EllenMaksoud

The whole idea that it was a mistake because Joseph "gave into his lusts" is completely ridiculous. I think 1/4 of his wives were over 60 (like over 80 now.) and he had sex with very few.

 

I think its been proposed that plural marriage was a misunderstanding of the adoption stuff. They thought you had to be more physically related to the prophet than figuratively. I don't know how good the case for that is though.

Part of my understanding is that certain aspects were a property rights issue. Apparently, at the time, JS married certain women so their dead husband's property would not fall into the hands of outsiders. In the last half of the 19th and first part of the 20th Centuries, women's rights were in flux. American women did not get the vote until 1920, and oddly women did not get the right to equal funds for sports programs in US Colleges until 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_rights_%28other_than_voting%29

A few of us have started a message board for and about women. http://www.mormonwomenconnect.com/

 

We are still working out the kinks, but I hope you will all take a look and tell me what you think.  It is intended to be a place where women can connect and come to understand each other in spite of differences. 

 

And a big  to Nemesis for his help.

It would be interesting to see what things women share and discuss where men can look on and participate. Men have no idea what we talk about when they are not around.

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

 

Fortunately, Mormonnewb to the rescue.  My solution: We acknowledge JS as a fallen prophet starting in the Nauvoo period.  Stop flailing about and clawing your eyes out and hear me out:

 

For one, trying to justify JS' polygamy is simply too difficult (which might explain why the Church doesn't even talk about it).  After all, even JS tried to keep it hidden.  Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?  Doesn't it just seem more likely that JS, like almost every other man who has ever had such power over a community, got carried away with that power?

 

Second, if JS was a fallen prophet, he would be in very good company.  In fact, he would be perfectly in line with the Biblical mold of a prophet -- faithful servant plucked from obscurity but eventually, he proved HUMAN.  In fact, when I was investigating the Church, this was the greatest evidence to me of JS' prophetic mantel -- that he messed it up at some point.  That puts him in company with the likes of Noah and Moses and in no way diminishes his earlier works, just as Noah's drunkenness and Moses' temper didn't negate them as prophets.  The ancient Jews didn't throw out the Ten Commandments just because Moses was prohibited from reaching the promised land, so why should the BoM and restoration be affected by JS' fall?

 

Third, and this might be most important, acknowledging JS' fall would bolster the current prophets' claims that they are in line with the Lord's will.  I often hear that the Lord will remove a prophet should he ever lead the Church astray.  However, since this has never happened in our current paradigm, it seems like a hollow statement.  It's the Mormon equivalent of "If I'm lying, may the Lord strike me dead.  (Pause)  I'm still alive so I must be telling the truth."  On the other hand, if the narrative was that Lord will remove a prophet if he ever leads the Church astray like He removed Joseph, well that puts some teeth in the concept of a "heavenly veto" for Church leadership.

 

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

Jacob 2:27 was pretty clear. I see no reason to investigate further.

The same sort of prohibition is issued in the Qur'an, and see what happened.

I won't judge or condemn JS, however. He was just trying to make the best of a bad situation. If we could just leave our religious hats hanging on the hook in the hall and return to the 1830's we might divine the causation of the practice. As to the Quran, polygamy was a tribal custom and yet again Islam did not surmount tribal practices.

In reading in the book of Genesis 20 to 33, I am seeing the formation of other practices that lack modern understanding or explanation.

What if a person had already undergone gender reassignment surgery, and then converted to the LDS Church?

That was my case, though at the time I came to the church no one knew of my early history. Though, certain members of the church have been very proactive in helping to seek answers to this mystery. And, I am often told that if I had not been honest from the beginning, no one would have known. It is hard to advocate dishonesty.  Perhaps the case is that medical issues are not the churches business, and that is what I tell anyone who asks me about this set of issues.

It is especially encouraging to increasingly see these children identified very early because preemptive treatment gives them fuller lives.

As it developed, in my birth Doctor's profound ignorance (1947), as was the general procedure of the day, he removed my female organs at birth. In those days, the Doctors did not tell the parents and such procedures were not on the medical record. The only way I am able to surmise any of this is from putting together family stories, knowledge of known procedures of the day, and later evidence of past surgery.  When the genetic testing was done around 2011, it was found that genetic issues do exist but it would take a lot more money to determine exactly what they are. The investigators said they felt it to be either XXy (y badly damaged) or Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome of unknown extent.

If progress is to be made within the church on this issue, then they need people with great expertise, at least a Doctorate, in genetic issues, not a Heart Surgeon, to study this. And thankfully, if the church does nothing, it won't matter a lot because there are few of us.

I say these things in the open because it is clear that education is the only hope of resolving the matter.

Members who undergo genital changing procedures cannot have temple recommends or receive the priesthood.

The actual wording includes, "Members who undergo voluntary gender ...".  Their thinking is still developing about how to define voluntary. In many cases, Doctors have not identified the etiology of the issue. It does not mean there is not physical causation but that the procedures to do so are either prohibitively expensive or do not yet exist.

There is adequate presidence to show this sort of puzzlement on other issues in past history. Take the development of thinking around leprosy, which we now know as Hansen's Disease, and is now known to be a fungal infection. Look at so called "Hysteria" in women in the 18th century, which persisted well into the 20th century. Often, we first put the label "sin" on issues for which we lack adequate understanding.

In my case, as I have said before,  they spent nearly $1000 to find that there actually was a genetic issue. That interpretation of the results is slow is well known. I wonder how often incorrect  assumptions are made in the so called "transgender" folk? No more investigation is needed, I know who I am.

As I pointed out last month, this will be the next social issue used by the media and agitating members to beat up the Church.

Actually, the Mormon church is better with so called Transgender folk than many of them. Don't worry about the church being beat up.

Is the Islamic community more welcoming to transgendered people?

I wouldn't know. Transgendered is a term used for people who reverse gender with no identifiable physical cause. 

Schizophrenia is another predisposition that leads to higher suicides rates, 10%....especially among young adult males in this group. And it is slightly over 1% of the population that deals with it so not an insignificant number.

It is definitely not something easily understood...the why of such hardships in people's lives. If it is about the rest of us learning compassion and commitment to helping others, there are likely at over a million who have suffered before scientific help even had a hint of alleviating some symptoms. Why so long for the meaning of the lesson to get through. Going to be on the lists of questions I start with "okay God, now this is the part of the Plan that never made much sense to me...some clarification would be greatly appreciated".

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

For many hardships, we make them so because of our own lack of understanding and prejudice. I have seen many examples of people who are somehow different achieving things would have surprised many.

Again with the lack of responsibility in the suicide and passive/aggressive attacks on the Church and its members.  Sheesh.

I haven't seen anyone being passive aggressive. It seems what is being said is fairly direct. The church does a lot right. In some areas, they need further revelation.

I think there are some areas that the Lord has provided commandments, but there are a whole lot of other areas where no commandments are given and it is gray.  These are areas where compassion must rule the day in the minds and hearts of the disciples of Christ.  

 

I do think we have a long way to go in separating the sin and sinner.  Someone's personal life, their shortcomings, have nothing to do with attending church and participating with the saints.  It is of little value for the membership to know of the sins of others; that should be separate and between the bishop and the individual.  The member and everyone else should extend the hand of fellowship to all regardless of appearance, personal behavior, etc.  

 

We could be an unstoppable force for peace and joy if we learned these few lessons.  

AND, perhaps some of the things we view as sins are simply the product of genetic drift. Look at the astonishingly high rate of birth defects in areas where expended uranium ammunition has been used.  Whose sin is that?

It is unfortunate that her parents waited so long to get her established on her path. I am completely sure that so many issues that we treat as sin will one day be found to be oportunities placed before us by God to help us learn mercy, and so many other God like qualities.

It is my opinion that with the exception of the TR issue, Mormons treat the so called "people of diversity" better than anyone I have experienced. They did me an astonishing service by helping to prove that there is a physical/genetic cause for my own difference. This will eventually extend to others.

I'm sure someone like the girl's parents might say God is probably, not surprised at the suicide rates, but disappointed that we still aren't more accepting and loving of our transgender brothers and sisters. Perhaps the cross wasn't supposed to be carried by people like Eddie, but by all of us in our learning how to accept and love others like her.

 

But I'm sure that ain't an easy pill to swallow for more traditional believers.

One thing to consider. God made us Male and Female in the Garden. After the fall,  things began to skew away from the created state. Humans today are an imperfect representation of those originally created. There are thousands of variations between perfect XX and XY.

I thought it would be interesting to see the thoughts elicited by the following short documentary on the members of this forum, Mormon and otherwise.

 

I'd appreciate if we can keep this as mostly a thread about reflecting on the issue of transgender identity as it relates to Mormonism/Mormon culture, and much less about same-sex marriage. 

 

Not looking for much debate here but just a discussion and conversation on the issue.

 

 

 

As long as the so called, transgender issue can be shown to have a genetic etiology, substantial understanding can be garnered by also viewing the Youtube video about Dr Norman Spack, Boston Children's Hospital, "Treating GID". From those I have known, it is still all uphill for transgender people. There is a part of the Stake President and Bishops Manual that says, "any member having a voluntary gender change will not get a Temple Recommend". It depends upon how voluntary is defined.

"I always knew I was a girl". You will hear that a lot. When I came to the church in 2011, no one knew until I told them. Then they, and I, thought I was transgendered. But NO WAIT, the church spent almost $1000 to prove I was a man, XY and we all got a big surprise. I'm either XXy non-Kleinfelters or Ais, but to know for sure it would take a lot more money. And I finally said stop because I know who I am.

It is a big problem and you have to decide if you want a diminished life in the church, or if you want to go somewhere else. In the future, I hope that more children will be identified by 3-6 years old, put on androgen blockers that stop puberty, and then around 14-16 given the appropriate hormones to start puberty in the gender of their choice.

As you probably already know, there is a Youtube video done by Dr Phil including people who are opposing Dr Spack. The people in this second group have a 41% suicide rate. Dr Spack's group has a very low suicide rate.

I'm 67 and have left the church and returned to Islam. I wish you well on your journey.

I support the concept of this forum, but it does make me wonder in all of the friction and accusations between genders in US society over the past several decades.  How often have all men clubs been castigated for their exclusivity?  How many times have exclusive clubs been castigated, regardless of their reasons they have created clubs or organizations, based on similarity or likeness of their membership?

 

I do not want to derail this thread, but I am not opposed for individuals to reflect on when it is acceptable and by whom do we think it is acceptable and why?  

 

These types of groups make sense to me; individuals like to be with other individuals based upon likeness.  We tend to to get very exercised about those groups that have such organizations when it excludes women, Jews, blacks, etc.  Yet, on the other hand we tend to accept those same groups' organizations that exclude men, all non-Jews, and whites.  We humans are an odd lot and are ready to find fault with "them" without applying the same standard to "us".  

 

I hope you are able to make this work and that it becomes a force for good rather than another group that devolves into complaining about all that is wrong.  

Men are kind of nice to have around, as long as they don't go into the dominant/abusive/demeaning act.  I fully accept the provisions of Genesis 3:16 but no man needs to rub it in, I know what it says. And, for me, I welcome a strong man around.

I worked with mostly men most of my life, and I must say that being retired, and being with mostly women, it is a great relief.

Why the rage and name-calling?

I did not ask you anything about your personal life. I am not interested in knowing any more about that than I already know. And any question about that would not be responded to with with truth, anyway. Your life story has always changed with your audience.....Mormon....Muslim....LGBT community...and on and on. In person and in writing. I am interested in legitimate data, not fiction.

You made statements for which I basically made a CFR. Instead of providing your data sources, you went into a tirade, played the victim, and made a pitch for your nonexistent self-published book.

Why not simply provide the data references? They do exist, right?

I called you no names and I did not respond with rage. I think I had you on ignore before. How did you get off that list. I will fix that fast.

Scores of thousands of little boys are abused annually in the US by bisexuals . . . or homosexuals . . . depending upon one's definition of those terms.

 

That doesn't make any one of those, or you, particularly an authority.

Wow, you really have the bone in your teeth.

Let me amend that. So, there is un biased data out there? I can say from personal experience that many of the Mental Health professionals I have met are of the GBLT set.  That does not mean that I think all or most are, because I did not do a study and have read no data. And none of them molested me.

As to the Boy Scouts, I was never one nor was I a girl scout.

One thing that I have seen repeatedly is that if a Mormon feels attacked, I have seen them come back with a lot of verbal aggressiveness. Perhaps that originates from the cultural attacks they had to absorb in the early years of the church.  Let's be clear. Mormons are not in a position of moral vulnerability. The record of the church is pretty unassailable, though at times it takes a while to sort things out.

For me the whole GBLT thing will eventually yield to the science. Until then, God has not given me the task of being his little Inquisitor.

Are you making the claim that it was the parents' heterosexuality that was the cause of the "hell"?

If you are "fairly sure" that gender roles have caused "more harm than good", then no doubt you have ample data to back that up. Please do share.

As I am sure you are aware from my previous statements, unless you just want to throw science out entirely, my mother raised me as a girl, but my stepfather over ruled her when I was 5 and FORCED me to live as the boy he thought I was. He felt that the Doctors of the day could make a legitimate decision about which gender a child born with parts of the sexual organs of both genders should become. The man threatened to kill me many times and several times I thought he did it. In view of my subsequent life, I wish he'd carried through on the promise. Not an idle statement.

My life was fraught with uncertainty and mis-assesment by others. I was often thought gay, though there was never any homosexual activity, not once.  When things finally fell apart, despite the loss of everything I valued, I resumed the life of a female late in life. There was no learning how, I simply stopped acting like the person I never was.

Later, after the church spent nearly $1000, it was found that I am either XXy, non-Kleinfelters, or AIS, though the degree is not known.  I stopped further spending because no matter the final results, I had determined that I was now living the life role that God intended for me, though I do not know why it took nearly 50 years to right the wrongs.

You can make your snotty judgements. You have never met me. Though not a single person at my ward or stake level or in a half dozen wards and stakes I have worshiped in from Ohio, to Oregon, to Indiana, to Washington has ever said a single unkind thing to me. AND, Heavenly Father PUT me in this church despite people like you, who are captive of your narrow thinking. I have rehearsed what he has done for me enough here that I should not have to review the entire thing over again for your benefit.

What I have learned is to go to church and worship, but to distance myself from people of diminished understanding. And yes, much to their satisfaction I will never see the inside of a Temple, though I already did see one in Kirtland, though it cost me $3, about what it was worth to me.

That the GA have not addressed this is between God and them. If you have further lurid curiosity, you can purchase the book from Amazon when it is finished.

James 1:

 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:

 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

 

Define "love" without including in that definition teaching the child and, when necessary, chastening the child who walks not according to loving teaching.

 

Be a doer of love, and not a hearer only . . . forgetting what it is to love when the cameras aren't rolling.

The best clinical evidence I have seen shows that children seek their own gender identity. My own experience shows ... Forget it.

{sigh}

 

Just so long as one can shoe-horn this month's pet's story into the PC narrative it doesn't matter a bit whether the narrative is based upon facts, experience, or sound reason.

 

For example, the insistence upon ignoring the plain fact that male on male child sex abuse is a homosexual phenomenon, and no amount of PC redefinition of the term will ever change that fact.

 

~86% of male-on-male child sex abusers self-identify as homosexual or, at least, bisexual.

 

The homosexual lobby takes credit for those who call themselves bisexual when it suits their purposes, but in this instance, of course, they don't because the truth of the matter doesn't match the PC narrative.

 

USU "As for me and my house, we'll support the Boy Scouts in banning the wolf from the flock" 78

My abuser/molester was a heterosexual man.

Homosexuals experience a higher rate of suicidal ideation, and substance abuse than heterosexuals. When discrimination is factored in the difference largely disappears.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527

 

The term gay has been loosely associated with homosexuality for a couple of hundred years now. Though the word association is more common now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

 

The vast majority of childhood sex is with child heterosexuals. Further homosexual rape of children is a small percentage of all rapes of children. Pedophilia is predominately a heterosexual act.

SEE http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

 

It should be easy for the LDS to understand. We took the politically incorrect slur "Mormon" and made it into our nickname.

Perhaps Homosexuals experience more suicidal ideation because of the rejection of family, church, friends. Though now days, most people that I know just want to dispense with the sanctimonious hypocrisy and get on with life. It is after all God's job to burn and punish the unrighteous.

Interestingly, my Lesbian VA counselor says that Mormons are some of the best, most loving, religious people on the planet. She stopped me from angrily walking away from the church.

I am not asking if Mormons are Christians.  I know that's  been debated ad nauseam.  I am asking if it is possible for ANY mormon to be a Christian.

 

If I accept Christ as my savior, can I be a Christian?  If I accept the Christ of the Bible as my Savior.  If I have a personal relationship with him, know that I am a sinner, and know that it is by his grace that I am saved.

 

I am very familiar with the standard arguments against this concept.  That I worship a different Jesus.  That to be Mormon I must believe in being saved by works and therefore can't receive God's grace.  What I am getting at is, is it possible for any one Mormon to be a Christian in your eyes (and presumably in the eyes of God) while still remaining a Mormon.  What would have to happen in order for this to be the case?

 

(btw - I am not baiting anyone here.  I am attending a Christian university and have been absolutely blown away by how well my Christian friends treat their Mormon classmates.  This really got me thinking about this.)

Frankly, that non-Mormons would say that Mormons are not Christians should be of minor concern to you because those who say so speak from profound ignorance.

Perhaps the "Focus on the Family" type ilk jump the gun on being so judgmental about children of same-sex couples too much. The article can be read here.

There are just lots of children of heterosexual parents who lived in a hell growing up. It is more important that a child be loved than taught proper gender roles. I am fairly sure that in history the conventional idea of gender roles caused more harm than good and at some point in the future, should we somehow survive, will be abandoned entirely.

In a Same Sex parent house, perhaps children will just seek out the role that their own biology makes obvious. And for most children, girls will like dolls and boys will still throw the cat off the barn roof with a bed sheet parachute. There are lots of children where the boys like to cook with mom, and the girls will be out changing the oil on the tractor.

There are those children today that are forced into a role unnatural for them with force and malace.

As to the whole GBLT thing, I do not get it, but will not condemn it.

Hey guys! I'm a student at Biola University that is part of an on-campus group called EMI (Evangelical-Mormon Interaction). We love talking to Mormons about the Bible and what we believe in! We take trips to Utah frequently and have dialogues with students at universities like BYU - Provo, BYU - Idaho, and Utah State.

 

We get a lot of questions about what we believe as evangelical Christians (not members of the LDS church) and why that makes sense to us. My friend recently wrote a great article about why the trinity makes sense to us and I want to engage with you guys about how you understand Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

 

Check out the article HERE.

 

Hope to be hearing from you guys!!

Think, just one moment. You said,"We love talking to Mormons about what WE believe". Do you talk to them about what they believe? I was an Evangelical for 32 years and was throughly inured to "Attack Christianity". I finally left because I never believed in the Trinity, and listening to the hateful speech of those in my denomination in regard to Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims.finally made me leave Christianity and become a Mormon for almost 3 years.

I am done with them and returned to Islam.

I tutor a Saudi man in English and we talk about everything you can think of. We talked about the Muslim view of Jesus Christ the other day, and then he had questions about the Christian view of Jesus Christ. After we talked a while, I realized that our views about him were very similar.

In Evangelical thought, the trinity is represented by three overlapping circles or by three attached circles. What would it be like if God were represented as a large circle, and Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad, and the other prophets were smaller circles contained within the large circle. None of those in small circles do anything with out the approval of God. That is the essence of Muslim belief.

If you would like we can talk further, but if you start with the Attack Christian attitude, the conversation will be over.

I'm a simple guy with simple tastes so here goes:

 

1) Adoption of the Creed

 

2) Bring back coffee

 

(That latter more than the former)

I think I'll go buy a pound of Coffee and a nice percolator; maybe a nice six pack too. I am done with this. I only wrote this to get banned. I love some of you because you are true seekers. I will keep seeking but I will no longer be bullied. Bye

 

As a single woman, yes. I believe that's in the CHI.

 

A single LDS woman? No. A single non-LDS woman? Probably not. Having children is very difficult with two parents. While many single parents can succeed in that role, a person who chooses to deprive a child of a two-parent home and all of the sociological / emotional / financial, etc. benefits that go with it is, I think, generally not acting with the child's best interests at heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

EDIT TO ADD: Here is the section from the CHI on this subject:

 

21.4.3 Artificial Insemination

 

The Church strongly discourages artificial insemination using semen from anyone but the husband. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsibility for the decision rests solely upon them.

 

Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline.

 

Why ask?

Ellen...

I'm really sorry you have chosen to "return to Islam" because of your apparent misunderstanding of the gospel as a whole... You seem to be so caught up in your own hurt and issues, which are difficult no question... but to turn aside from Jesus Christ as your Savior and all that the gospel offers to all of God's children due to something that will be healed and one day made understandable to you, is IMO really sad.  I don't know what the Church will do regarding "figuring out" your status, but I have enough trust that they are doing their best...   

Your statement that if a person falls outside of the man/woman/children marriage, "the Church is not for you" is short-sighted and/or misleading... you simply dismiss everything else about the restored gospel.

I guess if in doing so you find some sense of peace and comfort personally by returning to Islam, then I guess that's what you choose and will have for this life... But I'm in agreement with TSS... I don't understand how you can go from Jesus the Christ, to Jesus the good man...

While of course I'm disappointed in your choice, I do sincerely wish you well Ellen...    

 

GG

Not misunderstanding, disagreement.  I notice that they have this slick way of turning the blame on the one who leaves. What if there is no blame? You won't find me becoming a pitful Youtube X-Mormon. I just know that people like me don't have a chance and it was my own stupidity believing that I could ever be a real part of the church despite the fact that I live like a Nun. I am just sorry that I did not complete what I had decided to do. And returning to Islam does not mean rejection of Jesus the Christ. It is surprising what you find out when you do good research.

You have been asked over and over to stop hijacking other posters' threads. Please be courteous.