Priesthood Bans & LGBT Support

[Not Buying It]

I disagree, Bishop G. I think most people reading the Family Proc would say that the intent of the authors is that gender is binary, essential, and eternal. And, while it was never officially canonized, most Mormons would consider it scripture, or if not scripture, certainty doctrinal.

I can't remember where, but I heard an LDS transgender woman talking about how the Proclamation had given her and her friends hope. She read it as saying her female gender is eternal and that, despite her current physical disruption, she will continue to be female in the eternities. She was crushed when an apostle (I can't remember which, but I'm going to say Bednar) gave a talk that made it clear that is NOT the case, that she will have to suck it up and go back to being a dude for the rest of eternity.

Why should anyone think the Proclamation on the Family is any more permanent or binding than the 1949 First Presidency proclamation that said Blacks didn't have the priesthood because they were less valiant in the Pre-existence (see https://missedinsunday.com/memes/race/p ... tion-1949/). Given that the Church likes to pretend this never happened, why should anyone think the 1995 First Presidency proclamation holds any more weight? Give it 20 years and it will probably go down the memory hole too, and it will no longer be LDS vogue to have it hanging in your house anymore.

Also - that kid needs to get the hell out of Dodge. No one in the LGBTQ+ community will find anything other than discrimination, disappointment, and heartbreak in the LDS Church. The sooner they get out the better.

[græy]

The proclamation also came up. That was where I quoted Blaire Ostler. The proclamation does not ever claim that gender is eternal. It does say that it is part of your eternal destiny. Not that that helps LGBT people feel comfortable, or even welcome in LDS theology. But it did ruffle their feathers a bit.

I disagree, Bishop G. I think most people reading the Family Proc would say that the intent of the authors is that gender is binary, essential, and eternal. And, while it was never officially canonized, most Mormons would consider it scripture, or if not scripture, certainty doctrinal.

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." It goes on to say that sons and daughters were spirits in the premortal world and accepted a plan to get bodies and progress toward perfection and eternal life. It seems pretty clear that the plan is one for mommies and daddies with their specific roles that can be adjusted a bit due to death or disability, and that only hetero marriages are ordained by God, only mommy and daddy sex is ordained, and every other kind of sex is sinful.

I 100% agree with you that the standard interpretation is extremely black and white, and that there is virtually no room for re-interpretation on an official level, nor will there likely ever be. However, I would still push back against the idea that that is what is actually written. Gender being an essential characteristic of eternal identity does not necessitate that gender be strictly binary or non-fluid. Someone who is gay, or trans, might very well say that that core part of themselves feels like a part of their eternal identity without conforming to binary norms.

That doesn't mean the rest of the document makes it easy for LGTB individuals fit in, only that the language in the proclamation doesn't preclude their existence, and therefore basic need for support, understanding, and charity.

Unfortunately, the family proc still hangs in most of the Mormon homes, reminding us all that no matter what we say now, no matter how much we tell them we love and accept them, there's no... let's call it CLEAR hope, that anyone except married males & females get to inherit God's kingdom.

If there's hope somewhere else in scripture or proclamations, I haven't seen it.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Blaire Ostler has also suggested that church doctrine only specifies who goes to the top rung of the celestial kingdom, or who goes to the terrestrial / telestial kingdoms. In terms of who goes to the middle or bottom tiers of the celestial kingdom, the church draws a blank. JS never got a chance to make that doctrine up.

In my mind, Tom Christofferson (and other LGBT folks who REALLY want to live in the gauntlet of the church) can find hope that one day a new revelation might be made up... er, given, that allows them to get married, live good virtuous, faithful lives, and wind up in another level of the celestial kingdom.

My argument is that without some kind of hope like that, then we have NOTHING to offer them other than a lifetime of messaging that they are broken at their very core, that they cannot hope to be what God wants them to be until after their dead and God somehow decides to change their very nature and central identity into something they themselves would not recognize.

[græy]

Also - that kid needs to get the hell out of Dodge. No one in the LGBTQ+ community will find anything other than discrimination, disappointment, and heartbreak in the LDS Church. The sooner they get out the better.

100% agreed. Unfortunately, with their current parenting situation, as supportive as those parents are, they will likely expect the child to continue church activity.

As I said, in their particular case, there is a lot going on mentally besides just LGBT issues, and therapy and/or medical assistance is happening, largely paid for by the church. The parents could not afford that intervention on their own. In that respect, church attendance may actually be benefiting this child for now.

[græy]

I disagree, Bishop G. I think most people reading the Family Proc would say that the intent of the authors is that gender is binary, essential, and eternal. And, while it was never officially canonized, most Mormons would consider it scripture, or if not scripture, certainty doctrinal.

I can't remember where, but I heard an LDS transgender woman talking about how the Proclamation had given her and her friends hope. She read it as saying her female gender is eternal and that, despite her current physical disruption, she will continue to be female in the eternities. She was crushed when an apostle (I can't remember which, but I'm going to say Bednar) gave a talk that made it clear that is NOT the case, that she will have to suck it up and go back to being a dude for the rest of eternity.

Maybe referring to Packer's 2010 talk? Speaking specifically of LGBT individuals Packer said:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our heavenly father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our father.

The redacted/printed version of the talk says:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

In the initial version, God is made solely responsible for our sexual orientation. If we're straight, God made us that way, and no one is gay or trans because God would never do that to anyone. In the printed version, we're reassured that we can overcome temptations.

In either case, according to Packer, no one ever has reason to be gay unless you're just giving in to temptations - God will fix you in the end.

[Hagoth]

Why should anyone think the Proclamation on the Family is any more permanent or binding than the 1949 First Presidency proclamation that said Blacks didn't have the priesthood because they were less valiant in the Pre-existence (see https://missedinsunday.com/memes/race/p ... tion-1949/).

Whoa. Is that real? I had never seen this in proclamation form. Yikes.

[Angel]

I think you should spend less time worrying about the parents, and more time worrying about that poor kid. Those kids get suicidal, especially when there is no support at home.

This particular child is in a very rough spot and we have been giving them a disproportionately large amount of focus to help them feel welcome, included, and not judged or condemned. Their mother is extremely accepting. I think for most kids going this, it would be about as ideal a situation as they could have, assuming they have to be in the church at all.

Unfortunately, in this particular case, there are a lot of physical and mental challenges on top the LGBT complexities. They are and will continue to be in non-lds therapy, paid for by the church (that is our only option on this case).

Please show support by calling this kid by the name and pronouns they request.

I absolutely do. I thought I made that clear. I'm fighting to get the rest of the ward council to do the same

Good to hear.

1) As a female who has always been under the priesthood ban, I used to justify not having the priesthood with - the last will be first, the first will be last, greatest among you is your servant.
Iow, avoid tyrannical leaders by having leaders acquainted with the pain of living as a doormat. First you accept being a doormat, then you get to lead.

I no longer imagine Heavenly Mother in charge, with Heavenly Father experiencing the other perspective. No leaders, no followers, no heirarchies - self reliance for all now seems best.

[Angel]

The proclamation also came up. That was where I quoted Blaire Ostler. The proclamation does not ever claim that gender is eternal. It does say that it is part of your eternal destiny. Not that that helps LGBT people feel comfortable, or even welcome in LDS theology. But it did ruffle their feathers a bit.

I disagree, Bishop G. I think most people reading the Family Proc would say that the intent of the authors is that gender is binary, essential, and eternal. And, while it was never officially canonized, most Mormons would consider it scripture, or if not scripture, certainty doctrinal.

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." It goes on to say that sons and daughters were spirits in the premortal world and accepted a plan to get bodies and progress toward perfection and eternal life. It seems pretty clear that the plan is one for mommies and daddies with their specific roles that can be adjusted a bit due to death or disability, and that only hetero marriages are ordained by God, only mommy and daddy sex is ordained, and every other kind of sex is sinful.

I 100% agree with you that the standard interpretation is extremely black and white, and that there is virtually no room for re-interpretation on an official level, nor will there likely ever be. However, I would still push back against the idea that that is what is actually written. Gender being an essential characteristic of eternal identity does not necessitate that gender be strictly binary or non-fluid. Someone who is gay, or trans, might very well say that that core part of themselves feels like a part of their eternal identity without conforming to binary norms.

That doesn't mean the rest of the document makes it easy for LGTB individuals fit in, only that the language in the proclamation doesn't preclude their existence, and therefore basic need for support, understanding, and charity.

Unfortunately, the family proc still hangs in most of the Mormon homes, reminding us all that no matter what we say now, no matter how much we tell them we love and accept them, there's no... let's call it CLEAR hope, that anyone except married males & females get to inherit God's kingdom.

If there's hope somewhere else in scripture or proclamations, I haven't seen it.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Blaire Ostler has also suggested that church doctrine only specifies who goes to the top rung of the celestial kingdom, or who goes to the terrestrial / telestial kingdoms. In terms of who goes to the middle or bottom tiers of the celestial kingdom, the church draws a blank. JS never got a chance to make that doctrine up.

In my mind, Tom Christofferson (and other LGBT folks who REALLY want to live in the gauntlet of the church) can find hope that one day a new revelation might be made up... er, given, that allows them to get married, live good virtuous, faithful lives, and wind up in another level of the celestial kingdom.

My argument is that without some kind of hope like that, then we have NOTHING to offer them other than a lifetime of messaging that they are broken at their very core, that they cannot hope to be what God wants them to be until after their dead and God somehow decides to change their very nature and central identity into something they themselves would not recognize.

Nothing to offer?

My dear husband was sad not to be a grandfather (we have a trans kiddo). Convo -

Jesus didn't have kids....

The holy ghost??

2 out of three in Godhead are not parents so....

Anyways, make of that what you will.

[Angel]

"Only" begotten, only child, as in no other begotten children- conceived with handmaid NOT HM... so I guess She doesn't beget kids either. No real kids, the spirit of adoption Abba - not kids, not parents.... who is my mother and brethren? Behold - deciples - friends = family was Jesus family proclamation to the world.

[græy]

Why should anyone think the Proclamation on the Family is any more permanent or binding than the 1949 First Presidency proclamation that said Blacks didn't have the priesthood because they were less valiant in the Pre-existence (see https://missedinsunday.com/memes/race/p ... tion-1949/).

Whoa. Is that real? I had never seen this in proclamation form. Yikes.

The text of the document is real, but its from a 1949 letter from the first presidency. It was never in an actual "proclamation". The formatting and styling in this image are made to look like the family proclamation for shock and effect.

[Not Buying It]

Why should anyone think the Proclamation on the Family is any more permanent or binding than the 1949 First Presidency proclamation that said Blacks didn't have the priesthood because they were less valiant in the Pre-existence (see https://missedinsunday.com/memes/race/p ... tion-1949/).

Whoa. Is that real? I had never seen this in proclamation form. Yikes.

The text of the document is real, but its from a 1949 letter from the first presidency. It was never in an actual "proclamation". The formatting and styling in this image are made to look like the family proclamation for shock and effect.

Well, what's a "Proclamation"? Its a fair point that the Proclamation on the Family was so labeled as a "Proclamation", and had the support of the Quorum of the 12, but the 1949 statement was over the signature of the First Presidency, and was intended to be just as much of an authoritative statement. It is the First Presidency in 1949 saying "This is doctrine", every bit as much as the 1995 statement. Proclamation, statement, call it whatever you want - but both were intended to establish the position and doctrine of the Church. The 1995 one may someday become as inconvenient as the 1949 one. I think this random internet stranger explains it well (https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comment ... clamation/):

This post was reported as "this Proclamation to the World does not exist and is a fabrication".

According to Fair Mormon, this quote comes from "Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City."

That means the first 3 headings were made in satire of styling of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" and " The Living Christ".

It was even signed "The First Presidency" as statements from the First Presidency are.

So the only part that may be a fabrication is that it was not (as far as I can tell) ratified by the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Consider this the disclaimer: that part was recreated in farce.

[Red Ryder]

Wait a minute….

Doesn’t the race and the priesthood essay reverse the “unrighteousness in the pre-existence therefore cursed with black skin” narrative?

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

It seems the 1949 statement (last paraphrase) says that spirits were willing to accept any handicapped body which included a body not allowed to hold the priesthood??
Therefore there’s no injustice?

[Hagoth]

Doesn’t the race and the priesthood essay reverse the “unrighteousness in the pre-existence therefore cursed with black skin” narrative?

Kind of sounds like politics, doesn't it? Say whatever the current audience needs to hear.

[Enough 2.0]

Mrs. Hagoth refuses to even tell any ward members about our daughter's transition because she can't bear the thought of the ugliness of the ensuing gossip.

I was asked to teach a combined RS/EQ lesson a couple weeks ago. I shared with the class that my transgender daughter had undergone gender reassignment surgery last October. (TBM) Mr. Enough surprised me — he didn’t mind me sharing that information. He even added some thoughtful comments about how he felt as an LDS father. The other thing that surprised me was that I had several ward members privately express gratitude for my compassionate candor. I’m sure that there were several in the class that were just wiping their brows, relieved that they haven’t been asked for “shoulder” this particular life “Test.” But, I think that attitudes and feelings are shifting — slowly but surely.

[moksha]

I would assume a fully faithful LDS family would have both the Proclamation on the Family and the Proclamation on the Negro on prominent display in their homes, to help visitors understand the family faith.

[Hagoth]

Mrs. Hagoth refuses to even tell any ward members about our daughter's transition because she can't bear the thought of the ugliness of the ensuing gossip.

I was asked to teach a combined RS/EQ lesson a couple weeks ago. I shared with the class that my transgender daughter had undergone gender reassignment surgery last October. (TBM) Mr. Enough surprised me — he didn’t mind me sharing that information. He even added some thoughtful comments about how he felt as an LDS father. The other thing that surprised me was that I had several ward members privately express gratitude for my compassionate candor. I’m sure that there were several in the class that were just wiping their brows, relieved that they haven’t been asked for “shoulder” this particular life “Test.” But, I think that attitudes and feelings are shifting — slowly but surely.

That is good to hear, Enough. Personally, I have no problem with our daughter being out to her old priesthood and scout leaders. I care far less about what people think and I have more of a "suck on that" attitude.

[moksha]

In terms of who goes to the middle or bottom tiers of the celestial kingdom, the church draws a blank. JS never got a chance to make that doctrine up.

Couldn't President Russell M. Nelson step in and declare that to be contingent upon the usage of the word Mormon?

[græy]

Couldn't President Russell M. Nelson step in and declare that to be contingent upon the usage of the word Mormon?

Hmm.... that seems possible. But that might require him to take a half step into the realm of actually revealing new things of eternal consequence. I don't think he's that brave.

[Hagoth]

Couldn't President Russell M. Nelson step in and declare that to be contingent upon the usage of the word Mormon?

Hmm.... that seems possible. But that might require him to take a half step into the realm of actually revealing new things of eternal consequence. I don't think he's that brave.

You have already forgotten about the logo?!

[græy]

Couldn't President Russell M. Nelson step in and declare that to be contingent upon the usage of the word Mormon?

Hmm.... that seems possible. But that might require him to take a half step into the realm of actually revealing new things of eternal consequence. I don't think he's that brave.

You have already forgotten about the logo?!

I think I disagree with Nelson on that one too. I wouldn't consider the logo to be of "eternal consequence" - but that's just me.

[lostinmiddlemormonism]

You have already forgotten about the logo?!

Well, Jesus Christ in a Bathtub! How could I have forgotten that!



-lost