My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure what was revealed in my poor grammar. Let me clarify and see If it clears things up. In an interview where one might find it necessary but too painful to reveal something extraordinarily distressing, one can decline simply by saying "no, not at this time," without further explanation. That is an acceptable and honest answer. Saying "yes" and hiding the problem is not a good thing. When I said many of us may have been in this situation I was thinking about other circumstances that we might not be prepared to deal with, not gender issues. Does that help?

I don't know how to gauge levels of embarrassment. That's probably an individual thing; however, honesty is the best for all, whether it be minor like Diet Coke, watching inappropriate media, or catastrophic things like this. The longer the deception goes on, the greater will be the fallout. That's a fact.

I don't want to be perceived as judgmental, but this person has made an intensely personal matter public, has achieved some celebrity as a result (stories, interviews, etc.), but has subjected the Church and its leaders to ridicule, and friends and family to great pain. These things resulted from choices that were made over many years. Recognizing this doesn't constitute judgement in my opinion, but others may disagree. 

My experiences working with loved ones of addicts include a number of situations similar to this. They involved decades of choices made with deep deception. When the truth could no longer be hidden, the hounds of hell were set loose. Only one of these turned out in a somewhat positive way. I can't think of any that should get time in the news, discussion boards, and internet blogs. This all seems very strange to me, but I often rightly confess to being a coot of the very old school.

Perhaps something positive can come from all this...... unfortunate people in a similar position may not have to feel the need to live a life of deception any more, and hindsight may no longer be needed. Paz.

I don't really get your whole judgmental attitude.  Is it your position that he should have turned down the calling that came from inspiration even though he had not acted or done anything that was unworthy?  Am I missing something?  Was he doing things that were against church teachings?  Is a member required to come out and identify as transgender even if they have not acted upon it?  

If I am reading what has been reported, she made the decision and changes after being released from being stake president.  Do I have that correct?

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

If I am reading what has been reported, she made the decision and changes after being released from being stake president.  Do I have that correct?

If John Dehlin has reported her history and the chronology of events correctly, no. 

Quote

While she remembers identifying internally as a woman from a very young age, she began to experience intense pressure to transition to female while serving as an LDS Stake President. This ultimately led to her being released as stake president after 8 years of service.

Source: http://www.mormonstories.org/laurie-lee-hall/, last accessed July 23, 2017.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A few years ago, I worked with a former male Marine gunnery sgt, but who now wore a female wig and was officially transgendered.  I treated her just like anyone else, and we discussed life in the Marine Corps (because I had also been a Marine).  The whole transgender matter is a deep mystery to me.

I agree and that's why none of us should judge this person.  None of us can even come close to imagining what she may have gone through unless we have experienced it ourselves. What does come through is that she is loved by many, served diligently, and still has a desire to be active in the church.  We should leave the judging to the one who knows them best and who knows what is in their heart.

Edited July 23, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't really get your whole judgmental attitude.  Is it your position that he should have turned down the calling that came from inspiration even though he had not acted or done anything that was unworthy?  Am I missing something?  Was he doing things that were against church teachings?  Is a member required to come out and identify as transgender even if they have not acted upon it?  

His posts and judgmental comments are really sad to read.  He's also very wrong regarding the church's teachings and policy on who is still worthy to serve in a calling.

As far as him being released, I read that he served for 8 years and then did talk to his leaders about his feelings and decision to act on those feelings.  They released him at that time.  So he was honest with them.

Edited July 23, 2017 by ALarson

[sjdawg]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree and that's why none of us should judge this person.  None of us can even come close to imagining what they may have gone through unless we have experienced ourselves.  What does come through is that they are loved by many and still have a desire to be active in the church.  We should leave the judging to the one who knows them best and knows what is in their heart.

Well said.  Thank you

[Kenngo1969]

ALarson, SJDawg, and California Boy,

I am loathe to pass too harsh of a judgment on Laurie Lee Hall because gender dysphoria afflicts a tiny fraction of one percent of each gender, respectively.  In some respects, perhaps it is a uniquely hard, uniquely steep, uniquely thorn-strewn path vis-a-vis remaining faithful in (and remaining faithful to) the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, there are those with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (few in number though they may be) whose stories, as I have said before, are known only to family, to closest friends, and to file leaders.  These people are determined, cueste lo que cueste, to remain faithful and to "wait upon the Lord" (until the resurrection, if necessary) for the resolution of these "thorns in the flesh."  

As sympathetic as I am toward Laurie Lee Hall, in some respects, she has externalized her own pain and has foisted that burden, to a certain extent, on her other family members (and perhaps on friends and associates) who did not ask for it, were not expecting it, and may not be prepared adequately to bear it.  As sympathetic as I am to her, even though, often, we cannot choose our burdens and our circumstances, how we choose to respond to those burdens and to those circumstances is a choice: However dire the circumstance, one still can choose to continue to act in faith rather than allowing oneself to be acted upon by the circumstance.  As is, I believe, illustrated by the reluctance of many surgeons to perform such procedures, "transitioning," gender reassignment surgery, and other such purported remedies are not panaceas.  Often, they come with their own set of problems, and those who opt for them may find (much to their dismay) that they have simply exchanged one set of problems for another.

As sympathetic as I am to Laurie Lee Hall, as much as is possible for someone in my position to do so, I also share Bernard Gui's concern for the completely innocent victims of her choices.  Perhaps he is right that I do not fully appreciate the burden those innocent victims now bear.  As such, whatever our disagreement (what do I know about how such things affect entire families, anyway?  I'm still ... and am likely to remain ... my only child!  ) I can see where he's coming from.

Bottom line?  Just as I am reluctant to judge Laurie Lee Hall too harshly, I'm also reluctant to judge Bernard Gui too harshly.

-Ken

[sjdawg]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

ALarson, SJDawg, and California Boy,

I am loathe to pass too harsh of a judgment on Laurie Lee Hall because gender dysphoria afflicts a tiny fraction of one percent of each gender, respectively.  In some respects, perhaps it is a uniquely hard, uniquely steep, uniquely thorn-strewn path vis-a-vis remaining faithful in (and remaining faithful to) the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, there are those with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (few in number though they may be) whose stories, as I have said before, are known only to family, to closest friends, and to file leaders.  These people are determined, cueste lo que cueste, to remain faithful and to "wait upon the Lord" (until the resurrection, if necessary) for the resolution of these "thorns in the flesh."  

As sympathetic as I am toward Laurie Lee Hall, in some respects, she has externalized her own pain and has foisted that burden, to a certain extent, on her other family members (and perhaps on friends and associates) who did not ask for it, were not expecting it, and may not be prepared adequately to bear it.  As sympathetic as I am to her, even though, often, we cannot choose our burdens and our circumstances, how we choose to respond to those burdens and to those circumstances is a choice: However dire the circumstance, one still can choose to continue to act in faith rather than allowing oneself to be acted upon by the circumstance.  As is, I believe, illustrated by the reluctance of many surgeons to perform such procedures, "transitioning," gender reassignment surgery, and other such purported remedies are not panaceas.  Often, they come with their own set of problems, and those who opt for them may find (much to their dismay) that they have simply exchanged one set of problems for another.

As sympathetic as I am to Laurie Lee Hall, as much as is possible for someone in my position to do so, I also share Bernard Gui's concern for the completely innocent victims of her choices.  Perhaps he is right that I do not fully appreciate the burden those innocent victims now bear.  As such, whatever our disagreement (what do I know about how such things affect entire families, anyway?  I'm still ... and am likely to remain ... my only child!  ) I can see where he's coming from.

Bottom line?  Just as I am reluctant to judge Laurie Lee Hall too harshly, I'm also reluctant to judge Bernard Gui too harshly.

-Ken

I don't really disagree with what you have said.   It would be very difficult for the family members impacted.  My point is that I don't understand transgender-ism at all and I am in no position to judge Laurie Lee for her decisions.  It appears she fought with it for most of her life prior to deciding to live in a way she considers to true to herself.  

When my brother came out as Gay I initially felt like he had foisted some burden onto me. It wasn't until many years later I realized that it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with him.  I can't imagine the mental toll it must take to continually try and be something you aren't.  I'm glad my brother came out if for no other reason than his own mental health.  I feel the same way about Laurie Lee.  

Edited July 24, 2017 by sjdawg

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:53 PM, 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.

 

This is absurd. This woman was doing the best to live her life and apparently was able to serve many people both as bishop and Stake President.

I agree that everyone involved deserves compassion but I also think that it's hard to be compassionate for a person when you call them a deceiver since childhood for not revealing a part of them that would be met with scorn, judgment, and possibly violence from the society in which they are involved. Look at the scorn this individual is receiving on this thread.

The fact that this individual has been disciplined even though there is no commandment or even policy that has been broken, is telling about the danger of opening themselves up for ridicule and judgment. People and even organizations must earn the trust and respect of people in being open. But just because every person isn't 100% open with the church, doesn't mean they are being dishonest but rather they are judging appropriately that the church hasn't earned their openness about their personal lives.

Bernard, when you are called to a new position do you open up with your leader every time to tell them of your deepest struggles or do you accept in good faith and strive to do your best? I suspect that most of us only reveal ourselves personally to those who merit the openness and when we deem it essential.

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I don't really disagree with what you have said.   It would be very difficult for the family members impacted.  My point is that I don't understand transgender-ism at all and I am in no position to judge Laurie Lee for her decisions.  It appears she fought with it for most of her life prior to deciding to live in a way she considers to true to herself.  

 

True to self, self-this, self-that, self-everything ... Self is primary, preeminent, and paramount. The Savior disagrees:

Quote

 

Matthew 16

24 Then said Jesus unto His disciples, if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

 

Quote

When my brother came out as Gay I initially felt like he had foisted some burden onto me. It wasn't until many years later I realized that it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with him.

I'm glad that you support your brother and that you have a good relationship.  I believe that's possible for observant, devout Latter-day Saints who have gay and lesbian family members as well.  In some ways, however, that's an apples-and-oranges, if not an apples-to-Buicks comparison, to the matter under discussion here.

Quote

I can't imagine the mental toll it must take to continually try and be something you aren't.  I'm glad my brother came out if for no other reason than his own mental health.  I feel the same way about Laurie Lee.   

Again, I'm not unsympathetic toward Laurie Lee, and there's no way I could understand what she's been through.  But here's the thing: Once a man (biologically speaking, laying aside, for the moment, the issue of gender dysphoria) gets married, he is a husband, whether he wants to be or not; once a man has (and adopts ) children, he is a father, whether he wants to be or not.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is absurd. This woman was doing the best to live her life and apparently was able to serve many people both as bishop and Stake President.

Yes, that is indeed absurd. A woman can't serve as a stake president. Nuff said. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that everyone involved deserves compassion but I also think that it's hard to be compassionate for a person when you call them a deceiver since childhood for not revealing a part of them that would be met with scorn, judgment, and possibly violence from the society in which they are involved. Look at the scorn this individual is receiving on this thread.

I feel no scorn. Compassion is good. However, marrying and accepting callings while hiding the truth is deceptive. I know a number of people (men and women) who were deceived like this. It's not right.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Bernard, when you are called to a new position do you open up with your leader every time to tell them of your deepest struggles or do you accept in good faith and strive to do your best? I suspect that most of us only reveal ourselves personally to those who merit the ope

I have already mentioned this several times. 

[Duncan]

We marry potential, God calls people not for what they have done but for what they can do. Should Christ have called Judas, John C. Bennett or William Law? he knew their weaknesses but called them anyways

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I feel no scorn. Compassion is good. However, marrying and accepting callings while hiding the truth is deceptive. I know a number of people (men and women) who were deceived like this. It's not right.

What about the advice from LDS leaders for gays to marry the opposite sex, such as what California Boy was told to do? What of that? 

ETA: I've read accounts that leaders would want the gay person to be open and upfront about their homosexuality. If that's the case then fine, I retract my comment. But I wonder if CB was told to be open and upfront before marrying his ex-wife. CB, don't worry about answering, hopefully I'm not being rude by bringing this up. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Tacenda

[USU78]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What about the advice from LDS leaders for gays to marry the opposite sex, such as what California Boy was told to do? What of that? 

ETA: I've read accounts that leaders would want the gay person to be open and upfront about their homosexuality. If that's the case then fine, I retract my comment. But I wonder if CB was told to be open and upfront before marrying his ex-wife. CB, don't worry about answering, hopefully I'm not being rude by bringing this up. 

Deflection.

[longview]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, that is indeed absurd. A woman can't serve as a stake president. Nuff said. 

Raises the question of Lee Hall choosing to remain with "his" wife.  Is this because "he" honors "his" covenant relationship with her and God (and hoping to achieve highest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom)?  Or does "he" view it becoming a SSM?  In other words "he" acknowledges "his" lesbianism and will explicitly sin in being with "his" wife?  Contrary to Church guidelines (meaning it is not a sin to have same sex attractions but NOT to act on it)?

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

We marry potential, God calls people not for what they have done but for what they can do. Should Christ have called Judas, John C. Bennett or William Law? he knew their weaknesses but called them anyways

Yes and no.  Yes, God will give us room to fail at something He might hope that we will do. To do otherwise would be to take away our agency.  (God could do everything He asks us to do in His Kingdom better than we can do it, but where's the growth in that?)  On the other hand, as my first mission president used to say, while God loves everyone, He trusts comparatively few.  There are (often miraculous) exceptions, of course.  My father was such an exception: He was plucked from inactivity and Word-of-Wisdom issues to be a ward financial clerk, and has been faithful (including quitting smoking "cold turkey") ever since.  However, if I have not proven myself to be reliable and dependable by establishing a such a track record in my previous service in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what is the likelihood that I will be called to a position in which such reliability and dependability are close to being a sin qua non?  Not very high, I would have to say. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What about the advice from LDS leaders for gays to marry the opposite sex, such as what California Boy was told to do? What of that? 

ETA: I've read accounts that leaders would want the gay person to be open and upfront about their homosexuality. If that's the case then fine, I retract my comment. But I wonder if CB was told to be open and upfront before marrying his ex-wife. CB, don't worry about answering, hopefully I'm not being rude by bringing this up. 

The counsel I was given is that these feelings would go away if I just married a woman and so there is no need to tell others.  I have also heard on this board some members suggesting that a gay person should keep his sexuality to himself and not tell others.  Heck, we had an entire thread about a 12 year old that told everyone that she was gay and what her hopes were for her life.  Do you remember some of the responses we got from some TBM's?   

Those that have problems with the decisions some have made over sexual orientation should FIRST look at the church.  I really am hearing no condemnation for past church leaders which caused some of these very serious issues.  It is like those dealing with sexual orientation issues were suppose to follow the direction the church was giving them and then being condemned for following that direction.  I find this kind of judgmental attitude about these situations appalling.  

Edited July 25, 2017 by california boy

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes and no.  Yes, God will give us room to fail at something He might hope that we will do. To do otherwise would be to take away our agency.  (God could do everything He asks us to do in His Kingdom better than we can do it, but where's the growth in that?)  On the other hand, as my first mission president used to say, while God loves everyone, He trusts comparatively few.  There are (often miraculous) exceptions, of course.  My father was such an exception: He was plucked from inactivity and Word-of-Wisdom issues to be a ward financial clerk, and has been faithful (including quitting smoking "cold turkey") ever since.  However, if I have not proven myself to be reliable and dependable by establishing a such a track record in my previous service in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what is the likelihood that I will be called to a position in which such reliability and dependability are close to being a sin qua non?  Not very high, I would have to say. 

Would you say that God trusted this person in question as a Bishop then as a Stake President? obviously callings don't mean that God trusts us, some people are very trustworthy but don't serve in visible callings like Bishop, Stake Pres. etc. I dunno, I watched his interview and she seems very genuine and candid. Maybe we'll never know who God trusts? one wonders!

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

... Heck, we had an entire thread about a 12 year old that told everyone that she was gay and what her hopes were for her life.  Do you remember some of the responses we got from some TBM's?...   

I don't know that the problem was with the simple fact that the disclosure was made as much as it was with how and when.  People are entitled to their opinions, and they are entitled to disagree with the stances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on things.  That does not, however, mean that the Church of Jesus Christ is obligated to give one who disagrees a forum for the expression of her disagreement.  Fast and Testimony Meeting is neither the place nor the time for such disclosure, and it's certainly not a forum for anyone to express her disagreement with Church doctrine.

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know that the problem was with the simple fact that the disclosure was made as much as it was with how and when.  People are entitled to their opinions, and they are entitled to disagree with the stances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on things.  That does not, however, mean that the Church of Jesus Christ is obligated to give one who disagrees a forum for the expression of her disagreement.  Fast and Testimony Meeting is neither the place nor the time for such disclosure, and it's certainly not a forum for anyone to express her disagreement with Church doctrine.

I don't disagree with you at all.  But we have someone casting judgement on this stake president for not coming out and then we have a whole group complaining when a 12 year old comes out.  How she did it might be up for debate

Edited July 25, 2017 by california boy

[Rain]

Ugh. Lost my post and the post I was quoting. 

I have found that callings are not always a matter of someone being inspired/the person is right for the job/God is ok with every thing the person does or the leader is not inspired.

I was inspired very strongly on who to ask for once and I fought God on it. Eventually I humbled myself enough to ask for the one God inspired me to call and the Bishop said no. When I asked the Lord about it He said I needed to have that humbling.

Sometimes people are called out of inspiration so the bishop can help them physically or spiritually.

Sometimes the inspiration is right, the person is called and he immediately makes changes to be worthy to hold the calling.

Sometimes people are given callings because of the opportunity for growth. 

Sometimes they need the extra blessings that come from that calling. 

I don't think any of us here can tell if the calling was inspired here. Or make a judgment of whether the calling should be accepted. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, longview said:

Raises the question of Lee Hall choosing to remain with "his" wife.  Is this because "he" honors "his" covenant relationship with her and God (and hoping to achieve highest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom)?  Or does "he" view it becoming a SSM?  In other words "he" acknowledges "his" lesbianism and will explicitly sin in being with "his" wife?  Contrary to Church guidelines (meaning it is not a sin to have same sex attractions but NOT to act on it)?

It is a puzzlement. Where is Solomon when we need him?

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What about the advice from LDS leaders for gays to marry the opposite sex, such as what California Boy was told to do? What of that? 

ETA: I've read accounts that leaders would want the gay person to be open and upfront about their homosexuality. If that's the case then fine, I retract my comment. But I wonder if CB was told to be open and upfront before marrying his ex-wife. CB, don't worry about answering, hopefully I'm not being rude by bringing this up. 

As a bishop. I always thought the best course was not to tell anyone whom to marry. Likes like trying to walk through a chicken coop without getting your shoes dirty. Open and upfront now prevents disaster later.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

Would you say that God trusted this person in question as a Bishop then as a Stake President? obviously callings don't mean that God trusts us, some people are very trustworthy but don't serve in visible callings like Bishop, Stake Pres. etc. I dunno, I watched his interview and she seems very genuine and candid. Maybe we'll never know who God trusts? one wonders!

Genuine and candid......when?