My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe revelation is sometimes individual, and sometimes its collective and happens through cultural and societal moves.  God works in mysterious ways.  

I believe that He works through those who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What you seem to be implying here is that you are receiving divine inspiration as to how to guide the church that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are not.  That would seem to be a complete revolution in the affairs of the church, that God would no longer go through the leadership of the church and instead make known His will for the church through someone who has not been called to do so. 

This model for change within the church would seem to violate this principle laid down in Doctrine and Covenants 132:8

"Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion."

Apparently he has no problem thinking he is being called to assume control (through an evolutionary process) of an existing church, but when presented with the option of beginning from scratch, says he is "not in the religion starting business." Go figure.

Maybe he's dissuaded by start-up costs.

The website I found apparently streamlines matters and promotes economies of scale through cloud software and other existing templates/infrastructure. As they say, "It's never been easier to start a church."

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does the LDS Church have an official statement on hermaphrodism and gender reassignment surgery (some of which is done with newborns). I am unaware of such.

I'm not aware of any such.  The language in Handbook 1 refers to "elective" surgery as being a possible cause for a disciplinary council. 

An operation for hermaphrodism would seem to be more corrective than elective.

An operation on a newborn would not be elective either (for the newborn).

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The legitimate authority, after the death of the Church president and the resultant dissolution of the First Presidency, resides with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

You mean 15? 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I believe that He works through those who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

Group dynamics influence the individuals and individuals influence groups.  Its the circle of life my friend.  

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have been in situations when I was asked if there were any reason I could not serve in a certain calling. I felt I had to come clean and deal with the issues. 

Do you believe this issue would have made him unworthy to serve at that time?

[ALarson]

What would really make this interesting is if he received his second anointing as some have when serving as stake president....

Where would he stand at this point if this had taken place?

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe he's dissuaded by start-up costs.

Actually, its the low margins and restrictions on non-profit orgs that I don't like.  Give me a high margin, for profit religion!  

[hope_for_things]

Just now, ALarson said:

What would really make this interesting is if he received his second anointing as some have when serving as stake president....

Where would he stand at this point if this had taken place?

I was wondering the same thing while listening to the interview.  Some speculate that this is why Tom Phillips was never excommunicated.  Do we know if anyone who's had their second anointing has ever been excommunicated in the church? 

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe this issue would have made him unworthy to serve at that time?

  Of course.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

A great way to deny one's basest self would be to not lob bitter attacks at the gay and transgendered community, even if one holds religious disagreements with their choices.

Nice adjectival choices, Monsieur Kettle.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not aware of any such.  The language in Handbook 1 refers to "elective" surgery as being a possible cause for a disciplinary council. 

An operation for hermaphrodism would seem to be more corrective than elective.

An operation on a newborn would not be elective either (for the newborn).

Naturally, parents are consulted when a genetic defect (hermaphroditic or otherwise) is apparent before or after birth.  So someone must elect the corrective surgery.  It would be interesting to hear the opinion of Pres. Russell Nelson, M.D., on that question.

We are all familiar with the occasional cases of "Siamese Twins" which must be surgically separated (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200008103430604#t=article ), but there are many other sorts of congenital defects which must be corrected.  What do we say of those corrections which entail gender?

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Group dynamics influence the individuals and individuals influence groups.  Its the circle of life my friend.  

That's fine if we want to discuss human institutions, but we're talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here.  We believe than the Lord has chosen prophets to lead and guide the church.  We believe that they receive inspiration and revelation from Him to do so.  "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." (Article of Faith 5)

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

  Of course.

Well, you're wrong, IMO.  If he had not acted upon any of his attractions or feelings, and was temple worthy in every other way, he was completely worthy to accept the calling and serve.  There are many who serve worthily who are gay or who have any range of sexual identity issues.

Edited July 20, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

2 hours 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.  

I think that when people make covenants, and the Lord knows they did so in such an ambiguous/fluid frame of mind that they cannot fairly submit their authentic will to His (as expressed in keeping the covenants by faith), He will alleviate them of that burden and extend the opportunity again when they can be truly accountable. He doesn’t change the covenants they need to keep.

The “Gethsemane” for some is to keep their covenants from an ambiguous position on the identity spectrum, whatever the subject of identity is, and that is between them and the Lord.

I was baptized in college some 42 years ago. The older man who fellowshipped and baptized me later confided in me, after my mission, that he was a transsexual (his term), a woman in man’s body (his self-description). He was a convert too, and explained how he wondered from his youth how he could look one way and believe himself to be another, but went through his outward life as the male he appeared to be outwardly and found and accepted the Gospel. He never married, seemingly in good faith so as not to over-complicate another life/lives, but he kept the covenants he did make and honored the priesthood conferred upon him. He didn’t speak of acceptance or hopes of being “cured” but expressed that the Lord would take care of him, come what may. I think that was a healthy and admirable, if not difficult expectation to hold.

Edited July 20, 2017 by CV75

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I was wondering the same thing while listening to the interview.  Some speculate that this is why Tom Phillips was never excommunicated.  Do we know if anyone who's had their second anointing has ever been excommunicated in the church? 

His excommunication is a good indicator that he most likely did not receive the second anointing.

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You mean 15? 

Upon the death of the president of the church the First Presidency if dissolved.  The former counselors to the president return to their place in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (who would then number 14).  All the keys of the priesthood that have been restored to the earth are jointly held by these apostles.  They have the authority to lead and guide the church until a new presidency is set apart.

[strappinglad]

I was just listening to an interview with a pastor who some time back was leading a flock of about 100 souls and making 30,000 dollars a year. He then expanded his ministry  through social media , primarily Facebook, and now brings in over 2 million dollars per year. Nice work if you can get it. Some here may want to research the options and expand their wings progressive-wise.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You mean 15? 

With the death of the Church president, there would no longer be 15.

But in any event, I think the title is still Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, its the low margins and restrictions on non-profit orgs that I don't like.  Give me a high margin, for profit religion!  

Hi-jacking an existing church is more lucrative than starting your own. Got it.

2 Nephi 26:29.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, you're wrong, IMO.  If he had not acted upon any of his attractions or feelings, and was temple worthy in every other way, he was completely worthy to accept the calling and serve.  There are many who serve worthily who are gay or who have any range of sexual identity issues.

We'll have to disagree. It is fundamental dishonesty. "Is there anything that would preclude you from serving in this calling?" "Well, other than believing I am really a woman, no."

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's fine if we want to discuss human institutions, but we're talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here.  We believe than the Lord has chosen prophets to lead and guide the church.  We believe that they receive inspiration and revelation from Him to do so.  "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." (Article of Faith 5)

You can't separate the human from the equation.  

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think that when people make covenants, and the Lord knows they did so in such an ambiguous/fluid frame of mind that they cannot fairly submit their authentic will to His (as expressed in keeping the covenants by faith), He will alleviate them of that burden and extend the opportunity again when they can be truly accountable. He doesn’t change the covenants they need to keep.

The “Gethsemane” for some is to keep their covenants from an ambiguous position on the identity spectrum, whatever the subject of identity is, and that is between them and the Lord.

I was baptized in college some 42 years ago. The older man who fellowshipped and baptized me later confided in me, after my mission, that he was a transsexual (his term), a woman in man’s body (his self-description). He was a convert too, and explained how he wondered from his youth how he could look one way and believe himself to be another, but went through his outward life as the male he appeared to be outwardly and found and accepted the Gospel. He never married, seemingly in good faith so as not to over-complicate another life/lives, but he kept the covenants he did make and honored the priesthood conferred upon him. He didn’t speak of acceptance or hopes of being “cured” but expressed that the Lord would take care of him, come what may. I think that was a healthy and admirable, if not difficult expectation to hold.

I think that's a pretty charitable view to take, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.  

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

His excommunication is a good indicator that he most likely did not receive the second anointing.

Agreed.  Have you ever heard of anyone being excommunicated who has has their second anointing?  I just wondered if that has ever happened before.  

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just a thought, but when being called as a stake president, couldn't one who for life has doubted his sexual identity gracefully decline?

As I understand David/Laurie Lee Hall's position I'll hasten to add that I think the sort of faithfulness to which she claims to aspire is difficult, given her current position and Church Doctrine, respectively) but s/he still has a testimony of the foundational events and truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Yes, I have a fervent disagreement with her about the implications of her chosen course in light of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it isn't for me to doubt her testimony.  And sometimes it's hard for us mortals to see the end from the beginning.  I doubt he would have accepted a calling as a bishop or as a stake president if he had known he would be where he is today.  

On the other hand, perhaps he saw one or both of those callings as a sign of God's continuing favor, his struggles notwithstanding. I've had callings like that, one in particular that I can think of.  Once, I was called as a counselor in an Elders Quorum Presidency.  (Stop laughing!   It's true!  I was!)  OK.  Go ahead.  Keep laughing.  You're right.  It is pretty funny .  The truth is, I wasn't a very good counselor to my Elders Quorum President.  Honestly, I think one of the very few reasons I got the calling was so that the Lord, through the High Councilor who acted as voice when I was set apart, could tell that He was "pleased with the course of my life."  I needed, quite desperately, to hear that at the time.   And I've kept a card from a brother whose PPI I attended who wrote to tell me that he had a similar experience and felt the Lord's love for him when I prayed for him at the end of the PPI.  (I've got this strange wet stuff in my eyes now, recalling those experiences; Soy todohombre!  Nunca lloro! )