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

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

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).

I do now recall you making reference to sustaining in other posts, thank you. I understand that point of view, but I suppose it depends on your definition of sustain. I struggled with sustaining ETB when he was president, and I have had some doubts/concerns about some local leaders in the past (not my current ones). My son and I recently had a conversation about his struggles with the current administration. His concerns include the treatment of LGBTQIA+ members, but more so the the church’s handling of finances. My point of view has changed significantly since my more orthodox days during the Benson administration, which was thankfully short. I now see them much more as the CEOs/board of directors they act like, and can “sustain” them much the same way I “sustain” the leadership of the organization for which I used to work (I retired last year). They’re there, they do things which I sometimes don’t agree with and sometimes do agree with, I have no direct interaction with them, and I do my own thing within the confines of what’s allowed. The president of the church is the duly authorized leader, following the pattern that has been followed for decades. I don’t have to agree with them or even like them. I don’t believe they receive any more revelation than anyone else or differently from anyone else and are thus prone to the same human faults as the rest of us (confirmation bias, etc.). They are not my “spiritual leaders.” When asked the sustaining question I answer yes on the premise that they are the duly authorized leaders.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

He is at least sympathetic

That does help some at least.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

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.

Interesting. I do dislike that the standard is they forward to the SPs. What you did was worth a try. I think generally the SPs are already aware of what an individual’s concerns are because they’ve likely already talked to them or a bishop has brought it up to them. And like you, the SP is mostly unable to really do anything except restate the party line anyway. (Of course there are also the ones who are a little more zealous and take these things as a cue to initiate “disciplinary” action.)

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think generally the SPs are already aware of what an individual’s concerns are because they’ve likely already talked to them or a bishop has brought it up to them.

So, this is where things get interesting. In the UK, and, I suspect every other country besides the US and maybe Canada, these issues are NEVER EVER discussed or addressed. We only ever find out after a person has left the Church. It’s why it’s an entirely different beast over here. The assumption is that no one here in the Church deals with those issues. I am not kidding. No one would ever connect the Church with anything related to gender and identity. It’s astonishing. My efforts were the first our country has known. It’s like a Harry Potter thing. It’s the issue that must not be named.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I think generally the SPs are already aware of what an individual’s concerns are because they’ve likely already talked to them or a bishop has brought it up to them.

So, this is where things get interesting. In the UK, and, I suspect every other country besides the US and maybe Canada, these issues are NEVER EVER discussed or addressed. We only ever find out after a person has left the Church. It’s why it’s an entirely different beast over here. The assumption is that no one here in the Church deals with those issues. I am not kidding. No one would ever connect the Church with anything related to gender and identity. It’s astonishing. My efforts were the first our country has known. It’s like a Harry Potter thing. It’s the issue that must not be named.

It is my perception they’re usually not addressed in the US either. A lot of the membership here, especially where I reside, live in a 1985 version of the church. While lots has changed and some of the emphasis from GAs is different, you might not recognize that on the average Sunday in my ward.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

It is my perception they’re usually not addressed in the US either. A lot of the membership here, especially where I reside, live in a 1985 version of the church. While lots has changed and some of the emphasis from GAs is different, you might not recognize that on the average Sunday in my ward.

That sounds reasonable. However, my “outsider” perception is that every news headline (for or against matters of gender and identity), every supportive group, every “coming out” story, every internet resource, every university “honor code” sensation, every podcast, every Church directive, etc., is always Americans addressing an American audience. While these issues may feel like they’re happening elsewhere to most U.S. Church members, it is my perception that they are happening elsewhere in the U.S. rather than beyond its borders. Outside of the U.S., it feels like active censorship is in place to prevent anyone from even talking about these issues.

A few years ago, I learnt of the existence of the email address: lgbt@churchofjesuschrist.org. I duly sent an anonymous email to ask if it is still in use. I received a same-day response informing me that it is staffed by Church volunteers.

So I emailed a bunch of frustrations I experience as a covenant-keeping member. I received no response.

Exactly one year ago (tomorrow), I emailed again using my personal email address (the one I use to log in to my Church account) to ask if the email address is still in use and to express some frustrations in respect of matters of gender and identity. The email didn’t bounce (i.e., it wasn’t rejected), but I received no response. I have just replied to my email (copying lgbt@churchofjesuschrist.org) to point out that receiving no response felt like being invalidated.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

It is my perception they’re usually not addressed in the US either. A lot of the membership here, especially where I reside, live in a 1985 version of the church. While lots has changed and some of the emphasis from GAs is different, you might not recognize that on the average Sunday in my ward.

That sounds reasonable. However, my “outsider” perception is that every news headline (for or against matters of gender and identity), every supportive group, every “coming out” story, every internet resource, every university “honor code” sensation, every podcast, every Church directive, etc., is always Americans addressing an American audience. While these issues may feel like they’re happening elsewhere to most U.S. Church members, it is my perception that they are happening elsewhere in the U.S. rather than beyond its borders. Outside of the U.S., it feels like active censorship is in place to prevent anyone from even talking about these issues.

I think there’s a huge difference in the church inside the “Mormon Corridor” (Utah, southern Idaho, northern Arizona) and elsewhere while at the same time much is the same. The Corridor is dominated by Deseret News as far as church members are concerned with the Salt Lake Tribune being the less read (by members) opposition that will report church stuff Deseret News won’t or can’t. I think most Corridor Mormons think what they’re reading in Deseret News is the same news I’m reading in upstate New York. It is of course not, and much of what is “news” in the Corridor means nothing here.

And while I think the church has made some efforts to be more like a global church, there’s still much to be done to make it less US-centric. Giving a total makeover to the YM/YW programs and not building gyms as parts of meeting houses is a start but it’s far the end (and we still build gyms here). There needs to be a full on embrace of local cultures and a cessation of the imperial imposition of American church culture.

So that said, yes, I agree that most head-in-the-sand members (and it turns out most of them have their heads in the sand) inside the Corridor and outside do perceive stuff as happening elsewhere and not directly affecting them. However, particularly in Utah it’s getting harder and harder to ignore (although it is often blamed on non-members, or in the case of BYU, liberal thinkers). Even with that, we also cannot have open conversations on these matters. I can talk to my bishop, SP, or individual members and I can (very) gently advocate in Sunday School or high council meeting, but there is no open discussion and can’t be (unless one enjoys being shouted down and ostracized). I think what you see that influences your perception that it’s different here is that we do actually have more freedom of speech and freedom of the press here and we have way more members here. Thus there are more members (or ex members) who participate in forums like this (and more popular ones) and who write blogs. I should note that participation in these types of forums and blog writing are almost all anonymous – and that’s for good reason. I think you’re mistaken in thinking issues like this (and others – women and the priesthood and polygamy, for example) are more openly discussed here. There is discussion but it is not mainstream and church leadership on any level is absent.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think you’re mistaken in thinking issues like this (and others – women and the priesthood and polygamy, for example) are more openly discussed here. There is discussion but it is not mainstream and church leadership on any level is absent.

Thank you for putting me straight. That is interesting to me.

As an aside, “gyms” in meeting houses is a term that is never used in the UK. We refer to them exclusively as “cultural halls” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/chapel-tours—cultural-hall/2017-01-200-chapel-tours-cultural-hall), and I was recently advised on the reason for that. When the Hyde Park Chapel was proposed as the UK’s most prestigious meeting house in an expensive part of London, there was opposition to a “gym” being included — believing it would lower the tone of the upmarket area. Consequently, it was renamed as a “cultural hall” to get around the objections. 😆

[Anonymous]

The church creates a subculture within the broader social environment. In the intermountain west of the United States, the church is big enough to have its own subcultures within the subculture (microcultures?).

Some communities with large LDS populations have gay pride parades.

I am sure that there are support organizations in these areas that specialize in talking about what it feels like to be LGBTQ and LDS. (I live in a relatively small town outside of Utah but the high school has a Gay/Straight Alliance club and the community has a pretty robust PFLAG organization, I can only assume that these organizations also exist in heavy LDS areas.)

Because of the internet, people are able to find each other in new ways and join online communities.

However, DJ is correct that these issues are not really discussed at church and the majority of the church membership are blissfully unaware.

The lack of awareness probably extends to many of the things that we discuss here. The church getting fined 5 million by the SEC is big news in the microculture of the LDS blogosphere (of which StayLDS is a part). The majority of the members either didn’t hear about it or didn’t care.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Some communities with large LDS populations have gay pride parades.

As I understand it, there seems to be an uneasy truce between TR holding LDS members that attend or walk in gay pride parades to show support for the LGBTQ community and the church leadership. You can participate relatively quietly and not lose your recommend. However, there are limits. If your “activism” becomes too pronounced at church OR if you talked bad publicly about the church while at a gay pride event then I believe there would be negative consequences.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I think you’re mistaken in thinking issues like this (and others – women and the priesthood and polygamy, for example) are more openly discussed here. There is discussion but it is not mainstream and church leadership on any level is absent.

Thank you for putting me straight. That is interesting to me.

As an aside, “gyms” in meeting houses is a term that is never used in the UK. We refer to them exclusively as “cultural halls” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/chapel-tours—cultural-hall/2017-01-200-chapel-tours-cultural-hall), and I was recently advised on the reason for that. When the Hyde Park Chapel was proposed as the UK’s most prestigious meeting house in an expensive part of London, there was opposition to a “gym” being included — believing it would lower the tone of the upmarket area. Consequently, it was renamed as a “cultural hall” to get around the objections. 😆

We’re supposed to call them cultural halls too. The doors are labeled as such, and we do have ward dinners and events there. But it is a full size gym marked with basketball and volleyball lines, it has motorized lifting basketball hoops and we have the posts and nets that go in specialized fittings in floor for volleyball. It is a gym, and they do have stake level basketball and volleyball tournaments there (although those have significantly declined over they years and are not on the same level as those in Utah). Most older members call it the gym, and most also call the “resource center” the library. By contrast, two of my sons served in South America and one in the South Pacific (I also served in the South Pacific). In South America they have cultural halls too – but they are not gyms (although some of the older buildings may still have gym floors). Where my other son served they didn’t have cultural halls, rather the big room was multipurpose (much like one of our branches here). They set up chairs on Sunday and if there was a ward/branch gathering they set it up differently for that. My service was much longer ago (early 80s) and in New Zealand where gyms were still standard, but the buildings were older as well. My guess is modern buildings there might include a gym, but they seem more likely to be like those in South America. I think these newer buildings are an attempt to move away from the imposition of the American-Utah/basketball culture that isn’t interesting to South Americans anyway – but it’s also not an embrace of their culture.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think these newer buildings are an attempt to move away from the imposition of the American-Utah/basketball culture.

The entire church organisation is saturated with American culture in one form or another. For those of us born into it in other countries, we are generally well assimilated — but even we have moments of “really?” :crazy:

I am reminded of a relatively recent exchange I had with an American Bishop in our stake who contacted me to ask about getting his hands on some rings and medallions for his ward young men in respect of the Children and Youth programme. They weren’t available in the UK at the time, and I jokingly (but not really) said that a boy in the UK having a ring or medallion is one sure-fire way to get beaten up.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

As I understand it, there seems to be an uneasy truce between TR holding LDS members that attend or walk in gay pride parades to show support for the LGBTQ community and the church leadership. You can participate relatively quietly and not lose your recommend. However, there are limits. If your “activism” becomes too pronounced at church OR if you talked bad publicly about the church while at a gay pride event then I believe there would be negative consequences.

The Stake YW President in our stake may just be one of a kind. As a result of my meddling, she has the ongoing assignment (not calling) of “Advocate for Gender and Identity.” I guess that wouldn’t fly in Utah. The assignment was cleared by a local authority seventy who probably didn’t ask permission any higher up.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

The church getting fined 5 million by the SEC is big news in the microculture of the LDS blogosphere (of which StayLDS is a part). The majority of the members either didn’t hear about it or didn’t care.

Spot on. I saw it in my BBC news feed, talked about it with my wife for no more than five minutes, and then let it be on the basis that there was probably wrongdoing on the Church’s part, but we will be fed an entirely different story.

It was subsequently raised as a topic for our stake “Open Forum” at the end of July when the stake’s “best minds” (lol) form a panel and answer member concerns. I was on vacation, so I didn’t attend. I don’t even bother to submit issues about gender and identity for consideration at such events because my understanding and awareness is far deeper than theirs. They only really know what the Church presents on its website — mingled with the philosophies of men that are enough to make my eyes roll so far into the back of my head that I am at risk of going blind.

[Author]

Posts