There were multiple social media reports over the weekend from people saying basically, “a dude in a dress is in Relief Society.” These reports may or may not be true, but the point of this post is not to discuss that. This post instead addresses the inevitable time when guys in dresses will go to Relief Society and what the right response of faithful Latter-day Saints should be.
First, let’s make a point that is not obvious: not all cases of dudes in dresses going to RS are the same.
Let’s consider first Paul, who likes to be known now as Paulina. Paul has been in the ward for 15 years, and everybody knows him. He is a loner but a pleasant guy who always shows up for service projects and does his calling. He goes to the temple regularly. He has always been a bit effeminate. He has never dated any of the single women in the ward and seems very socially awkward, but overall a really nice guy. Paul disappears for a year and then comes back in a dress and asks people to call him Paulina. His hair is longer and he/she now has no facial hair. Same nice guy, now dresses like a woman. Because he/she is well-known in the ward, most people feel comfortable around him and lovingly do their best to accept him into the ward family. He/she still has a strong testimony but wants to go to Relief Society.
I think most people would not have an issue with Paulina going to Relief Society. (Or maybe not, tell me what you think).
(Before you give me a lecture on how unlikely this scenario is, I knew a guy just like this in the 1970s growing up in California, so it is not that unlikely at all. He/she was not a latter-day Saint but was a nice man who I knew personally who in the space of a year started calling himself a woman.)
Now let’s contrast Paulina with Pat, who is a political activist man dressed like a woman who shows up one day at church with an attitude, clearly intending to show what a bunch of bigots we Latter-day Saints are. He has a beard and a huge clearly fake bosom and wears a big Hawaiian muumuu. He sighs and makes comments from the back of Sacrament meeting and then announces he is going to Relief Society, and says, “let’s see if any of you Mormons can stop me.” Once he is there, he is noisy and disruptive and loudly asks impolite questions, accusing members of Relief Society of being “Molly Mormons.”
Now obviously Pat is an exaggerated character, but don’t be surprised if you hear of a person like Pat trying to disrupt RS sometime soon (and it may have already happened for all I know).
I hope we can all agree that this Pat character should be kicked out of Relief Society, right?
The point here is that our attitude toward a dude in a dress going to RS depends a lot on how this person behaves, or at least that should be a factor to consider.
Now, let’s see what the Church says on this subject.
Some key excerpts from the handbook:
38.1.1
Attendance at Church Meetings
The Savior taught that His disciples should love their neighbors (see Matthew 22:39). Paul invited new converts to “no more be strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:19). The Savior also taught that Church members are not to “cast any one out from … public meetings, which are held before the world” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:3).
All are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, other Sunday meetings, and social events of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The presiding officer is responsible to ensure that all who attend are respectful of the sacred setting.
Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.
If there is inappropriate behavior, the bishop or stake president gives private counsel in a spirit of love. He encourages those whose behavior is improper for the occasion to focus on helping maintain a sacred space for everyone present with a special emphasis on worshipping Heavenly Father and the Savior.
Church meetinghouses remain private property subject to Church policies. Persons unwilling to follow these guidelines will be asked in a respectful way not to attend Church meetings and events.
Here is some more:
38.2.8.10
Persons Who Identify as Transgender
A transgender person may be baptized and confirmed if he or she is not pursuing elective medical or surgical intervention to attempt to transition to the opposite of his or her biological sex at birth (“sex reassignment”).
Mission presidents should counsel with the Area Presidency to address individual situations with sensitivity and Christlike love.
A person who has completed sex reassignment through elective medical or surgical intervention must have First Presidency approval to be baptized. The mission president may request this approval if he has interviewed the person, found him or her to be otherwise worthy, and can recommend baptism. The person will not be able to receive the priesthood, a temple recommend, or some Church callings. However, he or she can participate in the Church in other ways.
There is also this in the handbook:
38.6.23
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 as transgender.
Most Church participation and some priesthood ordinances are gender neutral. Transgender persons may be baptized and confirmed as outlined in 38.2.8.10. 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).
The Church has several pages dedicated to this issue, which can be read here.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender/understanding?lang=eng
By pure coincidence, Elder Oaks addressed this issue just a few days ago and said the following:
President Oaks then addressed some of his remarks to high school seniors in attendance. He acknowledged their generation’s prevalent struggles with anxiety, drugs and social media. He shared a portion of a letter he received from a young woman about gender dysphoria.
“I truly don’t understand why so many youth in our church don’t see any problem with people changing their gender every other day, dating people who are the same sex or identify as no gender,” the young woman wrote. “I know we are supposed to love everyone and show them respect, and I always do. I [just] feel there is a line being crossed.”
President Oaks responded by pointing to the way Jesus balances His love while emphasizing the importance of law in John 8 in the New Testament. When religious leaders of the time brought a woman to him to be judged for adultery, Jesus responded, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Jesus later applied the power of love by declining to condemn her and affirmed the law by saying that she should “sin no more.”
President Oaks urged his audience to live the commandments of love and law “in a more complete way. Anyone who does not treat individuals who face gender identity challenges with love and dignity is not aligned with the teachings of the first and second great commandments. Thus, on the subject of God’s law, we need to remember that God has revealed again and again that He created male and female. And on the subject of our duty to love our neighbor, we need to remember that God has commanded us to love even those who do not keep all the commandments.
“If you, a family member or a friend is struggling with these issues of confusion of identity,” he continued, “I urge you to apply both the law of the gospel and the love and mercy of our Savior and Redeemer, who will help and guide you, if you patiently walk in His paths.”
Back to me now.
The whole issue of how to treat people with gender dysphoria is one of the tests of our time. I see it very similar to other issues related to non-traditional sexuality. There are two tests going on: 1)can we as faithful members uphold the standards of the Church at a time when society seems to be increasingly accepting of non-traditional behavior? and 2)can we as members maintain Christ-like love for all around us, including those whose sexual behavior we may see as problematic?
They never said it would be easy to be a Latter-day Saint, but they did say it would be worth it.
Lots of sympathy in lots of directions.
However, to speak personally:
I desperately miss General Relief Society meetings (and the general priesthood sessions for my husband and sons.)
I am already sorrowful about the loss of genuine RS manuals and lessons… (yes, and Melchizedek Priesthood manuals, for the men.)
As it is currently, it probably appears that there is no obvious reason to separate for 2nd hour every other week. A conference talk lesson is as gender neutral as Come Follow Me.
Super old-fashioned to most now, I realize, but there really is women and men specific counsel that we don’t get anymore. Listen to Sis. Beck’s general RSmtg. addresses or Pres. Hinckley’s Priesthood session talks for a taste of how neutral counsel has become.
Some celebrate and call it progress.
But I am not the woman/mom/wife I am now without the “women’s lessons” I had 20-30 years ago. I see lots of confused and overwhelmed young women and moms who could use the counsel and help I was given within the safe spaces of RS…but we simply don’t have the same conversations over a conference talk that we did over women specific lessons.
Please help the men attend their own meetings.
Being a woman isn’t just playing dress up. It’s not simply a feeling. Please don’t ask us to absorb these kinds of situations when so much of what was unique to womanhood in the church has already been done away with.
If gender really is eternal, let’s please acknowledge the differences, even celebrate them if possible, and strengthen each other within them.
(It shouldn’t be so scary to try to say this in a public forum… and yet it is terrifying!)
In answer to your opening question, “…what is the right response?” I’m persuaded there will come a time in some western countries that the church will be forced to go underground and practise in secret.
NotThatMeg, it’s not super old-fashioned to define womanhood as something else than playing dress up. The world has gone mad, the American Psychological Association and some medical associations have sold their souls to the devil by celebrating mental disorder. How can you be of a different “gender” simply because you adopt external attributes of the opposite sex in your (decadent) culture. A woman is someone born with ovaries and a uterus. I only have sympathy for people with chromosomal anomalies and their families. The rest is nonsense in my opinion. Sorry, knee jerk reaction from a brother who found redemption from unchaste thoughts in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I pray that the Church will at least condemn puberty blockers and reassignment surgeries on minors (not that think the surgeries are a good idea on adults either). I could go on and on.
NotThatMeg: I also want the return of the General RS and Priesthood meetings. My husband was waiting for our boys to be old enough to go together, then that’s when the changes were made and the meetings discontinued. I feel like our young men are particularly adrift right now. Come Follow Me is great, but when that is the only curriculum for Sunday, home and seminary it gets redundant.
As for Geoff’s question, I don’t want men is RS, suit or dress. Please let us have our spaces.
I’m with NotThatMeg and Joyce; I was serving a mission in 1980 when the changes to the block program came and I was so disappointed that I’d never get to go to RS on a weekday! I miss the RS specific meetings too. Even when I was in a singles ward RS presidency we had “Mother Education” lessons and taught the sisters (like Sister Dew did) that we all are potential mothers and can prepare ourselves for that special role.
I believe that men dressing up as women is a sign of mental illness and I have a hard time being around those who have that particular strain. I would not feel comfortable with a “dude in a dress” in RS. It would be disruptive and detrimental to the privacy and sensitivity of the women there.
Rozy, I remember going to meetings on weekdays. My mom would drop us off with our great-grandparents on Tuesday afternoons so she could go to RS. Then we’d have primary on Wednesdays.
I think this issue becomes difficult because the incessant tone of the culture wars crowds out the Savior in our brains and we want to treat the situation in front of us as proxy for that culture war battle that satan is causing (and gaining ground) to rain in the hearts of men.
So the knee jerk response is to respond as though it’s an attack.
I see our culture coming back around on the whole transgender sport thing. You can see it in some of the women, often even liberal progressive women that are not just saying men and women should compete separately, but they are turning these debates into broader gender wars of “men” vs “women”, with men wanting to assault, dominate, violate privacy, etc. of woman.
No…what’s happening is a single man, with serious mental issues, be they benign or aggressive, is acting out those issues with the permission and support of leftists as an identify politics tool against the right.
What gets forgotten in all of this is a deeply damaged, confused, sad, frustrated, or angry, etc. individual.
So I think the same thing with what we might want to dismiss as a weirdo, or an activist, etc. who wants to show up to relief society. They are completely broken and desperately need the Savior’s atonement.
Unfortunately, they won’t get that if we affirm the the path they are on. But they’ll only argue with us or be driven away in hurt if we tell them that. It’s a difficult one.
Let’s put it this way. A relief society sister gets up and says she drinks alcohol because it lowers blood pressure, and she’s limited herself to one or two beers a week. Her doctor has said it might even be good for her to do so and she cites a bunch of studies about alcohol in limited quantities having a positive effect.
What will cause her to stop drinking? Telling her she’s out of line and picking a part all her studies, telling her what the prophets have asked us to do and stand for truth? Well, it’s possible. But likely she just won’t come. We are comfortable drawing that dividing line with the word of wisdom for some reason. But would she be more likely to stay, if everyone just listened to her comment and then carried on with the lesson, hoping eventually this individual would see the light?
Would the RS pres or bishop have to say something? What if they don’t and more members suddenly start drinking one or two beers a week, citing the same info as this member?
You can be absolutely certain, this parallel will apply to trans issues in a ward. The social contagion aspect has been shown in multiple areas of the world to be a reality.
I don’t have the answer, but I have more questions. I can say, my answer is if my kids start getting taught things in church that their classmates were infecting them with at school, I will pull them out of those church classes just like I did their school classes.
Make this real case into a hypothetical and turn that RS sister into a young man who is now going to young womans. And a young woman who wants to go to young men and is chest binding because she is uncomfortable with her developing body.
In all the above cases there is a very real pathology at work, very real damage that has happened at some point to this individual (abuse, inutero, environmental, cultural, who knows). They need to be freed from the blood and sins in this generation, and the ordinances of the priesthood is the only way that can happen.
But are we trusting and preaching enough that it’s even possible? Is it even legal to do so now?
Oh, and to be clear, I’m not saying trans or ssa is the same as drinking alcohol. It’s a much more serious mental disorder that appears to be intractable, at least as far as the science is (allowed to be) understood.
One more thought that is uncomfortable. The church has tried to navigate the homosexual topic charitably, making it not an issue of how you feel, but how you act. In a sense, to a traditional moral conservative Christian, it felt a little like caving on the issue, but the dividing line between thoughts and behavior was something that was defendable.
The trans issue blows a hole in that bulwark the church tried to setup. It’s no longer about thoughts vs behavior, as to the trans their thoughts is what your behavior must change to accept.
As with contraceptives, the church backed away in the culture wars on this issue from making marriage about man uniting with woman to have kids. Contraceptives allowed marriage to transform into a “fulfilling sexual relationship” as it’s often put. That clearly opened the door to gay marriage. The church could articulate clear, reasonable dividing lines why that was still wrong, but the broader culture had moved on once “sex” was divorced from “procreation” through high effective technology. Love is love after all (conveniently ignoring that real romantic love divorced from offspring is stunted at best).
This is all part of the sexual revolution that misunderstands the very act of sex. Is it any wonder we’ve now ended up here?
The church will soon have no where to stand if society doesn’t repent (in the classical “change direction”) on this issue.
The church, and all of us, will not be allowed to tell an individual what they believe about themselves is in error. It’s probably not allowed already in many places, and we just await some firm legal tests through the courts/legislatures to cement that reality.
Standing for what we see as the truth on this issue will only invite argument, scorn etc.
It feels as if we’re being called to be like Christ. Standing before our accusers, standing before the crowd, silent, knowing whatever we say will have no effect. Abused, tortured, mocked, and still, for the most part silent, regretting the choices of the people who injured us and filled with enough love to ask that they be forgiven for not even recognizing the evil of what their doing.
Convince me I’m wrong. Please.
@ NotThatMeg, Joyce, and Rozy,
I participated in a council between ward and stake after just this situation happened. The person involved was somewhere between activism and sincere confusion, and was supported by several loudly activist women in the ward. I have no idea what the ward decided after that meeting; I know only that I advocated for a woman-only space in RS, because there are women who have been horribly abused by men and need a public church space in which they can feel safe. It is not fair to biological women to have their spaces taken away so that confused individuals can feel ‘comfortable’ or ‘validated’ in their confusion. It is not right that we place more weight on confused individuals’ feelings or ‘rights’ than those of others. Everyone certainly deserves to be treated with respect, but church is a place where truth should prevail, and church leaders have made it pretty clear that we shouldn’t allow the world’s ‘truth’ to supplant eternal truths.
EC
The abused by (songs individual) men comment goes to far, even as is its obviously true.
That’s like saying some members were mugged by black people so…
You see the problem I hope?
Why not just point out the common, replicated observation that women comment less and share less and share differently when there are men in the audience. This has been studied immensely, and it’s not because of male abuse.
Women are different then men and deserve to have space for them. That being said, if the bishop or a councilor or the prophet sat in on a meeting would most women object?
Likely not. So… the issue isn’t just women only spaces but the fact that a person has a contagious mental disorder and is asking others to play along in a way that violates our faith and causes damage and prevents healing of that individual.
The best way for that individual to be healed is to accept the precepts and teachings of the church for what they are. This issue is a Trojan horse on so many levels and however we respond there will be more suffering.
As long as the church leadership walks the fine line it does we will have issues.
Take another example from the Saviors day. Leprosy. It was contagious to those who had the propensity to contract it. They didn’t know that. It’s both highly contagious and not contagious at all. The problem was they didn’t know that. See the similarities? The Jews presumed to “stop the spread” by shunning those suffering the worst.
Christ got close to, and healed those affected. Surely some looked at that willingness to get close to them as reckless or at least would have said he was reckless if he suggested full civic and religious participation from those suffering this disease? They were people too, people without hope and suffering.
How do you treat them? Tell them that can’t pray in synagogue with the other women?
The solution is to heal them. That healing came from Christ himself. Can our leaders act as that proxy and individually help those suffering have a mighty change? Or is this just a cross we’re going to have to bear in the midst of the final great apostasy?
Writing conversationally, not confrontationally…
E.C. – thank you for recognizing and acknowledging there are women who feel incredibly unsafe around men. I am thankfully, not one of those women, so my thoughts do not come from that place, but rather from the comment that “everyone deserves to be treated with respect, but church is a place where truth should prevail…”
Which leads me to some of the thoughts expressed by sute who wrote:
“What gets forgotten in all of this is a deeply damaged, confused, sad, frustrated, or angry, etc. individual. So I think the same thing with what we might want to dismiss as a weirdo, or an activist, etc. who wants to show up to relief society. They are completely broken and desperately need the Savior’s atonement. Unfortunately, they won’t get that if we affirm the the path they are on. But they’ll only argue with us or be driven away in hurt if we tell them that. It’s a difficult one.”
The person actually forgotten in this scenario of welcoming broken men into Relief Society is the actual Relief Society sister who will be “deeply damaged, confused, sad, frustrated, or angry etc.” by being erased in one more women’s space. It’s the Relief Society sister who disagrees that will be driven away- even if she manages to be brave enough to state that a man in a dress, should still be in the class with men. She is, or will soon be, the forgotten, unseen, ignored person.
I say that because very few are having conversations with men admonishing them to accommodate women and their spaces.
The idea that this man’s struggle is forgotten, is simply not true.
It is before every woman, every day.
There is an entire month dedicated to it.
Every sister, each week, comes with her bag of problems and struggles – not unlike the sister sute uses as a parallel point. However, the parallel fails from the simple fact that this isn’t just a difference of opinion of what is sinful behavior among sisters and how do we help each other make better choices? The Relief Society has assisted with women issues throughout it’s entire existence. This hypothetical sister wouldn’t be the first sister needing help or perspective to make a better choice. But the basic fundamental truth still held in common is that all the sisters in the room are first and foremost – women! When there is a brother, struggling with whatever he is struggling with, including wearing a dress, he needs to be nurtured back to spiritual health with the men!
Women are being erased. Within the culture wars sute speaks of, women no longer have our own public restrooms or changing spaces let alone our own winner’s circle or podium. Not even breastfeeding classes are protected.
I can’t express how fundamentally damaging it is, individually and societally, to watch womanhood become a mere mocking, blasphemous costume parade – in some extreme cases sexualizing the very children most women would innately die to protect.
Men still have accepted, acknowledged dictionary and medical definitions.
Women don’t even have that.
Sute continues:
“Standing for what we see as the truth on this issue will only invite argument, scorn etc. It feels as if we’re being called to be like Christ. Standing before our accusers, standing before the crowd, silent, knowing whatever we say will have no effect…”
Not standing for truth because someone may argue…isn’t even a consideration for me. Truth must be stood for. And I don’t know if this is a Christlike trial. But yes – for this discussion, the argument and scorn… the accusers could very well be in the crowd – some may be Relief Society sisters and Elders Quorum brothers, asking women to ignore our God-given identities and eternal truths, to honor someone’s delusions and brokenness that indeed, only that Savior can solve. Since no one comes to the Savior by untrue paths – as sute said at the start: “these individuals won’t get the help they need if we merely affirm their path” – we are left to judge, not condemn, their path so as to direct them, God-willing and enabling, back home according to eternal truth.
How are women to be strengthened in their meetings to fulfill their God-given responsibilities as Daughters when their very learning environment is compromised in deception and untruth? Asking every sister in that room, to check their hearts and brains at the door, to accommodate and welcome one of the greatest lies of our day – hoping we don’t offend with the truth… has to be a non-starter.
(Thanks to M* and Geoff for keeping a place for a conversation like this.)
Sute:
Womanhood is not like alcoholism or an infectious disease.
No Relief Society sisters are afraid they are going to become alcoholics or cross-dressers simply because one is in “their space”.
And you are being just as intellectually unserious when you want to liken priesthood leadership presiding at a Relief Society meeting to Joe Shmoe and his Sunday dress.
You wrote:
“I don’t have the answer, but I have more questions. I can say, my answer is if my kids start getting taught things in church that their classmates were infecting them with at school, I will pull them out of those church classes just like I did their school classes.”
And what exactly would that be? It seems you are advocating for a blind-eye at a minimum or acceptance at the maximum – at church. Under the very non-judgmental consideration of the poor broken man individual… while challenging a woman who may feel unsafe in the presence of a man in her space – her trauma is no matter.
The slippery slope is greased. What about the individual who identifies as a young woman, or one a primary child. They exist. We don’t want to drive them away…
(Which begs the question, what wolves do we want to drive away? Are there any? But that is not for today…)
At some point, we have to put our money where our mouth is.
If an individual is driven away by truth, they have not been driven beyond the reach of the Atonement. God still knows who they are and will not stop calling to them. He has a plan for them!
But we are not God.
Women (and children) are not sacrifices for men’s whims and brokenness.
Women (and children) deserve safety and protection.
That’s my limit of my civility.
I am afraid we are going to have the opportunity for this discussion many times in the coming days. Sadly, not coming years… but merely days.
I am praying for all of us.
Sorry, Sute, but I cannot agree with you. Sure, women who have man-related trauma are going to have to deal with men – but NOT ‘a man in a dress who insists he’s a woman’. That should not be tolerated in a sane society, which I hope our church still fosters. We should absolutely respect and be kind to trans people just like we would any human being, but that doesn’t mean feeding into their delusions by allowing them into women’s spaces.
Sure, there is a strong element of social contagion involved with trans issues, but that’s mostly on the other end, with women, especially young women, wanting to be men, and that’s because womanhood is increasingly seen as a poor substitute for being a man. This is, quite literally, a medieval attitude that has seen a resurgence since the beginning of second-wave feminism.
I do feel sorry for confused individuals who insist they’re born in the wrong body. Heck, when I was a teen, I wished ardently that I was a boy, because puberty sucked and brought with it some absolutely miserable health issues that have never gone away. I probably would have been one of those caught in this particular snare had I been born 5 years later, which is why I feel so strongly about this issue.
Having a priesthood leader in the room, who is (presumably) worthy to preside and stays mostly in the background is NOT THE SAME as having a man in a dress try to make out that they’re a woman. It is a fundamentally different thing. That priesthood leader, if they comment at all, is clearly coming from a man’s perspective, while the ‘trans woman’ is absolutely not. They’re adopting an identity that is fundamentally impossible for them to have, and allowing them to persist makes a mockery of actual women who have collectively gone through experiences that men never will, no matter how much surgery they undergo.
There are surely separate problems that trans people have that no one else will understand, and that is also true for men and women. Allowing men and women the space to work out those problems in a church setting is why we have separate Relief Society and Priesthood classes and quorums.
Look, I don’t know what the answer is either. I am simply advocating that we not allow yet another woman’s space to be erased in the name of compassion, because that’s not compassionate to the majority, and it’s not kind to the minority either. It’s untruthful and unjust in every possible way.
In general, we should give women more leeway to decide the conditions for RS meetings, and it seems an extremely common reaction among LDS women that they don’t want dudes in dresses in RS. They value having their own space for their own meetings.
I will point out that the Handbook says: “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.” It seems clear to me that the Church wants input from local units, and if the women in RS don’t want dudes in dresses, that input should be taken seriously.
To some of the comments to me, for the record, I’m vehemently opposed to anything to do with transgender ideology.
To the suggestion (duh) that transgender is not alcohol or leprosy… uh. Duh. Parable, analogy can’t exist if you insist on exact comparisons. Engage the question or don’t. I can only imagine the replies to the Saviors talking of talents or virgins etc when talking to some commenter.
Let’s try this one. A certain man in dress went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell in among thieves….
If you can’t even see how we can make a valid argument that we should be willing to.. ummm, you know bear all things with patience and long suffering as we Covenant to take the name upon us of the one, who, you know let murderous, dictator, rapist, leaders drive nails through his hands (come follow me he says… pick up your cross he says)… well hopefully we can see we have hard times ahead.
These people are: suffering, deceived, deceitful, immoral, in pain, abusive, lonely, hopeless, resentful, and so much more.
Jesus knows that. Do you? Why not? Father forgive them, he says to that suffering, deceiving man in a dress in Relief Society, for he knows not what he’s doing.
Don’t get me wrong. I teach my kids clearly on this issue and protect them as best I can. The church is in for a whirlwind here.
Remember Christ on the Cross when you treat and talk about others, is all I am ask.
Humanity is full of conundrum and paradoxes.
Do you know that God knew that Joseph Smith was letting and working with deceitful people in Nauvoo. Do you think it’s possible that a prophet of Good who could look at a pile of rock and bones and tell you by the spirit of revelation about them could also discern that he was working with, Inviting in, potentially deceiving people into his inner circle? Why would he give them that chance? Could it be the same reason that God sends us here? To prove ourselves? The cost of that proving is all the sorrows of the world combined– all aggregated and laid on the back of the Lord.
Joseph knew people were dishonest and he gave them the chance to do right, hoping for the best but sometimes getting the worst. I’m not saying he handled everything perfectly in every case. But I see much of Christ in his willingness to literally bear the burdens through the consequences of letting others use their agency.
I agree with the other women that the Relief Society is a society of women, working for the relief of women and of all, and that we really appreciate that opportunity to be part of a society that is for women. To have a place, on a Sunday, where we can discuss things as women, and not with everyone. It’s also good to have a place to do that (discuss topics with everyone), in Sunday School or other gatherings. I think it would be the same for men and priesthood meetings, although those have an added element of, perhaps – since I’ve never been to one – teaching and maintaining important responsibilities of priesthood calling, etc. It’s also just refreshing and nice to have these separate times and organisations. The whole rest of life is mixed.
There is an order to things, and the Church works in a very ordered way – it’s part of what makes it work so well, and helps us have confidence in it.
Like others are saying here, treating someone with love means doing something kindly and compassionately, while directing or helping them in the way that is correct. Leading them towards righteousness and alignment with reality. Reality is that our Father in Heaven created us as male and female, and that there is very good reason for this, beyond even what we know now. So being loving and understanding towards a person who has been convinced otherwise due to the current culture or their traumatic experiences – or even because they’re ‘a bit effeminate’, or are maybe a kangaroo short in the top paddock – isn’t about ‘affirmation’ of their delusions or misdirection from others (who don’t care actually about them), but helping them towards what is real and right.
It’s also important to remember everyone else – and that seems, so much, to get forgotten. The person who comes into a women’s organisation because of any of these reasons is going to affect at least some others who are there. They’ll feel less comfortable sharing their personal experiences, which they might need to do that day, or regularly, to realise something important for themselves or to feel healing, or whatever. They might not be able to focus. They might not feel reverent and find it harder to have positive feelings regarding Sunday, or the Gospel, or the people there. These last are all things they need to work with – but the point is, it all affects others. The person who’s misguided isn’t the only one who needs compassionate thought or action. Everyone else does, too.
Real love is not always about kindness – being ‘nice’ and pleasant. It’s about what’s right and what’s most needful. And doing the work to know what that is. God’s example is the best to go from. He doesn’t excuse sin; He is direct and clear, and helps a person go from where they are to where they need to be.
Idealist at Large: that was beautifully said. Thank you for your example.
Again, speaking for myself:
Sute – it is best, if one is simply going to “duh” the conversation, to make sure you are honest about what the person said.
I wrote: “Womanhood is not like alcoholism or an infectious disease.”
You responded: “To the suggestion (duh) that transgender is not alcohol or leprosy… uh. Duh.”
I am left to assume “transgender” and “womanhood” are equally interchangeable to you. Which, from your comments and suppositions, is not a difficult assumption to support. Your dripping sarcasm makes it easy.
Example:
“Engage the question or don’t. I can only imagine the replies to the Saviors talking of talents or virgins etc when talking to some commenter. Let’s try this one. A certain man in dress went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell in among thieves….”
I might return in kind – “A certain Relief Society woman uncomfortable with men in dresses attending Relief Society went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell in among thieves…”
You have “engaged” exactly zero of my observations/questions about the actual real women in Relief Society, while condescendingly redefining womanhood and spewing ignorant assumptions about my understanding of the Savior and my ability to understand and apply His teachings.
Additional example:
“These people are: suffering, deceived, deceitful, immoral, in pain, abusive, lonely, hopeless, resentful, and so much more. Jesus knows that. Do you? Why not?”
Which “these people” are you referring to?
For it would appear, that once again, your only focus is the broken man.
In the women’s space.
You asked me a question and then answer for me insultingly in the negative.
This is a hard way to engage in any meaningful, or sincere, conversation.
Your questionable use of the Savior’s plea to Father to support your insulting question/answer (“Father forgive them, he says to that suffering, deceiving man in a dress in Relief Society, for he knows not what he’s doing.”) is a great indication that you aren’t serious about understanding from any woman’s perspective. Women around the world every day are living “forgive them for they know not what they do” as they watch themselves sidelined and disappeared.
Sute closes with:
“Remember Christ on the Cross when you treat and talk about others, is all I am ask.”
Indeed.
As I opened my comments: “Lots of sympathies in lots of directions.”
As I closed my comments: “I am praying for all of us.”
Amen, NotThatMeg.
I am very much dismayed by the number of comments that say that this is ok. This isn’t a hypothetical – there’s a man who attends RS in my stake, and the RS pres wants him out but the Bishop won’t support her.
We spend so much time advocating for these people who are the exceptions, but what about the mainstream women and girls whose spaces are being invaded? Who is advocating for us? Are we just supposed to smile and give up our spaces and our seats in the name of “kindness,” until we are edged completely out and no longer have ANY spaces? Are we to respect the dignity of men in dresses to the point where we are no longer allowed to protect our own dignity any more? Who will show Christlike love and acceptance to the most vulnerable in the church: Women and girls?
I am a woman and I do not want men LARPing as women in Relief Society. You cannot change your sex and I’m not going to lie and use the pronouns or call him “Sister”. No way, now how.
Notmeg,
I’m not sure you’re reading my comments with Charity but with a zeal to attack a presumed ideological enemy.
I can absolutely see why all of us would want this role playing, fundamentally broken man with a mental disorder far away from us.
I would not call him a her. I would not play along.
Have I suggested I would?
I would also see that all of this, including what I have said calling them out for a mental disorder and so on, probably won’t work to help them. Almost certainly won’t work. Affirming them won’t either.
Being polite and understanding that they are as I said, broken, flawed, in pain, likely abused, likely an abuser themselves, desperate and so on is the reality.
I suggest the Savior did it best in these matters. He didn’t play the game and was often silent or with short replies, but I don’t see him piling on the one suffering.
“Relief Society” – charity never faileth — except if loonies show up in a dress.
I think it’s likely that not playing along, going about business as usual, being respectful but not affirming and not going out of your way to argue or introduce opportunity for debate on an issue you will not persuade them out of is the best way forward.
Hope they will see the error of their ways as you let them see your testimony of the love of God.
It’s most likely two things will happen. They’ll move on, or they’ll figure out what they should do to fix their life.
I said already the church has invited this Trojan horse in with our short sighted, pragmatic takes on sexual morality in the culture wars. The whole idea of SSA vs SS behavior suggests a person is just fine with their attractions and desires as long as they don’t engage in sexual activity to that end. I disagree with this dichotomy, but it has opened the gates for this Trojan horse of people believing their mental disorders are a reflection of who they are.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Transgenderism is a mental disorder. (There are also many mental disorders and pathologies among good standing members as well)
The church does t call these things put, likely for the reasons I’ve articulated about the futility of it and patiently bares it with long suffering.
Not an easy path to follow. As I said, as an adult I can deal with a person’s issues next to me in the pew or classroom.
I want no part in my kids class and I’m out at that point. I also don’t think we need to pretend or go along with their disorder.
Sute:
This issue is not, as I have tried several times to politely explain and illustrate, merely or simply:
” “Relief Society” – charity never faileth — except if loonies show up in a dress”
or
“as an adult I can deal with a person’s issues next to me in the pew or classroom.”
Womanhood is a birthright.
I have no intention of trading mine away or standing idly by while it is stolen.
All the best to you.
Very surprised by some of the responses here, & food for thought on others. Please please please let’s take in the official words from our leaders here and reflect them in our wards! https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender/understanding?lang=eng