Transgender policy? No RS/Priesthood class

[Duncan]

So, last week a friend of a ward member came to Church and they are transgendered. As far as I know no one said anything amiss or looked down on them but they came to sacrament mtg and priesthood opening exercises and then sat out in the foyer. Personally speaking I could care less, they don't bother me in the slightest. I kind of forgot about it until the Bishop brought it up in opening exercises this sunday and said that the policy of the Church is that they can't attend Relief Society or Priesthood classes. Is this a new thing or has anyone heard of it before? I don't get why they can't attend class? Funnily enough we talked about forgiveness right after the Bishop explained this. I have other thoughts on this subject but this will suffice for now

[Calm]

Apparently a few places have gotten the same info, so either one stake came up with the idea and all the other bishops looking for info assume it is church policy or it is a church policy.  If the latter, some explanation will be coming soon, I suspect.

There is also some wards that require if they need to use a restroom, someone checks to make sure it is empty so no one has an awkward moment or gets offended due to being unprepared.  We need get a single serving unisex bathroom in all new buildings, though there is a new law in Mass that some are claiming will be required for churches as well as public buildings where transgendered are allowed to enter the bathroom of choice iirc.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Calm

[rpn]

I just don't get the brohaha over the bathrooms.   I've never in my life going into restrooms looked at the others to try to figure out if they are the same gender that I am.   Seems to me that trans people look like the people going into the bathroom they are entering, and who is checking out genitalia?   I just find it odd that people (some of whom have probably shared a bathroom with a tranny without any incident for years),  get exercised at verifying the personal body parts of others using the bathroom they are using.

[mfbukowski]

FWIW I have never heard of such a policy or regulation and I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would believe that it should be a policy or regulation.

I have been in an assortment of leadership callings for at least 20 years.  If I am wrong I would love to hear about the evidence for that.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, rpn said:

I just don't get the brohaha over the bathrooms.   I've never in my life going into restrooms looked at the others to try to figure out if they are the same gender that I am.   Seems to me that trans people look like the people going into the bathroom they are entering, and who is checking out genitalia?   I just find it odd that people (some of whom have probably shared a bathroom with a tranny without any incident for years),  get exercised at verifying the personal body parts of others using the bathroom they are using.

Not all transgendered have fully completed the transition though.  There was an individual at Calgary that most would have assumed was a cross dresser for a couple of years while 'he' prepared and then went through the medical treatment to become in physical appearance a woman.

perhaps there are some adults that are concerned about themselves, but most I have seen are mostly concerned about the reaction of a child who wouldn't understand what was going on.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

FWIW I have never heard of such a policy or regulation and I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would believe that it should be a policy or regulation.

It has been published on the Internet as 'this is happening at my ward' for a week or two now.  Iirc, the first appearance contained two letters, one with an old church letterhead and one with the current official letterhead.  Can't remember what they said.

[Duncan]

Just now, Calm said:

It has been published on the Internet as 'this is happening at my ward' for a week or two now.  Iirc, the first appearance contained two letters, one with an old church letterhead and one with the current official letterhead.  Can't remember what they said.

I just think we are creating our own enemies where none need exist.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has been published on the Internet as 'this is happening at my ward' for a week or two now.  Iirc, the first appearance contained two letters, one with an old church letterhead and one with the current official letterhead.  Can't remember what they said.

There has been no such official communication from church headquarters.

[Calm]

I get the bathroom issue if it is obvious that kids will pick up the difference in expected gender with clothing and be confused and there may be no one to explain to them if they have gone in on their own, but I don't see it as a big issue with adults.  No less safe imo than usual (don't be in the church wandering around on your own even if there are a few people you feel safe with in other parts of the building) and all transgendered will be using stalls (unless something actually functions that didn't used to) so nothing to see.  You should get rid of any urinals anyway, way too ugly and the 'block' stinks usually.

There are some transgendered individuals who don't do hormones (I have read of one who couldn't because of having cancer) or other parts of the transition for various reasons, so likely could tell or at least be ambiguous

Edited September 25, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I just think we are creating our own enemies where none need exist.

It very well could have been a hoax that with the forgeries now has some real bishop thinking they need to implement it.

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There has been no such official communication from church headquarters.

If Irecall correctly the alleged letters were in response to a situation, not claimed to be issued church wide.

 

[BCSpace]

A transgender cannot have the priesthood, but I've not heard they cannot attend classes.  I wouldn't think it unreasonable for a Bishop to require such a person to declare a gender if born physically ambiguous and then recommend the appropriate class.

[cdowis]

Quote

CHI vol 1 Section 3.3.4

transsexuals cannot receive a temple recommend

-No caveats listed for first presidency approval or anything like that as is common in other sections.

CHI vol 1 Section 6.7.2

Bishops are to counsel against *elective* transsexual surgery. (emphasis mine)

Bishops are to refer questions about the policy to the Stake and the stake should ask the First Presidency

This section also states that such an operation may be grounds for church discipline

CHI vol 1 Section 16.3.16

(Again, this section uses the word "elective")

transsexuals (including those considering transsexual operations) cannot be:

Baptized, Confirmed, or receive the priesthood

-An exception policy for Baptism/Confirmation is listed as needing approval from the First Presidency.

-No exception listed for the Priesthood

Quoting from a post on mormonhub from someone who appears to have access to Vol 1.

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

A transgender cannot have the priesthood, but I've not heard they cannot attend classes.  I wouldn't think it unreasonable for a Bishop to require such a person to declare a gender if born physically ambiguous and then recommend the appropriate class.

They weren't there today so who knows if we will see them again but i'd like to think that the visitor's welcome sign out front means that they and others are welcome and aren't barred from simply attending church. Whatever class they feel comfortable attending then go there

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

It very well could have been a hoax that with the forgeries now has some real bishop thinking they need to implement it.

 

he was told this by the SP who apparently got it from some training he received, I wonder though in a week? unless he was emailed or called about this

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

So, last week a friend of a ward member came to Church and they are transgendered. As far as I know no one said anything amiss or looked down on them but they came to sacrament mtg and priesthood opening exercises and then sat out in the foyer. Personally speaking I could care less, they don't bother me in the slightest. I kind of forgot about it until the Bishop brought it up in opening exercises this sunday and said that the policy of the Church is that they can't attend Relief Society or Priesthood classes. Is this a new thing or has anyone heard of it before? I don't get why they can't attend class? Funnily enough we talked about forgiveness right after the Bishop explained this. I have other thoughts on this subject but this will suffice for now

It is the same Gospel, same materiel, so there is no need for a person to attend a class, other than the sex they are...none. 

[rpn]

I am aware of one transfemale who was compelled to sit in Priesthood and excluded from RS.    And I'm aware of a transfemale who attended RS.   I think it is bizarre that transgendered members or visitors are excluded from the meetings.  Just plain unfriendly.   Men attend RS not infrequently for other reasons.  Fewer women attend Priesthood but it isn't unheard of.

And those who claim some concern about children being confused,  there are all kinds of women, some of whom don't look very feminine that use the bathroom.   Kids might be afraid of anyone that looks weird, but maybe they'd just be curious.   Why can't a parent simply say, "that's why people use stalls: so we can each do our business without others paying any mind no matter what we look like".    BTW, cross dressers are not the same as transgendered people.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

A transgender cannot have the priesthood, but I've not heard they cannot attend classes.  I wouldn't think it unreasonable for a Bishop to require such a person to declare a gender if born physically ambiguous and then recommend the appropriate class.

I remember a poster here, that was transgender. She so badly wanted to go to the temple but it was a no-go.

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

So, last week a friend of a ward member came to Church and they are transgendered. As far as I know no one said anything amiss or looked down on them but they came to sacrament mtg and priesthood opening exercises and then sat out in the foyer. Personally speaking I could care less, they don't bother me in the slightest. I kind of forgot about it until the Bishop brought it up in opening exercises this sunday and said that the policy of the Church is that they can't attend Relief Society or Priesthood classes. Is this a new thing or has anyone heard of it before? I don't get why they can't attend class? Funnily enough we talked about forgiveness right after the Bishop explained this. I have other thoughts on this subject but this will suffice for now

This subject came up on another board. Evidentially this new policy is ONLY being disseminated verbally through priesthood leadership channels so as to avoid a paper trail and a repeat of the Nov '15 children of LGBQ fiasco. According to my source, transgendered persons are banned from both priesthood & relief society meetings ( even previously ordained males who now identify as a woman are banned from priesthood meetings) but are free to attend S.S & Sacrament meetings. 

Local ward leaders were also instructed to clear bathrooms of occupants prior to transgender use.  

I guess the church has decided to make church a more welcoming and comfortable environment for transgender members 😜

Edited September 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[thesometimesaint]

I guess now we'll have to post security guards at our Ward bathrooms to check birth certificates and physically check on genitalia.

[Storm Rider]

Based on this thread it would seem that every ward has loads of transgendered people attending.  I find it strange that none of the wards I have ever attended have had any transgendered people in attendance....ever.  So with all the hub-bub, how many people are we talking about and how many bathrooms are affected?

Do we burn the church buildings down now or later; when do you think is best?  

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This subject came up on another board. Evidentially this new policy is ONLY being disseminated verbally through priesthood leadership channels so as to avoid a paper trail and a repeat of the Nov '15 children of LGBQ fiasco.

A policy that isn't written down isn't really so much of a policy as it is something you've forgotten about in 6 months.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

It has been published on the Internet as 'this is happening at my ward' for a week or two now.  Iirc, the first appearance contained two letters, one with an old church letterhead and one with the current official letterhead.  Can't remember what they said.

Well anyone can create "letterhead"- that's no biggie.  Just sayin'.

All you need is a pdf or jpg of real letterhead and cut and paste or even just "typeset" it yourself.

In my business if I run out of letterhead I can do that in 10 minutes- it's almost not worth even having the "real thing"!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

I am aware of one transfemale who was compelled to sit in Priesthood and excluded from RS.    And I'm aware of a transfemale who attended RS.   I think it is bizarre that transgendered members or visitors are excluded from the meetings.  Just plain unfriendly.   Men attend RS not infrequently for other reasons.  Fewer women attend Priesthood but it isn't unheard of.

And those who claim some concern about children being confused,  there are all kinds of women, some of whom don't look very feminine that use the bathroom.   Kids might be afraid of anyone that looks weird, but maybe they'd just be curious.   Why can't a parent simply say, "that's why people use stalls: so we can each do our business without others paying any mind no matter what we look like".    BTW, cross dressers are not the same as transgendered people.  

My wife taught a High Priest's class on family history- a regular how-to class to which people could bring computers.  On a first Sunday, as requested by the HPGL.  No biggie!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This subject came up on another board. Evidentially this new policy is ONLY being disseminated verbally through priesthood leadership channels so as to avoid a paper trail and a repeat of the Nov '15 children of LGBQ fiasco. According to my source, transgendered persons are banned from both priesthood & relief society meetings ( even previously ordained males who now identify as a woman are banned from priesthood meetings) but are free to attend S.S & Sacrament meetings. 

Local ward leaders were also instructed to clear bathrooms of occupants prior to transgender use.  

I guess the church has decided to make church a more welcoming and comfortable environment for transgender members 😜

Baloney.

There is no need for that.  I don't believe it for a minute.  There is absolutely NO reason to bar anyone from those meetings.  Propaganda.

There is no such thing as "verbally through priesthood leadership channels".  That is like a game of "telephone"- the second time it is repeated it will be different.  The church is not run that way.

Now it's my turn to demand "evidence"!    (No CFR intended- just making a point)

You might as well start a rumor that we are going back to Missouri as "verbally disseminated though priesthood leadership channels".   I would know about such a thing in my calling.