wombatwisdom

[wombatwisdom]

Great and Spacious

I

When I came out at work, I simply changed my pronouns in my email signature and on zoom. Immediately a co-worker reached out and asked if I changed my pronouns, and I said yes and she was excited for me.

Within two days others noticed too and the reaction was professional and compassionate--I felt seen, supported, and safe. My people manager and I met and we discussed the systems in place and the resources available, she didn't really understand what being trans or non-binary really was, but she knew what policies of inclusion had been put in place by corporate and in our local office to support me. She was open with me and always supportive--even after she left for other opportunities, we still stay in contact.

It was not perfect. Bathrooms were tricky, due to the lack of single occupancy options. Some if my co-workers still mis-gendered me. But I've had people apologize when they get it wrong and do better. And knowing I have the support of so many that I work with helps me navigate the small group of less agreeable co-workers (and to be clear, I've never had anyone aggressively disrespect me).

But the real proof in the pudding is how non-performative the support is. I am not the "token office trans", I am part of the team, fully integrated. My opinions and questions are considered and appreciated. People have told me they enjoy collaborating with me. In many ways, despite transitioning in plain sight, I have never felt that it was a source of burden or concern in my workplace.

II

When I came out at church, I wrote a letter. It was detailed and gruesome. It highlighted my disphoria, my anguish, my pain. I had seen the stories of other trans people crushed by the wheel of leadership roulette and knew I had to be clear and deliberate in my language. The letter was hard to write and hard to read, so I am told. I needed to focus the reader on my pain in attempt to appeal to their sympathy.

I sent the letter to my Bishop; I was Ward Clerk at the time. He was kind. He genuinely took my letter and read and thought and prayed. He prayed for two weeks, and I prepared for the worst. Obviously, the temple recommend would be gone, with it the calling. Hopefully, there wouldn't be too much blowback on my family.

Finally we met, and we spoke for hours. His position was that he didn't feel like this should matter--in his mind being non-binary was fine and I was still worthy of a temple recommend. He said he had read the handbook so many times (which at the time was pretty sparse on how to work with non-binary people, arguably it still is) and felt like he wasn't sure what to do. Due to his upbringing as a non-member he felt like he has known many queer people who were good and deserving of love and he wished the Church were different. He is one of the good ones, but even still, I was at his discretion and thankfully he was benevolent.

My Stake President needed a month with my letter. He has never known a trans person before me and admitted to being at a loss. He, too, prayed and read the handbook and also felt the same confusion my Bishop had expressed. We had only one meeting, where he said that my femme presentation was not in alignment with holding the priesthood and would not sign off on my recommend. He was kind, but firm and I was frank in return. I asked him to draw the boundaries and lines--could I speak in classes? Could I pray, if asked? What callings could I hold? Could I give talks? Bare my testimony? Wear garments? Take the sacrament?

I could tell he was uncomfortable with my questions, but I needed to know so that I could be safe. I let him decide, and he was generous, I could do all those things, just not hold a temple recommend and my calling.

My Bishop was upset at the news. We would meet more times and he would express his frustration at the outcome. I was released from my calling, which felt like a public shaming, and I wasn't ever asked to pray, or speak, or teach. My new calling was to prepare the weekly bulletin--and I did, and I made sure that all my quotes were from female leaders (a fact that no one ever noticed).

I was thanked profusely for showing up and staying. People were kind but uncertain and it showed. Some were kind in ways that felt unnatural and disingenuous. My Bishop often told me of the complaints he got for not being harsher with me. A couple told him they would no longer attend while I was permitted to come and take the Sacrament. Another man told him the I suck the spirit out of the room just by being there.

There were some who were angry for me and how things had unfolded. There were a mix of people with a mix of reactions. They had no guidance or support in how to integrate me into their community. I was at their mercy. I didn't feel empowered to participate, I felt like a problem needing to be dealt with.

III

I share these two experiences to highlight a disparity. My workplace experience has been smooth and a delight. Policies were in place to give direction and support to those who needed it and I was still treated as a respected member of my team. When I asked my team leaders if they wanted me to not interface with clients, they said if that ever was a problem to talk to them and they would handle it.

My experience at church was the opposite. It was grueling, exhausting, and soul crushing. I watched people struggle to know what to do with me. It was messy and frustrating.

In one of our many conversations, my Bishop mentioned that he has clients that he works with that use they/them pronouns and he tries to be inclusive. It made me realise that many of the people at church likely come from workplaces similar to mine that have policies, guidance and systems in place for trans clients and co-workers, so they know how to behave in the work place. But at church, it was everyone for themselves, and it was disappointing.

At church, a lot is said about the world, the great and spacious building, Babylon. We are told to fear it and to believe that the world is mocking us and trying to do harm. But I have seen a world that behaves with compassion, empathy, and love--one that I didn't have to fight for acceptance or give my agency and pain away to a man across the desk from me.

The great and spacious building has come up with a lot of the philosophies our Church has rejected and now is trying to catch up to. But it pains me when people say that the members and leaders don't know any better--because they need only look up and outward to find places of inclusion to model themselves after. My workplace did it, likely without God's inspiration, so why, with God does it take us so long?

There are places of refuge out here in the world--community is what you cultivate. Our leaders and members are not innocent lambs ignorant of what is around them--but there is a cultivated ignorance that permits them to wallow in the mire of their biases. I was there once too. It is comforting to never have to open your eyes or confront your ignorance--but the world can help us do it.

Perhaps the great and spacious building isn't the pejorative we make it out to be. Perhaps it is truly great and decidedly spacious enough to incorporate all of God's children. Perhaps not. I only have my experience--but I have seen both the world and the church in action, and I can say with confidence, which more readily offered me fruit to sustain life.

[wombatwisdom]

Words of Love

I would like to dig into the idea of "love" a little bit. This word gets bandied about quite a bit and I fear we all mean something different.

Part 1: Anita

After the oranges but before the cream pie to the face, Anita Bryant (an infamous anti-gay advocate in Dade County Florida) gave us these delightful words: "I love homosexuals. Its the sin of homosexuality that I hate" and "I don't hate homosexuals. I love them enough to tell them the truth: that God puts them in the category with other sinners".

Anita's "love" for the LGBTQ+ community prompted her to advocate against their basic human rights to employment and housing without discrimination in the 1970s. And her "Save the children" campaign was largely successful--at least in Dade County. Her influence can still be felt today in a lot of right wing canards (you can even see her shadow in the 2024 LDS policy of exclusion).

There is something compelling about Anita's version of "love". She loves the "sinner" enough to tell them the truth, to teach them, to coerce them back to righteousness. She loves them enough to hand them the tough realities of life.

Anita could probably point to scriptures and religious thinkers to support her brand of love. Sinners don't fare well according to the bible, so wouldn't our "love" motivate us to try and save them? Wouldn't you want to spare a loved one or even a stranger the horrors of eternal damnation and suffering?

Parents intercede for their children to keep them out of harms way. Isn't it loving to tell kids that cigarettes are harmful? Isn't it loving to remind children of the dangers of drinking and driving? Don't parents owe it to their children to protect them from harm from external or internal sources?

A cogent reader might be able to spot the difference here. There is a difference between loving someone by "informing of harm" and advocating for a removal of rights. Further more, this "love" is being conflated for control (however well intentioned), and learning to love without controlling is probably the most challenging part of parenting. But even more, our positions on cigarettes have shifted as science has provided more insights into their harm, similarly, as evidence has mounted showing the positive impacts of living authentically as an LGBTQ+ person, so to have publicly held stigmas and misunderstanding changed.

But, crucially, to Anita, she would maintain that she loves gay people and was motivated by love. It is not her problem that you may not agree with her definitions.

Part 2: Joanne

Before the Cyber bullying lawsuit and after the wild success of Harry Potter, JK Rowling published her attempt at "explaining" the maelstrom of social media debate that had sprung up around her. In the halcyon days of the early pandemic, JK Rowling tweeted almost-compassionate sentiments towards trans people such as: "I respect the right of every transgender person to live life in a way that makes them feel authentic and comfortable with themselves. I would march with you if you were discriminated against because you are transgender."

And in her "essay" published in July of 2020 (which was at one point entitled "TERF Wars" I'm almost certain, but has since been renamed), she specifically cites a transgender acquaintance whom Joanne calls "wonderful". And yet all this lip service to "respect" and "wonderfulness" has yielded some rather caustic twitter discourses, significant contributions to a increasingly transphobic political culture, and even some good old holocaust denialism.

Joanne's "love" (or she would call it "respect") seems to come if she deems it earned. My read is that for Joanne, transitioning should take a long time, require extreme levels of vetting (both internally and externally), and will only be achieved adequately by a relatively small number of people. Besides, if this population is so tiny, then we shouldn't have to accommodate them at the expense of everyone else's comfort. Love, it would seem, is a numbers game.

I do think Joanne's point about knowing a transwoman personally, should not go unremarked. She herself admits that she has met young trans people who she finds "adorable". And yet, even as we cheer for Brene Brown's "it's hard to hate someone up close", Joanne's behavior seems to suggest otherwise. She does know and respect the wonderful and adorable trans people in her circles, but that does not mean that they should have space to exist comfortably.

Joanne shows us that loving someone on a personal level is not the same thing as loving the group they represent. Furthermore, we all love someone close to us but don't agree with every thing they do. We question clothing choices, food preferences, parenting techniques, movies watched, books read, time wasted. To Joanne loving someone does not mean you need to advocate for then.

To Joanne, love is a limited resource and so who is loved and how they are loved must be chosen carefully. Joanne believes to make space for trans people comes at the expense of woman and girls, and don't woman and girls need to be loved too? There are more cis woman and girls than trans people. When love is scarce, than it follows that certain groups must be dismissed and harassed, I suppose.

Part 3: Dallin

Before his inevitable ascent to become the next prophet and after worriedly writing in the 1980's that "one generation of homosexual "marriages" would depopulate a nation...Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide", Dallin H Oaks gave a rather love-focused address in the most recent general conference (Oct 2024, Saturday morning session). He urged for us to remember the first two commandments and to avoid political contention by being peacemakers, despite the fact that he was involved, at least in part, with the recent transphobic policy put in place by the Church a few weeks ago.

My fear here is Dallin, lawyer that he is, has left a lot of words to be defined by the listener. What does it mean to be a peacemaker? What does it mean to avoid contention? And what does it mean to love?

From talks given in the past, Dallin's position seems similar to Anita and Joanne. Dallin's concern is getting people to the celestial kingdom which means that certain people need to be reminded that the way they are will not be compatible with that place. This is a thought birthed from love--he loves people enough to tell them what God expects from them! He's also keenly aware that there is a gulf forming in society and he's got to choose which one to protect because love is scarce, and given the voices he chooses to amplify (see the letter he reads in this young adult fireside), he stands with his more conservative base.

Dallin's love may be short sighted and biased, but he probably doesn't think so. He thinks his motivations are on the side of the angels and who am I to disagree, arguably he knows heaven better than I do.

But you may not find Dallin's version of love very uplifting or meaningful. You may find it motivated more from fear or bias, and perhaps your version of love has space for inclusion and multiple paths, but here is the kicker: your definitions and positions on love have limited reach.

Dallin's love is amplified in multiple languages all over the world every six months at least. When he speaks, people listen and to some degree internalize what he's saying. Dallin knows gay and trans people, he has a grandson that is openly gay, and still he shows his love this way.

Dallin has power and influence in this community and so his version of love gets elevated and replicated. Every six months we get the privilege of grappling with his love and decide what to do with it. Dallin's love comforts a certain subset of the audience while alienating others. His influence will eventually fade, but then we will need to move on to someone else's version of love and that is always a gamble.

Part 4: You

In queer spaces the individuals I have mentioned are often heavily criticized. And from my perspective rightfully so. Their actions and words have costs and inflicted damages our community routinely has to bear. But we need to be aware that our criticism that they should be more "loving" might not land where we would hope it does. They do, in their own definition, act out of love.

Their definitions certainly don't align with most of ours, but we don't often take the time define what we mean by love. And in writing this, I have come to realise that love contains multitudes: both good and bad--and holding people to my definitions just leads to unmet expectations.

What I have learned from this review is to acknowledge the differences in what love can be--I am less interested in love now but motivation and impact. Much of what I do in "love" is actually more motivated by a desire for "safety", "acceptance" or "belonging", which can have mixed results. I need to demonstrate, not to Anita, Joanne or Dallin, but to those in my life that the outcomes of certain "love" can be damaging and negative for me. I now know to avoid or be skeptical of the outcomes of Anita's, Joanne's and Dallin's love, but I also know that they don't think themselves unloving, so trying to convince them to "love" more is a fruitless exercise.

Perhaps, we become peacemakers when we hear the heartbreak of our neighbors and find ways to partner with them to build solutions. But ultimately, all of these words are up to you and how you wield them is your choice--but the fruits of your love will be decided by those who stumble across them and you cannot control how they will be received.

[wombatwisdom]

“Well, it would confuse the kids if trans people were teachers.”

You know what else is confusing? Being told my entire life that I would be exclusively attracted to men when in fact I am a raging queer. And you’re not giving kids enough credit, if they can handle topics like ‘you have a set of earthly parents and a set of Heavenly Parents and both are real parents to you’ then they should understand the concept of being trans.

Also, I’m not sure if they’ll care. God knows me and my friends were only in primary for the songs and the fruit snacks.

[wombatwisdom]

Gather; Year 2

I had the opportunity to go to the Gather Conference this year hosted by Lift & Love. It was an amazing experience.

This year I was determined to make connections, hug more people, and get out of my comfort zone--and it made for such a sensational weekend. The people I met are on such different journeys, but it was nice to meet other trans people in person, to stand with them, to go to lunch with them, to know that there are real tangible people going through similar experiences to me.

The conference allowed for the trans and non-binary communities to hurt and heal and be honest about the new church policy. There were honest conversations that needed to be had. It was focused on the future but acknowledged the pain in the present.

I hardly remember the actual presentations (except for the main stage Trans presentation and the Gender Identity breakout session). But I'll remember the people and connections. Sometimes I forget how vital human connection can be.

[wombatwisdom]

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.

[wombatwisdom]

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

[wombatwisdom]

I appreciate the sentiment, I truly do. I like the idea that if I were to feel unsafe in a public restroom people have said they would support me.

I don't know how to say the next part. I don't mean to be confrontational or rude. Again, I understand the sentiment, I know what is trying to be said. These are just my thoughts on it.

From my perspective, the communication is off. This rule is inane--the thought of having some stand guard while I use the bathroom is dehumanizing and embarrassing. And I fear this idea legitimizes it.

I don't want someone to clear out a bathroom and then stand guard--I want people who will walk into Relief Society with me and then leave with me if I am asked to leave. I want someone to agree to come with me to potential interviews and counsels. I want someone who will offer to let me stay with them when I have to stay somewhere else during an overnight event. I want someone who will stay with me during second hour because there is no where else to go. I want someone who will politely ask the Bishop, the stake president, the visiting area authority, the visiting apostle what the goal of this rule is? There are so many ways to actually help me that are better than giving this impossible bathroom policy any kind of legitimacy.

Again, I don't think the sentiment is wrong, and I appreciate what is trying to be said. It still means a lot, despite my personal grievance with the actual phrasing.

[wombatwisdom]

I shouldn't be surprised. I shouldn't expect any less from an organization that defaults to exclusion and dehumanizing populist rhetoric when confronted with something unaccounted for in our theology. Over and over and over, we can't ever seem to get it right.

I know what will happen too--in 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years this transphobic screed of a policy will be reversed. The reasons being "light and knowledge" or "God told us to do both". We'll scramble to ascribe meaning to the pain and hurt and anguish, try to put it in the past as quickly as possible. Forgive and forget.

But are we forgetting too quickly? How many minority groups have to be dragged through shit before we'll finally be on the right side of progress for once? Why do we frame the 1978 decision to reverse the racial priesthood ban as a win that handwaves over 100 years of harm? Why don't we talk more about the ramifications of the "Lamanite Program", that pulled Native American children away from their families? What about the ban on letting women pray in sacrament Meeting from 1967-1978? Or the policy of exclusion for gay and lesbian people and their children (2015-2019)?

Why was I surprised, when there is a clear pattern? Over and over and over again. And when we shift from transpeople, who will be next? Who will the ire of the Brethren turn to next?

Yes, continual restoration. But why don't we start by asking God what he would have us do, because trying it on our own doesn't have the best track record?

But imperfect leaders! Yes, yes, but that only explains, it does not excuse! And imperfection does little to comfort those who have been wronged.

God will judge them! I don't actually care. Their eternal outcome is of little consequence to me. And what comfort will it bring me to believe they will someday maybe suffer. Their suffering doesn't change a thing and feels petty and vengeful on my part. Also this isn't about individuals, this is about the system that continues to do this.

But this is how we grow! Find another way to grow that is not at the expense of marginalized groups.

But it's bad everywhere. That is false. No where is perfect, but many institutions and groups try and improve themselves. The church can do better, and I will not let some other group that is worse than us be the standard.

But the members love you. How nice. But I don't need an army of people who guard the door while I pee, I need an army of people who see that this is another blip in a long string of marginalization that seems to be at our very core.

But here's the hardest part: how do we hold our leaders accountable? The average member has such little power. We can work on ourselves. We can identify the racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic beliefs we were taught and reject them. We can love more and let these policies hold less sway on us.

But we also need to let ourselves feel. Accept the rage, the hopelessness, the sorrow, the anguish. Feel it for those who have suffered before, and those who suffer now. But I pray we can find a way to break this cycle, but I'm not so sure we can.

[wombatwisdom]

General Handbook update, and it's not a good one:

Church Participation of Individuals Who Identify as Transgender

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR LOCAL LEADERS

This document supplements the policy in General Handbook, 38.6.23, "Individuals Who Identify as Transgender." Its purpose is to help local leaders counsel with individuals and their families about certain aspects of Church participation.

General Guidelines

In all cases, local leaders:

• Seek spiritual guidance.

• Treat individuals and their families with love and respect while teaching gospel truth.

• Consider the needs of the individual and other ward members.

• Ensure that the Church's doctrine on gender is not undermined or misunderstood.

• Seek counsel. Bishops counsel with the stake president. Stake and mission presidents seek guidance from the Area Presidency.

• Involve the parents or guardians of minors.

Preferred Names and Pronouns

Official Church records reflect a member's biological sex at birth.

The use of preferred names and pronouns should be a matter left between individuals and their family, friends, and Church members. Local leaders should not determine or prescribe how members address an individual.

If a member has a preferred name, it may be noted in the "Preferred Name" field on the membership record.

Gender-Specific Meetings and Activities

Individuals attend gender-specific meetings and activities that align with their biological sex at birth.

Any exception, which should be rare, must adhere to the "General Guidelines" listed above and be approved by the Area Presidency.

Overnight Activities

For overnight activities that are for a specific gender, individuals attend only the camps that align with their biological sex at birth. Examples of such activities include Young Women camps and Aaronic Priesthood quorum camps.

For overnight activities that are not for a specific gender, individuals who pursue surgical, medical, or social transition away from their biological sex at birth leave the activity at night. Youth are released to the care of a parent or legal guardian, who is responsible for arranging accommodations. Examples of activities that are not for a specific gender include young single adult conferences, For the Strength of Youth conferences, and youth conferences.

Callings and Assignments

Individuals who pursue surgical, medical, or social transition away from their biological sex at birth are not called or assigned to (1) fulfill gender-specific roles, (2) serve as teachers, or (3) work with children or youth. They may receive other callings or assignments that provide opportunities to progress and serve others.

Restrooms in Church Facilities

Restrooms should provide a private and safe environment. Care must be taken to respect the privacy and dignity of all individuals.

Individuals who pursue surgical, medical, or social transition away from their biological sex at birth should use a single-occupancy restroom when available.

If a single-occupancy restroom is not available, a local leader counsels with the individual (and the parents or guardians of a youth) to find a solution. Options include:

• Using a restroom that aligns with the individual's biological sex at birth.

• Using a restroom that corresponds to the individual's feeling of their inner sense of gender, with a trusted person ensuring that others are not using the restroom at the same time.

Source (guiding principles sheet linked in paragraph 7)

[wombatwisdom]

The Institution

In the version of the first vision that is most frequently quoted by church members, I find the question posed by the 14 year old, soon to be prophet, rather telling.

He does not ask a personal question, such "how can I be a better disciple of Jesus Christ?" Or even more biblical "what lack I yet?"

Nor does he ask a more general question like "how can I help people more fully come unto Christ?"

The question he poses is an institutional one: "Which of all the sects was right, that I may know which to join." (JS History 1:18)

It should be noted that this account was not drafted until 1838, and is likely not a perfect recounting of events but rather a recounting with a purpose. If you are trying to convince people that a church is the one true church of God, the question that initiated the vision had better be about churches.

I think, however, this institutional focus looms large in our church, exacerbated by correlation efforts in the latter half of the 20th century. In many ways, the church has survived and thrived off its institutional design.

As I see it, the church has two aspects that constantly create tension: the centralized institution (think church headquarters) and the local congregation (think your ward or branch). Historically, the church has oscillated between different approaches: at times highly centralized, others more localized. In the modern church, it has struck a rather successful balance between the two, and landed in what I like to call the "franchise model".

My mother likes to say she loves that church is the same no matter where she attends. And generally that's true--she knows she can share her testimony on the first Sunday of the month, she knows what class to attend for second hour, and she knows when to sit, stand, sing, and say amen.

In truth the structure of the church on this tightrope between the top down approach of the centralized church and the bottom up approach of the localized church is a marvel. The average member feels empowered at the local level while supported by a larger framework maintained by a centralized group. Local leaders are volunteers (sort of), so less likely to be swayed to corruption, while the central leadership is full time with the capacity to address sweeping and large issues.

But these two structures pull against each other too. Local congregations can veer too far from the comfort of Central planning and can have their autonomy reduced (see women on the stand in California). Central leadership can implement policy that is difficult to enforce at the local level that will just kind of be forgotten (see the countless examples of leadership roulette).

Central leadership's goal is to maintain the institution and keep the train on the tracks, where the local congregation's goal is to foster community. And between the two is the estuary of middle-management who are trying support both at the same time (a confusing and thankless task if there ever was one).

These goals can be tricky to support and are often contradictory but can be advantageous to the church as a whole.

You've probably seen this in action. If someone in your ward mistreats you and you offer this as reason for no longer attending, you are often reminded that the church is more than the local community, it is a global Church run by God and you shouldn't abandon it because of a less than stellar ward environment. Similarly, if Central Leadership proposes a policy that marginalizes you or othes, the defense is to remember how great a community of saints exists and how much you are loved.

This makes it difficult to criticize, advocate or create positive change in the church. While grassroots movements can work, it is important to see how both sides of the church work and in what ways they are interconnected and how they are separate. A movement solely focused on improving the community does not change damaging centralized policy or teachings, likewise even perfect policy will not create the desired effect if the local community is hostile or otherwise unable to implement it.

From the very beginning of the LDS tradition there has been an eye towards institutionalism. Much more can and needs to be said regarding how Christ fits into the institution, but this post is already too long to tackle that. So, I'll leave it here for now.

[wombatwisdom]

I

The Church is like Phoenix, Arizona.

I recently moved away from Phoenix after living there for a few years. I have fond memories of people and events that happened while living there. But having been away from Phoenix for a few months, I can say I needed a change.

The city itself is nothing short of a monument to human stubbornness and by most metrics it is thriving. And those who stay swear up and down there is no where else they'd rather be.

But the weather was hard for me--year round sun, blistering summers that seem to stretch forever, with too short, albeit pleasant winters. The landscape is harsh and the wildlife ready to sting or bite or attack in order to survive. The dirt there can literally give you a chronic illness and water is always a concern.

But there are those who love it. Who embrace the desert and find beauty in it. Who thrive on dry heat and do not want to deal with frosts. They find harmony amongst the javelinas. The have risen to the challenge and could not imagine leaving.

The church is like Phoenix, Arizona.

When you arrive, people welcome you in and apologize for the heat. They do not promise you'll get used to it, but they will absolutely support your attempts. They know that it's hard to adjust to living in Phoenix, but they assure you the winter will make all your discomfort worth it.

They are keenly aware that not everyone can make it in Phoenix. They know that many will leave after a time and that is just how it goes. They know that they are the butt of jokes or seen as crazy for staying, but it's home, it's where family and community is and so they double down--they insist that they are made of stronger stuff or built different to last in the desert and they make sure you know how much courage it takes to stay for as long as you can manage it.

The church is like Phoenix, Arizona.

I left Phoenix because I needed seasons and clouds and trees. I needed rain and pleasant summer evenings. I needed to not worry so much about the water. I needed to be closer to family. I needed community I couldn't quite build there.

Phoenix wasn't the city for me. It was for a time; it gave me what it could give me and I am grateful for it. But it wasn't the right fit, and I was privileged to seize an opportunity to take me elsewhere. But I'll be honest, while I know that Phoenix didn't work for me and I know it works for others, I can't help but feel like I failed. That I wasn't good enough. That I just didn't have the strong moral character needed to stay.

And in my even less charitable moments, I do even wonder how anyone could truly love living in Phoenix. How could a place that so firmly missed my needs, so perfectly fulfill the needs of someone else? But maybe we are all different and that's why we living in so many different places so we can, hopefully, find the place that best suites us.

The church is like Phoenix, Arizona.

But are all cities equally good to live in? What if my life would be better by staying in Phoenix? What if authorities in my life said Phoenix was the best place for me and my family to live? What if the hardships of living in Phoenix are intended to make me a better person? What if the people of Phoenix claimed it was the closest city to God?

Would it still be okay to leave? Would a better person than me stay? What if I can stay and make it more habitable for others? Is there anything better than Phoenix out there?

In truth, nobody cares what city you choose to live in. You find what works for you and make it work. No city is perfect and you'll have to work to fix those flaws (or adapt to the things you can't change), but that secret is finding the place where the benefits don't outway the flaws.

II

Phoenix, Arizona is not like the church.

For some, selecting an institution of spirituality is similar to selecting a city to live--does it meet my needs? Is this a community I want to participate in and give back to? Is there room for me and others to grow? Does the doctrine and ideals taught by this institution resonate with my soul?

But this universalist approach to church membership is often not offered to those in the LDS tradition. Which creates a lot of tension between those who choose to stay and those who choose to leave. At best we begrudgingly wish those who leave "all the best" and hope they don't rage too hard against the church (or at us). At worst, we fear for them, we envy them, or we feel insecure. And those who leave often seem to have difficulty moving on and often use the worst the church has to offer to erase any good it may do.

Because at the heart of this is a concern: which of all these cities is the correct city to live in? This question presupposes that there even is a "correct" city to begin with? If there is a "correct" city to live in, then it stands to reason that we should want to live there regardless of discomfort or personal need.

Applying this framing to selecting a city to live in feels ridiculous, but in the context of the unknown of the afterlife, it seems a popular mindset. If this is the "one true church back to God", then we must stay regardless of any discomfort or pain or systemic mistreatment and we must stay with no promises of any improvement. Often to leave because "it's not supporting my needs" feels selfish and faithless.

When it comes to cities, we let people leave (while mourning the departure of friends and family) and we let people stay (allowing them to live where suits them best). And while the analogy is not one to one, perhaps there is more to think about here in terms of religion, because a more "city-like" perspective might help us in our religious quest to more fully love our neighbors.

[wombatwisdom]

I never used to like the quote about god making trans people because we're like wheat and yeast instead of bread or something, but honestly since transitioning I think I do get it now. As mormons we understand exaltation and godhood to be primarily abt creation, that change and building things is the nature of God. I think sometimes abt the different ways god invites us to participate in the exalting act of creation in this life. I've felt spiritually like hrt and my top and eventual bottom surgery are one of the ways I can taste exaltation in this life. I think God made us knowing the work wasn't done, that the rest of this exalting creation work is left to us to build ourselves.

[wombatwisdom]

Pride 2024

Pride has never felt like mine--it always felt like it belonged to others: those who have been fighting since childhood, those who have lost nearly everything, those who have a cogent path to activism.

I came to my queerness too late. Being asexual is hard to determine. Being trans wasn't in my vocabulary in childhood and finding it as an adult was too weighty. Now my queerness is something I must constantly unpack and wish I had discovered this about myself sooner. Perhaps my pride is in healing.

I have benefited from the work of those who came before me. Those who threw the bricks, who threw the pies, who threw it all away for something better. Due to actions and losses and gains from others, the consequences of my coming out have been comparatively less. Perhaps my pride is in gratitude.

I get easily overwhelmed by what changes still need to happen for some many in this community. I have so many thoughts about paths to activism: can we do more than vote? How do actually create change? How to keep the progress we have already had? How do I change systems and institutions in my life? Should I even try? Perhaps my pride is in the questions.

Perhaps pride isn't pretty, earned, or clearly defined. Perhaps pride is what you make it. And perhaps I can claim this pride for my own.

[wombatwisdom]

I have had to come up with a solution to this for myself. I just tell people to use my first name. When I first came out, I bore my testimony on a fast Sunday and told people there to simply use my first name. I was happily surprised how well people adjusted and how much less formal my interactions felt with ward members.

Hey what would you call an adult in the church whi is nonbinary? It wouldn't be brother or sister so would it be sibling or something else

This is a really good question that I've regrettably never considered.

Let's try a few out.

"Sibling" comes to mind first. Sibling Smith? It does fit with the brother/sister terminology, but I'm not sure if it works as a title? That might just be because I'm not as used to "Sibling Smith" as I am to "Brother/Sister Smith".

"Saint Smith" fits with the "Latter-day Saints", but I worry that it's a bit to ostentatious? It feels like a comment on their righteousness. Brother/Sister has a more humbling aspect. More like "we're equals here".

"Fellow Smith" Feels very old school Quaker. Maybe too old school?

"Friend Smith" good for expressing that we like them, but kind of implies they exist outside the family

"Cousin Smith" keeps them in the family, but kind of makes them more distant family.

"Comrade Smith" getting members to embrace nonbinary members AND imply that capitalism isn't God's gift to man might be a bridge too far. For now.

There might also be some non English words that are much better suited for this we could adopt, but I don't know them.

[wombatwisdom]

Let's talk some more about Judith Butler's book "Who's Afraid of Gender". One group Judith mentions is the World Congress of Families, a Christian-based group that they assert has been successful in influencing global anti-LGBTQ+ laws around the world (the recent uptick in particularly aggressive laws in Russia, Eastern Europe and Africa have been lobbied and funded for in part by the World Congress of Families). The Souther Poverty Law Center has designated the WCF as a hate group.

While reading about this group, I got a bit nervous. Does the Church of Jesus Christ associate with the WCF. A quick Google made me very worried. The Church News website cites at least two different occurances of sponsoring the annual WCF conference, once in 1999 and again in 2015. Another conference, for the International Congress of Families (finding any direct information about the WCF is difficult as they frequently rebrand, abandon websites, or just don't make an effort to make themselves generally accessable) was sponsored by the church in 2024.

According to a 2015 Report by the Human Rights Campaign, the church is a sponsor of the WCF as well as President Oaks being a board member.

So, who cares? Of course, the Church would rally behind a Christian-based group fighting to protect the family from the phantasm of gender. The institutional church has never been quiet on their views on family and LGBTQ+ issues. And in truth, decisions made by the institutional church are so far out of my control it seems pointless and tiresome to bring them up.

But!

What made me stop short was the discussion of funding and sponsoring and lobbying. Due to a frustrating lack of transparency it is nearly impossible to know how much tithing money has gone to the WCF through church sponsorship. Neither the Church nor the WCF seem to want to make this information available. But the fact remains, that money has exchanged hands and that probably means tithing funds were used (I suppose to be generous these donations and sponsorships could be happening using investment profits, which might be slightly better? But even still there is no evidence in either direction on that.)

But this makes me uncomfortable. I don't know how tithing gets spent, some have speculated, but I have no way of knowing if my tithing money is going to causes that I find ethical, moral, or timely. The church asks for a significant amount of money and claims they are only responsible to God on how they spend it. But I could use the money to support causes more pressing and certainly ensure that my dollars do not go to a group like the WCF!

I've seen in other Mormon spaces, the idea of being thoughtful in your tithing. Giving your ten percent to local causes in your area or to pressing causes around the world. To me, this still feels holy, still feels like consecrating your funds to the Lord, still would qualify in my mind as a full tithe. And it makes me feel better knowing what causes and groups are using my donations for causes I know I can support! I know that this approach takes more effort, especially in research (not all charities are what they seem), but it makes me feel like a more responsible for what I'm giving and I like to believe God supports that too.

[wombatwisdom]

Distance from the church does not inherently equal distance from God

[wombatwisdom]

I've recently started reading Judith Butler's new book "Who's Afraid of Gender?" where they discuss the various groups who leverage the fear of "gender" for their own means.

They never address Mormonism outright in the way it plays on the fears of gender and sexual minorities--mostly because they do not need to. The Vatican and other evangelical groups beat us to it, they wrote their proclamations on saving the family before we did, and used language shockingly similar to what we use.

Butler points out that "The Family" and its defense has become a smokescreen or scapegoat where religious institutions do not have to address real tangible issues (like the climate crisis or the perils of late stage capitalism) but instead can just say: "we were right--allowing the gays to marry and the transfolks to have rights IS causing the collapse of our societies!"

What is surprising to me, is how disappointed I am in our lack of originality. Did we really need to copy and paste this fear-based bigotry into our own church?

The truth is, of course it's unoriginal and of course it's man-made. The fear of the lgbtq+ community (and let's be honest most feminists too) is the threat we pose to the powers that be. Who gets the priesthood in a world where gender isn't set at birth? How does marriage work if one gender is "by devine design to preside over the home"? What if women realize it's better to be married to another woman than a man???? What if women really can do it all? What would become of the men????

And how do we convince them otherwise? They are anxious about a reality that does not exist but could threaten power, structure, and systems? And in truth LGBTQ+ concerns are not easily addressed without sizable redesigns, much of which would likely require divine intervention to get right.

And doesn't that all seem like too much work, when the majority of active members aren't really affected by systemic mistreatment of the LGBTQ+ community? Plus, so many have also bought into the phantasm (that's what Butler calls the fear of "gender"), that they are ready to defend "The Family" from it's various attackers (imaginary or real), and such redesigns could cause many unaffected to react negatively.

I feel stupid, mostly, for believing that our bigotry was somewhat unique. I foolishly thought that leaders were somehow interpreting spiritual promptings through a biases lens. But, it's so disappointly borrowed from congresses and committees benefitting from enforcing the same fear for the defense of the "Natural, Divine and so so delicate Family".

I do wish to believe that it could potentially change and get better. But we'd need a miracle--and apparently the miracle needs to be for not just us, but for the people we are borrowing the phantasm from.