Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

Biological Males Shower with Females

Recommended Posts

https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/education/2021/05/19/college-ozarks-c-of-o-request-sidestep-anti-discrimination-housing-denied-sexual-orientation-gender/5151236001/

There is a lot of legalese going around exactly what the complaint was and what the ruling means.  But the bottom line is that there would have been no court proceedings at all if the college were allowed to segregate biological males (identifying as females) from biological females in showers, bathrooms, and dormitories.

I am reminded of a proceeding decades ago about BYU housing rules. "Off campus housing" was inspected and approved by BYU standards office.  You then got a special certification that you were "BYU approved housing." 

Someone began a lawsuit because they weren't a student at BYU, so why should they have to live BYU standards?  It was in the contract they signed when they moved in.  But they had no intention of living the rules.

As a response, BYU changed the rules and said, "BYU approved housing shall ONLY rent to BYU students."

Knowing the pattern of things, my guess is that there will come a time when the law forces the Church's hand regarding transgenders.  At some point, identifying as transgendered will be grounds for excommunication.  And at the same time, BYU will only accept members in good standing as students or employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/education/2021/05/19/college-ozarks-c-of-o-request-sidestep-anti-discrimination-housing-denied-sexual-orientation-gender/5151236001/

There is a lot of legalese going around exactly what the complaint was and what the ruling means.  But the bottom line is that there would have been no court proceedings at all if the college were allowed to segregate biological males (identifying as females) from biological females in showers, bathrooms, and dormitories.

I am reminded of a proceeding decades ago about BYU housing rules. "Off campus housing" was inspected and approved by BYU standards office.  You then got a special certification that you were "BYU approved housing." 

Someone began a lawsuit because they weren't a student at BYU, so why should they have to live BYU standards?  It was in the contract they signed when they moved in.  But they had no intention of living the rules.

As a response, BYU changed the rules and said, "BYU approved housing shall ONLY rent to BYU students."

Knowing the pattern of things, my guess is that there will come a time when the law forces the Church's hand regarding transgenders.  At some point, identifying as transgendered will be grounds for excommunication.  And at the same time, BYU will only accept members in good standing as students or employees.

I still think that BYU is doing this the hard way.

Non-Mormons and jack-Mormons primarily come to BYU because tuition is dirt cheap—about $5-6K/year, compared to $40K+ any comparable private university.

So—fine.  Eliminate the Honor Code Office and raise tuition to $40K for everyone; and then the Church can directly administer $35K scholarships to temple-recommend-holders through the PEF.  Students devoted to the Gospel will still be attracted to BYU for the superabundance of fellow believers there; and the rabble-rousers will go back to state universities where they can play beer pong and engage in weekend orgies to their foul little hearts’ content.

And if the Church felt so inclined, at some point it could even expand the scholarship program for students who attend schools that aren’t part of the CES and essentially offer a college education to every worthy youth.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very different view of BYU housing ever since I become a landlord with rentals close to BYU.  Dealing with BYU housing is a nightmare.  First off there are federal laws against discrimination that are in direct conflict with BYU housing regulations.  Someday there will be a law suit but it is my personal goal to avoid any part of any problems created by BYU housing department.   I do two things to avoid problems.  First - I appeal more towards the higher end of the market.  My rentals defiantly are not cheap but they are well placed within upper end market prices for what is offered.   Second - I only rent to tenants that are recommended by current tenants.     We do not advertise openings.  There is one opening currently for fall in the complex for single males.

There is no smoking or drinking or illegal drugs allow on the property.  No one is allowed overnight guests without landlord and other tenant approval.   Interestingly most of my tenants are engineering students.  I have one tenant that finished his PHD in engineering two years ago.  He could have purchased a house on his income but preferred to stay in our (my wife and I) housing.  But he is the one opening this fall because he is getting married.  A real cool guy - I do not know how he avoided getting married sooner.

I use the method of Joseph Smith - correct principles are written up in a 6 page contract and the tenants govern themselves.  I would like to say we never have problems but anytime you deal with college aged young men there will be misunderstandings - but it has only been once that problems could not be resolved and I had to evict a tenant.  One other troubling thing, at least for me, is how many rent payments are made by Bishops.

About 8 years ago I went through the process to become BYU approved.  We passed all the inspections - completed the committee approval and then the last minute the department head of the student housing department canceled the approval and refused to tell us why or what we needed to meet his approval.   I seriously think he got me mixed up with someone else but refused to meet so I will never know for sure.  I was recently contacted that there was a new department head but have decided it just is not worth the effort.  I cannot think of a single benefit I will get by becoming BYU approved housing.  And I do not want to deal with that bureaucracy which has nothing to do with official organization or any revelation.  It is my personal opinion that there should not be a student approved off campus housing department.  Recommended housing would be something different and if I had any input - the recommended housing would include tenant reviews.  Reviews, all by themselves, would be a great improvement to current thinking and implementation.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

At some point, identifying as transgendered will be grounds for excommunication.  And at the same time, BYU will only accept members in good standing as students or employees.

Some of the current handbook stuff, bolding mine:

Quote

Transgender Individuals

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 biological sex at birth.

Church leaders counsel against elective medical or surgical intervention for the purpose of attempting to transition to the opposite gender of a person’s biological sex at birth (“sex reassignment”). Leaders advise that taking these actions will be cause for Church membership restrictions.

Leaders also counsel against social transitioning. A social transition includes changing dress or grooming, or changing a name or pronouns, to present oneself as other than his or her biological sex at birth. Leaders advise that those who socially transition will experience some Church membership restrictions for the duration of this transition.

Restrictions include receiving or exercising the priesthood, receiving or using a temple recommend, and receiving some Church callings. Although some privileges of Church membership are restricted, other Church participation is welcomed.

Transgender individuals who do not pursue medical, surgical, or social transition to the opposite gender and are worthy may receive Church callings, temple recommends, and temple ordinances.

Some children, youth, and adults are prescribed hormone therapy by a licensed medical professional to ease gender dysphoria or reduce suicidal thoughts. Before a person begins such therapy, it is important that he or she (and the parents of a minor) understands the potential risks and benefits. If these members are not attempting to transition to the opposite gender and are worthy, they may receive Church callings, temple recommends, and temple ordinances.

If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address, the name preference may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. The person may be addressed by the preferred name in the ward.

Circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person. Members and leaders counsel together and with the Lord. Area Presidencies will help local leaders sensitively address individual situations. Bishops counsel with the stake president. Stake presidents and mission presidents must seek counsel from the Area Presidency (see 32.6.3 and 32.6.3.1).

For further information on understanding and supporting transgender individuals, see “Transgender” on ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

That last bolded part surprised me.  If brother Fred decides he is now a she, and wishes to be called Laverne, then our marching orders are to accept her with as much sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love, as we can crowbar into ourselves.  And whatever sister Laverne and the bishop figure out about priesthood and callings and whatnot, is none of my business.  How interesting to consider the prospect at such a person accepting a calling, with the congregation being asked for a sustaining vote.   There aren't many things I find difficult to just plain consider, but this is one of them.  I honestly don't know what my "an abundance of Christlike love" would look or feel like in such a case.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

There aren't many things I find difficult to just plain consider, but this is one of them. 

...ditto...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't many things I find difficult to just plain consider, but this is one of them. 

NeuroTypical, do you mind expanding why would you find it difficult?  You mentioned earlier " If brother Fred decides he is now a she, and wishes to be called Laverne, then our marching orders are to accept her with as much sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love..."  Marching orders? It sounds as though you would find this to be a "difficult task" to accomplish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Most Church participation and some priesthood ordinances are gender neutral. 

I'm pretty dang tired of seeing stuff like this, "gender neutral". 
How about: Most Church participation and some priesthood ordinances are not specific to gender. 

Why do we need to incorporate terms, that in today's world are hijacked / pushed upon us by the sexual progressives? Back to the complaint from the 'Queer Sister' thread, the more things are normalized, well the more they are normalized. 

I know a SSA sister who was married to a man for a decade+ with kids. The church had her go up to SLC to 'advise' them on LGBTQ issues/verbiage since she was some kind of 'role model'. Also from North Star just like the 'Queer Sister' thread.

Why do I care?
Guess I'm a little butt hurt from above mentioned SSA sister dumping her husband, helping to destroy my female cousin's marriage and then run off with her instead. I hate to picture the Church in it's eager beaver desire to love all, being led around by the nose by such a person. 

I can tell I'm not successfully merging the concept of all this SSA/transgender stuff bleeding into the Church, while still believing: 

Quote

Alma 45:
16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—aCursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do bwickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the cblessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the dleast degree of allowance.

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I'm a little butt hurt from above mentioned SSA sister dumping her husband, helping to destroy my female cousin's marriage and then run off with her instead. I hate to picture the Church in it's eager beaver desire to love all, being led around by the nose by such a person. 

Do you feel the same way about heterosexual persons doing the same thing? Many years ago, a former Bishop of my ward cheated on his wife (non-member) of 25 + years (2 kids) and left her for a sister in the Church. I don't know what exactly took place with regards to Church discipline (and it is definitely none of my business) but since then, both of them had leadership callings, etc and I'm truly happy for them because they are good people. The Church is indeed a hospital for all of us sinners. And I am grateful that our Church leadership is asking us to treat each and every person who comes to our Church with the love and compassion they deserve, as children of God. There is no place for any kind of apartheid in the Church of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Some of the current handbook stuff, bolding mine:

That last bolded part surprised me.  If brother Fred decides he is now a she, and wishes to be called Laverne, then our marching orders are to accept her with as much sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love, as we can crowbar into ourselves.  And whatever sister Laverne and the bishop figure out about priesthood and callings and whatnot, is none of my business.  How interesting to consider the prospect at such a person accepting a calling, with the congregation being asked for a sustaining vote.   There aren't many things I find difficult to just plain consider, but this is one of them.  I honestly don't know what my "an abundance of Christlike love" would look or feel like in such a case.

I think calling someone by the Christian name they prefer, is just common courtesy.  I have a family member who growing up was called by his initials, “T.J.”  As he got older he asked to be called by his first name, “Tom”.  I am used to calling him “T.J.”, and it’s a hard habit to break—but I try, out of simple respect for him as an individual.

(I do think pronouns are a bridge too far, because that would entail labeling someone as something they definitionally aren’t.  It doesn’t matter how sincere and psychologically deep-seated @Vort’s desire to be entitled “Breaker of chains and mother of dragons” is—he doesn’t break chains, has never birthed a dragon, and has an XY chromosomal makeup; so I ain’t gonna give him that title.  And if he continues to insist that I refer to him in that way, I may begin to either suspect he’s engaging in some bizarre power play/mind game [“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?” “Four.” “And if the Party says that there is not four but five – then how many?”], or else begin to question his mental health.)

2 hours ago, Suzie said:

Guess I'm a little butt hurt from above mentioned SSA sister dumping her husband, helping to destroy my female cousin's marriage and then run off with her instead. I hate to picture the Church in it's eager beaver desire to love all, being led around by the nose by such a person. 

Do you feel the same way about heterosexual persons doing the same thing? Many years ago, a former Bishop of my ward cheated on his wife (non-member) of 25 + years (2 kids) and left her for a sister in the Church. I don't know what exactly took place with regards to Church discipline (and it is definitely none of my business) but since then, both of them had leadership callings, etc and I'm truly happy for them because they are good people. The Church is indeed a hospital for all of us sinners. And I am grateful that our Church leadership is asking us to treat each and every person who comes to our Church with the love and compassion they deserve, as children of God. There is no place for any kind of apartheid in the Church of Christ.

The ex-bishop has presumably done all he can to repent.  @NeedleinA’s example hasn’t—she’s still in a homosexual relationship that is inherently sinful.  

The Church is a hospital for penitent sinners.  People who won’t admit that they are sick but insist on going to the hospital anyways (and ordering us patients around while demanding we recognize them as the true experts in healing), are always going to feel uncomfortable in this Church; and if that tension leads to accusations of ecclesiastical apartheid—I guess we’ll just have to live with that.  :( 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who won’t admit that they are sick but insist on going to the hospital anyways (and ordering us patients around while demanding we recognize them as the true experts in healing), are always going to feel uncomfortable in this Church; and if that tension leads to accusations of ecclesiastical apartheid—I guess we’ll just have to live with that.  

I understand @Just_A_Guy and I always appreciate your take on things but my point here is: Do we stop showing sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love because they are sinning different than us? Do we stop showing sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love to the cheater, the dishonest, the addict, etc? Because that's all the Church is asking: Showing some compassion and Christlike love.

About a member deciding to change his or her preferred name or pronoun of address (and the Church basically saying it's okay), I think we need to see it from a mental health perspective. Gender dysphoria is a very serious condition that can lead to isolation, depression and suicide.  Pronouns are a form of self-identification that can help certain individuals battling this condition in every day life.

Having said all of this, I do understand how members in general feel about this issue and there are many discussions about this topic online: Is the Church being pressured to soften their stand on LGBT related issues? Are they slowly changing their stand? Where is all of this heading?

Edited by Suzie
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Suzie said:

NeuroTypical, do you mind expanding why would you find it difficult?  You mentioned earlier " If brother Fred decides he is now a she, and wishes to be called Laverne,...

He does not get to decide. He is not a she. Period. End of discussion. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. If it is essential, then it is essential - such things are not messed up by God. If someone feels that they are the wrong gender, then that really sucks, and must he tremendously difficult...but they are wrong, and I for one refuse to feed or enable their misconstrued thinking. You do not have to submit to a person's every request to show Christlike love. Christ Himself would not call Fred by the name Laverne. He would tell Fred what he is doing wrong, and encourage him to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Suzie said:

People who won’t admit that they are sick but insist on going to the hospital anyways (and ordering us patients around while demanding we recognize them as the true experts in healing), are always going to feel uncomfortable in this Church; and if that tension leads to accusations of ecclesiastical apartheid—I guess we’ll just have to live with that.  

[1] I understand @Just_A_Guy and I always appreciate your take on things but my point here is: Do we stop showing sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love because they are sinning different than us? Do we stop showing sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love to the cheater, the dishonest, the addict, etc? Because that's all the Church is asking: Showing some compassion and Christlike love.

[2]About a member deciding to change his or her preferred name or pronoun of address (and the Church basically saying it's okay), I think we need to see it from a mental health perspective. Gender dysphoria is a very serious condition that can lead to isolation, depression and suicide.  Pronouns are a form of self-identification that can help certain individuals battling this condition in every day life.

[3]Having said all of this, I do understand how members in general feel about this issue and there are many discussions about this topic online: Is the Church being pressured to soften their stand on LGBT related issues? Are they slowly changing their stand? Where is all of this heading?

1.  Certainly not.  But of course, the devil is in the details of what “sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love” actually means in practice; especially given the LGBTQ lobby’s history of interpreting that phrase as meaning “you must never, ever tell us ‘no’”.  I can’t speak as to what specifically has happened in the incident @NeedleinA refers to; but (taking the account at face value) it does seem odd:  we don’t have, as far as I know, active and impenitent prostitutes or tax cheats or drug users being invited up to Salt Lake to advise the Church on how it can modify its rhetoric/practice to help these sorts of people feel more comfortable in church.

2.  I would say that any deep-seated desire to depart from community standards creates stress and therefore “is a very serious condition that can lead to isolation, depression and suicide.”  Am I obliged to give @Vort the nonsensical title of “breaker of chains and mother of dragons” just his mental illness renders him vulnerable to suicide?

And in what other set of circumstances do mental health professionals even accept the proposition that Person A’s suicide is really the fault of person B?  If I committed suicide tomorrow and left a note saying, “That @Suzie’s posts to ThirdHour rocked my world, and I don’t know what’s true anymore, and food has no taste and life has no meaning so I may as well end it all”—you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) take that seriously; you’d dismiss it as the rantings of an unhinged madman.  And you’d be right.

Even if we do ascribe third-party liability for the suicide of people in general, and LGBTQ folk in particular—what about the accountability of the “allies” who have legitimized suicide as an option for sexually-frustrated LGBTQ folk by continually nattering on about suicide while insisting that institutions like the Church that insist on traditional notions of chastity are somehow stunting these people’s chances for happiness and reducing them to a sort of second-class half-life as long as they can’t experience the glories of sexual fulfillment?  Isn’t there literature suggesting that the more suicide is normalized and discussed, the more likely it becomes?  As I wrote on these forums a couple of years ago, to an LGBTQ advocate (who, I hasten to add, was far less thoughtful, less careful, and less well-intentioned than you—hence the more accusatory tone I used in that discussion):

The rash of gay suicides has not increased due to the Church suddenly telling gays that they have value independently of their sense of sexual fulfillment—we’ve been doing that for almost two centuries, and if anything our rhetoric has softened of late.  It’s you guys who have started telling gays in the last 30 years that the unsexed life is not worth living; and then when they start believing your bullcrap and end their lives—either out of a sincere belief they can never be happy in abstinence, or out of despair when they reject the values of their youth and experiment with new sexual practices, only to find them a hollow foundation on which to build a life—you turn around and blame us; even though you created the tension and you’re the one trying to leverage their deaths to muzzle the Church and get more formerly-abstinent young Mormons into the sexual meat market for use and abuse by your allies.  

We mourn these youth and plan the funerals and dress the dead and pay for the undertaker and the coffin and the burial plot; while other filthy sex-crazed ghouls trot out their victims’ names at $500-a-plate fundraiser galas.

The absolute lack of introspection and unwillingness by “allies” to acknowledge the effects their own antics have had on the problem, lead me to believe that most of them don’t give a flying flip about the LGBTQ youth suicide issue.  Those kids are just cannon fodder in the left’s greater struggle for supremacy over the Church and the trappings of power that the left thinks it controls.  I find that situation both outrageous and tragic—but the solution isn’t to treat a dude as a dame just because he asks me to.  

The other wrinkle to the Church’s policy here is that while it is willing to put the new name on its records—a transsexual who changed their name is likely to be in the midst of a social transition to a different gender.  So what the Church is really saying here is, “we’ll do you the courtesy of calling you by the name you prefer—but we’ll be doing it at your membership council”; and we’ll be doing it in large part so that when Jane Brown applies for baptism in 2028, we can see that we’re dealing with the same individual as plain old John Smith whose membership was withdrawn for adultery in 2021.

3.  Oh, undoubtedly the Church is getting pressure; and one of the joys (!) of being in a church with living prophets is that we really can’t quite ever say “never”; whether we’re talking about hypothetical developments like modifications to the law of chastity, or gay sealings, or the restoration of polygamy, or announcing that there actually is no Heavenly mother, or decreeing that only Asians with Klinefelter Syndrome can be called to the Q12, or teaching that Adam and Eve were actually purple Oompa Loompas who lived in Antarctica.  :)  The issue, of course, comes when advocates say “go ahead and perpetrate this excommunicable offense now, and just trust that the prophets will catch up with you eventually.”  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard once about a young boy (like 4 or 5), raised in an intact two parent Christian home, was so troubled by this stuff his parents caught him trying to cut off his penis with a table knife because "it's wrong".

I have a very hard time calling a dude a chick, just because they want me to.  That said, there is obviously something very, very serious that can happen with some people.  I rely on empathy a lot to find ways to respect and love people.  Stuff like that is so far out of my realm of experience, I'm at a loss on how to love someone like that.   "We're both children of God and I see you are struggling" is about all I've got.  It doesn't really get me to figuring out whether I'm helping someone or hurting them by helping a biological male shop for dresses or whatever.

At the end of the day, I guess I'll just have to meet someone in that situation live, and just hand over my path to God and hope He shows me how to love/act/think/feel.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Certainly not.  But of course, the devil is in the details of what “sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love” actually means in practice; especially given the LGBTQ lobby’s history of interpreting that phrase as meaning “you must never, ever tell us ‘no’”.

We are talking about a Church request here. For me, it means to ensure we don't have a condescending attitude towards others, but show compassion and understanding about the challenges our brothers and sisters go through in life. WE are the Church and it is our responsibility (and should be natural to us) to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort". We don't get to pick and choose who we think are worth of love and support (just because they sin different than us) .

Sometimes we choose to love grudgingly because we believe others have an agenda. Even though many times this is indeed the case, we are commanded to show love and kindness to all and let the Lord handle the rest. Now, don't take me wrong I don't think (generally speaking) it is an easy thing to do but at the same time, I also know we don't get to play God and change the commandment just because we don't think a group of people deserve it.

 I can’t speak as to what specifically has happened in the incident @NeedleinA refers to; but (taking the account at face value) it does seem odd:  we don’t have, as far as I know, active and impenitent prostitutes or tax cheats or drug users being invited up to Salt Lake to advise the Church on how it can modify its rhetoric/practice to help these sorts of people feel more comfortable in church.

 

I understand and I agree. I would like to know more about this case to know the full context.

2.  I would say that any deep-seated desire to depart from community standards creates stress and therefore “is a very serious condition that can lead to isolation, depression and suicide.”  Am I obliged to give @Vort the nonsensical title of “breaker of chains and mother of dragons” just his mental illness renders him vulnerable to suicide?

You are not obliged to do anything you don't want to. The Church crafted those statements very carefully: " If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address, the name preference may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. The person may be addressed by the preferred name in the ward." 

3. And in what other set of circumstances do mental health professionals even accept the proposition that Person A’s suicide is really the fault of person B?  If I committed suicide tomorrow and left a note saying, “That @Suzie’s posts to ThirdHour rocked my world, and I don’t know what’s true anymore, and food has no taste and life has no meaning so I may as well end it all”—you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) take that seriously; you’d dismiss it as the rantings of an unhinged madman.  And you’d be right.

I didn't know whether or not I wanted to reply to this part of your post because I didn't want to share something so personal but I would like to share it because maybe it can help someone.

I know exactly what is like to be the recipient of such letter, not from a member but from a very close family member who committed suicide in 2002. The letter was also addressed to my sister. As I type this, I must confess I am a bit emotional because it took me long years to overcome the deep feeling of guilt. And you know what's the saddest part? My sister and I didn't do anything. My relative was someone with a mental illness so he blamed everyone and everything for his unhappiness... but when we were children, we didn't know he had a mental illness. WE truly thought WE were the ones to blame for everything that went wrong with his life.  I know what is like to be a scared little girl and hear about constant threats of suicide told to ME.

@Just_A_Guy from the outside, anyone can dismiss that letter and without much analysis, say that my relative was a sick person. But when you are in the situation and you happen to be the recipient (it is a completely different story). I'm grateful for therapy, for the Gospel and for a tender, loving and caring husband who helped me through it all.

Even though it might sound as though I feel this way about this issue due to my experience, it is not. I just want everyone who comes to the Church to feel loved and cared for!  Many people don't know what is like to be loved and many others never had "parents kind and dear". Many people go through unseen and difficult personal battles and all they need is a friendly, loving hand. WE should be the persons extending that loving hand.

Personally, I consider many of our youth within the LGBTQ community at risk but regardless of this, we should treat everyone we meet with sensitivity, compassion and love and let the Lord (and his leaders) handle the rest.

Even if we do ascribe third-party liability for the suicide of people in general, and LGBTQ folk in particular—what about the accountability of the “allies” who have legitimized suicide as an option for sexually-frustrated LGBTQ folk by continually nattering on about suicide while insisting that institutions like the Church that insist on traditional notions of chastity are somehow stunting these people’s chances for happiness and reducing them to a sort of second-class half-life as long as they can’t experience the glories of sexual fulfillment?  Isn’t there literature suggesting that the more suicide is normalized and discussed, the more likely it becomes?

Maybe it is surprising to some but I don't consider myself an LGBTQ ally.  Suicide is never an "option".

Oh, undoubtedly the Church is getting pressure; and one of the joys (!) of being in a church with living prophets is that we really can’t quite ever say “never”; whether we’re talking about hypothetical developments like modifications to the law of chastity, or gay sealings, or the restoration of polygamy, or announcing that there actually is no Heavenly mother, or decreeing that only Asians with Klinefelter Syndrome can be called to the Q12, or teaching that Adam and Eve were actually purple Oompa Loompas who lived in Antarctica.  :)  The issue, of course, comes when advocates say “go ahead and perpetrate this excommunicable offense now, and just trust that the prophets will catch up with you eventually.”  

I have been observing this topic closely over the years, and I must say I have been struggling with it a bit... because changing the stand on an issue such as this could mean many things for the Church and I'm not sure if I am prepared to have that discussion yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Suzie, thanks so much for being willing to share what must have been such a gut-wrenching experience.  I’m so sorry you have to go through that.

For what it’s worth:  the post I cited in italics in my previous post was written within a couple of days of a client committing suicide.  So I won’t claim to know perfectly what you’ve gone through, but I would venture to guess there were  some superficial similarities in our experiences.  The client was an impoverished mother who was financially getting by (barely) as an online cam girl; her child was severely autistic (early teens and non-mobile, non-verbal, not toilet trained, etc) and went into DCFS custody because she could no longer afford to give him the services he needed.  It was supposed to be a quickie case where the child would be released back to her once perpetual state funding for the child’s maintenance had been secured; but an old meth habit came back with a vengeance around that time and she could never get her act together.  It went to a trial to have her parental rights terminated, and the night before trial she and I had a long talk where I made it clear that I’d fight for her at trial—but that based on the facts and law, we were going to lose.  On the day of the scheduled trial we walked into court and she chose to relinquish her parental rights rather than face a trial and a judicial finding of parental unfitness.  Two weeks later she was dead by suicide.  I am not aware that she left any kind of accusatory note towards me—but under such circumstances one  can’t help but do a lot of soul-searching and Monday-morning quarterbacking, wondering what one could or should have done differently.

So I’m certainly not saying that dismissing accusations of being an accessory to suicide is easy, or done lightly.  But at the same time, I’ve done some a lot of thinking and some research about the role and accountability of the decedent in choosing to end his own life; and the warped, tortured, desperate, and/or vindictive thought processes that lead to that kind of decision.  And because I have some inkling of what folks facing these kinds of accusations go through—I have very little patience for people who throw those accusations around lightly or for reasons that boil down to politics or lust or self-justification or virtue-signaling.

Going back to my experience with my client, and using it as a sort of microcosm for the experiences of LGBTQ Church members—I believe, and hope, that I was kind and sympathetic and understanding and supportive and ready to provide a helping hand to her.  But I also told her some stark truths about her legal situation.  I’m sure they were stressful—even traumatic.  In their way, they probably did significantly contribute to her suicide.  But I am also convinced that I would not have done her any favors by hiding the truth; and that had I told her pleasant falsehoods she would (very soon, in this case) have been put in an untenable situation that ultimately would have created even more trauma.  My calling and responsibility was to speak the truth, and I did it as kindly as I could.  What she did with that truth is ultimately on her, not me.

As to the present policy discussion, lest I have given the wrong impression at any point:  I have no problem with any of the CHI’s recommendations as to LGBTQ members.  I am sort of scratching my head over the Relief Society’s recent antics at the BYU Women’s Conference vis a vis the “queer” sister they lionized, just because it’s so weird in comparison to the way we as a Church have historically treated people who are predisposed to pretty much any other type of sin.  (Imagine a middle-aged married guy walking up to the lectern on Fast Sunday and announcing:  “Brothers and sisters, it’s great to be with you at this Fast and Testimony meeting.  I just wanted to let you know that I have a very strong desire to take a couple of the laurels in this ward as polygamous wives.  Now, rest assured I would never actually ACT on that desire.  But you need to know that it exists, and I’ve made peace with it because that’s the way the Lord made me, and  I don’t think it needs to change and I don’t think it will change either now or in the eternities.  But I wanted you to know this and I hereby remind you that YOU MUST LOVE ME because it’s part of who I am!!!!  In the name of Harvey Milk, Amen.”)  

So one way or the other, the Church may have (in President Oaks’s words) “more teaching to do on that matter” if it wants us to have a clear idea of what in sam hill we’re supposed to make of all of this. ;) 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address

Or buy cereal and let your kids put their preferred pronouns on the cereal box. Thanks Kellogg's, they really are grrrreeeeaaat aren't they.53c0021471924c6a.jpeg.743bbe915af136b60146f198ddbbb618.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So one way or the other, the Church may have (in President Oaks’s words) “more teaching to do on that matter” if it wants us to have a clear idea of what in sam hill we’re supposed to make of all of this. ;) 

^^^^ This!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be totally lost if you can crack jokes:

If you know any tall people and want to appear cool and woke, you can tell them their pronouns are fe/fi/fo/fum.

Also, how does a non-binary Samurai kill people?  They/them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sorry to here your story @Suzie.  I don’t have much first hand experience with LGBT+ stuff, but I am very familiar with mental health issues and sucidal thoughts, having battled them for many years.

My husband was on the receiving end of a person’s last phone call- he said he’d call back, forgot, and the person sucicided two days later.

 I myself once had my close trust betrayed by a girl, and I responded by absolutely berating her- and I was told about my words drove her to a sucicide attempt that night. It was devestating and fueled my own depression. Equally tough was years later when I found out the entire story was faked and that I had been catfished (before that was term for it).

Life can be .... very hard. Depression is a tough issue.  Yes, we should treat each other with kindness. Yes our actions affect others (good and bad).  But I hesitate to say “you are responsible for another’s actions, the action to take their life”. Things... are just so complicated and I don’t see the benefit in that. I’d rather figure out how to best be loving and truthful in the individual circumstances I come a across. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy My heart aches for this woman and I wonder what happened to her...to end up like this .... plus the serious challenges of caring for a severely disabled son.

In my case, it is hard to explain how it feels. Part of me didn't understand it because I was too young to process it all but continued for many years until I was already an adult. But when a lie is repeated enough times...

In my case, nobody would have guessed this is what we endured. My sister and I were top students, never gave any trouble whatsoever, we went private schools, etc and yet I feel as though we did all of this because we didn't want to feel guilty or be blamed. There were unrealistic expectations placed upon our shoulders and it felt as though we needed to be the BEST to be accepted.

About the RS meeting at BYU... I think it is an issue of perspective? I think some members think the RS Presidency was "highlighting" her like if she was some sort of role model. I saw it from the perspective of "There are LGBTQ members of the Church in good standing, be nice and welcoming". But like you said using Elder Oaks words “more teaching to do on that matter” .

Thanks for your input, I always enjoy reading your posts (even when we disagree). You're one of my favorite posters but don't let that get into your head now. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things... are just so complicated and I don’t see the benefit in that. I’d rather figure out how to best be loving and truthful in the individual circumstances I come a across. 

That's the best we can do, thank you @Jane_Doe for sharing from your personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Things... are just so complicated and I don’t see the benefit in that. I’d rather figure out how to best be loving and truthful in the individual circumstances I come a across. 

That's the best we can do, thank you @Jane_Doe for sharing from your personal experience.

I very much respect your post.  I must also admit that I am not sure how to deal with various emotional and mental issues.   It may sound cruel and uncaring on my part but I believe someone facing suicide  has emotional and mental issues.  There are certain issues that I am unequipped to deal with.   If someone was dying from an ruptured appendix and I am the only hope - it is very likely they will die - especially if I tried to remove their appendix by myself.   I have been present several times as someone has died.  Sometimes it has been a very peaceful spiritual experience but at other times it has been difficult for me of myself to try to save them from what seemed a menacing spirit and seemingly being constrained not to use the priesthood. 

Sometimes those having emotional or mental problems must be dealt with harshly because they endanger others.  It has happened that an individual with emotional issues has shown up at an LDS church and shot and killed someone.  I was at a little league baseball game watching my son play when a father with a son on the other team started criticizing a teenage ref that was calling the game.   The criticism got worse and the guy rushed onto the field and pushed the kid.  I and a couple of other dads went out to get him away from the kid and he turned on us.  The police were called and it ended when the police showed up.  By then everyone was apologizing and saying they were sorry but we decided to end the game and we all went home.  A couple of weeks later this guy went into a doctor's office at near by hospital and shot and killed a nurse.   It made the national news but I wondered if I had pressed charges if it could have been prevented or just put my own family at risk.

It is also not unknown for a predator to stalk their victims at churches - sometimes hiding their intensions and using the "goodness" of church members (including those called to leadership positions) to their advantage (for example Ted Bundy and there are some that fault the Bishop for not being more inspired).  

Like I said - I do not know the answers.  I agree that we need to be more loving and kind.  And yet, regardless, someone is likely to be unhappy and misunderstand kindness as complicity and permission.  

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this days ago.  And as I read the responses, I'm highly troubled by the fact that no one seems bothered by the fact that women are going to be forced to share bedrooms and showers with men simply because they are mentally ill (or are simply faking it).

Instead of trying to work out a solution to protect the women, we're arguing about being compassionate to the guy who will be sexually assaulting the women.

(except JAG: but I don't think your solution will work.  Sandra Fluke).

Sorry if I don't feel like I beling in this conversation I started.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I posted this days ago.  And as I read the responses, I'm highly troubled by the fact that no one seems bothered by the fact that women are going to be forced to share bedrooms and showers with men simply because they are mentally ill (or are simply faking it).

Instead of trying to work out a solution to protect the women, we're arguing about being compassionate to the guy who will be sexually assaulting the women.

Sorry if I don't feel like I beling in this conversation I started.

Ultimately, the women should speak with their feet and leave if they have concerns that are not being addressed...easier said than done much of the time I know. Women who actually care about women's rights need to make their voices louder. There is a 0% chance a university is going to listen to a straight white male in today's world. It should be common sense for women to have a secure place to use the restroom and bathe themselves. Sadly, in the future there will not be a choice in most places.

The BYU Pathways program, and the ramping up of many online programs, is inspired. It will be of great worth in the future to many who, for a variety of reasons, will not or cannot attend a traditional brick and mortar school and the many "idiosyncrasies" that are developing there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this