verinqueerstake - Tumblr blog

[verinqueerstake]

seeing everything about the secret lives of mormon wives is so weird to me because

1. I didn’t grow up in Utah so some of the more cultural vs. doctrinal societal norms weren’t really prevalent

2. I have very chill parents who love the religion but also know that the church institution itself is fallible and religion/practice are personal above all else

so it feels almost alien??? Like I grew up in the church, and even though I’m pagan now I still enjoy going to church with family when I’m in town and I feel up to it. I have ties there. I love a lot of the people in the ward I grew up in.

it feels like this show is talking about something I’m barely even familiar with. Idk. It’s also frustrating because I really want someone from outside of the church to take us seriously enough to do an actual deep dive into the cosmology/culture/structure and general history of the church without affirming or outright condemning all of it. There’s so much nuance in people’s relationships with church and it makes me kinda sad that we never get that.

idk I maybe need to start incorporating some Mormon characters with actual nuance into writing projects ‘cause… I’m sad sometimes lol

(also if I have to explain one more time to someone that an institution can be bad/have serious flaws without being a cult I’m going to lose it. SOME BRANCHES OF THE CHURCH FIT THE BITE MODEL. SOME DO NOT. STOP USING CULT AS A BUZZWORD. I grew up with people saying Mormonism was a cult. I also know someone who was raised in an actual cult, and trust me, the cultish-ness of lds religious practice is based on a wide variety of factors and where you live. I personally think it’s pretty rude to just tell someone you barely know that they’re in a cult with no research or sensitivity around it.)

[verinqueerstake]

ykw? this jovial visitation I am thinking about how I honestly love the inherent absurdity of doctrinal mormonism. there is a part of me that takes perverse and immense pleasure in having been born into the alleged cult of some guy who alleged to have seen an angel in his room 200 years ago and then published possibly the most inexplicable book of morality tales in existence. like yeah, it is my birthright to be an absolute weirdo who's unafraid of hell and is offensive to any and all man-made institutions. it is my right to make the wild claim that I continue to personally receive divine revelation from God Himself. it is my right to have the audacity to be unafraid of death. what are you gonna do about it? stop me??????? lol

[verinqueerstake]

Human Sacrifice reports in Mormon LDS Temple – Exposing Satanism and Witchcraft

https://www.exposingsatanism.org/human-sacrifice-reports-in-mormon-lds-temple/

[verinqueerstake]

The MORMON TEMPLE / SALT LAKE CITY - UTAH / USA (photo set 2).

[verinqueerstake]

"you fricked up a perfectly good kid is what you did. look it him, he's got costly apparel"

[verinqueerstake]

Night Vale First Ward

And now, the intermediate Hymn:

*Sister Spaulding plays a weather report on the organ*

[verinqueerstake]

Night Vale First Ward

It's remarkable really how the Church is the same wherever you go.

Just the other day I was swapping mission stories with Sister Björnson and the Ward Librarian (who we don't talk about). Even though Sister Björnson served in the Blood Fields Mission, the Librarian served in the Space-Just-Behind-You-When-You-Go-Into-A-Dark-Basement Mission, and I served in the Southern Silent Country Mission, we all had experiences cowering from the Things That Look Like Crows But Aren't.

Anyways, I'd like to bare my testimony in the non-language of the people I served.

*Elaborately pantomimes my love of the Atonement and the Restored Church*

[verinqueerstake]

Night Vale First Ward

I like to bear my testimony.

I like to take my testimony and make it a bear. Force my ethereal beliefs to become a physical snarling mass of flesh and fur.

I know the Church is true, because the Church taught me how to bear my testimony.

I love my Mom and Dad, they will be safe from my Testimony Bear.

Name of Jesus Christ amen

[verinqueerstake]

and behold, it came to pass that King Lamoni did look upon Ammon, and did say, Behold, he hath skibidi rizz; verily he is the Rizzler, for his aura doth excite gyatt, and I doth not get the ick. Behold, he consumeth, and leaveth no remnants; he doth even take out all of my opps; and his fit giveth. His sigma is bussin; but behold, I speaketh too long in his praise, I yappeth too much, I doth glaze him.

im posting this so it can leave my inbox and then i can never look at it again.

[verinqueerstake]

[verinqueerstake]

We need to talk about the mods for the Queerward Discord server.

Now, let me premise this by saying: I understand that moderating a server of hundreds of people from around the world with differing identities is difficult. I’m grateful I haven’t had that experience. Further, I consider myself friendly with several of the mods. I don’t think I could call most of them “friends” properly, but I do care about their wellbeing and I know that they are in a difficult position.

However, that does not justify the bullying and abuse of power I have seen and heard of from my friends, and I can no longer sit quietly by while these same people continue to have that power, limited as it may be in the grand scheme of things.

I have no receipts, both because I was never planning on making a “call-out post” and because I am choosing to protect, as much as possible, the identities of my friends who have been hurt at the hands of the mods, so you may choose to take what I have to say with a grain of salt, and that’s understandable. But I have to say SOMETHING.

I left the server in April after an incident where a friend with religious trauma (who is still a member of the Church) requested a trigger warning around the phrase “think celestial” and the celestial kingdom in certain spaces. As a queer member of the Church, they have been harmed repeatedly by these phrases. To my understanding, one of the mods was upset by this, so several of them argued with this friend as well as anyone who stood up for them, citing that it’s not fair to put a trigger warning on those things because they’re “essential parts of our religion.” Keeping in mind that this is supposed to be a safe space for people of all relationships with the church, from exmo to convert and everywhere in between. While it is a core belief of the church, it also hurts a lot of people, even people still in the church. I left the server that day.

There have been other incidents, both before and after this. A friend who is a survivor of child abuse stated an opinion about how children are treated in the United States. They were attacked for that opinion by several people, including a mod, and then suspended for reminding another friend that they are a survivor of child abuse, and this very directly affected them. Now, I won’t disagree that the way they stated this reminder could loosely have been perceived as a threat, if you squint, but since they had just been attacked for their opinion and were defending themself, I don’t think it’s fair that they were the only one suspended for this incident. In fact, I don’t think they should have been suspended at all.

And let’s not forget “the box.” It’s a specific channel that people who are “in trouble” but don’t need to be muted, suspended, or banned get sent to so that the mods can gang up on them while they have no friends or support. I don’t remember what the channel is called, because fortunately I was too meek and quiet to ever end up there, but I’ve seen multiple friends who were sent there.

We can also discuss the way the mods contribute to purity culture. Despite the fact that there are adult-only channels, talking about kink, even from an educational and safety standpoint, can get you in trouble—and the more intense the kink, the more likely you are to get in trouble. (Did we forget that kink belongs at pride?) Because despite being a place for people with all sorts of relationships to the Church, I guess the fact that it’s primarily Church members means no one needs safe access to kink education? Other sex ed is fine, to a degree; there’s even a specific channel for it. But kink? Heaven forbid!

And the condescending way certain mods will interact with you even when you accidentally break the rules and immediately correct yourself (this one happened directly to me) is incredibly concerning to me. I genuinely think some of the mods are on a power trip.

I’ve also seen instances of ableism, particularly against people with disorders caused by complex childhood trauma (cluster B, dissociative disorders, etc.). I guess some disabilities just aren’t acceptable (sarcasm).

All this to say: they have a hard job, but some of them are bullies who don’t deserve to be mods. I have seen friends with particularly strong tendencies toward rejection sensitivity who have a literal trauma response caused by the Queerward moderation techniques. That is so beyond unacceptable.

If you love the Queerward server, or if you ARE a mod over there, that’s great, but you should also be aware that there are problems. People are getting hurt by the very people who are supposed to protect them. And I think that goes against what Queerward is supposed to stand for.

[verinqueerstake]

I'm in my YSA ward fast and testimony meeting and a guy is bearing his testimony that he's a licensed massage therapist and that before every client, he prays for the presence of the Holy Ghost so that he may be a vessel of both physical and spiritual healing for the client, and it works according to his witness.

I absolutely love the implications of this - priesthood power being something that can work through the laying on of hands in a secular context, not within our religious rituals. The interdependence of the soul and the body being such that relaxing and healing the body results also in healing the spirit.

also, he began to get teary eyed on the stand, and the person sitting behind the stand cognizantly reached out and placed a box of tissues on the podium for him. you just don't see these things anywhere else

[verinqueerstake]

[verinqueerstake]

So I went to my Bishop with my concerns about the new policies (figuring, hey, if I lose Bishop roullette and get my temple recommend taken away for criticizing the Church, it might as well be worth it), and he showed me a really interesting verse. In D&C 74, it's talking about the early Church being conflicted about children of mixed member/non-member (aka Christian and Jewish, basically) marriages, and how they were considered unclean by the Jews since they were no longer circumcised. Anyway, long story short, the Lord reveals the following:

"Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them"

The key to this verse is that Peter gave a commandment that was not of the Lord. We tend to attribute a lot of infallibility to our leaders in the Church, but this verse plainly says that here was the head of the Church, a prophet of God, giving a commandment of himself in order to solve what he saw as a problem for the Church.

I see this as a direct rebuke of the doctrine of prophetic infallibility, and a reassurance that the Lord lets his prophets have agency, for better or for worse. As my Bishop said, "The Lord allows agency at all levels of the Church." We also chatted about the Plan of Salvation, and how there's a plan for everyone, even if the Church doesn't acknowledge one currently. It was an incredible talk with an ecclesiastical leader, and it showed me that there is hope that the Church can and will change over time, especially as we strive to live the Two Great Commandments of God.

You've been a huge help to my testimony when it's been weak, and I hope this helps you as much as it helped me. Much love from Colorado!

Thank you for that kind note. Also, I recognize the courage it took for you to speak with your bishop.

Your bishop gave great insight, that here we have being taught in our scriptures that sometimes apostles teach their own opinions as commandments when they are actually in opposition to the Lord.

I think it's insightful to see that the Lord's way was more liberal and inclusive than the apostle thought, which reminds me of Joseph Smith's teaching that "Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive."

The LDS Church teaches that prophets and apostles are capable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation, which makes sense because these are imperfect men so it seems obvious they may make mistakes. If it weren't this way it would be unique in the history of the world.

However, in practice Latter-day Saints often teach that the prophet of the church literally cannot lead church members astray or teach false doctrine, as a way of emphasizing the importance of following the prophet.

I think holding up our apostles and prophets as infallible is unfair to them as it puts them in an impossible situation, it doesn't allow them to grow, it makes them less likely to correct previous errors and therefore prolongs the time we live under the incorrect teachings & policies, and it may make them cautious to act.

I agree with your bishop that there's a plan for everyone, even if the Church doesn't acknowledge this. I have said something similar, that I believe I'm included in God's plan even if I'm not in the church's version of that plan.

I think your bishop gave some wise insight and underlines my belief that the things which are right about the church can fix the things which are wrong.

Also, I think it's useful to think of the two great commandments and use that as a filter to determine if these teachings from our leaders are more or less likely to be the Lord's will .

Thanks so much for sharing!💖

[verinqueerstake]

The war chapters aren’t boring, they’re actually a fascinating story that teaches how fascism rises to power. But ya’ll aren’t ready for that conversation

[verinqueerstake]

LDS Doctrine, 8yr-old Transgender Children and Policy

One of the most shocking things about the new LDS policies for transgender children, is the policy that appears to deny or severely restrict their access to baptism. I discussed that briefly here (last year and recently). This post looks more at the doctrinal side of the question.

LDS doctrine has been amazingly clear and consistent on the treatment of little children prior to the age of accountability (defined as 8yrs-old in Doctrine & Covenants 68) from the very early days of the church. I honestly feel this issue has some nuance, but the church has been absolutely unwavering in stating the tenet that children under the age of 8 cannot sin, or even if they can their sin is swallowed up in the atonement of Christ automatically.

I might personally believe that accountability for actions is a continuum based on the light and law an individual has received (2 Nephi 9:25-6, Luke 12:47-9, Romans 4:15, 5:13, DC 137:7 – a continuum applying to all individuals, regardless of age). However, LDS doctrine and statements are emphatic in declaring the complete innocence of little children, and that the atonement covers them completely until the child is 8 years old:

Moroni 8:8,11-2,14,19 (verses 20+ are much harsher) “...wherefore little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin… their little children need no repentance… little children are alive in Christ, from the foundation of the world… little children cannot repent; wherefore it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them…”

DC 20:71 “No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived at the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance”

DC 68:27 “And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands”

DC 74:7 “But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean”

See also Mosiah 3:16, Mosiah 15:25, DC 29:46-7, DC 137:10, JST Genesis 17:3-11, etc.

Taken together, little children are whole and clean through Jesus Christ until they arrive at the years of accountability and are capable of repentance. And that age is 8 years old. Church leaders have repeatedly restated this:

Dallin H Oaks: “We understand from our doctrine that before the age of accountability a child is ‘not capable of committing sin’” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Sins and Mistakes,” Ensign, Oct. 1996, 65)

Bruce R. McConkie “There comes a time, however, when accountability is real and actual and sin is attributed in the lives of those who develop normally. It is eight years of age, the age of baptism.” (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Salvation of Little Children,” Ensign, Apr. 1977, 6)

And we can even see this in the policies laid out in the current General Handbook of Instructions:

31.2.3.1: Children who are Members of Record

(note: children of record are children whose names are on the rolls of the church prior to baptism at age 8)

"In the interview, the bishopric member ensures that the child understands the purposes of baptism (see 2 Nephi 31:5–20). He also ensures that the child understands the baptismal covenant and is committed to live by it (see Mosiah 18:8–10). He does not need to use a specified list of questions. This is not an interview to determine worthiness, since 'little children need no repentance' (Moroni 8:11)."

(bold emphasis mine)

But for the first time in our history, we have an exception to this rule, and it applies only if the child is transgender. Instead of a meaningful interview with the local bishop or one of his counselors about following Jesus, a transgender child (and only a transgender child) who dresses differently or uses a different name and pronouns must have a worthiness interview with the regional Stake President directly. There is no other ‘sin’ that calls for this, even when little children have somehow perpetrated horrible crimes. If the Stake President finds the child worthy (is this even possible under the new guidelines??), he recommends the child for baptism to the First Presidency. The First Presidency is the highest council/court in the church, from which there is no appeal. The First Presidency then chooses whether or not to permit the child to be baptized. This new policy is spelled out in the Handbook:

38.2.8.9: Individuals Who Identify as Transgender

"Any exception to this policy requires the approval of the First Presidency. To request approval, the mission president, or the stake president for an eight-year-old, interviews the person. If he finds the person to be worthy and if he recommends baptism and confirmation, he submits a request for approval to the First Presidency using LCR."

(bold emphasis mine)

In the past, the church has denied baptism to the children of polygamists and to the children of gays (possibly others). In those cases, it could always be said the child’s parents were at fault, not the child themselves. This new policy is a marked departure from that and, in my opinion, is inconsistent with the church’s doctrine. I hope to see this policy adjusted as other policies have been when they do not align well with our core values and doctrines.

Love,

Erran

[verinqueerstake]

To those trying to figure out what to do about the LDS 2024 policy of trans exclusion, let me be potentially unhelpful.

We need both. We need people willing to stay and people willing to leave.

To you who stay, be the one people can get to know. Show that trans people can't be forced out. Foster a spirit of inclusion in your local communities. We need people to speak out at pulpits, in classes, in ministering moments. We need you to lift where you stand and invite people around you to do the same. Good will come from your efforts.

To you who leave, create community where you travel to. Find spaces of inclusions and leave markers on the trail for others to find. It will be hard to leave the Church, but your absence will be noted. The institution will feel the squeeze of smaller congregations and less tithing. We need you to lift where you will end up standing and invite people around you to do the same. Good will come from your efforts.

We need both. If you need help deciding to stay or go, know that you can always change your mind and do what feels healthiest for you today. If you have the strength to stay, do so; if you have the courage to leave, do so. If you just need to spend today in bed, and make the decision in the future take the time.

We need both. If we all stay, the institution can interpret that as acceptance of their horrible policy. If we all leave, then who will help our local wards support the inevitable generation of trans youth and adults?

We need to let people do both. We need to let those who stay feel the support of those who leave and vice versa. Both roads are challenging and we will need each other as we navigate them. Both paths are valid, honorable, and good. Both can and will inspire change if we can remember that one is not better than the other.

We need both.