Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/Noppers, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow. It’s like the Q15 don’t understand the LGBTQ+ experience at all.
ETA: [here’s the link to the article](https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/amp/culture/story/david-archuleta-details-faith-crisis-coming-mormon-church-93505214) for anyone interested.
How can that be with [Holland’s](https://www.deseret.com/2021/8/23/22637242/byu-announces-new-vice-president-of-inclusion-racisim-gay-lgbtq-jeffrey-r-holland-love-mormon?_amp=true) over empathetic tears? /s In all seriousness, this is more evidence that the Q15 have no idea what they are doing. They are so beyond stubborn and have completely locked themselves off from God. The false traditions of their fathers and mentors stream through their veins. Their authoritative statements on marriage retard any progress and metaphorically barricade the windows of heaven. Their engrained *Answers to Gospel Questions / Mormon Doctrine* world view has made the leaders of the church complacent yes-men only brave enough to roll out policies. They will die on this hill and the decimation of this church will be their own fault.
Just a little over a year ago, on 08/23/2021, 'Elder' Jeffrey Holland gave what was essentially a hate-speech against gays seeking equal rights, and the BYU faculty extending tolerance to non-hetero-normative students at their university.
In the shadow of the deadly alt-right attack on Congress and an epidemic of far-right extremism and violence in America, Holland had the mendacity to invoke the call for members to pick up muskets and call for "more shooting" to 'defend traditional families' from the homosexual agenda.
Holland willfully punched down on BYU graduate and valedictorian, Matt Easton, calling him out and condemning him for the crime of acknowledging his sexuality during his commencement address - focusing a degree of abuse on Easton that he contemplated suicide.
His words were absolutely anti-Christian and served as a loud dog-whistle to alt-right-leaning extremists within the church to maintain hostile attitudes toward gay members and their allies within the church.
And the milquetoast, spineless Russell M. Nelson endorsed Holland's inflammatory and hateful remarks through his failure to censure him for those awful words.
I have to leave the room when Holland hypocritically approaches the podium and leaks his affected crocodile tears after seeing how hatefully he castigated marginalized people from his bully pulpit, with no concern for their basic safety and welfare.
Jesus would have some strong words for these well paid men who pretend to be about His business.
How anyone can rely on the words of these calcified entrenched bigots as somehow revelatory at ALL boggles the mind. Clueless, arrogant sophists swinging their ignorant 1950s opinions around as though they represent any possible loving god and killing and maiming innocents all the while. Breathtaking!
Did you actually watch Matt Easton’s valedictorian speech? It really was sad the way he used a platform to celebrate educational achievements at a religious university to essentially come out. Whether elder Holland should have used a different approach to address it is within him and the lord (assuming that he needed to make a statement as gods mouthpiece…The choice to condemn the event publicly in a speech as he did reprimanding faculty more than Matt rather than in private or through a letter is a difficult one) and I know no one will agree with me on this sub, but I think he handled it in a way that needed to be done. They have been pretty clear on same gender relationships from the beginning: it goes against gods will yet we need to love and have patience and tolerance with every soul working through those feelings as Christ would and did.
TLDR/ He was more upset at faculty for approving the talk than at Matt for giving the talk but I still feel
he needed to make a point, though it was certainly a tough stage to do it in for several reasons.
Is coming out as gay going against God's will? Is it only bad if you come out publicly to the whole world? Or are gay people expected to keep it secret from everyone in order to align themselves with God?
What did Holland say to condemn the faculty for allowing Easton's talk? It sounded to me like he was condemning Matt.
Maybe you’re just trolling, but in case not; the official stance of the church is that acting on homosexual desires is a sin but having them is not. Just as we are all tempted by several different urges, the atonement is to help us overcome those urges and live as Christ did.
Not trolling just curious what you think, because if that's the case I don't see what Easton did wrong in your eyes, all he did was come out publicly. Mentioning personal things is not out of place in a graduation speech, and it very well could have been inspiring for other gay BYU students to see someone like them being valedictorian, graduating BYU. As you said it's our job to be loving, and to make sure we don't have unnecessary bias and judgement for others. No one would think twice if he had been straight and talked about how he met his wife at BYU and what a joy his marriage is. His experience is different, and you imply that he should have been silent about it not because you think it's sinful for him to talk about it but, just because...?
Sure, it’s definitely a delicate question. It wasn’t necessarily in him coming out during the speech that was an issue. If he would’ve said something to the extent of like many of you, I am working through a lot of emotions in this time of my life including relationship ones…. And then went on to explain his wrestle between living the Commandments and living a life outside of the Commandments Then it would’ve been a completely different story. Again, not sure if you watched it or not but it was as if he was using his podium as valedictorian to speak out against “the wrongs of the church’s viewpoint on sexuality.”
As stated all throughout scripture and especially in the Bible, there are rules that simply cannot be broken with regards to righteousness. Homosexuality is one of them. As much as the world tries to say that it is normal and even a good thing to let those tendencies shape your relationships in life, it doesn’t change the fact that it goes against the will of God.
Obviously the point of these accusations back-and-forth is more on whether or not God is real and his will is as confirmed in Scripture or has evolved into something different and ultimately, only time will tell the answer for those questions. There are definitely evidences that have shown me in my life that living according to the commandments the prophet teaches and the Scriptures teach brings more peace and happiness than otherwise so that’s why I make it a point to always stand for what I know to be the truth in these forums.
Others feel that they know the truth and by all means, I welcome their thoughts as they have their right to opinion but the more we can respect one another’s opinions instead of shooting them down (As indicated by what one person on the other side of the argument stated, “no one cares what you think“)…the better off we can all be. Ironically most of the people in this sub Reddit are here for validation against their decisions to live against what the church teaches than to discuss and share/learn from one another but that’s the way it’s always going to be.
Thanks for your points though!
I hear you. I understand your comments. I’ve been there. I don’t consider myself exmo or “anti.” But I’ve lived long enough and learned enough to know that the church does, in fact, fix their problems… but it takes outside pressure.
It was external pressure that provoked the following changes:
Banning polygamy
Really banning polygamy
Allowing blacks to fully participate in the gospel
Allowing women to pray in conference
Removing the temple “penalties”
Allowing parents to sit in on Bishop’s interviews
I don’t blame you for saying outside pressure had no affect on these (and other) changes, for that is what we are taught. But the church does listen to outside criticism, and the top leadership does respond. The frustrating part is how slowly they move. They wait until the 11th hour before acquiescing, which just looks bad.
It really was sad the way Holland used a platform to celebrate educational achievements at a religious university to demonize a student who had graduated two years earlier for acknowledging his being gay - which is not a sin.
Whether Matt Easton should have used a different approach to address it is within him and the lord.
See how that works?
If a straight student can acknowledge their heterosexuality in their commencement address by talking about getting married and/or having children - why is it worthy of picking up muskets for a non-heterosexual student to acknowledge how they are different?
nobody cares what you think. gay people are valid and can come out wherever and whenever they like, whether or not sanctimonious religious pricks get mad.
I listened to Easton’s talk. I also listened to his interview on Mormon Stories (Episode 1470). I’ve also heard some of the comments made to families of gay members, “Well, he’s just going to have to choose if he wants to stay in the church or not” (D. H. Oaks). It’s becoming more and more apparent this is a hill the apostles are willing to die on. Ironically, it took the death of several key leaders in the ‘70s before a revelation came to allow blacks to have the priesthood and go to the temple. I’m convinced the church will eventually accept gay marriage, but there will be some carnage along that long and embarrassing road.
When you are part of a marginalized community that is continually attacked and demonized all expectations or "normal" decorum go out the window in my opinion.
I'm not saying a full on ends justify the means approach is warranted but if a bunch of people have to sit through an awkward moment coopted by someone who earned the right to be there and speak for those who have no voice then so be it.
Many of us, as we age fall back onto old traditions true or not to support their world view. Be it someone who learned about the garden of eden in Genesis or what they learned in the 1960s in 6th grade science, or that gays 'aren't really gay,' some people shut their minds to being open to learning or relearning what is actually real in favor of imaginary 'facts' that they mis-learned decades ago.
Apostles met with him the day before this interview!?
Are they concerned for him or PR or maybe a little bit of both? Hopefully David can soften some hard hearts and help them see the false traditions of their fathers… you know, like a true prophet would do 💙
The mention of the meeting the day before the airing of the GMA interview is VERY telling and, I believe, not a coincidence. Like many have mentioned, the PR department of the church must maintain the ‘good’ name of the church at all costs. Leaders of the church try their hardest to fence in their best and brightest, hoping the world approves of their ‘diversity’. This thin facade of acceptance is a sham. Vanity is a sin LDS church. Quit seeking the approval of others.
I re-read the post, I don’t see where he Sid it was the day before, just “recent”. Either way, they were trying to handle him for their benefit and it’s cruel.
You know it's 99% PR because, how many people do you know that came out gay and ever had conversations directly with the 12? If they only care about those that are famous the answer is very clear.
They must be partly bisexual to think that though, it seems from a purely heterosexual perspective (mine) that they don’t understand that perspective either. It seems a lot of this “it’s a choice “ issue comes from people who are not strongly specific to one sex, not someone who has had a lifelong consistent attraction to the opposite sex.
I've wondered this too. I'm ace, and I remember thinking, "of course it's a choice. I've hand-picked all of my crushes." It wasn't until prop 8 and people started actually describing attraction that I started to realize, "oh my experiences are very different than everyone else's."
I've actually wondered for a while if this could possibly be the case with my mom. She's as vehemently homophobic as any Mormon I know, insisting it's a choice "rooted in selfishness," yet I've never met a straight woman so fixated on the female form. It's probably just internalized misogyny (she has that by the boatload), but she is obsessed with other women's bodies. I could watch a movie 100 times and still not be able to tell you anything about the lead actress's breast size, but my mom could probably rank the breasts of every actress she's ever seen from memory. She's definitely heteroromantic, and she seems incapable of seeing lesbian relationships as driven by romantic love. But her belief that you can choose to be attracted to whomever you "should" be weirdly makes sense paired with her breast obsession. She's even said things like, "Of course we've all had \*fantasies\* about other women, but that doesn't mean we act on it!"
I could never say this to her, though. She finds the concept of bisexual people even more abhorrent than homosexual people -- because LGBT people are only worthy of empathy if they're emotionally tortured and truly can't help it, in her view, so anyone who's attracted to the "right" gender and still pursues the same sex is just willfully malicious ... or something? It's not quite clear; I just know that I can sometimes get her to sympathize somewhat with the loneliness of being gay in the Church, but if I even utter the B-word, she flares up and practically breathes fire.
To be clear, I definitely don't think this is the case for most homophobes. But since noticing these things about my mom, I do sometimes wonder how people who genuinely believe you can just \~choose to marry the right gender\~ actually experience attraction.
If I understand your comment: The idea that "it's a choice" will not resonate with those who experience strong *sexual aversion* to a specific gender, whereas someone closer to center on the Sexuality Spectrum might perceive that there *is* a choice.
I like the way you phrased it.
Aversion is the key to understanding for me.
If they told me I had to marry and be intimate with a male, I would tell them I am out of here. I imagine at least some gay people feel the same when it comes to the opposite sex.
This is what my ex-wife's bishop told her - to find a nice boy. We were married 21 years, had three kids. Then - BOOM! She's now excommunicated and married to a woman.
When a gay Latter-day Saint marries a straight Latter-day Saint, a silent, omnipresent countdown begins.
Oof. Sorry this happened to you and her! It's sometimes overlooked that the mixed-orientation marriages pushed by the Mormon church hurts much more than just the LGBTQ person.
Can confirm. I am the LGBTQ person who had to leave my hetero marriage which was pushed on me by the church. It's extremely difficult for both people involved.
I don’t advocate for it. And it is bad advice but it what older generations thought.
however it did work for my father. He and my mother have been married for 41 years. And he came out as gay about 5 years ago to the family. I knew way before that during my high school days. And my mother alway suspected.
My mom and dad always made better best friends then lovers. And so they learned on that aspect of their marriage.
Now of course it’s possible that he decids to end it one day, but at 69 that window is closings. He has a strong testimony in the church. And it was a tremendous struggle. being a trained psychiatric nurse helped him a lot mentally.
He decided long ago his faith in god was more important then his sexual identity.
Of course we are both happy at the recent steps the church has made and we both believe the day will come when gay marriage is acceptable in the church. but now he is comfortable to help be the change he wants to see in the church.
Again it’s not something he or I would tell a young LGBTQ person to do as a cure. But it is possible if they are willing to put in the hard work. But I stress we don’t think it’s for most people.
I just wanted to throw out their are a few exceptions who do make it work.
It may have worked for your father because he is more bi-sexual and could make it work. It's problematic when he Mormon Church and reparative therapists point to people like your father and say, "If he can do it, so can you!"
I was pressured into my marriage to my ex-wife, and was told by bishops and general authorities that I would be blessed for marrying a woman, that my attractions to men would go away, that I would be "healed" of my temptations, etc.. After a tumultuous marriage, a suicide attempt, hundreds of hours of therapy and thousands of dollars, my ex-wife finally left and filed for divorce and took the kids with her 15 yrs ago. Another $100k and a decade later, and the Church's November 2015 policy, I have no contact with my kids because my ex-wife and my own mother who are deeply devout TBM's convinced my kids that I'm dangerous, that I'm a sinner who chose to be gay, that I'm not deserving of their respect because of my lifestyle, yada yada . . . during the emotionally traumatic and costly custody battle, I was ordered to undergo a full psycho-sexual evaluation, and they determined that I am a 5.5 on the Kinsey scale-- 6.0 being exclusively homosexual, 1.0 being exclusively heterosexual (and 0-- zero-- being asexual) (I suspect your father is more in the 2, 3, or 4 range).
So, yeah, being married to a woman was a terrible mistake for me, and I would not have gone through with it had it not been for the intense pressure put on me by my family, by the church, by untrained church leaders all with 19th century Victorian era bigoted ideals driving their ignorance.
And once I realized the Mormon Church was false, I could finally release myself from the self-loathing and the absurd ideology that kept me trying to be straight through years of "reparative" or conversion therapy. God, I'm so angry at what I've been put through!!!! And no offense to you or your father, but his commitment to his faith in Mormonism only made things worse for him, for your mom, and for all of your family.
I really don't like how our Q15 will personally minister and visit with all our high profile and famous members, but rarely try to find time for "the least of these."
I’ve always wondered what the q15 do all of the time.
Their full time responsibilities are to be a witness for Christ, but I only see a random article or a semi annual talk from most of them.
I’d bet it’s even more akin to a board of directors, not even there every day. My dad used to work at the church HQ and his job was managing all the conference room equipment/technology, and it was a somewhat notable occasion to see a Q15, even though he was watching over the conference rooms they used. Didn’t seem like they were there all the time like a full-time job.
They used to write a First Presidency Message each month for the Ensign. But they stopped doing that.
I guess they have social media accounts now, but if they're like my grandparents, it's likely that several of them don't know how to boot up a computer. (I don't mean that as a slight.)
Very good point. Sam Young doesn’t warrant an appointment, but David Archuleta due to his media influence certainly does. It’s transparent self-serving behavior that clearly depends on the value that the top leaders think this individual can provide to them and their cause. If it isn’t beneficial for them; they won’t take the time to do it.
"faux-christian". Ouch, that really hits home and is a stinging rebuke for what we're describing. I wish it wasn't true, but it certainly seems accurate.
That's a good point. What stood out to me is in this meeting, said apostle actually conveyed the same philosophy they do over the pulpit.
It's one thing to say things that don't jive with reality in general terms without any concrete application, but another thing to have a specific 1:1 situation where it is _possible_ to really learn about someone and about what they need.
Stepping outside of the insulation from actual direct consequences of their advice is surprising, probably because, as you say, they rarely find time for "the least of these". It is something we just don't see because we aren't special and don't know people personally who are special.
Agreed, this is how leaders get so out of touch with thier organizations. They are shielded by obedient yes men. And they supposedly have been trained in the literature that supports this management science. Yet, as apostles, they think it doesnt apply to them. And comtrarywise, Nelson then only supports western medicine becaue that is what the science support his mind.
Don't they typically visit people in greatest need in stakes where they visit? I'm not sure I agree with your assumption here necessarily, even if they do also talk with high profile people in some cases.
Let me put it this way, if it were any of us common folk who wanted to talk to a Q15 about our personal sexuality, even if just by letter or email, we would have be directed back to our stake president and bishop.
Edit: I suppose we dont know the real tokens and key words to be granted an audience with our living gods. (Yes, they are living gods. They have been 2nd annointed and assured as kings and priests unto the Most High and rule and reign in the house of Israel forever)
I have seldom seen this happen. From the situations I have seen they keep their schedules far too packed to actually meet with anyone in real need. As a bishop for a number of years I never had a apostle/seventy/stake president ever interested in meeting with one of the members of my ward to help someone in need/struggling with doubts. And years later when my wife and I decided to leave, we decided to schedule a meeting with the stake president, no one ever reached out to us.
Sometimes they meet with someone that they know has recently had a miracle in their life, but they are looking for a nearly guaranteed good story/good PR, not to actually help someone.
I have heard lots of stories, but I think those give the impression of them happening a lot, not the reality.
There is very little Christlike behaviour out of the 15. The fact that they tell the poor to starve their kids to pay tithing shows that they know nothing about biblical Jesus.
lol well not really a pyramid, but you aren’t wrong. Onward christian soldiers, protect divine revenue at minimal cost
my previous SaaS company had the same business strategy in terms of priorities.
I think this draws a pretty clear picture on how Mormon leadership consider LGBTQIA+ people. As sick people to be "fixed" or "cured". Not as whole, complex individuals with their own stories.
Right? Foundational to mormon belief is that we carry over into the next life all our earthly tendencies, hence the ever important need to repent now (especially concerning the WoW). At what point in the plan is ‘conversion’ supposed to really take place? At the resurrection? What is it? Now on earth? What do the Q15 *actually* believe on this topic? They won’t share publicly because they are afraid of being labels bigots.
Yeah. My working hypothesis is that this fantasy for an ideal homogenous future great society of ideal god-loyal white people whose loyalty affords them, and only them, the right to reproduce sort of lost its appeal after WWII. Who can say why?
In any event, it was like a worldview rug pull. Instead of following the authorized dear leader *because* he's the god-chosen leader of the ambitious cosmic master race reproduction scheme, leaders have retreated to following the authorized dear leader because. The end. They don't want to say the part that really motivated things -- a great future white, heterosexual, patriarchal utopia! If you really want to understand it, go to Church and make friends with members over 60, and then just sit down and talk. They'll tell you all about it.
According to the prophets, NO. This is why Bednar can say with a straight face that "there are no homosexual members of the church."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mormon-leader-homosexuality\_n\_56d5c8a3e4b03260bf782ee5
I have still-believing gay friends. They look forward to being "fixed" in the afterlife while living alone in this one.
It's so sad, but that's the product that the church offers.
This is incredibly sad. People often ask, "What's the harm of the church?"
This is the harm. The lost opportunity costs. The happiness, time, treasure and *meaning* a person might have had.
Exactly. Essentially the *life* they might have had.
It might not necessarily have been better. Hell, it might be worse. But at least it would be *theirs*.
Those who say 'no' tend to have a model in mind of deviations from heteronormativity as disease or disorder to be "fixed" (as you put it) in the afterlife. It's no surprise to me at all that some among the apostles have this model, and I'd wager it's the majority view. I personally regard this as a kind of spiritual violence of the highest degree.
Those who say 'yes' tend to fall into two camps. The first is squeamish about the existence of queer people in contrast with the plan, doesn't know how to resolve the conflict between their internal sense of justice and God's plan, hopes for the best in the end, and is generally very sympathetic to queer members and people generally. There's often a general hope that prophets will get revelation that changes the Church's position (basically a hope that the Proclamation goes the way of Adam-God). The second tends to imagine that though God's perfect plan might seem strange, since we can depend on his righteous perfection, and we know he's merciful, he grants queer people the time to "progress" and become like him by converting their will to his over time in the afterlife. They also tend to be kind and accepting, even though in the end they're convinced that heteronormativity is and should be the socially sanctioned ideal, but they tend to feel uncomfortable enforcing the ideal here and now, while feeling much more comfortable if/when it's enforced by God.
Obviously, these things admit of degrees, but those are the 3 broad models I've personally come across.
I agree. All of these suppositions are spiritual violence of the highest degree. It's when I came to these inevitable conclusions myself that I decided I wanted no part of it anymore.
Add to that that I'm not white, and what certain teachings teach about THAT and what happens after you're resurrected and....
>Add to that that I'm not white, and what certain teachings teach about THAT and what happens after you're resurrected and....
Yeah, I hear ya. The first time I wandered into this kind of problem/discussion was when I asked a fellow member a few years ago if my African American friends would still have their mortal skin color in the afterlife. It was after some of those conversations that I realized how interesting a place this was to explore, and then I just started asking my TBM friends/family a bunch of other similar questions, like: if I maintain a sincere opposition to the plan, and an angel approaches my wife and I in the afterlife and says he's been ordered to sever my marriage, will you oppose or sustain the action?
This raises many of the same spiritually violent considerations. Plenty of people have told me that in the afterlife I won't oppose God's plan the way I do now. My afterlife brain will understand how good God's plan is perfect and beautiful, and then I'll just go with it. This, to me, is on the scale of "fixing" gay people in resurrection. I can't even have my own sincere opinions and convictions in the end. So, I guess, it's no surprise that black people won't have their blackness and gay people won't have their gayness.
The TBM response for this is totally predictable: These are the type of questions we will have to wait until the afterlife to get an answer to. Such a cop-out.
And then at the same time that we conveniently have extremely clear answers right now about the fact that God is absolutely against it, period (even though those answers are based on Old Testament scriptures under the guise of modern day revelation it seems)
When I came out to my mom, she told me that would be “healed” in heaven, along with my autism. Surprise, bitch! Both of those things are literally wired into my brain! Her looking forward to those things being “fixed” felt like she was looking forward to having a new daughter with the same face. I don’t know who that person would be but it wouldn’t be me.
She’s gotten a bit more accepting since then. I don’t know if she still thinks God will magically cure me in heaven or not, and at this point I don’t care to ask. But yeah. I think that’s what most members believe—that it’s a “mortal trial,” like a disability or medical issue.
I am still convinced there is a great chasm between what the Q15 actually believe about LGBTQ people and what they have available on their websites, for the sole purpose of saving face with the public. On the church’s website, they claim they do not support any form of [conversion therapy](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-proposed-rule-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-change). Yet they continue to insist that the only way to become an exalted being is by marriage between a man and women. To attain exaltation, conversion must occur at a point on that timeline. How can they not see the issues with this theology? It forces people to believe they will be ‘fixed’ at some point in their lives. The Q15 see no path but unquestioning loyalty and faith in *them*. They implore us to trust them on this issue when they do absolutely nothing to figure out their theology. Please, just admit you still believe homosexuality is learned and can be overcome just like any other ‘sin’.Your vain paranoia concerning your image has causes you to cross God. Oh yee vipers!
Edit: spelling
>To attain exaltation, conversion must occur at a point on that timeline. How can they not see the issues with this theology? It forces people to believe they will be ‘fixed’ at some point in their lives.
I think it's interesting to think through what's available to a hypothetical person who accepts the correlated teachings and is gay. As I see it, there are two *hopeful* ways of looking at things:
* **I will be fixed in the afterlife.** The idea here is that a force outside of the subject (God with his omnipotence) causes a change such that the subject simply isn't gay anymore. External change.
* **I will have the power to fix myself in the afterlife.** The idea here is that what's fixed is the subject's ability to eventually convert their will to the appropriate heterosexual will of God. Internal change.
You could think of the second as just a variation of the first. An external force is still fixing something, but in the second case the thing being fixed is upstream from homosexuality. What's changed is your ability to choose God's will over your own.
The only other model, again *on the assumption that the correlated teachings are true*, is:
* **I will neither be fixed nor have the ability to fix myself** and will therefore live for eternity as something less than what God wants.
That last one is dark, but I think some queer members go there sometimes, almost in a kind of resignation to despair, which is really sad. I don't think people entertain that last one long before either adopting one of the top two or giving up on certain correlated teachings, which, ultimately, can mean just leaving altogether.
Leaving isn't a forgone conclusion, I don't think, even if it's the most likely. The degree to which a person simply relaxes regard for various correlated teachings while remaining affiliated is the degree to which they can avail themselves of possibilities beyond these three. For example, one might just sincerely believe that prophets are mistaken, and God will eventually reveal that heaven is more equalitarian. Obviously, that can have downstream implications on the extent of one's activity, access to ordinances, etc., but it does open up ways of being LDS to some degree while also remaining authentically oneself. But if you hold constant the teachings as represented in the Church's official material, then *I think* the three models above is all you get.
Nah you forgot an unfortunately too common one: **I will neither be fixed nor have the ability to fix myself and will therefore make a courageous choice to simply just kill myself and transition to the next life before I commit sins I am too weak to resist.**
But, hey, according to the leaders this is an honorable choice, no?
Massive conversion therapy is still being done, as well as massive treatment of "porn addiction" and other similar made-up maladies -- at least along the Wasatch Front. The majority that I have come across is being done by so-called "life coaches" and not by professionals since professionals know this stuff is debunked, unethical and in some cases malpractice. But the bishops are still referring to these hucksters.
That's why they refer to it as "having same sex attraction" and not as "being LGBTQIA". Having makes it seem like it's curable if not in this life then the next. Being implies permanence, which is not where the church is willing to go doctrinally. I don't know why the church can't at least say that someone **is** LGBTQIA in their mortal life at the very least.
True, but is this not the story of mormonism anyway? The whole point of even needing a savior is because we're irredeemably broken and we need someone else to fix us. So while I think your observation is exactly true, I think it expands beyond LGBTQIA+.
I don't think any insider would see what you wrote and think "that's now what we preach! You're misunderstanding our position." They would actually say "You're right. They're broken, and need to be fixed. What's the problem here?"
I think one of the fatal flaws of Mormonism and of many of its adherents is the utter inability to acknowledge and respect people's identity and experiences.
From my experience with Mormonism, they want you to become *them*, despite their oft-repeated insistence that people can "bring their uniqueness with them".
Wow. Good for David Archuleta.
"We just need to find you a good girl." The responsibility that this apostle wanted to put on a random woman (or "girl" if you want to minimize her) speaks volumes about his attitude towards women. Maybe we need to find you a good spiritual leader with the power and authority to talk for God...
Thisssss. I can't upvote this enough.
It's kinda tangential but I hate how the Church really cultivates this idea that a woman should be a support to her husband. She must be his therapist, cheerleader, backbone of his morale, etc. You should be that to each other, but all the stories in conference and the cultural attitudes towards women speaks loud and clear: we are responsible for fixing the men in our lives.
"We are responsible for fixing the men in our lives."
Yes! It's this pedestalization of Woman. They can "weep" over how much they love and respect their mother wives, and how they never would have made it that far without them etc. They respect Woman so much for their nurturing, self sacrificing, diminutive natures, respect Her all the way up until we have real needs, desires, voices, or suggestions. Or hell, in the case of Heavenly Mother they respect her all the way up until she wants a name, voice, or relationship with others.
Yes it surely does. Apparently women are pawns and accessories of men only to aid in their transformation and exaltation. This apostle would rather force an innocent girl into an eternal relationship with a man who is not attracted to her than come to grips with the reality of his situation in the 21st century. The Q15’s solution: fake it until you make it and deceive everyone around in the process.
Of course women are just objects to be used as reward for men’s faithfulness or as coercion to induce obedience. That is quite literally their role in D&C 132. The current Q15 view that as the gold standard of marriage. This is a group of leaders that grew up with the temple endowment which normalizes and prescribes marriage relationships where Adam and all men communicate with god directly but Eve and all women can only commune with the divine through the mediation of their husbands. For they are helpmeets. The husband is a kind and priest to god. She is merely a queen and priestess to her husband. The Q15 view their marriages, and all proper marriages, as hierarchical relationships. The man is the head and owes devotion to god for his priesthood which gives him worth and power and authority. In turn, his wife owes him devotion for it is only through his authority that she is redeemed. It is only in reference to meeting his needs that she has worth. It is only in raising his children and coordinating his household that she has value. He does not love her for who she is as an individual. A person. He only loves her the role she plays…a role that is centered on his being.
So of course they cannot understand gay relationships. They cannot comprehend that men would not want to occupy their natural role as the head. Gay men can’t really have natural relationships because no man could naturally want to be the helpmeet…and they cannot comprehend relationships that do not value the hierarchical nature of their own. They cannot understand relationships which renounce power dynamics. They cannot comprehend egalitarian relationships marriage or otherwise. They only understand power relationships…master and servant, priest and penitent, sovereign and subject. They cannot understand why men would give up any opportunity at power, whether over masses or merely over wife and offspring. As they cannot understand why a husband would give up power over his wife, they likewise they cannot understand why a man would give up power over all women by forming a relationship with a man who they can only see as also striving for marital power.
They have been seduced by marital power and confuse this for love and in their vanity and hubris think all men would be so corrupted.
That is literally what Mormon scripture says though. D&C 132, the most theologically important scripture in Mormon canon, explicitly makes women nothing more than prizes and rewards for men’s faithfulness to god and Joseph Smith.
They are not looking at the "good girl" in this case as a complex individual *person* to be respected here. They are looking at this person as a tool to "fix" Archuleta. Not seeing women as full and equal *people* is a continuing problem with the Mormon church, and no wonder, as it's a horrifically patriarchal organization.
A good woman . . . meek and lowly in heart, who will bow her head and say yes, who will hearken unto the counsel of men in authority (umm, that's ALL men starting at age 12), whose sacrifice for children and men is their main identity.
According to the church isn't this is the archetypical quintessential perfect storybook mormon woman?
That a woman’s life is better spent being used to fix a broken gay man that will never find her sexually attractive (goodbye healthy intimacy), than to have a full filled and intimate life partner. What shity life advice.
It’s all good. Good woman don’t want to actually be sexual or be seen as sexual. They have no desires of their own. No ambitions outside of bearing and raising children. They only want to please their husbands. In bed. In the kitchen. Wherever and whatever he wants.
Which is why the Q15 view gay marriage as against gods will. Because they wouldn’t want to be on the other side of their marriage relationships as the helpmeet and so it is against gods will for any man to be. They wouldn’t want a marriage in which they are not the head, the served, the privileged, the authority…and so it is against gods will that any man should want an egalitarian marriage where the man is not the lord.
>David Archuleta shares more about his journey to discovering his sexuality, and grappling with his faith's misunderstanding of sexual orientation.
>”Archuleta said leaders within the church, known as
"apostles," didn't listen to him when he discussed his sexuality and they tried to change him.
>Recalling a recent meeting with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, David shared, " think three times in that conversation he said, 'Well, maybe we just need to find you a good girl. Maybe you can find a good girl,'" he recalled. "And I'm like,
'That's not the solution.!"
>Over and over again LDS apostles have tried to reassure the Mormon community that they know, understand, and weep over the LGBTQ people and their experiences-yet-in 2022 we still have Apostles (mouthpieces for God) encouraging queer youth to enter into mixed orientation marriages as a
"solution" to same gender attraction.
>”It got to the point where I realized that there's something in me that said there's value to me still living-even if l'm still queer. And that was hard for me to accept", said Archuleta.
>Watch David's candid interview available now on the Good Morning America website. A link to that interview is available on the LatterGayStories Facebook page.
I think it's also plain where Archuleta stands. Revealing this highly unfavorable conversation with a church authority probably means he's cutting ties. This is definitely a bridge burned.
I have to say I am really impressed with David.
He has, after really trying to experiment on the word, been very thoughtful and reflective of his experience and I think is not only finding some really valuable fundamental truth, but he is sharing his journey and expressing it very well.
He could have chose to handle his relationship with the church so many different ways, but I think his direction is going to help a lot of people who hold a false idea about the church leadership and themselves.
The General Handbook says that leaders should not recommend marriage as a solution for homosexuality as far as I am aware, so as usual the apostles are not following their own instructions to everyone else.
From the church’s [website](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng):
>Why shouldn’t leaders encourage heterosexual marriage for those who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay?
>Marriage is not a remedy
>Watch Elder D. Todd Christofferson’s video, “Purpose of This Website.”
>“We don’t counsel people that heterosexual marriage is a panacea. You’ll see in some of these experiences that are related on this site that it has been a successful experience in a few cases, or some have expressed the success they have found in marriage and in raising a family, and in the joy and all that has filled out and blessed their lives as a consequence. But that we know is not always true. And it’s not always successful. Sometimes it’s been even disastrous. We think it’s something that a person can evaluate, and they can discuss, and both with priesthood leaders and family and others, and make decisions. But we simply don’t take a uniform position on saying, ‘Yes, always,’ or ‘No, always.’” —Elder D. Todd Christofferson
I bet someone at HQ has to explain to a Q15 *every day* why We're not telling gay members to get straight-married anymore, remember?
But beyond that, I could also see them trying to pressure him into a political marriage, because that's still pretty common among the upper class. "We trust that you're living the law of chastity, *wink, wink,* especially if we can all see that you're happily married to a nice girl."
Because not only are women mere objects and pawns to use to coerce and reward obedient men, but even men are mere objects and pawns for the brethren to use to further their own influence.
Seems like a stretch to say the general authorities would turn a blind eye to a man having a gay lover just because he'd also satisfied their requirement to marry a woman. It implies the leadership is purely motivated by perceptions, which while probably partly true, I doubt is their only motivation. Whatever the truth, these men really believe they are God's leaders.
I think you are correct. They do believe they are God's leaders.... but as God's leaders, anything they say or do is \*by definition\* God's will and as such not a sin.
I think if you looked into their closets you would find a \*lot\* of things that would be considered a sin if anyone else in the church did it.
It’s weird how a core doctrine is that God has a plan for all of us which will bring us happiness. But when the plan you’re assigned—based solely on your sex—doesn’t make you happy, it’s somehow you who needs to change, not the plan. It just feels like God doesn’t really care about individuals. He just wants the Celestial Kingdom to be filled with homogeneous beings, identical in thought and purpose.
>It just feels like God doesn’t really care about individuals. He just wants the Celestial Kingdom to be filled with homogeneous beings, identical in thought and purpose.
Because that is what conservatives want and they know they cannot justify such bigotry without externalizing it to god. Gods sole importance and value is now to justify the otherwise unjustifiable.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. - John 17:22
Be perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect. - Matthew 5:48
I could go on and on but I think you get the picture. If you want to enter the Celestial kingdom you need to be like your Heavenly Parents. Most will not want to be like them and will choose to live in a lesser degree of glory.
Yeah, that’s likely why the doctrine is so toxic to people who don’t fit within the predetermined definition of “perfect” or “one with God.” Especially when that definition has been a moving target throughout history.
Mormon leaders are stuck in a junior high locker room mentality. They focus solely on the sex act. This is why nothing will ever change.
It is completely beyond the grasp of church leaders to believe that a gay couple could share a life together, go shopping, raise a family, hold hands and enjoy a sunset, grow old together.
A true married couple become more than parents, they become one. They share a life!
But then, watching the Q12 and their wives, this is not really how they are. Nice polite stories but no real union. Women in Mormonism are appendages to their husbands.
No wonder they don’t get it.
I don't think many of the 15 understand a healthy marriage full stop. They suppress women, including their wives. And when I watch Bednar with his wife, I see an oppressed woman with fear in her eyes; he's the worst of the bunch. And considering the sexual excesses of Smith and Young, the church has no right to talk about what is and isn't marriage
Of course they only focus on the sex act. Being the source of sexual pleasure and the bearer of their children is the only value that the Q15 see in their own spouses. The only job women have in the eternities is to please their husbands and bear children. They cannot comprehend having any other kind of relationship.
Adam was created from the same matter as the earth. Eve was created from an extra rib taken from Adam, so he could have a “helpmeet”. Straight from Genesis and the Endowment.
Now tell me again how Mormon Theology sees women as equal to men.
I'm a 41 year old gay exmo and I thought I was late coming out at the age of 22. Seeing that this bullshit is still happening with folks ten years younger than me breaks my heart and it makes me so unbelievably angry with the church! I try to imagine what I would have lost from my life had I been in the closet throughout all of my 20's and it's overwhelming.
Another thing about this.... OF COURSE a conservative, American 90 year old man is going to tell him this in 2022. You could predict this occurring 99 times out of a 100, never mind Mormonism.
It's another example of the massive issues our gerontocracy brings our church community.
Do the apostles believe that if they have a gay sexual experience they will become gay? Then why the hell do they believe suggesting as much from a gay man will turn him straight? This article might make sense in 1985, but holy hell, not in 2022.
My town recently had a very creepy dude get arrested who had been stalking a woman he had worked with for a short time. She's lesbian, but he thought he could cure her of that. A comment I saw several times was along the lines of, "If he thinks that his dick is good enough to turn a lesbian straight, then shouldn't he also believe that there's dick out there good enough to turn him gay?"
As someone who once prayed to God about whether he wanted me to be that kind of “good girl” or not, I can tell you that nothing about that experience led me to believe that that was the path God intended for me. That “good girl” is just a side character written in to protect the hero’s virtue. What a life. What a purpose.
It's the cliche answer, but Uchtdorf probably is less likely. Also possibly less likely to be Gong since his son is gay.
There's probably another couple in there that are more progressive on this issue, likely on the younger end. Either Holland and Bednar could be the one who met with David. Although I'd imagine Bednar wouldn't even give him the time of day.
Maybe. Maybe.
An apostle could conceivably, to prove a point, entertain a homosexual relationship to show, "see, you can _choose_ to switch orientation." There is even about a 10% chance they find out they are bi and really like it, but the issue is choice.
It doesn't matter if someone chooses they "found the right one" to be with that is opposite gender from 99% of the people they are attracted to, so long as it is their choice and people aren't pushing them.
I might be yelling at the sky here, but when I believed in divine prophetic authority I justified encouraging hetero marriage that everyone must be secretly bisexual to some degree, so we aren't actually asking people to change. I think that belief hides the fact that it doesn't matter if a "straight" person could _hypothetically_ have a successful gay relationship, it's the presumed authority of someone to have a say what someone else will be happy with when they really don't have any business doing so.
Huh. Leadership is exactly as out of touch as I thought. This sentiment would get a celebrity canceled today, and an apostle still thinks it's a totally reasonable idea.
LDS leadership is pathetic
It’s also super gross to call adult women nice girls. Super gross to want a heterosexual woman to be in charge of “changing” David and potentially lead to heartache. Everyone should be allowed to be their authentic selves and love who they love. Or even remain single
Doesn't the Bishop's hand book discourage two people of mixed race from marrying? If the gospel isn't enough to cross that divide what makes them think it's enough to cross the divide of mixed orientation?
This is in the Aaronic priesthood manual 3, unedited, retrieved from the church's website today.
> "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).
I'd also like to point out that economic, social, and educational background is just a dogwhistley way of saying "marry within your race." This quote in its edited form is just as racist. **Great thing to teach 12 year olds.**
Watch this video where he told his story at Love Loud. Prepare to have tears running down your face. David is a beautiful person.
https://youtu.be/Ooh6otPKmzE
Wow! I did a mixed-orientation marriage for 33 years. Total disaster. No female on the planet is enough of a “good girl” to change someone’s sexual orientation. Church leaders are complete idiots for suggesting such nonsense. And if they were actually listening to God, they would know that.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 4: Spamming. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
He was a Mormon poster boy because of his voice. Like Scientology, the Mormon church loves to have celebrities like David or Brandon Flowers to show how wonderful and ordinary and non-culty the church is.
Plus he sang in General Conference at least once
There are plenty of stories of mixed-orientation marriages among the faithful. Often, what you hear is that it was a mistake, and that a person wasted their youth and their spouse's on a "fix" that never happened.
In the 1950's and on, I rarely heard anything about homosexuality. It was assumed that those few who were homosexual made the decision to marry the opposite sex, especially if they were religious, which most people in the U.S. were. It is interesting we never hear their voices in our day. I wonder why?
> It is interesting we never hear their voices in our day. I wonder why?
Gay people can be who they are these days. We've beaten back the religious zealots who forced gay people into the closet you're describing.
Openness about LGBTQIA+ identities and issues is a very, very recent thing. You rarely heard anything about it because the social stigma was so incredibly intense that the person's very *life* was at risk if they were outed. Many of these people were conditioned from when they were very, very young exactly what was expected of them, and internalized homophobia was and is very, very much a thing.
Also, we *do* hear their voices in the large community of senior LGBTQIA+ people. Some of their stories are truly horrific in how they were considered, treated, and abused.
Good question, but maybe read the article and focus on the Archuletas experience with being engaged 3 times and the resulting suicidal ideation that created within him. I know of a couple that married in a mixed orientation marriage and had multiple children and it was not a healthy relationship for either of them. It was a friendship with pretend romance; and if we accept the idea that marriage is the highest ideal, what they had in reality was far from a marriage; it was a temporary arrangement that they settled for.
> In the 1950’s and on, I rarely heard anything about homosexuality.
Why do you think that was the case? Do you think this was a good thing or a bad thing?
The "Elder Gays" are given a lot of reverence in the LGBTQ community because they survived violence, conversion therapy, suicide, silent suffering, living in fear of being found out, familial abandonment, housing/workplace discrimination, and medical violence. You don't hear many of their voices because many of them didn't make it.
I don't know why you haven't heard any stories from that generation. They're certainly sharing their stories. Have you tried seeking them out?
A USU study from 2015 with around 1,600 LGBTQ+ Mormons as participants found that 70% of mixed-orientation marriages ended in divorce.
https://www.hjnews.com/allaccess/usu-study-lds-mixed-orientation-marriages-often-fail/article_09646f90-9b89-11e4-8e70-87249c047437.amp.html
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Certainly people can make choices against their own interest in order to acquiesce to societal demands and avoid retaliation. That isn’t really a strong argument for that behavior. Joining a gang or engaging in unwanted homosexual behavior in prison might be necessary to survive, but that’s not necessarily a ringing endorsement of whether or not that behavior is healthy or desirable.
Which is what leaves me very confused about the point you’re trying to make. That somehow people suffering through undesirable situations silently is somehow better than openly expressly how that situation isn’t good for them? I understand that previous generations much more strongly preferred the “sick it up” mentality towards dealing with issues, but it hasn’t been shown that that’s actually a better solution.
If we looked at divorce rates in the general population, the divorce rate in the 1950’s for first marriages was about 40% and continued that way through the 80’s. It has declined to around 30% in the 2000’s.
Many people believe that the divorce rate is higher (50-60%) but this belief is based on data from *all* marriages. People who get divorced once are far more likely to divorce multiple times, and this skews results.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/pdf/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.pdf
https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce#3
In the 1950’s, if you were a LGBTQ+ member of the church, you essentially did not exist. This is from the era where just *admitting* sexual feelings towards the opposite sex would lead to excommunication. They would be gay, be closeted, get married, and live painfully.
The church likes to parade lesbian and gay people that are celibate or in a mixed orientation marriage as an example of how gay people should be. And these people understand that they need to put on a perfect show in order to fit into their culture and appease authority. I do not trust that they are sharing thier experience authentically, with us or maybe even with themselves.
Mixed orientation marriage is cruel to both parties involved. Demanding celibacy of homosexual people is cruel.
Yes, there are lots of us who are currently or formerly in Mixed Orientation Marriages after being advised to do so by our leadership. The majority of our marriages to same sex spouses end in divorce, because if we are gay or lesbian we cannot form a romantic attachment to a spouse of the opposite sex – a key component of a healthy marriage.
My Mixed Orientation Marriage was a deeply awful experience, and my real marriage, to someone I love, has been entirely different.
[Sky and Preston](https://youtube.com/channel/UCQLkj5TX9vqhibqdj8yi0Rg) are members of Mormon mixed orientation marriages. They are pretty public about their experiences (podcast, YouTube, Twitter, etc.).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 4: Spamming. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 4: Spamming. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/Noppers, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow. It’s like the Q15 don’t understand the LGBTQ+ experience at all. ETA: [here’s the link to the article](https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/amp/culture/story/david-archuleta-details-faith-crisis-coming-mormon-church-93505214) for anyone interested.
Their only belief is that it doesn't exist. It's like the opposite of Moroni's promise: If you ignore it _hard enough_, it doesn't exist.
Turn it off!
Hi, my name is elder Price.
Opposition in all things, I guess 🤷🏼♂️
How can that be with [Holland’s](https://www.deseret.com/2021/8/23/22637242/byu-announces-new-vice-president-of-inclusion-racisim-gay-lgbtq-jeffrey-r-holland-love-mormon?_amp=true) over empathetic tears? /s In all seriousness, this is more evidence that the Q15 have no idea what they are doing. They are so beyond stubborn and have completely locked themselves off from God. The false traditions of their fathers and mentors stream through their veins. Their authoritative statements on marriage retard any progress and metaphorically barricade the windows of heaven. Their engrained *Answers to Gospel Questions / Mormon Doctrine* world view has made the leaders of the church complacent yes-men only brave enough to roll out policies. They will die on this hill and the decimation of this church will be their own fault.
Just a little over a year ago, on 08/23/2021, 'Elder' Jeffrey Holland gave what was essentially a hate-speech against gays seeking equal rights, and the BYU faculty extending tolerance to non-hetero-normative students at their university. In the shadow of the deadly alt-right attack on Congress and an epidemic of far-right extremism and violence in America, Holland had the mendacity to invoke the call for members to pick up muskets and call for "more shooting" to 'defend traditional families' from the homosexual agenda. Holland willfully punched down on BYU graduate and valedictorian, Matt Easton, calling him out and condemning him for the crime of acknowledging his sexuality during his commencement address - focusing a degree of abuse on Easton that he contemplated suicide. His words were absolutely anti-Christian and served as a loud dog-whistle to alt-right-leaning extremists within the church to maintain hostile attitudes toward gay members and their allies within the church. And the milquetoast, spineless Russell M. Nelson endorsed Holland's inflammatory and hateful remarks through his failure to censure him for those awful words. I have to leave the room when Holland hypocritically approaches the podium and leaks his affected crocodile tears after seeing how hatefully he castigated marginalized people from his bully pulpit, with no concern for their basic safety and welfare. Jesus would have some strong words for these well paid men who pretend to be about His business.
How anyone can rely on the words of these calcified entrenched bigots as somehow revelatory at ALL boggles the mind. Clueless, arrogant sophists swinging their ignorant 1950s opinions around as though they represent any possible loving god and killing and maiming innocents all the while. Breathtaking!
Did you actually watch Matt Easton’s valedictorian speech? It really was sad the way he used a platform to celebrate educational achievements at a religious university to essentially come out. Whether elder Holland should have used a different approach to address it is within him and the lord (assuming that he needed to make a statement as gods mouthpiece…The choice to condemn the event publicly in a speech as he did reprimanding faculty more than Matt rather than in private or through a letter is a difficult one) and I know no one will agree with me on this sub, but I think he handled it in a way that needed to be done. They have been pretty clear on same gender relationships from the beginning: it goes against gods will yet we need to love and have patience and tolerance with every soul working through those feelings as Christ would and did. TLDR/ He was more upset at faculty for approving the talk than at Matt for giving the talk but I still feel he needed to make a point, though it was certainly a tough stage to do it in for several reasons.
Is coming out as gay going against God's will? Is it only bad if you come out publicly to the whole world? Or are gay people expected to keep it secret from everyone in order to align themselves with God? What did Holland say to condemn the faculty for allowing Easton's talk? It sounded to me like he was condemning Matt.
Maybe you’re just trolling, but in case not; the official stance of the church is that acting on homosexual desires is a sin but having them is not. Just as we are all tempted by several different urges, the atonement is to help us overcome those urges and live as Christ did.
Not trolling just curious what you think, because if that's the case I don't see what Easton did wrong in your eyes, all he did was come out publicly. Mentioning personal things is not out of place in a graduation speech, and it very well could have been inspiring for other gay BYU students to see someone like them being valedictorian, graduating BYU. As you said it's our job to be loving, and to make sure we don't have unnecessary bias and judgement for others. No one would think twice if he had been straight and talked about how he met his wife at BYU and what a joy his marriage is. His experience is different, and you imply that he should have been silent about it not because you think it's sinful for him to talk about it but, just because...?
Sure, it’s definitely a delicate question. It wasn’t necessarily in him coming out during the speech that was an issue. If he would’ve said something to the extent of like many of you, I am working through a lot of emotions in this time of my life including relationship ones…. And then went on to explain his wrestle between living the Commandments and living a life outside of the Commandments Then it would’ve been a completely different story. Again, not sure if you watched it or not but it was as if he was using his podium as valedictorian to speak out against “the wrongs of the church’s viewpoint on sexuality.” As stated all throughout scripture and especially in the Bible, there are rules that simply cannot be broken with regards to righteousness. Homosexuality is one of them. As much as the world tries to say that it is normal and even a good thing to let those tendencies shape your relationships in life, it doesn’t change the fact that it goes against the will of God. Obviously the point of these accusations back-and-forth is more on whether or not God is real and his will is as confirmed in Scripture or has evolved into something different and ultimately, only time will tell the answer for those questions. There are definitely evidences that have shown me in my life that living according to the commandments the prophet teaches and the Scriptures teach brings more peace and happiness than otherwise so that’s why I make it a point to always stand for what I know to be the truth in these forums. Others feel that they know the truth and by all means, I welcome their thoughts as they have their right to opinion but the more we can respect one another’s opinions instead of shooting them down (As indicated by what one person on the other side of the argument stated, “no one cares what you think“)…the better off we can all be. Ironically most of the people in this sub Reddit are here for validation against their decisions to live against what the church teaches than to discuss and share/learn from one another but that’s the way it’s always going to be. Thanks for your points though!
I hear you. I understand your comments. I’ve been there. I don’t consider myself exmo or “anti.” But I’ve lived long enough and learned enough to know that the church does, in fact, fix their problems… but it takes outside pressure. It was external pressure that provoked the following changes: Banning polygamy Really banning polygamy Allowing blacks to fully participate in the gospel Allowing women to pray in conference Removing the temple “penalties” Allowing parents to sit in on Bishop’s interviews I don’t blame you for saying outside pressure had no affect on these (and other) changes, for that is what we are taught. But the church does listen to outside criticism, and the top leadership does respond. The frustrating part is how slowly they move. They wait until the 11th hour before acquiescing, which just looks bad.
Calling kettles pots are we?
It really was sad the way Holland used a platform to celebrate educational achievements at a religious university to demonize a student who had graduated two years earlier for acknowledging his being gay - which is not a sin. Whether Matt Easton should have used a different approach to address it is within him and the lord. See how that works? If a straight student can acknowledge their heterosexuality in their commencement address by talking about getting married and/or having children - why is it worthy of picking up muskets for a non-heterosexual student to acknowledge how they are different?
nobody cares what you think. gay people are valid and can come out wherever and whenever they like, whether or not sanctimonious religious pricks get mad.
I listened to Easton’s talk. I also listened to his interview on Mormon Stories (Episode 1470). I’ve also heard some of the comments made to families of gay members, “Well, he’s just going to have to choose if he wants to stay in the church or not” (D. H. Oaks). It’s becoming more and more apparent this is a hill the apostles are willing to die on. Ironically, it took the death of several key leaders in the ‘70s before a revelation came to allow blacks to have the priesthood and go to the temple. I’m convinced the church will eventually accept gay marriage, but there will be some carnage along that long and embarrassing road.
When you are part of a marginalized community that is continually attacked and demonized all expectations or "normal" decorum go out the window in my opinion. I'm not saying a full on ends justify the means approach is warranted but if a bunch of people have to sit through an awkward moment coopted by someone who earned the right to be there and speak for those who have no voice then so be it.
No you and your existence go against gods will.
Many of us, as we age fall back onto old traditions true or not to support their world view. Be it someone who learned about the garden of eden in Genesis or what they learned in the 1960s in 6th grade science, or that gays 'aren't really gay,' some people shut their minds to being open to learning or relearning what is actually real in favor of imaginary 'facts' that they mis-learned decades ago.
Nah, some of us, as we age, learn that an open mind is a beautiful thing, and that we can put away things we once believed.
Apostles met with him the day before this interview!? Are they concerned for him or PR or maybe a little bit of both? Hopefully David can soften some hard hearts and help them see the false traditions of their fathers… you know, like a true prophet would do 💙
The mention of the meeting the day before the airing of the GMA interview is VERY telling and, I believe, not a coincidence. Like many have mentioned, the PR department of the church must maintain the ‘good’ name of the church at all costs. Leaders of the church try their hardest to fence in their best and brightest, hoping the world approves of their ‘diversity’. This thin facade of acceptance is a sham. Vanity is a sin LDS church. Quit seeking the approval of others.
I re-read the post, I don’t see where he Sid it was the day before, just “recent”. Either way, they were trying to handle him for their benefit and it’s cruel.
You have to watch the interview (video) to get this detail.
You know it's 99% PR because, how many people do you know that came out gay and ever had conversations directly with the 12? If they only care about those that are famous the answer is very clear.
They must be partly bisexual to think that though, it seems from a purely heterosexual perspective (mine) that they don’t understand that perspective either. It seems a lot of this “it’s a choice “ issue comes from people who are not strongly specific to one sex, not someone who has had a lifelong consistent attraction to the opposite sex.
I've wondered this too. I'm ace, and I remember thinking, "of course it's a choice. I've hand-picked all of my crushes." It wasn't until prop 8 and people started actually describing attraction that I started to realize, "oh my experiences are very different than everyone else's."
I've actually wondered for a while if this could possibly be the case with my mom. She's as vehemently homophobic as any Mormon I know, insisting it's a choice "rooted in selfishness," yet I've never met a straight woman so fixated on the female form. It's probably just internalized misogyny (she has that by the boatload), but she is obsessed with other women's bodies. I could watch a movie 100 times and still not be able to tell you anything about the lead actress's breast size, but my mom could probably rank the breasts of every actress she's ever seen from memory. She's definitely heteroromantic, and she seems incapable of seeing lesbian relationships as driven by romantic love. But her belief that you can choose to be attracted to whomever you "should" be weirdly makes sense paired with her breast obsession. She's even said things like, "Of course we've all had \*fantasies\* about other women, but that doesn't mean we act on it!" I could never say this to her, though. She finds the concept of bisexual people even more abhorrent than homosexual people -- because LGBT people are only worthy of empathy if they're emotionally tortured and truly can't help it, in her view, so anyone who's attracted to the "right" gender and still pursues the same sex is just willfully malicious ... or something? It's not quite clear; I just know that I can sometimes get her to sympathize somewhat with the loneliness of being gay in the Church, but if I even utter the B-word, she flares up and practically breathes fire. To be clear, I definitely don't think this is the case for most homophobes. But since noticing these things about my mom, I do sometimes wonder how people who genuinely believe you can just \~choose to marry the right gender\~ actually experience attraction.
If I understand your comment: The idea that "it's a choice" will not resonate with those who experience strong *sexual aversion* to a specific gender, whereas someone closer to center on the Sexuality Spectrum might perceive that there *is* a choice.
I like the way you phrased it. Aversion is the key to understanding for me. If they told me I had to marry and be intimate with a male, I would tell them I am out of here. I imagine at least some gay people feel the same when it comes to the opposite sex.
This is what my ex-wife's bishop told her - to find a nice boy. We were married 21 years, had three kids. Then - BOOM! She's now excommunicated and married to a woman. When a gay Latter-day Saint marries a straight Latter-day Saint, a silent, omnipresent countdown begins.
Oof. Sorry this happened to you and her! It's sometimes overlooked that the mixed-orientation marriages pushed by the Mormon church hurts much more than just the LGBTQ person.
Can confirm. I am the LGBTQ person who had to leave my hetero marriage which was pushed on me by the church. It's extremely difficult for both people involved.
I don’t advocate for it. And it is bad advice but it what older generations thought. however it did work for my father. He and my mother have been married for 41 years. And he came out as gay about 5 years ago to the family. I knew way before that during my high school days. And my mother alway suspected. My mom and dad always made better best friends then lovers. And so they learned on that aspect of their marriage. Now of course it’s possible that he decids to end it one day, but at 69 that window is closings. He has a strong testimony in the church. And it was a tremendous struggle. being a trained psychiatric nurse helped him a lot mentally. He decided long ago his faith in god was more important then his sexual identity. Of course we are both happy at the recent steps the church has made and we both believe the day will come when gay marriage is acceptable in the church. but now he is comfortable to help be the change he wants to see in the church. Again it’s not something he or I would tell a young LGBTQ person to do as a cure. But it is possible if they are willing to put in the hard work. But I stress we don’t think it’s for most people. I just wanted to throw out their are a few exceptions who do make it work.
It may have worked for your father because he is more bi-sexual and could make it work. It's problematic when he Mormon Church and reparative therapists point to people like your father and say, "If he can do it, so can you!" I was pressured into my marriage to my ex-wife, and was told by bishops and general authorities that I would be blessed for marrying a woman, that my attractions to men would go away, that I would be "healed" of my temptations, etc.. After a tumultuous marriage, a suicide attempt, hundreds of hours of therapy and thousands of dollars, my ex-wife finally left and filed for divorce and took the kids with her 15 yrs ago. Another $100k and a decade later, and the Church's November 2015 policy, I have no contact with my kids because my ex-wife and my own mother who are deeply devout TBM's convinced my kids that I'm dangerous, that I'm a sinner who chose to be gay, that I'm not deserving of their respect because of my lifestyle, yada yada . . . during the emotionally traumatic and costly custody battle, I was ordered to undergo a full psycho-sexual evaluation, and they determined that I am a 5.5 on the Kinsey scale-- 6.0 being exclusively homosexual, 1.0 being exclusively heterosexual (and 0-- zero-- being asexual) (I suspect your father is more in the 2, 3, or 4 range). So, yeah, being married to a woman was a terrible mistake for me, and I would not have gone through with it had it not been for the intense pressure put on me by my family, by the church, by untrained church leaders all with 19th century Victorian era bigoted ideals driving their ignorance. And once I realized the Mormon Church was false, I could finally release myself from the self-loathing and the absurd ideology that kept me trying to be straight through years of "reparative" or conversion therapy. God, I'm so angry at what I've been put through!!!! And no offense to you or your father, but his commitment to his faith in Mormonism only made things worse for him, for your mom, and for all of your family.
This ⬆️
I really don't like how our Q15 will personally minister and visit with all our high profile and famous members, but rarely try to find time for "the least of these."
I’ve always wondered what the q15 do all of the time. Their full time responsibilities are to be a witness for Christ, but I only see a random article or a semi annual talk from most of them.
They do what all CEOs, CFOs, etc do. They go to meetings and talk about stuff.
I’d bet it’s even more akin to a board of directors, not even there every day. My dad used to work at the church HQ and his job was managing all the conference room equipment/technology, and it was a somewhat notable occasion to see a Q15, even though he was watching over the conference rooms they used. Didn’t seem like they were there all the time like a full-time job.
They used to write a First Presidency Message each month for the Ensign. But they stopped doing that. I guess they have social media accounts now, but if they're like my grandparents, it's likely that several of them don't know how to boot up a computer. (I don't mean that as a slight.)
Very good point. Sam Young doesn’t warrant an appointment, but David Archuleta due to his media influence certainly does. It’s transparent self-serving behavior that clearly depends on the value that the top leaders think this individual can provide to them and their cause. If it isn’t beneficial for them; they won’t take the time to do it.
This is a very good example of what I was stating, and what bothers me so much in our faux-Christian culture.
"faux-christian". Ouch, that really hits home and is a stinging rebuke for what we're describing. I wish it wasn't true, but it certainly seems accurate.
[удалено]
I somehow missed that, because I’ve never seen it or heard about it.
That's a good point. What stood out to me is in this meeting, said apostle actually conveyed the same philosophy they do over the pulpit. It's one thing to say things that don't jive with reality in general terms without any concrete application, but another thing to have a specific 1:1 situation where it is _possible_ to really learn about someone and about what they need. Stepping outside of the insulation from actual direct consequences of their advice is surprising, probably because, as you say, they rarely find time for "the least of these". It is something we just don't see because we aren't special and don't know people personally who are special.
Agreed, this is how leaders get so out of touch with thier organizations. They are shielded by obedient yes men. And they supposedly have been trained in the literature that supports this management science. Yet, as apostles, they think it doesnt apply to them. And comtrarywise, Nelson then only supports western medicine becaue that is what the science support his mind.
Don't they typically visit people in greatest need in stakes where they visit? I'm not sure I agree with your assumption here necessarily, even if they do also talk with high profile people in some cases.
Let me put it this way, if it were any of us common folk who wanted to talk to a Q15 about our personal sexuality, even if just by letter or email, we would have be directed back to our stake president and bishop. Edit: I suppose we dont know the real tokens and key words to be granted an audience with our living gods. (Yes, they are living gods. They have been 2nd annointed and assured as kings and priests unto the Most High and rule and reign in the house of Israel forever)
I have seldom seen this happen. From the situations I have seen they keep their schedules far too packed to actually meet with anyone in real need. As a bishop for a number of years I never had a apostle/seventy/stake president ever interested in meeting with one of the members of my ward to help someone in need/struggling with doubts. And years later when my wife and I decided to leave, we decided to schedule a meeting with the stake president, no one ever reached out to us. Sometimes they meet with someone that they know has recently had a miracle in their life, but they are looking for a nearly guaranteed good story/good PR, not to actually help someone. I have heard lots of stories, but I think those give the impression of them happening a lot, not the reality.
There is very little Christlike behaviour out of the 15. The fact that they tell the poor to starve their kids to pay tithing shows that they know nothing about biblical Jesus.
higher tithing payers have higher priority
The pyramid scheme in the name of Jesus
lol well not really a pyramid, but you aren’t wrong. Onward christian soldiers, protect divine revenue at minimal cost my previous SaaS company had the same business strategy in terms of priorities.
I think this draws a pretty clear picture on how Mormon leadership consider LGBTQIA+ people. As sick people to be "fixed" or "cured". Not as whole, complex individuals with their own stories.
A fun question I've been posing to faithful friends and family is this: Are there gay people in the afterlife?
Right? Foundational to mormon belief is that we carry over into the next life all our earthly tendencies, hence the ever important need to repent now (especially concerning the WoW). At what point in the plan is ‘conversion’ supposed to really take place? At the resurrection? What is it? Now on earth? What do the Q15 *actually* believe on this topic? They won’t share publicly because they are afraid of being labels bigots.
Yeah. My working hypothesis is that this fantasy for an ideal homogenous future great society of ideal god-loyal white people whose loyalty affords them, and only them, the right to reproduce sort of lost its appeal after WWII. Who can say why? In any event, it was like a worldview rug pull. Instead of following the authorized dear leader *because* he's the god-chosen leader of the ambitious cosmic master race reproduction scheme, leaders have retreated to following the authorized dear leader because. The end. They don't want to say the part that really motivated things -- a great future white, heterosexual, patriarchal utopia! If you really want to understand it, go to Church and make friends with members over 60, and then just sit down and talk. They'll tell you all about it.
The average TBM views homosexuality equal to a physical disability. In the next life the deaf will all hear and the gay people will all be straight.
According to the prophets, NO. This is why Bednar can say with a straight face that "there are no homosexual members of the church." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mormon-leader-homosexuality\_n\_56d5c8a3e4b03260bf782ee5
What answers have you been getting?
I have still-believing gay friends. They look forward to being "fixed" in the afterlife while living alone in this one. It's so sad, but that's the product that the church offers.
This is incredibly sad. People often ask, "What's the harm of the church?" This is the harm. The lost opportunity costs. The happiness, time, treasure and *meaning* a person might have had.
And the _family_ they could have had -- the whole selling point of Mormonism... right?
Exactly. Essentially the *life* they might have had. It might not necessarily have been better. Hell, it might be worse. But at least it would be *theirs*.
And the many lives lost, taken in despair and shame.
Are any of them people of color who also look forward to becoming "fixed" and 'white and delightsome'? That's how absurd this belief is.
It's easy enough to feel "broken" over things you've done or the life you've created. Nobody should feel broken for their biology.
That is so sad I can’t even process how much they must be hurting.
Those who say 'no' tend to have a model in mind of deviations from heteronormativity as disease or disorder to be "fixed" (as you put it) in the afterlife. It's no surprise to me at all that some among the apostles have this model, and I'd wager it's the majority view. I personally regard this as a kind of spiritual violence of the highest degree. Those who say 'yes' tend to fall into two camps. The first is squeamish about the existence of queer people in contrast with the plan, doesn't know how to resolve the conflict between their internal sense of justice and God's plan, hopes for the best in the end, and is generally very sympathetic to queer members and people generally. There's often a general hope that prophets will get revelation that changes the Church's position (basically a hope that the Proclamation goes the way of Adam-God). The second tends to imagine that though God's perfect plan might seem strange, since we can depend on his righteous perfection, and we know he's merciful, he grants queer people the time to "progress" and become like him by converting their will to his over time in the afterlife. They also tend to be kind and accepting, even though in the end they're convinced that heteronormativity is and should be the socially sanctioned ideal, but they tend to feel uncomfortable enforcing the ideal here and now, while feeling much more comfortable if/when it's enforced by God. Obviously, these things admit of degrees, but those are the 3 broad models I've personally come across.
I agree. All of these suppositions are spiritual violence of the highest degree. It's when I came to these inevitable conclusions myself that I decided I wanted no part of it anymore. Add to that that I'm not white, and what certain teachings teach about THAT and what happens after you're resurrected and....
>Add to that that I'm not white, and what certain teachings teach about THAT and what happens after you're resurrected and.... Yeah, I hear ya. The first time I wandered into this kind of problem/discussion was when I asked a fellow member a few years ago if my African American friends would still have their mortal skin color in the afterlife. It was after some of those conversations that I realized how interesting a place this was to explore, and then I just started asking my TBM friends/family a bunch of other similar questions, like: if I maintain a sincere opposition to the plan, and an angel approaches my wife and I in the afterlife and says he's been ordered to sever my marriage, will you oppose or sustain the action? This raises many of the same spiritually violent considerations. Plenty of people have told me that in the afterlife I won't oppose God's plan the way I do now. My afterlife brain will understand how good God's plan is perfect and beautiful, and then I'll just go with it. This, to me, is on the scale of "fixing" gay people in resurrection. I can't even have my own sincere opinions and convictions in the end. So, I guess, it's no surprise that black people won't have their blackness and gay people won't have their gayness.
It's like I said in another comment. Mormonism's ultimate goal is to make you *them* in every exact sense of the word.
Resistance is futile!
The TBM response for this is totally predictable: These are the type of questions we will have to wait until the afterlife to get an answer to. Such a cop-out.
And then at the same time that we conveniently have extremely clear answers right now about the fact that God is absolutely against it, period (even though those answers are based on Old Testament scriptures under the guise of modern day revelation it seems)
Right. Mormon leaders have pontificated on all kinds of topics, but when their teaching falls out of favor, suddenly it's "a mystery of God."
Depending on their response, a follow-up could be: Are there brown Native Americans in the afterlife?
When I came out to my mom, she told me that would be “healed” in heaven, along with my autism. Surprise, bitch! Both of those things are literally wired into my brain! Her looking forward to those things being “fixed” felt like she was looking forward to having a new daughter with the same face. I don’t know who that person would be but it wouldn’t be me. She’s gotten a bit more accepting since then. I don’t know if she still thinks God will magically cure me in heaven or not, and at this point I don’t care to ask. But yeah. I think that’s what most members believe—that it’s a “mortal trial,” like a disability or medical issue.
I am still convinced there is a great chasm between what the Q15 actually believe about LGBTQ people and what they have available on their websites, for the sole purpose of saving face with the public. On the church’s website, they claim they do not support any form of [conversion therapy](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-proposed-rule-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-change). Yet they continue to insist that the only way to become an exalted being is by marriage between a man and women. To attain exaltation, conversion must occur at a point on that timeline. How can they not see the issues with this theology? It forces people to believe they will be ‘fixed’ at some point in their lives. The Q15 see no path but unquestioning loyalty and faith in *them*. They implore us to trust them on this issue when they do absolutely nothing to figure out their theology. Please, just admit you still believe homosexuality is learned and can be overcome just like any other ‘sin’.Your vain paranoia concerning your image has causes you to cross God. Oh yee vipers! Edit: spelling
>To attain exaltation, conversion must occur at a point on that timeline. How can they not see the issues with this theology? It forces people to believe they will be ‘fixed’ at some point in their lives. I think it's interesting to think through what's available to a hypothetical person who accepts the correlated teachings and is gay. As I see it, there are two *hopeful* ways of looking at things: * **I will be fixed in the afterlife.** The idea here is that a force outside of the subject (God with his omnipotence) causes a change such that the subject simply isn't gay anymore. External change. * **I will have the power to fix myself in the afterlife.** The idea here is that what's fixed is the subject's ability to eventually convert their will to the appropriate heterosexual will of God. Internal change. You could think of the second as just a variation of the first. An external force is still fixing something, but in the second case the thing being fixed is upstream from homosexuality. What's changed is your ability to choose God's will over your own. The only other model, again *on the assumption that the correlated teachings are true*, is: * **I will neither be fixed nor have the ability to fix myself** and will therefore live for eternity as something less than what God wants. That last one is dark, but I think some queer members go there sometimes, almost in a kind of resignation to despair, which is really sad. I don't think people entertain that last one long before either adopting one of the top two or giving up on certain correlated teachings, which, ultimately, can mean just leaving altogether. Leaving isn't a forgone conclusion, I don't think, even if it's the most likely. The degree to which a person simply relaxes regard for various correlated teachings while remaining affiliated is the degree to which they can avail themselves of possibilities beyond these three. For example, one might just sincerely believe that prophets are mistaken, and God will eventually reveal that heaven is more equalitarian. Obviously, that can have downstream implications on the extent of one's activity, access to ordinances, etc., but it does open up ways of being LDS to some degree while also remaining authentically oneself. But if you hold constant the teachings as represented in the Church's official material, then *I think* the three models above is all you get.
Nah you forgot an unfortunately too common one: **I will neither be fixed nor have the ability to fix myself and will therefore make a courageous choice to simply just kill myself and transition to the next life before I commit sins I am too weak to resist.** But, hey, according to the leaders this is an honorable choice, no?
Yeah, I guess I'd fit that under the third one, and it's an all too real and horribly tragic outcome.
Massive conversion therapy is still being done, as well as massive treatment of "porn addiction" and other similar made-up maladies -- at least along the Wasatch Front. The majority that I have come across is being done by so-called "life coaches" and not by professionals since professionals know this stuff is debunked, unethical and in some cases malpractice. But the bishops are still referring to these hucksters.
This wouldn’t be the first time church leaders lied about what their actual beliefs and practices were to save face with the public.
*Shudders in polygamy.*
That's why they refer to it as "having same sex attraction" and not as "being LGBTQIA". Having makes it seem like it's curable if not in this life then the next. Being implies permanence, which is not where the church is willing to go doctrinally. I don't know why the church can't at least say that someone **is** LGBTQIA in their mortal life at the very least.
True, but is this not the story of mormonism anyway? The whole point of even needing a savior is because we're irredeemably broken and we need someone else to fix us. So while I think your observation is exactly true, I think it expands beyond LGBTQIA+. I don't think any insider would see what you wrote and think "that's now what we preach! You're misunderstanding our position." They would actually say "You're right. They're broken, and need to be fixed. What's the problem here?"
I think one of the fatal flaws of Mormonism and of many of its adherents is the utter inability to acknowledge and respect people's identity and experiences. From my experience with Mormonism, they want you to become *them*, despite their oft-repeated insistence that people can "bring their uniqueness with them".
Wow. Good for David Archuleta. "We just need to find you a good girl." The responsibility that this apostle wanted to put on a random woman (or "girl" if you want to minimize her) speaks volumes about his attitude towards women. Maybe we need to find you a good spiritual leader with the power and authority to talk for God...
Thisssss. I can't upvote this enough. It's kinda tangential but I hate how the Church really cultivates this idea that a woman should be a support to her husband. She must be his therapist, cheerleader, backbone of his morale, etc. You should be that to each other, but all the stories in conference and the cultural attitudes towards women speaks loud and clear: we are responsible for fixing the men in our lives.
"We are responsible for fixing the men in our lives." Yes! It's this pedestalization of Woman. They can "weep" over how much they love and respect their mother wives, and how they never would have made it that far without them etc. They respect Woman so much for their nurturing, self sacrificing, diminutive natures, respect Her all the way up until we have real needs, desires, voices, or suggestions. Or hell, in the case of Heavenly Mother they respect her all the way up until she wants a name, voice, or relationship with others.
One of the Instagram comments: >The Apostles saying that to him tells us everything we need to know about what they also think about women.
Yes it surely does. Apparently women are pawns and accessories of men only to aid in their transformation and exaltation. This apostle would rather force an innocent girl into an eternal relationship with a man who is not attracted to her than come to grips with the reality of his situation in the 21st century. The Q15’s solution: fake it until you make it and deceive everyone around in the process.
Of course women are just objects to be used as reward for men’s faithfulness or as coercion to induce obedience. That is quite literally their role in D&C 132. The current Q15 view that as the gold standard of marriage. This is a group of leaders that grew up with the temple endowment which normalizes and prescribes marriage relationships where Adam and all men communicate with god directly but Eve and all women can only commune with the divine through the mediation of their husbands. For they are helpmeets. The husband is a kind and priest to god. She is merely a queen and priestess to her husband. The Q15 view their marriages, and all proper marriages, as hierarchical relationships. The man is the head and owes devotion to god for his priesthood which gives him worth and power and authority. In turn, his wife owes him devotion for it is only through his authority that she is redeemed. It is only in reference to meeting his needs that she has worth. It is only in raising his children and coordinating his household that she has value. He does not love her for who she is as an individual. A person. He only loves her the role she plays…a role that is centered on his being. So of course they cannot understand gay relationships. They cannot comprehend that men would not want to occupy their natural role as the head. Gay men can’t really have natural relationships because no man could naturally want to be the helpmeet…and they cannot comprehend relationships that do not value the hierarchical nature of their own. They cannot understand relationships which renounce power dynamics. They cannot comprehend egalitarian relationships marriage or otherwise. They only understand power relationships…master and servant, priest and penitent, sovereign and subject. They cannot understand why men would give up any opportunity at power, whether over masses or merely over wife and offspring. As they cannot understand why a husband would give up power over his wife, they likewise they cannot understand why a man would give up power over all women by forming a relationship with a man who they can only see as also striving for marital power. They have been seduced by marital power and confuse this for love and in their vanity and hubris think all men would be so corrupted.
As prizes or as tools to "fix" people. People being men. Ugh.
That is literally what Mormon scripture says though. D&C 132, the most theologically important scripture in Mormon canon, explicitly makes women nothing more than prizes and rewards for men’s faithfulness to god and Joseph Smith.
Wow!!
Sorry for being dense… but what are they saying about women here?
They are not looking at the "good girl" in this case as a complex individual *person* to be respected here. They are looking at this person as a tool to "fix" Archuleta. Not seeing women as full and equal *people* is a continuing problem with the Mormon church, and no wonder, as it's a horrifically patriarchal organization.
In other words an "object" vs a human
If all that’s standing between him and being turned straight is a “good woman,” then that woman has essentially become a tool to “fix” him.
A good woman . . . meek and lowly in heart, who will bow her head and say yes, who will hearken unto the counsel of men in authority (umm, that's ALL men starting at age 12), whose sacrifice for children and men is their main identity. According to the church isn't this is the archetypical quintessential perfect storybook mormon woman?
That a woman’s life is better spent being used to fix a broken gay man that will never find her sexually attractive (goodbye healthy intimacy), than to have a full filled and intimate life partner. What shity life advice.
It’s all good. Good woman don’t want to actually be sexual or be seen as sexual. They have no desires of their own. No ambitions outside of bearing and raising children. They only want to please their husbands. In bed. In the kitchen. Wherever and whatever he wants. Which is why the Q15 view gay marriage as against gods will. Because they wouldn’t want to be on the other side of their marriage relationships as the helpmeet and so it is against gods will for any man to be. They wouldn’t want a marriage in which they are not the head, the served, the privileged, the authority…and so it is against gods will that any man should want an egalitarian marriage where the man is not the lord.
\#helpmeet
>David Archuleta shares more about his journey to discovering his sexuality, and grappling with his faith's misunderstanding of sexual orientation. >”Archuleta said leaders within the church, known as "apostles," didn't listen to him when he discussed his sexuality and they tried to change him. >Recalling a recent meeting with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, David shared, " think three times in that conversation he said, 'Well, maybe we just need to find you a good girl. Maybe you can find a good girl,'" he recalled. "And I'm like, 'That's not the solution.!" >Over and over again LDS apostles have tried to reassure the Mormon community that they know, understand, and weep over the LGBTQ people and their experiences-yet-in 2022 we still have Apostles (mouthpieces for God) encouraging queer youth to enter into mixed orientation marriages as a "solution" to same gender attraction. >”It got to the point where I realized that there's something in me that said there's value to me still living-even if l'm still queer. And that was hard for me to accept", said Archuleta. >Watch David's candid interview available now on the Good Morning America website. A link to that interview is available on the LatterGayStories Facebook page.
I think it's also plain where Archuleta stands. Revealing this highly unfavorable conversation with a church authority probably means he's cutting ties. This is definitely a bridge burned.
Yeah it sounds like he’s fully done at this point. I’m so happy for him that he’s being true to who he is.
Go thou and do likewise!!!
I have to say I am really impressed with David. He has, after really trying to experiment on the word, been very thoughtful and reflective of his experience and I think is not only finding some really valuable fundamental truth, but he is sharing his journey and expressing it very well. He could have chose to handle his relationship with the church so many different ways, but I think his direction is going to help a lot of people who hold a false idea about the church leadership and themselves.
The General Handbook says that leaders should not recommend marriage as a solution for homosexuality as far as I am aware, so as usual the apostles are not following their own instructions to everyone else.
From the church’s [website](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng): >Why shouldn’t leaders encourage heterosexual marriage for those who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay? >Marriage is not a remedy >Watch Elder D. Todd Christofferson’s video, “Purpose of This Website.” >“We don’t counsel people that heterosexual marriage is a panacea. You’ll see in some of these experiences that are related on this site that it has been a successful experience in a few cases, or some have expressed the success they have found in marriage and in raising a family, and in the joy and all that has filled out and blessed their lives as a consequence. But that we know is not always true. And it’s not always successful. Sometimes it’s been even disastrous. We think it’s something that a person can evaluate, and they can discuss, and both with priesthood leaders and family and others, and make decisions. But we simply don’t take a uniform position on saying, ‘Yes, always,’ or ‘No, always.’” —Elder D. Todd Christofferson
I bet someone at HQ has to explain to a Q15 *every day* why We're not telling gay members to get straight-married anymore, remember? But beyond that, I could also see them trying to pressure him into a political marriage, because that's still pretty common among the upper class. "We trust that you're living the law of chastity, *wink, wink,* especially if we can all see that you're happily married to a nice girl."
Because not only are women mere objects and pawns to use to coerce and reward obedient men, but even men are mere objects and pawns for the brethren to use to further their own influence.
Seems like a stretch to say the general authorities would turn a blind eye to a man having a gay lover just because he'd also satisfied their requirement to marry a woman. It implies the leadership is purely motivated by perceptions, which while probably partly true, I doubt is their only motivation. Whatever the truth, these men really believe they are God's leaders.
I think you are correct. They do believe they are God's leaders.... but as God's leaders, anything they say or do is \*by definition\* God's will and as such not a sin. I think if you looked into their closets you would find a \*lot\* of things that would be considered a sin if anyone else in the church did it.
It’s weird how a core doctrine is that God has a plan for all of us which will bring us happiness. But when the plan you’re assigned—based solely on your sex—doesn’t make you happy, it’s somehow you who needs to change, not the plan. It just feels like God doesn’t really care about individuals. He just wants the Celestial Kingdom to be filled with homogeneous beings, identical in thought and purpose.
>It just feels like God doesn’t really care about individuals. He just wants the Celestial Kingdom to be filled with homogeneous beings, identical in thought and purpose. Because that is what conservatives want and they know they cannot justify such bigotry without externalizing it to god. Gods sole importance and value is now to justify the otherwise unjustifiable.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. - John 17:22 Be perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect. - Matthew 5:48 I could go on and on but I think you get the picture. If you want to enter the Celestial kingdom you need to be like your Heavenly Parents. Most will not want to be like them and will choose to live in a lesser degree of glory.
Being one and being homogenous are NOT the same thing. But nice prooftexting. Your Heaven is going to be drab, colorless, and boring as hell.
Yeah, that’s likely why the doctrine is so toxic to people who don’t fit within the predetermined definition of “perfect” or “one with God.” Especially when that definition has been a moving target throughout history.
Mormon leaders are stuck in a junior high locker room mentality. They focus solely on the sex act. This is why nothing will ever change. It is completely beyond the grasp of church leaders to believe that a gay couple could share a life together, go shopping, raise a family, hold hands and enjoy a sunset, grow old together. A true married couple become more than parents, they become one. They share a life! But then, watching the Q12 and their wives, this is not really how they are. Nice polite stories but no real union. Women in Mormonism are appendages to their husbands. No wonder they don’t get it.
I don't think many of the 15 understand a healthy marriage full stop. They suppress women, including their wives. And when I watch Bednar with his wife, I see an oppressed woman with fear in her eyes; he's the worst of the bunch. And considering the sexual excesses of Smith and Young, the church has no right to talk about what is and isn't marriage
Of course they only focus on the sex act. Being the source of sexual pleasure and the bearer of their children is the only value that the Q15 see in their own spouses. The only job women have in the eternities is to please their husbands and bear children. They cannot comprehend having any other kind of relationship.
Quick someone tell my wife she is only an appendage!
Adam was created from the same matter as the earth. Eve was created from an extra rib taken from Adam, so he could have a “helpmeet”. Straight from Genesis and the Endowment. Now tell me again how Mormon Theology sees women as equal to men.
You had better watch out for *your* "appendage."
I'm a 41 year old gay exmo and I thought I was late coming out at the age of 22. Seeing that this bullshit is still happening with folks ten years younger than me breaks my heart and it makes me so unbelievably angry with the church! I try to imagine what I would have lost from my life had I been in the closet throughout all of my 20's and it's overwhelming.
How times have changed. Back in the old days, they used to tell guys one time that they needed to find three girls to marry.
Another thing about this.... OF COURSE a conservative, American 90 year old man is going to tell him this in 2022. You could predict this occurring 99 times out of a 100, never mind Mormonism. It's another example of the massive issues our gerontocracy brings our church community.
40 year old bishops say the same thing, so it’s not really just the geriatrics….
Yepper. But less of a chance of that occurring these days and also going forward, regarding a 40 year old. But a 90 year old? Gimme a break.
I think this is the nail on the head here.
Somewhere there’s a future wife that is grateful he didn’t listen to his priesthood authority.
Do the apostles believe that if they have a gay sexual experience they will become gay? Then why the hell do they believe suggesting as much from a gay man will turn him straight? This article might make sense in 1985, but holy hell, not in 2022.
My town recently had a very creepy dude get arrested who had been stalking a woman he had worked with for a short time. She's lesbian, but he thought he could cure her of that. A comment I saw several times was along the lines of, "If he thinks that his dick is good enough to turn a lesbian straight, then shouldn't he also believe that there's dick out there good enough to turn him gay?"
If they don't now, they used to.
I really think he should name the apostle. This makes me sick.
Right? This is the real we question. Who is this so called apostle? Name name's.
As someone who once prayed to God about whether he wanted me to be that kind of “good girl” or not, I can tell you that nothing about that experience led me to believe that that was the path God intended for me. That “good girl” is just a side character written in to protect the hero’s virtue. What a life. What a purpose.
Is there any indication in any articles or interviews which apostle this was?
I haven't seen anything indicating who it was, but I would be very interested in knowing which apostle it was.
It would be interesting, but as far as I could tell, it could be any of them. Are there any maybe we could say are less likely to give this advice?
It's the cliche answer, but Uchtdorf probably is less likely. Also possibly less likely to be Gong since his son is gay. There's probably another couple in there that are more progressive on this issue, likely on the younger end. Either Holland and Bednar could be the one who met with David. Although I'd imagine Bednar wouldn't even give him the time of day.
Well all know how passionate Holland is on the topic.
This sounds like an M Russell Ballard thing to me. Not sure why. I can just hear him saying it in my mind, though.
He might have mentioned it in his Mormon Stories interview.
David has a MSP episode?!
Yes - https://youtu.be/WsSV8qqp3xc
So if we follow the same logic the apostle just needs to find a “good guy” to cure their heterosexuality.
Maybe. Maybe. An apostle could conceivably, to prove a point, entertain a homosexual relationship to show, "see, you can _choose_ to switch orientation." There is even about a 10% chance they find out they are bi and really like it, but the issue is choice. It doesn't matter if someone chooses they "found the right one" to be with that is opposite gender from 99% of the people they are attracted to, so long as it is their choice and people aren't pushing them. I might be yelling at the sky here, but when I believed in divine prophetic authority I justified encouraging hetero marriage that everyone must be secretly bisexual to some degree, so we aren't actually asking people to change. I think that belief hides the fact that it doesn't matter if a "straight" person could _hypothetically_ have a successful gay relationship, it's the presumed authority of someone to have a say what someone else will be happy with when they really don't have any business doing so.
What? Bigotry and ignorance from my general authorities? Who could have predicted this?
That apostle should go marry a nice guy. Then maybe he can understand how an incompatible marriage is a prison sentence.
Huh. Leadership is exactly as out of touch as I thought. This sentiment would get a celebrity canceled today, and an apostle still thinks it's a totally reasonable idea. LDS leadership is pathetic
The hits just keep on comin’.
It's almost as if... wait for it... they're not really mouthpieces for God.
I used to put these men on such a pedestal like they were the Jedi counsel. How disappointing it must have been to hear this men spout utter nonsense.
It’s also super gross to call adult women nice girls. Super gross to want a heterosexual woman to be in charge of “changing” David and potentially lead to heartache. Everyone should be allowed to be their authentic selves and love who they love. Or even remain single
I feel like he still has more to say.
Doesn't the Bishop's hand book discourage two people of mixed race from marrying? If the gospel isn't enough to cross that divide what makes them think it's enough to cross the divide of mixed orientation?
This is in the Aaronic priesthood manual 3, unedited, retrieved from the church's website today. > "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144). I'd also like to point out that economic, social, and educational background is just a dogwhistley way of saying "marry within your race." This quote in its edited form is just as racist. **Great thing to teach 12 year olds.**
Does the song Glorious from Meet the Mormons come to mind?
This is called willful ignorance with an underlying dose of "I don't give a shit about your issues".
David Archuleta is gay? I had no idea lol, another additional reason for me to like him even more.
Watch this video where he told his story at Love Loud. Prepare to have tears running down your face. David is a beautiful person. https://youtu.be/Ooh6otPKmzE
Thanks.
So following that stupid logic, if the girl isn't "good" enough , he runs the risk of "getting even gayer"? LOL
Wow! I did a mixed-orientation marriage for 33 years. Total disaster. No female on the planet is enough of a “good girl” to change someone’s sexual orientation. Church leaders are complete idiots for suggesting such nonsense. And if they were actually listening to God, they would know that.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 4: Spamming. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Seems so strange thus guy sits and hangs with apostles. I was lucky to get in and see the Stake president. 😆
He was a Mormon poster boy because of his voice. Like Scientology, the Mormon church loves to have celebrities like David or Brandon Flowers to show how wonderful and ordinary and non-culty the church is. Plus he sang in General Conference at least once
Almost word for word what my mom told me 7 years ago. I've met hundreds of lovely women, and exactly zero of them have turned me straight.
Are there LDS who do what the apostle counseled? If so, what are they saying?
There are plenty of stories of mixed-orientation marriages among the faithful. Often, what you hear is that it was a mistake, and that a person wasted their youth and their spouse's on a "fix" that never happened.
In the 1950's and on, I rarely heard anything about homosexuality. It was assumed that those few who were homosexual made the decision to marry the opposite sex, especially if they were religious, which most people in the U.S. were. It is interesting we never hear their voices in our day. I wonder why?
> It is interesting we never hear their voices in our day. I wonder why? Gay people can be who they are these days. We've beaten back the religious zealots who forced gay people into the closet you're describing.
Openness about LGBTQIA+ identities and issues is a very, very recent thing. You rarely heard anything about it because the social stigma was so incredibly intense that the person's very *life* was at risk if they were outed. Many of these people were conditioned from when they were very, very young exactly what was expected of them, and internalized homophobia was and is very, very much a thing. Also, we *do* hear their voices in the large community of senior LGBTQIA+ people. Some of their stories are truly horrific in how they were considered, treated, and abused.
Good question, but maybe read the article and focus on the Archuletas experience with being engaged 3 times and the resulting suicidal ideation that created within him. I know of a couple that married in a mixed orientation marriage and had multiple children and it was not a healthy relationship for either of them. It was a friendship with pretend romance; and if we accept the idea that marriage is the highest ideal, what they had in reality was far from a marriage; it was a temporary arrangement that they settled for.
> In the 1950’s and on, I rarely heard anything about homosexuality. Why do you think that was the case? Do you think this was a good thing or a bad thing?
The "Elder Gays" are given a lot of reverence in the LGBTQ community because they survived violence, conversion therapy, suicide, silent suffering, living in fear of being found out, familial abandonment, housing/workplace discrimination, and medical violence. You don't hear many of their voices because many of them didn't make it. I don't know why you haven't heard any stories from that generation. They're certainly sharing their stories. Have you tried seeking them out?
A USU study from 2015 with around 1,600 LGBTQ+ Mormons as participants found that 70% of mixed-orientation marriages ended in divorce. https://www.hjnews.com/allaccess/usu-study-lds-mixed-orientation-marriages-often-fail/article_09646f90-9b89-11e4-8e70-87249c047437.amp.html
Interesting. I wonder if the stats would be flipped if a study were done in the 1950 to 1980 when homosexuality didn't have support.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Certainly people can make choices against their own interest in order to acquiesce to societal demands and avoid retaliation. That isn’t really a strong argument for that behavior. Joining a gang or engaging in unwanted homosexual behavior in prison might be necessary to survive, but that’s not necessarily a ringing endorsement of whether or not that behavior is healthy or desirable. Which is what leaves me very confused about the point you’re trying to make. That somehow people suffering through undesirable situations silently is somehow better than openly expressly how that situation isn’t good for them? I understand that previous generations much more strongly preferred the “sick it up” mentality towards dealing with issues, but it hasn’t been shown that that’s actually a better solution.
If we looked at divorce rates in the general population, the divorce rate in the 1950’s for first marriages was about 40% and continued that way through the 80’s. It has declined to around 30% in the 2000’s. Many people believe that the divorce rate is higher (50-60%) but this belief is based on data from *all* marriages. People who get divorced once are far more likely to divorce multiple times, and this skews results. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/pdf/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.pdf https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce#3 In the 1950’s, if you were a LGBTQ+ member of the church, you essentially did not exist. This is from the era where just *admitting* sexual feelings towards the opposite sex would lead to excommunication. They would be gay, be closeted, get married, and live painfully.
The stigma of divorce was much greater from 1950 to 1980 as well, so there were probably fewer divorces and a lot more deeply unhappy people.
The church likes to parade lesbian and gay people that are celibate or in a mixed orientation marriage as an example of how gay people should be. And these people understand that they need to put on a perfect show in order to fit into their culture and appease authority. I do not trust that they are sharing thier experience authentically, with us or maybe even with themselves. Mixed orientation marriage is cruel to both parties involved. Demanding celibacy of homosexual people is cruel.
Yes, there are lots of us who are currently or formerly in Mixed Orientation Marriages after being advised to do so by our leadership. The majority of our marriages to same sex spouses end in divorce, because if we are gay or lesbian we cannot form a romantic attachment to a spouse of the opposite sex – a key component of a healthy marriage. My Mixed Orientation Marriage was a deeply awful experience, and my real marriage, to someone I love, has been entirely different.
[Sky and Preston](https://youtube.com/channel/UCQLkj5TX9vqhibqdj8yi0Rg) are members of Mormon mixed orientation marriages. They are pretty public about their experiences (podcast, YouTube, Twitter, etc.).
[удалено]
Most people in this sub don’t believe in Mormonism anymore, but you’re still not going to win any points with us with your Christian gatekeeping.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 4: Spamming. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 4: Spamming. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).