My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Then why are heterosexuals allowed to stay in the church if they have affairs or are sexually active? I know of a few cases, where none of them were ex'd.

I don't have an answer for this, because it's a determination that's made by local leadership, not by me. But I do know that violation of the law of chastity is among grounds for Church discipline up to and including excommunication.

I daresay there are plenty of sexually active gays in the Church whom, for whatever reason, local leadership never excommunicates or for whom the leadership never even gets around to convening disciplinary councils.

You can't really go by anecdotes on this sort of thing.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm jumping into this thread a little late, but just finished listening to the podcast interview.  

Things are complicated, and even more complicated than what I'm seeing discussed so far.  There are individuals who identify as gender fluid, meaning that they identify sometimes as male and sometimes as female.  There is a spectrum with respect to gender identity as well as sexual preference identity.  Categorizing people into different boxes is a tendency we have to try and make sense of this world, but it inevitably fails and those on the outside of these categories that we invent, are harmed in the process.

The big take away from this interview for me is that we should ultimately respect however someone self identifies.  That is the only way forward that feels like it has integrity to me.  

How does the church manage things like marriage, priesthood, temple work, etc.  I think the ultimate solution is to just stop managing it all together.  Let people be sealed to whoever they want to be sealed to.  Let people identify as whatever gender they want to identify as.  Give the priesthood to both genders.  Update the tradition about chastity to mean monogamous relationships, not specific to gender or sexual preference.  I think this is the path of fairness and the path that we're being called by divine inspiration to go towards.  

At first I would disagree and think that it would never happen in a million years, then I remembered that Joseph Smith was sealed to men, so the same sex. I guess like the apologists mention..it's just being sealed to stay together in the eternities as family. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe Laurie Lee is doing this out of lascivious motives either. I listened to another clip of the interview on MS last night, I keep having to listen over and over again because I fall asleep.

She mentions where she came to a point of either ending her life, not in those words, or living authentically finally, once and for all. And she feels like God is behind her 100%, and she is only beholden to Him. She feels like she has been given personal revelation on this, not in these words, again.

She wants to be there for her family, right? Better a woman, than dead. Because at first I leaned toward maybe her sacrificing even more by staying a man for her family. But I'm not Laurie Lee, and I don't know how close it got for her to not be able to sustain that kind of life any longer. I think she's paid her dues. 

BTW, I doubt USU or Scott, or perhaps you, have listened to any of the interviews, hope I'm wrong. That's something Laurie asks for...people to at least inquire or want to know what's going on. So they are informed before having rash judgements. 

I really enjoyed the interview as well, and think its very respectful to currently orthodox LDS members.  Nothing in that interview that I found would be doctrinally challenging or critical.  

Best to listen to and get to know people who have experiences like this, that is the way towards understanding and empathy, and hopefully a way for all of us to shed our bias and ignorance.  

[hagoth7]

21 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5522210-155/after-leading-lds-congregations-and-designing

According to Wikipedia, s.v. "gender dysphoria," last accessed today:

Thoughts?

Madmardigan.

At one point, he needed to get in touch with his feminine side.

Served him well...(along with a daikini baby, and several others).

Can't comment on your stake pres when we don't know the why's and the eventual outcomes. Might simply be trying to really know what its like for the other half of us to live in a man's world.

You know, spy stuff.

Mrs. Doubtfire stuff. Stuff that changes how you view life and others and yourself.

We're not qualfied to understand his situation until the height-challenged lady sings (are we sure she's even a lady)? (Most of Shakespeare's actresses weren't actresses at all, but men in drag.)

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

At first I would disagree and think that it would never happen in a million years, then I remembered that Joseph Smith was sealed to men, so the same sex. I guess like the apologists mention..it's just being sealed to stay together in the eternities as family. 

I don't know if what I envision will ever happen, its impossible to predict the future.  I guess if we play the, Joseph did it so it must be ok, game then you have to take the bad with the good and Joseph did a lot of bad as well.  

I'd prefer just to use the good old revelation doctrine and get some revelation from deity, but that is a rusty tool that rarely gets pulled out of the closet. (pun intended!)  

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

BTW, I doubt USU or Scott, or perhaps you, have listened to any of the interviews, hope I'm wrong. That's something Laurie asks for...people to at least inquire or want to know what's going on. So they are informed before having rash judgements. 

I don't know who Laurie Lee is. I've never even heard of her. I've never mentioned her in conversation or participated in conversation where she has been the subject. Is there any reason I should have?

In short, why are you bringing my name into this?

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know who Laurie Lee is. I've never even heard of her.

Isn't she the person being discussed in this thread?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know who Laurie Lee is. I've never even heard of her. I've never mentioned her in conversation or participated in conversation where she has been the subject. Is there any reason I should have?

In short, why are you bringing my name into this?

 

Because it feels like you or some others have an aversion to John Dehlin and Mormonstories. And Laurie Lee, Kenngo's ex-Stake President, is being interviewed by JD. I just wish you or USU would at least listen and then form your opinion. Sometimes it takes just knowing someone. But I will refrain from bringing you two up again, I just wish you would at least be openminded to listening. But I will quit wishing. 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I wanted to comment on this if I could be a bit personal.  I have to say that my excommunication was a very positive experience.  I felt nothing but love from all that were in the room.  Many of them I knew quite well from serving on the High Counsel.  I am not sure if I could have left the church on my own.  I loved being a member, but I honestly believe that you can not be a member of the church if you are gay despite the church rhetoric on this issue.  They did perhaps what i would not have been able to do on my own.  In hindsight, it helped me move on with my life.  And that has been a great blessing.

After the excommunication, all that were present in the room stood and each one of them hugged me individually and wished me nothing but love and happiness.  I will never forget their kindness and have never harbored hard feelings against the church nor the action that it took on my behalf.  

 

Can I ask, when was this? 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, ALarson said:

Isn't she the person being discussed in this thread?

Yes, apparently Scott hasn't listened to the interview or even read the article in the SLTrib.  It seems to me it would be hard to have an intelligent conversation about a subject matter when you haven't read the material.  

[hagoth7]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't know if what I envision will ever happen, its impossible to predict the future.  I guess if we play the, Joseph did it so it must be ok, game then you have to take the bad with the good and Joseph did a lot of bad as well.  

Few of us believe Joseph was perfect. It is encouraging that he wasn't, and that God can use imperfect people. Would be a tragic world if that weren't the case. But being used by God that way cleanses us step by step...a refining fire.  

Did Joseph offend people? Yep. 

Shock some? Yep. (Prophets in times past have done the same)

Was his intent to cause harm to others? I believe his intent was to bless.

And sometimes, if we extend someone a pomegranate, all they hear is "grenade"! What is mlik to some is sour milk to others. 

Which is why looking under the hood at what really drives somebody is more illuminating, in my opinoin, to who they *really* are. Appearances can be deceiving. Scroes of prophets, apostles, and even the Prince of Peace were rejected and killed from peoplel who never learned to judge more righteously.

What Samuel learned: "for the Lord seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

 

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

...that rarely gets pulled out of the closet. (pun intended!)  

Sneaky hobbit.  

:::rimshot:::

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Isn't she the person being discussed in this thread?

Ah. OK.

I hadn't picked up on that. I only knew it was about Kenngo's former stake president. And I don't think I've yet mentioned him specifically. I've only spoken of concepts here, not specifics.

I will acknowledge, for the record, that I haven't read every single post on this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, apparently Scott hasn't listened to the interview or even read the article in the SLTrib.  It seems to me it would be hard to have an intelligent conversation about a subject matter when you haven't read the material.  

I've read the posts to which I've responded. That is sufficient to the moment.

For example, when Duncan said Elder Hafen was the only Church leader he knew of who had addressed the matter of whether homosexuality lasts into the next life, I hastened to point out that others had done so.

Again, I've not talked specifically about Kenngo's former stake president, and I really don't have much interest in doing so.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Few of us believe Joseph was perfect. It is encouraging that he wasn't, and that God can use imperfect people. Would be a tragic world if that weren't the case. But being used by God that way cleanses us step by step...a refining fire.  

Did Joseph offend people? Yep. 

Shock some? Yep. (Prophets in times past have done the same)

Was his intent to cause harm to others? I believe his intent was to bless.

And sometimes, if we extend someone a pomegranate, all they hear is "grenade"! What is mlik to some is sour milk to others. 

Which is why looking under the hood at what really drives somebody is more illuminating, in my opinoin, to who they *really* are. Appearances can be deceiving. Scroes of prophets, apostles, and even the Prince of Peace were rejected and killed from peoplel who never learned to judge more righteously.

What Samuel learned: "for the Lord seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

Thanks, that is important to acknowledge.  We put our leaders up on pedestals, not just prophets in an LDS context, but other leaders in the broader culture as well.  I remember talking to a family member recently that was so upset about the historians who were revising history about the founding fathers of the USA, those that held slaves and fathered children through slaves.  This family member was so angry, I didn't have a chance to even mention that the history is accurate and have a discussion about the myths that we've created around our hero's that in some ways deify our hero's.  

Hopefully another time with this individual they will be open to a more complicated discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've read the posts to which I've responded. That is sufficient to the moment.

Again, I've not talked specifically about Kenngo's former stake president, and I really don't have much interest in doing so.

 

Fair enough, thanks for acknowledging.  

[Kenngo1969]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

...How does the church manage things like marriage, priesthood, temple work, etc.  I think the ultimate solution is to just stop managing it all together.  Let people be sealed to whoever they want to be sealed to.  Let people identify as whatever gender they want to identify as.  Give the priesthood to both genders.  Update the tradition about chastity to mean monogamous relationships, not specific to gender or sexual preference.  I think this is the path of fairness and the path that we're being called by divine inspiration to go towards.  

With due respect, I disagree.  (Sealing practices in the time of Joseph Smith are another subject for another day.)  I think that your proposed "solution" would be to deny various things that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taught are fundamental to what it means to hold the Priesthood, to be sealed to someone, to form families, to be a husband and father, to be a wife and mother, and so on. 

[hagoth7]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, that is important to acknowledge.  We put our leaders up on pedestals, not just prophets in an LDS context, but other leaders in the broader culture as well.  I remember talking to a family member recently that was so upset about the historians who were revising history about the founding fathers of the USA, those that held slaves and fathered children through slaves.  This family member was so angry, I didn't have a chance to even mention that the history is accurate and have a discussion about the myths that we've created around our hero's that in some ways deify our hero's.  

Hopefully another time with this individual they will be open to a more complicated discussion.  

...

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Because it feels like you or some others have an aversion to John Dehlin and Mormonstories. And Laurie Lee, Kenngo's ex-Stake President, is being interviewed by JD. I just wish you or USU would at least listen and then form your opinion. Sometimes it takes just knowing someone. But I will refrain from bringing you two up again, I just wish you would at least be openminded to listening. But I will quit wishing. 

It would be nice if you also would quit making accusations that those of us who don't consider John Dehlin to be a prophet, seer, and revelator are simply closed-minded, as well.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, I disagree.  (Sealing practices in the time of Joseph Smith are another subject for another day.)  I think that your proposed "solution" would be to deny various things that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taught are fundamental to what it means to hold the Priesthood, to be sealed to someone, to form families, to be a husband and father, to be a wife and mother, and so on. 

And to attain exaltation, be joint-heirs with Christ of all the Father has, have eternal increase, and so on.

 

[hagoth7]

15 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

The issue of someone having a relationship with someone who serves them is a two-edged sword.

Opportunity for abuse? Yep. As in most things.

Yet princes/kings have stepped down from thrones to marry someone supposedly below their station. 

The very concept of Cinderella is that the servant-girl in rags got the guy/kingdom. And visa versa.

Useless fairy tale? (Well faires = elves...but that's another matter.) Or important object lesson for hope on one hand, compassion/humility on the other.

A day when a society figuratively lifts up and honors the poorest amongst us 

Every mountain will be brought low, by nook or by crook. Every valley will be raised.

You say the glasses are half empty. I acknowledge that. And half full.

What if we simply fill people's perspective...hopfully one based on charity...to overflowing, and offer *that* to people who could use a drink about now.  Sour? Refreshing? You choose.

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It would be nice if you also would quit making accusations that those of us who don't consider John Dehlin to be a prophet, seer, and revelator are simply closed-minded, as well.  

You're not closed-minded. You're instead all pot stirrers. Every last one of ya. (And it's impossible to stir when the lid is fastened on tight. Stired, not shaken, is generally the right approach.)

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, I disagree.  (Sealing practices in the time of Joseph Smith are another subject for another day.)  I think that your proposed "solution" would be to deny various things that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taught are fundamental to what it means to hold the Priesthood, to be sealed to someone, to form families, to be a husband and father, to be a wife and mother, and so on. 

It will require a lot of evolution on doctrine for sure, but we've gone through significant changes in the past as well, and the church will continue to evolve in the future, it certainly will be interesting to watch unfold.  

[Maestrophil]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It would be nice if you also would quit making accusations that those of us who don't consider John Dehlin to be a prophet, seer, and revelator are simply closed-minded, as well.  

I agree.  Many of us - at least I - have given JD a long fair shake.  I used to listen to him a lot when I was searching for answers and spent quite a while consuming his podcasts, until I saw a consistent shift on his part to an anti-LDS agenda.  You can't blame people for staying away from poison when they see it.  I recognize that there are those who see JD as a hero and/or a courageous warrior for truth, and I say bully for them.  However, Tacenda, and others must understand why many of us see JD as a person with a negative message.

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It will require a lot of evolution on doctrine for sure, but we've gone through significant changes in the past as well, and the church will continue to evolve in the future, it certainly will be interesting to watch unfold.  

What you are talking about would amount to redefining the Church of Jesus Christ out of existence. It would be transforming a horse into an aardvark. You don't understand Mormonism very well if you think the items you have mentioned are negotiable or subject to change.

Perhaps what you and like-minded others need to do is to start your own church that you can tinker with and mold to your liking instead of trying to transform someone else's. You wouldn't have to wait for anything to evolve. From the starting gate you could have your church profess all the things you dream of as expressed in your post above -- and more besides, such as believing in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction instead of what it purports to be.

Tell you what: To help you get started, I found this website that gives step-by-step instructions on starting a church from scratch. There's even an app you can download.

From the website:

 

Quote

 

We Make it Easy for You!

It has never been easier to start your church! Become one of 1000's of churches that use the StartRIGHT™ Program to get started. In just 30 days you will receive everything you need to:

• Become Incorporated*
• Open a Church Bank Account
• Have Customized, Ironclad Bylaws*
• Establish and Protect Your Board
• Obtain Preliminary 501(c)(3) Status
• Become Ordained
• Be Able to Receive Tithes & Offerings

 

•  

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It will require a lot of evolution on doctrine for sure, but we've gone through significant changes in the past as well, and the church will continue to evolve in the future, it certainly will be interesting to watch unfold.  

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you aren't going to see any such doctrinal unfolding along the lines you propose... That is, of course, unless the Church goes apostate, and that's not going to happen.