My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[Tacenda]

10 hours 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! 

Did you ever sense anything being off a little bit with your ex stake president? Or something feminine? 

[Calm]

23 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

Apparently she has had gender reassignment surgery:

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/caitlyn-jenner-confirms-gender-reassignment-surgery-on-2020-w478306

[california boy]

7 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.

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.

 

How about the dishonesty of the people calling her as stake president saying that they were inspired to call her to that position?  Were they inspired?  Could she trust their inspiration?  Or was that all false?    Was it men deciding who would make a good stake president.  Did God know what was in her heart?  Was He ok with that?  Either church leaders are inspired by God to call people to certain positions or not. You would have to believe that God didn't know the feelings she had or that God was ok with those feelings and was calling her to be stake president.

It sounds like you are making a case that God didn't care whether she was transgender or not.  So why do people care now?  We know what changed in the eyes of man.  What changed in the eyes of God?  You can't have it both ways.  

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

How about the dishonesty of the people calling her as stake president saying that they were inspired to call her to that position?  Were they inspired?  Could she trust their inspiration?  Or was that all false?    Was it men deciding who would make a good stake president.  Did God know what was in her heart?  Was He ok with that?  Either church leaders are inspired by God to call people to certain positions or not. You would have to believe that God didn't know the feelings she had or that God was ok with those feelings and was calling her to be stake president.

It sounds like you are making a case that God didn't care whether she was transgender or not.  So why do people care now?  We know what changed in the eyes of man.  What changed in the eyes of God?  You can't have it both ways.  

You may be right. I don't know what they all thought. Why don't you ask them? 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

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.

Did you follow her advice? If so, has it worked well?

How does that apply here?

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

1 hour 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.

Her story is indeed an amazing story.  I have no idea what it possibly could be like to struggle with this issue.  It is the one issue that makes being gay look like a walk in the park.  But what I do identify with is knowing how much has to be sacrificed in order to come out.  Yet she was completely willing to take all the public abuse and judgement in order to be honest with herself and to live what is an authentic life for her.  While I don't at all understand what going through something like that might be like, I completely admire such courage.  And knowing the sacrifices and judgement that she has received over coming out, I will not judge her one bit.  I will accept her choice and wish her a happier life.  

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You may be right. I don't know what they all thought. Why don't you ask them? 

Ask who?  The men who called her to be stake president?  Who are they?  Would they answer my question if I did ask them?  Are stake presidents called without any inspiration from God?  Are any callings done with the inspiration from God?  Or is that whole belief that men are called by God just a myth?

I remember going through very similar feelings when I was called to various church positions.  I wondered if I could be called of God knowing that I was gay, living this pretend life of trying to be straight.  When ever aI was asked to serve and no matter what capacity I was asked, I would look the person in the eye and specifically ask them if they were inspired by God to call me to that position.  If they said yes, and they always did, then I would accept that calling.  I trusted God.  He knew me.  He knew I was gay. And by calling me to various callings, He was telling me that He was ok with that.  It wasn't a factor in me fulfilling that calling.  

Now if they were not actually inspired by God to call me to that position, then the deceit was on their part, not mine.

[Thinking]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did you follow her advice?

No.

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How does that apply here?

"Going with the flow" would be dishonest.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is the one issue that makes being gay look like a walk in the park.

Out of curiosity, are you limiting this appraisal to life struggles in general or just a certain group of struggles?

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, are you limiting this appraisal to life struggles in general or just a certain group of struggles?

We all have struggles.  If you believe that God inspires men to positions in the church, then that inspiration comes from God knowing full well the struggles of that individual.  God seems to still think the person is worthy of the calling.  You don't have to be perfect to serve.  This stake president didn't have to not have these feelings to serve.  God called her anyway.  And if it was ok with God, then it should be ok with every believing member of the church.

Edited July 22, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

To all struggles.  

No, I am talking about your comment about being gay and how transgenderism seems to be the only other struggle that surpasses it (and so much so that it makes being gay feel relatively easy)....

Sorry, I just ran out of words...if it doesn't make sense with the previous comment, just ignore it; too woozy to clarify now and likely will be too busy tomorrow with family stuff to continue conversation.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I am talking about your comment about being gay and how transgenderism seems to be the only other struggle that surpasses it (and so much so that it makes being gay feel relatively easy)....

Sorry, I just ran out of words...if it doesn't make sense with the previous comment, just ignore it; too woozy to clarify now and likely will be too busy tomorrow with family stuff to continue conversation.

Gotcha  this time. No. I don't think that being transgender is the only struggle that surpasses being gay. I was referring more to orientation than struggle.  It is an orientation that is way more difficult to deal with

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, Thinking said:

No.

"Going with the flow" would be dishonest.

Thanks foe explaining. I agree.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Gotcha  this time. No. I don't think that being transgender is the only struggle that surpasses being gay. I was referring more to orientation than struggle.  It is an orientation that is way more difficult to deal with

That makes more sense, thank you.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Ask who?  The men who called her to be stake president?  Who are they?  Would they answer my question if I did ask them?  Are stake presidents called without any inspiration from God?  Are any callings done with the inspiration from God?  Or is that whole belief that men are called by God just a myth?

I remember going through very similar feelings when I was called to various church positions.  I wondered if I could be called of God knowing that I was gay, living this pretend life of trying to be straight.  When ever aI was asked to serve and no matter what capacity I was asked, I would look the person in the eye and specifically ask them if they were inspired by God to call me to that position.  If they said yes, and they always did, then I would accept that calling.  I trusted God.  He knew me.  He knew I was gay. And by calling me to various callings, He was telling me that He was ok with that.  It wasn't a factor in me fulfilling that calling.  

Now if they were not actually inspired by God to call me to that position, then the deceit was on their part, not mine.

If you don't know why ask me if I know?

Perhaps that test wasn't for your leaders. It's none of my business, and I don't wish to know, but one can live the law of chastity and serve in callings even while being gay.

You seem to be suggesting that one's sins and conditions should be revealed to leaders prior to or during interviews, and it's on them if they can't read minds. I suppose that would work with the smell of tobacco or weed, coffee and alcohol breath, staggering steps, needle marks, and bleary eyes, but most sins can be successfully hidden...at least for a time. IMO, worthiness interviews are not a test of the leader's inspiration, but an opportunity for sincere repentance if it is needed or explanation of circumstances that could preclude service. Deceptive answers are not the way to go. Sometimes, just "not at this time" would suffice. Successfully deceiving the interviewer is neither a test of inspiration nor a sign of God's approval.

For example, when my son Abogadissimo was called to be a bishop, he explained that he was in the process of getting a job in another state and would be moving within six months, something he did not want to announce yet. Didn't God know this? Why wasn't it revealed to the stake president? Why call him? Was he not inspired? The SP said that was just fine - he could serve until he moved. Had he accepted the calling without the disclaimer and then bailed in 6 months, that would have been dishonest.

So if a man marries, has children, is called to be a bishop and a stake president, knowing in his heart that he truly and completely believes he is a man only by mistake and instead should and wants to be a woman, knowing the requirements and expectations, creates the family, and accepts the callings, then there was deception. When it is finally revealed, all hell breaks loose. Can you explain why it would not be?

 Even at the deacon level, it is common knowledge that "she's" cannot be ordained to the Priesthood or serve in Priesthood callings. If "he" truly believed from childhood "he" was "she" and had sufficient knowledge of Church doctrine and practice to be called as a stake president, why seek and accept ordination? Many things are left unexplained here. Of course it's an awful situation, but the lies compound the problem.

Everyone should be treated with kindness and compassion, and especially those who were, are, and will be wounded by the deception. Knowing victims of similar traumas causes me to pause and consider their plight too. Fortunately, the Atonement of Christ can heal their pain, but it is a steep thorny path. Honesty and self-restraint could have prevented it.

It's a strange world in which we live and getting stranger by the day. Pandora's box is wide open. Let's hope Hope is still in there.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are many circumstances when telling the truth can be enormously embarrassing, inconvenient, and distressing.

I don't condone one placing oneself in a class by oneself, and even if one is absolutely right that one has been dealt a lot that is virtually uniquely difficult, the next question is always, Ergo, what?  I agree with your implication that the trouble with pity parties is that the guest list rarely (if ever) is more than one name long.  And I certainly would never condone dishonesty.  

However, all of that having been said, everything that is embarrassing is not equally embarrassing, everything that is inconvenient is not equally inconvenient, and everything that is distressing is not equally distressing.  Even a sincere acknowledgment that something is painful, that it's embarrassing, that it's inconvenient, and that it's distressing is not the same thing as crawling into someone's skin and making the decisions he makes at the time he makes them with the (probably limited) information and perspective he has at that time.  

Quote

Honesty is the first step in recovery.

Agreed.

Quote

Some of us may have been there.

Estimates are that gender dysphoria affects between 0.05% (born male) and 0.014% (born female) of the population.

Quote

When given a calling such as he was, an honest decline should be a the right course even if full disclosure is not made.

Your grammatical/typographical slip is revealing, even if (I'm absolutely sure) entirely unintended.  And even if the judgment you pass is 100% righteous, it is also passed with the benefit of hindsight.  It's easy to look back with that benefit and to say what someone else should have done: Discerning correct courses at the moment of decision, with the (likely limited) information and perspective one has at the time, is not so easy.  And under the standard you have set, I probably should have declined every single calling I've ever received in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Quote

But to withhold this crucial information from a potential marriage partner......? Is that honest, kind, compassionate, fair?

No, it's not, and I'm not condoning what he did, condoning the decisions he made, or trying to minimize the fallout of those decisions to other people, but again, with due respect (and I think you know that I hold you in absolutely the highest regard), because of all of the information and the perspective that is available to you (thanks to the incredible benefit of hindsight), you're looking at another person's situation and saying he should have made different decisions as though all of the information that is available to you now was available to him at the time he made the decisions he made, when that's not the case.

Quote

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. 

Again, I'm not condoning what he did, but it's easy to look back at another person's situation assuming that all of the information available to us now was available to him at the time he made those decisions, when that's not the case.  Even the most sincere, well-intentioned hindsight bias is still hindsight bias.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

So if a man marries, has children, is called to be a bishop and a stake president, knowing in his heart that he truly and completely believes he is a man only by mistake and instead should and wants to be a woman, knowing the requirements and expectations, creates the family, and accepts the callings, then there was deception. When it is finally revealed, all hell breaks loose. Can you explain why it would not be?

 

I'm not trying to minimize what he did or discounting in any way the serious fallout to which those around him have been subjected by what he did, but "knowing" ... particularly with something as complicated as gender dysphoria ... is not always an instantaneous, bolt-of-lightning, then-I-didn't-know-but-now-I-do-and-always-will-forever-and-ever-amen-worlds-without-end kind of thing.  Knowing what s/he knows now, would then-Bishop-Hall and then-President-Hall have made the same decisions he did?  Perhaps not, but no one ever knows then what he knows now.  Hindsight bias is a tricky thing, and it's hard to avoid falling prey to it.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Did you ever sense anything being off a little bit with your ex stake president? Or something feminine? 

I'm absolutely sure you didn't intend actually to pull the pin on that grenade before lobbing it in my direction (and that you even realize that's what you've done) but, in this thread, that's the rough equivalent of a "Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife?" question.  Even the most masculine man still has feminine traits and even the most feminine woman still has masculine traits, even if such traits are manifest only infrequently and/or only briefly.  The complicated issues surrounding gender dysphoria, ambiguous body parts, and similar issues aside, the feminine traits in a man don't necessarily make him any less of a man and the masculine traits in a woman don't necessarily make her any less of a woman.

I never felt there was anything unusual about President Hall in the limited dealings I had with him, but if I were to say, "Yeah, there was always something that seemed just a little bit ... off ... about him to me," I would be falling prey to at least two phenomena that are very common in the human condition: (1) Hindsight bias, and (2) Gender and other stereotypes. There's a radical notion in Christianity that because Christ is a man, He cannot save, cannot succor, and cannot identify with women: I don't agree.  I once had some things to say about Deity vis-a-vis masculinity and femininity.  See here: 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/on-the-alleged-feminization-of-christianity/

[USU78]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

How about the dishonesty of the people calling her as stake president saying that they were inspired to call her to that position?  Were they inspired?  Could she trust their inspiration?  Or was that all false?    Was it men deciding who would make a good stake president.  Did God know what was in her heart?  Was He ok with that?  Either church leaders are inspired by God to call people to certain positions or not. You would have to believe that God didn't know the feelings she had or that God was ok with those feelings and was calling her to be stake president.

It sounds like you are making a case that God didn't care whether she was transgender or not.  So why do people care now?  We know what changed in the eyes of man.  What changed in the eyes of God?  You can't have it both ways.  

So ... G-d is responsible for the failure and lies of the called? Jonah never flees on a ⛵ because he has no freedom of moral agency?

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

We all have struggles.  If you believe that God inspires men to positions in the church, then that inspiration comes from God knowing full well the struggles of that individual.  God seems to still think the person is worthy of the calling.  You don't have to be perfect to serve.  This stake president didn't have to not have these feelings to serve.  God called her anyway.  And if it was ok with God, then it should be ok with every believing member of the church.

God was OK with her being excommunicated as well. 

Of course God calls people despite their struggles. 

"And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."

Ether 12:27

The ex stake President mis-chose what to do with his struggles as we all do with many if our own struggles. 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm absolutely sure you didn't intend actually to pull the pin on that grenade before lobbing it in my direction (and that you even realize that's what you've done) but, in this thread, that's the rough equivalent of a "Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife?" question.  Even the most masculine man still has feminine traits and even the most feminine woman still has masculine traits, even if such traits are manifest only infrequently and/or only briefly.  The complicated issues surrounding gender dysphoria, ambiguous body parts, and similar issues aside, the feminine traits in a man don't necessarily make him any less of a man and the masculine traits in a woman don't necessarily make her any less of a woman.

I never felt there was anything unusual about President Hall in the limited dealings I had with him, but if I were to say, "Yeah, there was always something that seemed just a little bit ... off ... about him to me," I would be falling prey to at least two phenomena that are very common in the human condition: (1) Hindsight bias, and (2) Gender and other stereotypes. There's a radical notion in Christianity that because Christ is a man, He cannot save, cannot succor, and cannot identify with women: I don't agree.  I once had some things to say about Deity vis-a-vis masculinity and femininity.  See here: 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/on-the-alleged-feminization-of-christianity/

" Even the most masculine man still has feminine traits..."

That is SUCH a beautiful thing for you to say.

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Ask who?  The men who called her to be stake president?  Who are they?  Would they answer my question if I did ask them?  Are stake presidents called without any inspiration from God?  Are any callings done with the inspiration from God?  Or is that whole belief that men are called by God just a myth?

I remember going through very similar feelings when I was called to various church positions.  I wondered if I could be called of God knowing that I was gay, living this pretend life of trying to be straight.  When ever aI was asked to serve and no matter what capacity I was asked, I would look the person in the eye and specifically ask them if they were inspired by God to call me to that position.  If they said yes, and they always did, then I would accept that calling.  I trusted God.  He knew me.  He knew I was gay. And by calling me to various callings, He was telling me that He was ok with that.  It wasn't a factor in me fulfilling that calling.  

Now if they were not actually inspired by God to call me to that position, then the deceit was on their part, not mine.

Unless, of course, God intended that calling to you as an opportunity to talk about your being gay. Furthermore, if you were not living a gay lifestyle, everything should have been OK with your serving any and all of your callings. 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Darren10

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

My comment was not regarding the "fence-sitting" belief or teaching.  

Also, if you want to continue discussing this, that topic was moved to stemelbow's new thread: 

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

To perpetuate dishonesty in receiving a calling makes one unworthy.

How do you know this took place?  If you've read the article, he didn't decide to start transitioning to live as a woman until 8 years later and then he did tell his leaders who released him.  It was a process for him and is interesting to read if you haven't done so yet.  But just feeling different does not make one unworthy of accepting a calling (nor does not confessing something one hasn't acted on such as a weakness to view porn, to gamble, or someone who is gay).

 

[california boy]

I think I should address the above posts in a general way rather than answer each of them individually.  Let's start with the issue of the stake president.  Either you believe somone is called by God and God knows the flaws that person has but still wants them to fulfill the calling. Or you believe the person is called by men and they need all the information they can have in order to make an informed decision.  I will leave it up to each of you to decide which scenario you choose to believe.  

The decision on how to resolve these issues is always easier in hindsight.  And all of the information is not always present when making those type of decisions.  Let's take the gay person, trying desperately to do the will of God.  His church leaders make him the solemn promise that if he will just marry a woman, he will eventually no longer be gay.  He will loose his attraction to men.  They reassure him that they are speaking for God.  So is it reasonable for the gay man to believe those church leaders and assume that being gay was just a temporary condition that will have no long term effects on his relationship?  YES IT IS.  Except for the fact that the church leaders were actually deceiving him.  There was no promise from God that he would change.  There was a false belief by church leaders.  THAT was the deception that started this whole scenerio.  If they had been truthful and told the man that he was always going to be gay, then it is quite reasonable that the person would never have married a woman.  Why would he?

Now the person is in the marriage.  The church comes out and says "sorry" that promise from God was not really from God.  You will probably always be gay.  So at that point does the gay man leave the marriage?  Does he leave his children and become a weekend dad?  Did he not make a commitment to raise them?  So he does the honorable thing even though he was totally deceived by church leaders to stay in the marriage until the children have left home.  

During this time, church leader ask the gay man to serve in various capacities.  They reassure him that yes indeed, God has inspired them to call him to that position.  Should the gay man believe those statements to be true?  Did God inspire those men to call him or not.  Does he believe that God knows he is gay and knows what He is doing?  Is it reasonable for him to trust God? 

What if he comes out right there to the bishop or stake president and tells them that he is gay.  That he was lied to by previous church leaders who told him that he would no longer be gay if he just married a woman.  And what if by revealing that, the family falls apart while the children are still young.  They end up without the influence of their father in their daily lives.  Is that a better solution?

While I am not transgender, many of the same false beliefs, hopes and promises by church leaders were made that were deceitful in providing the correct information for those choices that were originally made based o those false promises.  The deceit started with the church.  And now you want to blame the gay person?  Or the transgender person for being deceitful?    

Judge all you want.  But I only ask that you judge the church more harshly than the individual who trusted in those that claimed to be speaking for God who started this whole mess.