Gender and Identity — The Loaded Gun

[Melon Sunrise]

Hi. I have subscribed to this group simply to put down in writing a position I have come to believe in the absence of anything else that makes sense to me. Having read multiple threads in this forum from the sidelines, there seems to be a bunch of individuals here who are good at defending an argument. Maybe someone will convince me I'm wrong (or even right) without trying to belittle me or tie up my thought processes in knots as a means of point scoring. I'm neither especially bright nor sufficiently well-read to robustly defend my position, but it's what I feel deeply — so I've come here for a second opinion.

Here's my position.

GENDER & IDENTITY: BIOLOGY LOADS THE GUN; SOCIETY (FAMILY, FAITH, SECULAR) PULLS THE TRIGGER.

I'm technically part of the LGBTQ+ cohort, but that part of me exists in the shadows. I present myself as straight, and my closest family had no idea until some recent disclosures.

I am a child of the 60s, so I was taught in no uncertain terms that my undisclosed identity-confusion was a product of Satan, and I was destined for hell unless I presented myself as straight. I have done that for decades to the best of my ability.

So, I've lived my entire life with imposter syndrome and a boatload of other identity-related traumas that accompany a life of fraudulence.

Enough of the tedious back story. My reason for posting here is that I have reached the point where, despite having served in stake leadership for several years, I am preparing to walk away from the Church — which, as a second-generation covenant-keeping member is the only life I know. I believe in the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but the turning point for me will come when President Oaks replaces President Nelson. I will not sustain him. Why? Because I cannot get past my original assertion about gender and identity: that biology loads the gun — and society (especially the Abrahamic religions) pulls the trigger. To me, Dallin Oaks is a contemporary personification of everything that is unpleasant about the Church's history on these matters. I won't sustain him. I'll hand back my temple recommend and take my leave.

From the get-go, I was taught to blame myself. And I did so for decades. Then I joined the North Star LDS online group a few years ago — where everyone seemed to attribute their freakishness to God on the basis that he had bizarrely blessed them and given them a unique lens through which to view life. I felt obliged to unsubscribe before they kicked me out. My counter views were unwelcome — even though I was an active, covenant-keeping member while a good proportion of them weren't. Now, I feel like everything is based on half-truths at best. I am convinced that society is at the root of all the problems. We do this to our own when we point out perceived weaknesses and associate them with negative outcomes. Some of it is malicious. Much of it is well-intentioned. Society teaches some of us that we don't fit, and it also teaches us what we are likely to get up to behind closed doors.

For no fewer than five decades, respected Church leaders had copious revelations on this topic that have now been spirited away — only to be replaced by a vacuum where there is no revelation at all. And that's because, in my emerging opinion, senior priesthood leaders don't wish to lie in the figurative bed of sewage they made back in the days of feverish ignorance.

Nature and genetics determine whether someone is born classically masculine, feminine, or somewhere in between. And for each of these outcomes, it is society that controls how rough the ride will be. In my opinion, the Church has messed up massively within a wider faith context, and now it is left to harvest what it has sown.

So go ahead and invalidate me if you must, but my discomfort is based on a lifetime of aggregated negative experiences. I am willing to fraudulently sustain Oaks for the time being simply because I have only recently reached the point where I believe he is unfit for office. When he is appointed the spokesman for Jesus Christ on Earth, I will take my leave because anything else would be utter hypocrisy. Whether or not I return will depend on what happens after that.

Discuss. 🤣

[MustardSeed]

Discuss your inevitable choice to leave?  You have your reasons, no one can dispute your experience, no one need argue your decision.  
 

Discuss the opinion that society will potentially abuse you for coming out?  No argument here.  In some ways you are more safe than ever, in other ways less so.  Maybe it depends on what your support network looks like.  Hopefully you’ll have people around you who love you and will make your transition outside the church less painful. 
 

Im sorry your entire life has been accompanied by pretending.  Sounds like you are about to change that. 

[randy]

No invalidation from here, but I do have a question for you.    You stated that you "believe in the truthfulness of the gospel", but yet you are waiting for the proverbial shoe to drop before you take "your leave".  May I ask what your testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ is rooted in?

[MustardSeed]

I would also wonder what stops you from getting on now rather than waiting for the president to die?  
 

what if president oaks passes first, what is your plan? 

[Chum]

Before President Hinckley became the prophet, he once gave a talk about a man he knew. The man stole $20 from his household and years later, guilt drove the man to repay it (mailed with a note, I think). In what was the most bitter Church talk I can ever remember, Hinckley condemned the man repeatedly, in front of the world - for taking so long to repay, not paying in person (I think) and for repaying without interest. The sense of resentment was so powerful, I can only guess what the lesson was about.

By the time Pres Hinckley had been prophet for a few years, I could see little of the person that gave that talk. 

Pres Eyring has significantly softened from GA days.  And Pres Oaks, who I've long considered a calculating hard-liner, seems to be spending less time on exclusionary teachings and more on inclusive projects.

In all this, I'm not saying your forecasting is wrong; I really can not know. But I've had similar, reasonable expectations and they keep turning out be wrong (in Hinckley's case to a surprising degree).