A Response to the Church’s Official “Statement on Transgenderism”

Is this another way of implying that LGBTs are “not a member of the church of Christ” or that the SDA leadership are not Christians because they are not being kind to LGBTs?


I think all the parts of my comment taken as a whole explains what I meant.

1 Like

All Organizations uphold principles they feel important. That doesnt destroy their mission or who they are.
I want to join the American Psychiatric Association. Ok?
What qualifications do you have as related to our organizational requirements? Well, I am nice and am a good citizen. I am kind and have a loving spirit.
I’m sorry Patrick, that’s not the requirements of our organization.
So now I can say, well you undercut everything you stand for APA?

The SDA church leadership can call LLU Dept of Psychiatry to ask for an opinion on what they are teaching their psychiatric residents particularly in regards to sexual identity development and consider it when formulating church policies. Why don’t the do it? I would surmise because it would “destroy their mission or who they are.”


I am not going to get into the rightness or wrongness of the present/various understandings of sexual orientations. That’s what I am avoiding.
I am merely a proponent of religious organizations choosing the members they choose to. They dont need to answer to others their rationale. Like minded people can start their own organizations and not demonize another.
Explanation 3.0 :slight_smile:
PS. I understand appealing vs. demanding for a while. Then move on without demonizing to an organization one is comfortable with and welcoming. That’s the way I see it.
Has the APA never changed a way they perceived an issue? Even one they felt might at first to be scientific?

1 Like

Great! Same with me.

And that includes God as well.

Homosexuality is not a disorder anymore by APA criteria.

But isn’t this the core of what makes a religious organization? The Protestant movement was founded on demonizing the mother church. Thank God our beloved church does not demonize the RCC.


There are quite a few separate Presbyterian churches i.e. They have strong beliefs that have separated them but my experience they do not demonize each other. PCA vs. PCUSA for example.
As I recall the RCC was not without demonization either of the Protestants. :slight_smile: Luther’s party in the Vatican library area.
Previous major schism.

So aside from this issue the APA has never changed an understanding or method of treatment it previously thought was scientific, keeping in mind that study of behavior is not “hard science” and sometimes empirical understanding changes occur in fields where it is primarily used? My point that even if considering LLU or other similar understandings available, why would an organization by necessity be bound to it?

Well said Patrick Travis. The church should be allowed to set membership criteria just like any other organization. Not everyone can be a doctor of medicine for example because not everyone meets the criteria, but all humans deserves love and respect, and the fact that they are not a doctor does not mean they are any less valuable. God can still help church members (and non members) be kind to anyone including non members. This was a thought provoking article with a difficult topic. It got me to thinking that if the church is really being exclusive to an unacceptable extreme by making statements on topics like transgenderism, is God being exclusive to the extreme in the same way to make statements in the Bible like 1 Cor 6:9-11? [ 9 ] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[ 10 ] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[ 11 ] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. So, God has criteria for entering heaven, and fortunately He offers Himself and a saving relationship with Him as the Ultimate Solution. God loves all, but despite God’s love, not all will choose to accept that love and be saved. If it is true that our church committees that make these decisions about criteria and statements do not have enough scientifically knowledgeable members, then we need to find seriously God fearing members that are scientifically knowledgable to be on these committees. But, let’s be careful and not let science trump Biblical principles because most of the scientific community does not accept God or the Bible. When science agrees with the Bible, only then are we safe. Science cannot prove the Bible false. Also, “The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out–the chaff separated from the precious wheat…The REMNANT that purify their souls by obeying the truth gather strength from the trying process, exhibiting the beauty of holiness amid the surrounding apostasy.” E.G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, 380. I would encourage Lisal to remain with the church and realize that there are many many difficult matters to deal with in the church and that there are many people who need the church hospital, including the leadership who appear so exclusive in their decision making. We will miss and continue to love Lisal if she chooses to leave and wish she would stay. Thank you Lisal for the thought provoking article.


Thank you, Lisal, for your kind, logical thoughts concerning this pervasive problem in our church. I am a mother and an aunt to several gay individuals. My heart is broken as I hear the rhetoric that is being expressed in the SDA church that I attended for many years. After one very difficult sermon for me, which was presented on Mother’s Day weekend, I have found it difficult to attend this particular church. I love the people in my church. I am a fourth generation SDA. In all my sixty plus years of life, I have never heard the type of ideas I heard this day in May. For a variety of reasons, my husband and I have found it to be complicated for us to find a new place to worship and receive spiritual nourishment. Occasionally, we will go to the conservative church that we attended for so, many years. I do attend a nondenominational women’s Bible study group. I am so sorry you have gone through this pain. I know it is difficult for you. In my humble opinion, our church needs voices like yours to enact change. I understand your position for I have been wrestling with the same issues. Each day, you give to others to enable them to live. By the way, I think you work with my daughter. May God bless you.


Yes…the whites only country clubs, etc., are built on the same premise. You prepared to defend that, too?



How about all girls school? Where do you stop with enforcing cultural context on organizational structure?

There are benefits educationally to an “all girls school” -are there similar benefits to a “whites only” country club except race exclusion?


So you agree that sex/gender-specific boundaries and preferences may have benefits?

The Church doesn’t have the right to make rules that Jesus didn’t make. If we think the Adventist church has the power to rule out some people as less equal than others, then we aren’t talking about God’s church, but an exclusive club.

Jesus never shut anyone out due to their sins or their human nature which includes orientation, but he did cleanse the temple of those who stood between God and hurting people.

Think about it, if we truly believe that Jesus is the great I AM and omnipotent, then he must have known there would be gay and trans people long before the rest of us. And did he say anything about it? Did he shut anyone out for their orientation? Did he shut out Eunuchs? Obviously, from the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian, everyone is welcome in Jesus’s kingdom. So why is the Adventist church misrepresenting Christ?


Religion will not save, yet those who overcome all sin by the blood of Jesus will live forever.


You did not answer my question.


adjective= in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate
adjective=morally good, justified, or acceptable

Putting those two words together in a sentance describing the what the .org can or can not do is the issue, as I see it, of the article. Are its rules or standards morally good or justified and able to withstand ctitique,evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way. Perhaps that would be a better starting point for discussion.

Not sure I understand the question related to anything I said Frank. Pease enlighten me.

The ADVANTAGE to an all women high school, an all male high school is
that there are “fewer distractions” to learning.
The DISADVANTAGE to a Same-Sex high school is that important lessons
and opportunity to put them into practice are NOT available.
Early Teen and Middle Teen ages are important years in learning Major
Social Skills with the opposite genders. To be friendly, gracious, have fun
without needing to have body contact. To learn to respect other person’s
personal space.
When a person selects [and most do] that “Special” high school friend
learning to treat the person with respect, not “use” the person. To allow
each to have friends and to socialize with THEIR friends even though
some may be “odd”.
These things one cannot get in a single-gender high school setting.


True, religion will not save neither will anyone be saved but by being reckoned as overcoming all sin in the merits of Christ…not complete in human beings.
BUT this has nothing to do with the context this strand.