Help from our leaders...


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I was just hoping you’d keep the depth on the other thread. I simply wanted to know why Church leaders seem quieter than usual right now- as in the last few months and especially the last few weeks. Probably because of the quarantine and they aren’t in public gatherings and meetings where they would be quoted in the news.

They're not quiet at all.  My son spent around 75 days stuck in the Manila MTC and they got DAILY devotionals from the Prophet down to Area 70's taking turns speaking to them daily.  He has spent the last few days out on the mission field and I didn't ask him if they're still doing daily devotionals.  Maybe they still do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

They're not quiet at all.  My son spent around 75 days stuck in the Manila MTC and they got DAILY devotionals from the Prophet down to Area 70's taking turns speaking to them daily.  He has spent the last few days out on the mission field and I didn't ask him if they're still doing daily devotionals.  Maybe they still do.

That’s good to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobMaster said:
1 hour ago, laronius said:

You've list me @BobMaster who is this disciple that is so confused about gender identity?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number118

Transgender individuals face complex challenges. Members and nonmembers who identify as transgender—and their family and friends—should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love. All are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, other Sunday meetings, and social events of the Church (see 38.1.1).

Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth. Some people experience feelings of incongruence between their biological sex and their gender identity. As a result, they may identify as transgender. The Church does not take a position on the causes of people identifying themselves as transgender.

Most Church participation and some priesthood ordinances are gender neutral. Transgender persons may be baptized and confirmed as outlined in 38.2.3.14. They may also partake of the sacrament and receive priesthood blessings. However, priesthood ordination and temple ordinances are received according to birth sex.

Bob, I am sincerely confused. You offer the above quotation from the General Handbook in answer to the question, "Who is this disciple that is so confused about gender identity?" Yet the quotation you cite evinces no confusion about gender identity, but only affirms that some people feel such confusion. It maintains that we should be Christlike to all people, including those who call themselves "transgender". It defines what "transgender" means in this context and declares that the Church takes no position on the causes (not on the morality!) of such identification.

Do you disagree with any of the above? I don't see how any Saint can disagree. It's all obviously true. You may feel that the Handbook should take more of an openly moralistic stance against transgenderism. But that is a question of communication style, not one of doctrinal explication.

The last paragraph might be considered problematic. But consider: People are baptized in their imperfections. We have a bar people must meet for baptism, but to be perfectly frank, the bar is not very high (from the perspective of those who are already Saints; from the convert's perspective, the bar is high indeed). We expect people to give themselves over to Christ, to strive to obey him and turn their lives to him. We expect them to cease fornications, lyings, deceivings, and other such unholy activities. In today's Church, we expect them to refrain from certain overt activities that explicitly violate the Word of Wisdom, though this standard is not evenly applied and is relatively recent.

The point is, we do NOT expect proselytes to live in a perfect manner before they are baptized. We do not expect that they will abandon all beliefs or practices contrary to Church teachings. Even you and I, middle-aged men of long standing in the Church, cannot meet that standard. We meet, perhaps, a temple recommend-holding status, which is certainly a higher standard than that of the baptismal bar, but let's face it, still isn't really all that high. God allows us all sorts of foibles and weaknesses without completely denying us communion with him. He does not condemn us in our sins; he saves us from them.

So the last paragraph is the judgment of the leaders of Christ's kingdom that acting in a "transgendered" manner is not per se sufficient to deny people the covenant of baptism, including the gift of the Holy Ghost, which may well be the only way these people can ever hope to overcome the "transgenderism" that afflicts them. Yes, they must cease fornications and open lasciviousness and whoredoms and lyings. But it appears that a boy saying that he feels like he's a girl and likes to wear dresses (or a girl saying she feels and wants to dress like a boy) is not in itself sufficient to disqualify a potential convert.

Is this what you really, fundamentally disagree with? I suspect it is.

If I am correct, then honestly, I'm not completely without sympathy for your point of view. I, too, am bothered by the creeping (so-called) tolerance we see in society, where any and all manner of perversions are to be accepted—except the horrific perversion of actually naming such things to be perversions. I, too, see such attitudes creeping into the membership of the kingdom of God. I hate to witness such things.

But here's the catch: I'm not an apostle. It is not my place to steady the ark. Nor is it yours. We are anointed, but not as the leader's in God's kingdom today. Those who have received that anointing are making such decisions carefully and, I believe, under the guidance of the Lord through the influence of his Spirit.

I have condensed what would have been probably an eight- or ten-post question and response down to the above, in hopes of moving the conversation along. Please let me know if I have understood correctly. The evidence you were trying to offer above boils down to: The apostles say that transgendered people can be baptized, and you don't like that. I think this is a fair summary. Is it? If so, I wonder what your thoughts are on steadying the ark.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The evidence you were trying to offer above boils down to: The apostles say that transgendered people can be baptized, and you don't like that. I think this is a fair summary. Is it? If so, I wonder what your thoughts are on steadying the ark.

Wait, what?  This is an issue?  I don't remember anything saying transgendered or even gay people can't be baptized - except for the recent instructions that we don't baptize children in gay marriage households (not that we don't baptize gay children).  I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Wait, what?  This is an issue?  I don't remember anything saying transgendered or even gay people can't be baptized - except for the recent instructions that we don't baptize children in gay marriage households (not that we don't baptize gay children).  I'm confused.

You may have misread what I wrote and/or misunderstood my intent. I'm voicing my understanding of Bob's take on things and asking if I got it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Bob, I am sincerely confused. You offer the above quotation from the General Handbook in answer to the question, "Who is this disciple that is so confused about gender identity?" Yet the quotation you cite evinces no confusion about gender identity, but only affirms that some people feel such confusion. It maintains that we should be Christlike to all people, including those who call themselves "transgender". It defines what "transgender" means in this context and declares that the Church takes no position on the causes (not on the morality!) of such identification.

Do you disagree with any of the above? I don't see how any Saint can disagree. It's all obviously true. You may feel that the Handbook should take more of an openly moralistic stance against transgenderism. But that is a question of communication style, not one of doctrinal explication.

The last paragraph might be considered problematic. But consider: People are baptized in their imperfections. We have a bar people must meet for baptism, but to be perfectly frank, the bar is not very high (from the perspective of those who are already Saints; from the convert's perspective, the bar is high indeed). We expect people to give themselves over to Christ, to strive to obey him and turn their lives to him. We expect them to cease fornications, lyings, deceivings, and other such unholy activities. In today's Church, we expect them to refrain from certain overt activities that explicitly violate the Word of Wisdom, though this standard is not evenly applied and is relatively recent.

The point is, we do NOT expect proselytes to live in a perfect manner before they are baptized. We do not expect that they will abandon all beliefs or practices contrary to Church teachings. Even you and I, middle-aged men of long standing in the Church, cannot meet that standard. We meet, perhaps, a temple recommend-holding status, which is certainly a higher standard than that of the baptismal bar, but let's face it, still isn't really all that high. God allows us all sorts of foibles and weaknesses without completely denying us communion with him. He does not condemn us in our sins; he saves us from them.

So the last paragraph is the judgment of the leaders of Christ's kingdom that acting in a "transgendered" manner is not per se sufficient to deny people the covenant of baptism, including the gift of the Holy Ghost, which may well be the only way these people can ever hope to overcome the "transgenderism" that afflicts them. Yes, they must cease fornications and open lasciviousness and whoredoms and lyings. But it appears that a boy saying that he feels like he's a girl and likes to wear dresses (or a girl saying she feels and wants to dress like a boy) is not in itself sufficient to disqualify a potential convert.

Is this what you really, fundamentally disagree with? I suspect it is.

If I am correct, then honestly, I'm not completely without sympathy for your point of view. I, too, am bothered by the creeping (so-called) tolerance we see in society, where any and all manner of perversions are to be accepted—except the horrific perversion of actually naming such things to be perversions. I, too, see such attitudes creeping into the membership of the kingdom of God. I hate to witness such things.

But here's the catch: I'm not an apostle. It is not my place to steady the ark. Nor is it yours. We are anointed, but not as the leader's in God's kingdom today. Those who have received that anointing are making such decisions carefully and, I believe, under the guidance of the Lord through the influence of his Spirit.

I have condensed what would have been probably an eight- or ten-post question and response down to the above, in hopes of moving the conversation along. Please let me know if I have understood correctly. The evidence you were trying to offer above boils down to: The apostles say that transgendered people can be baptized, and you don't like that. I think this is a fair summary. Is it? If so, I wonder what your thoughts are on steadying the ark.

Bob will not be answering your post anytime soon.

Characteristically, in his innuendoes about the Church’s supposedly weakening views on transgender folk, he omitted Handbook section 38.6.21; which covers “social transitions” as well as surgical transitions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

You may have misread what I wrote and/or misunderstood my intent. I'm voicing my understanding of Bob's take on things and asking if I got it right.

Yes. I know that.  I was just wondering why this even came to be in question by Bob. 

Okay, maybe I'm even more confused than I thought... So Bob, in your understanding, thinks the Prophets have CHANGED the instructions on baptizing transgenders, right?  And his assertion is because the Prophets are trying to be "progressive" about it?  But it hasn't changed... so.... I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes. I know that.  I was just wondering why this even came to be in question by Bob. 

Okay, maybe I'm even more confused than I thought... So Bob, in your understanding, thinks the Prophets have CHANGED the instructions on baptizing transgenders, right?  And his assertion is because the Prophets are trying to be "progressive" about it?  But it hasn't changed... so.... I'm confused.

Bob will not be answering your post anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Bob will not be answering your post anytime soon.

Oh no... did you use the ban hammer?

I thought he was fine... I mean, he was wordy so I didn't really read most of what he posted, but he seems like just somebody with a different point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share