Just when it was all going so well

[Anonymous]

Hi. I have reached a precarious position, and the future looks bleak.

I am a product of zealous adherence to Church principles, policies, and programmes (warning: non-US spellings, sorry). My entire life has been centred on the Church and anchored to it. I consider myself to have a deep-rooted testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has been forged through six decades of determination and endurance, and I have served in priesthood leadership pretty much my entire adult life — with the past four years being spent in stake leadership.

All that being said, my world view began to change a few years ago on account of some things I was instructed only to believe and never question — but which the Church by its own actions caused me to question in my mid-fifties. With increasing concern, I feel I have no choice but to step away when Oaks replaces Nelson (sadly, he won’t live forever — so to speak) because I now realise I will become a hypocrite if I remain. Whether I will return at some point will depend on what happens in due course.

For the record, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool, second-generation member in the UK. Seminary graduate. Served a full-time mission to Canada. University graduate. My patriarchal blessing assured me that a wife was waiting — and that we would have children. So I’ve now been married and sealed for 27 years to my returned-missionary wife, and we have four adult children — each of whom has pretty-much rejected our example. My patriarchal blessing also tells me I will serve a lengthy mission with my wife at a time when people recognise the close return of the Saviour.

So what’s the problem? Well, I’m technically part of the LGBTQIA+ cohort — and the paradigm in which I put my trust has turned out to be a disturbing mirage with a toxic back-story. I’m now trying figure out what lies ahead.

Just so you don’t get the wrong idea, I have remained covenant keeping from the get-go. I have no interest in liberalisation, same-sex marriage, or anything like that. I am simply troubled by what I perceive as duplicitous behaviour by senior priesthood leaders that continues to produce victims.

Worse yet, I seem to have ended up in a camp all by myself. I no longer believe what the Church OR secular society has to say in respect of gender and identity. As far as I can tell, neither offers anything more than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

Hi. I have reached a precarious position, and the future looks bleak.

Worse yet, I seem to have ended up in a camp all by myself. I no longer believe what the Church OR secular society has to say in respect of gender and identity. As far as I can tell, neither offers anything more than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Thanks for finding us:)

I think that a fundamental flaw that groups say in respect to gender and identity is that they [both church AND secular society] feel obligated to say anything at all and expect certain “performances” or expectations based on outside indicators. That being said, my opinion gender is something that happens to you (biology and DNA in action) and something that happens with you (your personal preferences and expectations) – with “the box that society assigns you” coming in last.

[Anonymous]

Welcome and Thank you for introducing yourself Carburettor,

Reading between the lines, I understand that you knew that you were among the LGBTQIA+ cohort for the majority of your life and made life decisions based on church teachings. That is a rough spot to be in and I am sorry.

Carburettor wrote:

All that being said, my world view began to change a few years ago on account of some things I was instructed only to believe and never question — but which the Church by its own actions caused me to question in my mid-fifties.

Are the things that are causing the shift in your worldview related to LGBTQIA+ teachings of the church? What actions of the church are causing you to question? If the church had not done those actions, do you think you would still experience a worldview shift? It has been my experience that multiple factors often contribute to what we call faith crisis.

Carburettor wrote:

I am simply troubled by what I perceive as duplicitous behaviour by senior priesthood leaders that continues to produce victims.

I would love some more clarification on this. What sorts of duplicitous behaviour? who are the victims? I am not doubting you. I do agree that the church is the opposite of transparent in many respects and that church abuse is real. I would just like to know more of what and whom specifically you speak of.

Carburettor wrote:

Worse yet, I seem to have ended up in a camp all by myself. I no longer believe what the Church OR secular society has to say in respect of gender and identity. As far as I can tell, neither offers anything more than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

I would also really be interested in knowing what your thoughts are in respect to gender and identity.

I hope to hear from you again soon.

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the forum. We do have a few other Brits who stop by.

Carburettor wrote:

Hi. I have reached a precarious position, and the future looks bleak.

Things are probably not as bad as they seem. Your main concern here seems to be what others are going to think, and that’s valid. You will lose “friends” in the church and you will be judged. But to thine own self be true.

Carburettor wrote:

I am a product of zealous adherence to Church principles, policies, and programmes (warning: non-US spellings, sorry). My entire life has been centred on the Church and anchored to it. I consider myself to have a deep-rooted testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has been forged through six decades of determination and endurance, and I have served in priesthood leadership pretty much my entire adult life — with the past four years being spent in stake leadership.

I hear you. “I once was like that man.” (Dickens/Scrooge)

Carburettor wrote:

All that being said, my world view began to change a few years ago on account of some things I was instructed only to believe and never question — but which the Church by its own actions caused me to question in my mid-fifties. With increasing concern, I feel I have no choice but to step away when Oaks replaces Nelson (sadly, he won’t live forever — so to speak) because I now realise I will become a hypocrite if I remain. Whether I will return at some point will depend on what happens in due course.

For the record, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool, second-generation member in the UK. Seminary graduate. Served a full-time mission to Canada. University graduate. My patriarchal blessing assured me that a wife was waiting — and that we would have children. So I’ve now been married and sealed for 27 years to my returned-missionary wife, and we have four adult children — each of whom has pretty-much rejected our example. My patriarchal blessing also tells me I will serve a lengthy mission with my wife at a time when people recognise the close return of the Saviour.

I’m a little older than you and was a convert but the rest is pretty similar – including the four children who are at best semi active (more not active at all, one has all but formally left the church). Such is life. Interesting little promise in the PB there at the end. I think Patriarchs are discouraged from making such promises nowadays. It reminds me of some of the very old members of our stake who all got blessings from a Patriarch who promised them they’d see the second coming of Christ. Very few of them remain, and unless I missed it I don’t think they saw it. (I spare you all the lame apologetics.)

Carburettor wrote:

So what’s the problem? Well, I’m technically part of the LGBTQIA+ cohort — and the paradigm in which I put my trust has turned out to be a disturbing mirage with a toxic back-story. I’m now trying figure out what lies ahead.Just so you don’t get the wrong idea, I have remained covenant keeping from the get-go. I have no interest in liberalisation, same-sex marriage, or anything like that. I am simply troubled by what I perceive as duplicitous behaviour by senior priesthood leaders that continues to produce victims.

I get this and I have some respect for your situation. You were and are doing what you think is right. Who, including God, could ask for anything more? I think very similar to the time before the Blacks and the priesthood “revelation” there are some in the top leadership (Q15) who do get it and they are suppressed and held back by the other hard liners and conservatives. They likely also have the conflict in themselves where they struggle with what they’re supposed to believe – what they’ve been taught and believe their whole lives – and what they actually think. I agree with you, they are duplicitous, saying “love your neighbor” while doing everything they can to marginalize the neighbor and make them believe they are not “worthy.” Nowhere in any example we have did Jesus Christ do that. No one is unworthy.

Carburettor wrote:

Worse yet, I seem to have ended up in a camp all by myself. I no longer believe what the Church OR secular society has to say in respect of gender and identity. As far as I can tell, neither offers anything more than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

You are not alone, but there aren’t many of us. From what I can see it’s much more philosophies of men than scripture as far as the church is concerned. I don’t see anywhere in scripture where gender is clearly defined as eternal – either pre or post earth. I personally see gender as more a biological (“natural man”) function for reproduction here, in the natural world. But that’s a whole other topic.

I too have my concerns about the day DHO takes the reins (I have concerns about Bednar too, who barring some disaster will more than likely sit in the big chair at some point). I survived Benson, who I didn’t care for, but his reign was short lived – I can only hope the same for Oaks (I apologize if that sounds like ill will, but it is what it is).

The path you’re on is tough. May you find your way and may you find the peace you seek.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

Worse yet, I seem to have ended up in a camp all by myself. I no longer believe what the Church OR secular society has to say in respect of gender and identity. As far as I can tell, neither offers anything more than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

You’re not as alone as you feel.

IMO scripture is philosophies of men, so for me saying philosophies of men mingled with scripture is like saying philosophies of men mingled with philosophies of men. I think philosophies of humans is the only tool we’ve ever had when contemplating the eternities.

DarkJedi wrote:

I too have my concerns about the day DHO takes the reins (I have concerns about Bednar too, who barring some disaster will more than likely sit in the big chair at some point). I survived Benson, who I didn’t care for, but his reign was short lived – I can only hope the same for Oaks (I apologize if that sounds like ill will, but it is what it is).

I feel like I’m still trying to survive ETB. Many of his attitudes are still very alive and well.

It wasn’t all that long ago that I was concerned about BKP taking the helm. I wasn’t as concerned by what I imagined he would or wouldn’t do as prophet, I was concerned that once he was made prophet that it would have the effect of canonizing everything he’s ever said. Apostles enjoy a little of that phenomenon where their words are authoritative but when an apostle becomes a prophet their words tend be much longer lasting.

I have the same concerns about DHO. He has a hobby horse that needs to be put out to pasture.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I feel like I’m still trying to survive ETB. Many of his attitudes are still very alive and well.

Good point. There was more I disliked about ETB, including his views on singles and marriage (I was a YSA at the time) and quite frankly his politics. But his “read the Book of Mormon” every day is alive and well. I won’t really get on the soapbox about that here as it is sort of a digression from the OP, but I will say that the BoM thing was bolstered in an unusual way by non other than Thomas Monson. I’m not sure Monson meant to do it, it was a very short talk (one of the last as fate would have it) and one of the few times he ever mentioned it. His theme was different – love one another, and he talked about that every.single.time.he.spoke. But he reads says read the BoM once, and BAM! all those 80s church lovers are right there in the parade. (end rant)

nibbler wrote:

It wasn’t all that long ago that I was concerned about BKP taking the helm. I wasn’t as concerned by what I imagined he would or wouldn’t do as prophet, I was concerned that once he was made prophet that it would have the effect of canonizing everything he’s ever said. Apostles enjoy a little of that phenomenon where their words are authoritative but when an apostle becomes a prophet their words tend be much longer lasting.

Another good point as in the example above. Packer wasn’t all that bad when he wasn’t talking about sex, and he didn’t even mostly talk about that. But when he did he sure was passionate.

nibbler wrote:

I have the same concerns about DHO. He has a hobby horse that needs to be put out to pasture.

Indeed, and it seems that horse is the one giving our new friend and many others pause. And even the younger generations beating feet out of the seats, many for precisely this reason, isn’t getting the message through. (I do think some of the Q15 hear it/see it, but clearly not DHO and some others.)

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I would love some more clarification on this. What sorts of duplicitous behaviour? who are the victims?

Thank you (and the other respondents) for not simply rejecting me. I feel a deep need to talk through my concerns, which are likely to be exaggerated in my head. I signed up to another forum, but my account was banned when I stated my position.

I do not wish to bash the Church for any reason because it is my life, but I have recently become aware of some things to which I was oblivious for decades (because information simply wasn’t available in the 20th century like it is now).

I wish to avoid having my account banned, and I certainly have no desire to lead anyone astray.

I’ve also timed this badly because I signed up just before leaving for our family vacation, and we are in a remote place with limited network access.

[Anonymous]

We are certainly not in the habit of banning anyone.

Carburettor wrote:

I feel a deep need to talk through my concerns

Yes, I went through that too. I had to get it all out of my head. I couldn’t talk to the LDS in my life without making them defensive and I couldn’t talk to the non-LDS because they wouldn’t understand. I also worried that I would weary anyone with my need to talk.

Fortunately, I found StayLDS. You are welcome here. Talking and listening without judgement is what we do.

[Anonymous]

What follows may be too long and self-indulgent for anyone to bother with, but it’s cathartic to put it in writing.

I don’t want to get all weird, but I was aware of nothing sexual going on in my early years. The message I learnt was that anything sexual was evil and forbidden. And I never questioned what I was taught.

My father was a bishop when I was born, and he was called as stake president when I was four. In hindsight, I’d say he was so invested in saving the ward and stake that he overlooked the emotional impacts of his absence on his family. Certainly on me.

At the age of four, I experienced my first “crush” if you will, and it had nothing to do with sex because I had no concept of what that was (and wouldn’t have until my late teens). I can now see that I became fixated with replacement father figures who embodied everything I couldn’t access in my own father. That sounds horribly creepy, sorry.

Decades later, I can logically accept how a craving for affirmative masculine validation while being on the receiving end of a punishing physical relationship with an older brother likely fermented into something entirely unhealthy. The layering of sexual interest (in the context of associating pleasure with the subject of one’s strongest motivations) probably began to take shape only in my twenties as a logical development of unresolved emptiness.

No conscious choice was ever involved. I had no idea what the M-bomb was until my stake president asked me during my mission interview if I did it — and then had to explain it to me. Oh, the horror!

So that’s the start. I was committed to never exploring anything immoral (as instructed), so a naive and submissive devotion to my faith prevented me from ever addressing the unhealthy attitudes that were developing without my consent to fill my longing for acceptance and validation.

That’s the background to a life of emotional confusion, anxiety, feelings of fraudulence and of being an imposter, followed by several professional interventions that were believed to be work-stress related, during which I relied on meds to mitigate the hopelessness of feeling that ending it all was the only way out.

Note: a request for sympathy is neither expressed nor implied. Since 2016, I have been able to largely unravel my angst. And that unravelling is what has brought me so much uncertainty in respect of the self-loathing I learnt from Church teachings, which, for at least 50 years, were focused on individuals “choosing” a path of perversion. I simply wanted to be normal.

I’ll take a break at this point. I’m on vacation, and the day beckons.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

Since 2016, I have been able to largely unravel my angst. And that unravelling is what has brought me so much uncertainty in respect of the self-loathing I learnt from Church teachings, which, for at least 50 years, were focused on individuals “choosing” a path of perversion. I simply wanted to be normal.

It sounds like there were some traumatic experiences in your past – I commend you for your strength and clarity of mind.

What I am getting from your narrative is that there were experiences with your father and brother that that taught you that you did not have a consistent value of “worth” – sometimes you were worthy of attention, sometimes you were worthy of the wrong sort of attention, and sometimes not. Part of that got translated into “proving your worth/your righteousness” and part of that went into “navigating an empty life” and finding ways to “feel good” in the process – that also turned out to be ways “to sin/be unrighteous [aka fail your worth]”.

There is a lot out there about “purity culture” and “Scrupulosity” from a religious standpoint that may be useful to you – there are even posts about the second topic on this site. Trauma does a number on sexuality too (especially for men – that is a growing field of data and information on that) – that might be a useful topic to explore in general.

I don’t know you, and I am female – so I might be off base. But at the end of the day, it seems that your soul is in conflict because what feels “normal” is also defined as “perverse” as defined by the church culture (and some teachings). I can relate to that conflict.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

What follows may be too long and self-indulgent for anyone to bother with, but it’s cathartic to put it in writing.

Not at all.

Carburettor wrote:

I don’t want to get all weird, but I was aware of nothing sexual going on in my early years. The message I learnt was that anything sexual was evil and forbidden. And I never questioned what I was taught.

My father was a bishop when I was born, and he was called as stake president when I was four. In hindsight, I’d say he was so invested in saving the ward and stake that he overlooked the emotional impacts of his absence on his family. Certainly on me.

At the age of four, I experienced my first “crush” if you will, and it had nothing to do with sex because I had no concept of what that was (and wouldn’t have until my late teens). I can now see that I became fixated with replacement father figures who embodied everything I couldn’t access in my own father. That sounds horribly creepy, sorry.

Decades later, I can logically accept how a craving for affirmative masculine validation while being on the receiving end of a punishing physical relationship with an older brother likely fermented into something entirely unhealthy. The layering of sexual interest (in the context of associating pleasure with the subject of one’s strongest motivations) probably began to take shape only in my twenties as a logical development of unresolved emptiness.

No conscious choice was ever involved. I had no idea what the M-bomb was until my stake president asked me during my mission interview if I did it — and then had to explain it to me. Oh, the horror!

Two opinions I’ll offer. 1) The church has come around to the idea that LGBTQIA+ folks didn’t choose to be “that way.” I have believed this for a very long time. I never chose to be heterosexual, I am what I am, and I believe those are “hard wired.” It is certainly not as some argue nature vs. nurture, rather it is some of both (with nature being the stronger of the two IMO). 2) Did you grow up in my ward? I know you didn’t of course, but we have a guy in our ward who sounds as they he is very much like your father. With him it was and is always all church all the time (and believe me I am not exaggerating). His wife was essentially a single mom while he was off doing church work every waking minute he wasn’t at his job – and now that he’s retired that’s every waking minute (the oldest of the children are now in their 40s, younger ones near 30). If he wasn’t magnifying his calling (bishop, stake presidency, etc.) he was doing something for his home teaching families, doing family history (when you had to mostly go to the library), chasing down some long inactive member, or anything else that had to do with church. Family never came first. The current status of his now adult children reflects that neglect.

Carburettor wrote:

So that’s the start. I was committed to never exploring anything immoral (as instructed), so a naive and submissive devotion to my faith prevented me from ever addressing the unhealthy attitudes that were developing without my consent to fill my longing for acceptance and validation.

Seriously? You didn’t know about the M-word until you were 19? I believe you, I’m just flabbergasted and can’t say I’ve ever met anyone who has said that before. Were you a late bloomer?

Carburettor wrote:

That’s the background to a life of emotional confusion, anxiety, feelings of fraudulence and of being an imposter, followed by several professional interventions that were believed to be work-stress related, during which I relied on meds to mitigate the hopelessness of feeling that ending it all was the only way out.

Note: a request for sympathy is neither expressed nor implied. Since 2016, I have been able to largely unravel my angst. And that unravelling is what has brought me so much uncertainty in respect of the self-loathing I learnt from Church teachings, which, for at least 50 years, were focused on individuals “choosing” a path of perversion. I simply wanted to be normal.

I think this is all psychologically valid and somewhat common amongst church members – those who have experienced it and those who haven’t.

Carburettor wrote:

I’ll take a break at this point. I’m on vacation, and the day beckons.

By all means enjoy your holiday! Do come back though because I think your insight is valuable here.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Seriously? You didn’t know about the M-word until you were 19? I believe you, I’m just flabbergasted and can’t say I’ve ever met anyone who has said that before. Were you a late bloomer?

It is true, as unbelievable as it sounds. I was like Kimmy Schmidt in some respects. I don’t wish to overstep the mark here by getting graphic, but I had no idea about human intercourse other than from still images in a biology class.

There’s more. I have never viewed pornography — other than in those scenarios when you’re presented with something and you choose to look away.

So all the while I’m making conscious decisions to be clean and “unspotted” (as I understood it), yet I’m also experiencing infatuation after infatuation at the same time that isn’t sexually motivated — set against a backdrop of church literature that spoke unequivocally about homosexuality being perversion. That simply could not be me, I reasoned to myself, because I didn’t even understand what I was supposed to have chosen. I had no real comprehension of the mechanics in the bedroom of a man and a woman let alone two men.

So I withdrew into my unhealthy denial, believing that God would someday straighten things out. Literally.

[Anonymous]

Seems to fit the definition of asexual at least to some extent. I can’t say I know enough about being asexual to really comment much about it.

I do believe you. And the porn thing is not at all a stretch. I think there are lots of people who don’t look at porn and there are certainly people who have no interest in porn or who find it less than appealing.

I do believe God will sort everything out, or perhaps we’ll do it ourselves based on what little we actually know about post-earth existence. I believe that in the Biblical sense justice is all about fairness, and I believe everything will be fair post earth. Earth life is unquestionably unfair/unjust.

[Anonymous]

One of my best friends is an LDS gay man married to a woman. His oldest son is my age and was the best man at my wedding. His wife baked the cake.

I did not know that he was gay when I was growing up with his boys. That is something that he confided in me more recently.

He is conflicted. He has a beautiful family that he loves dearly. He has strong resentment towards the church for pushing him towards a traditional marriage thinking that it could “fix” him. That has not been fair to him or his wife. Now, the church strongly advises against heterosexual marriage for gay members. The reality of how challenging those marriages were and are is just too jarring to ignore. But for a church that claims to speak for God, how could they get it so horribly wrong? And what do they offer as a solution now?

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more of your story. You are not alone.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

There is a lot out there about “purity culture” and “Scrupulosity” from a religious standpoint that may be useful to you – there are even posts about the second topic on this site. Trauma does a number on sexuality too (especially for men – that is a growing field of data and information on that) – that might be a useful topic to explore in general.

Thank you, Amy! I have returned from my vacation (which was lovely), and I confess that my photo could sit comfortably in the dictionary beside the word “scrupulosity.” I have never previously encountered this word, but it perfectly encompasses my childhood, adolescence, and a few more years after that. Thank you for enlightening me — and for also making me feel terrible about myself! 😆

AmyJ wrote:

I don’t know you, and I am female – so I might be off base. But at the end of the day, it seems that your soul is in conflict because what feels “normal” is also defined as “perverse” as defined by the church culture (and some teachings). I can relate to that conflict.

The word “normal” doesn’t fit well for me in any context, but I understand your reasoning. I always felt “abnormal,” and I somehow understood from the age of four that I must never put my feelings into words or even spend time dwelling on them. I was repeatedly taught in the home, classes, meetings, and conferences that such abnormality was of one’s own choosing, and I believed the message that I could extricate myself from its clutches by consciously rejecting it.

I searched all the materials we had at home back in the 1970s for advice on how to fix myself — but the messages with the greatest impact were found in The Miracle of Forgiveness and Mormon Doctrine — and I was left squirming in discomfort and bewilderment. In terms of the “perverts” to which it referred, all I could think was, “That’s not me! That can’t be me! That will not be me!”

I subsequently served my entire full-time mission feeling dirty for something I had never done — but was somehow inexplicably drawn to — while, at the same time, being driven to despise by my quest to rid myself of all things unholy.

The final piece of my misfitting jigsaw puzzle was the 1995 article by Dallin H Oaks about “same gender attraction.” It convinced me that normality was something within my grasp if I pursued it with singleness of mind. It was everything I longed for from a logical and gospel standpoint. I could be as straight as an arrow if I put my trust in God. So I reasoned that I should never question the matter further. Simply accept and become.

I believed that marriage could fix what was wrong with me — as directed by my patriarchal blessing — even if it required me to pretend to be someone else. So I did. And I ended up not knowing who I was. I even paid for two courses of hypnotherapy (first in my thirties and again in my forties) to banish the morbid thoughts that plagued me (while explaining to my wife that the treatment was to help me deal with work stress). And while my marriage continues to offer a veneer of acceptability and cosiness some 27 years later, I have always felt like an imposter. The way I love my wife is possibly similar to the way someone might display an overly touchy-feely love in a sibling relationship — perhaps even as a form of co-dependency (although I don’t really understand how to properly use that term). And I did everything as an act of faith.

And then, in November 2016, I received a Church email saying the “mormon and gay” website had been updated — and all my frames of reference went out of the window. Everything I had learnt to pretend wasn’t real was being written and talked about openly. How was that possible? Everything I had suppressed and denied for almost 50 years was there in black and white, couched in an entirely different we-don’t-really-know narrative. So I have spent decades destroying my emotional and mental wellbeing for what, exactly?

[Author]

Posts