Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church?

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

I can see that I am adept at masking, but I figure pretty much everybody lies somewhere on the autistic spectrum, right?

As someone who has a child with ASD, i would say that all of us struggle with some of the same challenges that people with ASD struggle with. For example, most of us can be hyperactive – that doesn’t mean we have Hyperactive disorder. Most of us can struggle to concentrate – that doesn’t mean that we have attention deficit disorder. Most of us can struggle with being told what to do – that doesn’t mean we have Oppositional defiant disorder. Likewise, some of the challenges of ASD can be experienced by non ASD individuals to a lessor extent AND some of the techniques and therapies that can help ASD individuals can also be helpful to non-ASD individuals.

Carburettor wrote:

Black-and-white thinking would have me choose between identifying as heterosexual or one of the many identifiers in the LGBTQIA++ acronym. The truth is far more nuanced. In fact, some of me is heterosexual, some is bisexual, some is gay, some trans, and some queer. In fact, I might even be able to accommodate all those letters in various ways to reflect the gaps I feel in my life.

All models are both helpful and limited. Think of the model of the solar system or of the double helix DNA. They represent the world that we live in imperfectly and yet, they also help us to conceptualize and connect to our environment in ways that we could not before. Our understanding is broader because we have them.

Carburettor wrote:

However, that doesn’t help in the search for solutions — and the LDS Church currently shows no appetite for solutions because there will be no shortage of antagonistic people waiting to accuse the Church of illegal conversion therapy. I don’t need conversion; I need to address the unmet needs that have led me to disconnect.

I believe that for heterosexuals, the church provides a way for them to meet their sexual needs through marriage. The church even sanctifies this condition to be what everyone should aspire to. If you had a magic wand of hypothetical worlds, what would help you to meet your needs? Is there any portion of your unmet needs that you can take ownership for and start meeting today? For example, I assume that talking to people that do not dismiss your experience is helpful in meeting some needs? Congratulations, you are already making progress. Are there any other needs that you could start getting closer to meeting without betraying your wife and family?

[Anonymous]

Watcher wrote:

[MODERATOR NOTE +++ Watcher is more on the traditional LDS viewpoint on this and most other topics than are many of the participants here. There is great danger of arguing or becoming divisive here. If it happens the thread will be locked. +++ END MODERATOR NOTE]

I have been at work all day, but I wanted to quickly respond to this act of moderation.

I sincerely hope this thread won’t be locked. It is currently my only lifeline, and locking it will serve to further invalidate me. I have no intention of being deliberately antagonistic. I am simply searching for answers that local, regional, and area leadership don’t have, and senior leadership won’t discuss — probably because the back story reflects badly on them.

If there is a way to mitigate the distress I have experienced for decades, I am keen to learn how — from anyone. I am happy to change what can be changed. If, however, the answer is simply to be more faithful in keeping the covenants I have already been keeping for decades out of scrupulosity and with “an eye single to the glory of God” — yet peace still eludes me — I will have my answer. An answer I don’t want, but an answer nonetheless.

Back in 2010, I reached breaking point after more than 20 years in my chosen profession. One day, my job collapsed beneath me. I found myself no longer able to mask the mounting pressures, and I broke down in tears in the middle of a telephone-based meeting with participants from four countries. It was so bad, all I could do was sob — for days. My poor wife had to step in because I couldn’t interact with anyone without crying. It took four months to return to work (during which we lived off savings), and I still remember that I had to slink away to the men’s room several times after returning to a different job to weep quietly out of sight on account of enduring unresolved anxieties. Note: this isn’t a request for pity, it’s simply a candid historical anecdote that illustrates my academic and professional brokenness that first began to manifest itself right back in my twenties. I had entirely committed myself to living as prescribed by senior priesthood holders, and I never imagined that the source of my debilitating imposter syndrome was rooted in the faith-based identity challenges I had refused to acknowledge. I have since concluded that is the source of all my emotional problems; my living as a square peg in a round hole.

More later.

[Anonymous]

Thank you Carburettor for not engaging in argument, name calling, or personal attacks. Given what you have been through, I think some might be tempted to respond defensively and lash out to the suggestion that you just hold the line and endure to the end when it so clearly has been soul destroying for you.

I have two resources that you might want to check out.

1st is the story of Josh & Lolly Weed. Here is a thread about their heartfelt decision to separate but still co-parent https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=8739&hilit=carol+pearson

Next is the story of Carol Lynn Pearson. Particularly her book “Goodbye, I love you.”

You are walking a very difficult path. You are not alone in this path. I imagine this to be both comforting and sad. Comforting because others can understand what you are going through. Sad because it means that others have suffered and are suffering in similar ways.

[Anonymous]

This thread is not in imminent danger of being locked, the note is just a “Let’s be careful” because this can be a hot button issue and we’re letting everybody know we’re watching.

The answer for those in faith crisis and faith transition is never pray more, read the Book of Mormon more or go to the temple more. Those who have not experienced this (including most leaders) don’t seem to be able to grasp that, and it helps them feel better so it should work for everybody, right? That’s besides it being the tried and true “party line.” I’m not faulting them, they don’t know any better or know anything else. But in some cases they hurt more than help. Old Timer’s Harry Potter thestral analogy fits here. (https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3864” class=”bbcode_url”>https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3864)

When the shelves broke and the walls came tumbling down too, I was (am) very much like you Carb. Part of what led to my faith crisis was being fired from a job, and that’s really a bigger story than I want to tell right now (nor do I have time). But I did fall into a very deep, dark depression and suicide was not off the table. I get how this can be soul wrenching, and I understand that the dark night of the soul is multidimensional and has many levels. I know why gay LDS (and other conservative Christian, Muslim, and Jewish) kids commit suicide and it breaks my heart. I believe it breaks God’s heart as well and thus I realize my God is different from the one I hear so much about in testimony meeting.

We are here to help you find the path, something which you ultimately have to do for yourself. When I say “may you find the peace you seek” I mean it sincerely.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I have two resources that you might want to check out.

1st is the story of Josh & Lolly Weed. Here is a thread about their heartfelt decision to separate but still co-parent https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=8739&hilit=carol+pearson

Next is the story of Carol Lynn Pearson. Particularly her book “Goodbye, I love you.”

You are walking a very difficult path. You are not alone in this path. I imagine this to be both comforting and sad. Comforting because others can understand what you are going through. Sad because it means that others have suffered and are suffering in similar ways.

There are so many bits and pieces I would like to comment on in recent posts, but doing so will result in my dominating this thread with an angst-ridden tsunami of self-pity and loathing.

I need to cherry pick.

I am well acquainted with the Weeds’ story, thank you. I was a member of North Star when everything went sideways. I was not impressed then, nor am I now. My own history is one of sacrificing myself again and again for what I have understood to be the greater good. His story reminded me of many others I heard in my time as a subscriber to the North Star email and Facebook groups (though arguably without the attention-seeking aspect). I feel sorry for her. As for him, I’m left shaking my head; I’ve seen and heard it all before.

As for “Goodbye, I love you,” I came across that while I was in my decades-long denial phase. I felt sorry for the wife — and uneasy about the husband. He made choices that I have no plans to make, and they cost him his life. My life proceeds in an emotionally part-paralysed way. The past and current teachings of the Church on my situation are occasionally enough to persuade me that death is the only way out. However, I will not kill myself on account of how the Church makes me feel. I will separate myself from the source of damage before it comes to that.

I wonder if anyone has read, “In Quiet Desperation,” co-authored by Ty Mansfield. The first half is an account by some parents who lost their gay son to suicide. The second half contains the philosophies of Ty Mansfield (an LDS therapist). The first half was moving. A handful of pages into the second half, and I tossed the book aside. The second half sounded rather too much like someone who went to the same school as Josh Weed.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

We are here to help you find the path, something which you ultimately have to do for yourself. When I say “may you find the peace you seek” I mean it sincerely.

So here’s the thing. I’m not a sit-around-waiting-for-others-to-fix-me type of guy. Part of my being here is to rule out another source of potential hope — no offence intended.

After a Church email informed me that the position of the Church had done a one-eighty without my knowledge (leaving me to question what I had spent almost fifty years denying and falsifying), I decided it was time to search for solutions.

[Anonymous]

Wow Carburettor!

It is frankly impressive that you have been able to achieve so much. And yet, as you describe, even after doing so much, so very little seems to have come from it. My own efforts to change my own ward culture are no comparison to what you have been doing. Still, I came to feel that I was draining my own and my family’s social capital for naught.

Roy wrote:

I too have tried to change my local congregation in small ways. I generally advise against this course of action. 1st because the amount of change that the individual can effect is so tiny as to be constantly frustrating. 2nd because we live in a top down hierarchy and people will be especially suspicious of people trying to effect change without authority. I see it as spending my social capital to bang my head against the wall or “kick against the pricks.” My own efforts to StayLDS mean trying to coexist in a sustainable way. Trying to change even something as small as my ward was not sustainable for me.

My efforts to StayLDS require me to not invest in change. I navigate the church as it is and not try to hope for what it could become, if only… if only…

(Life Hack – I do authorize myself to construct in my mind the version of LDS doctrine that I would love to see promoted at church. We have such radically expansive and inclusive doctrines. We are a religion with some very good building blocks or “good bones.” 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 am Mormon and also my own unique brand of Mormon. I walk my own personal road and “work out [my] own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in [me] both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”)

Carburettor wrote:

My search will end either when I find ways to mitigate the distress or DHO becomes President of the Church with no hope in sight. At that point, I will no longer be eligible for a temple recommend because I will not sustain someone who considers me to be a pervert when I am a covenant-keeping member who has sacrificed even his sanity for the greater good.

Incidentally, there are multiple ways to interpret the TR interview questions. Having a strong disagreement with the church president doesn’t need to be a disqualifier if you still had the desire. The bigger question would be if you would still have the desire and I wouldn’t fault you however you felt on the subject.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

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.

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).

I may have been being overly generous towards the leadership because they “could have” talked to the people that were being hurt far sooner and more interestedly then they did.

Carburettor wrote:

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.

I read those statements and relate to a measure of that pain because of some of my experiences. I am peripherally an ally and have thought of those questions – but I know darn well that my experience doesn’t even close to that of others. There are a lot of target populations that church practices and church teachings marginalize with “doctrine” (and its related sterility).

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).

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

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 lead. I have always been the “sweet” visionary who figures out what needs to be done, and asks questions to get things done.

– I wound up co-raising 7 of my siblings because my parents were smart enough and needy enough to not get in my way.

– I wound up being the “senior companion” on my mission for 15 out of my 18 months (to sisters who had been out longer than I had AND to a 65+ year old sister). A case could be made that “I lead my trainer” after the first month.

– I wound up “presiding” in my family because my husband does not innately “preside” (I do) – and when I talked to other sisters about it (of all ages) – they said “we preside too and it sucks”. I still smart from worrying about “imposing on my husband” when I started presiding (I spent months worrying about that) only to find out that “the real rule” was that “I was fully authorized to preside all along (I just forgot to authorize myself)”.

Systems are set up to illustrate “the rules” – to make visible the actual processes things get done. But the unspoken rule is that “men get the accepted authority to lead because they have the priesthood” and “women lead the men through influence/soft power”.

– This has always felt pointless to me because I wanted to recognized by the system for my leadership skills through actual authorized power and desire to help others (including soft power techniques found in D&C 121) without “being a threat to mankind”.

NOTE: Once I hit 35, I stopped caring so much about threatening mankind and just started collaborating to get things done around leadership.

– Another way to put it – I feel that the RS president and the bishop are equal in authority and merit because a good RS has a functionally good idea of what is going on in most homes (a higher percentage of women are active in the church) and can usually network pretty easily with the youth programs and Primary. I have seen at least 1x when the RS president knew more then the bishop about what was going on – and it mattered.

For me, I “diagnose” emotion. I read many, many books to develop “flow charts of human behavior” and I developed mental processes of “here is what you say to this person” or “this is the pattern to be followed”. I picked up “lifelong rules” from my parents, from the scriptures, from Miss Manners, from Robert Fulghum, from song lyrics (multi-genre), scientific journals, “school of hard knocks”, etc.

– Most women are innately “able to feel emotion” to understand it as part of the “nurturing” DNA. I horrify people (mostly women) whose understanding of “Feelings” is that innate nurturing gift because I freely admit that I don’t “perform gender properly here” (I don’t have that innate “nurturing” gift) and wound up creating systems for myself that “diagnose” something that shouldn’t be “that cold and calculated” in women.

– I know a lot of things (because I prefer book learning to cooking) that women “shouldn’t confuse their pretty little heads” over.

– Physically based activities (clothing repair, cooking, baking, etc.) are not my friend. I have faster reflexes and poor coordination – so my craftwork costs me a lot of resources and is below average.

Even when I “get the correct answer” doctrinally (which my faith transition has made more difficult) – I do it “for the wrong reasons”.

– Like in explaining to family members why I stopped attending church, because it wasn’t “valuable to me anymore” (due to the resource cost to get myself and my children to church, sitting there thinking about finding common ground with the beliefs being shared, etc.) – all these “costs” were costs that I had identified to myself and to my children and the way that things were (between who we are and what the church teaches and the church culture in my community) – I was running a negative gain (or a very low positive gain), so I was stepping away so I wasn’t “a fraud”, wasn’t “ruining others’ experience”, and wasn’t “wasting my time, talents and energy in a place that was harming me and was harming my family”.

– I’m “supposed to be” in a narrative where my faith transition is because of “my pride, my being offended, my desire to sin”. The narrative I insist on is the one from Adam and Eve after they had been cast out of the garden. Adam was “looking for the messengers that God promised to send him”. Adam double and triple checked the credentials of those messengers (and no one is holding Adam to blame for being cautious). The jarring thing is that no one states that Adam was “ignoring the angels from God out of pride, offense, or acting on a desire to sin”.

Carburettor wrote:

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.

I think that most cultural conversations revolve around the outer trappings of “gender expectations” because those are believed to be causes of “core identity”. The more an individual does not appear to meet those expectations, the greater a “threat” or “person to be distrusted” that individual is likely to be in that community.

– Whenever it is reported widespread about people “not performing gender properly” (like women demanding the right to vote in the late 1800’s), or reports of people being honest that the “external private parts not matching an internal gender segregated point of view” (whether the reasons are known and documented like genetic biological ambiguity [both parts or no clear parts for example] or undefined) or conversations that go against the standard narratives of sexuality (Spoiler: there are multiple narratives on sexuality – the cisgender female narrative is different then the cisgender male narrative being the most obvious one. And, depending on your field of expertise, the narrative changes depending on whether it is coming from archeology, medicine, psychology, or religion).

Some science fiction/fantasy deals with trying to figure out the implications of gender as connected to souls.

What I know about gender right now is that “a lot” of what we assign to “eternal gender” is actually a “gender performance” caused by hormones and brain wiring. Studies show that women “nurture less” once menopause hits and the estrogen that was “encouraging care-giving” is gone. There are reams and reams of biological documentation linking hormones to specific behaviors – that is only becoming more in-depth, not less.

What I am skeptical of is if “gender performance” is part of some Godly “obedience” test – well, it makes me think that either the test was written wrong, or misunderstood as if God could not figure out how to transfer instructions to willful mortals, or is a gigantic red herring.

For me, the way that “I perform gender” is more thoughtful/deliberate. It’s less about “the performance” and more about me “doing something meaningful in my life – that I value and brings values to others that is impacted by my biological gender”. And part of the “I value” equation has been “redefining connection to harmful thoughts/communities/individuals” with specific boundaries. Another part of the “I value” equation has been recognizing that a lot of people who may or may not be influenced by God have said some useful and some stupid things – and some incomplete things. Would Joseph Smith or Brigham Young teach what they taught in light of computers, or public bathrooms and running water? Would they be so confident to produce miraculous healings with a foundation about germ theory under their belt? 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).

[Author]

Posts