Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman


Recommended Posts

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5522210-155/after-leading-lds-congregations-and-designing

According to Wikipedia, s.v. "gender dysphoria," last accessed today:

Quote

It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on 2013 diagnostic criteria, though this is considered a modest underestimate. [End note omitted.]

I certainly have no idea what it's like to suffer from gender dysphoria, and I don't want to be unsympathetic.  One thing I do wonder, though, is to what extent should the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be expected or required to modify, accommodate, or adapt its doctrine to the needs of a minority.  In The Family: A Proclamation to the World the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ vis-a-vis gender is clear.  The stance of the Church of Jesus Christ regarding those who undergo elective gender reassignment surgery also is clear.

Some believe resolution of these matters, akin to the revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males, simply is a matter of the Prophet receiving a revelation on the matter.  The difference between matters involving gender and the lifting of the priesthood ban, however, is that there was always a contingent of Brethren in the Church of Jesus Christ who stated that the ban would be lifted at some point.  Not so with the matter under discussion here.

Thoughts?

Link to comment

I thought of you when I read this as I know that we are both originally from the same county.  I had to look and read twice to get my head together...:D  Hoping she is happy but yes, when something connects you...you do this double take and  smile.  Wishing her family....and you Ken...the very best!

Link to comment

The well need no physician, and I pray this sick soul gets the help he desperately needs. His going public in this manner broadcasts that he prolly won't, alas.

Edited by USU78
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5522210-155/after-leading-lds-congregations-and-designing

According to Wikipedia, s.v. "gender dysphoria," last accessed today:

I certainly have no idea what it's like to suffer from gender dysphoria, and I don't want to be unsympathetic.  One thing I do wonder, though, is to what extent should the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be expected or required to modify, accommodate, or adapt its doctrine to the needs of a minority.  In The Family: A Proclamation to the World the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ vis-a-vis gender is clear.  The stance of the Church of Jesus Christ regarding those who undergo elective gender reassignment surgery also is clear.

Some believe resolution of these matters, akin to the revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males, simply is a matter of the Prophet receiving a revelation on the matter.  The difference between matters involving gender and the lifting of the priesthood ban, however, is that there was always a contingent of Brethren in the Church of Jesus Christ who stated that the ban would be lifted at some point.  Not so with the matter under discussion here.

Thoughts?

I think it was more than just a contingent. My recollection is that it was pretty much the conventional wisdom that the ban was temporary.

By contrast there has never been the remotest hint that the Church will change its doctrine regarding marriage and gender. Just the opposite has been stated, in fact; that it will never change.

This is from the mormonandgay.org website:

Quote

 

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:

“As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

“Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly affirms defining marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.10).

 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I know where you're coming from, and I don't necessarily disagree, but do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion?  As I said, I don't want to be unsympathetic.  I've sat at this man's feet, have counseled with him, have received counsel from him.  What of that?  While I don't have any gender dysphoria issues, I wonder, what would he have told me if I had confided misgivings regarding my seeming Eternal Bachelorhood?

I am sympathetic: he's going through a tough tough time.

But he is a man. There's no getting around that.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it was more than just a contingent. My recollection is that it was pretty much the conventional wisdom that the ban was temporary.

By contrast there has never been the remotest hint that the Church will change its doctrine regarding gender. Just the opposite has been stated, in fact; that it will never change.

Perhaps (I'm derailing my own thread here by continuing to comment :o), but, if that is so, one wonders why Elder McConkie felt the need to deliver his "'Forget-everything-that-I-have-said" comment/address.  President McKay was perfectly willing to lift the ban, if I recall my investigations into the matter correctly, but the Lord told him, "No, not yet, and don't ask again," and I think Elders Petersen and McConkie, and perhaps others, were fairly recalcitrant until the actual revelation.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps (I'm derailing my own thread here by continuing to comment :o), but, if that is so, one wonders why Elder McConkie felt the need to deliver his "'Forget-everything-that-I-have-said" comment/address.  President McKay was perfectly willing to lift the ban, if I recall my investigations into the matter correctly, but the Lord told him, "No, not yet, and don't ask again," and I think Elders Petersen and McConkie, and perhaps others, were fairly recalcitrant until the actual revelation.

Is it possible to get banned from your own thread for derailing it?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am sympathetic: he's going through a tough tough time.

But he is a man. There's no getting around that.  

I don't want to derail my own thread still further, but if I recall your comments on similar topics correctly, don't you support gay marriage/think the Church of Jesus Christ should change its treatment of SSM and/or of those who identify as SSA, and so on?  Is there really that big of a difference between the Church's doctrine on those issues, on the one hand, and its response to those who have gender dysphoria/undergo reassignment surgery/etc., on the other? 

Link to comment
Just now, ksfisher said:

Is it possible to get banned from your own thread for derailing it?

I dunno. :unknw: Perhaps I'll be the first person in the history of the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board to have such an honor bestowed upon him. :D

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps (I'm derailing my own thread here by continuing to comment :o), but, if that is so, one wonders why Elder McConkie felt the need to deliver his "'Forget-everything-that-I-have-said" comment/address.  President McKay was perfectly willing to lift the ban, if I recall my investigations into the matter correctly, but the Lord told him, "No, not yet, and don't ask again," and I think Elders Petersen and McConkie, and perhaps others, were fairly recalcitrant until the actual revelation.

Maybe I need to look it up to refresh my memory, but I'm fairly certain Elder McConkie's comment (which referred not just to himself but others as well) pertained to speculation about reasons and timing, which, of course have since been disavowed. I don't recall that Elder McConkie ever denied the ban would one day be lifted.

I've read some pretty unpalatable things that Elder Peterson said, but I don't know that they ever held sway among the rest of the Brethren, especially not to the effect that the ban would be permanent.

Edited to add: Here's a copy-and-paste of the McConkie quote:

Quote

“Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” [Bruce R. McConkie, “New Revelation on Priesthood,” in Priesthood, no editor given, but presumably edited by McConkie (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137, esp. 126-127.]

 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

We're all sick of something, USU.  Even if our lives are going absolutely swimmingly and we have no major problems to speak of (how would it be? B:)), we're apt to feel a certain amount of discontent based on the fact that, since we're essentially spiritual beings sent here to have a mortal experience rather than being essentially mortal beings who have been sent here to have occasional spiritual experiences, we're out of our element.  Perhaps this brother has lost sight of that somewhat: His mortal body may be afflicted with a temporary. earthly case of gender dysphoria, but his spirit is perfect.  It's easy for me to say, but perhaps he could have waited for the resurrection to bring the two into harmony rather than opting for a short-sighted, "through-a-glass-darkly," imperfect-and-potentially-harmful mortal solution.

I think that's the only way to view situations like this that is consistent with what we understand about eternity and the hereafter.

Link to comment

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I think gender re-assignment (surgery) is a possible cause for excommunication.

Quote

According to current church policy, members who have undergone an “elective transsexual operation” are not eligible to worship in gender-separated special temple rites or to receive the priesthood. The concern for an “elective” operation may reflect an acceptance of surgery in some circumstances, such as for intersex children or adults. However, anyone considering surgery is warned that it may result in formal church discipline. A transgendered prospective member of the church may be baptized only with approval from the highest governing body in the church, but anyone even considering transition-related surgery is barred from joining the faith. There is no policy on transitioning in ways that don’t involve surgery, such as hormone therapies, “cross dressing,” or other means of living out one’s gender.  http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/02/13/mormons_and_transgender_elder_dallin_h_oaks_says_the_lds_church_is_open.html

 

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I think gender re-assignment (surgery) is cause for excommunication.

I think it's voluntary whereas you wouldn't be if you were born with messed up genitalia. What purpose excommunicating someone for that is beyond me. Maybe some guys think well, if those feelings don't really exist and they choose to do it anyways maybe that means I could be like that and so it scares them so they go into attack mode. Some men are threatened by others' sexuality and others aren't

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The Church sees gender as black and white but we are noticing there are more colours in life's crayon box that God seems to have created or allowed, who knows. As far as I know only one General Authority, Elder Hafen, has taught that non heterosexual people will be fixed in the next life, which makes you wonder why they are like this in this life-what purpose does it serve and to what purpose does excommunicating them for it has? I don't know what God expects from people who have those feelings. I think it's arrogant for me to tell someone, "you don't actually have those feelings" like I know what they are experiencing? If they feel the way they do then that's they way they do.

God expect all of us to put off the natural man, take up our cross and follow Christ.

Link to comment
Just now, ksfisher said:

God expect all of us to put off the natural man, take up our cross and follow Christ.

true, but the natural man is an enemy to God but it doesn't say God is an enemy to the natural man. I don't see excommunicating someone for this is exactley helping someone follow Christ. Given though you don't need the Church to have faith or repent, covenants/ordinances yes, so maybe for now all God wants from her is to have faith and endure

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I think gender re-assignment (surgery) is a possible cause for excommunication.

 

If a member of the church has an elective transsexual operation a disciplinary council may be held. (Handbook 1 6.72)

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Duncan said:

The Church sees gender as black and white but we are noticing there are more colours in life's crayon box that God seems to have created or allowed, who knows.

Hmmm.  I guess the question is, do I have faith that my spirit is perfect and that my resurrected body will be perfect (whatever that means, and I think that, largely, it's beyond mortal ability to perceive and to comprehend), notwithstanding any of mortality's innumerable vicissitudes?  And do I believe, whatever questions may defy answers in mortality, that God's Church is, indeed, led by Him?

Quote

As far as I know only one General Authority, Elder Hafen, has taught that non heterosexual people will be fixed in the next life, which makes you wonder why they are like this in this life-what purpose does it serve and to what purpose does excommunicating them for it has?

The Brethren may not have explicitly taught that gender dysphoria, same-sex attraction, and other such traits will be removed in the resurrection, but that's certainly the clear implication of The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and that document was signed by all of The Fifteen.  And if such things are simply a few of mortality's innumerable vicissitudes, at bottom, they're not so very different from, say, Cerebral Palsy or any other condition: Both ... and all ... will be overcome in the Resurrection.

Quote

I don't know what God expects from people who have those feelings. I think it's arrogant for me to tell someone, "you don't actually have those feelings" like I know what they are experiencing? If they feel the way they do then that's they way they do.

I don't know anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who says to anyone else, "You don't have those feelings."  (If they do, they should repent.)  But, as I've said so many times, we may not be able to control what happens to us, but we can control how we react to it. Feelings are neither good nor bad; they simply are.  it's what we do with them that counts.

Would it take great courage and great faith and great patience to "wait upon the Lord" to deliver us from something so seemingly-all-consuming as gender dysphoria or SSA, especially given the world's attitude (and indeed, the attitude of some in the Church of Jesus Christ) toward such things?  Without question.  But, given our limited perspective, are we apt to be puzzled at the magnitude of the reward given by a Just Judge to one who struggled so valiantly and so mightily against such things and yet remained faithful?  Again, without question.  It's not only judgment that belongs to the Lord; mercy does, as well.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

true, but the natural man is an enemy to God but it doesn't say God is an enemy to the natural man. I don't see excommunicating someone for this is exactley helping someone follow Christ. Given though you don't need the Church to have faith or repent, covenants/ordinances yes, so maybe for now all God wants from her is to have faith and endure

True, from a logical standpoint A=>B does not automatically dictate that B=>A.  But while the scriptures don't necessarily explicitly say that God is an enemy to the natural man, they do say that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (though, to be fair, they also don't say that God cannot look upon sinners with the least degree of allowance).  I'm not familiar enough with the circumstances that might accompany elective sex-reassignment surgery to know when a particular case might warrant excommunication while another one may not: I have no specific information regarding this particular case, but perhaps the case under discussion falls into the former category because he persisted in his desire to undergo the surgery even after his leaders counseled against it, or because he publicly advocated a similar course of action for others who are similarly situated when that may not be the best course of action in their individual cases.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

When someone hears voices coming out of electrical sockets telling them to keeping cutting up all the fabric in the room or their blood will freeze (a real case my RN mother related to me)--nobody would ever assume to tell that person that what they are hearing isn't reality.  It does no good.  To the person experiencing the voices, it's reality and their actions responding to the voices' commands is perfectly normal.  

However, no mental health professional would ever attempt to reinforce the delusion.  They would suggest therapy, medication, and observed care.  I don't understand why when a man physically born as such decides he's a woman, the response is for everyone to go along with it? 

If I recall, John Hopkins stopped doing sex reassignment surgeries because the suicide rate for recovering patients was through the roof.  It wasn't helping them, and not targeting the real problem--that of mental illness

would exing them solve the problem or make them feel even worse?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Duncan said:

would exing them solve the problem or make them feel even worse?

I fail to understand why making people feel better about something wrong is seen as a good thing.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...