- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I believe I have reached a selection of answers, depending on how the individual interacts with the stated position of the Church: (1) The individual lived through and embraced Church teachings of the 20th century (albeit with extraordinary discomfort) in respect of perversion being the author of gender and identity misalignment — culminating in the red lines of the doctrinal Family Proclamation. Such individuals are likely to view the Church’s evolving position with confusion and/or suspicion and therefore struggle to accept either one or both sides of the argument as inspired. I suspect that such individuals are unable to find long-term peace as active members. Remaining active requires these individuals to embrace contradictory doctrine at the core of who they are or have become. Like me, they may be so wholly invested in their convictions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that they are yoked to the Church in an abuser-victim-style relationship. Peace is unlikely to be hallmark of such a relationship. Devotion? Absolutely. Peace? No.
(2) The individual lived through but never personally aligned with Church teachings of the 20th century in respect of gender and identity, believing them to be uninspired. For such individuals to experience peace as active members, they must live with the expectation that Church doctrine will someday change to accommodate their worldview in which sexual morality is redefined. Senior leaders have repeatedly asserted that this will never happen, however, so individuals waiting for such changes are likely to experience mounting disaffection as they watch their lives advance inexorably toward a conclusion. Waiting for something that is never going to happen is no recipe for peace. Temporary peace, maybe. Enduring peace, no.
(3) The individual is aware of the raft of pejorative statements by senior priesthood leaders of the previous century, but they aren’t old enough to have experienced firsthand the discomfort associated with them. Like those who never aligned with former Church teachings, they live with the hope that the Church will progressively accommodate their gender/identity worldview. For a period of time, peace is undoubtedly accessible to such individuals. With each passing year, however, peace with strings attached is likely to erode into nothingness as individuals struggle to stay aligned with principles that prevent them from experiencing feelings of completeness.
(4) The individual joins the Church without fully understanding the ramifications of what the missionaries have explained to them about the Law of Chastity — or perhaps believing they can change themselves. They desire the peace associated with being part of a faith-filled community, but the price of such peace is the acceptance of being something the rest of the community quietly views as a cancer. Peace is gradually dismantled as it is for those who await change.
In short, I believe that something that feels like peace is attainable, but only for a limited time at best because it is underpinned by a perpetual state of internal conflict. Devout LGBTQIA+ members who model themselves on Christ will profess to experiencing peace to validate their commitment, but their peace is likely to be little more than conviction and bloody-mindedness (that may be Brit-English, which can be replaced with stubbornness). For others, peace is likely to wane with loss of optimism.
That sounds like a pretty good assessment. Carburettor wrote:
Senior leaders have repeatedly asserted that this will never happen, however, so individuals waiting for such changes are likely to experience mounting disaffection as they watch their lives advance inexorably toward a conclusion. Waiting for something that is never going to happen is no recipe for peace.I do believe that such things will change but the rate of change will be slow. Senior leaders claim that doctrine never changes because that’s what senior leaders do right up until the moment when it changes. I do not advocate waiting for change nor trying to create change.
Roy wrote:
That sounds like a pretty good assessment.Carburettor wrote:
Senior leaders have repeatedly asserted that this will never happen, however, so individuals waiting for such changes are likely to experience mounting disaffection as they watch their lives advance inexorably toward a conclusion. Waiting for something that is never going to happen is no recipe for peace.I do believe that such things will change but the rate of change will be slow. Senior leaders claim that doctrine never changes because that’s what senior leaders do right up until the moment when it changes. I do not advocate waiting for change nor trying to create change.
Prior to the change of the priesthood ban prominent church leaders said it wouldn’t ever happen, even fairly close to the change. The it did happen. Revelation is funny that way. So is real world pressure.
I moved a post on here from carburetor about the new CES Honor Code update to its own thread. I feel that there are several aspects of the update that may generate conversation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654134https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654134” class=”bbcode_url”> When I read articles like this, I empathise with senior Church leaders and conservatives worldwide who stubbornly double-down on their positions in the face of an ever-deteriorating crisis of gender and identity. After all, our secular and faith-based social orders are under threat from ideological terrorists.
This should come as no surprise, of course, because senior priesthood leaders have been warning us of approaching moral-Armageddon for decades.
It stands to reason, however, that these ideological “freedom fighters” will continue to take aim at the status quo for as long as they self-identify with a minority who have been maligned, negated, murdered, silenced, abused, and vilified in the name of God for centuries. And let us be clear that our church has played an active role in invalidating these people for decades.
The “world” will and must reap what it has sown by the demonising of individuals instead of trying to understand them and their unmet needs. While I despair at the direction in which we are headed, I also relate to the motivations of those who make headlines in objectionable ways.
I do sympathize with church leaders that feel the world that they knew changing rapidly and they really, really don’t like it. “Ever deteriorating crisis of gender and identity” – I assume that this is referring to the increase in people identifying as LGBTQ+ recently. I do confess that I wonder if some impressionable youth might not be trying out different pronouns to “find themselves.” However, I don’t understand how that qualifies as a crisis.
“secular and faith-based social orders are under threat” – Do you mean traditional families? Marriage is still the norm and is advantaged and protected by many laws. This was illustrated in the efforts to legalize SSM. Anything less than “marriage” was disadvantaged. What other social orders?
(I do recognize that when a group is accustomed to privilidge, any erosion of that privilidge feels like an attack)
“ideological terrorists” – What does this even mean? Who are these people? What do they do? How do they create terror? Literally, I think that the 9/11 hijackers would accurately be described as ideological terrorists or terrorists with a driving ideology. “Terrorist” is an extremely loaded word and I have half a mind to moderate it.
Are all these descriptors a sort of hyperbolic portrayal of the mindset of “senior Church leaders and conservatives worldwide who stubbornly double-down on their positions?”
While I do have some concerns for our future, I don’t think I despair. On the contrary, I feel that human society is better by almost every metric than it has been in the past (especially when taking the long view). I’m not sure I understand who you are referring to as “those who make headlines in objectionable ways.” Are you talking about the LGBTQ+ activists or the governors and legislators mentioned in the article that have signed anti-LGBTQ+ restrictions into law? I could see this being interpreted either direction.
Carburettor wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654134https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654134” class=”bbcode_url”> When I read articles like this, I empathise with senior Church leaders and conservatives worldwide who stubbornly double-down on their positions in the face of an
ever-deteriorating crisis of gender and identity. After all, our secular and faith-based social orders are under threat from ideological terrorists.
NOTE: Bolding added by me.
MAIN QUESTION:
Who defined this crisis of gender and identity (assuming there is one)?– People have never “performed gender” properly consistently – the scriptures are chock-full of times when women didn’t do what they were supposed to culturally – but it turned out OK (Rabbah in Jericho, Ruth, Naomi, Esther, Mary, Junia, etc.) and/or they got male support in redefining what they were supposed to do culturally and it seems to have turned out OK (more or less)
(Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow, et all in forming the first Relief Society, Lucy Stone and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Florence Nightingale). There is a reason why the saying, “Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History” is a re-occurring theme that I have barely given some notable examples for. – “Gender Performances” have biological underpinnings that may or may not be properly set up genetically, and may or may not be modified by environmental factors (epigenetics is the emerging territory where nurture and nature meet essentially). The “motivation to perform” may be missing, atypical, or undefined in populations with ADHD, ASD, and a host of other mental/developmental differences – and that matters.
– If there is a “crisis” I think the crisis is in mourning what was done out of ignorance for centuries in insisting that individuals and populations “perform” or “act” in specific ways that were massively harmful and traumatic to them. I think part of the “crisis” is that a lot of things have changed about what we know and what we can find out biologically and what our collective narratives have been and are being re-examined to find other, sometimes conflicting truths. I think that the “questions” about how to exist in communities, and how to set up “Zion” are being shot down because the people who have experiences worth paying attention to that might help define and answer these questions are in the margins and are in uncomfortable life spaces.
Who is defining the “ideological terrorists” threatening secular and faith-based social orders?– If we want to take institutions that are preventing proper “gender performances”, let’s see what is pulling people away from churches and community groups – work is probably #1 (2 full-time wage earners required to maintain a basic lifestyle [more universal than in the past] – in an increasingly part-time/gig driven job environment competing against overseas workers and automation). Increasing caretaker loads is probably #2 for aging populations requiring a lot of unpaid and/or partially paid for mental/physical/emotional supports, increasing pressure on parents with “more enrichment activities” and “more options” to support their children (which are good – and increase the mental/physical/emotional load on parents), and working in an environment where families are increasingly fragmented and distracted.
Carburettor wrote:
This should come as no surprise, of course, because senior priesthood leaders have been warning us of approaching moral-Armageddon for decades.It stands to reason, however, that these ideological “freedom fighters” will continue to take aim at the status quo for as long as they self-identify with a minority who have been maligned, negated, murdered, silenced, abused, and vilified in the name of God for centuries. And let us be clear that our church has played an active role in invalidating these people for decades.
The “world” will and must reap what it has sown by demonising individuals instead of trying to understand them and their unmet needs. While I despair at the direction in which we are headed, I also relate to the motivations of those who make headlines in objectionable ways.
We can’t get to the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [Love & Belonging and Self Actualization] without starting at the bottom [Physical Needs, Safety Needs]. Church and Church Culture can help or hurt target populations in a variety of ways by the stances they take on housing issues, economic uncertainty issues, supporting each population at different developmental lifespan milestones. The “top down, truth from the mountain” stance I think has done more harm then good, and has created a culture where those marginalized (divorcees, higher ACES scoring individuals, neurodiverse individuals, non-conformists) are not listened to or respected for the insights they bring to the table – they are rejected instead because of their lack of conformity (chosen or non-chosen).
Roy wrote:
“Ever deteriorating crisis of gender and identity” – I assume that this is referring to the increase in people identifying as LGBTQ+ recently. I do confess that I wonder if some impressionable youth might not be trying out different pronouns to “find themselves.” However, I don’t understand how that qualifies as a crisis.
It’s more than a growing cohort; it’s everything that comes with it. It’s loud. Proud. Front and centre. It’s getting into everything and refusing to compromise. Sheesh; I sound like one of the general authorities who have helped to fuel the fires.
Roy wrote:
“secular and faith-based social orders are under threat” – Do you mean traditional families? Marriage is still the norm and is advantaged and protected by many laws. This was illustrated in the efforts to legalize SSM. Anything less than “marriage” was disadvantaged. What other social orders?(I do recognize that when a group is accustomed to privilidge, any erosion of that privilidge feels like an attack)
I suspect that views from mainstream U.S. communities may differ wildly from those beyond its borders. The BBC article has Canada warning travellers to U.S., alleging that legal moves to restrict LGBT rights are on the rise there. Not so in many other countries.
Roy wrote:
“ideological terrorists” – What does this even mean? Who are these people? What do they do? How do they create terror? Literally, I think that the 9/11 hijackers would accurately be described as ideological terrorists or terrorists with a driving ideology. “Terrorist” is an extremely loaded word and I have half a mind to moderate it.
Sorry, boss. I’ll edit it out if it’s problematic. The definition of “ideology” is “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.” From where I stand, the foundations of the society in which I live are at risk of being progressively dismantled in the name of “equality.” For me, the cost is too high. I do not wish to be led where this is heading. Sorry if “terror” sounds too strong, but I believe the implications are indeed terrifying.
Roy wrote:
Are all these descriptors a sort of hyperbolic portrayal of the mindset of “senior Church leaders and conservatives worldwide who stubbornly double-down on their positions?”
We are seeing a mounting countermovement against repressive societies. Now that imprisonment, torture, and/or death is off the cards in many countries, there seems an insatiable appetite for normalising every fetish, predilection, and philia that mankind can dream up.
Roy wrote:I’m not sure I understand who you are referring to as “those who make headlines in objectionable ways.” Are you talking about the LGBTQ+ activists?
Yes. Some of these individuals are what I would refer to as ideological terrorists. They aim to fragment society and replace it with a new world order in which morality is whatever is done with consent.Perhaps I need meds or something.
😆 AmyJ wrote:
We can’t get to the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [Love & Belonging and Self Actualization] without starting at the bottom [Physical Needs, Safety Needs].
I am oft disappointed to hear people refer to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs while so few mention Herzberg’s Theories of Hygiene. I studied both back in the eighties.🙂 Carburettor wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
We can’t get to the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [Love & Belonging and Self Actualization] without starting at the bottom [Physical Needs, Safety Needs].
I am oft disappointed to hear people refer to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs while so few mention Herzberg’s Theories of Hygiene. I studied both back in the eighties.🙂
I just did the 15 second overview of the concepts of “Herzberg’s Theories of Hygiene” since I had never heard it before (and/or didn’t remember it). Thanks for the update:)
Actually, my family plays a video game called “Frost Punk” (a Steam-punk themed city management game set in a rapid global cooling) which actually uses Herzberg’s Theories of Hygiene as a progress model with “Discontent = Hygiene” and “Motivation = Motivation” running.
My take is that church culture is more likely to use Maslow’s framework then Herzberg’s (there is an implied assumption that church culture wants individuals to be safe, provided for, loved, and that they are making a difference and have a better understanding of who they are without regard to framework). But the church actively says stuff about “how to be safe (emergency preparedness an example)”, “how to provide (a Self-Reliance model and related programs)”, “how to belong (with specific guidelines and observations)”, and “how to become your best self (with limited success)”.
AmyJ wrote:
I just did the 15 second overview of the concepts of “Herzberg’s Theories of Hygiene” since I had never heard it before (and/or didn’t remember it). Thanks for the update:)
Thank you for bringing Maslow into the discussion. It was a worthy contribution.Roy wrote:
While I do have some concerns for our future, I don’t think I despair.
I fear I may be teetering on the brink of despair.I’m part of the committee for a local sports club. A couple of weeks ago, we held the AGM, and the chairperson mentioned that the club can qualify for some local-government funding if we can demonstrate that we are actively catering for the LGBT community.
Is that progress? Really?
There is so much bundled up in that prospect that I shudder to think too deeply about it. The “community” that the government has in mind are the same banner-waving individuals who wish to promote drag events for our kids and want every type of sexual coupling to be taught in schools. We are circling the drain.
My previous hyperbole (sorry) was intended to draw attention to the rise in power and influence of that so-called community, which is at least in part a concession for all the past hatred directed at them. And I suspect they will leverage everything at their disposal to change our societies beyond recognition. The Abrahamic faiths will never accept what they have done, but they are partly to blame for what is coming down the line.
Carburettor wrote:
Roy wrote:
While I do have some concerns for our future, I don’t think I despair.
I fear I may be teetering on the brink of despair.I’m part of the committee for a local sports club. A couple of weeks ago, we held the AGM, and the chairperson mentioned that the club can qualify for some local-government funding if we can demonstrate that we are actively catering for the LGBT community.
Carburettor wrote:
There is so much bundled up in that prospect that I shudder to think too deeply about it. The “community” that the government has in mind are the same banner-waving individuals who wish to promote drag events for our kids and want every type of sexual coupling to be taught in schools. We are circling the drain.My previous hyperbole (sorry) was intended to draw attention to the rise in power and influence of that so-called community, which is at least in part a concession for all the past hatred directed at them. And I suspect they will leverage everything at their disposal to change our societies beyond recognition. The Abrahamic faiths will never accept what they have done, but they are partly to blame for what is coming down the line.
I agree that there is a essentially a “resources turf war” between
and people’s time, talents, and attention, and community standards/definitions are the pawns in that turf war. “The Broken Ladder” is a book that deals with the psychology behind it and connected topics such as equality. I think that the “end game” for ALL groups (if they get into power) is to “change our societies beyond recognition” – and conservative societies have a bit of the edge in that sometimes as their version of reality is less foreign then the versions of reality of other groups.
:::Moderator Note::: We seem to be straying from the original question of the thread which is:
Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church?
Remember that we at StayLDS are to focused on helping people StayLDS and tackling larger societal trends falls outside of our scope. This is not really a hard rule. We talk about lots of things but try to keep things focused in that direction – how to cope with continuing as members after a crisis of faith.
I believe that this discussion has run its course. The original question has been answered rather thoroughly. If anyone has anything else to post tangential to this subject they can create a new thread on that related topic and this will help to keep the posts organized for those interested parties that may be following along or looking up topics in our archives. Thanks everyone for the great discussion. This thread is now locked.
- The topic ‘Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church?’ is closed to new replies.