. All present were standing to greet me. There was not a smile or a sound in the room as I was directed to a seat at the far end of the room that faced a large U-shaped table. The council was comprised of the stake presidency and the high council-a total of 15 men. The stake presidency sat at the head of the table with the high council seated at the two wings. In addition a stake clerk was present as well as my bishop who was seated next to me. It appeared that the stake president had already discussed my case with those present. President Child was spokesman for the meeting and followed the procedures as set forth in the Church Handbook of Instructions. He began the meeting by stating that this was a disciplinary council convened for the purpose of considering charges against me as stated in the notice that had been sent to me. He then introduced those present. It was explained that one half of the high councilors had been appointed to "stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice" as called for in the Doctrine and Covenants. The other half was to look after the interests of the church. The bishop was there in my behalf. The meeting then opened with prayer. President Child read the charges against me: "You are reported to have participated in conduct unbecoming a member of the church." He explained that he had received the report from President Fulkerson, the former stake president. He further elaborated that he viewed my situation as cohabitation with another gay man, and he had concluded that I was involved in a relationship that was inconsistent with the position of the church. Even though the term "cohabitation" had not been discussed before, and it is not listed as a reason for discipline in the Church Handbook of Instructions, I did not object to the use of the term. President Child advised me that he had received a letter from Robert J. Christensen that had been written in my behalf. The letter had been handed out before I entered the meeting. He asked if I had been aware of the letter. I told him I had seen a draft of the letter, and that the author was a personal friend. (See Exhibit A.) I was then invited to make my statement. I began by handing out a copy of the text of the "Comments for Disciplinary Council" to each person present, the same as Exhibit B to this report. I then read essentially all of the statement. The statement sets forth my belief that I should not be excommunicated but made the following comment: I have little doubt I will be excommunicated tonight, even though I believe it is wrong; otherwise, this council would not have been convened. I offer no defense for being gay; it is not a choice that I knowingly made. I offer no defense for sharing my home with my partner; rather, I rejoice in the happiness he has brought into my life during the past 11 years. I offer no defense for loving my partner; but rather, I thank my Heavenly Father for him. Following this I provided information regarding my personal background and explained why I am a Mormon. I next discussed homosexuality and the scriptures and argued that I believe the church's position on homosexuality is based on policy rather than commandment. I defended my right as a church member to dissent when my conscience requires me to do so. With respect to the choices available to gay and lesbian members I said: The current church position with respect to gay and lesbian members allows only two options. For most, these options are unrealistic and deny any hope of happiness and fellowship in the church. Celibacy is the counsel usually given but which denies the basic need for companionship and deprives gay and lesbian Mormons of the most precious of human experiences-to love and be loved by another person. The second option is to enter into a traditional marriage, even though both spouses will be ill prepared to deal with the stresses and strains of such a relationship. This usually leads to tragic consequences not only for the gay person, but also for the special person they choose as a marriage partner. Even the church has come to realize it should no longer advise gays and lesbians to marry. Among the consequences of church policies for gay members are:
I believe the church should recognize the right of gay and lesbian members to seek and enter into loving, committed and lasting relationships with each other. If such relationships need to be judged let it be the Lord's. I believe that gay and lesbian members should be extended a hand of fellowship by the church rather than face rejection. I believe a dialogue should begin to find solutions to these difficult issues. After I had read my statement, council members were allowed to ask questions. For the most part, the questions asked were reasonable, fair and in search of understanding. I was pleased with the opportunity this gave me to further explain my views. More than anything else, the questions focused on, "Do you sustain President Hinckley as a prophet, inspired to speak for the church?" I responded that for the most part I did; however, I disagreed with his position on gay and lesbian issues. This question was repeated several times, with the added thought that we can voice dissent, but once the prophet has spoken, we are under obligation to accept his word. I disagreed and stated that if our conscience does not allow us to accept the prophet's words, we should continue in our dissent, even though it might result in our being cut off from the church. The stake president agreed. It was further asserted that if you sustain the prophet, you must be prepared to accept all he says. Again I disagreed, and observed that I can sustain President Hinckley in most of what he says, but not all, just as I sustain President Clinton as President of the United States without agreeing with all he does. I was admonished to repent. When I pressed for a clarification of what it was I must repent of, I sensed it was for failure to strive to cease being a homosexual. I responded that I cannot repent of being gay, because that is what I am, not what I chose to be. I further stated, referring to the charges against me, that sharing my home with another person should not call for repentance, nor should loving another person. When asked if I didn't think that the Affirmation and Gamofite organizations were detrimental to the church, I argued that, on the contrary, they exist to offer solace and support to those who cherish the gospel of Jesus Christ and their Mormon heritage but who are rejected by the church. In my written statement I commented that I believe in personal revelation and I have an assurance that God loves and accepts me for what I am. Coupled with this I expressed my disbelief that God would reject any of his children, particularly those who are gay or lesbian. I was asked if I felt my right to personal revelation gave me the right to revelation that applied to the entire church. I responded obviously not, but I have the right to know when it is appropriate to speak my opinions. The youngest high councilor made a statement that this is "a court of love" convened for the purpose of helping me. He saw by the expression on my face that I disagreed and that he had offended me. Later in the meeting he asked for the chance to restate his comment and then thanked me for all that I had shared with the council. He then offered his friendship and assistance if he could in any way help me in my spiritual quest. I believed he was sincere and thanked him at the end of the meeting. My bishop and I were both excused from the room for approximately 45 minutes while the stake presidency and high council deliberated. During this time the bishop thanked me for the candor of my presentation. I was moved by his expressions of goodwill that I accepted as being sincerely offered. Upon being invited back to the council room, President Child informed me that, based on the rules of the church, it was the unanimous decision of those present that I should be excommunicated. At the time I wondered if the reason for my excommunication was my relationship with my partner or whether it really was because of my refusal to fully sustain and obey the prophet. I had expected to be excommunicated, so the decision came as no surprise. Neither did I feel any remorse. President Child then read the draft of a letter that was to be sent to me, and asked my permission for the church to retain my name on its records so the church could maintain contact with me. I consented and observed that I will always be a Mormon, even if my name is not be on the membership rolls. I was advised that my temple blessings would be withdrawn and I was asked if this did not concern me. I responded that I believe these blessings are based on a covenant between the Lord and me, apart from my continued church membership. At the end I asked, "What will be required of me before I am allowed to re-enter the church?" The counselor to the State President exclaimed, "Repentance." I again professed not to understand what was meant by this and asked what specific actions would be required on my part. The Stake President responded that I would have to end my relationship with my partner. I replied, "This is not a condition I can accept. I see this as no different from you being asked to leave your wife as a condition of continued church membership." At the conclusion of the meeting many offered their encouragement, love and friendship. Most, but not all, seemed sincere in wishing me well. I left the meeting happy that I had been able to share my views with the group and believing that I had touched the hearts of many. I also left believing that if a secret vote had been taken rather than a vote to sustain the stake president, I would not have had my membership taken from me. In the hours following the meeting, I reflected, "I am now left to sort out what all of this means. The loss of my membership will leave a void in my life. On the other hand, I am freed from the unreasonable expectations the church places on gay men. My challenge will be to go forward and live a good and meaningful life." That night and the next day I drafted an e-mail account of the disciplinary action and notice of my excommunication to send to friends and others who had shown an interest in my experience. Before sending it out, I called President Child to let him know I was sending an e-mail draft to him so he could review it for fairness and accuracy. He said he would get back to me, but didn't. I therefore circulated the notice as written. (See Exhibit C). I again received many responses from friends and acquaintances who thanked me for sharing my experience with them. For the most part, they agreed with my position and wished me well. The most difficult response I received was from a daughter who waited until two days after the excommunication to call. She told me that at first after receiving my letter, she had been angry and hurt, but that she didn't feel that way any longer. She said she wondered how this would affect our eternal family. I replied that I believed this is a matter between God and us and that our being together didn't depend on my church membership. She then said, "Dad, I love you. I want for us to be together more. We would like you to stay with us whenever you come to Utah." The week following my excommunication I traveled to Utah where I spent several days with my mother and also saw my former wife, a son and daughter, and my two brothers. I spoke briefly with a sister who was leaving on a trip. Except for my mother, they had all read the letter I sent to them telling them of my expected excommunication. I confirmed that I had in fact been excommunicated. Each let me know they loved me and did not want the excommunication to interfere with our family relationship. The most comforting experience I had came from telling my mother what happened. While I was visiting with her I struggled with how I should bring the matter up, and even whether I should say anything at all. As if in answer to a prayer, an opening presented itself. My aging mother is loosing her eyesight. As a courtesy, two full-time missionaries assigned to Fillmore where she lives come to her home once each week to read the Sunday School lesson and discuss it with her. The topic of the discussion was modern day revelation. The missionaries related how we have a living prophet to receive revelation to guide the church. Through prayer and meditation we can come to know whether or not that which the prophet speaks is what the Lord wants for us. After the missionaries had left, I asked my mother, "What do we do when we do pray and ponder over a subject for a very long time and come to the conclusion that the prophet is not right?" She responded, "Why do you ask?" I said to her, "There are things about my life I want to share with you, but I have had the feeling you didn't want to talk about them. It is important to talk about it now if you wish to understand what is happening in my life. You do know I am gay, don't you?" She replied, "Yes, I have known. I would like to know about your life but only if you want to share. I respect your privacy. I have always tried to let you know how much I love you and I have tried to let Jerry know I love him, too, and he is welcome in my home." We had a long discussion of how wrong I felt the church was in not fellowshipping gay and lesbian members, especially those who were in committed relationships. I then told her I had been excommunicated the prior week as the result of my living with Jerry. I told her of my strong disagreement with President Hinckley's statements about gays and lesbians. I told her of my Affirmation and Gamofites involvement and how I had come to have a profound respect and love for scores of gays and lesbians who are wonderful people, but who are not accepted or welcomed by the church. I stated how wrong I felt it was for them to be excluded for they need and deserve the gospel the same as anyone else. I stated that I felt it essential for me and others who share my opinions to speak up and let our views be heard, first, so we might be better understood by the membership of the church, and second, to encourage the leadership of the church to rethink their present policies. We pray that they will seek the Lord's guidance to find a way that gay men and lesbian women can enjoy fellowship in the church even when they choose to be in a relationship with each other. I was surprised and very pleased with my mother's response. She said, "They should be a part of the church. The time will come when gays are accepted in the church, and it will be sooner than you might think. Something will happen that will cause the general authorities to think differently, and a change will come." My mother then admonished me to remain as close to the spirit as I could in my own way. She also encouraged me to read my patriarchal blessing for guidance. She told me with sincerity that she loved me and was grateful that I was her son. How great it is to know that your mother is on your side! I know my excommunication is difficult for my mother. I know her heart is heavy because of the pain I have felt over being rejected by the church. I know she is torn between her love for me and her love for the church. She wishes to respect my opinions and also to sustain the church leaders with whom I am in conflict. She wants our family to be together, both in this life and the next, and wonders how my loss of membership will affect our togetherness. She knows that there will likely be other gay or lesbian family members and she hopes that circumstances will change so that the church will not also reject them. When I arrived home from my Utah trip, the following letter from the stake president was waiting for me. It was dated April 13th.
Brother Alan BlodgettI expected the letter. I took great exception to the use of the word "gospel" rather than the word "church" in the first sentence of the last paragraph. I didn't leave the gospel. I was forced out of the church. I did not know for sure, but believed that the First Presidency had been kept informed of my disciplinary action and had approved of it. Even so, I decided to appeal, not because I expected that anything I submitted would change the outcome of the disciplinary action, but with the hope that a number of individuals in church administration would read my comments. I hoped that something I said might touch their hearts and contribute to a greater understanding and acceptance of gay and lesbian members. The following is the letter of appeal I submitted on May 7, 1999:
The First PresidencyOn May 30, I received a call from President Child advising me he had received a letter that he had been asked to read to me from the First Presidency regarding the appeal of my excommunication. The letter stated that a review had been made of my case and the First Presidency sustained the actions of the stake disciplinary council and that Bro. Blodgett should be encouraged to re-enter the church in the established way. I was told that a copy of the letter would not be made available to me. When I began to express my disappointment with church policy toward gays, President Child stated he preferred not to discuss these issues over the telephone and thus ended the call. Since the first visit by President Fulkerson, I have wondered why, after all these years are they contacting me at all and why now. This visit was attributed to a report that I was living an alternative lifestyle. Could it be that alone? If every church member involved in a relationship other than a traditional marriage relationship were to be disciplined, there would be scores in every stake. Yet mine was the first disciplinary action undertaken by the Beaverton Stake since the change in stake presidents nine months earlier. According to the Church Handbook of Instructions, except for a person who commits a "serious transgression while holding a prominent church position," the only reasons for a mandatory disciplinary action are murder, incest, child abuse and apostasy, none of which applied to my case. While I once held a prominent church administrative position, that had been 14 years earlier. I have been open about my present 11-year relationship with Jerry; church leaders had known it. This cannot be the reason, or else the action would have been taken long ago. I had not abandoned my former wife; she had asked me to leave. I have met all my obligations toward my former wife. What then was the reason? The only conclusion I could come to is that church leaders in Salt Lake City have taken issue with my involvement in organizations they dislike, particularly in view of the prominent position in the church I had once held. The only factor that had changed in my life for many years was that I had become highly visible as a national officer of Affirmation and Gamofites. While I see these organizations as supportive of the church, offering encouragement and support for those who wish to maintain their Mormon heritage and hold fast to the gospel of Jesus Christ, church leaders by and large see these organizations as dissident and unfriendly to the church. These organizations are objectionable because they refuse to submit to the authority of church leaders. Their message is, "You can be at peace with God, even though the church rejects you." I doubt that my involvement with Affirmation and Gamofites was ever discussed with either of my stake presidents. It did not need to be. A call coming from a general authority was reason enough to move them to action. I saw this clearly with President Fulkerson. He sought understanding and expressed his desire to go forward short of a disciplinary action, but he made it clear that as stake president, he was bound by duty to fulfill certain responsibilities set forth by the brethren, even though he personally might choose otherwise. With President Child there appeared to be no internal struggle. The issue of my lifestyle had been raised. It was his duty to proceed with a disciplinary action. He seemed to have no interest in seeing the issues from my perspective. He avoided answering any questions the answers to which might put the church in bad light. He coined a new basis for discipline, "cohabitation," which is not found in the Church Handbook of Instructions. Did church leaders have a right to take the action against me that they did? Yes, it was their prerogative. However, I resent the fact that they were not more open and honest about it. This question of who initiated the disciplinary action against me was of sufficient concern to me that after my excommunication I wrote to Elder Glenn Pace, a long time acquaintance and asked him two questions. First, "Is it true that you called to advise (my stake president) that I was living an 'alternative' lifestyle with the suggestion that he contact me?" Second, "Why in 1997 did you take the initiative that began the 'disciplinary' process?" Elder Pace responded by letter that he was no longer president of the Northwest Area and did not know I had been excommunicated. He totally ignored the questions I asked. I suspect that he feared I might make his letter public (which I would have). Few things are as troubling to a junior general authority or a church department head as being criticized by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve for a public statement they have made. As a side note, I learned this first hand as a consequence of the most uncomfortable experience I had during my 23 years as a church employee. In 1983 I was assigned by the Public Communications Department to represent the church in an interview with Robert Gottlieb and Peter Wiley as they were doing research for their book, America's Saints. I believed I had said nothing that wasn't either public knowledge or positive from the church's viewpoint. When the book came out I was quoted extensively, and in a few instances inaccurately. In a meeting of several general authorities and senior church employees, President Gordon B. Hinckley, then a counselor in the First Presidency, stated how unfortunate it was that a church employee would cooperate with the "enemies of the church" in the production of such a book. I knew he was speaking of me, as did everyone else in the room. I have never been able to overcome the hurt I felt from the unfairness of President Hinckley's remark. SUBSEQUENT EVENT - KNIGHT INITIATIVE On the heels of my excommunication came the church's entry into California politics in a manner I felt to be inappropriate. This increased my feelings of disappointment with church leadership at the time I was trying to understand my excommunication. The issue was the church's political opposition to same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples who want to marry legally have sued in several states to compel state governments with equal rights clauses in their state constitutions to recognize their right to marry. In California the so-called Knight Initiative is to be referred to the voters in March 2000, which would amend the California constitution to prohibit the state government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in California or in other states. These are usually called a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Previously the LDS Church had made major direct financial contributions to Alaskan and Hawaiian organizations that campaigned to get voters to oppose legalizing same-sex marriages. Now in California, church leaders are mounting a strong campaign to get local members to support the movement to pass a DOMA in the upcoming election by contributing time and funds to a similar political action organization. Rather than having the church make direct contributions as in Alaska and Hawaii, local church leaders, in their capacity as "friends and neighbors" are urging member families to make sizable "private" and "voluntary" contributions directly to a political action committee that supports the initiative. I recognize the church has a right to publicize its views on what it believes a marriage should be. To wage an all out political battle in the state of California, however, can only add to the prejudices of church members toward the gay and lesbian community. This will make it all the more difficult for gays and lesbians to gain church fellowship. It will add to the stress that active LDS families experience when they have gay or lesbian family members. The following is drawn from comments I made at a recent Sunstone Symposium session on this matter (See Exhibit D for full text): I believe that the action the church is taking to support the California Knight Initiative is most unfortunate. Already a breach exists between the church and its gay and lesbian members. The intervention by the church in the California initiative serves to drive the wedge deeper. The gay and lesbian community feels the church is attacking them. They are angry, they are hurt and they are disappointed. And they are reacting. Gay and lesbian groups in Utah and elsewhere have embarked on a major campaign to oppose the actions of the church. They make it clear that it is not the church they are reacting against, for many hold the church to be dear, but it is the leadership of the church who they feel is insensitive and uncaring with respect to gay and lesbian issues. This incident will make it all the more difficult for a satisfactory reconciliation to be effected between the church and its gay and lesbian members. The following is a letter to the editor of the Ogden Standard Examiner (and other newspapers) published on July 18, 1999, which challenges the actions of the church from the perspective of a family with gay or lesbian children: LDS CHURCH UNWITTINGLY CREATING DILEMMA In asking its California members to donate their "means and time" to see that the Knight initiative -- which would outlaw same-sex marriage-passes, the LDS Church is unwittingly creating a dilemma for all its families with gay and lesbian members. LDS family members of gays and lesbians are being placed in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between support for the civil rights of their gay family members or a church policy bent on denying those rights. The church justifies its opposition to same-sex marriage as necessary to protect the sanctity of the family We, too, are interested in maintaining the sanctity of our family, but current church policy makes it difficult. Are our gay children's "straight" siblings really supposed to oppose civil rights for their own brothers and sisters? What are our three sons-in-law supposed to do? Sometimes, the defense of the traditional family comes at the expense of those of us with non-traditional families. Does the integrity of our family and other non-traditional families have to be sacrificed or demeaned in an effort to support the traditional nuclear family? In our view, society would be best served by encouraging gays and lesbians to pursue committed, monogamous relationships. Creating legal obstacles to such relationships will continue to make it difficult for them to form their own family units. It will also continue to negatively impact every family with a loved gay or lesbian member. It seems ironic to us that an institution supporting "the family" would take a public policy position that tears at the very fabric of every family with a gay member and denies the right of this small minority to form their own families. Gary and Millie Watts, Provo, UT Gary and Millie Watts are the parents of two homosexual children. They have sought increased Mormon understanding and acceptance of gay and lesbian members. They have also questioned the Church's efforts to mobilize "time and means" contributions for the California Knight initiative. SECOND SUBSEQUENT EVENT - ENSIGN ARTICLE Have pleas such as the one from Gary and Millie Watts been listened to by church leaders? Apparently not. Rather, the church has moved in exactly the opposite direction by publishing an article in the September, 1999 Ensign entitled, "When a Loved One Struggles with Same-sex Attraction" by A. Dean Byrd. The article refers to homosexuality as a problem and a difficulty. It maintains that homosexual attraction can be diminished but does not provide evidence to support the claim. The article states: Perhaps the most important message you can convey is that there is no struggle for which the Atonement of Jesus Christ is not sufficient. Many individuals who have experienced homosexual difficulties have felt the blessings of the Lord's grace. What does this statement mean? If a family member or friend had told me this, I certainly would not think that it was a declaration of love. The article further encourages family members and friends of homosexuals to "express your own feelings and testimony of change," and to "reiterate the Lord's position that homosexual relations are sinful." Who will be helped by this article? No one. Who will be hurt by it? Every gay and lesbian who wishes fellowship in the church and every family that heeds the article and has a gay or lesbian member. This article will make it increasingly difficult for gays and lesbians to remain in the church. It will increase the strain between many families and their homosexual family members. I recently received a message from a gay friend who had met his mother at a funeral. Rather than saying, "I love you," she instead exclaimed, "Oh! You must read the latest Ensign, dear. There is an article in it just for you!" My friend was devastated by the remark. How tragic that church leaders continue down a course of offering a vain hope of change to homosexuals and their loved ones. How tragic that they give advice that places families in opposition to their gay or lesbian family members. When we experience a major loss in our lives there is a process we must go through to recover from the loss and continue on with our lives. This process usually involves experiencing grief over the loss; feeling anger or resentment toward the cause of the loss; leaving that which was lost behind, emotionally and mentally; and then moving on with our lives. This is a process I have been going through since my November 22, 1998, meeting with President Myron Child when I was first told that a disciplinary action would be held in my behalf. I thought I was mentally and emotionally prepared for the eventuality that I might one day be excommunicated as many of my friends had been. But actually, I wasn't. Many gays and lesbians have resigned their membership in the church either to exit a church that was unfriendly toward them, or to avoid the possibility of some future disciplinary action. I never considered asking that my membership be terminated. I was a Mormon and intended to remain a Mormon as long as it was within my power to do so. The moment President Child told me he was commencing a discipline action, I was at first shocked, "No, it isn't right!" I thought. And then I felt a wave of grief as the realization sunk in that my membership was soon to be taken away, and wrongfully so, I thought. That night I wept as I kept asking myself, "Why is so important to them that I be cut off from the church?" Within a few days my sense of grief turned into resentment at what was being done and at the church policies that were the basis for the action. The resentment sparked a determination to resist the loss of my membership. This motivated me to prepare the arguments against excommunication that I sent to President Child in December. Having done this, I began to hope that good men would listen to reason and everything would turn out right. My hope increased when I saw the disciplining of a friend called off. It increased further when the time passed when I was to have been notified of the date of the disciplinary council. But my hope was dashed when I was called in by President Child a second time on February 21 and was told the disciplinary action would go forward. After the February 21 meeting with President Child I felt many emotions. I felt disappointment; I felt resentment; I felt hostility toward church leaders; but most of all I was angry for what I believed to be an injustice that was about to take place.
Months have passed since the stake president called to report the denial of my appeal. I still treasure my Mormon heritage, and I believe I will always think of myself as a Mormon. Due to my disappointment with church leadership, the church as an organization seems much less important to me than it has in the past. I suspect the Mormon Church will have less influence on my life as time goes on. For the past several months I have been regularly attending a Protestant church services in Portland. I have found it to be a rewarding spiritual experience. This church makes no claim to be the "true" church, but teaches us that we should establish and maintain a personal communion with God and accept of Jesus Christ as our Savior. This is my objective. Will I ever seek to re-enter the Mormon church? I doubt that I will while present attitudes prevail. I am letting go. And now I must move on. I look to the future with excitement and optimism. There is so much to be accomplished. And what about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Will it change its attitudes and policies toward gays and lesbians in time, just as it changed its attitudes and policies toward African Americans. Yes, it will, but not soon enough. End.
EXHIBIT A. LETTER TO DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL FROM ROBERT J. CHRISTENSEN
2932 Bailey Lane
Dear President Child: The Lord works in ways difficult to understand, but His messages still seem at times to come through with great clarity. For several days I have been puzzling over how to testify to Brother Alan Blodgett's good name and exemplary conduct, but I have never felt quite ready. Now I understand why: I have been taught unexpected lessons during the past few days. Saturday night I was reading the Priesthood manual lesson where Brigham Young teaches the members of the Church to develop Christ-like attitudes towards others. I was personally challenged when he counseled us not to judge others unless we know that we have the mind of Christ within us. Two other passages also stood out for their relevance. The first: "It floods my heart with sorrow to see so many Elders of Israel who wish everybody to come to their standard and be measured by their measure. Every man must be just so long, to fit their iron bedstead, or be cut off to the right length; if too short, he must be stretched, to fill the requirement." And the second: "Let us be patient with one another. I do not altogether look at things as you do. My judgment is not in all things like yours, nor yours like mine. When you judge a man or woman, judge the intentions of the heart. It is not by words, particularly, nor by actions, that men will be judged in the great day of the Lord; but, in connection with words and actions, the sentiments and intentions of the heart will be taken, and by these will men be judged. In Sunday morning's Gospel Doctrine class we discussed the parables of Matthew 13. I was especially struck by the parable of the wheat and the tares. I have known the parable for years, but today it spoke to my heart with special force and relevance. Tares were found to be growing with the wheat, and the owner's servants volunteered to go out and weed them out. But the owner was wiser and instructed the servants to leave them be until the harvest. The very busyness of weeding out the tares would likely disturb and pull out the desired wheat along with the undesired tares. Then our Quorum teacher showed us a video of the parable of the Good Samaritan. A priest and a Levite -- the general authorities of the time -- passed by a dying man. It was only the universally despised Samaritan who was filled with compassion and stopped to succor and save the man. The parable suggested to quorum members not that we need be careful in judging others, but that we had best simply not judge others. This unexpected concatenation of themes has suggested to me that, except in the most extreme cases, the judging, the disciplining of others is seldom appropriate and is even less seldom something which Christ himself would approve -- in spite of our fervent prayers to the contrary. Being judgmental, even for the most righteous of causes, is something which I shall be trying to eliminate from my life. Permit me one other preliminary comment: Brother Alan Blodgett has been accused of "reported conduct unbecoming a member of the Church." He was invited to prepare and present a response. But what is there to respond to? The accusation is so general and generic that it is ambiguous and completely vacuous. A meaningful accusation to which a meaningful response might be made requires specifics, a written charge that specifies "who reported what." Only then can a proper response be made. For a leader [or an organization] to take refuge in such ambiguities and vacuous language suggests either a lack of seriousness or a response not to facts of conduct but to rumors, hearsay, gossip -- all conduct that is itself unbecoming a priesthood member who claims to be directing Christ's Church. If I may put the point most strongly, it is easy for those who attempt to tar and feather others to end up by becoming covered with their own tar and feathers, and they -- regardless of however much they might feel their conduct inspired -- can bring the good name of the Church into disrepute. It is their original conduct, not the making of that conduct known, that is the great injustice, the great unbecoming. More important, though, are those things of which Elder Dallin Oaks recently spoke at BYU, the "weightier things" of the Gospel. What might these "weightier things" include? What might the issues be which are at stake in the disciplining of Brother Alan Blodgett? First, Brother Alan Blodgett freely admits to being gay, to being attracted to others of the same sex. This, however, does not imply any kind of explicitly sexual conduct or behavior -- just as being heterosexual does not imply any kind of explicitly sexual conduct or behavior on the part of any members of the Beaverton Stake Presidency or High Council. One of the most orthodox of BYU faculty members commented at the 1998 Affirmation Conference in Portland that he felt strongly attracted to, perhaps even loved, another man, but his comment gives me neither grounds nor the right to infer that he has ever acted on that attraction, that love. There are many aspects to being attracted to another, and sex is only one small facet of that attraction, a facet that seems to become the whole show when we use the misleading term "homosexual." Being attracted to another of the same sex means finding real joy and a sense of completion in the presence, even the mere thought, of the other. This joy and sense of completion provides a context for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, a context which can and does transform sex from lust into love. As to how Brother Blodgett expresses that attraction in his own private life, that is an intimate sphere into which neither I nor another man have the right or obligation to intrude. It is something that this past weekend's scriptural lessons have taught me only our Father in Heaven should opine. As to what "conduct unbecoming a member of the Church" might be, I have been able to think of nothing more inclusive than Joseph Smith's Thirteenth Article of Faith: "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul -- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Alan embodies these many Mormon values as fully as any man I have ever met. I am honored to consider him a friend. He has brought much joy and encouragement into my life. Knowing him has made me a better man, and given me -- perhaps unconsciously on his part -- a greater desire to live a life worthy of Christ. Contrary to the imagined charges brought against him, in his real life and character I have found a quietly great soul and an embodied witness to exactly the kind of conduct which should characterize a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For years he worked at the very center of the Church administration. He was judged worthy to be responsible for some of the most weighty concerns of the Church. But when the day came that he was forced to acknowledge to himself that he had been living a heterosexual lie, he quietly withdrew from the public spotlight to a more private space where he could rebuild a life that fit these newly acknowledged realities while continuing to be guided by the same values that had earlier given his life structure and meaning. Nothing essential has changed; he still remains the deeply moral man he was when he had daily contact with the Prophets and the Apostles of the Lord. He may not love as I would love, nor as you would love, but he loves the way that our Father in Heaven would have him love, with fidelity, honesty, caring. I am unable to understand how a penetrating, insightful person could find such a life, such conduct unbecoming a member of the Church. I commend him to your love and care.
Sincerely, cc: Beaverton Stake Presidency and High Councilmen
EXHIBIT B. STATEMENT TO DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL
Alan Blodgett
President Myron Child and members of this Disciplinary Council, I recognize that homosexuality may be difficult for you to understand and accept. Some of you may find the subject unpleasant to discuss. Because of this, I normally prefer not to discuss my private life with others. On this occasion, however, I feel I must speak out because of tonight's action. You may not agree with the things I say, but please accept that I am sincere in my beliefs. I here answer the following questions:
I have invited no witnesses to attend tonight. Friends have offered to come to speak in my behalf. No doubt they would speak well of me and petition you to allow me to retain my membership in the church. Since their goodwill is unlikely to have a bearing on the council's decision, I have elected to forgo their testimony. How do I feel about this challenge to my church membership? I am saddened. Allow me to quote directly from a letter I sent to my family and friends after receiving President Child's letter advising me of this meeting. "How did I feel when I received the letter? Abandoned by the leaders of the Church. I did not choose to be gay. I have always tried to live a good life and show love and concern for others. Being a Mormon has been important to me. Why is it so important to them that I be cut off from the church? What makes me most sad is my changing attitude toward the Church. At first I was determined to fight excommunication with whatever means I could muster. However, as the days have passed I have begun to wonder why I would want to be part of an organization that doesn't want to have anything to do with me or scores of my friends. The letterhead of the SP's letter states boldly, "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints." I have asked myself, shouldn't an organization that represents itself as the true church of Jesus Christ make room for all who wish to be His disciples? You may think I am rationalizing my situation, and perhaps I am. I do know that I am at peace with my Heavenly Father. I have no doubt He understands and accepts me. I don't understand why I am the way I am, but I have come to accept myself. I have tried to be a good and useful person throughout my life and in most respects I believe I have been successful. I have no fear for my soul. I have expressed to the Stake President and anyone else that I can get to listen how wrong I believe the church to be in its policy toward gays. Gay members need church fellowship as a support throughout their lives-- and equally important--the church needs their talents and contributions. What a tragedy that both sides are denied the blessings that a change in policy would afford. A change came for black members twenty years ago. It will come for gay members also, but it may be a long time in coming." I was born in Ogden, Utah, in 1933, a descendant of pioneer ancestors. In 1947 my family moved to Oregon. I attended BYU and earned two degrees in accounting and business. At the time I became a CPA, I was asked by a counselor in the First Presidency to accept employment with the church to assist with the church's overseas building and education programs. This job resulted in a 23 year career with the church where, in time, I became Managing Director of the Church Financial Department. I left church employment in January 1985, to become a caretaker president of a financially impaired savings and loan. I spent 11 years managing troubled Savings and Loans and as an FDIC employee, working out their resolutions. I retired from my most recent job as controller of a Portland-based company just one week ago. I have been married and have four children and 15 grandchildren. In 1988 it was my wife's choice to end our marriage. I simply could not love her enough, even though I earnestly tried to do so for more than 30 years. Afterwards I moved to Portland where I met Jerry, my partner. We have been together for 11 years. As for being gay, my recollection of same-sex attraction dates back to my early childhood. As early as age 12 I recognized that I was different from other boys. I did not accept a mission call because of this and a feeling my testimony was inadequate. I married expecting I would then have "normal" feelings. It didn't happen. I was never able to lose sight of the fact that under the surface I was still a gay man. I held these feelings in abeyance, however, until the relationship with my wife failed near the end of our marriage. I loved my wife during our marriage and still do. I enjoy a good relationship with my former wife, children and grandchildren. I have been a Mormon all my life and expect that I will always be so. I do not expect that having my name removed from the institutional membership rolls will change my perception of myself as a Mormon. Why am I a Mormon?
|
