- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
You’re asking us questions we can’t answer Gerlinde. We’re not General Authorities and we’re not activists. Vent all you want but we can’t change anything. I can’t say everyone here agrees with you because I don’t know everyone’s thoughts and positions, but I can say from what I read here that the vast majority of people who post here agree with you. That’s about as much as you’re going to get. Gerlinde wrote:
No one chooses to be gay or transsexual! This has also accepted medicine and psychology, and changed its attitude.
This is something that the church has had a hard time accepting. It doesn’t fit our narrative very well about God sending us to earth to make good choices and build hetero-normative families and then have some individuals be born where that task would be destructive for them. I am gratified that the official church position on this is that many/most gay/transsexual individuals do not choose to be gay/transsexual.
Gerlinde wrote:
There is something I do not understand: on the one hand, the Church demands that its homosexual members be celibate; on the other hand, it is doing everything it can to prevent marriage for homosexuals.
I think the church would have a very hard time with homosexual sex sanctioned by the church in any way shape or form. We do have a history of sanctioning marital sex and even going so far as calling it holy and a “sacrament”. We do not reserve this sense of sanction for married sex only for church members. If homosexual individuals can be legally married does that mean that their marital intimate relations are now ok? I have witnessed the church take steps to clarify that such is not the case. First with the dreaded POX (Policy of excommunication/exclusion) and then later with clarifications in the temple ceremony and CHI that clarify that married homosexuals are still in violation of the law of chastity. I do personally feel that this will soften over time but looking and the rough prediction of Nibbler – we could be waiting a long time.
Gerlinde wrote:
And one more thing: Why are child rapists protected in the Church? I raise the issue because it concerns me.
I would not say that child rapists are protected in the church. I do believe (in general over the last 100 years) that in many organizations there have been accusations of misconduct against members/employees and those accusations were often handled inside the organization with a desire to be discreet. A large part of that desire has historically been to protect the reputation and “good name” of the organization and I believe a lesser part of that desire for discretion was to protect the reputation of the perpetrator and that of their family (remember that these sexual accusations are sordid details about members of the ward, people you sit next to on Sunday, etc.) Our church is similar. It has performed better than some organizations in this area and worse than others. More recently the church has made a fairly substantial effort to comply with all “mandatory reporter” laws. While I believe the church has done this mainly to avoid litigation, it has the side effect of bringing more abusers to legal justice than might have happened otherwise.I believe that the subject of “child rapists” is an especially terrible fit for a thread about transsexualism. If there is any desire to discuss this further let’s do it in a new thread.
Roy, what is the point of asking homosexuals to live celibate lives, but the Church is doing everything (see Proposition 8 in California) to prevent gay marriage? What is the point of denying that sexuality is more than having children? And why the hell does the Church conceal its homosexual history (the good, as well as the bad sides)? On the subject of child abuse: My own father had sexually abused me in the sixties and seventies. No one believed me, everyone believed him, the “upright man of God.” When I told the bishop, and my father and mother denied the abuse (although both knew what my father had done); I knew he was going to beat me to death. That’s why I shot him, and I was convicted in Idaho. Even in court, no one wanted to know what the history was. I was guilty because my father was considered innocent.
This wound has accompanied my life to this day. And perhaps there is a connection with my desire to be a man? I don’t know!!
Tough questions. I think there may be a disconnect. I’m not trying to be dismissive, but is the intent of the questions to get an answer or do the questions represent a vehicle to express your point of view?
If it’s looking for answers:
There’s no real answer to most questions that are related to why other people do the things they do, at least not satisfying ones. What are the options? Because they want to. Because that’s what they believe is the right thing to do. Because that’s what their environment conditioned them to do. Brain chemistry. Because they’re flawed.
Again, not to be dismissive. If you’re looking for answers I can do my best to answer… with the understanding that my answers are just my opinions.
If the questions are more about expressing frustrations:
I’m right there with you, the situation stinks. However well intentioned, some teachings and polices of the church can cause real harm to people. I truly am sorry you’re in the crosshairs. I’m also saddened that there are any crosshairs at all.
Quote:For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
I’d love it if the teachings and policies moved away from finding ways to condemn and move towards love, acceptance, and ministering.
nibbler wrote:Quote:For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
I’d love it if the teachings and policies moved away from finding ways to condemn and move towards love, acceptance, and ministering.
I am in general convinced that there are kinder and compassionate atheists in the world than likewise with Christians. So many claim to follow Jesus but are more judgmental and holier than though art, while those of us who gave up believing in the mormon Jesus now find humanity as a pure and sacred thing to care for, without the promise of rewards and praise.
About rape like situations, my father in law told me that his uncle was a rapist, but was also a baptist preacher in the south who “did no wrong”. Likewise, my mother did very unlike things to me, but the church views her as a kind wonderful soul. I think it’s generational more than just the mormons. A lot of these issues, from gender identity to sexual assault were taboo to discuss even 20 years ago. Most church leaders and local leaders are gen x or older, when it was harder to discuss these topics. So it’s no wonder the church struggles; it’s led by old men with 1920-1950s social standards who are unable to change because they are just too old to do so,
We might be straying from the topic a bit with the discussion about the church’s response to abuse. Like the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, public schools, and others, the CoJCoLDS responded differently to abuse 20 years ago than they do now. Likewise, there are individuals in any organization who are more likely to dismiss accusations and/or cover them up (or at least attempt to). Again, I’m not being apologetic or defending the church (or the Scouts or anybody else) in this respect but things have changed. Nowadays the church has very clear policies on what happens with the report of abuse and I think more people in general are aware of the pervasiveness of the problem and their own ability to do something about it. My state, and I think most states, has a 24-hour hotline where anyone can report suspected abuse even anonymously. And as a mandated reporter in my state, even the slightest suspicion is reportable (and I would/do report even minor suspicions because if I don’t and and it was later discovered I might have known or suspected my butt – and license – are on the line). Is there still going to be the rogue “good ole boy” who looks the other way and sweeps it under the rug? Undoubtedly – but he’s an endangered species these days. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
I had written a longer post but had technical issues and it has disappeared. I am very sorry for what you went through with your father. I know that it adds insult to injury when people do not believe your truth and it is all too common for people to not believe abuse victims.
Gerlinde wrote:
Roy, 1) what is the point of asking homosexuals to live celibate lives, 2) but the Church is doing everything (see Proposition 8 in California) to prevent gay marriage? 3) What is the point of denying that sexuality is more than having children? 4) And why the hell does the Church conceal its homosexual history (the good, as well as the bad sides)?
I added the numbers for clarity
The summary of what I had written before the internet swallowed it is as follows: 1) Church does not feel authorized or empowered to alter or allow exceptions to what are viewed as commands from God. 2) Church fought against Gay marriage for many reasons. One part of that motivation was that the church did not want to deal with all the ramifications of having gay married members. It is easier for the church to denounce extra-marital gay sex then it is to denounce gay-married sex between lifelong and devoted partners. The church fought the tide of change. 3) I do not believe that the church position on sexuality is that it is only for procreation. 4) I’m not sure what you mean by the church’s homosexual history. I assume you mean the church’s efforts in the 70’s and 80’s towards reparative therapy. The church tends to conceal (or ignore or downplay) any history that is not faith promoting. People do this in a desire to build faith in the church (and they believe that faith in the church is necessary for eternal happiness). Mostly I believe it is done innocently by people just wanting to talk about the positive.
Roy, if church leaders believe that they are not authorized to change anything; Why then did they allow men of color to be given the priesthood? Was it really a revelation from God, or was it not rather the internal and external pressure on the Church because of the racism of which the Church was accused, and why was it also accused by the civil rights organization? Wasn’t it the same with the abolition of polygamy? There came a revelation from God only when the Church was in danger of losing most of their possessions and the right to self-determination (loss of the right to vote and to stand for election)?
So why not a “new revelation” from God to change things in the Church?
Gerlinde wrote:
Roy, if church leaders believe that they are not authorized to change anything; Why then did they allow men of color to be given the priesthood? Was it really a revelation from God, or was it not rather the internal and external pressure on the Church because of the racism of which the Church was accused, and why was it also accused by the civil rights organization?Wasn’t it the same with the abolition of polygamy? There came a revelation from God only when the Church was in danger of losing most of their possessions and the right to self-determination (loss of the right to vote and to stand for election)?
So why not a “new revelation” from God to change things in the Church?
I can’t answer for Roy, but your last question is an easier one to answer than your previous rhetorical questions. There’s simply not enough pressure. It should be noted that in your examples (the priesthood and polygamy) the pressure was predominantly external, although the temple in Brazil was a concern regarding the priesthood restriction. I could see more external pressure regarding LGBTQ+ issues (refusing to play BYU in sports for example) than transsexualism itself. It’s just not there yet. It should also be noted that polygamy and the priesthood ban were unique to the CoJCoLDS, whereas there are other churches (and organizations) that have similar policies and teachings regarding homosexuality and transsexuality (including some very large Christian denominations, Orthodox Judaism, and Islam). That said, I do think the changes we have seen (softening of the tone) are the result of external pressure and that perhaps gays in the church are a little better off than some other churches where even being gay is still considered sinful and needs to be “fixed” or punished.
I agree with much of what DJ said. There is a tension is the church where we simultaneously believe that Jesus set up his perfect church over 2k years ago AND we believe that many great and important things are yet to be revealed.
In practice this tends towards a conservative approach of defending the status quo most of the time with relatively infrequent punctuations of change through revelation.
To me the revelation clause seems to serve as a pressure release valve. When the church is between a rock and a hard place and doubling down becomes increasingly untenable, revelation provides a way to deviate from past teachings without feeling like our integrity or principles have been corrupted.
Short answer, The church leaders that have the power to enact change are firm believers that the doctrines of the church are true and unchangeable. However, at times they can become sufficiently motivated to solve pressing issues facing the church that only a revelation (change from established teaching) will solve. Spending enough time searching, pondering, praying, and discussing a particular intractable problem seems to be a necessary prerequisite for revelation.
DarkJedi wrote:
We might be straying from the topic a bit with the discussion about the church’s response to abuse. Like the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, public schools, and others, the CoJCoLDS responded differently to abuse 20 years ago than they do now. Likewise, there are individuals in any organization who are more likely to dismiss accusations and/or cover them up (or at least attempt to).I wish this had been moved into it’s own thread. A thread on transexual issues is a fully uncool location for an In-depth discussion of CSA
NoahVail wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
We might be straying from the topic a bit with the discussion about the church’s response to abuse. Like the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, public schools, and others, the CoJCoLDS responded differently to abuse 20 years ago than they do now. Likewise, there are individuals in any organization who are more likely to dismiss accusations and/or cover them up (or at least attempt to).I wish this had been moved into it’s own thread. A thread on transexual issues is a fully uncool location for an In-depth discussion of CSA
I don’t disagree. Anyone is free to start such a thread (which will be closely moderated).
I agree Noah. I just finished the “Athlete A” documentary on Netflix about the abuse and coverup that occurred in the team USA gymnastics. It is a serious problem that deserves its own thread (and an issue that has nothing to do with transsexualism). Can you create such a thread to get the conversation going? Gerlinde wrote:This is an issue that concerns me personally.
I wonder why the Church has such great difficulties with the subject of transsexuality?
No one chooses to be transsexual voluntarily. No one chooses to be beaten, or killed by family, friends and/or rejected. No one chooses voluntarily to be expelled and excommunicated from a church that one loves with all one’s heart.
I also wonder if this has always been the case in the history of the Church? Can someone help me answer my questions?
The church will change their view on this as soon as the Catholic Church does. They don’t change anything until it become socially unpopular to be the outlier. Same went for homosexuality.ChfEngr wrote:
The church will change their view on this as soon as the Catholic Church does. They don’t change anything until it become socially unpopular to be the outlier. Same went for homosexuality.The RCC has made more progress in some areas than the LDS did at the same time. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church! We should know better and understand better than the Pope and his cardinals.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.