Just when it was all going so well

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Seems to fit the definition of asexual at least to some extent.

Sorry, I’m definitely not asexual. I experience unwanted attraction and “longing” (if that’s an appropriate expression).

DarkJedi wrote:

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 was raised on a diet of mind over matter. I have never smoked a cigarette or anything similar. I have never intentionally drunk alcohol. I have always kept my language clean. I have never viewed porn. All these issues are part of my unhealthy “scrupulosity.” Perhaps I sit somewhere on the autistic spectrum, but I function at a superficial level much like everyone else — except I have a massive rift in my sense of self that has brought only sadness. Never the feelings of “man is that he might have joy.”

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

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! 😆

I am glad that I could help. I can relate to the “making me feel terrible about myself” thought process too. But really, I have found it works better to “ground yourself” by taking things you learn about yourself and how you see the world as “coordinates” on a map (without judgement). If you see things as the metaphysical equivalent of X,Y coordinates on a map, it is easier to see different ways to get “get elsewhere” via CBT or other useful tools. It also makes it easier to not get “personally involved” in insisting that other people have to be where you are (or vice versa).

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.

Carburettor wrote:

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 can see where that message was conveyed from our culture. Part of “scrupulosity” is “taking things the extra mile” to the point where it is overkill. Sometimes that is a lot of hedge laws, sometimes just being overly literal. The older I get, the more I realize that “what the leaders was trying to say” wasn’t always “what they meant to say”. On some levels, they put down the harsh law of “authority” because they were going to get ignored. They were using their words to aim for a specific target like the sun when in reality, they just wanted enough authority and momentum to get the velocity necessary to get to the moon.

Carburettor wrote:

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!”

Maybe you were onto something?

Carburettor wrote:

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 mis-fitting 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?

I don’t have the answers, sorry. I suspect that eventually the question will go from “the cost of destroying emotional & mental wellbeing” to “what do I need to re-engineer my emotional & mental wellbeing”. The only pointers I can recommend are learn about “scrupulosity” and it’s ramifications. Learning about “Trauma and Sexuality” from actual experts may be useful as well. Even if you had a less than traumatic family life, it left you feeling like an imposter who had to go the extra mile, to put in a lot of hedge laws to stay “safe” – and while it “saved you” from some things, it sounds like it was traumatic to you, and you would be served by seeing yourself as a survivor of that. And to truly “learn” and process those things – that will take months to years.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

Seems to fit the definition of asexual at least to some extent.

Sorry, I’m definitely not asexual. I experience unwanted attraction and “longing” (if that’s an appropriate expression).

DarkJedi wrote:

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 was raised on a diet of mind over matter. I have never smoked a cigarette or anything similar. I have never intentionally drunk alcohol. I have always kept my language clean. I have never viewed porn. All these issues are part of my unhealthy “scrupulosity.” Perhaps I sit somewhere on the autistic spectrum, but I function at a superficial level much like everyone else — except I have a massive rift in my sense of self that has brought only sadness. Never the feelings of “man is that he might have joy.”

ASD is part of the current description we have for “people who wind up taking things very, very literally”. Non-Verbal Learning Disorder is in some instances, a lighter version of this description. In any case, these mental descriptions don’t necessarily have complete biological context yet – and are very, very subjective. Also people in this category are more prone to “trauma from literalism” then the average person because these individuals are the ones paying serious attention and taking concepts more seriously then the general population.

To quote Old-Timer, “May there be a path” to greater peace for you:)

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

The only pointers I can recommend are learn about “scrupulosity” and it’s ramifications. Learning about “Trauma and Sexuality” from actual experts may be useful as well.

Amy, I love your insight and level-headedness. I hope you (and others) won’t mind if I add another dimension to my complicated and most-likely boring personal story by sharing what has happened from 2016 to the present day, which leaves me pessimistic about what “experts” (both in and outside the Church) have to offer. Essentially, no one dares attempt to unravel sexuality these days on the basis that it may be considered conversion therapy. Plus, I don’t live in Utah but the UK where I would be laughed out of a therapist’s office for insisting that my faith is more important to me than my sexuality — even though the disconnect between the two has been strangling me for decades to the point where I have come close to ending everything (or simply contemplating it on fairly regular occasions as a means of escape), yet those recurring thoughts eventually percolate into anger that I should even find myself in such a position. It is surely messed up that a person’s religious devotion should make them want to kill themselves. Am I wrong to believe that something isn’t right for that to be the case?

In 21st-century western secular society, accepting oneself is what it’s all about. However, that doesn’t work for someone of faith in respect of complications relating to gender and identity. I fully accept that I may be barking up the wrong tree, hopelessly misguided, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or some other bad actor, but it is my sincere belief that it is currently impossible for someone like me to find peace. I’d like to explain what has brought me to this conclusion in the past few years so that maybe you or someone else can apply logic to point out where I’m going wrong. All I want is to experience joy in living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I already know what is involved in doing all the “right” things. I can’t now remember if I mentioned that I’ve been serving in stake priesthood leadership since 2019 after serving in ward and stake leadership since the 1980s (which is what you get for being a reliable member in the UK), so I would consider myself to be reasonably well informed in terms of being a faithful, committed, covenant-keeping member of the Church.

Before I share anything more, I wish to point out that I understand from the rules of this forum that I am forbidden from referring directly to individuals (alive or dead), which means I will need to be somewhat obscure about some material — but I can provide evidence offline if that helps. I simply wish to avoid being kicked off the forum. Unless I can talk through the obstacles to my continued activity in the Church, I feel doomed to become yet another tragic statistic.

Perhaps I should begin a new thread in the “Support” board. Something along the lines of “Can so-called LGBTQ+ individuals truly find peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

[Anonymous]

I would love to hear more about your journey and how the update to the Mormon and Gay website affected you.

I think it would be best to refer to individuals by their relationship to you. My wife, my bishop, my SP, my child etc. etc. You can refer to public figures as you already did with the 1995 article by Dallin H Oaks about “same gender attraction.”

We certainly don’t need “evidence.” Your experience is your experience.

We function mostly as a support group and we are all supported and helped by hearing about the journey of others, what works and what doesn’t in our attempt to StayLDS. We also mourn with each other for those things which we once loved but that cannot be maintained.

Lastly, I would avoid the term “so-called” because it seems pejorative and is often used with a mocking tone.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Lastly, I would avoid the term “so-called” because it seems pejorative and is often used with a mocking tone.

Please accept my apology for this, Roy. It was fuelled by my simmering frustrations and disenfranchisement, which will become clearer in due course. I am happy to edit my post to remove the offending adjective. To complete the removal, we should then both delete all references to it to avoid confusion for any third party. If, however, you prefer the comment(s) to remain to indicate forum practice, I will take the hit and try to avoid re-offending.

Perhaps the title of a new thread could be “Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

Roy wrote:

You can refer to public figures as you already did with the 1995 article by Dallin H Oaks about “same gender attraction.”

OK, so I’m still unsure about this. What about referring to information in the public domain (if you dig deeply enough) that reflects badly on specific senior priesthood leaders (living or deceased) in a 21st-century context? It is easy to say, “hang on, you can’t evaluate decades-old teachings in the context of our current day,” but what if, in my case, the negative ramifications of those teachings have only recently become apparent to me? To consign them to history is to invalidate their aggregated effects on me (and others). I have searched the past to understand my present, and I have subsequently found myself reminded of many troublesome things. Basically, I have emerged from the figurative cave in which I felt obliged to hide for decades only to be confronted by a tsunami of pejorative comments that shaped who I have become. I was thinking I would need to obfuscate the identity of those individuals. I wish to avoid drifting into ad hominem territory.

Please assess the following illustration. Several sections of a certain GA’s talk delivered in a past General Conference have been redacted in the transcript found on churchofjesuschrist.org because they contain content that is now considered inaccurate and offensive. Most Church members would probably consider the comments to be unfortunate, but for me they represent a single strand of damaging emotional conditioning — so hiding them only adds to the injustice. For someone in my position, it feels like gaslighting. The video of the GA’s talk hasn’t been edited, however, so the content is readily verifiable.

The purpose of examining past comments isn’t to question the integrity of individuals who believed they were offering inspired counsel; that is for them to deal with on judgement day. Rather, it is to unravel the tangle of unresolved negative outcomes that such comments caused. We can easily say, “let’s forget the past and move on,” but that leaves unaddressed the damage that continues to drive people like me from the Church. I feel we must be honest and own it — and accept the repercussions to allow the healing process to begin. Until then, it smacks of an aggressor silencing its victims.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

In 21st-century western secular society, accepting oneself is what it’s all about. However, that doesn’t work for someone of faith in respect of complications relating to gender and identity. I fully accept that I may be barking up the wrong tree, hopelessly misguided, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or some other bad actor, but it is my sincere belief that it is currently impossible for someone like me to find peace. I’d like to explain what has brought me to this conclusion in the past few years so that maybe you or someone else can apply logic to point out where I’m going wrong. All I want is to experience joy in living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I already know what is involved in doing all the “right” things. I can’t now remember if I mentioned that I’ve been serving in stake priesthood leadership since 2019 after serving in ward and stake leadership since the 1980s (which is what you get for being a reliable member in the UK), so I would consider myself to be reasonably well informed in terms of being a faithful, committed, covenant-keeping member of the Church.

I think the idea that one can’t find peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ while being Gay (or LGBTQIA+) is erroneous. I think this error in thinking comes about because the church and church members so often conflate the church with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are not the same thing. The Gospel has always existed and will always exist. The CoJCoLDS has only been in existence since 1830 (a mere blip in an eternal sense), while it could be argued the church of God/Christ/The Firstborn (and several other monikers) has existed longer but still not as long as the Gospel. The CoJCoLDS does not have a monopoly on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus himself walked the earth there have always been believers and practicers of the Gospel (and the Doctrine of Christ as outlined by Jesus himself). And since Adam & Eve there have always been believers in God the Father. The CoJCoLDS helps people to practice the Gospel, as do other churches. The dichotomy comes in here when we recognize the difference in the Gospel and the church. I am of the belief that because of church policies (as opposed to doctrine or policies taught as doctrine) LGBTQIA+ people find it very difficult to find peace in the CoJCoLDS. They can however find peace in the Gospel. Those that have found peace in the Gospel have recognized that God still loves them and always has. This is in contrast to the church’s teachings relating to worthiness. I firmly believe that in the eyes of loving Heavenly Parents and in the eyes of Jesus Christ there is no such thing as unworthiness. Jesus repeatedly demonstrated this in the four gospels.

Carburettor wrote:

Perhaps the title of a new thread could be “Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

I support a thread like you propose, and it’s probably better to start a new thread than to continue to play this out in the introduction area so it increases the likelihood that others will see it. We recognize the vast majority of visitors to the site (our beloved lurkers) never formally join or if they do never post. That’s perfectly OK. Much like the church itself, we have far greater membership numbers than we have actual participants.

Side note about addressing others outside the forum. The rule about addressing others, but not quoting others. We quote all the time and doing so is perfectly acceptable with citation (links preferred). We can also express out personal agreement, disagreement, or analysis of what someone has stated. Directly addressing someone outside the forum is taboo. We also should refrain from addressing accusations against others outside the forum (“Elder Soandso is a bad guy because some girl once said he called her sweetie.”) Ans related to that we frown on second hand quotes – the ETB voting thing is an example of that one.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

I am happy to edit my post to remove the offending adjective.

Not necessary but thanks for offering.

Carburettor wrote:

Perhaps the title of a new thread could be “Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

As noted by Dark Jedi, if your intent is to discuss membership in the LDS church specifically then it might be better to title the new thread “”Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church?” I also support creating this new topic.

DarkJedi wrote:

Side note about addressing others outside the forum. The rule about addressing others, but not quoting others. We quote all the time and doing so is perfectly acceptable with citation (links preferred). We can also express out personal agreement, disagreement, or analysis of what someone has stated. Directly addressing someone outside the forum is taboo.

DJ is correct. The rule against addressing others outside the forum prevents people from writing something like, “Hey Mr. President, are you listening? This message is for you!…”

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think the idea that one can’t find peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ while being Gay (or LGBTQIA+) is erroneous. I think this error in thinking comes about because the church and church members so often conflate the church with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are not the same thing.

Thank you, DarkJedi. I took aim in the wrong direction as you have pointed out. Indeed, I reached this conclusion myself in recent years — having regurgitated for decades clichés like “I know without a shadow of a doubt that the Church is true.” I now squirm when I hear fully grown adults repeat that same mantra each testimony meeting. As it happens, I was recently asked to share my testimony in a stake council meeting, and I made everyone uncomfortable by beginning with something like “I no longer believe the Church is true.” To their relief, I made the assertion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true — and I have a testimony of that — and the Church is simply a vehicle that attempts to drive us in that direction to the best of its ability (or that of its leaders).

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

As noted by Dark Jedi, if your intent is to discuss membership in the LDS church specifically then it might be better to title the new thread “Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church?” I also support creating this new topic.

Wonderful. I will proceed on that basis.

Roy wrote:

DJ is correct. The rule against addressing others outside the forum prevents people from writing something like, “Hey Mr. President, are you listening? This message is for you!…”

Thank you. I am still a little apprehensive about what is acceptable to post, so I trust you will kindly help me with a course correction if I step out of line. I’m simply searching for answers.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

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.

welcome mate , I am also new here.. thanks for introduction. Navigating the intersection of faith, identity, and societal changes can be incredibly challenging, especially when it feels like you’re in a unique position or a camp of your own. I hope you find the peace and clarity you seek as you navigate this complex terrain:)

[Anonymous]

eni12 wrote:

welcome mate , I am also new here.. thanks for introduction. Navigating the intersection of faith, identity, and societal changes can be incredibly challenging, especially when it feels like you’re in a unique position or a camp of your own. I hope you find the peace and clarity you seek as you navigate this complex terrain:)

Welcome to you, too. It was beginning to feel like there were just six of us participating in the assorted threads on offer. I have pretty much thrashed the living daylights out of this particular topic in another thread — about whether those who identify as LGBTQ+ can truly feel at peace as active members of the Church. I concluded they cannot. More’s the pity.

In general terms, both clarity and peace have proven to be elusive. Under scrutiny, the official position of the Church in respect of gender and identity turns out to be disingenuous while the position of secular society is devoid of morality and faith. Both positions, in my view, are therefore wrong. However, making such a claim outside of the confines of my own mind means I am technically apostate as well as making me sound like one of those embarrassing people who publicly oppose sustainings in conferences. That’s not my style; I will quietly take my leave when Nelson pops his clogs.

Anyway, you must have arrived here for a reason; do please share.

[Author]

Posts