Transgender policy? No RS/Priesthood class

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

   BTW, cross dressers are not the same as transgendered people.  

Yes, I know.  I am saying depending on how far along they have taken their transition (some cannot afford, or desire full medical reassignment), they might be confused as being such.

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

Tacenda, the former poster who was transgender chose not to wait for a decision to be made.  I spoke with her bishop at her request, there was apparently some confusion on her end (and possibly his on what she wanted) about the process.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Calm

[rpn]

I get the issue about temple attendance.  Even baptisms are gendered there, because part of the process we do at this moment is giving the priesthood, and then there is the issue of what is required to be an effective proxy (don't know that I've ever read even a posit, other than first born perfect lambs for the Savior in sacrifice).

But there is a wholly different issue when the actual God-given gender isn't and cannot be known. .  When it is ambiguous scientifically, let alone otherwise.  Sure parents and drs decide how a kiddo will live their life, but that doesn't mean that that is the God given gender, and shouldn't condemn a person to forever living that decision by others.  Isn't an individual the only one who would be entitled to revelation on the subject?     (I think the person Calm talked about is in this group of people.  They are not transgendered at all.   And when they are lumped in with transgender it can subject them to opinions and attitudes that are abundantly unfair, since this is not a choice at all.)

[Calm]

Yes, what had happened iirc, was she likely was found to have both sexual characteristics at birth, iirc (she lacked documentation  the doctor did surgery without asking as far as she knew, told her mom to raise her as a boy, but as she aged she wanted to be a girl and the mom was fine with that.  Then around 5 maybe her mom married and the step father was in a very rigid religious sect, insisted she was male and beat her about that and other things.  She grew into her adulthood as male, married, had children (adopted iirc), then it got confusing, separation from family, had surgery, shifted back and forth, but she eventually decided she was female, always had been and began to live that way.  The Church was paying for genetic testing and counseling at her request, but again gets confusing as it appears she dropped out before the test results came through and she moved and then as far as we know parted ways with the church.  She had misunderstood and never did seem to process how the atonement worked sadly.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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?  

I've read a couple of examples but haven't seen anyone claim there are "loads of transgendered people attending." I think I've only seen a transgender at church a couple of times in my life (that I'm aware of) but you seem to imply that because the numbers are low this shouldn't be an issue. Like we shouldn't care if a small group of people are excluded from classes or are embarrassed with restrictive bathroom policies. The scriptures are replete with examples of ministering to the one. I don't recall the parable stating that the shepherd ignored the one lost sheep because it was only one after all. I think that attitude is a callous and unproductive way to engage this issue.

Has someone suggested burning down church buildings or are you being hyperbolic here?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes, what had happened iirc, was she likely was found to have both sexual characteristics at birth, iirc (she lacked documentation  the doctor did surgery without asking as far as she knew, told her mom to raise her as a boy, but as she aged she wanted to be a girl and the mom was fine with that.  Then around 5 maybe her mom married and the step father was in a very rigid religious sect, insisted she was male and beat her about that and other things.  She grew into her adulthood as male, married, had children (adopted iirc), then it got confusing, separation from family, had surgery, shifted back and forth, but she eventually decided she was female, always had been and began to live that way.  The Church was paying for genetic testing and counseling at her request, but again gets confusing as it appears she dropped out before the test results came through and she moved and then as far as we know parted ways with the church.  She had misunderstood and never did seem to process how the atonement worked sadly.

She was a very good person, but her burdens were very heavy to bear.  When burdens are so heavy confusion about Christ's atonement can make even much lighter burdens unbearable.  Her situation makes me even more grateful for the infinite mercy of God.  We all need it and will rely on it as we stand before Savior on judgment day.

[mnn727]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

 You should get rid of any urinals anyway, way too ugly and the 'block' stinks usually.

 

Have you ever seen what happens when most men stand up to urinate in a regular toilet? Sorry but most men are just not that accurate. And like at SeaWorld, there is a splash zone

[Calm]

Learn to sit down guys.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

I get the issue about temple attendance.  Even baptisms are gendered there, because part of the process we do at this moment is giving the priesthood, and then there is the issue of what is required to be an effective proxy (don't know that I've ever read even a posit, other than first born perfect lambs for the Savior in sacrifice).

But there is a wholly different issue when the actual God-given gender isn't and cannot be known. .  When it is ambiguous scientifically, let alone otherwise.  Sure parents and drs decide how a kiddo will live their life, but that doesn't mean that that is the God given gender, and shouldn't condemn a person to forever living that decision by others.  Isn't an individual the only one who would be entitled to revelation on the subject?     (I think the person Calm talked about is in this group of people.  They are not transgendered at all.   And when they are lumped in with transgender it can subject them to opinions and attitudes that are abundantly unfair, since this is not a choice at all.)

You're right, I remember that, and is why the leaders of the church were so on the fence about her to be given a recommend. Since it was probably a surgical mistake.

But still think someone who is transgender, that go as far as surgically or organically getting back to what sex they truly believe they are, such as Chaz Bono, Sonny and Cher's son, should be allowed to fully participate in the church.

[thesometimesaint]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Learn to sit down guys.

Or have a better aim.

[Jeanne]

No one should be turned away from any church.  Fail to see anything further than that.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No one should be turned away from any church.  Fail to see anything further than that.

So true, right in line with what Jesus would say, I believe. 

 

[Storm Rider]

56 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No one should be turned away from any church.  Fail to see anything further than that.

Jeanne,

She was not turned away from Church; in fact, she was welcomed in church.  The problem was the process of attending the temple was complicated by her own history, personal choices, and desires.  The complexity of which not only overwhelmed her, but others involved from her parents to church leaders.  

Fundamentally, I think I understand what you are saying and I agree with you, but there is a high degree of importance in how we explain such a situation.  I think it is inappropriate to say the Church turned her away - that is not true or accurate.  She returned to Islam.  Now think about that choice.  We talked several times about that option and choice.  My point remains that I personally cannot fathom leaving the Savior behind; it is not a viable choice.  However, she found a way to do that and did.  

None of us here are qualified to make any kind of a judgment about her choices or even understand under what influence she made her choices.  I knew her to be a good person in the middle of an incredibly complex predicament.  The Church welcomed her and was working toward make the temple a viable option and she left prior to the decision being made.  

[ERayR]

17 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 😜

Policies are not disseminated verbally.  At least not in my many years of experience.

[stemelbow]

21 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

I don't really get why or how this could be implemented.  Each new visitor is supposed to be screened about whether he/she is transgender?  I just don't want to hear about this stuff if it's true.  It'll just turn me off of Church more. 

[Duncan]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I don't really get why or how this could be implemented.  Each new visitor is supposed to be screened about whether he/she is transgender?  I just don't want to hear about this stuff if it's true.  It'll just turn me off of Church more. 

I don't know, it would discourage people from bringing friends to church or people hear about it and turn people off and as I say creating enemies or problems where none need exist

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I don't know, it would discourage people from bringing friends to church or people hear about it and turn people off and as I say creating enemies or problems where none need exist

I suspect this is a tale made from whole cloth.  I don't see any reason to become exercised over something that does not exist.  We seem to do that a lot on this board - all it takes is one person to start a rumor, hearsay, and we are off to the races with being offended, running away with complaints about the Church, the prophet, the apostles, our local leadership, and how hurt everyone is.  Do you think it may be time to step back, take a breath, and wait and see the actual facts of the matter?

[Duncan]

40 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I suspect this is a tale made from whole cloth.  I don't see any reason to become exercised over something that does not exist.  We seem to do that a lot on this board - all it takes is one person to start a rumor, hearsay, and we are off to the races with being offended, running away with complaints about the Church, the prophet, the apostles, our local leadership, and how hurt everyone is.  Do you think it may be time to step back, take a breath, and wait and see the actual facts of the matter?

so far this lady in our ward brought her transgendered friend to church and now the SP was told that they can't attend RS/Priesthood class, but overreactions do occur but you want to see the logic behind some of it or follow how this could play out. They weren't their yestarday and I'd like to think our words of inviting all to come unto Christ are shown through our actions

Edited September 26, 2016 by Duncan

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

so far this lady in our ward brought her transgendered friend to church and now the SP was told that they can't attend RS/Priesthood class, but overreactions do occur but you want to see the logic behind some of it or follow how this could play out. They weren't their yestarday and I'd like to think our words of inviting all to come unto Christ are shown through our actions

You know, most people that go to church..and really want to go..would love to participate.  It would be hard to go and not be able to do that.  I think this is so sad.  I am wondering how many talents and good, loving experiences are lost because of actions...welcome but not.

[Raingirl]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

She was a very good person, but her burdens were very heavy to bear.  When burdens are so heavy confusion about Christ's atonement can make even much lighter burdens unbearable.  Her situation makes me even more grateful for the infinite mercy of God.  We all need it and will rely on it as we stand before Savior on judgment day.

This person lives in my community and I have encounters that predate this person's involvement in the church.

It would not be right to disclose the information I know, or how I came to know it, but I am dismayed (among other things) to see that this forum was yet another place where this person attempted to manipulate (and, from some of the comments past and present, successfully so) people.  I am even more dismayed that they were successful into roping members here into participating in their manipulations off the forum.  Dismayed, but not the least bit surprised.

This person's claim of transgenderism was not the issue they claimed it to be, it ranked far lower than other serious issues, which impacted far more than any supposed attempt at church involvement.

If I could share the information that I have, it would be crystal clear why this person's involvement with the church was as brief as their involvement with other religious organizations, and it would be understood which direction the "rejection" actually came from.  But - unlike others - I will not share private information about another person's life.

That said, it would be wildly false to use this person as any kind of example for anyone's agenda of "the church is not welcoming to transgender people".   That is not what the situation was.  At all.

[Storm Rider]

27 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

This person lives in my community and I have encounters that predate this person's involvement in the church.

It would not be right to disclose the information I know, or how I came to know it, but I am dismayed (among other things) to see that this forum was yet another place where this person attempted to manipulate (and, from some of the comments past and present, successfully so) people.  I am even more dismayed that they were successful into roping members here into participating in their manipulations off the forum.  Dismayed, but not the least bit surprised.

This person's claim of transgenderism was not the issue they claimed it to be, it ranked far lower than other serious issues, which impacted far more than any supposed attempt at church involvement.

If I could share the information that I have, it would be crystal clear why this person's involvement with the church was as brief as their involvement with other religious organizations, and it would be understood which direction the "rejection" actually came from.  But - unlike others - I will not share private information about another person's life.

That said, it would be wildly false to use this person as any kind of example for anyone's agenda of "the church is not welcoming to transgender people".   That is not what the situation was.  At all.

Raingirl, I would quickly bow to those with first hand, far more complete knowledge of the situation.  My experience is only what was discussed in several private messages shared between us that focused more on the question of returning to Islam or staying with the Church of Jesus Christ.  

The whole idea of transgender is beyond me.  I don't understand it, but think that it is beyond complex for the vast majority of the rest of us.  I suspect that I am more suspicious of these types of things, but try to withhold judgment when it is the "reality" in someone's personal life.

I reject completely the idea that the Church is not welcoming to all.  Some meetings are restricted for a purpose.  Simply because an individual is not invited to attend every meeting held in the church house on Sunday is not a reason to be offended.  We don't invite any adult to go into the nursery or any of the primary classes nor do we invite sisters to just come on in to priesthood meetings or men to Relief Society meetings.  If they are there it is for a purpose and not to pass the time.  

Lastly, we are talking about a extremely small minority of individuals.  In general none of us will have to deal with these issues.  Each person will be taken as an individual and depending on the circumstances will be counseled appropriately.  

When each of you is in that position you can make decisions as led by the Spirit.  Until that time it may be wise to consider it is not your role to judge.  Where have I heard that counsel before?  It seems like it needs to be repeated ad infinitum until it is actually heard by the saints.   

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, ERayR said:

Policies are not disseminated verbally.  At least not in my many years of experience.

I don't understand why anyone would question this information....the church is already toxic for members of the LGBTQ community, this is just further confirmation of that fact.  And as far as being disseminated this way...the report I heard claims that the policy was given verbally to the bishops involved...that does not mean that it was not given in written form to those that gave the information verbally...but like all rumors...believe or disbelieve...cuz frankly dear I don't give a damn

Edited September 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

This person lives in my community and I have encounters that predate this person's involvement in the church.

It would not be right to disclose the information I know, or how I came to know it, but I am dismayed (among other things) to see that this forum was yet another place where this person attempted to manipulate (and, from some of the comments past and present, successfully so) people.  I am even more dismayed that they were successful into roping members here into participating in their manipulations off the forum.  Dismayed, but not the least bit surprised.

This person's claim of transgenderism was not the issue they claimed it to be, it ranked far lower than other serious issues, which impacted far more than any supposed attempt at church involvement.

If I could share the information that I have, it would be crystal clear why this person's involvement with the church was as brief as their involvement with other religious organizations, and it would be understood which direction the "rejection" actually came from.  But - unlike others - I will not share private information about another person's life.

That said, it would be wildly false to use this person as any kind of example for anyone's agenda of "the church is not welcoming to transgender people".   That is not what the situation was.  At all.

It is strange how there is almost always a "rest of the story".

[ERayR]

44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't understand why anyone would question this information....the church is already toxic for members of the LGBTQ community, this is just further confirmation of that fact.  And as far as being disseminated this way...the report I heard claims that the policy was given verbally to the bishops involved...that does not mean that it was not given in written form to those that gave the information verbally...but like all rumors...believe or disbelieve...cuz frankly dear I don't give a damn

Because the delivery method does not ring true.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't understand why anyone would question this information....the church is already toxic for members of the LGBTQ community, this is just further confirmation of that fact.  And as far as being disseminated this way...the report I heard claims that the policy was given verbally to the bishops involved...that does not mean that it was not given in written form to those that gave the information verbally...but like all rumors...believe or disbelieve...cuz frankly dear I don't give a damn

Believe or not according to your prejudices as always, yes.  But what else is new.  That goes both ways

"The bishops involved"???

What bishop is NOT involved?  I live in Los Angeles.  Do you think maybe there might be a few transgender people in Los Angeles?

We have had same sex couples attend while holding hands and expressing normal affection as spouses would and no one cares, a touch, a hug, etc.  Not obvious passionate affection obviously.   No guards were placed at the bathroom doors

Edited September 27, 2016 by mfbukowski

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/25/2016 at 3:28 PM, 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.

It might be easy for a short man who claims he is a woman and dresses the part to go into a woman bathroom and few would notice.  Now a 6 foot 6 inch guy who does that will be noticed.   Men and women have different body types and though some might be able to pass themselves off as the opposite sex, most will not.  When I saw the picture of "Misty" Snow, even before I read he is a transgender I looked at that picture and thought, that is a weird looking woman.  My impression was confirmed when I read the article.  You don't have to look at the privates of people to know what sex they are.  Most of the time, if you look at their face long enough, you can tell.

Edited September 27, 2016 by carbon dioxide