The LDS "church" & Transsexualism

[Witch of Hope]

Would you then have the government forcibly make the LDS church perform same sex marriages in their temples?

No, but this "church" must accept the legal marriage of two gay mormons. This is a minumum. Even the LDS stands under German law in Germany.

[MaggieB]

No, but this "church" must accept the legal marriage of two gay mormons. This is a minumum. Even the LDS stands under German law in Germany.

I have a German friend who I chat with on the phone regularly.  He has told me many many instances where German law is far more progressive and fair than what we have in the USA.  I think that the confusion here is that you don't understand how uncivilized we are in the USA.  Our government (and laws) is still massively dominated by people who hold religion first then social responsibility.  My friend finds our culture very backward and is constantly amazed at what we endure here.

Maggie

[Chaos_Dagger]

Would you then have the government forcibly make the LDS church perform same sex marriages in their temples?

In a word. Yes.  Atleast in Ontario.  If you read the Ontario human rights act, it states of course that Anyone has the right to practice any religion and follow their beliefs without prejudice.  However it also states on the tail end of this that, "Unless the belief poses safety issues, is hate based or terrorist in nature, or contradicts another section of the human rights act."  The other section I'm refering to of course is that "No person or organization can discriminate against someone due to gender idenity."  and of course the deffinition of discrimination, in short, is:  Treating a group of people as better than another group of people, by refusing services, insulting on basis of.....ect,ect.

This goes for non-trans homosexuals as well as trans homo, and hetero.  In otherwords (at least in Ontario Canada) LDS no long has the right nor choice whether they want to do it or not, It's the LAW that they have to provide the same services to every member of the church (and cannot legally refuse membership, or disallow membership) on basises of sex,gender identy, race, ect. ect.

So yes, the church can and SHOULD be forced to allow these things in their temple whether they like it or not.  As far as I'm concerned you should follow the laws of whatever country your living in, even if you dislike them.

[Julie Marie]

As the LGBT church manual of  instructions (issue 1999) describes, there are for Mormons two different kinds of phobic people:

Those which are already Mormons (they are excommunicated immediately, and mayn't be baptized again, except, if they admit their sins of intolerance, vanity and greed and repent those sins. And those which have their phobias already deeply ingrained, but not yet were baptized. Special rules are apply for this group:

1. Before their baptism they must put first of all to themselves many, often of very intimate questions by first the gay and lesbian church leaders then by the trans leaders.

2. Phobics may not be allowed the freedom of speech nor the audience of their peers.

3. The men who are born as phobics mayn't receive the priesthood until their phobia is cleansed from their bodies.

4. Fear mongering shall not be allowed and shall be publicly exposed for what it is by any accepted LGBT member.

5. The sins of intolerance, hatred, vanity and self righteousness shall not be acceptable behavior for any member of the congregation.  Sinners shall repent and apologize to those they have hurt or face excommunication.

Our children shall be protected at all costs from these sins and any sin against a creature of God. They are our future and we need to instill in them love, compassion, tolerance and knowledge.

Respectfully,
The LGBT Community Church

[Suzy]

No, but this "church" must accept the legal marriage of two gay mormons. This is a minumum. Even the LDS stands under German law in Germany.

Please think about this a little bit.  Even in your country German law forced the church to go along with discrimination, eventually ending up in a convoluted form of state-sanctioned "Christianity" called the German Christian movement, which led eventually to the holocaust.  However, in 1934, a group of Christian leaders stood up to the government in opposition.  Most of them were killed.  However the statement they adopted was called the Barmen Declaration, which is still widely studied today.  It is one of the finest  statements ever penned.  It states, among other things, that the church and the state derive their policies from separate sources.  As much as it tries, the government cannot ultimately control the beliefs of any group of people, including the Mormons.  And contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the government is not always on the correct side.  You of all people should know that.  However painful it may be to you, this interplay between church and state seems to be necessary for moral progress.   Further, Germany does have a state church and it is NOT Mormon.  You are in no way required to attend any LDS functions or adhere to their horrible doctrine in this area.  You are doing this voluntarily.  Therefore you have no right to demand anything.  Find a church that matches what you believe and be at peace.

You can find the text to the Barmen Declaration here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm

Kristi

[Tammy Hope]

This isn't right!
In Germany a man can marry, e.g., on the registry office another man. If A Mormon makes this, he or she is excommunicated immediately. With the Mormons only heterosexual marriages are permitted, and till few decades was also forbidden the marriages of mixed race in the LDS "Church". In the 19th century such people were even killed by the Mormons in their own church. The "law" of the blood atonement" required it.
And a transsexual person who had revealed himself can't marry as a woman a man.. And for Mormons this is very important, because only the temple marriage is valid with the Mormons for all eternity.
To transsexual members to refuse this, is an violation of their civil rights.

What puzzles me is that if you think the LDS is a cult (and I don't dispute that) then why do you CARE whether or not trans people can have temple marriages and participate in, essentially, false religion?

you have to understand, if you do not already, that despite their claims, the theologies of Mormonism are wildly different from Orthodox Christianity.

A lot of Mormons don't realize this until they get pretty deep into the religion and by then they've been indoctrinated enough most don't care.

But the point is, you have to first believe all that "Temple marriage" business they preach in the first place boefore you can get upset that a trans person is denied that sort of thing. Do you?

If not, I don't see why you don't simply wash your hands of the LDS entirely and leave them to their own errors.

Post Merge: July 28, 2009, 06:36:59 PM

In a word. Yes.  Atleast in Ontario.  If you read the Ontario human rights act, it states of course that Anyone has the right to practice any religion and follow their beliefs without prejudice.  However it also states on the tail end of this that, "Unless the belief poses safety issues, is hate based or terrorist in nature, or contradicts another section of the human rights act."  The other section I'm refering to of course is that "No person or organization can discriminate against someone due to gender idenity."  and of course the deffinition of discrimination, in short, is:  Treating a group of people as better than another group of people, by refusing services, insulting on basis of.....ect,ect.

This goes for non-trans homosexuals as well as trans homo, and hetero.  In otherwords (at least in Ontario Canada) LDS no long has the right nor choice whether they want to do it or not, It's the LAW that they have to provide the same services to every member of the church (and cannot legally refuse membership, or disallow membership) on basises of sex,gender identy, race, ect. ect.

So yes, the church can and SHOULD be forced to allow these things in their temple whether they like it or not.  As far as I'm concerned you should follow the laws of whatever country your living in, even if you dislike them.

And THIS, among other things, is EXACTLY what the Religious Right in the U.S. is so paranoid about. Whenever you hear a RR Fundie in America say that the civil rights movements threatens their freedom of religion THIS is one of the things they are talking about (along with "hate speech" cases that have fined Christians for publication of scripture proof-texts)

IMO, the law in Canada described above is a clear and direct violation of freedom of religion and in this sense, the nation of Canada does not have complete religious freedom.

A church which is required to place the doctrines of the government above the doctrines of the church has no freedom but what the government permits. It flies in the face of what a great many people came to this continent to escape.

So when you see Dobson and the rest opposing every move the gay rights crowd makes and calling the "gay agenda" a threat to their own freedoms - now you know WHY they say that.

They have good reason to worry.

[Suzy]

you have to understand, if you do not already, that despite their claims, the theologies of Mormonism are wildly different from Orthodox Christianity.  A lot of Mormons don't realize this until they get pretty deep into the religion and by then they've been indoctrinated enough most don't care.

Very true.  They are in no way Christians in the orthodox sense.  However, I still support their right to believe whatever they wish.

A church which is required to place the doctrines of the government above the doctrines of the church has no freedom but what the government permits. It flies in the face of what a great many people came to this continent to escape.

Which is exactly what I was referring to above. 

Again, these words from the mouth of Karl Barth, the man many consider to be the finest German theologian:

8.09 In view of the errors of the "German Christians" of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:   .....

8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commision, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.

8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

Like it or not, this is a German document, YOUR history.  Your way works just fine if the state is against something or someone you hate.  But sooner or later, it will be against you.  Then do you really want the state telling you what you can and cannot believe?  If you desire to be a puppet in this life, go ahead and push for the right of the German government to dictate doctrine to the Mormon church.  If you want to be free to use your own brain and decide for yourself what you will believe and how you will worship, then let the Mormons believe and practice as they wish.  Go elsewhere.  You cannot have it both ways.  If you wish the state to establish religious practices and beliefs, you will end up losing your freedom.

Kristi

[Chaos_Dagger]

And THIS, among other things, is EXACTLY what the Religious Right in the U.S. is so paranoid about. Whenever you hear a RR Fundie in America say that the civil rights movements threatens their freedom of religion THIS is one of the things they are talking about (along with "hate speech" cases that have fined Christians for publication of scripture proof-texts)

IMO, the law in Canada described above is a clear and direct violation of freedom of religion and in this sense, the nation of Canada does not have complete religious freedom.

A church which is required to place the doctrines of the government above the doctrines of the church has no freedom but what the government permits. It flies in the face of what a great many people came to this continent to escape.

So when you see Dobson and the rest opposing every move the gay rights crowd makes and calling the "gay agenda" a threat to their own freedoms - now you know WHY they say that.

They have good reason to worry.

How can something be a violation of its self?  Freedom of Religion is part of the Human Rights Act.  So if the Human Rights Act states "Freedom of Religion, Unless these practices are motivated by hate, terriorist actions, or contradicts other sections of the Human Rights act."?  Something cannot be a violation of its self.  I could understand if it said that everyone should have Freedom of Religion no matter what.  Then a different section nulified that, then yes that would be a violation, but that's not what we have here.

Are you saying that someone should have the right to be discriminatory against someone just because a (Man Writen) Book that they say is "Holy" said so?  Somehow that doesn't seem fair to me.  Furthermore, if god is "all loving" then shouldn't the church be so as well?  Ultimately, the Freedom of Religion is the freedom that someone has to choose whichever religion they want to follow.  So then, in that respect, wouldn't refusing someone to follow your religion for whatever reason, be a violation of the Freedom of Religion.

[Tammy Hope]

How can something be a violation of its self?  Freedom of Religion is part of the Human Rights Act.  So if the Human Rights Act states "Freedom of Religion, Unless these practices are motivated by hate, terriorist actions, or contradicts other sections of the Human Rights act."?  Something cannot be a violation of its self.

Unless the government finds that the discrimination in question is motivated by hate (a ludicrous proposition on the face of it since it amounts to mind-reading) then that's exactly what it does.

if I tell you that you have freedom of speech except that you cannot say anything insulting about your government - you do not in fact have freedom of speech no matter what i have previously claimed.

I could understand if it said that everyone should have Freedom of Religion no matter what.  Then a different section nulified that, then yes that would be a violation, but that's not what we have here.

Are you saying that someone should have the right to be discriminatory against someone just because a (Man Writen) Book that they say is "Holy" said so?

Within the context of religious practice, and so long as they do no physical harm to another, yes.

I would not suggest, for instance, that a landlord should be able to refuse to rent to you on religious grounds because lack of shelter does you physical harm. But refusing you a religious ceremony in a church building does not.

And Iwould absolutely suggest that any religion of any sort has the right to practice it's rites, or refrain, as they see fit within the confines of their place of worship (again, short of physical harm).

  Somehow that doesn't seem fair to me.  Furthermore, if god is "all loving" then shouldn't the church be so as well?

They should. but it's not the government's place to make that call.

Ultimately, the Freedom of Religion is the freedom that someone has to choose whichever religion they want to follow.

It's also the freedom to follow ones concious within that religion.

What difference does it make what church you join if you can only practice government approved doctrines. What happens when the government decides the articles of your faith do harm to the public good? what happens if that changes when the party in power changes? What happens if ALL religion is deemed harmful to the public good (as many atheists believe)?

  So then, in that respect, wouldn't refusing someone to follow your religion for whatever reason, be a violation of the Freedom of Religion.

It would be a conflict between to competing claims to freedom. but the truth is that you cannot impose the claim of the one, or the few, against the claim of the many when both claims are equally valid.

[Suzy]

Please understand that the Deutsche Evangelishe Kirche written about by Barth is the Lutheran Church in USA, not the current brand of evangelicalistas we are used to here.

Close, but not quite.  Actually, when the Barth wrote about the German Evangelical Church he is referring to a conglomeration of churches.   In German, the term evangelisch is more accurately rendered Protestant in today's American vernacular.  It simply means non-Roman Catholic.  This conglomeration of churches still exists today and is composed of 22 church bodies: 2 Reformed (Calvinist), 9 Lutheran and 11 united bodies.  Interestingly, they are a far cry from what many in the USA would consider part of the evangelical wing.  And also notable is the fact that the Mormons do NOT participate.

Kristi

[Chaos_Dagger]

In short, Laura, your are saying everyone should have the Freedom of Discrimination.

Your words amount to nothing more than "My church tells me I should hate you, so I do."  Which is a step in the entirely oppsite direction society should be taking.  Your right, refusing someone services for whatever reason does no phsyical harm, but it does however provide psycological harm, which in many cases is worse.  Especially when speaking about LDS, the church wishes to keep following the religion in the family.  For many families it's not a choice, but rather a "duty".  If you are born into a Mormon family you are expected to be a mormon no if ands or buts.  Of course the church does have "outs" to make it seem less mind controlled, however I have never seen a mormon family who would allow their children to take this out.  You could argue that it's not the business of the church what parents force their children to do, but when it's the church that teaches them to do it through "doctrine" before they even have children then yes I do blame the church.

If you are forced to follow doctrine, that states you are less of a person then anyone else, and your family threatens to disown you, then YES that causes a great LOT of harm to someone.  This is why the Human Rights act is in place.  The wonders of democracy allow the people of a country to vote on what they think is right.  So if everyone believed the Human Rights Act as correct, then what does even a church have to complain about.  Obviously many people even within that church also agree with the Human Rights Act, if a select few disagree TOUGH!  It is human nature to wish to feel safe and secure within one's community, including within their religious practices.  It's the governments job to make sure the community runs smoothly, and to make sure people feel safe and secure.  If a "religion" wishes to contradict this, and force people to feel bad about themsleves, then obviously the religion is not doing any good for the community.  Therefore, it IS the governments job to make sure said religion either adheres to laws in place to help people, or STFU and get out of their country.  Government runs the country, not religion.

[Chaos_Dagger]

Everyone already has that right. How can it be removed?

IF you're willing to defy all, you are allowed to be discriminatory.

It's not a right, it's just something people do.  It's wrong, hateful, and hurtful. 

[tekla]

OK, gee whiz I'm hard pressed here.  I'm not exactly a defender of the faith (no matter what it is) but I do strongly believe in basic American principals, and even if I don't like it all that much, Freedom of Worship is pretty primal among them.  So too - and I think its even closer to the point here - so is Freedom of Association.

So if you want to go to the big Catholic Church here - we got one, it looks like an Agitator to a Maytag washing machine, but there it is.*  Or you can go across the Bay to the huge LDS temple over on another mountain.  Or you can go to African Orthodox Church of St. John Coltrane and ponder the meaning of the universe while listening to A Love Supreme.  (Yes its a real church, not all that bad as churches go, and you can even be white and go, and face it, some people find Bach boring, Steven Chapman even more so.)

That's cool.  I'm down with that - it would be nice if they paid taxes, but... - so long as no one is forced to go, or forced to support them.

As far as I've ever seen Western Religion is pretty legalistic, they have lots, and lots, and lots, and even more rules.  You're free to accept those rules as a part of belonging.  Your also free to eat ham and cheese sandwiches with a shrimp cocktail, or eat hamburgers on Friday during Lent, or not wear special underwear if you don't want to. 

If you don't like their rules, or their doctrines, or their faith, or their books, or the way the dress - easy, don't go.  If you're going to join a voluntary organization, fine, don't complain to me about the rules.

Oh but they discriminate against me.  Boo Fricking Hoo.  I got some new news apparently.  All sorts of groups, some religious, and many not, discriminate against somethings, some have a pretty long list and discriminate against just about everything else. 

Laura Hope, who is a good Baptist, went to church all the time, prayed, read the bible (I'm guessing here, but I bet I'm right) did all the right Christian worship type things - Laura is going to hell.  I know that because every nun that taught me up to the eight grade told me so.  Because Laura is not a Catholic, she is, as one of my nuns called it, a DBP, a Dirty Black Protestant.  She might have been baptized, but it didn't count because a priest didn't do it in a Catholic Church.  Simple as that.  You just can't have people running willie nilly around the countryside baptizing people now can you?  I was taught that being a Christian wasn't even enough, you had to be our kind of Christian for it to do any good, in this case, Roman Catholic.  And the LDS wasn't just a cult, which is kind of a new trendy word, it was an outright heresy, and it was a fast ticket to the place below with all the fire and they guy with the pointy stick to believe in that.

Nor is the Roman Catholic Church alone in that - plenty of people, some Baptists even, think the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, so I guess turnabout is fair play.  Jews still call themselves 'the chosen people of God' and very much mean by that, that you aren't chosen there pal.  You follow Allah or you're an infidel, and even at that Suni or >-bleeped-<e?

I think its perfectly reasonable (well, to the degree that I cringe to write the word reasonable when talking about religion) for a group to set rules, and try and enforce them - within the confines and structures of the community of believers only. If your church says porno is bad, fine.  People in that church should not look at it, however they have no right to tell me that I can't thumb through my well-worn copy of Sluts in Uniform, vol. 7 either.

Many Western religions - most if not all of them in fact, have a real problem with homosexuality for a number of reasons, some of them, like the LDS actually make sense in the confines of the doctrine. Others find something in some obscure book of the Old Testament (while very carefully ignoring everything else around it) and run from there.  Catholics seem to hate it because it was so very Roman.  So be it.

But I think that any church, like any other voluntary organization, has an absolute right to define who are, and who are not, members. It's not the business of government to decide, and what's Canada going to do when the Pope or the Bishop excommunicates a Canadian Citizen?  Go to Rome and get an audience and persuade the church to change its mind?  Canada will be long gone as a nation state in far less time then it takes the Catholic Church to change its mind.

It was never the point of American law, or the Canadian one either, to preempt the religious doctrines of any particular religion.  And even if that actually flies in Canada - and I doubt it, they are not going to force Churches to marry homosexuals, or accept transsexuals - its never, NEVER, N-E-V-E-R, going to fly like that this side of the border.  The hate speech stuff is strictly for public speech, not for private speech, and what's said inside a church is considered private speech.






* I'm not kidding, look at the picture and you tell me what it looks like
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/St_Mary%27s_Cathedral_-_San_Francisco.jpg

[finewine]

Brilliant!  I want to ply you with drink and stick my tongue in your ear for that post   Nicely said!

[tekla]

I take money and gift cards too.

[tekla]

Ahh, story of my life - that's how I'm a union delegate and rep for the negotiation team, because everyone is too busy making money to worry about the contract.

[tekla]

Hell no, I was just going to organize a picket line and collect strike pay, LOL.

[tekla]

Well as someone who went to a male only school - in fine Catholic tradition, right next door to an all girls school, so I kinda missed the point - but, I'm aware of all that.  But England is a long way away, and I don't tour anymore, so I think I'll be safe.  If he gets close I'll just put on the bootleg recording of Jewell playing last night and he'll fall asleep (like we all did) real fast.

[tekla]

I could argue that in fact not having young women around was good for the young men too.  Face it guys are dumb enough without giving them a reason.  Take any bunch of stupid guys, add in one reasonably attractive girl, and you get supercharged stupid.

[FairyGirl]

You'll get no argument from me on that.

Nor I.

Speaking of LDS, I took some of that once. Didn't know they were giving it away free in church but I heard about this concert where there was some free kool-aid...