Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How to reconcile mixed messages from The Church


Recommended Posts

Posted

I watched this video and resonated with the confusion of The Church approving the baptism of a trans woman as a woman of record etc. Those actions conflict in my mind with messages of eternal gender and mariage from the pulpit.  
 

Are LGBTQ+ folks the current version of what blacks and the priesthood were pre- 1978? Is the proclamation wrong?  Not sure how to feel

 

 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I've known that gays could get baptized. My big question is, can a trans-woman be sealed to a man?

No.

Quote

A transgender person may be baptized and confirmed if he or she is not pursuing elective medical or surgical intervention to attempt to transition to the opposite of his or her biological sex at birth (“sex reassignment”).

Mission presidents should counsel with the Area Presidency to address individual situations with sensitivity and Christlike love.

A person who has completed sex reassignment through elective medical or surgical intervention must have First Presidency approval to be baptized. The mission president may request this approval if he has interviewed the person, found him or her to be otherwise worthy, and can recommend baptism. The person will not be able to receive the priesthood, a temple recommend, or some Church callings. However, he or she can participate in the Church in other ways.

For more information, see 38.6.23.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#p2800

Edited by Calm
Posted (edited)

Baptizing trans folks has been around since my mission in the late 90's and probably earlier than so I am not confused. What confuses me is how the host is in a leadership calling. He is doing the exact same thing, promulgating his point of view. 

does the church excommunicate anyone for apostasy? yes, and he told us he was in on a membership council, theoretically doing that or a possibility of that as an option

I am confused why he doesn't share examples of conservatives doing the same thing he is fighting against. 

My son is trans and was bullied by his YM Pres and counselor, and then sometime later the YM Pres. became a Stake Pres. member and they saw that as a promotion and therefore their behaviour was justified by God and they were done and done on the Church and God. The revelation I got was don't worry, God will take care of him in the next life, as he will with 99.9% of everyone who has ever lived.

 

he is against activism but its what he wants actually-at the 25:27 mark

It sounds like he is sowing confusion, he wants us to share the video to make people confused?

Major problem in the Church on confusion, 26 min. mark-how does he know? He only shared a few old examples from Utah

He is pro Prophet but confused at the so called mixed messages from the Prophet, that is confusing to me. 

Fully supports the brethren but is confused

 

"bringing awareness" ? 27 min. mark, but not activism...working with proper priesthood channels, you mean like have a podcast and sharing your POV? how is that working within priesthood channels?

 

besides, his wife isn't wearing a garment top in their FB profile photo, should that be confusing to people? Maybe he should cleanse the inner vessel first?

 

 

Edited by Duncan
Posted
12 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I watched this video and resonated with the confusion of The Church approving the baptism of a trans woman as a woman of record etc. Those actions conflict in my mind with messages of eternal gender and mariage from the pulpit.  
 

Are LGBTQ+ folks the current version of what blacks and the priesthood were pre- 1978? Is the proclamation wrong?  Not sure how to feel

 

 

What were the circumstances / context / semantics of  "The Church approving the baptism of a trans woman as a woman of record etc."? Thank you.

Posted
3 hours ago, Joshua said:

If there is ever a day when the leadership of the church allows biological males that think they're female to participate in events involving only young women, I will consider that to be the day that the church has lost the struggle against those individuals who are actively working to destroy it. 

How about old women? We had a trans woman in relief society with us for a few years.  I stopped sitting by her because she took too much leg room. 
 

Posted
4 hours ago, Joshua said:

The LGB Movement isn't the same as the T Movement. The church can't give up ground to the T movement. If they do, the church will lose all credibility. 

Back when it was called the LGB community transgender and other people who now identify as queer were included. They were considered to fall under the B umbrella. The T is not a group isolated from the rest of the community.

There was an early disagreement on whether it would be the LGB or GLB movement. The L was given the first position primarily due to their kindness in the 1980s for their care of the rest of the community who contracted HIV. Many lesbians were nurses since that was a career path acceptable for single women then and in the decades before. They also won the conflict to tie the movement more strongly to feminism in general.

Posted
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What were the circumstances / context / semantics of  "The Church approving the baptism of a trans woman as a woman of record etc."? Thank you.

The specific instance that Jacob is referring to is the case of a sister Lauren Harrigian featured on Richard Ostler's Listen Learn and Love podcast (episodes 540 and 545 https://www.listenlearnandlove.org/transgender-and-more-podcasts). Of course, you can browse Br. Ostler's episode list for other anecdotes involving transgender/gender queer LDS. From what I have seen, Jacob has long had a "grudge" (for lack of a better word) against Br. Ostler for "promoting" LGBTQ+ stories in faithful LDS contexts.

That said, I tend to agree with Jacob. As one who leans more progressive than Jacob, I experience the same kind of confusion about what the church actually believes and practices in many things. I don't know what to do about it, because I'm not sure the church ought to be stricter in enforcing all of its beliefs and practices, or if it ought to be more lenient, or exactly what the church ought to do about it. The point is, I see the same kinds of confusion and mixed messages from the church.

Posted
49 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The specific instance that Jacob is referring to is the case of a sister Lauren Harrigian featured on Richard Ostler's Listen Learn and Love podcast (episodes 540 and 545 https://www.listenlearnandlove.org/transgender-and-more-podcasts). Of course, you can browse Br. Ostler's episode list for other anecdotes involving transgender/gender queer LDS. From what I have seen, Jacob has long had a "grudge" (for lack of a better word) against Br. Ostler for "promoting" LGBTQ+ stories in faithful LDS contexts.

That said, I tend to agree with Jacob. As one who leans more progressive than Jacob, I experience the same kind of confusion about what the church actually believes and practices in many things. I don't know what to do about it, because I'm not sure the church ought to be stricter in enforcing all of its beliefs and practices, or if it ought to be more lenient, or exactly what the church ought to do about it. The point is, I see the same kinds of confusion and mixed messages from the church.

That is exactly my only point of confusion too.  If they had baptized the person in question and had them on record as a male, I would not be even the slightest bit puzzled, but the fact that this person is apparently on record as female gives me pause - especially in light of the messaging from the Q15 about the eternal nature of gender and the family proclamation.  If the Prophet ever does approve SSM, or gender reversals, or priesthood for women etc. I suppose I need to be ready to seek spiritual confirmation to fall in line, but right now, I feel like I am getting mixed messaging. 

Posted
14 hours ago, Duncan said:

Baptizing trans folks has been around since my mission in the late 90's and probably earlier than so I am not confused. What confuses me is how the host is in a leadership calling. He is doing the exact same thing, promulgating his point of view. 

does the church excommunicate anyone for apostasy? yes, and he told us he was in on a membership council, theoretically doing that or a possibility of that as an option

I am confused why he doesn't share examples of conservatives doing the same thing he is fighting against. 

My son is trans and was bullied by his YM Pres and counselor, and then sometime later the YM Pres. became a Stake Pres. member and they saw that as a promotion and therefore their behaviour was justified by God and they were done and done on the Church and God. The revelation I got was don't worry, God will take care of him in the next life, as he will with 99.9% of everyone who has ever lived.

 

he is against activism but its what he wants actually-at the 25:27 mark

It sounds like he is sowing confusion, he wants us to share the video to make people confused?

Major problem in the Church on confusion, 26 min. mark-how does he know? He only shared a few old examples from Utah

He is pro Prophet but confused at the so called mixed messages from the Prophet, that is confusing to me. 

Fully supports the brethren but is confused

 

"bringing awareness" ? 27 min. mark, but not activism...working with proper priesthood channels, you mean like have a podcast and sharing your POV? how is that working within priesthood channels?

 

besides, his wife isn't wearing a garment top in their FB profile photo, should that be confusing to people? Maybe he should cleanse the inner vessel first?

 

 

I am sorry your child was bullied - so unacceptable.  I commend you for your grace in that situation.

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you. Who approved Lauren's baptism, and what policy point is confusing?

First Presidency approved it as they have to in all known cases and she is on church records as female.  She transitioned before baptism if I understand correctly, just listened to part of it, and defines herself as a daughter of God in an eternal sense.  She is not allowed to attend the temple and have those ordinances done for her and she is comfortable with that.

So my guess is the confusing part is the Church teaches gender is eternal, where gender is used interchangeably with biological sex but allowing her to be recorded as female implies that biological sex may not be interchangeable with gender and gender may be an internal state of being that is usually associated with biological sex, but not always in mortality.

If she is on church records as female, one might assume when proxy work is done for her (assuming she does not receive it before death), it will be done for her as a female.  Though I suspect at this point there is an annotation on her record that she is transgender and even if by some misfortune she were to die tomorrow, no work would likely be done for her until further revelation occurs, whether for her specific case or something that establishes a general policy for doing temple work.

Edited by Calm
Posted

I haven't watched the video but is there any chance she was born intersex?   That could explain why the church felt comfortable putting her gender as female when she was raised male.

Posted
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't watched the video but is there any chance she was born intersex?   That could explain why the church felt comfortable putting her gender as female when she was raised male.

I am listening to the first episode and there is no mention of intersex, just gender dysphoria.

I am surprised she transitioned medically after baptism rather than beforehand.

Posted (edited)

Okay, got confused because she talked about being in Arizona and then moving to Salt Lake while in the second one she had moved from Logan to Arizona after being a member, so I thought she had moved back to Utah.

So back to she transitioned before joining the Church, which is why she had sister missionaries teach her.  If I heard it correctly, she moved to Salt Lake because they had gender surgery available there.  She lived in Utah from 2020 to 2022.

Edited by Calm
Posted (edited)

She requested sister missionaries online and did not mention she was transgendered, so in that sense the Church did not actively affirm her transitioning, but the leadership knew by the time of baptism.  Iirc, she said it wasn’t dealt with/mentioned by the sisters until the third lesson, I am guessing the one that deals with chastity.

She attends a single adult ward.  She got baptized June 10, 2022.  The podcast was done a couple of weeks later.  Took 4 months to get approval from the time the MP wrote the letter, I believe.

Edited by Calm
Posted

Let's not forget that their was a Stake President in Utah, who worked for the Temple Dept. He was some kind of a Architect. He experienced gender dysphoria and then IIRC transitioned after he was released and then was exed. Also IIRC she was interviewed on mormon stories some years ago. I haven't heard anything about them since that interview though. 

Posted
55 minutes ago, Calm said:

First Presidency approved it as they have to in all known cases and she is on church records as female.  She*** correction (she decided to transition beforehand but is sounds like medical transition continued after baptism) transitioned before baptism if I understand correctly, just listened to part of it, and defines herself as a daughter of God in an eternal sense.  She is not allowed to attend the temple and have those ordinances done for her and she is comfortable with that.

So my guess is the confusing part is the Church teaches gender is eternal, where gender is used interchangeably with biological sex but allowing her to be recorded as female implies that biological sex may not be interchangeable with gender and gender may be an internal state of being that is usually associated with biological sex, but not always in mortality.

If she is on church records as female, one might assume when proxy work is done for her (assuming she does not receive it before death), it will be done for her as a female.  Though I suspect at this point there is an annotation on her record that she is transgender and even if by some misfortune she were to die tomorrow, no work would likely be done for her until further revelation occurs, whether for her specific case or something that establishes a general policy for doing temple work.

Thank you! At least it seems the First Presidency is following the Handbook, so that's good!

I take the Handbook and descriptors such as "biological sex at birth" to refer to situations arising in mortality, where the birth ocurrs and the kingdom of God on the earth operates. So, gender is eternal (doctrine), was organized and expressed spiritually before naturally upon the earth (terrestrial / paradisaical creation), is generally expressed biologically at mortal birth (observation), and for some can be a complex experience (handbook), requiring our direct reliance upon the Lord to prevail (doctrine).

Our internal mental states (including self-identity) can be very complex, and the First Presidency exercises the keys for God's work upon the earth without defining our personal interpretations and experiences of His work as we receive and apply the gospel. They only define our covenant behavior as members of the Church in general terms, so we each must learn to fill in the details by the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

I take confusion to be a normal, personal / specific subjective reaction to general policy that, while internally consistent and objective, is not designed to replace our more personal (subjective) covenant (objective) relationship with God.

Posted
11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Confusing indeed. 

It reminds me of the mixed messages and conflicting actions that were happening in the church before blacks were allowed the priesthood.  At the time, the policy was that anyone with black ancestry was prohibited from receiving the priesthood, based on scriptural "doctrine".   We were taught that the scriptures and doctrines influenced the policies and that the doctrines are immutable, yet the practice in Brazil and elsewhere was to give them the priesthood anyway, despite the policy and "doctrine".  That conflicting practice is thought to be one of the reasons for the change in the ban.  Is this the same trajectory?  A repeat of history? The same split in views, teachings, and practices surrounding certain "doctrines"?   Change in how we perceive "doctrine" is not all bad, and despite @Joshua claims that all credibility would be lost if change happens, if history is any indicator, then members will conform to change despite contradiction of statements and decades of teachings about certain "doctrines" - why would it be different this time than with the change in the priesthood?

I share the confusion that Jacob expresses, but unlike Jacob, I join hands with all the church leaders whom he is promoting grass roots activism against in this video.  I am delighted that baptisms like this are taking place because like with blacks and the priesthood, it shows the questionable nature of the "doctrines" as currently being taught.    

I didn't get activism from Jacob - I thought he was pretty clear that he supports the brethren.  I think, like me, he would like a clarification from them as to how to reconcile these apparently contradictory messages coming from the top.  

And I agree totally - you expressed my sentiments - are we at the 1976 part of the 1978 priesthood ban reversal in therms of sea change in LGBTQ+ doctrine and policy?  I don't know, but in this quick paced internet world, I think it will be harmful if there isn't a speedy resolution or direction from the top.

Posted
48 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I didn't get activism from Jacob - I thought he was pretty clear that he supports the brethren.  I think, like me, he would like a clarification from them as to how to reconcile these apparently contradictory messages coming from the top.  

I see things differently, but that is ok.  It felt to me like he wanted more than simple clarification.  I think his intent is to get members to point out the contradiction to their leaders in order to influence action.   He seemed bent at wanting grass roots members to actively highlight the contradiction, and even encouraging them to show his video to local leaders to further his voice and his realm of biased influence.  It seems he is not happy that no action is being taken against those who are publishing Books and podcasts that he sees as contrary to what he believes and wants that to change.  From what I can see, he seems displeased that leadership is not doing anything to silence these church members/leaders, so he is trying to motivate action and perhaps even to change the practice of baptizing trans people with their preferred gender listed on church records.   It seems clear that he is not happy about that and wants change.  It is a lot like how some political commentators (I won't name names) couch things in "I'm just asking questions?"

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

I didn't get activism from Jacob - I thought he was pretty clear that he supports the brethren.  I think, like me, he would like a clarification from them as to how to reconcile these apparently contradictory messages coming from the top.  

And I agree totally - you expressed my sentiments - are we at the 1976 part of the 1978 priesthood ban reversal in therms of sea change in LGBTQ+ doctrine and policy?  I don't know, but in this quick paced internet world, I think it will be harmful if there isn't a speedy resolution or direction from the top.

What is the mixed message from the top, for example, from the Handbook on baptizing transgendered people?

Is the policy confused (doesn't hang together well), or is the confusion a personal, subjective reaction to a policy that is internally consistent?

Posted
19 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I watched this video and resonated with the confusion of The Church approving the baptism of a trans woman as a woman of record etc. Those actions conflict in my mind with messages of eternal gender and mariage from the pulpit.  
 

Are LGBTQ+ folks the current version of what blacks and the priesthood were pre- 1978? Is the proclamation wrong?  Not sure how to feel

 

 

Thank God we do not have a central "magisterium" to freeze language into Dogma.

Thank God each individual consults with the Spirit to receive guidance for his/her own questions 

Thank God that our church government is based, not on a King with alleged Infallible mind, but upon an American model tiny units called "wards" headed by theological amateurs who do the best they can, much like local government influencing state government influencing federal government after years of development 

As always we need to get our own opinions first and wait until they trickle up the chain.

Such is life.  Figure it out yourself through the Spirit. Never vary from that, NEVER unless you know the spirit is guiding you along the road, and yes the scenery DOES change on the path

On the road, sometimes it's a right turn, sometimes left, depending on where you started 

 

Posted
55 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see things differently, but that is ok.  It felt to me like he wanted more than simple clarification.  I think his intent is to get members to point out the contradiction to their leaders in order to influence action.   He seemed bent at wanting grass roots members to actively highlight the contradiction, and even encouraging them to show his video to local leaders to further his voice and his realm of biased influence.  It seems he is not happy that no action is being taken against those who are publishing Books and podcasts that he sees as contrary to what he believes and wants that to change.  From what I can see, he seems displeased that leadership is not doing anything to silence these church members/leaders, so he is trying to motivate action and perhaps even to change the practice of baptizing trans people with their preferred gender listed on church records.   It seems clear that he is not happy about that and wants change.  It is a lot like how some political commentators (I won't name names) couch things in "I'm just asking questions?"

 

 

I can see your point!

 

Posted
52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the mixed message from the top, for example, from the Handbook on baptizing transgendered people?

Is the policy confused (doesn't hang together well), or is the confusion a personal, subjective reaction to a policy that is internally consistent?

I guess I will have to peruse the policy better to see - and if it doesn't clarify what gender they should be on records once baptized, then I suppose no official policy has been violated - though a 'doctrine' or gender being fixed and eternal seems to be contradicted.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...