Monday, December 5, 2016

Eternal Progression: Change as a Constant

(Artist: Guido Argentini)

Philosophers, both ancient and modern, have contemplated the meaning of our existence. If heaven is perfection then what joy is there to be found in perfection? Do we ever stop growing and stop changing? Is there any meaning in the absence of opposition?

Mormonism’s unique doctrine addresses this dilemma with eternal progression. The principle of eternal progression cannot be fully comprehended, yet is at the basis of our Mormon theology. It first arises in discourses of Brigham Young, but is predicated upon the teachings of Joseph Smith.

As stated in the King Follett Discourse, “God was once as we are now, and is exalted, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret […] Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, the same as all gods have done before you.” [1]

Eternal progression inspires me as one of the most profoundly beautiful and unique aspects of our Mormon doctrine. Life is not static, we are constantly evolving and changing, and I do not see how eternal life could be static when there is endless potential within humanity. Eternal progression motivates us toward greater goals in an ongoing process of becoming—a process that God continues to undergo as well.

In a recent Dialogue article, Jacob Baker summarizes, “Meaning within the ever-expanding structure of eternal progression, is performative, not ultimately objective. Eternal progression is the exhalation of the ordinary man or woman, not defined and labeled according to his or her vocation or the ‘objects’ of his or her possession, but given meaning and purpose through capacity to act. Hence, human beings, like God, have the potential for radical ontological transcendence, not simply in transcending the world as immortals but also in transcending the self as gods.” [2]

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “The Church does not understand [God’s omnipotence] in the traditional sense of absoluteness, and, on the authority of modern revelation, rejects the classical doctrine of creation out of nothing. It affirms, rather, that there are actualities that are coeternal with the persons of the Godhead, including elements, intelligence, and law. Omnipotence, therefore, cannot coherently be understood as absolutely unlimited power. That view is internally self-contradictory, and given the fact that evil and suffering are real, not reconcilable with God's omnibenevolence.” [3]

This also suggests that even God's omniscience is not absolute. If God had a perfect knowledge of all things, God could not progress eternally. Likewise, if God had knowledge of all things then all meaning would cease as well. Mormons reject this logical defect with eternal progression. If God became God through eternal progression, God too is eternally changing. As Brigham Young stated, "There is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary—they must increase or decrease." [4] It appears that God’s omnipotence and omniscience are best understood as an endless development.

The potential of humanity to become God was also encouraged by Lorenzo Snow who taught that we are as God once was, and God is what we may become. [5] Ceaseless progression is not only illustrated in our temple ceremonies, but also taught by the current apostleship.

Elder Holland recently stated, “We’re the church that says we’re Gods and Goddesses in embryo. We’re the church that says we’re kings and queens. We’re priests and priestesses. People accuse us of heresy. They say we’re absolutely heretical, non-Christians because we happen to believe what all the prophets taught and that is that we’re children of God, joint heirs with Christ. We just happen to take the scriptures literally that kids grow up to be like their parents. But how does that happen? How does godliness happen? Do we just pop up? Are we just going to pop up out of the grave? Hallelujah, it’s resurrection morning! Give me a universe or two. Bring me some worlds to run! I don’t think so. That doesn’t sound like line upon line or precept upon precept to me. How do you become Godly? You do Godly things. That’s how you become Godly. And you practice and you practice and you practice.” [6]

This is eternal progression, “All human beings are children of loving Heavenly Parents and possess seeds of divinity within them.” [7] But we are not to become just any Gods, but rather Gods exemplified by Jesus. Ephesians states we are to become Christ, "In love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ." [8]

This also gives us a few clues into the nature of God. Elder Holland says we are “gods and goddesses in embryo” and “priests and priestesses.” This is a direct reference to our godly potential as Heavenly Parents, especially our Heavenly Mother [9] who is often neglected from the conversation.

In Genesis we are symbiotically created in the image of God, both male and female, which denotes that God is both male and female. [10] Elder Erastus Snow stated, “If I believe anything God has ever said about himself […] I must believe that deity consists of man and woman." [11] In Second Nephi we read that God denieth none, black and white, male and female, all are alike unto God. [12] Note the scripture does not state we are alike unto each other as a homogenous group, but rather in all our diversity all are alike unto God. [13] Continuing along the logic of Mormon scripture, it is also clear that Mormons are polytheistic. [14] [15]

Now that we have established we are all children of God and are all endowed with godly potential, how do we get there? What does eternal progression look like? “Latter-day Saints […] constantly seek personal and righteous improvement not only by establishing Zion in this world, but by anticipating the continuation of progression eternally." [16]

We have already begun this process in faith and humility. Faith in this context forsakes its escapist nature and becomes a powerful motivator required to even undertake such a monumental task. Elder Oaks counseled that we do not have “sufficient spiritual maturity to comprehend God." [17] This profoundly beautiful sentiment requires us to have enough humility to admit what we don’t know about God, but have faith that we can come to know what we currently do not. If we could truly comprehend all the glories and mysteries of God, we would cease to be human and be one in God.

There are some secularists that claim faith is dead, and the world could be explained by science alone without a need for trust and faith. I believe otherwise. Faith, when practiced thoughtfully, is essential to our growth and progression. Discoveries are made in the spirit of faith. Without faith, hope or trust humanity would sooner wallow in nihilism.

As every Mormon knows, faith without works is dead. [18] We show our faith through our actions and manifestations. This is how we express our inner most desires and values. It’s how we truly progress. According to Elder Holland, in order to become godly “we do godly things.” One way we might become Godly is through an increase of “light and knowledge," [19] and the radical expansion of our intellectual capacities. "Knowledge is essential to our understanding of the purpose of mortal life and of our eternal destiny as resurrected beings after mortal life." [20]

Genesis supports the evolutionary sentiment of enhanced knowledge. When Adam partakes of the fruit in the Garden of Eden “The LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”[21] This scripture supports the plurality of God and the notion that increased knowledge is essential to our eternal progression. "Similarly, knowledge of the mysteries of God also comes through personal revelation […] Knowledge is understood to be an active, motivating force rather than simply a passive awareness, or collection of facts." [22] It appears that the more intelligence a person develops the more Godly that person becomes. Elder John Widtsoe suggests that humans are superior to beasts because our material organization permits greater capacity for intelligence. Under the laws of evolution our material organization will become more complex and Godly. Conversely, God being a superior intelligence to us was once a simpler intelligence. [23]

It is also prophesied that during the millennium, knowledge will greatly increase, for the Lord will reveal all things and answer questions which have perplexed humanity concerning our origins [24] and that God will reveal all things. [25] We are to “ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” [26] Note this requires action on our part. Increased knowledge is not a product of a mystical transformation or idleness, but rather thoughtful inquiry followed by action. Keep in mind, the Sacred Grove wasn’t sacred until a 15-year-old boy dared to ask a question.

A revelation cannot be meaningfully received unless we are open to that revelation. Nor is there any indication that God is willing to override human agency and compel us into transcending our human fragilities. “It is not up to God to right our moral wrongs, to fix our injustices, and correct our oppressions.” [27] The Book of Mormon states, “do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?” [28] [29]

If we are to seek after further light and knowledge, what kind of cognitive enhancements or amplifications are currently increasing our intellectual capacity? The human species has engaged in cognitive evolution and development for centuries in many diverse forms. For example, formalized education systems, general health improvements, mental training exercises, supplements, medical drugs, and mental health care, are but a few examples. Having entered the technological era, we have increased our ability to consume information at a faster rate via human-computer interaction and increased access to information via the internet. In the future we may use even more sophisticated technologies to enhance our mental capacities and functions, like genetic modifications, prenatal enhancements, brain-computer interfaces, and collective intelligence.[30]

The enhancement of our minds and mental abilities are also directly linked to our bodily enhancements. The human body is constantly in a state of change where the majority of our cells are dying and regenerating perpetually. Some cells in our bodies change minute by minute while other cells are much slower to change or are perhaps incapable of regenerating without assistance. Medical technologies that enable our bodies to function beyond their expiration date continue to bring life, joy, and hope to people across the globe. Further development of these technologies may enable us to live longer, healthier lives. Current life expectancies are generally higher than they have ever been. Perhaps future technologies could enable us to live to the “age of a tree” as prophesied in Doctrine and Covenants.[31] For reference, the Bristlecone Pine and Patagonian Cypress live for roughly 3,000-5,000 years. [32]

Our bodies are constantly regenerating a continuous pattern of information that sustains the life of every being on the planet. If we look at our bodies like an organic machine it may even be possible to maintain our bodies indefinitely. The scriptures call this eternal life. After all, if God is God there is a wealth of knowledge and advancements we have yet to discover, but are encouraged to actively seek after.

Under eternal progression, or process theology, many Mormon thinkers have found that God influences and is influenced by temporal changes. In this way the future is open and allows us to act as free agents. “While it may be possible that God understands and can ‘see’ all logical possibilities, those potentialities are realized only in some actual futures. Furthermore, those futures’ realizations depend on the action of free agents.” [33] In other words, we are coeternal with God, [34] [35] we are encouraged to become Gods, and God has promised not to interfere with our agency. [36] Think of it as theistic Darwinism.

All things are constantly changing. “It either becomes more complex or more simple; it moves forward or backward; it grows or decays […] this is the greatest known fundamental law of the universe, and all things in it—that nothing stands still, but either progresses or retrogrades. Now, it has been found that under normal conditions all things undergo a process of evolution; that is to become more complex or advance.” [37] If we suppose that God is more evolved than ourselves, then evolution would result in a more diverse God, not less. Overall, evolution generally favors increased complexity over long periods of time. In this theistic Darwinian model, it seems the further a lifeform evolves into a greater state of knowledge, consciousness, and awareness, the more godlike that lifeform becomes.

Is there a limit to the changes matter will undergo? Is there a limit to the transcendence of humanity? According to eternal progression, the answer is firmly “no.” Process theology allows for limitless potential. There can be no defined beginning or end.

Evolution and eternal progression are often interchangeable in Mormon theology. The teachings of modern and ancient prophets, Mormon theology, Mormon cosmology, and Mormon philosophy mandate the definition of God as a superior intelligence evolved from a lower condition. There can be no logical objection to the idea that there are many gods, and worlds without end. [38] “Mormon tradition teaches that the eternities consist of innumerable heavens of types and degrees toward which our world may advance. These heavens are inhabited by a plurality of gods whom we may join.” [39] In this regard, the Mormon idea of God is quite radical, yet quite reasonable.

As our minds and bodies change, so will humanity as a whole. Eternal progression in this sense seeks to build Zion. Think of Zion as a community of radically compassionate, intelligent, and creative beings. Beings so far evolved from us that they would warrant a new term: posthuman. “Posthuman beings would no longer suffer from disease, aging, and inevitable death. They would have vastly greater physical capability and freedom of form—often referred to as ‘morphological freedom.’” [40]

We are collectively changing and adapting in our interactions, social and political structures, and religions. Statistical trends indicate humanity is adapting toward compassionate and productive trajectories—worldwide there is a decline in slavery, rape, war, child abuse, infanticide, animal cruelty, world hunger, and homophobic violence. Simultaneously there is an increase in women’s rights, civil rights, access to education, and medical technologies. [41] Zion wasn’t built in a day, but I remain hopeful that our efforts are not in vain. Eternity is now.

Mormonism is a relatively new religion that continues to evolve and change upon further revelation in an ongoing process of restoration. In fact, it is arguable that Mormonism’s uniqueness of continuing revelation makes it an evolutionary religion, at least more so than other forms of Christianity.

Mormon cosmology is unique in that it provides room for evolution of the human race as a constantly growing species that is capable of transcending the entire human experience [42]—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of all humankind. [43] In First Corinthians, we are invited to become a part of the body of Christ [44] and participate in this work—to heal, console, comfort, and radically improve the human experience. [45] Our faith without works is dead and as Joseph Smith said, “you have got to learn to be gods yourselves.” [46]

Perhaps humanity is destined for a cognitive revolution that would enable our transcendence. The technological revolution has presented us with unique opportunities. Technologies both simple and sophisticated are rapidly changing the human condition. Everything from eye glasses, pacemakers, orthodontics, prosthetics, medications, vaccinations, vehicles, computers, tablets, and smartphones have already drastically changed the lives of millions of people. “Mapping the first human genome required fifteen years and $3 billion. Today you can map a person’s DNA within a few weeks and at the cost of a few hundred dollars.” [47] We are on our way to become superhuman. Imagine what future technologies could enable humanity to accomplish. Perhaps the future is glittered with medications designed for your specific DNA, genetic engineering that could wipe out hereditary diseases, cognitive treatments to cure mental illness, or nanotechnology that could perpetually repair your body without invasive procedures. It’s true the possibilities are limitless and likely incomprehensible, and while risks are many and should be mitigated, I have faith the future is bright.

While these ideas and possibilities seem overwhelming, I am encouraged by the words found in Second Nephi 28:30, “Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto [them] that receiveth I will give more.” [48] Though the task at hand seems insurmountable, we must move forward with practical faith in our works. To live is to be in a constant state of change and growth. As we increase in knowledge, complexity, intelligence, and compassion the more Godly we will become.

While our church and its membership are flawed, I still believe in our collective atonement and redemption as exemplified by Jesus. There’s a lot of work to be done, but I remain hopeful that in the end goodness, compassion, and love will guide our eternal progression.




Notes and Citations


*Presented at Sunstone Northwest Symposium on Saturday, November 19, 2016 in Seattle, WA

[1] Joseph Smith, Jr., “The King Follett Discourse,” General Conference Meeting (Nauvoo: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 7, 1844).

[2] Jacob Baker, “’The Grandest Principle of the Gospel’: Christian Nihilism, Sanctified Activism, and Eternal Progression,” Dialogue (Vol. 41, No.3): 71.

[3] David L. Paulsen, “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Omnipotent God; Omnipresence of God; Omniscience of God,” (1992), accessed November 6, 2016, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Omnipotent_God%3B_Omnipresence_of_God%3B_Omniscience_of_God.

[4] Brigham Young, “Life and Death, or Organization and Disorganization,” July 10, 1853, Journal of Discourses, 1:350.

[5] Eliza R. Snow, “Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow,” (1884), 46. “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”

[6] Jeffrey Holland, Remarks given at Tempe Arizona Stake Center, April 26, 2016. 

[7] LDS Gospel Topics, s.v. “Becoming Like God,” accessed October 20, 2016, https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god.

[8] Ephesians 4:15 NIV. “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”

[9] LDS Gospel Topics, s.v. “Mother in Heaven,” accessed October 28, 2016, https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven.

[10] Genesis 1:27 KJV. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

[11] David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven,” BYU Studies 50, 1 (2011): 79.

[12] Nephi 26:33. “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

[13] Blaire Ostler, “Diversity of God,” The Journal of a Mormon Feminist Transhumanist, accessed November 13, 2016, http://blaireostler.blogspot.com/2016/05/diversity-of-god.html.

[14] Truman Madsen, “150-Year-Old Debate: Are Mormons ‘Really Christians?,’” San Francisco Chronicle, April 8, 1996. “People tell us, ‘You don’t believe in one God: you believe in three Gods.’ And the answer is ‘Yes, we do.’ If that’s polytheism, then we are polytheists.” 

[15] Richard Abanes, “Becoming Gods,” (Eugene: Harvest House, 2004): 112. “Based on these definitions, Mormons are polytheists. Their recognition of other Gods, coupled with their admitted worship of more Gods than one, makes any alternate classification unjust.”

[16] Lisa Ramsey Adams, “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Eternal Progression,” (1992), accessed November 6, 2016, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression.

[17] Dallin Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” LDS General Conference (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 1995).

[18] James 2:14-20 KJV. “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”

[19] Doctrine & Covenants 50:24. “That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.”

[20] Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration.”

[21] Genesis 3:22 KJV. “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

[22] Richard Williams, “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Knowledge,” (1992), accessed November 6, 2016, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Knowledge.

[23] John Widtsoe, “Joseph Smith as Scientist,” (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964): 137.

[24] Roy Doxey, “The Doctrine and Covenants and the Future,” (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1957): 64.

[25] Doctrine and Covenants 101:32. “Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—“

[26] Matthew 7:7 KJV. “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:”

[27] Catherine Keller, “Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming,” (New York: Routledge, 2003): 140. 

[28] Alma 60:11. “Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain.”

[29] Alma 60:21. “Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?”

[30] Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg, “Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges,” (Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2009).

[31] Doctrine and Covenants 101:30. “In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree;”

[32] List of oldest trees, Wikipedia, accessed November 5, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees.

[33] Steven Peck, “Evolving Faith: Wanderings of a Mormon Biologist,” (Provo: Maxwell Institute, 2015): 53. “Taking from process theology, the theological possibilities of temporal theism have received a friendly reception among many Mormon thinks. In this view God has a core identity that makes him God but influences, and is influenced by temporal changes. In addition, the future is open. While it may be possible that God understands and can ‘see’ all logical possibilities, those potentialities are relied only in some actual futures. Furthermore, those futures’ realizations depend on the actions of free agents […] this viewpoint seems most open to theistic Darwinism by providing an opening for God to be part of the unfolding universe.”

[34] Gayle Oblad Brown, “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Premortal Life,” (1992), accessed November 4, 2016, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Premortal_Life. “There is indeed indication that the intelligence dwelling in each person is coeternal with God. It always existed and never was created or made.”

[35] Doctrine and Covenants 93:29. “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”

[36] Moses 4:3. “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;”

[37] John Widtsoe, “Joseph Smith as Scientist,” 104-5.

[38] Ibid., 138.

[39] Richard Bushman and Scott Howe, “Parallels and Convergences: Mormon Thought and Engineering Vision,” (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012): 82.

[40] Max More and Natasha Vita-More, “The Transhumanist Reader,” (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013): 4.

[41] Steven Pinker, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” (New York: Viking, 2011).

[42] Mormon Cosmology, Wikipedia, accessed November 5, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology. “In Mormonism, the concept of divinity centers around an idea of ‘exaltation’ and ‘eternal progression’: mortals themselves may become Gods and Goddesses in the afterlife, be rulers of their own heavenly kingdoms, have spirit children, and increase in power and glory forever.”

[43] Moses 1:39. “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

[44] 1 Corinthians 12:27 KJV. “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

[45] Lincoln Cannon, “Practicing Atonement,” Lincoln Cannon, accessed November 10, 2016, http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2009/04/practicing-atonement.aspx.

[46] Smith, Jr., “The King Follett Discourse.”

[47] Yuval Noah Harari, “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind,” (New York: Harper, 2015): 409.

[48] 2 Nephi 28:30. “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.”

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Love and Change


It was early Sunday morning when Drew gently called from the bathroom, “Good morning, beautiful. It’s time to get up. We can’t be late for church.” He was already awake, showered, and dressed before I even opened my eyes.

Still lying in bed, I opened my eyes and replied, “Or you could come back to bed and we could have our own spiritual experience.”

He paused ever so briefly, weighing his options before abruptly blurting out, “With God as my witness, we are going to be on time to church! Get your beautiful ass out of bed and get dressed.”

We exchanged smiles as I begrudgingly got out of bed. Drew walked over to the closet and pulled out a necktie, “I think I’ll wear my purple tie with my rainbow button to church today. That way I can support the ordination of women and the LGBTQ+ community.”

Sometimes I have to pinch myself after he says things like that. If you would have told me ten years ago my husband would be supporting the ordination of women and the queer community, I wouldn’t have believed you. Not my husband.

As I watched him pin his button onto his jacket, my mind recalled an unpleasant memory.

It was 2008. Prop 8 was all over the news. Drew and I had been arguing for years about homosexuality, we didn’t need to be reminded of our blatant disagreement every time the news came on, but there it was. Again.

Drew commented while staring at the screen, “They want to get married now. Soon they’ll want to be teaching it in schools.”

I routinely said, “There’s nothing wrong with being gay.”

He countered, “Did you read Elder Oaks’ conference talk on homosexuality I sent you?”

I flatly replied, “Yes.”

He continued, “Blaire, the prophet has spoken about this. You need to get a testimony for yourself. Being gay is wrong.”

I replied, “The prophet is wrong. They aren’t much different from me.”

Drew scoffed, “You’re nothing like them. You may be attracted to women, but you’re not one of them.”

I interjected, “I’m everything like them! How can you separate them from me? How can you accept me and not them?”

He responded, “Jeez, why are you so upset? You’re overreacting.”

I couldn’t continue. We had fought too many fights. I couldn’t handle another, “Drew, I don’t want to fight anymore. I have read all the books and conference talks you have asked me to read. We’ve said all that can be said, and neither one of us has changed.”

He continued, “But Blaire—”

I cut him off, “Drop it! I can’t even look at your face!” I exhaled, trying to regain my composure. I continued softly and brokenly, “I really don’t want to fight anymore. I hurts too much.”

Seeing my frustration, he gently put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Okay. I’ll drop it.”

Not another word was spoken. We both knew our marriage wouldn’t survive it.

Years went by with little conversation about homosexuality. It came up here and there. We casually discussed it from time to time, but we stopped aggressively trying to convert each other. Forcibly trying to change the other person only led to more heartache. Instead, we focused on loving each other.

Somewhere along the way, something changed. I don’t know exactly why or how it happened. You’d have to ask Drew for the details, which I’m sure are many. But slowly over the years, something gradually changed.

More time passed. It was an average day of housework until my phone rang. I picked up, “Hey, honey. How’s work going? I was just thinking about you.”

Drew spoke slowly and quietly, “Blaire, do you realize you’re bisexual?”

I awkwardly agreed, “Yes. I know I’m bisexual.”

He continued, “Yes, but YOU are bisexual.”

I laughed. It was as if every conversation we had over the last decade merged into a single moment of clarity for him. I didn’t know how to respond. I had been bisexual our entire marriage, but hearing him accept the label somehow made it real.

Smiling, I said the only thing I could say, “I know I’m bisexual. What took you so long?”

Drew answered with such sincerity, “I couldn’t . . . I didn’t . . . I’m sorry. You’re a beautiful, wonderful, bisexual woman, and there’s nothing wrong with you. I love you.”

I smiled and replied, “I’ve waited a long time to hear you say that.”

He continued with remorse in his tone, “Why did you stay married to me? All the things I’ve said to you. After all these years, why?”

I paused, holding back the tears, “Loving you seemed more important than agreeing with you.”

The memories faded as I stood next to Drew watching him put on his purple tie for church. I didn’t need to pinch myself. The moment was real. I commented, “ It’s still weird to hear you say things like that.”

He replied, “Say things like what?”

I continued, “Your support for the queer community. I didn’t think I would ever hear these things from you, but here you are with your purple tie and rainbow button.”

He smiled, “Thanks for waiting for me.”

Hearts change. People change. Beliefs change. Change is sometimes subtle, laborious or slow, but part of enabling change means loving people enough to let it happen on their terms. Sometimes you love them enough to stay. Sometimes you love them enough to let them go. Sometimes you love them enough to listen instead of speak. Sometimes you love them enough you put their desires before your own. Sometimes you love them so much it hurts. Your love doesn’t guarantee the people you love will change in the ways you want them to, but I do believe love is the only way forward.

*Published at Rational Faiths on Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Disappear

(Artist: Hana Al-Sayed)

This is not an expression of happiness or hope. This is an expression of the complete sadness and helplessness I felt while sitting in the pews last Sunday.

A lovely woman in the ward sang a musical number, “The Family is of God.” As I listened to the lyrics, I felt my eyes well up with tears before the first verse was over. Surely onlookers would have perceived my emotional state as an expression of the spirit, but it wasn’t.

The woman sang:

Our Father has a family. It’s me!
It’s you, all others too: we are His children.
He sent each one of us to earth, through birth,
To live and learn here in fam’lies.

It’s such a wonderful idea with such a contradictory message. If families include “all others too,” where is my Mother? Does Her existence mean so little? Are Her contributions unworthy of recognition? Are we not part of Her family? Are we not Her children? Is She bound to a soul which is so dominate that He’s oppressive?

If it is my highest degree of glory to become Heavenly Mother, then my gender has eternally damned me to an existence where my children are discouraged from communing with me. I would watch them grow from a distance while my daughters would wonder aimlessly, or project themselves in a male paradigm that thwarts their priesthood participation. My destiny would be to bind myself to a male where my purpose would be to uphold His glory and power, while our children sing praises of His love, grace, and power. I might be mentioned in an occasional footnote or two, but it doesn’t really matter. This song is the gut-wrenching reminder that the purpose of my eternal existence is to disappear—to live a mortal life, create eternal life, and disappear.

If this is an accurate projection of Heavenly Father’s family, becoming Heavenly Mother would be a truly horrifying fate.

This is not an appeal to literalistic interpretations, but rather a call to question what narratives we are teaching our congregations about the worth and value of a woman’s existence.

It hurts to listen to the same excuses over and over: “We don’t speak of Her out of respect,” or “It’s for Her protection.” Neglect is not respect. There is absolutely no doctrinal foundation for such a useless claim. She is a GODDESS. She doesn’t need protection from our meager human existence. Unless we believe She is so weak She can’t handle Her own children. If so, are we really so prideful to believe we could injure Her in Her status of Godhood? That sounds like hubris.

Whether or not we want to admit it, the Gods we worship are made in our image, or rather reflections of ourselves, our religions, and societies. Her absence is my absence. We are symbiotically connected with Her and our Gods. Her absence is just a symptom of the circular patriarchal logic that dictates the majority of world religions. We worship a male God that is written about in male-dominated texts, and those texts are interpreted by the male clergy. No wonder God is male; women weren’t a part of the discussion. We’re set on a winding staircase of circular madness that leads to the same destination every time then question, “Why don’t we know more about Heavenly Mother?” It’s insanity.

This is nothing new. Women have been yearning for a divine role model long before my existence. Mormon Feminists have been crying out for their Mother since the beginning, starting with Eliza R. Snow. Yet here we are—hashing out the same old dialogue over and over and over in digital spaces searching for someone who is willing to listen to the souls crying out for their Mother.

The message I received on Sunday was, “Blaire, your existence doesn’t matter here. If your church is true, fiction, or somewhere in between, it doesn’t really matter. Your place in this world and the next, in reality or fantasy, is unworthy of equitable participation or recognition. You can love with all your heart, study with all your mind, work with all your might, but your place in the Heavenly Eternal Family is not even worth being mentioned in a primary song. Your trajectory is to fade into the background and disappear.”

You’d think after so many years of this nonsense it would stop hurting so much, but it doesn’t. It still hurts. EVERY. SINGLE. SUNDAY. We deserve a better message.

*Published at Feminist Mormon Housewives on Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Friday, October 21, 2016

A Feminist’s Defense of Polygamy

(Artist: Soraya Hamzavi-Luyeh)

I am a Mormon feminist and I support polygamy.

Before you get out your torches and pitchforks, hear me out. We may have more in common than you think.

While I don’t recoil at having another spouse or my husband having another spouse, I do recoil at mandated polygamy as a requirement for the highest degree of celestial glory. I recoil at authoritarianism, patriarchy, and androcentrism, which are often associated with polygamy. I recoil at any marital or sexual practice imposed on consenting adults in exchange for selective salvation; including but not limited to monogamy, polygamy, or heteronormativity.

First, let’s start with accurate definitions. Polyandry is when one person is married to multiple men. Polygyny is when one person is married to multiple women. Polygamy or plural marriage is any combination of polyandry and polygyny. Monogamy is one sexual or marital partner. More commonly practiced is serial monogamy—one monogamous partner at a time. Arguably, serial monogamy is a form of polygamy, especially among Mormons who believe in eternal sealings and everlasting relationships. These serial monogamous sealings are reserved generally for men. Granted there are some minor exceptions for dead women, which is hardly a consolation for living women.

There is nothing inherently misogynistic or oppressive about the definition of polygamy. Polygamy is an alternative lifestyle to monogamy, yet it is still perceived as an oppressive practice for women. This is reasonable when polygamy has predominately been patriarchal with restrictions placed on women’s desires and participation. It makes sense why people would reject polygamy when they conflate the definition of polygamy with polygyny, cite historical examples of oppressive behaviors and reference current inequitable heteronormative sealing practices. However, by conflating the definition of polygamy with polygyny you are contributing to patriarchal oppression by neglecting polyandry as an equitable part of the definition of polygamy. Sadly, I’ve observed both progressive and conservative Mormons do this, which makes it even more difficult to divorce the notion of plural spouses from fanaticism, male dominance, and religious cults.

Early Mormon polygamy was exceptionally complicated and steeped in authoritarianism, sexism, racism, superstition, and coercion. I agree with many critiques of early Mormon polygamy involving underage participants, violence, castration, manipulation, rape, and deceit. Early Mormon polygamy hurt many people. However, I can list many mistakes and abuses in monogamous marriages of the 19th century, but that doesn’t make monogamy inherently wrong. This is not an apologetic appeal to justify wrongful behaviors. I simply seek to isolate the oppressive behaviors from the marital practice.

I descend from a polygamous heritage. Mormon polygamy is literally in my DNA. My foremothers and forefathers were polygamous—mortally and post-mortally. I am sealed to Joseph Smith via my polygamous foremother. My existence (and the existence of my husband and our children) is the product of an interconnected polygamous family. I will not denounce polygamy or my polygamous heritage which has made my existence possible. 

Frankly, it would be about as nonsensical to ask Mormons to denounce a polygamous parent as it would be to ask Mormons to denounce a homosexual parent. That is not an appeal to conflate the legalization of polygamy with the legalization of gay marriage. There are some significant similarities and differences in overcoming social and practical obstacles. However, it is possible for a person to respect a homosexual marriage and family, while still not desiring it for themselves. I know many people have strong repulsions toward polygamy and I respect a person’s right to reject it for themselves. I would also hope in return people would not callously reject a person’s desire to practice polygamy.

Perhaps polygamy was essential to the uniqueness of Mormonism that solidified relationships among the early Saints. They were a very queer and peculiar people. Mormonism, as a social group, thrived under the “Us versus Them” narrative perpetuated by the US government. Even early Mormon Feminists were supportive of the legalization of polygamy. Clearly, there was something very real, almost tangible, which resulted in the practice of plural marriage. I don't know if the Church would have survived without polygamy, not for procreative purposes but for social purposes. I haven't any idea what Mormonism would look like without polygamy. There's no aspect of the LDS Church that hasn't been influenced by the practice of polygamy. Denouncing polygamy is practically tantamount to denouncing the entire religion. It's that fundamental to our foundation.

Abstractly, the concept of multiple sealings (even the whole of humanity) as an interconnected community is deeply inspiring to me. To reduce plural sealings to a meager sexual relationship would be a sore disservice to the richness of our Mormon theology, even if there are clear examples of primitive lustful desires influencing early Mormon polygamy. Plural marriage, at its core, is the idea that we are capable of radically loving more than one person, perhaps even every being on the planet. This may or may not include a sexual relationship, and this notion should respect the consent of all participants. I find the hetero-patriarchal control over the practice of multiple sealings frustrating, because it puts limitations on the rituals I participate in that are gestures of my love and commitment toward other human beings, my religion, and ultimately God. These limitations on sealings seem nonsensical and counterintuitive to Mormonism’s ultimate trajectory—the transcendence of all humanity.

Sadly, current LDS sealing practices still support a patriarchal approach to plural marriage. They pose inequitable opportunities for men and women when each is given different expectations and limitations. Even though LDS temple sealings are patriarchal and androcentric, temple practices and policies have dramatically changed over the years. I trust policies will continue to evolve to include the equitable participation of women. However, to advocate for the complete removal of polygamy in the name of feminism to then only mandate monogamy is simply replacing one potentially oppressive mandate for another. The feminist stance on sexual and marital practices should value individual agency while also working towards a safe environment where participants' desires and values are respected, whether they are polygamous or monogamous.

Any depictions of the Celestial Kingdom that mandate such oppressive marital requirements for salvation and glory is not worthy of our aspirations. Doctrine and Covenants 88:18-20 prophesies that the earth may be prepared for celestial glory. The Celestial Kingdom is prophesied to be right here if we choose to cultivate such a godly community which respects diverse desires, but also serves to unify the whole of humanity in one eternal family in its diversity.

Imagine a civilization that is so radically compassionate and advanced they have transcended traditional notions of the human condition. At that point our species would warrant a new term, posthuman. This celestial civilization would be indistinguishable from God. Mormonism teaches that we have the potential to not only live with God again, but also to become Gods ourselves. Mormons prophesy of a very material and communal transcendence of humanity. We are taught to collectively build Zion, which includes a posthuman civilization of radically compassionate and creative beings, or Gods. The intimacy a couple may experience in a marital or sexual relationship would be dwarfed in comparison to the intimacy we experience with God. The concept of plural spouses would be almost insignificant to the type of intimacy we would experience as a posthuman civilization.

Any posthuman civilization worth building would welcome and respect diverse families and relationships, because at that point we would be one eternally interconnected family. We are obviously not at this hypothetical celestial state of being, but we should still build Zion now. Our primary concern with building celestial families should not be whether they are polygamous, monogamous, polyamorous, interracial, homosexual, or heterosexual, but rather that love, respect, and compassion are at the center of consenting relationships.

I am a Mormon Feminist and I support polygamy.

*Published at Rational Faiths on Friday, October 21, 2016

Sunday, October 16, 2016

The Priestess


In the beginning was the Word,
and She was God.
She breathed, “Let there be light”,
and shattered absence
with conception.
All was born.
She looked upon the earth,
teeming with a network of life.
And it was good.

She, God the Mother,
evolved woman from a lesser specimen,
And shared Her priestesshood with Eve,
The Mother of All Living.
Eve chose the fruit of
knowledge and intelligence,
protected under providence.
The children of God were born when
she disobeyed the laws of Eden.
And it was good.

Eve’s daughters grew as
authorized agents,
keeper of keys,
temples of life,
attributed to God, Herself,
to enable all goodness and flourishing.
Her daughters acted in Her name,
creating life,
each a member of a greater whole.
And it was good.

My female body swollen
with Her priestesshood,
as it was with Mother Eve.
Infinite life within my womb,
pregnant with exponential love,
overflowing with sentience,
I felt my own daughter in motion.
And it was good.

My daughter was born.
In her first breath,
she wailed for the Mother,
“I am lost. Thirsty and suffocating.
Where is She?”
Placing my breast in her mouth,
I whispered to my daughter,
“The Mother is here,
as plain as air.
She surrounds you.
Claim your birthright and
breathe Her in.
You are not lost.”
And it was good.

If a woman does not comprehend
the character of God,
she does not comprehend herself.
The Mother awaits
Her daughters to claim their priestesshood,
to act in the name of the Creator,
to summon the sacrament of life.
It was passed from mother to daughter,
beginning with the Word.

And it was good.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Quite Meaningful


When my husband and I lived in Florida I was sad. Not just kind of sad, but very, very sad.  A kind woman in our ward described me as, “Sister Ostler? Oh yes, she’s that lovely, sad girl who always sits in the back of the room.”

I laughed when I heard her description. I suppose I wasn’t very good at hiding my sadness. Most meetings I sat in the back of the room fighting the uncontrollable sobs that were constantly threatening to expose me—my sadness.

The truth is, even when I’m happy, I’m still quite sad. It seems we live in a culture that perceives a person’s happiness is the ultimate achievement or measuring standard: “Are you happy?”, “Does he make you happy?”, “Are you happy at church?”, “Does your work make you happy?”, “Aren’t you happy being a mother?” and so on.

No, my husband doesn’t always make me happy, but I find our relationship quite meaningful. No, the constant demands of my children usually don’t produce happiness, but I find motherhood quite meaningful. No, advocating on behalf of the oppressed and abused is not something that makes me happy, but I find my work quite meaningful. No, my church doesn’t make me happy all the time, but I find communal worship quite meaningful.  And no, my life isn’t always happy, but I find my life quite meaningful.

The truth is, even when I’m sad, I’m still quite happy. While sadness may seem undesirable it is the product of my love. I love quite deeply, and equal to the depth of my love is my sadness. I find the symbiotic relationship of love and sadness quite beautiful, because it is meaningful. So I’m perfectly happy being sad.