My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Welcome to the Priesthood-ban-dynastic-sealings-gay-marriage-priesthood-ban-Bruce-R-McConkie-Mormon-Doctrine-whatever-else-anyone-wants-to-talk-about-thread.  

Sorry Kenngo (I succumbed and went astray ).  I'll repent and I recommend any further comments regarding the priesthood ban take place in a new thread if someone wants to continue with it.

Edited July 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

If you and others are relying on the revelation or prophecy by Brigham Young as proof that blacks would one day hold the priesthood, then you can't change that prophecy to refer to the 1978 revelation.  Brigham Young was very specific when blacks would receive the priesthood.

 Revising the prophecy to fit what actually happens is once again, your desire to rewrite history.  .

 

Where's the statement by Brigham Young or anyone else in authority that it's only a matter of time before gay "marriage" will stand approved of God?

Edited to add: I'm saying that the common belief in the Church in 1978 was that blacks would one day receive the priesthood and that it wouldn't necessarily be after mortality. It's certainly what I believed at the time, and I was old enough to be a returned missionary in university. President Kimball and Church presidents before him had been earnestly praying about it. 

I raise the gay "marriage" matter here to underscore that there is no comparable situation with the vain hope or belief that it will one day be approved in the Church. Leaders have said unequivocally that it will not. This appears to be a settled matter with them, unlike how it was with the matter of blacks and the priesthood prior to June 1, 1970. 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

In a probably-futile attempt to redirect the thread in a more on-topic direction, does anyone have any comment about any of the issues I raise here?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

In a probably-futile attempt to redirect the thread in a more on-topic direction, does anyone have any comment about any of the issues I raise here?

 

I hereby pledge to abide by your wishes and to cease to contribute to any off-topic discussion.

I can't speak for ALarson though, or Clark Goble or California Boy or stemelbow. You may have to appeal to the moderating team regarding them, especially now that I sense a pile-on is a-brewing.

 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Where's the statement by Brigham Young or anyone else in authority that it's only a matter of time before gay "marriage" will stand approved of God?

What is your point?  First you make an erroneous assertion that the 1978 revelation fulfilled Brigham Young's prophecy.  It doesn't in fact it contradicts that prophecy.

Now you bring up gay marriage.  On a thread about a transgender former Stake President.  

Edit:   Just read your post above.  And NOW you want to appeal to the moderators to intervene?  Hilarious.  

Edited July 21, 2017 by california boy

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hereby pledge to abide by your wishes and to cease to contribute to any off-topic discussion.

I can't speak for ALarson though, or Clark Goble or California Boy or stemelbow. You may have to appeal to the moderating team regarding them, especially now that I sense a pile-on is a-brewing.

I already spoke for myself.  

Edited July 21, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Welcome to the Priesthood-ban-dynastic-sealings-gay-marriage-priesthood-ban-Bruce-R-McConkie-Mormon-Doctrine-whatever-else-anyone-wants-to-talk-about-thread.  

And moderating by complaint is working so well! 

New thread

Sorry Ken.  You're thread's purpose is far too good to try and redirect. 

Thank you. Off topic posts will be removed henceforth.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to (shaming????).  I simply disagree with you and feel you are not in the position to pass judgement on this man and pretend to know what was in his heart when he accepted the calling. You can disagree (this is a discussion board after-all).   As others have pointed out, you are even going against what church leaders currently teach regarding those who are worthy to serve in a calling.  

I am pointing out the dishonesty. I have not judged him for his emotional and mental problems, nor would I. But I won't be silenced by the accusation of judgmentalism.  I have close family and friends whose spouses deceived them in this way and it was chaos and destruction in the extreme. Some of them also deceived the Church in a similar manner as this person. Going against authority? I don't think so. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am pointing out the dishonesty. I have not judged him and won't be silenced by the accusation.  

You have stated that you believe he was "unworthy" at the time of his calling.  You most definitely judged him.

You can give reasons why you judged him, but that doesn't change the fact that you have done so.

And yes, the current church policy or teaching is that unless someone has acted upon their feelings (as with someone who is gay), they are worthy to hold church callings.  Had this man actively begun transitioning into a woman at the time he was called to serve as a SP?   

Once again, you cannot know what was in this man's heart when he accepted.  His leaders must have been inspired to call him and he may have touched people's lives that needed him to be their SP.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by ALarson

[USU78]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Going by the FAIR page it had been disavowed by Brigham Young. However people tried to keep both the "no neutrals" and the fence sitter theology. (McConkie being but one example) 

That's the one

[Kenngo1969]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am pointing out the dishonesty. I have not judged him and won't be silenced by the accusation.  I have close family and friends whose spouses deceived them in this way and it was chaos and destruction in the extreme. Some of them also deceived the Church in a similar manner as this person. Going against authority? I don't think so. 

Yes, I'm sure I have no idea how difficult it is for family and close friends to hear "I'm gay," or to hear from a man, "I feel like a woman," or vice-versa.  The latter happened to one of my cousins. On the other hand, I have no idea how difficult it would be to be faced with the prospect of making such a confession.  As I mentioned earlier, perhaps the better course for Bishop/President Hall would have been to confide in his leaders when he received the call as a Bishop or as a Stake President. But, on the other hand, perhaps that requires a level and a kind of courage which few of us possess. Perhaps we underestimate the enormity of the task when we glibly, confidently, and conveniently assume that we could do something when we'll never be faced with the prospect of doing it, and, therefore, that's what someone else who was faced with that prospect should have done.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

New thread

Sorry Ken.  You're thread's purpose is far too good to try and redirect. 

Thank you. Off topic posts will be removed henceforth.

Thanks!  Can you start new threads for the 20 other things which have been discussed here, too?!  

[Kenngo1969]

Welp, I guess the Mods have shut down all the fun on this thread!  (Party Poopers! ) 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'd wager that many members (especially older members) still believe this regarding the ban.  It's what they were taught by the leaders when they were younger and some aren't aware that it is no longer taught.  Remember Randy L. Bott?   That took place not that long ago....

But continue believing what you wish as that is your right, of course.   I agree it's definitely not as common a belief as it used to be.

Here's an old member who affirms Scott's narrative. The announcement was one of those "you remember where you were when...." things for Sister Gui and me. We were anticipating it and shed tears of joy when we heard it. I have never heard the old explanations such as fence-sitting since.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

On the other hand, perhaps the issuance of the calling was an opportunity for him to "come clean" about those struggles, but, again, we're not talking about sin here: "Coming clean" under such circumstances would probably require a level and a kind of courage which few of us possess.

On the other hand, the experiences of this person do not constitute "sin" unless they lead to a moral transgression. I have friends and relatives who were blind-sided by such a shocking revelation after years of marriage and family, and they were destroyed by the dishonesty. They deserve compassion too.

One does not have to "come clean," but a simple "no" without details would suffice. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes, I'm sure I have no idea how difficult it is for family and close friends to hear "I'm gay," or to hear from a man, "I feel like a woman," or vice-versa.  The latter happened to one of my cousins. On the other hand, I have no idea how difficult it would be to be faced with the prospect of making such a confession.  As I mentioned earlier, perhaps the better course for Bishop/President Hall would have been to confide in his leaders when he received the call as a Bishop or as a Stake President. But, on the other hand, perhaps that requires a level and a kind of courage which few of us possess. Perhaps we underestimate the enormity of the task when we glibly, confidently, and conveniently assume that we could do something when we'll never be faced with the prospect of doing it, and, therefore, that's what someone else who was faced with that prospect should have done.

There are many circumstances when telling the truth can be enormously embarrassing, inconvenient, and distressing. Honesty is the first step in recovery. Some of us may have been there. When given a calling such as he was, an honest decline should be a the right course even if full disclosure is not made.

But to withhold this crucial information from a potential marriage partner......? Is that honest, kind, compassionate, fair? I don't know how that could be done glibly. To impose this kind of existential pain on family members by "coming out" when the deception can no longer be hidden or becomes unbearable seems selfish. Perhaps experiences like this will result in fewer people feeling they must lead a life of deception. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

You have stated that you believe he was "unworthy" at the time of his calling.  You most definitely judged him.

You can give reasons why you judged him, but that doesn't change the fact that you have done so.

And yes, the current church policy or teaching is that unless someone has acted upon their feelings (as with someone who is gay), they are worthy to hold church callings.  Had this man actively begun transitioning into a woman at the time he was called to serve as a SP?   

Once again, you cannot know what was in this man's heart when he accepted.  His leaders must have been inspired to call him and he may have touched people's lives that needed him to be their SP.

 

To perpetuate dishonesty in receiving a calling makes one unworthy. It doesn't have to be something as catastrophic as this, nor should it make one a celebrity or a cause célebre when it finally comes to the light. When the question comes, "is there anything that would prevent you from accepting this calling?" is asked, an honest answer is expected. A condition such as this (among many other things) would lead to an answer of "yes." Just because it involves gender uncertainty does not make is exempt.

Indeed. He knew of his condition from childhood yet lived a life of deception. Of course it would be a painful, embarrassing, traumatic condition. Who would want it? It is not the sexual dysfunction that is sinful, but the deception that is wrong. One must feel compassion for the sufferer, but the resultant chaos and heartbreak that comes from the deception cannot be excused. One makes choices and consequences follow. Those hurt by the dishonesty merit our compassion perhaps even more. They did not sign up for that.

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recall Encyclopedia of Mormonism being an initiative of MacMillan Publishing Co. I suppose it's possible the Brethren elected to cooperate with the project to the extent that they did for the reason you say, but I've never heard that before and, without substantiation, would be inclined to regard it as a rumor.

I agree with you about Elder McConkie, but would add that there was much that was commendable about Mormon Doctrine.

Well as they say it doesn't take much to undermine the good.

To the other point, it was told to me first hand while he was writing it and he had to meet reasonably regularly with Pres. Hinkely. But I don't know if he's talked about it publicly. But a least a few of the articles were pretty hand edited by Hinkley.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

To perpetuate dishonesty in receiving a calling makes one unworthy. It doesn't have to be something as catastrophic as this, nor should it make one a celebrity or a cause célebre when it finally comes to the light. When the question comes, "is there anything that would prevent you from accepting this calling?" is asked, an honest answer is expected. A condition such as this (among many other things) would lead to an answer of "yes." Just because it involves gender uncertainty does not make is exempt.

When it became necessary to tell my parents that I didn't believe anymore, my mother told me to just "go with the flow" to avoid any conflicts.

[Darren10]

On 7/19/2017 at 3:27 PM, Duncan said:

I think it's voluntary whereas you wouldn't be if you were born with messed up genitalia. What purpose excommunicating someone for that is beyond me. Maybe some guys think well, if those feelings don't really exist and they choose to do it anyways maybe that means I could be like that and so it scares them so they go into attack mode. Some men are threatened by others' sexuality and others aren't

My understanding is that there definitely is latitude for no gendered people. If I recall correctly, the Church admonishes sincere prayer and counsel from a competent doctor / doctors to decide on a specific gender and to go through the necessary medical procedures to have a specific gender physically assigned. 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

• .................................
• 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'm still trying to figure out Bruce Jenner, an extraordinary male athlete (who gold-medaled in the Olympic decathlon) who decided to become a woman, Caitlyn Jenner.  It's her choice of course, but it still boggles the mind.

[Darren10]

On 7/19/2017 at 3:27 PM, Duncan said:

I think it's voluntary whereas you wouldn't be if you were born with messed up genitalia. What purpose excommunicating someone for that is beyond me. Maybe some guys think well, if those feelings don't really exist and they choose to do it anyways maybe that means I could be like that and so it scares them so they go into attack mode. Some men are threatened by others' sexuality and others aren't

My understanding is that there definitely is latitude for no gendered people. If I recall correctly, the Church admonishes sincere prayer and counsel from a competent doctor / doctors to decide on a specific gender and to go through the necessary medical procedures to have a specific gender physically assigned. 

[Darren10]

I an to comment more at another time but for now I have to share s portion of the  Salt Lake Tribune article:

"She converted, hoping that immersing herself in the new faith would help "put that gender thing away." Within two years, she was serving an LDS mission in Argentina. (At the time, young men were called for only 18 months, so, she points out, she served the same length as a "sister missionary" does today.)"

Now THAT is some good witty humor, I don't care who you are.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Darren10

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm still trying to figure out Bruce Jenner, an extraordinary male athlete (who gold-medaled in the Olympic decathlon) who decided to become a woman, Caitlyn Jenner.  It's her choice of course, but it still boggles the mind.

Has she actually gone through with the surgery? I have a suspicion about something maybe why but it falls apart if she had the surgery

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Has she actually gone through with the surgery? I have a suspicion about something maybe why but it falls apart if she had the surgery

I don't know the details.  Sometimes it only entails hormone treatments.