- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Some of those who have read my past posts know that I have argued that women are already ordained to the priesthood in our church, but it is not recognized as such… leaving such arguments aside for now… Well, another thought struck me. Apparently a number of people in Brazil went through the temple and elsewhere, pre-1978, and later found out that they had black ancestry.
I can see new definitions of gender causing similar issues in the near future. When a man is baptized, they don’t exactly check his anatomy or genes. If a person is born a woman and elects to become a trans male, how would the church know? In some countries birth certificates are now changed by law to reflect someone’s chosen gender. But they never even checked my birth certificate.
It makes me wonder if a F to M transsexual has been ordained already, and how the church would react when it was revealed. It would be a major embarrassment for the church, but I think it would be so easy to do. The person sticks with the program six months and gets the AP. Two or three years and it’s through the temple.
I know for certain that there are trans women who were ordained when they were men. I also know this causes varying levels of distress for some (whether or not they have had reassignment surgery), since they felt like girls / women at the time of their ordination but couldn’t say anything. I am positive that is one reason why reassignment surgery triggers automatic excommunication: the Church doesn’t want women on the records who have been ordained to an office in the Priesthood and, technically, are deacons, teachers, priests, elders, or high priests. I hope they can be rebaptized, if they want to do so, and simply not receive the Priesthood ordination under the current policy.
It is something they ask converts, if I’m remembering right. Of course you can lie… but that wouldn’t cause much more embarassment than many incidents which have happened already. The first gay/trans marriage in Utah was performed in the Salt Lake temple, by a sealer, under the priesthood authority(Bruce Jensen & Felix Urioste), in 1991. Not to mention, the countless who have lied about “worthiness” to act in certain callings and capacities, with disasterous results. It is possible, but I don’t think it’d do much of anything TBH. What would it prove? That Church leaders can be lied to and decieved? We know that already. That a biological woman can hold the priesthood under false pretense? The Church wouldn’t recognize it, nor most of the membership if they found out. And if they took the secret to their grave, I doubt it’d matter.
M2F I can see easily. I know one member who is a cross dresser (no reassignment) but the church would consider him a man no matter what. F2M could be very complicated and hard to spot if someone was willing to keep quiet about it.
dande48 wrote:
It is possible, but I don’t think it’d do much of anything TBH. What would it prove? That Church leaders can be lied to and decieved? We know that already. That a biological woman can hold the priesthood under false pretense? The Church wouldn’t recognize it, nor most of the membership if they found out. And if they took the secret to their grave, I doubt it’d matter.
Political point scoring. Remember the guns have been out for the LDS over its bad handling of LGBT matters. Certain non-LDS media would lap up this story. Some activists – well they love publicity.
I think such a person may struggle with the commitment to get to the temple. However AP ordination would be *very* easy.
I know for a fact occultists have been through the temple, probably spies (in East Germany), and umpteen people whose worthiness is questionable.
On the plus side, this tactic is probably preferable to the violent/hands on methods of certain gay rights activists a few years ago.
SamBee wrote:
Political point scoring.
With who? The people who agreed with them already?
SamBee wrote:
On the plus side, this tactic is probably preferable to the violent/hands on methods of certain gay rights activists a few years ago.
Any tactic is better than violence.
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Political point scoring.
With who? The people who agreed with them already?
Pretty much. One can see it happening online all the time. A lot of mutual backslapping and preaching to the converted. It’s my main gripe with American politics… like Facebook, all these people in an echo chamber thinking most of the world agrees with them, because those who disagree have blocked them.
We live in a world which is becoming Andy Warhol’s fifteen minutes of fame. But who knows, such a person might get a few interviews and even a book deal out of it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.