In Armand Mauss’ memoir, Shifting Borders and a Tattered Passport, he describes his frustration of holding a “Mormon passport” in the intellectual world because he was mistrusted and not seen as a true intellectual (how could someone intelligent fall for that cult, right?). Yet when he was in his home Mormon land he was viewed with suspicion because of the “intellectual” stamps in his “Mormon passport.” Bro. Mauss explains he was able to stay a faithful member of the church as a Mormon intellectual precisely because he maintained loyal citizenship to his home country, although he often left and visited other land.
I remembered Bro. Mauss’ analogy yesterday when I heard Elder Bednar’s saying there are “no homosexual members of the Church.” I really liked Andrew’s response yesterday… and I wonder if this idea of passports not only plays into Bednar’s recent words, but also Elder Packer’s words in the past.
By using person-first language, as Andrew pointed out, one sees themselves first as sons/daughters of God – members of the covenant, and “citizens of the Kingdom” – ie your homeland is Mormonism. You may occasionally visit other groups and associate with them (Armand as an intellectual, etc.) but when your loyalty shifts and you see yourself as primarily a citizen of another land first (gay, feminist, scholar, etc.) leadership sees this not only as a red flag, but as denouncing your citizenship. You’ve given up your passport. In 1993, Elder Packer warned that feminists, intellectuals, and homosexuals were the three “dangers” to the Church. If any members of these groups sees themselves as citizens of those places instead of holding a Mormon passport – I can see why they’d be nervous, I suppose.
I think Maxine Hanks is a good example of the passport theory. She is a member of the September Six that recently rejoined (2013) the church after her excommunication 23 years ago. To rejoin the church Maxine didn’t have to renounce feminism, her feminist beliefs, or any of her past and present work on feminist theology. She basically (in my words, here are hers) had to restate her loyalty to Mormon citizenship and acknowledge her part in losing her passport in the first place.
This topic of loyalty and identity isn’t easy and comfortable for me to consider. Over the last few years I’ve come to feel like a “foreigner” in my homeland (quite literally in Rexburg) and I’m the one that’s changed. I feel my loyalty to Gospel and grown stronger (more sure foundation) while my loyalty to the human structure of the Church has waned. I don’t feel totally safe here, and I’m trying to work to make the borders of my homeland bigger and more welcoming for others. I’m not sure how I’d feel about renouncing my feminism to maintain my membership in the Church – because to me the Gospel is feminist (even if the Church isn’t). I want to claim, merge, and own both of my identities. I find the intersection of my identities – the paradox of them – beautiful and brutal (brutiful for you Momastery fans). I want to be fully feminist and fully Mormon.
I can only imagine the identity crisis caused by LGBTQ+ members and the rhetoric of the church; to be told that claiming that part of their identity is wrong. I often hear people decrying labels, but I feel it removes agency just as much when you don’t allow others to label themselves and claim their own identities. Do you want to fully accept, embrace, and love how God made you LGBTQ+ AND be a Mormon? I want that for you, too. I pray for the day our leaders accept dual citizenship.
p.s. caveat: I believe that if a mormon passport is destroying your mental health, renouncing your citizenship is a legit option.
Wheat & Tares 
“my loyalty to the human structure of the Church has waned”
Yup.
As a citizen of a democratic nation I get to participate in the election process, cast a real vote, that has real consequences. I can write to my MP and get a response. I can go and sit in the public gallery of the House of Commons or House of Lords and watch the debate process. I can follow the progress of a bill through parliament.
Church governance on the other hand is alarmingly opaque and high-handed, communication only one way, and a sustaining vote simply a matter of form. Loyalty is demanded with little or nothing in return, with no way to hold leaders accountable.
“when your loyalty shifts and you see yourself as primarily a citizen of another land first (gay, feminist, scholar, etc.) leadership sees this not only as a red flag, but as denouncing your citizenship. ”
Indeed. I see people who are progressives or conservatives first, whose political identity comes before anything else, and they seem to insist that “true” religion is really their political ideology, regardless of what the texts say.
The same is true of the pathological behaviors I wrote about. For example, Zealots are going to insist that confrontation and force have to be the right way to do everything, all the time.
Boy can I relate to your comment of:
“I’ve come to feel like a “foreigner” in my homeland and I’m the one that’s changed. I feel my loyalty to Gospel and grown stronger (more sure foundation) while my loyalty to the human structure of the Church has waned.”
I am still trying to figure out what I will do to find a place where I am not being mentally and emotionally (and even spiritually) strained/drained.
To use your analogy, am I willing to renounce my passport for inner peace? That is what I am trying to answer for myself.
And Hedgehog – I also share your issue. I have an MBA in management and have worked for decades in a large corporation as a manager. Your description of the democratic process you are under could be said to be a “family council” (if that is no too much of a stretch). But within the church we don’t have anything like that at all. We have preaching saying “DO NOT give feedback to anybody above your Stake President”, but we know they are often (almost always?) reluctant to be a squeaky wheel when they are being evaluated by their next in chain of command. My management training says that you can expect to have a lot of disenfranchised people at the lowest level with this type of model. It is almost guaranteed.
An insightful post Kristine. It’s another way of framing the subject of tribalism in the church. But I think what your passport analogy reveals is that everything is tribal: intellectualism, liberalism, conservativism, etc. We can’t expect to live in a world without borders, and we can’t expect tribes to ignore their own borders. Dual citizenship in two tribes is sometimes possible, depending on the tribe, but it is not always easy.
Hedge: you’re right, it’s frustrating living in a human organization that acts and sees itself as a kingdom. No feedback please, bc that’s a sign of disloyalty to the throne
Stephen: you’re totally right about how this applies to progressives and conservatives when they conflate the two w the Gospel; or see themselves as freedom fighters first and takeover a federal wildlife preserve.
Happy: I stay because for me leaving wouldn’t be any easier or peaceful. And while I’m much more universalist than I used to be for everyone else, I love my heritage and see LDS as really no better/worse than a lot of other religions out their trying to figure things out. I still have homeland loyalty, without the exceptionalism.
Nate: I think it explains a lot the tension we hear when Christofferson says “of course you can have an opinion that’s different than the church’s position, you just can’t publicly be against the church.” I understand the need for borders, even as I try to stretch them a bit. I don’t think citizenship requires the lock-step obedience that these days seems to be a given.
Nate, I think a difficulty lies when someone is part of two “tribes,” but only thinks of them as one. Like those who say you can’t be a good Mormon if you’re a democrat. Others who say you can’t be a good Mormon and believe in evolution. The first equates Mormons with U.S. political conservatives, and the second equates Mormons with creationists. Although the person is identifying themself first as a Mormon, the trait they are referencing is not necessarily a core tenet of that tribe (but they believe it is).
I really like Mary Ann’s comment.
There was a post (or maybe a series of posts) by Jeff G at New Cool Thang and/or Millennial Star that talked about how one doesn’t simply lose one’s testimony…to the contrary, loss of testimony corresponds with the adoption of different values. By recognizing this, members can challenge other value systems or the implications of those systems to critique the validity of certain claims vs the church.
This kinda goes with this post — when you say “I am Mormon” first (but you may dabble in the other spheres), you are supposedly putting Mormon values first.
…but the problem I pointed out (and I still don’t think there are really good answers to this) is…what are Mormon values? We are not an isolated community…we live, work, and go to school in a larger secular (or at the very least, non-Mormon society). As we do these things and go to church, we develop our own values which are a hodge podge of values from all of our different sources…and we *think* that we can separate the sources, but how good are we at that, really?
So how do we define the Mormon values separately from any other values?
It’s so popular to say that Mormonism is one set of values, but political liberalism is a competing value system… (Indeed, that was Jeff G’s main point…that the “culture of critical discourse” or the values of “liberal democracy” had superseded his previous worldview that prioritizes the leadership’s authority, and so on. We see that conflict in some of these comments here…for example, Hedgehog in comment 1 contrasts the way the church works to the way a democratic election process works…but Jeff G would probably question: why would we expect the church to run the same way as a democratic election? Why do we value democracy over theocracy?)
But I think that the problem goes much deeper. How can we really determine whether the status quo values of the church represent authentically Mormon values or if they instead represent the encroaching foreign values of social conservatism, of evangelical Christianity, and so on, seeping into Mormonism?
Some might say, “Well, the leaders are conservative/promote conservative values.” But how are the leaders immune from this same basic issue? Could their values not be blended/informed/colored by geographic/temporal/cultural values, rather than representing an unmolested source of doctrinal/divinely inspired values?
According to Mauss and his theory of retrentchment and assimilation, the church will retrentch until the tensions with the surrounding society are so significant there is a break (ie Manifestos 1&2) then we have a period of assimilation.
Right now I think we’re in retrenchment, but the new era of transparency (ie Joseph Smith papers, first 50 years of the RS, etc.) are building a foundation for the next generation to develop a more mature understanding and probably move a little back towards assimilation.
(fingers crossed emoji)
Andrew, while I was responding on another post I hit the same issue. “Church leaders are very hesitant at denouncing previous teachings as mistakes, even when we have current teachings to the contrary. It seems to me that they double-over backwards to defend the formation of that belief, usually by appealing to the context of the time period. If everyone else believed that belief, then we should be more understanding of church leaders falling into the same trap.” The essays full on admit (especially with the priesthood ban) that church policies are sometimes influenced by outside culture.
The church doesn’t address this issue in the essays, but I was a little shocked to discover in a BYU class that there were many forms of experimental marriage structures during the time polygamy was practiced in the church. It was very strange to be required to objectively study Mormon polygamy as just one of several religious-based 19th century alternative marriage systems in the United States.
About labels…although I have come out against labels, I really don’t care how other people claim identity and label themselves. That is totally up to them.
Where I think labels are harmful is when we slap them on other people, possibly to dismiss or even denigrate them. Mary Ann’s example is a case in point: “…you can’t be a good Mormon if you’re a democrat.” That is talking about others.
If someone says, “I found that I couldn’t be a good Mormon and a good Democrat,” I would just shrug. That is their life experience and opinion. I haven’t found it to be true for me. I’m not going to argue with them.
Also, it often causes confusion when labels are thrown around expecting that everyone is supposed to know what they mean and agrees with your definition. But the person who is considered “liberal” in Idaho may be considered “conservative” if they move to Boston, without changing their views at all. In writing, it really might be clearer to spend a few words explaining what one actually means, rather than using the shortcut label that makes perfect sense to the writer, not so much to all readers.
As far as what I get from the church, I thought a pathway to eternal life was worth a few sacrifices along the way?
I thought the “I’m a Mormon” campaign was pretty much about people claiming various labels for themselves? A demonstration of how many different labels we can wear simultaneously?
Naismith that actually helps me understand your position a lot more.
I think the point I was saying is a lot of people have claimed the “Gay Mormon” label for themselves in attempt to integrate the two and love both of those identities together. And it pains them to hear “there are no homosexual mormons in the Church” which *sounds* like to be a good Mormon, you’ve got to deny that part of your self-identification.
A pathway to eternal life is definitely worth sacrifice, but since our sacrifices are offered to God, ultimately God is the final judge as to which sacrifices are acceptable. That’s why personal revelation (and the mental health required for good access to personal revelation) is so critical in our individual circumstances to know what type of sacrifices God expects of us. For many, that involves worship in a church where they are aware of unique challenges due to their individual circumstances (like Darius Gray). Others may be inspired to go in a different direction temporarily or permanently.
Does what Romney said about Trump mean that some mormons will have to decide whether they are mormons first, and republicans second, or the other way round?
I have been thinking about this and I think that I don’t necessarily mind having to be loyal to the Church to keep your passport. As long as they let me have my “other” interests/identities (a la Maxine Hanks) I, personally, am at peace w it.
I find Maxine Hanks inspiring.