My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

The two situations are not remotely the same. Keeping something secret is not a problem until it involves deceptive 

actions that harm others. Testimony meetings are not the best venues to reveal intensely personal information, especially when the purpose is divisive and includes people with agendas and cameras.

IMO, as a bishop I would not have given you that advice. 1. I don't believe it is true. 2. The only things like this I know about are the ones that ended poorly. 3. It is too important and personal. 4. I was never trained to give this counsel as a bishop. That is something for individuals to decide for themselves; however, I would encourage honesty.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Genuine and candid......when?

um, all the time!! they seemed like a decent, sincere person, they don't seem deranged to me. They have a challenge different then me but I am not there Judge, God gives us all weaknesses, some are more evident than others and maybe that isn't their weakness either, who knows!

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The two situations are not remotely the same. Keeping something secret is not a problem until it involves deception actions that harm others. Testimony meetings are not the best venues to reveal intensely personal information, especially when the purpose is divisive and includes people with agendas and cameras.

IMO, as a bishop I would not have given you that advice. 1. I don't believe it is true. 2. The only things like this I know about are the ones that ended poorly. 3. It is too important and personal. 4. I was never trained to give this counsel as a bishop. That is something for individuals to decide for themselves; however, I would encourage honesty.

 

You don't believe what is true?

Your advice is obviously much more helpful than what the advice church leaders were giving in the 70's when they were so sure they knew the willl of God.  And you don't know what church leaders might have told this person when she was deciding whether to marry or not.  Yet you are constantly judging and condemning her for that decision.  If she was following the same advice that most members with sexual orientation issues were being given then she was actually doing what was asked by those that claimed to know the will of God.  Yet you sit in front of your computer in 2017 condemning her and judging her based on what you believe she should have done.  You don't see anything wrong with that?  

Edited July 26, 2017 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

You don't believe what is true?

Sorry...I don't believe the advice given you is true. I am not aware of a situation where that worked, but how would I know if it did? 

 I served as a bishop in the early 80s. I was not given the instruction to counsel people this way.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Yet you are constantly judging and condemning her for that decision.  Yet you sit in front of your computer in 2017 condemning her and judging her based on what you believe she should have done.  You don't see anything wrong with that?  

I do not condemn or judge him at all. It's a difficult circumstance I would not wish on anyone. It is the deception that is wrong. I don't know how one can condone it. I know more than a few who were deceived in similar manners. It was awful for them.  There is no way it was fair and right. 

Acknowledging the destructive nature of deception is not judging the person. 

The same can be said of leaders who believed they were giving correct advice in good faith....should they be judged and condemned?

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[hagoth7]

On 7/19/2017 at 0:12 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Thoughts?

Crucial questions, instead.

1. Does he have nice legs?

(As a young fella, those of us on the supporting cast of Brigadoon used to joke about that amongst ourselves...in kilts, of course...as any respectable Scot would appreciate.)

 

2. If he wears nylons, does he shave first?

 

The two most important questions of the hour....

 

3. And no, I'm not mocking him, or those mentioned in your OP....in the least.

Poster removed

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Crucial questions, instead.

1. Does he have nice legs?

(As a young fella, those of us on the supporting cast of Brigadoon used to joke about that amongst ourselves...in kilts, of course...as any respectable Scot would appreciate.)

 

2. If he wears nylons, does he shave first?

 

Utilikilts anyone?

[longview]

On 7/24/2017 at 7:43 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Disciplinary councils are done in love.  Among the many reasons are to protect individuals from further condemnation, to clarify the Church's stand on doctrine as opposed to the "transgressor's" point of view, etc.  Lee Hall was claiming to be a "woman" while serving as a priesthood holder in "his" various callings.  "His" behavior is calling into question "his" understanding of the Proclamation on the Family.  See:  https://www.lds.org/topics/church-disciplinary-councils?lang=eng

On 7/24/2017 at 7:43 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

People and even organizations must earn the trust and respect of people in being open.

It is one thing for Lee Hall to have feelings about being "female" (supposedly very powerful feelings).  But "he" did not HAVE to ACT on it.  Same situation as for homosexuals.   Apparently God allowed "him" to serve in various priesthood capacities.  I would assume Lee has a Patriarchal Blessing.  I am willing to bet it would point to achieving the highest degree in CK as a male.  This might be intended as "his" Abrahamic Test.

On 7/24/2017 at 7:43 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Lee claims to have received "approbation" from God when "he" prayed to Him as a "woman."  Since excommunication has been rendered, there is a conflict between "his testimony" and the position of the Church.  Is "he" being honest about the prayer "he" had with God?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry...I don't believe the advice given you is true. I am not aware of a situation where that worked, but how would I know if it could? I served as a bishop in the early 80s. 

 I served as a bishop in the early 80s. 

The critical question, to my way of thinking, is ... would you want your daughter to be thus paired on the strength of the chancey at best results of reparative therapies + heterosexual marriage?  As the father of daughters, I wouldn't.

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Utilikilts anyone?

And for those needing to get in touch with their feminine side ;0)

Was an awesome show.

Edited July 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

The critical question, to my way of thinking, is ... would you want your daughter to be thus paired on the strength of the chancey at best results of reparative therapies + heterosexual marriage?  As the father of daughters, I wouldn't.

Going into it with eyes open or being blindsided 15 years and 5 kids later?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I do not condemn or judge him at all. It's a difficult circumstance I would not wish on anyone. It is the deception that is wrong. I don't know how one can condone it. I know more than a few who were deceived in similar manners. It was awful for them.  There is no way it was fair and right. 

Acknowledging the destructive nature of deception is not judging the person. 

The same can be said of leaders who believed they were giving correct advice in good faith....should they be judged and condemned?

 

You do realize that it is that very advice you are referring to in many cases caused the deception to occur.  Should the person following the counsel of church leaders be condemned in 2017 for following church leaders?

I totally agree that the deception did cause an incredible amount of pain, suffering and turmoil upon innocent people.  The difference between you and me is that I view the family as well as the person following church counsel as being innocent victims of some very bad and misleading counsel.  The church leaders were screwng with peoples lives.   With their spouses lives.  With their children's lives simply because they thought they knew the will of God when in fact they did not.  Now the mess of that action is not left for those men to clean up, but for those that suffered the most.  And never an apology to anyone who was given that advice.   

 

[USU78]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Going into with eyes open or being blindsided 15 years and 5 kids later?

Exactly. IF the woman chooses knowingly, then she is responsible for all that ensues, knowing all relevant risks.  IF, however, he chooses not to relate relevant information that would disclose relevant risks, then it's all on him.  And he is an abuser.  What could, after all, but more abusive than to lie by omission about something so fundamental?

[hagoth7]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do realize that it is that very advice you are referring to in many cases caused the deception to occur.  Should the person following the counsel of church leaders be condemned...

Any person that looks to a leader as final arbiter are missing the point...and purpose of the Restoration (D&C 1).

The leader is to teach true principles.

A listener's role is to discern...and govern themselves...seeking divine help to parse the difference between human frailty and a true course.

Brigham warned about the over-the-top reliance on leadership long ago.

As did Jesus' sibling James 1:5

As did Isaiah. We need to seek to The Living...

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/8.6,19-20?lang=eng#p18

(And please...let no one twist my meaning to suggest I said church leaders are either dead or wizards. They are called of God. But we're not supposed to look to them as wizards to solve our every problem.)

And all who say otherwise...have no light (which could be a wee chunk of coal that can be lit),  (or a rapidly darkening ember). Until/unless they decide to fan it.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[USU78]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

The church leaders were screwng with peoples lives.   With their spouses lives.  With their children's lives simply because they thought they knew the will of God when in fact they did not.  Now the mess of that action is not left for those men to clean up, but for those that suffered the most.  And never an apology to anyone who was given that advice.   

If you knew it was wrong at the time you did it, why did you do it?  [think carefully before answering, if you choose to answer  ...  it's really a thinking-invoking kind of a question]

It's all very useful and comforting to blame it on ignorant others and accuse them of lying in their [probable] ignorance, I'm sure.

But what of personal integrity?  What of honesty with self and others?

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If you knew it was wrong at the time you did it, why did you do it?  [think carefully before answering, if you choose to answer  ...  it's really a thinking-invoking kind of a question]

It's all very useful and comforting to blame it on ignorant others and accuse them of lying in their [probable] ignorance, I'm sure.

But what of personal integrity?  What of honesty with self and others?

I was a young kid just off my mission. I naively believed church leaders would not mislead me. 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was a young kid just off my mission. I naively believed church leaders would not mislead me. 

Your choice of verbs in your 2nd sentence is ambiguous.  "Mislead" can be intentional and unintentional.  Do you still maintain intentionality?

I am gratified that you do not claim an absence of misgivings.

As with all things, Brigham tells us what we need to know:  

Quote

 

first and foremost duty [is] to seek the Lord until we open the path of communication from God to our own soul

Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the Kingdom. … Tell the brethren that if they will follow the spirit of the Lord, they will go right [quoting JSJr]

It was asked me by a gentleman how I guided the people by revelation. I teach them to live so that the Spirit of revelation may make plain to them their duty day by day that they are able to guide themselves. To get this revelation it is necessary that the people live so that their spirits are as pure and clean as a piece of blank paper that lies on the desk before the [writer], ready to receive any mark the writer may make upon it 

<and my favorite>

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

 

That rather sounds like idolatry, doesn't it?

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Your choice of verbs in your 2nd sentence is ambiguous.  "Mislead" can be intentional and unintentional.  Do you still maintain intentionality?

I am gratified that you do not claim an absence of misgivings.

As with all things, Brigham tells us what we need to know:  

That rather sounds like idolatry, doesn't it?

I never said it was intentional.  I said their claims of knowing the will of God was deceiving and not true.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

If you knew it was wrong at the time you did it, why did you do it?  [think carefully before answering, if you choose to answer  ...  it's really a thinking-invoking kind of a question]

It's all very useful and comforting to blame it on ignorant others and accuse them of lying in their [probable] ignorance, I'm sure.

But what of personal integrity?  What of honesty with self and others?

Your questions over simplify a very difficult and complex situation.  From what I've read here, california boy was trying very much to obey his church leaders and do what is right (therefore following and trying to maintain his personal integrity).  If he truly believed his leaders were inspired to promise him the feelings he was having would disappear if he'd marry a woman, why would there be a need to tell anyone else about them?  He thought these feelings were going to be gone and he very well could have been ashamed of them, embarrassed or confused about them as well. As a young boy, that's a horrible situation to be in and he followed counsel given to him by men who he trusted.  

I won't go as far as to accuse his leaders of lying to him (I believe they most likely were following counsel given to them by leaders who they trusted), but what they told him was not true.  If someone tells an untruth that they believe is the truth, are they a liar?  No, not in IMO.  But a lie was still told.

I'm curious to know if he was advised to open up to his future wife about his feelings?  Did his leaders tell him he needed to do this, do you know?  (california boy can choose to answer or not.)

Edited July 26, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, as a bishop I would not have given you that advice. 1. I don't believe it is true. 

I agree.  I'm curious though if you believe that this leader was inspired to give advise that was not true or do you believe he gave advise that wasn't true without being inspired to do so?

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I won't go as far as to accuse his leaders of lying to him (I believe they most likely were following counsel given to them by leaders who they trusted), but what they told him was not true.  If someone tells an untruth that they believe is the truth, are they a liar?  No, not in IMO.  But a lie was still told.

The hell there was.  There is no lie if there is no intentional misstatement of fact or intentional failure to disclose.

That word doesn't mean what you <apparently> think it means.

[USU78]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

I never said it was intentional.  I said their claims of knowing the will of God was deceiving and not true.

Every time you say you were lied to you said it was intentional.

You have been saying it for years.

You say it in nearly every thread I encounter you.

Learn the meanings of words you intend to use, unless, of course, you already know and intend their misuse.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The hell there was.  There is no lie if there is no intentional misstatement of fact or intentional failure to disclose.

That word doesn't mean what you <apparently> think it means.

If someone states something that's not true, it's a lie.  It does not matter if the person stating it does not know it's not the truth.  It's still a lie.

A lie does not have to be told intentionally for it to be a lie.  

(The difference is that depending on a person's intentions or knowledge, they are either a liar or they are just mistakenly repeating something that isn't the truth (a lie).  I believe the later is what took place with california boy's church leaders here.)

Edited July 26, 2017 by ALarson

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

If someone states something that's not true, it's a lie.  It does not matter if the person stating it knows it's not the truth.  It's still a lie.

A lie does not have to be told intentionally for it to be a lie.  

Where on G-d's green earth did you learn such a distorted definition of the term?

CFR that "lie" doesn't require intentionality.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

If someone states something that's not true, it's a lie.  It does not matter if the person stating it knows it's not the truth.  It's still a lie.

A lie does not have to be told intentionally for it to be a lie.  

 

From the dictionary, Emphasis mine

 

"lie

noun

noun: lie; plural noun: lies

1. 1.
   an intentionally false statement.

   "Mungo felt a pang of shame at telling Alice a lie"

   :	untruth, falsehood, fib, fabrication, deception, invention, fiction, piece of fiction, falsification; More