- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
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 wrote:
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 filthy lesbian.
I was their greater headache – somewhere in this weird terrain between an Intimidating (potentially man-hating) female, an intellectual (gasp) and a Feminist:)
My perspective was an is a threat – and in the end, they got their reward because they persuaded me to conform as much as they did.
Carburettor wrote:
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).
That makes sense. The book “Misreading Scripture” comes to us from some Christian pastors/scholars and their experiences running mission programs overseas and teaching non-Western populations. They give quite a few primarily New Testament examples of where “Western thinking” causes biases “to be read into the scriptures” – that in some cases make the scripture say the opposite of what our Western Sunday schools teach it.
Carburettor wrote:
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.
I can’t help you much in the “Should” department. I only casually listen in these days (sometimes), and I treat a lot of what they say as not applicable to me.
But I have come to the conclusion that “Should is a Swear Word” used to divide people, and bludgeon compliance and conformity into a situation by someone. If something “should be done” and isn’t being done enough to the degree of whatever that looks like, I tend to get suspicious that there is a deeper situation going on. Either the person “won’t” and “shouldn’t” is a coercion method that may or may not be effective, the person “can’t” and “shouldn’t” won’t solve the accessibility problem, “isn’t interested/motivated” and “should-ing the individual” isn’t going to change that. A final option is “should” = “I expected more” and examinations need to be inspected to see if they are worthwhile investments. All the actions of the other person won’t meet my expectations if my expectations are unrealistic or being held onto too tightly. I don’t think that the church leadership understands the ramifications of what they say from the pulpit.I think the leadership grasps the dictionary definition and understands the words being strung together and taught. I don’t think they have a true understanding of the consequences of those words though – I think their age and life experiences (especially those that have been in the church org for 30 to 50+ years) foster a specific mindset with cultural implications that make it harder for them to connect with different congregation target populations. But the organization changes that would be necessary to bring the leadership demographics in line with congregation demographics on issues regarding race, gender performance, gender orientation, generational priorities, and what ever other characteristics are involved are immense, and would cost membership numbers, potentially membership dollars, and changing a lot of organizational mechanisms (including leadership selection) – are expensive, risky, and time-consuming – and I just don’t see them doing that. People in power (Male or Female) have a hard time giving up power and/or empowering others.
I wanted to share this with you It is my friend’s podcast interview.
Remember, those whom are truly following in Christ’s footsteps will always love you and not judge you no matter what choice you choose to take.
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.
I feel I may finally have an answer. I am grateful to
Royfor 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 Bobwho blogs about the Come Follow Me SundaySchool 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.
lesalezza wrote:
I wanted to share this with youIt is my friend’s podcast interview.
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.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 wrote:
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.
Some places are “echo chambers” where there is a standard “narrative/story” and that is that. In general, the church members are doing their own thing not interacting with people who are “other” aka “not enough” in some degree or another. So, if you are a church member comfortable with your identity and the teachings and culture of your community on the topics of gender and identity – well yes, all “other types of gender and identity” are going to be lumped together and not well understood/thought out.
People are gonna people – they are going to judge and be threatened by “the other”. It sucks.
Carburettor wrote:
The stock responses follow a pattern: “If the individual were more devout, more Christ-centered, 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.
“If/Then” Statements are Great (especially when they fall apart rather spectacularly).It does feel kinda like a gut punch to the soul when the “if/then” statements you grew up with and relied on turn out to be incorrect for your exact situation. Turning back to the question, “What do I need to be Just Fine” is tough but necessary sometimes. If you don’t need to be more devoted, more “present”, more researched, and if you can’t have the virtues apparently required to be “whatever” – then you start with what you have and where you are (for best results).
Carburettor wrote:
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.
I can relate to that too. I am “the mom who walked away” and apparently “dragged her family with her”. I don’t believe that narrative that I am sure is being told (but there are some facts involved – I did decrease my church activity and I have reservations about pushing my family back into any form of activity).
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.
At the end of the day, what matters is “me” – how I am navigating the world and the “value judgements” I make. Since the church as an organization is not trustworthy to make those moral/ethical/values-based decisions for me personally – I am the one who makes those decisions. I am the one with the most to gain/loose based on those decisions.
Carburettor wrote:
Being a member of an organisation shouldn’t make someone want to kill themselves. It is does, that feels to me like an indication of problems with the organisation far more than it is with the individual.
Suicide Idealization is a sign that something is deeply wrong. Whether it is that the individual is in a place that is not helpful to them physically or in a state of mind mentally – that is one of the judgement calls to make. Many people in that boat step away from the church for a while for their mental health. Some people stay but set specific boundaries to protect themselves so that they don’t get tragically hurt.
The system is absolutely flawed and stacked against the individual in situations like that. The system isn’t likely to pivot fast enough doctrinally (if at all) to help some of the individuals. Assuming that the very unlikely happened and the system changed enough to support you – what about the culture of the individuals themselves at the local levels.
Carburettor wrote:
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
I think I will provide a response to this FAIR article in the media review section.
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.
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 wrote:
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.
Yeah, That sounds like a fair assessment.
For some people, the active LDS church experience “Works Wonderfully” and fills their life with meaning and joy.
https://site.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID=7203CB3EAF7920AB-79F4B93FF52DA4C0|MCORGID=66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS=1691439963 But for others, and I believe that most in the LGBTQ+ spectrum are included here, participation an active Latter Day Saint would not be peaceful and could even be damaging.
Carburettor wrote:
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.
This is the whole thing with scripture and the whole thing with modern apostles and prophets. We all see through the same glass darkly, including them. They may try to convince us that their view is clearer better, but it isn’t – they are just as human as the next person. OT writers, NT writers (Paul said some dreadful things), BoM writers (Alma also said some dreadful things), D&C writers, and family proclamation writers (and I am in no way intimating that is scripture – it is not). They have all written through their own lenses and their own understanding, even when the words were allegedly straight from God. They were/are simply doing the best they can from their own understanding. Unfortunately for the believing sometimes they’re wrong.
There is almost nothing in scripture about pre or post earth life/existence (and I think that’s on purpose, good job God). Most of what is written and almost all of what is taught in LDS theology on the subject is to the best of the understanding of the writers/speakers – but there’s a very high chance they’re wrong about at least some of it.
Carburettor wrote:
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.
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. I think there’s enough strength in the Q15 (the other 13/14) to keep him in line. Will that change over time and will the view change? Very likely so if you look at the history of the priesthood ban. I’m 63 and hope I have another 20 or 30 years of life left – but I don’t expect a change like the end of the priesthood ban in my lifetime (until the majority of the Q15 is Millennial and Gen Z). I believe that’s why most LGBTQIA+ members and often people very close to them have left and continue to leave – there is no hope in the church for them. There is hope in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but many in their disillusionment with the church and lack of understanding of the differences in the church and the gospel fail to recognize that as well.
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.
- The topic ‘Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church?’ is closed to new replies.