A Twitter Thread on Latter-day Saint Theology and Queerness

I decided, as I sometimes do, to go on a long Twitter thread to talk about Latter-day Saint theology and its intersection with queerness. Here is it in its entirety.

The Long Thread

Long thread here. For Mr. Kevin Hathaway and Mr. Dallin Oaks and all the leaders/teachers in the Church. Re: This article: https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/lds-president-oaks-speaks-to-parents-about-being-united-in/article_f476dd3b-5d09-5cff-8bb4-5c58c004193f.html?fbclid=IwAR2qgIn_dc9UUpDBTq1okK-03T5_xaop8ShfrL5eHvl_Ewz7XfYxfuVd5JA

First: "While werecognize what LGBT means, we do not use those labels when we talk aboutpeople. We don't say, for example, that person is gay. We say that personstruggles with same gender attraction."

1) You do notrecognize—nor can you recognize—what LGBT means when you completely disregardwhat an identity is and what it means to people and to a community. They are"labels" as you say, sure, but they're also biological. Communal.Psychological. Emotional. Spiritual...

as much as sayingsomeone "is Latter-day Saint" or "is a child of God" or,prophet forbid, "is Mormon" or "is American" or "ishuman." These are complex, and by simply calling LGBT just a "label"you lose all ethical, moral & intellectual foundation upon which to make anargument

If you don't do theresearch and show that you know all sides of the argument, you cannot make astrong argument—if any argument at all. I learned that at BYU. You should havelearned that at least in college too. If not in your illustrious career thathas led to being tasked as a pastor to a large flock.

2) Attraction iscomplicated. Just by calling it same gender attraction, you show yourineptitude for even attempting to understand anything when it comes to thecomplexities of gender, sexuality, and sex.

Here'sa reminder:

Sex— An assignment to someone according to the shape of their genitalia.

Sexuality— How someone's genitalia react to other things.

Gender— How someone expresses themselves to the world, in general based on the sex ofthe person.

There is a lot ofnuance in this—nuance that, clearly, you have given absolutely no time todiscuss with someone who actually understands. If you wish to, my phone numberand email, which you can access via LDS Tools, is always open.

• Actually, I want topoint out some of the nuance for those reading this ... bare with me, please.

• Nuance 1: Sex, sexuality,and gender are words that describe bodily/societal/psychological/emotional etc.functions. They cannot, and will never, encapsulate the entirety of someone’sidentity. The words are used so we can converse about things and find communityaround them.

• Nuance1a: Identity is a complicated mess, as each person can attest to. That’s why Iam hesitant and always attempt to describe and use the terms “in general”—everythingcannot, and will never, be set in stone for humanity.

• Nuance2: Let me explain why sexuality is complex in a heterosexual frame.Heterosexual refers to someone who is attracted to the gender performance AND/ORgenitalia AND/OR sex that has been historically considered opposite to thegender performance AND/OR genitalia AND/OR sex of the one being attracted.

• N2a:A heterosexual is not attracted to every single being who fits thoseparameters. Nor do they enjoy ever sexual or romantic act with that person. Forexample, some couples only like missionary position, others spruce it up alittle.

• N2b:Just as heterosexuality is complex and experienced differently for each person,so is homosexuality/asexuality/bisexuality/all the other sexualities. That’sthe point I’m attempting to make here: IT IS COMPLEX.

• Nuance3: Identity and using identity “labels” becomes even more complex. For example,let’s take Fictitious Bobby, a trans man who is attracted to women. By transman, I mean that Fictitious Bobby was born with female genitalia but has comeout as a man, throwing off the boundaries that the genitalia of birth assignedto FB’s body.

• N3a:Fictitious Bobby, before coming out, was still attracted to women. So, how dowe describe Fictious Bobby’s sexuality? Lesbian? Heterosexual? A new termentirely? This is why nuance is the most important thing when discussinggender, sexuality, and sex.

• N3b:Some would say that Fictitious Bobby’s sexuality is based on the genitalia—oreven from the epigenetic happenings in the womb. Others would state that it’show Fictitious Bobby wants to identify, while others would place it onFictitious Bobby’s gender.

• N3c:The point of the matter is, it’s 1) very intrusive for us to want to categorizeFictitious Bobby and know all things about his “private parts”; 2) it’scomplicated; 3) terms don’t apply to everyone; and 4) NUANCE.

• N3d:I swear, I’m going to become like Mad-Eye Moody and perseverance. “Class, IT’SNUANCE.”

Back to the point: Indeclaring that you only use same gender attraction to explain gay, you mockgender, sex, and sexuality. You mock it and the complexity of God's creation.

In mocking it, youmock yourself. Because the study of sex, sexuality, and gender helps not onlythose labeled, as you say, "LGBT"—it helps ALL of us understand thebeautiful things that are our individual sexes, genders, and sexualities. Andyou also mock God, the Creator.

3) Since you say thatwe struggle with same gender attraction, can I say you struggle with oppositegender attraction? That's the amazing and terrifying thing about attraction—weall struggle with it.

Whether you'reattracted to the same sex, the opposite sex, multiple sexes, or if sex doesn'tmatter in the equation—you struggle. So, saying "we don't say gay, we saystruggle," you should begin to use that for all discussions onsexualities. Which you don't.

4) In wanting to police gender and sexuality into the boxesof male/female, masculine/feminine, and heterosexual-only, you propagate andreinforce what Satan wanted to do. Define the terms. Determine the way. Forcepeople to follow the way.

You would think that for a theology that believes so much inagency and God’s creation, you would spend some time actually seeing how God’screation acts. Not everyone can be placed into the boxes of male/female,masculine/feminine, and heterosexual. And I don’t think God wanted it that way.

Sure, God started out with a male and a female. But that’sbecause God and Goddess probably couldn’t handle more than two kids in thatGarden and so they didn’t spend the time to make all the other various sexualitiesand genders into human beings.

Alternatively, maybe some patriarchal asshole from 3^rdcentury removed that from the Bible.

My. Point. Is. That. You. Are. Not. Taking. The. Time. To.Understand. And. Grasp. How. Actual. Children. Of. God. Live. And. Have. Lived.On. Earth. Since. Adam. And. Eve.

Second:"...whenever we place a label or allow a label to be placed upon us. Thenwe also - a lot of times - by default, accept that lifestyle that comes withthat."

1) I am not allowingthe label of "gay" to be just placed on me. How DARE you take away myagency to identify. How DARE you take away my God-given ability to determinehow I am called by simply explaining it away as if it is being "placedupon" me.

I proudly use thatidentification to find community with others who experience life in a similarfashion to me.

I proudly use the term"gay" to explain to others what I'm looking for in life. Do NOT say Iam placing that label. I am claiming it and all the greatness that comes withit.

For being a Latter-daySaint, you seem to not completely understand the importance of projectingidentity onto the world in order to stand up for who and what you are. I referyou, dear sir, to the words of your prophet and what he has taught about theLatter-day Saint identity.

2) Let's follow yourlogic here, if we may. You state that labels are placed upon people—by peopleor by a community. The Latter-day Saint label is, then, placed upon childrenwho are raised in the Church.

So, by default, theyaccept that lifestyle that comes with the label "Latter-day Saint."

What you're sayinghere is that your own flock, the members of your church, aren't utilizing theirGod-given agency to be members of the Church. They are simply accepting thelifestyle that comes with the label that was placed on them since birth.

Does that work intoyour cosmology and theology? Wasn't there a big war in heaven over whetherpeople would be given the ability to choose and thus improve themselves, orhave to follow Lucifer's every command, thus rendering agency null and void?

You cannot, on the onehand, have agency and herald that as one of God's gifts and then, on the otherhand, mock people's agency when it comes to identifying with others. That'sjust sad. And shows that you have no respect for your own doctrine. You justwant to control people.

I don't say thatlightly. Because I believe that the ability to choose is a powerful andwonderful thing, and I want to hope that a church that has agency so entwinedinto its theology would protect that for everyone.

But, as it standshere, you, Mr. Hathaway, are teaching apostate things by denying agency when itcomes to labels and sexuality.

I hope the leaders ofthe Church pay attention to your apostasy, like they paid attention to thosewho just wanted to actually help the church, like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, andSam Young.

Also, a few morethoughts from the article, not just the words of Mr. Hathaway.

Thearticle states that “The Mormon church has been unbudging about its opposition togay marriage and same-sex intimacy, making the LGBTQ community feel unwelcome.”

Let me STRESS here thatit is more than the “unbudging...opposition to gay marraige and same-sex intimacy”that makes folx in the LGBTQ community feel unwelcome.

It is that, but it’salso other things. Like . . .

Not using people’spronouns in a respectful manner.

Not supporting asexualand aromantic lives.

Not encouraging peopleto be themselves—children of God—in whatever capacity that is.

Threateningexcommunication (or kicking someone out of BYU) when a trans person wants toget top surgery.

Not discussing fullheartedly the complexity of gender and sexuality that is present THROUGHOUThuman history.

Forcing people toconform to a heteropatriarchy.

Not helping out the marginalizedwithin the Latter-day Saint community.

Encouraging love on onehand and then encouraging hate on the other.

Notapologizing for the harm caused to minority groups throughout Mormon history.

Encouragingpeople for part of its history to bottle up their sexuality.

Notprotecting children from sexually explicitly questioning.

Beingpart of a cause for the high suicide rates in Utah, especially among LGBTteens.

Controllingthe Utah government and not listening to the will of the people there.

Legallyengaging with a political process on human rights when they consider it a “moral”issue.

NeedI go on? There is a LOT in the Church that causes those in the LGBTQ+ communityto feel VERY unwelcome.

Secondly,they go into Ed Smart’s personal coming out letter that was unethically andimmorally shared with the news. They quote his letter that states that “it is not myresponsibility to tell the Church, its members or its leadership what tobelieve about the rightness or wrongness of being LGBTQ.”

Yes,it’s not Ed Smart’s responsibility. Wanna know whose responsibility it is? Themembers who are active. The members who can make a difference. The men in powerwho are married faithfully in a temple and have callings with authority in theorganizational structure in the church. If you are an active member of the Church,it is your responsibility to reform the Church.

Churchreform happens from the ground up. Look into Mormon history. If you want tomake your church more open to LGBTQ+ people, observe, then serve. Learn. Love. Doyour part, like you did your part in the war in heaven.