LGBTQ+ vs. the Mormon Church

Uhm, so - for context: Previously I compared talking to the Bishop as Brainwashing while eluding to some change of heart concerning my letter. Also: In the letter I attempted to ... like ... "reach out to "my People"" ... and while it technically does, I'd now probably be look forward to changing it.


Brainwashing is a strong term for this. Too strong, hence - it's meant as a joke. Some people might get it, others not - and while I suppose I kind of addressed this kind of issue at some point, it's been a while. So, my motivation here. Well ... there's a bunch of stuff ... actually. During work today I had the opportunity to take some notes while somewhat meditatively listening to True Crime stuff while working on a box. I forgot to take the notes with me, but there's like ... 8 or 9 separate, possibly complex topics that I think I should address. At least it might help bridge some time.
This might be one of them, but I'm not sure anymore.
Hmm ... yea. I think it is. The point of it is going to be:

A weird kind of Hypocrisy

As in - inverse hypocrisy. Which seems to be a uniquely Mormon problem - though I'm not sure. It makes a lot of sense though. Like, when it comes to confessing to a faith, practicing it, dealing with its teachings - ordinarily it's like a choice. Or something you're born into. But overall it's pretty rigid, the faith is the faith and the rules are what's supposed to hold it together because that's the thing. Then, the community and the rules re-enforce one another, like: To keep the rules you'll want some support - and through the support comes encouragement to keep them.
With Mormonism it's different though - because as soon as subjects such as Testimony or the Holy Ghost land on the desk, the doors are like ... cast wide open. And sure, sometimes for the worse. But that's a whole separate "Mormon Issue" I wanted to address at some point.

Well, it's not a Mormon Issue, not exclusively anyway, but then it kind of is because we ought to be better than that but then again ... that's just a belief.

Anyhow - the dynamics that unfold from there on are more esoteric than people might assume. And the quality of that esotericism ... it also varies. Like ... I suppose you could place any municipality on a spectrum between Strict Dogmatism and Hippie Dippy. Though I suppose that the further we get to the extremes of that spectrum, the less likely we're dealing with the Latter Day Saints.


But in so starting to tackle matters of Personal Revelation and the Holy Ghost, the less relevant any hard rule or dogma is going to get. Then, officially there is - or used to be - this emphasis on the Word of Wisdom (rules of consumption, essentially) when it comes to worthiness, and for some Holy Ghost reason I suppose it also works that way - but there certainly is more. So, in a sense, it's easy to just circumnavigate a rule or two bu just being a good person. And yea, to outsiders - and to me it's also just vaguely a thing - it might not seem like a thing, but ... yea, let's just leave it at that.

But that's just the thing. In dealing with the 'Living' elements of the faith, there's some kind of Osmosis that's happening. Like, the dogmatic members "versus" the hippie dippie members - they exist in some balance as both kind of help re-enforcing one another.

And so you get to this weird Hypocrisy which isn't like this "thou must keep the rules even if I don't" type of thing, but more like a "thou needst not keep all the rules even if I do" type of thing.


If we want to spin this further - we can try to figure out if there's some greater purpose to this separation. Like to how the Dogmatic and the Hippies are tied together such that they create some balance while somehow balancing LGBTQ+ people out of the equation. And an argument could be made that this is simply about "connection to the Holy Ghost" - which certainly would be the position in defense of the Church. And it makes sense. In my opinion. Although, moving forward it should hold little to no value.


So, when it comes to LGBTQ+ members, the rules are pretty clear - but also they aren't. And yea, I think when it comes to us Transes ... the Guys are usually forgotten about. I mean, I can deal with not being allowed to to exercise my Priesthood in any official capacity - but I imagine that a trans guy would feel differently about it. But anyhow ...

The reason why the rules are actually NOT all that clear is in the wording that's certainly there to appease the more sensitive members of the church. So, these - let's call them what they are: Trans- and Homophobic rules - are worded very carefully. On the one side they set a legal foundation that the official side of the church has to maintain, while essentially stating that they're 'not meant to be trans- or homophobic'.
One might say - and that's where we're kind of dipping into the topic of fear and paranoia - that these rules give the Church's members the legitimization to act homo- and transphobic - though in praxis, not saying that it isn't bad, I assume that's isolated to interactions between parents and their children.

So, I sure find myself willing to run defense for the Church.
Because: In as far as going to Church is mostly a personal experience with some social aspects attached to it - and in as far as the members are welcoming, those rules might as well not exist. But ... yea, that's also where I find myself ... more so in the "I don't get it camp". Though that more so as a rhetorical device. I think I get it, but I don't want to. Does that make sense? It doesn't feel right for me because ...
I mean, we could argue about it - on and on - but, arguing ... basically against the First Presidency of the Church ... is like ... a rather difficult position to hold in the Church. And so ... this open discourse and exchange of idea isn't really ... Church policy. Not at this point at least.
Church policy, first and foremost, is Obedience. And in the sense that it's applied within Church ... yea, it makes sense. Just ... the Law that we're supposed to uphold is ... it's trash. To not sugarcoat it.
I mean - "the Law of the Church" is such a weird concept anyway.
'The Law of the Church' is supposed to be THE Law. In my opinion. Like - thou shalt not kill. The Constitution. So: 'REAL' - or "Real" - Legislation. So, here Church and State aren't really separated, in that the legal Law is also adapted by the Church. Or, in other terms, Church can - as it currently does somewhat liberally - implement its own laws. They don't supersede the Legal Law, in the legal sense, but yet can do so in the spiritual sense.


The Brainwashing comes in when the Bishop has to act as a representative of the Church - and you, as a member of the Church are reminded of its rules. The Holy Ghost confirms it - which puts you into a state of mind where you're effectively supposed to ponder about it. Eventually, like when arriving back at home, that state wears off and you're back to your own devices.


And yea. This whole writing is essentially the product of one such event.

You can clearly see me repenting here. A part of it however this ... we could call it: The Elephant in the Room. And that offers me one reason to opt out. "Let God be my Judge!".

And a bit further it would be somewhat easy to mount a case against the First Presidency. I forgot what the in-Church term for it was, something along the lines of Combinations or Wicked Combinations or Priesthood Combinations ... but effectively it means: Abuse of Priestly authority.
But - I don't want to take it that far.


Like so - on the other hand side you can see that my repentance is much in line with the sentiment I did put forth in the Letter. I'd write that up to some subtle confidence in my fellow humans/siblings of the Church - and that may have overcome me when first I visited the Church two weeks ago.
There is, but there also isn't: A discrepancy.


To the members I would say: Ponder it! I mean, this is me being as open, honest but also 'real to myself' as it gets. And yea, I'm not acting as an official representative of the Church - like, I'm also kind of not allowed to. But this is my own personal due diligence as a member. But so, this is the reality. And a part of it is very likely that I'm waaaaaay more Generous to the Church than an ordinary person would be. Sure, Salvation is an argument - but if you're surrounding the Tree of Life with Barb Wire ... your argument still sucks! And yea, you can continue to argue - and yea, I even kind of agree with you - but how is any of this even neccessary? Like, are we now Homo- and Transphobes or are we not? Like, what's the deal here?
Is this supposed to be some ... Sick Joke?


Further: It MIGHT be different here in Germany for instance because us Qeers are are better integrated into society. Like, we've left our Heroin AIDS Dens behind and live like "real people" XD. Just kidding! Sort of. But that's also a different topic. Like - Capitalism, "the Hustle" and such things. In brief: The US System as is seems to breed psychopaths, egomaniacs and all that - so, even if a red flag became human - all alarm bells in the world going off simultaneously couldn't like ... stop it from turning into a real problem. As in "after the fact". Like, "would someone please think of the Mortitians?!"
So, how 'Fun' is Capitalism 'really'?
But I digress ...

Any Demands?

Well, kind of but not really. I mean, I can't - it might seem like I'm enjoying this - like, act in an official capacity anyway. And ... I wonder. I mean - so, technically - it's halfway acknowledged that I'm not a "real man" anymore because I can't act as one. Legally however I'm still "technically a man" in that I'm an Aaronic Priest. This is also rigid in that the Church recognizes one's gender when Baptised. So, if I were to get re-baptized, let's say ... as a Woman ... would the Aaronic Priesthood just vanish or would it be like ... an exploit to have female priests?

But - as a woman, I think, Biblically my role is in Support. And I'm fine with that. And so - whether it's a me thing or a gender thing - I prefer what we might call "soft solutions". And I suppose that's also a line for me to keep as I'm going forrward. But sometimes ... for the soft solutions to work there needs to be space. And that also makes me somewhat radical.
I mean - soft solutions are simple. You just let things happen and hope for the best, essentially. But for that to really work out - as well as other things - Church Law will have to be suspended. We could perhaps also demand for an addition to the Doctrine and Covenants to basically enshrine Queer Rights in our own 'Constitution' - but ... we kind of have to rethink the whole thing; And to that end, Unification is going to matter - and until we're there, some band-aid solution is really all we need.

But yea: Allow Same-Sex Marriage and enable Social Transitioning. Those are like ... the points of contention. And yea, I assume that the more conservative people may have a problem herewith. "Gay people Yuk!". "Temple Marriage Sacred!". And ... yea. What do we know? How do we feel?
Does it have to be in the Temple? How do Same-Sex couples feel about it?

But - what's like ... incontrovertible to me is: "Walk back on the nonsense as you take steps into the other direction". However small they may be. I mean - maybe I'm too cooperative with Church BS at this point, but I also kind of have a Conservative heart. Call it Trauma, Internalized Homophobia or whatever. May very well be the case. Like, I have no real socialization at this point, so ... there's that. Does that make me weak? Yea, well ... maybe I AM weak!

The problem with me here is that this ... right now, to my limited scope at this point ... feels a bit weird. Like, it's too much, it shifts the focus on a stress issue. At this point I can also not really promise anything - so, at this point you kind of have to deal with the Barb Wire. And more is to unravel as we move forward.


Peace!