My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

A very TBM family in my ward had a teenage son that suddenly stopped attending Church a few years ago.  He recently turned 18, and has announced that he wants gender-reassignment surgery.  Needless to say this has shaken quite a few people in the ward (including me).  It gets very real when it's someone you know well.  He has younger brothers and I can't imagine what it's like for his parents to have to deal with this. 

It all looks so clear and easy when you read The Family: A Proclamation to the World, but it gets very messy and tough when it's right up close.  My wife and I were discussing it and she expressed her views (similar to some of those in this thread) and I asked her if she would still feel that way if his parents did what she said and he ended up killing himself?

This is much more difficult for me to understand than homosexuality.  At least with homosexuality, I can understand it in reference to the feelings I have for women.  But I have no point of reference to understand what it would be like to feel deep down, to my very core, that I'm actually a woman, even though my biology is that of a man.  What could that even feel like?  It bothers me if I wear two socks that don't match.  What does it feel like if you feel like your inner-self doesn't match your body, and the feeling never, ever goes away?

In our stake as well. A few years the RS Pres. in the YSA ward all of sudden quit the Church and she wanted to be a man and her Mom and my Mom knew that about her when they taught her in primary years before, that she was a boy, wanted to be a boy and hated being in her own skin. Another RS Pres. in the same ward a few years before that, RM, came out of the closet and quit, she was gay though. 

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

Depends entirely on how they respond to it.  Excommunication actually is an act of mercy in that it relieves someone of the obligation to keep covenants they can no longer keep.  Do leaders sometimes take the wrong approach with respect to excommunication?  Perhaps, but, while I have never been directly involved in the process, the leaders I have known who have been directly involved in it (and I have had family members who have been excommunicated) have approached it in a spirit of great love, care, and concern for the (former) member.  

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Depends entirely on how they respond to it.  Excommunication actually is an act of mercy in that it relieves someone of the obligation to keep covenants they can no longer keep.  Do leaders sometimes take the wrong approach with respect to excommunication?  Perhaps, but, while I have never been directly involved in the process, the leaders I have known who have been directly involved in it (and I have had family members who have been excommunicated) have approached it in a spirit of great love, care, and concern for the (former) member.  

I hear you, I have known some who basically got away with it and others who you wonder why?  It's a tough thing, glad i'm never going to be involved in it!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Although it has not yet been revealed, I'm fairly confident we will one day learn that gender will play a significant role in the lower kingdoms of glory. I have every logical reason to expect that men and women will still be attracted to each other in the lower kingdoms and that there will still be a strong desire to bond in some way. It's just that while the relationships between men and women in the lower kingdoms will still be meaningful, those relationships will be less exalted than the eternal marriages in the celestial kingdom. If I am wrong, then, yes, there will almost certainly be progression between kingdoms so that gender identity will still have eternal significance for each son and daughter of God.

Have you ever wondered why the Savior and other celestial beings descend into the terrestrial kingdom and teach the inhabitants who dwell there about greater things pertaining to the kingdom than they already know? At any rate, several early leaders believed it was possible.

This strikes me as a false dichotomy

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I hear you, I have known some who basically got away with it and others who you wonder why?  It's a tough thing, glad i'm never going to be involved in it!

I should also add (while this is implicit in my previous reply, I wish to make it explicit) that whether excommunication is the final step out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the first step back into the Church of Jesus Christ depends entirely upon the person being excommunicated.

[strappinglad]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

It all looks so clear and easy when you read The Family: A Proclamation to the World, but it gets very messy and tough when it's right up close.  My wife and I were discussing it and she expressed her views (similar to some of those in this thread) and I asked her if she would still feel that way if his parents did what she said and he ended up killing himself?

 

1. the parents do all they can to discourage the surgery and try to obtain treatment etc. The son feels rejected and commits suicide.

2. The parents do all they can to support their son in his decision, the surgery is done and later , disheartened that nothing has changed in his life, the son commits suicide (as studies have shown happens all to often) .

In which scenario are the parents off the hook?

[Kenngo1969]

At the risk of being redundant, I will reiterate that, yes, I have no idea what it's like to be challenged by gender dysphoria, and no, I don't want to be unsympathetic to anyone's plight.  And yes, the timing at which one comes to a full realization of the implications one's gender dysphoria varies.  That all having been said, though, one's quest to find one's "authentic self" takes a back seat to the needs of one's spouse when s/he gets married, and it especially takes a back seat to the needs of one's children when they come on the scene.

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This strikes me as a false dichotomy

When the Family Proclamation testifies that gender is of eternal significance, I believe that declaration holds true for every saved son and daughter of God, not just for those relative few who will inherit the highest degree of glory within the celestial kingdom. 

Part of my aversion to the idea that gender will have no significant role to play in the lower kingdoms of glory is tied to the fact that I would hate to have it turn out that the Catholics and Protestants will win the debate as to whether or not gender will play any significant role among the majority of the saved after the resurrection. I find it repugnant to contemplate the possibility that the Father's heavenly mansions of glory will end up being unisex neuter-worlds where whether or not one is a man or woman is of absolutely no significance. In addition, it's a living nightmare for me to imagine that in the end today's radical, anti-family progressives are going to win when the frightening genderless society they seek will become a reality in, of all places, the post-resurrection kingdom heaven.

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

At the risk of being redundant, I will reiterate that, yes, I have no idea what it's like to be challenged by gender dysphoria, and no, I don't want to be unsympathetic to anyone's plight.  And yes, the timing at which one comes to a full realization of the implications one's gender dysphoria varies.  That all having been said, though, one's quest to find one's "authentic self" takes a back seat to the needs of one's spouse when s/he gets married, and it especially takes a back seat to the needs of one's children when they come on the scene.

Do you see Laurie Lee Hall doing that?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

What could that even feel like?

There are literally an infinite number of mental states that I simply cannot begin to fathom. I can try to understand them cognitively, but what do they feel like? No clue!

We had a missionary in my mission who deep down in her very core felt grotesquely overweight even as she was slowly starving herself to death. It was easy for a young Elder like me to look at her 40-kilo frame and think, 'What the hell is wrong with her? Can't she see reality?' Etc.

But our mission president taught us by example how to have unwavering compassion even as he did everything in his power to get her the help she needed to stay alive. I'm grateful for his example. I know he helped get this missionary through her mission. I have no idea if she made it any further than that. I hope she did! But the realist in me harbours depressing doubts. As you noted above, these kinds of things are often lifelong battles ... and in mortality they don't always end in victory. 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

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

 

Nevermind, you already covered it in your quote.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Stargazer

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course they don't know why homosexuality exists here. No one said they do.

By the way, I've posted this link a number of times over the years. It ought to be regarded as good news by anyone beset with same-sex attraction who doesn't want it and wants the promised blessings of exaltation and eternal increase for all who remain faithful.

You say Elder Hafen taught the same thing. I'd love to have a reference on that, if you can cite one.

Edited to add:

Never mind. I found it.

 

The trouble is, those of us who have same sex attraction have been promised things before in the name of God that proved to be absolutely false.  Why would anyone trust these two statements as being any more true than former promises?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Depends entirely on how they respond to it.  Excommunication actually is an act of mercy in that it relieves someone of the obligation to keep covenants they can no longer keep.  Do leaders sometimes take the wrong approach with respect to excommunication?  Perhaps, but, while I have never been directly involved in the process, the leaders I have known who have been directly involved in it (and I have had family members who have been excommunicated) have approached it in a spirit of great love, care, and concern for the (former) member.  

I wanted to comment on this if I could be a bit personal.  I have to say that my excommunication was a very positive experience.  I felt nothing but love from all that were in the room.  Many of them I knew quite well from serving on the High Counsel.  I am not sure if I could have left the church on my own.  I loved being a member, but I honestly believe that you can not be a member of the church if you are gay despite the church rhetoric on this issue.  They did perhaps what i would not have been able to do on my own.  In hindsight, it helped me move on with my life.  And that has been a great blessing.

After the excommunication, all that were present in the room stood and each one of them hugged me individually and wished me nothing but love and happiness.  I will never forget their kindness and have never harbored hard feelings against the church nor the action that it took on my behalf.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I wanted to comment on this if I could be a bit personal.  I have to say that my excommunication was a very positive experience.  I felt nothing but love from all that were in the room.  Many of them I knew quite well from serving on the High Counsel.  I am not sure if I could have left the church on my own.  I loved being a member, but I honestly believe that you can not be a member of the church if you are gay despite the church rhetoric on this issue.  They did perhaps what i would not have been able to do on my own.  In hindsight, it helped me move on with my life.  And that has been a great blessing.

After the excommunication, all that were present in the room stood and each one of them hugged me individually and wished me nothing but love and happiness.  I will never forget their kindness and have never harbored hard feelings against the church nor the action that it took on my behalf.  

 

It depends on your definition of gay. If you don't consider someone to be gay who doesn't act on the tendency you have a point. But you can indeed be a member of the Church and be gay if you don't act on the tendency. 

And my hunch is that if the members of that council were here to express themselves they would say they don't want you to remain outside the Church, that their heart's desire would be for you to repent and return to the fold. 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The trouble is, those of us who have same sex attraction have been promised things before in the name of God that proved to be absolutely false.  Why would anyone trust these two statements as being any more true than former promises?

Whether you accept what they say or not, there is no logically consistent place in the Mormon theological paradigm for the notion that same-sex attraction continues beyond mortality. 

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether you accept what they say or not, there is no logically consistent place in the Mormon theological paradigm for the notion that same-sex attraction continues beyond mortality. 

For you, maybe not.  For me, I completely think there is.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It depends on your definition of gay. If you don't consider someone to be gay who doesn't act on the tendency you have a point. But you can indeed be a member of the Church and be gay if you don't act on the tendency. 

And my hunch is that if the members of that council were here to express themselves they would say they don't want you to remain outside the Church, that their heart's desire would be for you to repent and return to the fold. 

My definition of gay is someone that is attracted  to the same sex.  Yeah I know, quite radical.  

Finding somone you love and cherish to have and to hold in marriage is also very fundamental to both the purpose of our life experience and the center of the plan of happiness.  Choosing to live a celibate life when marriage is possible is every bit against the plan that God has given us.  I remember growing up and being told that the celibacy the Catholic church imposes on it's priests and nuns were against the very laws of God.  In fact the Bible states 1 Timothy 4:

Quote

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The Bible specifically calls this teaching out as doctrines of devils.  Yet the church, which seems to want to hang onto every other verse concerning this issue, completely ignores these teachings.  Interesting huh.

While I love the church, and wish I could be a part of it, I truly believe that it is a toxic place for someone who has same sex attraction.  The path that the church has outlined for those that are gay is not a plan of happiness at all, but a lone and dreary path that goes against everything that seems important to follow in this life.  

When you and any other member of the church stands up and bears testimony of the importance of their spouse and family, they are also bearing witness to the false teachings of this current church policy.  You cut your wife and family out of your life, and what do you have left that is of any real importance?  Your job?  Your money?  Your house or any of your other possessions?  Most people would give that all away rather than loose their family.  Just because you are gay doesn't change the reality of that.  Giving up religious dogma from a church that has been wrong before about who qualifies for marriage seems like a small price to pay.  (And let's be honest, it is not like church leaders have falsely made promises concerning same sex attraction in the past that proved to be disastrous as well.)  You trust fallible men that lead this church.  I trust God.  I know He looks upon the heart.  I am more than willing to accept God's judgement over the judgement of the leaders of the Mormon church.  And I think if you were honest, you could certainly see why.  

 

[USU78]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

At the risk of being redundant, I will reiterate that, yes, I have no idea what it's like to be challenged by gender dysphoria, and no, I don't want to be unsympathetic to anyone's plight.  And yes, the timing at which one comes to a full realization of the implications one's gender dysphoria varies.  That all having been said, though, one's quest to find one's "authentic self" takes a back seat to the needs of one's spouse when s/he gets married, and it especially takes a back seat to the needs of one's children when they come on the scene.

It comes down to a choice: do I wish to be heroic in my denial of self, or do I wish to be called heroic by the world in my embracement of my basest self.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

Do you see Laurie Lee Hall doing that?

Her actions are not mine to judge, but, yes, anyone who takes actions after getting married and having children (and especially after adopting one, which is a purely planned, voluntary act)  which turn the traditional family structure on its head is doing exactly that.  I believe The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which states that children are entitled to be reared by a mother and a father (as those terms are ordinarily defined) within the bonds of man-woman marriage.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

It comes down to a choice: do I wish to be heroic in my denial of self, or do I wish to be called heroic by the world in my embracement of my basest self.

I'm not sure I agree with precisely how you're worded your second clause, because I see the issue as too complex, there are too many psychological and other variables, simply to conclude that anyone who takes the course that "Laurie Lee" has is doing so purely out of base, lascivious motives.  But yes, the nanosecond I commit to someone else by being sealed to her and by conceiving a child with her, my feelings, needs, inclinations and so on cease to be of paramount importance.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It depends on your definition of gay. If you don't consider someone to be gay who doesn't act on the tendency you have a point. But you can indeed be a member of the Church and be gay if you don't act on the tendency. 

And my hunch is that if the members of that council were here to express themselves they would say they don't want you to remain outside the Church, that their heart's desire would be for you to repent and return to the fold. 

Then why are heterosexuals allowed to stay in the church if they have affairs or are sexually active? I know of a few cases, where none of them were ex'd.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

It comes down to a choice: do I wish to be heroic in my denial of self, or do I wish to be called heroic by the world in my embracement of my basest self.

A great way to deny one's basest self would be to not lob bitter attacks at the gay and transgendered community, even if one holds religious disagreements with their choices.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To raise the obvious question - is there a way to biologically determine if someones gender identity is correct? From an LDS perspective is there a way to determine if there's a way to know spiritual gender? Clearly there isn't. So what do we do? I understand those who want an "anything goes" attitude, but I'm not sure they're thinking through the implications of that for things like marriage, priesthood, sealing or so forth.

I'm jumping into this thread a little late, but just finished listening to the podcast interview.  

Things are complicated, and even more complicated than what I'm seeing discussed so far.  There are individuals who identify as gender fluid, meaning that they identify sometimes as male and sometimes as female.  There is a spectrum with respect to gender identity as well as sexual preference identity.  Categorizing people into different boxes is a tendency we have to try and make sense of this world, but it inevitably fails and those on the outside of these categories that we invent, are harmed in the process.

The big take away from this interview for me is that we should ultimately respect however someone self identifies.  That is the only way forward that feels like it has integrity to me.  

How does the church manage things like marriage, priesthood, temple work, etc.  I think the ultimate solution is to just stop managing it all together.  Let people be sealed to whoever they want to be sealed to.  Let people identify as whatever gender they want to identify as.  Give the priesthood to both genders.  Update the tradition about chastity to mean monogamous relationships, not specific to gender or sexual preference.  I think this is the path of fairness and the path that we're being called by divine inspiration to go towards.  

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

My definition of gay is someone that is attracted  to the same sex.  Yeah I know, quite radical.  

Finding somone you love and cherish to have and to hold in marriage is also very fundamental to both the purpose of our life experience and the center of the plan of happiness.  Choosing to live a celibate life when marriage is possible is every bit against the plan that God has given us.  I remember growing up and being told that the celibacy the Catholic church imposes on it's priests and nuns were against the very laws of God.  In fact the Bible states 1 Timothy 4:

The Bible specifically calls this teaching out as doctrines of devils.  Yet the church, which seems to want to hang onto every other verse concerning this issue, completely ignores these teachings.  Interesting huh.

While I love the church, and wish I could be a part of it, I truly believe that it is a toxic place for someone who has same sex attraction.  The path that the church has outlined for those that are gay is not a plan of happiness at all, but a lone and dreary path that goes against everything that seems important to follow in this life.  

When you and any other member of the church stands up and bears testimony of the importance of their spouse and family, they are also bearing witness to the false teachings of this current church policy.  You cut your wife and family out of your life, and what do you have left that is of any real importance?  Your job?  Your money?  Your house or any of your other possessions?  Most people would give that all away rather than loose their family.  Just because you are gay doesn't change the reality of that.  Giving up religious dogma from a church that has been wrong before about who qualifies for marriage seems like a small price to pay.  (And let's be honest, it is not like church leaders have falsely made promises concerning same sex attraction in the past that proved to be disastrous as well.)  You trust fallible men that lead this church.  I trust God.  I know He looks upon the heart.  I am more than willing to accept God's judgement over the judgement of the leaders of the Mormon church.  And I think if you were honest, you could certainly see why.  

 

To be honest, you must acknowledge that your interpretation of the Bible verses you cited depends wholly on the late-20th, early 21st century redefinition of marriage, a redefinition that is not sustained in the Bible and has never been sustained in recorded history until now.

And it's not correct to say I "trust fallible men that lead this church." I trust God to do what He said He would do, including revealing His will through servants -- prophets and apostles -- called and ordained to that purpose.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure I agree with precisely how you're worded your second clause, because I see the issue as too complex, there are too many psychological and other variables, simply to conclude that anyone who takes the course that "Laurie Lee" has is doing so purely out of base, lascivious motives.  But yes, the nanosecond I commit to someone else by being sealed to her and by conceiving a child with her, my feelings, needs, inclinations and so on cease to be of paramount importance.

I don't believe Laurie Lee is doing this out of lascivious motives either. I listened to another clip of the interview on MS last night, I keep having to listen over and over again because I fall asleep.

She mentions where she came to a point of either ending her life, not in those words, or living authentically finally, once and for all. And she feels like God is behind her 100%, and she is only beholden to Him. She feels like she has been given personal revelation on this, not in these words, again.

She wants to be there for her family, right? Better a woman, than dead. Because at first I leaned toward maybe her sacrificing even more by staying a man for her family. But I'm not Laurie Lee, and I don't know how close it got for her to not be able to sustain that kind of life any longer. I think she's paid her dues. 

BTW, I doubt USU or Scott, or perhaps you, have listened to any of the interviews, hope I'm wrong. That's something Laurie asks for...people to at least inquire or want to know what's going on. So they are informed before having rash judgements.