My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Men to men sealings is a big red herring. No man was sealed to Brigham Young alone, but were always sealed to Brigham and one of his wives as an adopted son (hence the law of adoption) - the same as children are sealed to their parents today. 

I don't believe it was anything related to SSM, but it certainly wasn't like adoption sealings today (child to parent).  It was grown men who had wives and children of their own (and legal fathers) being sealed to other grown men with wives and children.

Which wife of Brigham's was sealed to John D. Lee as his mother, do you know?

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by JulieM

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I don't believe it was anything related to SSM, but it certainly wasn't like adoption sealings today (child to parent).  It was grown men who had wives and children of their own (and legal fathers) being sealed to other grown men with wives and children.

Which wife of Brigham's was sealed to John D. Lee as his mother, do you know?

 

I don't, but it's beyond the scope of the thread.  Please take it to PMs.   Thanks!

[california boy]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Can I ask, when was this? 

About 15 years ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All well and good, Scott.  At the same time,  however, bear in mind that those critics often come from the ranks of LDS members who were led down the garden path of high expectations -- expectations that the Brethren are operationally infallible, even if not perfectly infallible.  In their naivete, they have formulated a kind of myth of near perfect behavior of the Brethren.  Such a notion cannot abide Elder McConkie saying in 1978 that one should forget all he had said on a particular issue, nor Pres Uchtdorf's frank declaration that mistakes have been made.

I'm frankly tired of seeing Elder McConkie misquoted. What he said was to forget everything that he or anyone else had said that was contrary to the revelation received in June 1978. Good advice for any of us to apply in any age or setting. We need to give priority to current revelation, whatever it is, and not be forever stuck in the past. Elder McConkie was speaking specifically of those who were giving pushback against the revelation granting the priesthood to blacks and were basing it on cherry-picked quotes to justify their prideful resistance. Such individuals were in need of frank admonition, and Elder McConkie was giving it on this occasion.

Quote

This also applies to an area authority emeritus such as Hans Mattsson apostatizing in 2013 because he had been so poorly informed of LDS history and doctrine.  Even non-Mormons were laughing at his naivete and ignorance.

I had to correct Bill Reel on this on one occasion, but I would have expected you to know better. There is no such thing as an "area authority emeritus." The emeritus designation is given only to General Authority Seventies at the time of their release. So Brother Mattsson is properly referred to as a former Area Seventy.

I mentioned this the other day, but as a former missionary in Sweden and the father of a missionary currently serving there, I have formed a friendship by email with Hans Mattsson's twin brother, Leif. Together, they might make an interesting case study. They served in England as missionaries at the same time. They were in Church leadership in Göteborg, Sweden, at the same time, Hans as Area Seventy and Leif as stake president.

They had much in common in terms of their family and Church background, yet  Leif did not apostatize. He is still as stalwart as ever. Leif was a driver for Scott Gordon and other participants when FairMormon presented a conference in Göteborg a year or two ago. Leif and I shared a Church News by-line covering the funeral in Göteborg of Elder Per Malm, General Authority Seventy (I couldn't be there, so Leif sent me information and quotes, and I wrote the story).

Leif doesn't strike me as uniformed or ignorant. And he is a more dedicated Church member than I am. I am inspired by his example.

Quote

 At some stage in our lives, any of us might be just as uninformed and ignorant.  What is likely to prevent apostasy is the realization early on that even people in high places make mistakes and are often no better morally than we are.  We need to have compassion for one another, and we need to be more realistic in our expectations.

I will agree with this in some respects, but I still believe that the leaders of the Church by and large are better men by magnitudes than their critics.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

They say that history is written by the victors.  

True, but a non sequitur.

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm frankly tired of seeing Elder McConkie misquoted. What he said was to forget everything that he or anyone else had said that was contrary to the revelation received in June 1978. Good advice for any of us to apply in any age or setting. We need to give priority to current revelation, whatever it is, and not be forever stuck in the past. Elder McConkie was speaking specifically of those who were giving pushback against the revelation granting the priesthood to blacks and were basing it on cherry-picked quotes to justify their prideful resistance. Such individuals were in need of frank admonition, and Elder McConkie was giving it on this occasion.

Earnest question Scott, but do you think this meant McConkie didn't think the fence sitters theology was included in that repudiation?

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am sealed to my father and sons. Last I checked, they are men, but who knows any more?

 

Ha, ha good point! Except they really are family.  Brigham? 

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am sealed to my father and sons. Last I checked, they are men, but who knows any more?

 

Not at all the same or even a good comparison.  But I'm sure you know that. Which is why these sealings no longer take place.  They were done between two grown men with their own families who had no blood relation (unlike you and your father and sons being sealed). You have to know the difference.  

But, another topic for another thread.

Edited July 21, 2017 by JulieM

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Earnest question Scott, but do you think this meant McConkie didn't think the fence sitters theology was included in that repudiation?

No one has demonstrated the relevance of Elder McConkie's "Forget-everything-that-I-have-said" comment to the discussion of the treatment of transsexuals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It's an apples-and-oranges comparison, if not an apples-and-Buicks comparison, because there was always at least a contingent of Brethren (and Scott has said that, in reality, there was something approaching unanimity among the Brethren) that the former race-based ban on Priesthood someday would be lifted. Not so with the Church's refusal to recognize relationships other than man-woman married couples as forming a potential eternal family unit.  A change in who gets the Priesthood is not fundamental to its exercise in the same way that recognizing unions other than man-woman unions would fundamentally alter the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ on marriage, on family, and, perhaps, on related topics and issues.

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not at all the same or even a good comparison.  But I'm sure you know that. Which is why these sealings no longer take place.  They were done between two grown men with their own families who had no blood relation (unlike you and your father and sons being sealed). You have to know the difference.  

But, another topic for another thread.

Well, I don't know that it is not a good comparison. Eventually the sealing will be complete as we are all bound to each other and to Heavenly Father. I also said our knowledge and practice of the sealing power has either shrunk or expanded from what was understood in the early days. I'm not willing to sell Joseph and Brigham short by any means.  In the end, it will all be sorted out.

FAIR says

Quote

President Wilford Woodruff explained how he and other Church presidents had felt about the matter:

"I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption."

President Woodruff then announced to the General Conference and particularly to the presidents of the four temples in Utah that he had gone "before the Lord" to know who he should be adopted to and that the "Spirit of God" instructed him that he should be sealed to his natural father. Prior to this time it had been the practice to be sealed to the "prophets and apostles" in the Church. President Woodruff now pronounced the prior practice an incorrect procedure and called upon the membership of the church to accept as a revelation this announcement, which incidentally he had previously presented to his counselors and to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles."

.........The idea of sealings has undergone a number of changes over time, as we have had new revelation, and as our notion has been developed and better understood......

I don't believe we have a full understanding even at this time. Time will tell.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, I don't know that it is not a good comparison. Eventually the sealing will be complete as we are all bound to each other and to Heavenly Father. I also said our knowledge and practice of the sealing power has either shrunk or expanded from what was understood in the early days. I'm not willing to sell Joseph and Brigham short by any means.  In the end, it will all be sorted out.

FAIR says

Time will tell.

 

Maybe.  But these were a different sealing that is no longer done.  It's like you being sealed to another man in your ward who is married with his own family.  You may be the father or the son in the sealing.  Spin it however you choose, but it's no longer done for a reason.

Edited July 21, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No one has demonstrated the relevance of Elder McConkie's "Forget-everything-that-I-have-said" comment to the discussion of the treatment of transsexuals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It's an apples-and-oranges comparison, if not an apples-and-Buicks comparison, because there was always at least a contingent of Brethren (and Scott has said that, in reality, there was something approaching unanimity among the Brethren) that the former race-based ban on Priesthood someday would be lifted.

Oh, I fully agree. I was more interesting in a tangental way to Scott on this side point.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't believe it was anything related to SSM, but it certainly wasn't like adoption sealings today (child to parent).  It was grown men who had wives and children of their own (and legal fathers) being sealed to other grown men with wives and children.

Which wife of Brigham's was sealed to John D. Lee as his mother, do you know?

 

Yes and no. In order to be saved it was thought that you needed to be sealed back to Adam through a faithful line and what better way than to go through some high ranking church member? In many ways they viewed it as a literal adoption into the others family.  Early Mormon theology was very hierarchical. In Heaven you would preside and be King to all of your descendants. Your father would preside and rule over you, so sealing yourself to a high ranking Church official helped ensure a good spot.  A couple good papers on the subject by Sam Brown and J Stapley are found here:

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly Articles/BrownSM_EarlyMormonAdoptionTheologyAndMechanicsOfSalvation.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885588

Brother Lee was sealed to Brigham and Miriam Young as shown in the following table from Stapley's article:

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Not at all the same or even a good comparison.  But I'm sure you know that. Which is why these sealings no longer take place.  They were done between two grown men with their own families who had no blood relation (unlike you and your father and sons being sealed). You have to know the difference.  

But, another topic for another thread.

Not correct. In early church discourse there was no distinction made between the two (biological sealings and non-biological sealings were both called adoption). Per Stapley:

Quote

In common parlance and in official discourse, however, Church leaders and lay members tended to refer to all child-to-parent sealings as adoptions, regardless of biology.27**** There is no evidence that they viewed the rituals as theologically disparate, even when terminology sometimes vacillated.

They were done between adults. Both men and women were among those adopted. Again per Stapley:

Quote

Many adoptees in Nauvoo were married couples or childrenin-law of the adoptive parents. Both men and women, single and married, were adopted. Scribes recorded individuals in the temple ledgers with their adoptive parents’ last name adjoined to their own. Though this naming custom was implemented only for a short time, Brigham Young preached that individuals were to use these new names publicly.43**** For example, David Candland, who was adopted to Heber C. Kimball, published several missionary tracts in Liverpool in 1846, signing them “David C. Kimball.”4

When we say men were sealed to men, that just isn't the case. Son's were sealed to their adopted parents.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't, but it's beyond the scope of the thread.  Please take it to PMs.   Thanks!

Sorry!

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Maybe.  But these were a different sealing that is no longer done.  It's like you being sealed to another man in your ward who is married with his own family.  You may be the father or the son in the sealing.  Spin it however you choose, but it's no longer done for a reason.

I understood you the first time. And I know they are different. Didn't I reference the FAIR article? Thank you. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[cdowis]

On 7/19/2017 at 4:36 PM, ksfisher said:

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

If holding the priesthood is an issue, I would say that such a thing would be unavoidable.  If a female is transformed into a male..... and vice versa.

Think about it.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm frankly tired of seeing Elder McConkie misquoted. What he said was to forget everything that he or anyone else had said that was contrary to the revelation received in June 1978. Good advice for any of us to apply in any age or setting. We need to give priority to current revelation, whatever it is, and not be forever stuck in the past. Elder McConkie was speaking specifically of those who were giving pushback against the revelation granting the priesthood to blacks and were basing it on cherry-picked quotes to justify their prideful resistance. Such individuals were in need of frank admonition, and Elder McConkie was giving it on this occasion.

In fact Elder McConkie was referring to his extensive citation of old statements made on race and the Church, and the strident conclusions he had drawn therefrom.  He was properly embarrassed and sought to make it right.  A very honorable thing to have done.  Of course he was not the only one to have so misled us, but he was by far the most prominent.  Those pushing back against the 1978 revelation were largely his followers.

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had to correct Bill Reel on this on one occasion, but I would have expected you to know better. There is no such thing as an "area authority emeritus." The emeritus designation is given only to General Authority Seventies at the time of their release. So Brother Mattsson is properly referred to as a former Area Seventy.

Thanks, Scott.  I stand corrected and now better informed.

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I mentioned this the other day, but as a former missionary in Sweden and the father of a missionary currently serving there, I have formed a friendship by email with Hans Mattsson's twin brother, Leif. Together, they might make an interesting case study. They served in England as missionaries at the same time. They were in Church leadership in Göteborg, Sweden, at the same time, Hans as Area Seventy and Leif as stake president.

They had much in common in terms of their family and Church background, yet  Leif did not apostatize. He is still as stalwart as ever. Leif was a driver for Scott Gordon and other participants when FairMormon presented a conference in Göteborg a year or two ago. Leif and I shared a Church News by-line covering the funeral in Göteborg of Elder Per Malm, General Authority Seventy (I couldn't be there, so Leif sent me information and quotes, and I wrote the story).

Leif doesn't strike me as uniformed or ignorant. And he is a more dedicated Church member than I am. I am inspired by his example.

Good for Leif.  I am happy that not too many fall for the strawman propaganda.  One needs to humbly accept his own naivete and ignorance.  Only then is it possible to learn something.

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will agree with this in some respects, but I still believe that the leaders of the Church by and large are better men by magnitudes than their critics.

That may be so, but I had not suggested they were somehow deficient.  God called them precisely because they had qualities he needed.  They are all dynamic men, able to think on  their feet and able to handle big responsibilities.

[Kenngo1969]

• Does this, perhaps, have any relevance to the discussion?  
• What of Duncan's previous assertion that even Canadian surgeons (and Canada hardly has a reputation as a bastion of medical conservatism: Perhaps I can find a Canadian surgeon who will fulfill my dream of becoming The One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flyin' Purple People Eater, Pigeon-Toed and Undergrowed?) are reluctant to perform gender reassignment surgery?  
• Is the only relevant question whether an operation will ease psychological pain, no matter what consequences it might have otherwise?
• Any doctors in the house?  If so, Is the position implicit in my "other consequences" question consistent with the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm")? 
• How far do we take the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche position?  
• What if, rather than hating any gender-related appendages I might have (Don't play innocent and dumb: I think you know what I mean ), my psyche, instead, tells me that my idealized body image is one which lacks a left leg? ("Ah, go ahead!  Hack the damn thing off! That'll address his psychological problems effectively!")  [I'm not trying to make light of gender dysphoria here: I'm just wondering, how far does the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche position go?]

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

• Does this, perhaps, have any relevance to the discussion?  
• What of Duncan's previous assertion that even Canadian surgeons (and Canada hardly has a reputation as a bastion of medical conservatism: Perhaps I can find a Canadian surgeon who will fulfill my dream of becoming The One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flyin' Purple People Eater, Pigeon-Toed and Undergrowed?) are reluctant to perform gender reassignment surgery?  
• Is the only relevant question whether an operation will ease psychological pain, no matter what consequences it might have otherwise?
• Any doctors in the house?  If so, Is the position implicit in my "other consequences" question consistent with the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm")? 
• How far do we take the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche position?  
• What if, rather than hating any gender-related appendages I might have (Don't play innocent and dumb: I think you know what I mean ), my psyche, instead, tells me that my idealized body image is one which lacks a left leg? ("Ah, go ahead!  Hack the damn thing off! That'll address his psychological problems effectively!")  [I'm not trying to make light of gender dysphoria here: I'm just wondering, how far does the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche position go?]

I think that if someone is going to make a choice in the spirit of keeping covenants and following the Lord's will, the priority would be spiritual and a discussion (or ongoing counseling) with their priesthood leader would be involved, recognizing that spiritual and psychic (as well as physical) health are intertwined.

Medically speaking ("Jim, I'm not a doctor, I'm an MDDB poster!") I think physicians' reluctance could generally be influenced by their assessment of risk to life and limb; their payment structure; their assessment of the patient's competency.

I think sex reassignment surgery and the surgical correction of facilitation for ambiguous anatomy, or reversal of such as new information comes to light (i.e. an adult realizes his parents' assignment for him were, despite their good intentions, erroneous) are different things.

[ALarson]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We'll have to disagree. It is fundamental dishonesty. "Is there anything that would preclude you from serving in this calling?" "Well, other than believing I am really a woman, no."

 

And, how do you know he had come to that conclusion or belief that far back?  And, if he did have those feelings, maybe the Lord knew he could give counsel and help to some members in his stake that needed his perspective or unconditional love and understanding that no one else could give at that time.  You are assuming he knew he was not worthy to accept the calling when you absolutely do not know that to be a fact.  That's judging someone when you are not in the position to do so and wrong of you to do, IMO.

Edited July 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

• Does this, perhaps, have any relevance to the discussion?  
• What of Duncan's previous assertion that even Canadian surgeons (and Canada hardly has a reputation as a bastion of medical conservatism: Perhaps I can find a Canadian surgeon who will fulfill my dream of becoming The One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flyin' Purple People Eater, Pigeon-Toed and Undergrowed?) are reluctant to perform gender reassignment surgery?  
• Is the only relevant question whether an operation will ease psychological pain, no matter what consequences it might have otherwise?
• Any doctors in the house?  If so, Is the position implicit in my "other consequences" question consistent with the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm")? 
• How far do we take the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche position?  
• What if, rather than hating any gender-related appendages I might have (Don't play innocent and dumb: I think you know what I mean ), my psyche, instead, tells me that my idealized body image is one which lacks a left leg? ("Ah, go ahead!  Hack the damn thing off! That'll address his psychological problems effectively!")  [I'm not trying to make light of gender dysphoria here: I'm just wondering, how far does the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche position go?]

I guess if I had been following the arcane ins and outs this thread more closely this post would be a side-splitting knee slapper.

[JulieM]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understood you the first time. And I know they are different. Didn't I reference the FAIR article? Thank you. 

Ok.  No problem 

I must have misunderstood.

Edited July 21, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes and no. In order to be saved it was thought that you needed to be sealed back to Adam through a faithful line and what better way than to go through some high ranking church member? In many ways they viewed it as a literal adoption into the others family.  Early Mormon theology was very hierarchical. In Heaven you would preside and be King to all of your descendants. Your father would preside and rule over you, so sealing yourself to a high ranking Church official helped ensure a good spot.  A couple good papers on the subject by Sam Brown and J Stapley are found here:

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly Articles/BrownSM_EarlyMormonAdoptionTheologyAndMechanicsOfSalvation.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885588

Brother Lee was sealed to Brigham and Miriam Young as shown in the following table from Stapley's article:

 

Thanks for the information (and the table).  I find that fascinating to learn!

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

... ("Jim, I'm not a doctor, I'm an MDDB poster!") ...

"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a miracle-worker, not a doctor!"  

What?

Oh.  

Sorry.  

We now return you to you regularly-scheduled, off-topic, whatever-anybody-wants-to-talk-about-in-this-thread-because-it-isn't-about-Laurie-Lee-Hall-and-the-doctrinal-implications-of-gender-reassignment-in-the-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints programming.