[Carburettor]

DarkJedi wrote:

Just curious. In my experience when a letter such as you referenced is sent to the leadership of the church protocol is that it is returned to the individual’s stake president so he can address the issues. (Insider info is that the FP likely never saw the letter, although it’s not impossible and it may be possible they were made aware that it was received along with many others.) Did your SP indicate the letter had been sent to him? As another aside, having worked closely with my own SP at one point (also a good guy) I know that while he did get such letters forwarded to him he didn’t always address the individual or let them know what happened.

Ha! I anticipated a swift redirection of my letter to my stake president, so I posted it as a web page without disclosing my identity and instead provided a contact page to respond to me. That may have been asking too much, but it would have been a waste of time for them to have forwarded the letter to my stake president. It’s simply a way to evade responsibility for the unholy mess that proceeded from their office for decades.

My stake president read the letter, anyway. He expressed his discomfort with the information I disclosed and said he would need time to reflect on its impact for him personally. Not that it matters, though, because he is powerless to do anything and has no idea what to do without causing some type of backlash. He is at least sympathetic, whereas the occupants of the Office of the First Presidency reflect no such emotion in their official statements.

[Carburettor]

DarkJedi wrote:

I know you stated something similar earlier in the thread and I really don’t understand it. Nothing is going to change the day Oaks takes the big chair.

Fair point, DJ. From the genesis of my suspicions that something wasn’t right with me back in the 1960s, I was nurtured to believe that I was directly responsible for my own misalignment. This kept me stacked up with guilt for being an intrinsically bad person and emotionally exhausted from fruitlessly trying to realign myself until I discovered in 2016 that senior Church leaders were no longer overtly blaming and shaming people like me for causing their own disconnect.

For me, that brought about feelings of confusion mixed with optimism that I had never previously experienced. Since then, the candle of hope has dimmed and now flickers on the brink of being extinguished.

When my stake president had a Zoom call with my wife and I back in February to extend the next call to serve, he asked if there was anything that might stop me from accepting the call (with him being the only member of my stake who is aware of my situation). I replied, “In terms of my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? No. However, you might just want to read the letter I sent to the Office of the First Presidency last month.”

He read the letter. In it, I made specific references to DHO as an individual whose unequivocal views on gender and identity convince me that he is a well-intentioned yet divisive figure whom I will be unable in good conscience to sustain as the next President of the Church — the Lord’s mouthpiece on Earth. If I remain active, that means no temple recommend and some overwhelming feelings of hypocrisy. I don’t feel that way about President Nelson, so I find myself occupying a figurative cell on Death Row because my stake president needs my service (and he’s a good guy).

If DHO were to go first, which is highly unlikely, I might just be able to hang on a little longer after Nelson goes. It remains to be seen whether my disaffection will continue to mount.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

I think I will provide a response to this FAIR article in the media review section.

Thanks, Roy. I attempted to contact the article author to explain how I feel the worldviews he presents do not cover all bases — they certainly do not accommodate my lived experience. Sadly, the contact form didn’t work; so I found him in Facebook and messaged him. I have received no response. It’s possible he is considering responding. It’s also possible he considers himself to be the authority and must therefore be correct — so no response is necessary.

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

When I go to church activities (community events really) – I just say, “It’s complicated” about pretty much anything including my church attendance and my relationship with God.

Thank you yet again, AmyJ, for your level-headedness.

Funnily enough, saying, “It’s complicated” is precisely the justification I have offered in messages to my siblings as the reason why I have felt the need to distance myself from them for the past nine months (if not permanently, though I haven’t said that). When I think of them, all I see in my mind is the Church personified — along with all the associated trauma right back to childhood. We each live in different parts of the country and are parents with grown-up children/grandchildren. We used to get together once a year for the sake of our parents who are now both deceased. I would rather be free from reminders of the past. Pleasing them is done at a cost to myself — and I’ve done that for decades.

To answer my own original question, I have concluded that the level of peace depends upon the level of discomfort/dissonance felt by the individual. If the process of remaining active is a damaging experience, it may be argued that it is self-defeating. I would reconsider if the Church would itself reconsider how it supports the unmet needs of those who don’t fit. I am one of those committed folks, though, so I will not make any rash decisions until Oaks replaces Nelson — at which time I suspect a long-felt disenfranchisement will force my hand.

[Carburettor]

I have reviewed some comments in another faith-based forum, and it bothers me that everyone who experiences challenges with gender and identity seems to be corralled into the same dumpster of being insufficiently x, y, or z — which feels like a cop out that is more about blaming the victim.

The stock responses follow a pattern: “If the individual were more devout, more Christ-centred, less obsessed with presentism, read more obscure medical journals and critical analyses, and simply showed more integrity, courage, endurance, and a bunch of other qualities, they’d be just fine. The problem is the individual. They must try harder.” Sadly, it was my stubborn devotion that seemingly led me into this mess in the first place.

The thought of becoming just another statistic also bothers me; being that guy who people mention awkwardly in ward council, and everyone just shrugs and shakes their head.

Being a member of an organisation shouldn’t make someone want to kill themselves. If it does, that feels to me like an indication of problems with the organisation far more than it is with the individual.

[Carburettor]

lesalezza wrote:

I wanted to share this with you

It is my friend’s podcast interview.

https://youtu.be/jG1nkUPLSUk

Thank you. I confess I struggled to relate to that guy. He reminded me of the folks at North Star. I am respectful of those who identify as gay and such, but deep down I find myself believing that we’re all just a bunch of neurodivergent victims of a colossal, largely unintentional social lie — and identity confusion is the result.

[Carburettor]

I feel I may finally have an answer.

I am grateful to Roy for privately nudging me away from a precipice here, but I found it elsewhere in a lengthy email exchange last night with a guy I’ll call Bob who blogs about the Come Follow Me Sunday School lessons. On Thursday, he posted a glowing endorsement of what he describes as an amazing and highly misunderstood Apostle Paul. It came to my notice because a friend shared it on his Facebook page. So, I messaged Bob to explain my reservations and levy my outrageous accusation that I suspect Paul may be partly responsible for crystallising some of the fear and hatred that led to the formation of our modern LGBT movement as a self-defence mechanism.

Setting all that aside for a moment, last night’s guy was clearly a conservative Church member — so I had a shot at presenting my arguments to a total stranger.

He shared an article written by a friend who examines the worldviews of two hypothetical LDS guys, James and Greg. Both James and Greg assert that “The teachings in the Proclamation on the Family are doctrine.” The article then expounds upon their worldviews, illustrating how Greg’s paradigm is undermined by his feelings of advocacy for his LGBT friends. The article was sufficiently long and highbrow to leave me wishing I wasn’t trying to digest it after a full day’s work. You can find it here: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2021/worldview-apologetics

Bob, the random guy, must have felt he could be of service by explaining how my worldview sounds like a jumble of misunderstandings and internalised grievances based on perceived hurt that clouds my judgement — and that true faith in Christ can heal me.

And I suspect that’s the root of it. A quick search came up with the following short YouTube clip of a meet-up between individuals with Tourette’s Syndrome. The video is as funny as it is tragic, but I think it helps to illustrate why people are generally unable to accommodate my position and vice versa because it seems like I am wilfully being objectionable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZfpJbjgCcI

I guess I have to accept that my particular form of neurodivergence leads me to reject those who, in my worldview, have been catalysts for my enduring emotional pain. Like the ticks of those unfortunate people in the video, my identity confusion isn’t something I can snap out of by having more faith in Christ; it has become hardwired.

Conservative members cannot accommodate my position since, in their worldview, Christ overcomes all — and those who fail to master their trials do so because they reject Christ. Sadly, neurodivergence has yet to be conquered by the power of positive thinking.

[Carburettor]

Watcher wrote:

I am an old and covenant member of the Church.

You and me both, buddy. I am ten years off my allotted three score and ten. I have been a covenant-keeping member since my baptism at the age of eight and have repressed and suppressed all in my power that stood to lure me away from the covenant path.

Make no mistake, I have experienced moments of great joy, such as assisting in the birthing of my children. However, all that is positive has been set against a backdrop of unrelenting sadness, dissonance, and emotional fracture.

The deeper I look, the more I find that everything points to the Church — as part of a wider faith society — whose respected leaders used to describe people like me in excoriating terms as perverts and deviates.

In the cold light of day, the Church’s past performance is indefensible, even for those who are comfortable with the anodyne, Pontius Pilate style position it now adopts.

Perhaps my hope for answers has run its course.

Dear to the heart of the Shepherd,

Dear are the “ninety and nine”;

Dear are the sheep that have wandered

Out in the desert to pine.

Hark! He is earnestly calling,

Tenderly pleading today:

“Will you not seek for my lost ones,

Off from my shelter astray?”

This in no way reflects reality in respect of the “one” who experiences complications with gender and/or identity and thus finds themselves in some respects incompatible with the covenant path. And the “one” is more accurately “two to ten,” depending on the demographic.

Based on every shred of evidence I can find, the situation is best reflected by a political statement attributed to the infamous Joseph Goebbels:

Quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Successive religious societies based on the Abrahamic faiths inherited a lie. In the 20th century, senior LDS Church leaders embellished that lie until they could no longer shield members from its political, economic, and/or social consequences. In the 21st century, they continue to repress dissent and instead offer platitudes in an attempt to divert attention.

Out in the desert they wander,

Hungry and helpless and cold;

Off to the rescue He hastens,

Bringing them back to the fold.

Except that we, as His disciples, don’t do that.

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

I finally came to the conclusion that I cannot trust others to “write scripture” for me – I have to “write scripture” for myself.

NOTE: Scripture = “Valuable Things Written Down and Officially Recognized”. For example, the story of “Esther” is believed to be a variation of “historical fiction” and “Job” is in part a story about values. While “scripture”, it is suggested that at least in the case of Job, it’s more along the lines of “Star Wars” then “God Said” (assuming that “God Said” nothing useful to the writers of “Star Wars” – that is not a judgement call I am qualified to make).

AmyJ, you sound like a magnificent, no-nonsense individual. It’s a good job society didn’t feel sufficiently threatened by you to convince you that you were a lesbian.

****Moderator note**** This sentence is problematic. I believe it to be sarcasm and sarcasm does not translate well in written text. Because, I can’t tell 100% if it is sarcasm then I will address it at face value. 1) If a person were LGBTQ+ then that person would be equally valued and affirmed here. They are “worthy” in every sense of the word. 2) I am having trouble with the implication that a person would or could be convinced into a sexual orientation. I worry that the undertone of that message would be that some people’s sexual identity is not genuine but is the result of being misguided or confused. 3) the term “filthy lesbian” is very inappropriate on its own and would warrant a moderation even if points 1 and 2 were not present. ****End Moderator note****

I am on the same page as you when it comes to difficulties with “scripture.” People who wrote stuff in bygone eras were sharing with the world the convictions of their imperfect understanding. The way each of them practiced their faith would have been unrecognisable to us today. Everything would have been infused with superstition, established fables, and general ignorance of anything remotely scientific.

I have asserted in meetings and conversations in the past couple of years that the most important scripture for us ought be what is said in General Conference in the current year. We collectively insist, however, on dredging up the same archaic nonsense as part of the recurring study schedule. I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I am uncomfortable with the account of Nephi murdering Laban in cold blood. It goes against everything we teach and is absolutely not mitigated by the excuse of taking one life to save many. The many dwindled in unbelief anyway. It was murder. I do not wish to keep revisiting it, and I do not support it.

And then there’s the troubling issue of agreeing to selectively dismiss parts of the standard works as uninspired. How do we have the authority to do that if it was decreed by a prophet of God?

Let me offer an example of something we have ditched yet which still feeds into faith observance for some. The Apostle Paul said that women must remain silent in church and cover their heads or else shave their hair to pray (1 Corinthians 11:5-6). In the LDS Church, we have discarded that as no longer binding (a leftover from Judaism), yet there are plenty of members who still insist that a man should remove his hat, cap, or other headwear before prayer — even though this idea was integral to the self-same teaching we have abandoned as an irrelevance (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Here’s some evidence, albeit dated. During the Saturday Afternoon Session of General Conference in April 1977, Elder Ezra Taft Benson, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke on the topic of prayer and shared a personal story, saying, “We left the building, went out to our car, removed our hats, and united in prayer.” Sounds to me like someone didn’t get the memo. I am certain I am not the only guy who has been firmly asked to remove his cap before a prayer (at socials, youth night, camps, etc.).

Should we cut them a little slack when they’re telling people they’re going to burn in hellfire? Absolutely not. They speak carefully prepared messages in the capacity of their office to a global audience, and they know exactly what they are saying. If those message age poorly, that says more about their inspiration than it does about God blessing us with a new and exciting direction — especially when subsequent leaders abjectly refuse to discuss the matter.

[Carburettor]

Watcher wrote:

I do not believe that anything within the LGBTQ+ definition is sustainable.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Watcher. I get the impression you have misunderstood the gist of my argument. I do not identify as LGBTQIA+, but I experience firsthand the tragedy of their various challenges without yielding my virtue. I want to be rid of the scourge that makes people so desperate that they will take their own lives to escape it, but society has inadvertently and wilfully embedded it so deeply into my psyche that I am left wondering how to make my life the least unpleasant it can be. You may strive for joy, but I have to settle for striving to minimise distress.

The “choice” described by someone who doesn’t walk this path is like pinning someone underwater and telling them they can choose to hold their breath. Sooner or later, the choice becomes academic, and then we blame the person who drowned.

Where is the inspiration to help those who don’t want to kill themselves and don’t want to break their covenants?

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

I consider it an “accident” in the sense that the church leaders didn’t have a full understanding of the ramifications of their decisions. I like to think that if they had had the statistics, and any sense of perspective from those impacted by their choices – that some of those choices would have been different, and potentially drastically so (and sooner).

See now, AmyJ, this is where I must remind you of something that many apologists would sooner we forget. We aren’t talking about eccentric old-timers telling off-colour jokes at a family barbecue. Let’s be clear; these were and are ordained ministers who hold principal positions in the priesthood hierarchy and whose mandate is to teach the entire membership and the wider world as spokespersons for the Lord. They make assertions about having his inspiration and guidance with authority to proclaim everlasting truth. And their words become as scripture — albeit not canonised — to the faithful. What remains of the devout part of me still believes that.

The more I dig into what leaders have said in the past while wielding the sword of inspiration, however, the more it feels like a bunch of hardline conservatives have spent decades preaching selected prejudices and fear as doctrine. I should be careful of making such accusations, so I will provide evidence.

Mark E Petersen was a household name in my younger years, and I will undoubtedly have quoted from him as a missionary. In my recent search for answers, however, I uncovered something in his “prophetic” back catalogue that raises serious questions for me about the authority with which he spoke.

Sure, he didn’t hold back in his condemnation for covenant-keeping people like me whom he considered to be “deviates,” but there’s more. It’s off-topic, but I believe it merits consideration on account of establishing a possible pattern.

Take a look at his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_E._Petersen), and locate the talk mentioned in the “Controversial Teachings” section. He had been an apostle for a full 10 years when he gave a talk at BYU titled, “Race Problems—As They Affect the Church.” Remember, he was speaking in his capacity as a prophet, seer, and revelator — not as a student or professor. The talk isn’t hard to find. Here’s the link on the Wikipedia page: https://archive.org/details/RaceProblemsAsTheyAffectTheChurchMarkEPetersen/mode/2up?view=theater. There are several other online sources for it. I urge you to read it and decide whether you believe it was inspired — scripture, even. If it wasn’t, how should we view his assortment of marginalising comments and those of others who claim to speak with inspiration from God?

Here’s an extract: “In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant.”

I choked on my revulsion while reading the full talk, packed as it is with xenophobia. The entire article reminds me of Flat Earth reasoning. If you’ve ever had the misfortune to stumble into a Flat Earth Facebook group, you’ll understand that its advocates defy logic. All maths, physics, and other sciences are dismissed as propaganda and replaced with abject stupidity — the type of reasoning that insists “if I can’t see it, it’s not there.” The groups are so chock-full of conspiracy theorists that there is no room for common sense. They are places to visit, laugh, and leave.

Elder Petersen’s “inspired” words reminded me of the conjectures found in Flat Earth groups — except that Flat Earth groups don’t claim authority from almighty God.

AmyJ wrote:

My personal experience/pain is related to being “a minority” – a female who “doesn’t perform gender properly” and connecting to those who don’t feel that their “gender performance” properly matches up with who they are as a person – their core identity. I managed to get launched into a faith transition dealing with the nature of God (any faith transition related to the church directly is collateral fallout from that).

I really need to hear more about your not performing gender properly. The deeper I think about the symbiotic relationships between all life on our planet, the more I wonder whether gender is simply a temporal matter that is comfortable and natural for those only in the safe areas of gender scale. The rest have to make do and get by as best they can.

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

It would be nice if the church had worldwide open dialogues with all the groups it marginalizes by accident.

Um, it might be less troublesome if it were by accident, but it was deliberate — and for good reason. Church leaders mistakenly tarred everyone with the same filthy brush of perversion on the basis that they believed every vulnerable individual chose who they became. I think I have protested sufficiently that I believe we are simply turned into whatever society makes of us based on its aspirations (for good) and fears (for bad) — twisting the figurative thumbscrews years before the victim has any concept of what the screws even are.

In 1970, Elders Kimball and Petersen co-authored a pamphlet titled “Hope for Transgressors.” It began, “Dear Brethren, In the event that you have members who have homosexual tendencies or activities, it will be your privilege and responsibility to assist them to effect a cure and bring their lives back into total normalcy,” adding that, “If the pervert will begin to read the scriptures methodically and carefully, he will find himself in a new environment.”

Please note the word “tendencies.” Today, the Church refers to “tendencies” as “attractions,” saying on its same-sex attraction web page: “Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin” https://site.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction.

You may read those statements and think, “Meh.” I read them and feel a deep sense of malfeasance.

[Carburettor]

DarkJedi wrote:

I agree that there may be people who “thrive” by remaining unaware, or probably a more correct term would be ignoring. The problem is that it’s very difficult to ignore because some leaders (and local members) can’t seem to not bring it up continually. I don’t think I need to cite names (mostly name). I honestly don’t see how people do it, and I don’t blame anybody for leaving the church because of it.

The Church and its culture beyond the centres of high population is an entirely different animal. I have mentioned that I live in a figurative vacuum, and it is the startling absence of awareness of anything at all that makes people simply give up and walk away.

I first emailed my stake president anonymously in early 2017 to explain my circumstances and offer support. He politely declined my offer on the basis that help was unnecessary because our stake doesn’t have individuals with challenges related to gender and identity. Um, excuse me? I was shocked. There was me for starters — and a whole raft of individuals who had been silently abandoning our stake forever precisely on account of the controlled vacuum in which we live. He promised to file my email in a safe place, however, just in case.

A year later, I employed another approach. I had discovered the suggestion in the Church’s Counseling Resources material to hold a fifth-Sunday lesson discussing same-sex attraction — so I group-emailed every bishop (anonymously on my part) and suggested they ask the stake president about having such a lesson to help their vulnerable members. Quelle surprise! Within days, I promptly received a request from the stake president to meet and discuss. I’ll never know what he made of my lengthy disclosure. I had already known and served with him occasionally for 15 years. He was sensitive and kind — despite, it seems, him immediately harbouring suspicions that I must be paedo.

A week or two later, I was sitting in my ward council meeting when the bishop mentioned the forthcoming lesson, and he said something along the lines of, “I really don’t think it’s necessary for our ward. It’s not like we have anyone who falls into that category.” Um, excuse me? I could name almost a dozen individuals (aside from myself) from my ward alone who had abandoned the Church since I moved in — only for information to later come out that they identified as somewhere on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum.

I suspect that the breathtaking lack of awareness in the UK is a result of the issues being effectively censored at Area level. We simply aren’t allowed to discuss it because there is an ignorant belief that it is possible to “convert” impressionable people. In truth, there is as much chance of converting someone to become epileptic.

[Carburettor]

Watcher wrote:

I will support anyone that is clear what their choice in life is. I do believe that the closest they will come to peace and happiness will be in the community of the Saints of G-d. Unfortunately, in this life very few achieve Sainthood – most of us fall short – some of us more than others. Never-the-less, I believe you should choose for yourself and only then will you find peace and happiness.

I would very much like to better understand your position. Not to argue with it, but to peel away the layers of our understanding. The “heteronormative” members with whom I have discussed gender and identity challenges in recent years have all expressed their discomfort over the Church’s history in this area but are at a loss as how to rectify anything. Consequently, they adopt an apologist point of view and err on the side of allowing people to live whatever form of morality they can manage. I disagree with that position. In the LDS Church, we have a prescribed model of morality, and it applies to all.

The way I read your post is that you believe agency underpins all outcomes. There are rules, and there are individuals who expressly choose to break the rules. Is that correct?

With regard to Sainthood, the scriptures teach me that all mankind is tarnished with sin and therefore everyone experiences spiritual death. Ergo, sainthood is achieved by none in this life. It is more a matter of how far we fall short, rather than whether or not we do.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

I have given myself permission to do a “remodel” of the church in my own mind. This helps me to StayLDS and attached to the version of Mormonism that exists in my mind.

I guess I am doing the same after a fashion. After joining North Star and experiencing a remote type of fraternity for a couple of years that checked so many boxes that had evidently had gone unchecked for my entire life, I realised there were measures I could take that were explicitly counselled against. That is, I could put myself in harm’s way by associating with the very people for whom I had expressed contempt for so long.

The only reason I remain an active, covenant-keeping member is because I continue to do that — with my wife’s knowledge and trust; BUT it doesn’t help to heal the decades of internalised damage that have left me riddled with emotional scar tissue. That is what I need to heal, and no amount of pretending gets close to addressing it.

[Author]

Posts