#deznat

[nerdygaymormon]

Can I ask what your thoughts are about the recent scandal with deznat and the Alaska Associate Attorney General?

Personally, I experienced schadenfreude when I learned the news. I've been targeted by DezNat on Twitter, even held up as an example of why DezNat is needed. I had to block hundreds of accounts to stop the bullying.

I'm disappointed that there are members of our church who think bullying people, especially those on the margins, fits with being Christlike.

I am of the belief that who you are online is who you are in real life. There's not two of you. If you are attacking people with homophobic slurs, hoping for violence against Black people, demeaning women, making fun of the way a person looks, that's in your heart even when you're not online.

Matthias Cicotte thought there'd be no repercussions for the things he tweeted and the attacks he made against others on Twitter, and for several years he was correct.

A British newspaper examined his Twitter account and found small clues he left behind and pieced together the clues to figure out who was behind the account. This is international news!

Turns out that in addition to being an online homophobe, anti-Semite, misogynist, racist who promotes violence, he's also an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Alaska. He's a public employee who is paid to protect the legal rights of all citizens.

Matthias Cicotte's employer is investigating the claims that he has tweeted such vile things. Organizations in Alaska are calling for the state to review all of the cases Cicotte worked on to determine if he let his prejudices prevent justice.

I imagine Cicotte is going to lose his $100k+ job because it'll be difficult to say the citizens of Alaska would have confidence in a person who has spewed such awful things.

This reminds me of Shakespeare's phrase "Hoist with his own petard," which literally means that a bomb-maker is lifted ("hoist") off the ground with his own bomb (a "petard" is a small explosive device). The bomb he planned to harm others with will now cause injury to him. The phrase is used to mean an ironic reversal, or poetic justice.

Matthias Cicotte has been hoist with his petard of hateful messages on Twitter meant to harm others, now he will be hurt by them.

It's hard for me to have much sympathy for him because of how aggressively mean he was. He didn't just tweet his thoughts on his account, he sought others who he disagreed with and called them all sorts of names and encouraged others to do the same.

However, I do recognize this is going to be a very uncomfortable time for him and his family. No one wants this kind of notoriety and shame. From now on, when anyone googles his name, this international news story will appear, it's part of his legacy.

I think professionally this is a temporary setback. I imagine that he has contacts throughout the Alaska legal community and eventually a friend will help him get hired on at a law firm.

I think on a personal level this is a chance for introspection and change. His online posts reflect the worst parts of him, the parts I bet he hopes his wife and children never see.

I don't know that anything will be done at church to punish him, although his nasty tweets may keep him from being called to serve in leadership positions. As much as it pains me to say, homophobes, racists and misogynists are not usually disciplined at church for expressing those views, even though they are exactly the opposite of "all are alike unto God." This is partly why many queer people, people of color and feminists feel uncomfortable or not safe at church. Sheep don't feel safe with wolves around.

[uchtdorfdeeznuts]

Nothing makes me happier than people mistaking the DezNat hashtag for the DeezNuts hashtag.

[rvexillology]

(Repost, apologies) Semi-serious Utah redesign. I just want an alternative to the DezNat one making the rounds in my state's legislature.

from /r/vexillology Top comment: The Utah state legislature has a bill going through its session seeking to create a state flag task force. Last year, a flag with ties to Deseret Nationalism (AKA DezNat) got a lot of press. Pretty design, but I don't want a flag with that kind of baggage. Respectfully submitted, one that has a beehive (based on the Utah Highway Patrol logo already in use by the state), mountains against blue skies, red rocks/native peoples, and a subtle tie-in to the idea that Utah is the "crossroads of the West."

[brothermouse]

My biggest problem with the Deznat folks is that, on some level I kinda agree with them.

You can pitchfork me later, just let me explain first.

So, a reoccurring theme with Deznat is that a deticated Mormon state (Deseret) would allow the church to break free of corrupting influences. Now, not all deznats are calling for a Mormon homeland. Some are just looking to 'purify' the church. They believe if we could just get the bad influences out of the Church, it would attain it's true destiny as a beacon of light a beauty to all the world.

All that is stuff I actually agree with. Where I start to disagree in in what the corrupting influences are, and what needs to be purged. I also have a very different view of what a purified Church looks like.

Generally Deznats are right wing to far right, so their concerns tend to be about the influence of progressive Mormons (Progmos) and/or LGBTQ Mormons, and their ideal political state is very pro-American (I consider that idol worship, but hey, agree to disagree). But, they can speak for and defend themselves and you can look them up if you want. I'm not here to talk about them much.

The way I see it, the corrupting influences on the Church come from mainstream Christianity and American culture. A 'Mormon Vatican', or at least a sound rejection of those influences would lead to a better, more pure Church. A Church that better accepts Saints of all colors and queerness.

That's what bothers me about Deznat. They embrace things that, as I see it, cause most of the problems in the Church.

Let's take Brigham Young's racism. It's no secret that he said some pretty terrible thing about race, and particularly about mixing races. The Deznats have been saying "Brigham did nothing wrong". But as I researched the issue I was able to trace Brigham's attitudes out of the Church and scripture and to bad science and American culture of the time.

Basically at the time there was a theory, presented as pure scientific fact, that if a black and a white interbreed the resulting offspring would become sterile in a few generations. With that bad 'sciene' floating around it ment that in Brigham's mind people who married outside of their race might as well have been castrating babies in the crib. So I can kinda understand the intensity of his emotions.

If Brigham had only been more willing to question the cries of a corrupt and apostate world and seek the will of the Lord, he could have saved a lot of pain and suffering and heartache. In my pure Church vision, we accept the divinity in all people, regardless of what the world says.

I see Mainstream Christianity as the major force corrupting the Saints on the topic of LGBTQ. During Joseph Smith's first vision he was told by Jesus regarding the other churches that "They draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me." Where is that clearer that in the treatment of LGBTQ? People saying, "I love God and all his creations" in one sentence then condemning his creations to eternal hell in the next.

Polygamy teaches us that families in heaven are allowed to be just as complicated as they are in life. If they can be good and joyful on Earth they can be good and joyful in Heaven. In my Deseret Nation we embrace and defend all families, no matter the size or shape.

That's what bugs me the most about Deznat. That I understand and agree with the urge to just get all the stupid, backwards people out of the church, because it would make everything so much better. It bugs me more that we disagree on what the end result looks like.

[nerdygaymormon]

Some thoughts on DezNat

I was thinking about DezNat (Deseret Nationalism), a group on Twitter & Facebook who claim to support the church and show that support by attacking LGBTQ’s, BLM, feminists and others. Sad.

Groups like BLM or the LGBTQ community exist due to our desire to be recognized, desire for better treatment, desire to be fully included. Even if we didn’t have a “group,” we’re still LBGTQ or Black. We are seeking positive change. This makes our ideas powerful. 

We argue principles and equality. Those who oppose us often turn to personal attacks and wanting to maintain their privilege. They speak of tradition. Some traditions are harmful and need to be changed. They don’t acknowledge there’s any problem and therefore don’t come up with alternative proposals to the issues faced by the groups they oppose. 

The scriptures are clear we need to focus on helping the poor, the foreigner, and the marginalized, this gets taught over and over. This is how to be a Christ-centered church. Attacking those who are marginalized or different is the opposite.

God repeatedly tells us that all are alike to Him but we refuse to believe it. We continue to draw lines that divide families from their queer child, or defend horribly racist teachings of the past, or don’t allow the full talent of women to be used in the church, or deny identities which aren’t the majority.

The two “sides” are not equivalent. 

[nerdygaymormon]

Over on Twitter there’s a group of alt-right members who think they’re defending the purity of the church by attacking anyone they think is progressive and doesn’t view church teachings exactly as they do. They do it in a belittling mean-girls type way. I’ve tried responding to them and only get mocking sarcasm in return.

They’ve now highlighted me (I’m not the first and am sure I won’t be the last) as one of the reasons that their group & tactics are necessary. I suppose it’s not so surprising that nearly all of them have accounts with fake names and fake pictures (often of prophets or apostles). Talk about cowards. 

The thing is, we’re allowed to have opinions that differ from The Brethren and have a temple recommend, we can have doubts and still be a good member.

A few years back there were many stories of people who supported same sex marriage who were denied a temple recommend. Their leaders would say that supporting gay marriage is not sustaining the brethren, or that it showed they support & agree with groups or individuals whose teachings/practices oppose those accepted by the church (both of those are temple recommend questions). 

Elder Christofferson said a member can support the legalization of same-sex marriage and post that support on social media, and still hold a temple recommend. That was important for him to clarify we can have differing opinions and still be held in good standing. Although I don’t think DezNat would agree.

[heathersdesk]

DezNat Chronicles, Part 3

So what did I do to get myself targeted by DezNat in the first place?

I posted a thread about how I chose to support my spouse in his desire to remain in the Church and be active while I was inactive and deconstructing.

They saw it. They got upset because the idea of a relationship continuing to function after a spouse deconstructs, goes inactive, or leaves the Church is something they've been told is impossible. The only thing to do in those situations, 100% of the time, is to get divorced.

Most people recognize that as a ridiculous overreaction. But DezNat folks get really upset when you point out that the internal logic by which they choose who to hate makes no sense.

So you could be doing the exact right thing, the kindest things in a situation, the thing that allows someone to keep their faith and preserve their allegiance to the institutional church, and they will still turn you into a punching bag.

Because it's not about logic. It's not about faith. It's not about belief. It's about control. And if they can't control the narratives and the people at church around them exactly the way they want to, they will attack you.

[heathersdesk]

DezNat Chronicles, Part 2

[This thread was in response to a tweet from an LDS father who said that if his daughter, who is currently 4, ever came out as LGBTQ, he would refuse to show any support for her relationship, would oppose her wedding, and would disrespect her any time she came to his house. His justification was that because they view their house as an extension of the LDS temple, they would feel justified in outwardly disrespecting her in these ways as a queer person.

He took the tweet down after being the Twitter villain of the day for several days in a row. He appears to have also deleted his account.]

I'm just a convert who has spent most of my time in the Church explaining to parents that when God condemned coercion as a teaching tactic, he was talking about YOU.

Persuasion. Long-suffering. Gentleness. Meekness. Love UNFEIGNED.

Point to which one you think means coercion, force, manipulation, and ongoing punishment into adulthood. Because if this is what you think God gives you license to do, it's because you're illiterate.

"But Sister Collins. What about reproving betimes with sharpness? That means I get to reject whoever I want however I want, with no filter, tact, or respect for anyone's boundaries, doesn't it?"

How exactly do you think you're going to act like that, then show an increase of love afterwards? Hmm? How? You can't. Because you've already proven your faithfulness isn't stronger than death. Your faithfulness to your children is non-existent when you treat them like this.

If you treat a random person at church with more kindness, tolerance, and respect than your own children, just because they're ideologically similar to you, you're not a good parent. You're not even a good person, to say nothing of being a good Christian.

But you don't have to take my word for it. It's literally in the Sermon on the Mount. God never intended for you to only surround yourself with people who think and act exactly like you do. When God commanded you to "be perfect," it was only in the grace you show to others.

If your temple cosplay is more important to you than having a relationship with your adult children, I have news for you:

You won't have a relationship with them.

And the only person you will have to blame for that is yourself.