Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the responses, everyone. It’s helpful to remind myself that I don’t have to figure things out right away and I can take time to wander. I’m not sure who I could talk to IRL about this. Maybe my sister. I was planning on discussing it with my brother, until he mentioned that our other brother leaving the church last year was basically his worst nightmare come true. I also have a very close friend, but he’s not so good to talk about church things with. He’ll listen to a degree, but his go-to response is suggesting that I talk to the bishop about it. From listening to a lot of podcasts (mainly Questions from the Closet, some Listen, Learn & Love), it seems most people in mixed orientation marriages don’t want to be held up as an example of the “right” way to be gay in the church, and it looks like this couple doesn’t, either. Unfortunately, intentions alone aren’t enough, and I wouldn’t be surprised if well-meaning members used this article to push this option on their friends or family. What I find odd about discussions on mixed orientation marriage is that in nearly every instance, it’s assumed to be a straight woman with a gay man. Maybe the gender disparity among active members leads to this type of pairing being more common? Or maybe the church is still largely stuck on the assumption that LGBTQ person = gay cisgender man? I really don’t know.
I’d like to share a personal experience, not related to this article but related to mixed orientation relationships. Currently my best friend and I have something of a label-less committed platonic relationship. He is a straight man and I’m an asexual woman. Despite the differences in our attraction (or lack thereof) to each other, we love and care about each other a lot and plan to be a big part of each other’s lives for years to come.
Almost 2 years ago he told me he wanted to marry me, and it was one of the most difficult and confusing times in my life. It felt amazing to be loved so much by someone so important to me – but at the same time it felt so awful and unnatural and wrong. I couldn’t imagine such a future that didn’t involve me feeling like I’d betrayed myself forever. And it took a long time after that and a lot of reassurance from him to stop believing that I was ruining his life by not marrying him.
In the meager 3 podcasts I’ve listened to involving asexual church members, they all either wanted or were currently in a mixed orientation marriage. I have no issue with that for them individually – their life and their desires are their own – but it does leave me with the same concern that highlighting gay-straight marriages does: when asexuality eventually becomes more commonly discussed among church members, will the assumption be that the “right” way to be asexual is to seek a mixed orientation marriage?
DarkJedi wrote:
I don’t actually mind statements like your SP to read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. The only trouble is that often (not always) if you draw a different conclusion than theirs is what they expect you’re still wrong. I don’t know this to be the case with your SP because i don’t know him.
Yeah, like I mentioned I really appreciated that he encouraged us to go directly to the source. I don’t know my stake president well so it’s hard to say if he would accept other conclusions. The general vibe I got from his talk is that he wouldn’t, but that could just be me projecting my own pain surrounding the whole topic. It could very well be the case that
I’mthe one having troubles accepting that others could read Elder Holland’s talk and come to a different conclusion from me. Roy wrote:
Was Elder Holland’s speech a factor in your siblings leaving the church or was it just a coincidence?
I’m not sure. My sister has had a lot of the same concerns I have in recent years, so I wouldn’t be surprised, but I haven’t talked to her about her reasons for leaving yet. My brother actually left the church a few years ago and tried to hide it at first (to varying degrees of success – my parents were surprised but none of my siblings or I were), and telling us now seemed to be more about solidarity with my sister than anything else.
(I don’t comment here very often and I still struggle a bit with formatting. Hopefully I don’t make this thread too messy.)
Roy wrote:
One of my children may be asexual. She identifies as demi sexual (someone who only develops sexual feelings after a romantic relationship grows). However, she has not been in a romantic relationship yet so she may find that when it (the relationship) happens the sexual feelings never materialize. I am trying to be supportive and understanding and it feels very strange to be the “out of touch” parent. You mentioned the Closet episode, is that the full name of the podcast? Do you have any additional resources that I could look into?
Yes, the name of the podcast is Questions from the Closet. For more resources that may help you understand your child, there’s a Family & Friends FAQ page on asexuality.org which you can find here:
http://asexuality.org/?q=family.html . It doesn’t look like there is an FAQ page specifically for demisexuality on this website unfortunately, and I’m not familiar with demisexual-specific resources.I love keeping journals (turning 26 this year and nearly finished my 38th journal) but I don’t think it’s for everyone, and we’ve maybe overemphasized doing it for posterity. My journals are occasionally useful when I need to know when something specific happened in the past, but mainly I find them useful in the present. Writing is part of my nightly routine. Sometimes it’s like a form of meditation, sometimes a listening ear in my darkest moments, sometimes a friend I can share anything with from the most mundane to the most incredible. But I get rarely write for the benefit of some future reader, whether it be an older me, a relative, or some historian two hundred years from now. I’ve had mixed feelings about the women’s session for a while, so of course I have mixed feelings about losing it as well. The good:
– Removing gender-specific sessions is more inclusive of trans, non-binary, and intersex members
– Shorter and less exhausting weekend for those who watch General Conference live
– I haven’t been a fan of many of the First Presidency’s talks in the women’s sessions since the big switch to making it a regular Saturday session or the fact that male speakers took up half the meeting, so they will not be missed
– It could
maybe, possiblylead to including more women’s voices in the general sessions and maybe, possiblyencourage more people to recognize that women have relevant insights for everyone, not just other women The bad:
– Look, in a very patriarchal church, it’s just really, really refreshing to have even one meeting once in a while that isn’t dominated by men’s voices (this is also why Relief Society is my favourite regular church meeting)
– I am not optimistic that the change will actually lead to the inclusion of more women’s voices in the general sessions and, unfortunately, expect more conferences with around 2 female speakers like the last one
Arrakeen wrote:
The reality is, many people do not ever get married. Many people do not care much for dating. Many people find that other things in are more important to them and more fulfilling. But it seems like the church really struggles to accept that there are other paths than the standard one of get married and have kids.
You’re right, overemphasizing dating and marriage affects a lot of people in a lot of different circumstances. It’s not wrong to enjoy dating and want the typical nuclear family, but it’s also not wrong to want a different kind of family or life, and the latter part is what the church has a really hard time with.
I’m also in my mid-twenties and in YSA, and I have mixed feelings about YSA.
The good:I have enjoyed the social aspects of church far more than I ever did growing up, actually making real, lasting friendships at church. My current ward, for the most part, doesn’t talk a lot about dating and does focus more on broader life skills. (Anytime we have a visiting speaker with a stake calling is a different story.) And I love having discussions and lessons that are actually applicable to my life instead of always being geared towards married people with children at home. The bad:It does absolutely create an unnecessary distinction between married and unmarried members. It sends the message that we’re not fully adults or we don’t have anything meaningful to contribute to “normal” wards because of our age and marital status. And even if my ward doesn’t focus too much on dating, the reality still remains that that is the purpose of its existence. Thanks for your thoughts Minyan and DarkJedi. Quote:My two cents (free today because of Black Friday week) is probably not super helpful because it’s pretty unorthodox. I don’t believe the church teachings relating to eternal marriage in large part because it is not addressed in the Bible and most of the “doctrine” comes from what I consider to be a questionable section of the Doctrine and Covenants (one of many sections I question).
That is the belief I’ve been leaning towards lately as well.
Quote:I think a big part of the issue about not hearing much about asexuals/asexuality is that there are few such members (or people in general) although there are probably more than we know because it can be easy to disguise. And I think asexuals tend not to be “out” or out themselves and tend to be silent (I could be wrong).
I agree with you there. Asexual people do make up a small percentage of the population, and for a lot of us it’s easy to pass as straight. (Easier for women, at least, since asexual men are often coded as gay for not actively pursuing women.) As for being out, it’s really hard to say as I haven’t seen a lot of discussion on how many of us are out and to what degree. I’m out in most online spaces and to a few friends and family members, but unless I’m having an IRL conversation that naturally leads towards talking about asexuality, I generally don’t bring it up.
Something I forgot to mention in my original post is part of why I think it’s important to talk about amatonormativity. Even among LGBTQ members and allies, sometimes their proposed solutions to how the church handles homosexuality still reinforces amatonormativity. Embracing members in same-sex relationships would be amazing. Allowing gay temple marriages would be amazing. But if that’s where it stops, then it still holds marriage as the arbitrary gatekeeper of what makes a person “worthy” (/qualified/prepared/etc) to receive the full blessings of heaven.
A few of the many things I’m grateful for: – My home is a safe place, physically, emotionally, and spirituality
– The ability to connect through technology to my family since I can’t see them in person right now. I’m especially grateful that the rules for missionaries communicating with their families changed in 2018. The new rules which allowed weekly text and video chats came out the week before my younger brother left on his mission. My siblings and I are all very close and I’ve been so glad to have the chance to see my brother’s face and hear his voice on a regular basis.
– While my provincial government has been ominously silent in response to the spiralling COVID cases in my area, I am grateful that both my boss and my stake presidency took initiative and shut down physical work and church meetings for the foreseeable future.
– I’m grateful for the effort my new Relief Society presidency has been putting into connecting with the ward. The presidency was organized a couple months ago, and they have all been actively reaching out to connect with the other women in the ward.
I’m in Alberta, and my ward met in person for the first time last Sunday. About 40 people in total came. We’re meeting in a larger building than our regular building with a lot of precautions. No singing, entrance and exits on opposite sides of the building, every other pew blocked off, no meetings other than sacrament meeting, no carpooling with people outside your household unless absolutely necessary. Masks weren’t mandatory, though, and I wish they were. There was a box of disposable ones at the entrance, and almost everyone wore a mask, but a few didn’t. I’ve struggled a lot with the sacrament these last few months. The irony is that in supplying my own bread and water, it was the most involved I’ve ever been and likely ever will be in preparing the sacrament, but I also had next to no control over when I could take it. It was rarely a reminder of Christ and often a reminder of inequality. This week I cried with happiness when I took the sacrament. It started with a hymn (just played on the organ since singing is banned), which I had sorely missed. And for the first time in almost 4 months it didn’t matter that I’m a woman and that I don’t live with a priesthood-bearing man. For the first time in almost 4 months I had the same access as the elder’s quorum president and the bishop’s wife and my friends who live with their parents. There is still plenty of inequality and I don’t mean to sweep it under the rug. But I was so happy that finally, once again, the sacrament was a sweet moment instead of a bitter one.
My experience with meetings suspended has not been a positive one. The last month and a half have only reinforced the fact that, despite how frustrating or boring or even infuriating church meetings sometimes are, they are a crucial part of my social life. I love my ward. It’s my community and my home. Now I have timed Relief Society Zoom meetings, which I am thankful for, but it’s really not the same experience. With the recent sacrament guideline announcement I am faced with the possibility of not having taking an “official” sacrament for months on end, depending on how government regulations change over the summer. I’m a single woman living with two non-LDS roommates. Yes, I can study on my own and build a relationship with God on my own, but if that’s all I needed then I wouldn’t feel such a need to stay in this church. I need community and now I feel like I’ve lost it. Quote:I agree that Sister Bingham’s talk had some issues. I believe that she said something about in the beginning men and women were different in purpose but equal in value. She mentioned the word complementary of complementarian several times. Then the apostacy or the natural main or Satan came in and convinced men to subjugate women. But then the restoration happened and women were equals again.
This had me scratching my head. Is she really trying to hold out the LDS church as some sort of beacon for female equality? What about polygamy?
This is where I stopped watching last night. After my nerves getting frayed with talk after talk about the priesthood and the complementarian model, I couldn’t stand her implication that female equality is an aspect of the restoration. Even disregarding the continued inequality of women in the church, it feels like an insult to the thousands of people who have advocated for women’s rights for centuries.
My favourite video on prayer is How People Pray on the Youtube channel Cut. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QRN3wWSc3w ][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QRN3wWSc3w ] It interviews people from different religions (including a mixed-faith LDS/Catholic couple) about how they pray, why they pray, how they handle it when they don’t seem to get an answer to their prayers. Since prayer is such a widespread way for people to seek peace or reach a high power, I find it’s helpful to look beyond just the typical LDS model for prayer when talking about why it’s important for many people and how/if prayers are answered.I can’t say I’m greatly disappointed only because I didn’t have high hopes for the devotional to begin with. Near the beginning Nelson uses the Kimball quote, “If men are really humble, they will realize that they discover, but do not create, truth,” but the actual message was almost completely devoid of humility. There were plenty of opportunities for it. But saying prophets ALWAYS teach the truth? Or that what he believes are divine laws will ALWAYS work, even when people find it doesn’t? There was opportunity for humility in his explanation for the November 15 policy. I can try to believe that it came from a place of love and concern. And I can believe that they were grieved when they saw how it affected people. He seemed so close to saying that they realized the policy was misguided, but he backed away before getting there. Their “supplication to the Lord continued” until they “felt directed to adjust the policy.” It COULD mean that they received better understanding, realized their mistake, and sought to make it right, but as nibbler said, it sounded more like he thought the original policy was from God but he was able to ask God to water it down for us. When it comes down to it, his invitation to the devotional said he thinks about issues that concern young adults today, but he seems completely blind to the concern for humility and authenticity.
