Heartbroken
I am heartbroken to learn that the "Radical Orthodoxy" manifesto co-authored by Nathaniel Givens, Jeffrey Thayne, and Jonathan Max Wilson is intended to be anti-queer. I’m heartbroken. I’m utterly heartbroken. The Tribune article clarifying the author’s intensions on the “Radical Orthodoxy” manifesto had me in tears.
I pray the Spirit will be with me as I share my concerns.
Upon reading the “Radical Orthodoxy” manifesto, I had concerns about one sentence in particular.
Radical orthodoxy includes “. . .meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles regarding chastity and morality [. . .] —even when doing so runs contrary to popular, worldly views.”
Though I had my suspicions, I didn’t want to read beyond the text. For that reason, I withheld from judgment or commentary about specific in the manifesto. My gut told me this had anti-queer undertones, and sadly, the Tribune article confirms my fears. The document is intended to be anti-queer according to the co-author, Jeffrey Thayne.
The Tribune article states, “These ‘radical orthodox’ believers want to be defined ‘by what we are for, not what we are against,’ Givens says.”
Yet, co-author Thayne openly states signatories of the manifesto are against celebrating queer children, my child, or petitioning to the Lord and his servants for further revelation concerning queer temple sealings.
In Thayne’s words, “For example, if someone [. . .] celebrates gender transitions as compatible with the gospel, or promotes the expectation that same-sex couples will someday be sealed in the temple, they are no longer operating within the paradigm laid out by radical orthodoxy.”
Yet, co-author Givens states, “The key is not to pick a fight with anybody, but to find new things to talk about, and to emphasize positivity.”
It feels disingenuous to state that you are not trying to “pick a fight” and “emphasizing positivity” when “radical orthodoxy” means not celebrating our queer children, or seeking further revelation concerning their place in the temple.
It feels like the author is intentionally trying to pick a fight when he says, “Radical orthodoxy [. . .] requires a willingness to speak out in defense of the divine truths in these documents, when the occasion calls for it.”
Quite explicitly the author’s “for position” is against my child. It is against me. Against queer Latter-day Saints. Against the queer members of the body of Christ.
Adam Miller states in the article that the manifesto is “pretty banal.”
Nathaniel Givens, co-author of the documents asked on his Facebook page, “Why are banalities so contentious?”
To answer Nathaniel’s question, the rejection of queer Latter-day Saints is not banal, nor is it Christlike. Any document rejecting God’s queer children is not banal and promotes unnecessary contention.
I’m so sad. I’m so incredibly sad. People I care about and respect have signed this manifesto, including Fiona and Terryl Givens. I’m just so sad. You’d think after so many forms of rejection over the years I’d be used to it—that it wouldn’t hurt anymore, that I would have developed an immunity—but it hurts every. single. time.
