You’re the Bishop #4 (Poll)

The answer is not that hard. The question is simply regarding the “few comments” the bishop is getting that some of the women feel uncomfortable with her attending Relief Society or using the ladies restroom. If that is really the extent of the conflict, then this is simply not a major problem at all. Since the question didn’t get into a discussion of more serious possible conflict consequences, I won’t go there either. As a bishop, I would simply talk with those sisters who feel uncomfortable and find out what makes them feel uncomfortable, and the very simple WWJD question. Get them to see the human soul behind the facade they don’t like.

Like Dan, I might have a chat with the sisters or RS presidency about the importance of acceptance and charity, showing it as an opportunity to express Christlike love. Because, really, they are dealing with another person, not some ill-conceived creature.

As for the bathrooms, from what I’ve seen during ward cleaning duties, most church bathrooms seem to be vastly more private than standard public restrooms. Unless there’s some kind of inappropriate behavior that hasn’t been mentioned, I think it should be an exercise in tolerance.

Explain the situation and see if the person is willing to use the unisex restroom.

A; Request that He/She use the unisex bathroom

B: Run a background check

First, unless the handbook has changed since I last viewed it approximately four years ago, the missionaries (or their mission president?) are incorrect. First Presidency approval is involved where the person has already received gender reassignment surgery, not while they are considering it or preparing for it. I can understand the mission president seeking guidance from HQ, but this individual is not yet in the “FP approval required” category.

Second, if women are “commenting” about this person attending Relief Society or using the women’s restroom, can you even imagine the “comments” which would ensue from men, if she is expected to attend Priesthood meeting and/or use the men’s restroom? I would expect much worse from the men, than from the women, sadly, just as a matter of culture. If local authorities truly can’t handle her attending Relief Society, it would be better for all concerned that she not attend the P/RS hour meetings at all.

Third, while the Proclamation Against Certain Families does claim that “gender” (a misuse of the word) is eternal, the biological sex (what they really meant) of an individual is questionable in more cases than we commonly expect. At this point, we have little information on this person’s particular circumstances. Many doctors have simply declared the sex of such individuals, sometimes with disastrous results.

Finally, bbell, would you please explain on what basis you would “run a background check?” What leads you to pick this person out, among the 300,000 or so who are baptized in the LDS church each year, for a background check? Do you have credible evidence to suggest that transsexuals are inherently dishonest or predatory? In responding, please consider the fact that one of the most predatory criminals in U.S. history, Ted Bundy (a heterosexual and gender-conforming male, by all accounts), was baptized into the LDS church without any sort of “background check,” while attending the University of Utah.

re #12- in our ward building (stake centre), the are 2 wheelchair access toilets that also double as changing rooms for after baptisms – one in the men`s toilet and one in the women`s, so that doesn`t really help in this situation.

The kindest response to the woman in this case might be to ask her not to come to church anymore. She’d probably be happier that way.

Sad, but true.

#14 and #15: How can you tell someone they’d be happier being excluded?

I don’t understand that line of thinking.

If that person is speaking out against gender issues and causing issues in classrooms…that is different. If they are just there…why not let them come and learn?

Just having a person not allowed to be in our midst because we’re uncomfortable around them…hmmm, that doesn’t sound right.

What if we have a man in our ward who is over 400 lbs? I just think he’d be happier not coming to church and having to listen to the Word of Wisdom and feel guilty and awkward. I better just tell him not to come to our church anymore.

Is that right?

Heber,

#14 and #15: How can you tell someone they’d be happier being excluded?

She’ll certainly be excluded if she does go to church. The church’s doctrines exclude her, and probably the attitudes of most members will exclude her as well. She will never be accepted for who she is in a Mormon congregation. She can’t even use the restroom without people questioning her identity, for crying out loud. If she stops going to church, OTOH, the church and the people there no longer have the ability to exclude her. They’ll be irrelevant to her.

I am unaware of any proscription beyond purpose of the meeting for a man to attend Relief Society. The sisters’ discomfort in the classroom is probably cultural.

As for the bathroom, I would rather he use the men’s room. The sisters’ sense of privacy is paramount to his wannabe status. Besides, a little Chanel No. 5 just might help mask some bathroom odors.

#19: She’ll certainly be excluded if she does go to church. The church’s doctrines exclude her, and probably the attitudes of most members will exclude her as well.

What if the 1st Presidency approves the baptism? That would remove the church’s position on exclusion,and then would require ward members embrace and count the individual as one to be looked after and cared for.

Of course, the bathroom issue is the thing that is most uncomfortable. It would be most easily fixed if the individual would agree it makes others uncomfortable and avoid the lady’s room. But wouldn’t that also be uncomfortable to explain to my boys why a man is dressed as a lady entering the men’s room? I think so (but maybe the lesser of the two uncomfortables).

At some point, although things are uncomfortable, the ward members should find a best solution. I still say, keep it simple and tell my daughters not to go in there when the transgendered person is there.

Amazed:

“Well, it’s clear that you’ve never dealt with their feelings. I’m sure if you had, you would have loads of sympathy. These people aren’t just playing around!!”

You know, in most cases I’m just not seeing it. I can accept that nuance, even the baby mutilated during circumcision, enough to sympathize. Even so, I’m having a hard time understanding this in the context of what should a Mormon Bishop do. To be clear, I believe transgendered individuals should not be thrown out of commercial establishments, or evicted from their homes, etc. But should a Bishop allow a male, to attend relief society in the guise of a woman? Should this person be added to the visiting teaching list, or be asked to attend homemaking? I’m not a big fan of when the Church attempts to impose it’s moral perspective on society via the legislative process. At the same time, I really have no objection to their maintaining a specific code for internal purposes. I have no problem with homosexuals personally, but I understand the Church taking an institutional position on the matter. At the same time, a homosexual may attend Church, participate, and provided they are not practicing homosexual, they may even hold callings etc. They would not be allowed however to engage in any type of homsexual displays, at least not overtly. They would be (and I have seen this) be discouraged from bringing a partner with them to Church, or in way conducting themselves in such a manner that could be construed as advocacy. I suppose the same could be said for the transgendered. If they attended Church in their natural sex (I know, not the most PC descriptor, but I’m at a loss) and attended the proper quorumn, auxilary, society, etc, including their use of restrooms, then I think there would be little reason for a Bishop to address this. If however a man is allowed to attende Church dressed as a woman, and permitted to attend and participate in Relief Society, that would be akin to the Church accepting their new sex. This poses a major conflict with LDS doctrine. You could debate the appropriateness/correctness of the Church’s doctrine, but not the doctrine itself. So I just can’t see how this would ever be allowed.

Tough poll. I know what my position is, and while it might be the norm on this blog, I don’t expect that would be the norm across most wards. While I can concede that some members would be uncomfortable, that’s life. This world has all sorts of twists and turns and it doesn’t hurt for some of us to have our comfrot zones tested from time to time. It is a test of compassion, charity and our ability to suspend judgement.

As for baptism, that is a way ahead for this investigator and may not be on the radar just yet anyhow. But giving her an opportunity to establish a relationship with God is surely what we should be about? What comes of that is between her and God and the church hierarchy. But as a person, she wants to pursue study into the gospel. That should be open to anyone, regardless of whether we agree with their life choices.

As for the bathroom issue, if there is a unisex then that is the best option. Though like a couple of you I’ve never seen one. Must be that difference between us Aussies and most of you guys over there.

While I think a general attitude of tolerance and acceptance is good, I do wonder how far this goes. Ultimately a person should have the right to self-expression, so long as said expression does not infringe upon someone elses rights. Generally I’m okay with this, particularly as a legal right. Does acceptance require however that we must always embrace every aspect of diversity? I have already noted that there are some instances surrounding transgenderedness where the issue is very complex. Barring the unique circumstances such as hermaphrodites or mutilated babies, should religions be expected to embrace all diversity? More to the point, I can accept the rights of a transgendered to live as they choose, hold a job with the expectation of equal treatment (I’d make some exceptions here, but not much), and to otherwise seek out their own course of happiness in life. In that way I can be accepting. At the same time, I would never be so tolerant or accepting of their gender reassignment so as to be willing to date one. Or to hold any other similar type of intimate relationship. I could always love and respect my brothers, but I doubt I could ever, even out of respect, consider them my sisters. So for those who would, I would ask – would you be willing to do any of these things? Perhaps some argument could be made for the siblings. If your brother had always behaved as a female, perhaps you could sympathize with their choice to conduct themselves as such. In which case I would ask, could any of you love this person, complete with sexual attraction, knowing that they are technically of your same sex? If not, then what is the benchmark of acceptance, and why then should the relief society be expected to honor them as a sister?

Heber,

So basically what you’d tell her is, “You may think you’re a woman, but you’re a man and that’s how we’re going to treat you.” And you think that’s better than telling her that she’d probably be happier attending some other church?

While I would be comfortable being in the bathroom with this person, I am not sure what I would say to my young daughters. They’re children. They notice things. They’re verbal. I could imagine a few years ago being at church and having one of them innocently whisper in the way children do (LOUDLY) “Why is that man wearing a dress, Mommy?” Of course, this kind of thing happens in all contexts so I expect transgendered individuals are used to this sort of thing.
What I struggle with is what to tell my children about issues such as this that I myself am conflicted about. I think I know what the “doctrine” is, but my biases tend toward left of center.

I would pick the second option and schedule a ward screening of the lovely Felicity Huffman in the 2005 film Transamerica:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407265/

The discomfort is largely a function of lack of awareness of what it means to be transexual, so some education would seem to be in order.

I think the missionaries should talk openly and frankly about the Family Proclamation, and ask this person how he/she feels about the church’s stance on gender. Does this person feel association with the church is harmonious with his/her transgendered status?

I’d really have to take kuri or Henry’s position in this one. Or at the very least, inform her of what she’s getting into and see if she really wants to go through that. Commenter Dblock seems to have this opinion that kuri and Henry have the positions they do because they are faithful members who want to maintain a comfortable status quo and cannot do that with this individual.

I don’t think Dblock realizes that, on the other hand, these guys are instead people who know — albeit through different circumstances — about being estranged from and by that status quo. If it can happen for mere diversity of thought, I cringe at what it could do with a more noted difference. (subnote to FireTag re 40, it’s not so much, for me, about starting something the theology won’t allow to finish…it’s more about the most expectable social consequences. If word is already getting around now about discomfort, then that’s a bad sign.)

Now, if I were idealistic and hopeful for the church and its members, I would say she should keep going to RS and the women’s restroom.

This does raise some points though…it’s interesting to see where people fall here.

The question is *gender* and *sex*. What determines what and what is more primary? A lot of people here seem to be looking at sex (the hardware), and making their decision based on that. Is to be male to have a penis or be born with a penis, or to have XY, or whatever?

I think, instead, that gender is about the mind and brain. This individual is female despite the hardware. I actually saw a piece relating this to eternal gender. Our souls/intelligences are eternal, right? But our bodies are subject to the fall. So then, wouldn’t this allow for the possibility that a soul could be mismatched to a body. The ultimate takeaway is that we should be basing our evaluation by the soul/mind.

Or, check out the gallery of transgendered women maintained by U of Mich professor Lynn Conway.

kuri,

#19,

The church’s doctrines exclude her, and probably the attitudes of most members will exclude her as well. She will never be accepted for who she is in a Mormon congregation.

On the second point, you are correct, sadly Mormons will not accept someone who wants to believe in Christ. But on the first point, you need to back that up with the actual “church doctrine” against a transsexual. I’ve heard on several occasions from our prophets that the church and the gospel is open to ALL. I didn’t hear a caveat that certain types of people were not welcome. Hell, even with the racist priesthood ban on blacks, the church still baptized blacks and welcomed them into the church. Why not this? If a person, regardless of circumstance, believes in his/her heart of hearts that they believe in Christ, who are you to exclude them from fellowship? It speaks more about the second part of your point than the first.

Cowboy,

Imagine if God thought that way about his creations. If we are trying to emulate God, and be more like Him, then the answer to your questions are resoundingly yes. We should show love for all humans because all humans are children of God, regardless of circumstance. Love the soul dude, not the physical limitations/changes.

I think this will be a non issue. I can’t imagine this individual coming back for a second visit to our church. They would probably be more comfortable finding Christ somewhere else if people in this ward are so unwelcoming. People can tell when they aren’t wanted. As for the bathroom issue every ladies room bathroom has a stall door, unless he is peeking or something, who cares? (If you are worried, don’t let your kids go alone, in our ward house their is a registered sex offender who attends at the same time and I tell my kids they can’t go alone and have told them who the sex offender is and had them look at a picture of him on the internet. I don’t doubt they are working on recovery, but if not I’m not risking my child being sexually assaulted)

If we didn’t let sinners in the door, they’d be no one there. We all have different issues and hopefully can be welcoming to all.

Also, I’m all for background checks on everyone working with youth. I also think it should be done on missionaries (maybe it already is).

Justin- I think most people would agree with you. It is more of a non-issue with me. I agree that the bishop would have numerous issues to work out with the guy.

I have a friend who was RS President and a guy kept coming to RS w/ his wife, people didn’t mind while he was investigating, but after he was baptized they didn’t like it. I can’t remember if she or the Bishop had to tell him he had to go to priesthood, he complied but said the lessons were better in RS.

Dan, if your going to reply, then reply in context. I did not suggest that God does not love this person in an agape fashion (I know, agape references are a bit evangelical). Nor do I suggest that as a society we ought to treat the transgendered any less. What I am intending to distinguish is a difference between social/legal acceptance and personal acceptance. The transgendered should expect the full entitlement of rights and priveliges afforded under the law, with some exception (again the dating & teaching, etc, disclosures). Doees that mean that I should personally regard a specific person as a woman, who in fact biologically is not? I understand the argument of gender being more psychological than physiological, but who is the authority we can all appeal to. It is one thing to be respectful and socially accepting of a person, and quite another to be completely embraceful of their lifestyle. If you truly accept their gender reassignment as being natural, then would you have any objection to being intimately involved with one in a husband/wife context, consisting of both romantic and erotic love. This is the same issue with the relief society. It is one thing for Church members to be loving in a general we-are-all-children-of-God kind of way. It is completely another for them to be institutionally accepting of someone who’s lifestyle is in direct conflict with core doctrine, by allowing them to participate in quorumns, auxilaries, and societies, which they doctrinally cannot belong to. I would just argue, that if you would not be willing to offer a man the full consideration of being a woman, then perhaps the Church ought to be granted the same privilige.

AndrewS: As for mismatched souls and bodies in the pre-existence, I find the bizzare juxtaposition of LDS theology (pre-existence) coupled with an outright rejection of LDS doctrine (The Family: A Proclomation to the World) a bit lacking.

Andrew S:

I think the notion of gender being in the mind rather than the body is a potential step forward toward the truth, but then I come from a denomination that doesn’t have the concept of God’s sond and daughters necessarily being limited to human beings, like most non-Mormon Christians. Personally, I even go beyond my denomination and suspect that my spirit is a collective property of a vast number of copies and variants of my body — some of which ARE transgendered, or ARE gay or ARE married to a nonmenmber, ad infinitum

While this is an extreme example, it isn’t just idealism versus expected social outcome. The ideals of the theology themselves, as expressed in the Proclamation on the Family, require a certain up-front honesty to the woman. IMO.

This is a little more than a minor issue in the woman’s life.

Kuri,

#55,

Can you direct me to where it talks specifically about transsexuality within “Mormon Doctrine” (whatever that phrase happens to be, as there is no established, written doctrine of the Mormons). I’m aware that a bishop may choose to start a disciplinary council for a member who performs a sex change, according to the handbook of instructions. But beyond that, I don’t see anywhere where such individuals are excluded from membership in our congregations.

Cowboy,

I didn’t know that was one of the requirements of showing Christ-like love to someone, that I must consider an intimate romantic relationship with that person. Surely you don’t put the same test to a homosexual. Must I consider an intimate romantic relationship with a homosexual in order to be accepting of that homosexual person?

Re #54 (kuri)– The LDS position isn’t self-consistent. The Church encourages the parents of children born with ambiguous genitalia to choose a gender assignment for the child in infancy and perform surgery to make the child’s appearance match the sex chosen by the parents. Whatever choice the parents make for the child becomes that person’s immutable, eternal gender in the eyes of the Church.

This practice is now thought by many to be medically unethical– the arbitrarily assigned sex is often at odds with the child’s innate gender identity (which only becomes apparent as the child matures), and the surgery often mutilates the child’s anatomy to the point that they as an adult cannot experience sexual (genital) stimulation.

Basically, the Church is against the dignity of self-determination, not medical intervention per se.

Dan:

Were not talking about “Christ-like love” here, as ambiguous as that is in this context. I guess it depends your individual view of Christ. If you are talking about him in the context of Mormonism, I find it unlikely that he would allow a man into Relief Society. Who knows? If your again talking about that general Christ-like love extended to all of Gods children, then you are correct, it seems unlikely that a willingness to date such a person would be required. From your comments however, I gather that what you are suggesting is that a transgendered person ought to be able to attend Relief Society, because that is the Christ-like thing to do. You furthermore have seemed to suggest that society is displaying ignorance when they, on a personal level, cannot come to see the transgendered as a natural member of their desired sex. This is what the Relief Society and Bishop are being asked to do in your comments. So I thought I would see if you could do the same, because I know I couldn’t. You have not answered the question, so I will assume that you would probably be unwilling to do that. Frankly, I think it is asking too much of the Church in this case.

…if gender changes technically and biologically, and acceptance is of Jesus, would you be willing to consider an intimate romantic relationship with someone who has undergone such a change? Are you that accepting?

Cowboy,

Is my willingness to consider a sexual relationship (even a purely hypothetical one) with a woman a criterion for her attendance at Relief Society? If so, about 75 percent of my ward’s Relief Society just got disqualified.

Cowboy,
That’s a difficult question. It might well be a deal-breaker, but it wouldn’t necessarily automatically be one. So I think the only possible answer is “It would depend.”

Cowboy–”So then Dan, if gender changes technically and biologically, and acceptance is of Jesus, would you be willing to consider an intimate romantic relationship with someone who has undergone such a change?”

It is interesting to note that in the link to the photos of transgendered women that MoHoHawaii posted above, one of the women is shown with her female partner.

What a complex issue this is. While sticking with church doctrine (whatever that is) and church policies may make the issue easy for some it doesn’t insure the best (or even a good) outcome. The advice of the stake president to do whatever makes the person welcome was outstanding. I don’t know how many stake presidents that would have been so thoughtful.

In this situation what makes a man a woman? The feelings? The clothing? The operation? Beyond me. Fascinating post. One of the most interesting in a long time, in my mind.

Cowboy,

You furthermore have seemed to suggest that society is displaying ignorance when they, on a personal level, cannot come to see the transgendered as a natural member of their desired sex.

Forgive me if you got that impression because that’s not the way I see it. I don’t ask people to view a transgendered person as any other person. That is impossible by the very nature of their transgendered state. I ask that people step out of their comfort zone and view others as God views them or as God would want us to view them. Thus I ask where we are told to shun those who are transgendered.

Cowboy,

Would this new information be a deal breaker, or would you (Dan, Kuri, whoever…) be able to look past it and still regard this person with the same kind of love and intimacy you felt when you believed they were born as their current sex?

You must not have seen “The Crying Game.” I think you might be enlightened somewhat about how you react by just such a revelation if you saw it.

Did I say any of those? You don’t have to be a temple attendee, or to be married in the temple in order to be a regular member.

No, but you do have to have that opportunity at least hypothetically available. You can’t be permanently excluded based on what you are. That makes you a sort of second-class member. Or would you argue that black Mormons before 1978 were “fully accepted as regular members”?

Cowboy,
Did you look at the gallery MoHoHawaii linked to? Would you tell those people that they should attend Priesthood Meeting rather than Relief Society?

Holden,

Again, real simple and clearly defined in the Proclamation on the Family “gender is essential part….”. If you are Male you can receive the Priesthood; and, if you are not (female or undefined) then you cannot. It is simple. These issues can and will be worked out in the hereafter by an Omnificent Father. For now, we must go by what we know.

Kuri,

This is a no brainer. When you are conducting an interview for a Priesthood ordination, as a Bishop, and you are unsure if the candidate is Male then ASK (I would ask the person presented in the picture above). If they tell you they are Male and answer every other question denoting they are worthy, then give them the Priesthood. If you suspect they had a gender change, then ASK. If they did, don’t give them the Priesthood. If they lie, then it is tantamount to telling a lie to God and they will pay the consequences of their decision. If they are unsure about their identity, then don’t give them the Priesthood. Again, if they lie, they will be accountable before God. If you don’t suspect anything and they are not male and they receive the Priesthood, then it will come to light sometime if the future and it can be dealt with then – either in this life or in the next. Real simple folks.

Ken S.:

Doesn’t your simplicity sort of prove Kuri’s point that if a transgendered person isn’t a TBM to begin with, maybe that person might find it difficult to bother to seek a testimony in the first place?

Firetag:

As a transgender, they most likely don’t want anything to do with the LDS Church and probably never will. On the other hand, in the parable of the wheat and the tares they will either repent and become part of the fold, or they will be sifted out. The Gospel is not for everyone.

Ken,
So, as near as I can tell, you think “male” means anyone who thinks he’s male and hasn’t had a “gender change”?

MoHoHawaii:

No I’m not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that these cases make the LDS position very unstable from a baptismal worthiness perspective. So my opinions as to how I would expect, and think, a Bishop should act would not be applicable in these scenarios. I think that any decision to (re)assign the sex in these cases should be the sole prerogative of the person in question. I can appreciate the quandary parents find themselves in, but still question even their right to make such a decision.

Stephen Marsh:

Regarding this person in Brazil, what was the outcome? Were they required to adopt their prior sex, or were they “allowed” to maintain their new sex/gender identity?

Kuri/Holden:

I’m sorry I’m not being clear; to me it is real simple.

If you are born with Male genitalia and only Male genitalia and have no reservations about the fact that you are Male, then you are Male. This represents almost all beings that identify themselves as Male. Along these lines, this is an eternal identification – you were Male before you were born, are Male here on earth and will be Male in the eternities. The exact same thing can be said for Females.

There is a class of people that are born with both parts; or they are born with parts that would identify them as Male or Female and are confused their identity. This is the confused crowd. I don’t understand it and I don’t think they should be mocked or mistreated. Again, an Omnificent Father will work this out in the hereafter.

Kuri,

Ambiguous genitalia is a very rare condition (1 in 100,000) and is thus something that could and should be dealt with by a member of the First Presidency. Revelation from this source could determine the Eternal Identity of a soul, which would answer all of the above questions. If it is determined by this source that the individual is Male, then the Priesthood could be administered.

Kuru,

Gender is not a choice, but an eternal identity. Those who are confused or unclear about thier identity should seek help from our creator who gave them life. Since he is not here on Earth, the next best thing is one of his Prophets.

It would take fasting and prayer from all involved and given the eternal implications would require the assistance of the First Presidency.

Stephen:

That is very interesting, is this documented in some place that I could read about it?

Ken:

Does the First Presidency welecome the oppurtunity to make these kinds of decision? Perhaps I’m wrong, but my guess is that if someone came to the First Presidency asking for the “Lords guidance” on this type of issue, the FP would steer clear of making a declaration. Instead I think they would wish the person well, and stress the need for the person to seek the Lord’s will personally. Then they might give them a good-luck blessing. This would first allow the FP to appear wise in their shepherding, and it would also prevent any type of future Church embarrasment from an unsatisfying FP declaration.

…the idea is that God would revel the gender of that spirit (the gender they had in the preexistence) to the prophet so its actually not the first presidency nor the person who decides.

So the person has no right to say “I am a man” or “I am a woman.” Somebody else will decide that for them.

Well, we see that the person is actually interested in the church. Talk to the sisters to see what their problems are. If they can’t resolve those conflicts then show them to see the investigator in heavenly fathers eyes. But continue to teach about about who we are as SONS/ Daughters of heavenly father and every soul has a purpose on earth. If the investigator doesn’t like what we believe she should go in the Drop file of the missionaries. Those that do not progress in the gospel are wasting the missionaries time and effort in teaching people who do want to change and learn about the restoration in the latter days and who we are as children of god. But everyone deserves a chance to hear the gospel no matter what they are or do!!!

Bishop… is that you??

There is a transexual in my ward. I think he leaves after sacrament meeting but I know he meets with the Bishop on occasion and has been taking the missionary discussions. He is dressed to the 9′s in womens clothing, carrys a purse, and uses the womens restroom. Not sure if he is planning to get baptised, but I am always happy to see him at Church. I just see him as a confused individual (weather or not the end result is a man or a woman) who is looking for happiness in the right place. Hopefully we can all keep our judgements to ourselves. I think compaining to the Bishop about this person using the womens restroom is silly and juvenile.

When a whole race of people were not allowed to have the priesthood, the policy was not to try to teach them at all. We were instructed, as missionaries, should we accidentally knock on a door and an “unacceptable” person answered, we should say, “We’re looking for a Johnson family – do they live around here?”

Unacceptable to me as a missionary – still unacceptable now. I would counsel this potential woman that there are plenty of more inclusive churches to join. There is no “One true church.”

I agree with Chuck. I think there are more people going to be able to return to God than the 0.1% of the world population who are active LDS. This necessarily implies that there are in all likelihood going to be MANY more people who made it back to God who were NOT LDS in this life than who were LDS.

Therefore, for this person, I would recommend that they continue looking for a personal relationship with God and Christ. I would also be realistic and suggest that they are going to find many problems in the LDS Church given their situation every single day for the rest of their lives (both doctrinal and social). It might make a lot of sense for them to develop their relationship with God in a more accepting denomination, as there are many out there.

Wow , and once more thank you for this beautiful tran post! I could pay to get more posts like this one !

http://mormonmatters.org/2010/03/02/youre-the-bishop-5-poll/