Why Does the Church Not Allow Excommunicated, Deceased, Gay Persons to be Baptized for the Dead by their Families?

[TrueIntent]

Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

[TrueIntent]

delete....didnt realize my last post posted.

[e-eye2.0]

Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

That was my thought that because he needed a restoration of blessings and it could only be done by the temple presidency in salt lake like that previous post indicated, then they must just do the baptism and then restore the blessings. Did you not read that link that was shared before? They also only do this 3 times per year so it can be a lengthy process at times.

[brlenox]

This is my own personal Story.

A few years ago, my father died. He died of AIDS, he had lived a gay lifestyle near the end of his life--but expressed a desire to find God, religion, and where he fit in with the gospel of Jesus christ (I personally have different views the the church on homosexuality, but that is a separate issue, and I keep my feelings to myself at church).

Church policy is that if a member was excommunicated and has died, a letter must be written requesting first presidency approval before their work can be done. My father never had an official court to my knowledge (but I don't know for sure because there was some distance between us before he died, but he may have removed his name from the records)....either way, I wrote a letter to the church, and waited over a year to have them approve his "baptism for the dead"....it is common procedure for families to ask the first presidency approval when someone was excommunicated or no longer on the records of the church. The letter was sent to my bishop and stake president, and then to the first presidency....Only to be told over a year later that I would not be allowed to do his work, that only the Temple presidency in Salt Lake could perform the baptism. Some months later after that, my bishop received a letter that his work was completed in Salt Lake....he passed this copy off to me...of which I possess.

It never had occurred to me until now, how this has impacted me (until last night actually)? I know of other members who were allowed to do their excommunicated families work....the only difference was that my dad was gay. Why do some member families get to do work and not others? (The letter doesn't give an official reason why, but my bishop speculated that this was the case...and they must have taken the "sins" into account)...and what other reason would there be? Why is the policy of the church that Gay Deceased Persons family members are not given permission to do the work themselves for their dead? Has anyone else had this experience, or would be willing to comment on what they know about why this was handled this way? I can't imagine that we would be keeping this a secret behind the scenes, and my hope is that there is another reason that I am not aware of. But for the life of me....that seems to be the only reason they would have said no to me doing my own father's work. This was just a few years ago....I just want to try and understand it.

Please keep insensitive comments to yourself....I don't want this thread to drift off into a debate. I would like to discuss policies, their appropriateness, and why or why not this may be occurring. Thanks for your understanding in advance.

*Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

In my mind it is perhaps a silver lining to observe that this was not a hasty decision and that after prayerful consideration the priesthood holders involved in making the decision determined it was of benefit to proceed with your request and perform the ordinances. I would hope that because they did advance the cause and it was well considered that perhaps one might hope that it means there was greater feelings of success and acceptance on the other side of the veil.

[gardener4life]

Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

So I'm wondering...

That restoration of blessings...does that cover cancelled temple sealings too? I hadn't even thought that people could ask for some types of blessings to be restored. But then I saw your comment.

[TrueIntent]

Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

That was my thought that because he needed a restoration of blessings and it could only be done by the temple presidency in salt lake like that previous post indicated, then they must just do the baptism and then restore the blessings. Did you not read that link that was shared before? They also only do this 3 times per year so it can be a lengthy process at times.

Yes I did. What I'm still confused about is that I need to research is why did others (lady in my ward) get to do her family members work. At the time, we were all confused. What I still would like to know, is do others get to do their work for excommunicated dead. See....my understanding is they do and mine wasn't normal Situation. Does thAt make sense.

That lady felt badly for me. And when we started the process everyone was under the assumption I'd be doing the work. I'm still confused, and his sins were mentioned as speculation.

[TrueIntent]

Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

So I'm wondering...

That restoration of blessings...does that cover cancelled temple sealings too? I hadn't even thought that people could ask for some types of blessings to be restored. But then I saw your comment.

Yes...it does.,.....I'm assuming anyway, because my mother last year got remarried and we had to go through the whole mess again. I liked your previous comment, however in our situation, we had to write letters dredging up my fathers previous "sins" again so that my mom could get a cancellation and sealed to her new husband...the church even asked for letters from my inactive siblings and my fathers mother (which I thought was excessive...I didn't understand why my mother alone couldn't decided whether or not she wanted the sealing canceled from my dad)". It was a mess and in that case, althrough the blessings were restored...we had to dredge up all passed sins....again...in my eyes, we as a church need to change policies and fix situations like this. this situation was also insensitive to my family ( and my father's mother was on hospice at the time they asked for this). I wrote a strongly worded letter to leave my grandmother out of it, but I don't know what ever happened and If she was ever contacted about it, but my mother was told she would be, and all my inactive siblings were as well--which did not sit well with them that my mother had to go through all the mess. This is part of the reason we need to separate, policy and culture from actual ordinances. We do a poor job of that in my experiences...as you can tell by what my famil have gone through.

[TrueIntent]

This is my own personal Story.

A few years ago, my father died. He died of AIDS, he had lived a gay lifestyle near the end of his life--but expressed a desire to find God, religion, and where he fit in with the gospel of Jesus christ (I personally have different views the the church on homosexuality, but that is a separate issue, and I keep my feelings to myself at church).

Church policy is that if a member was excommunicated and has died, a letter must be written requesting first presidency approval before their work can be done. My father never had an official court to my knowledge (but I don't know for sure because there was some distance between us before he died, but he may have removed his name from the records)....either way, I wrote a letter to the church, and waited over a year to have them approve his "baptism for the dead"....it is common procedure for families to ask the first presidency approval when someone was excommunicated or no longer on the records of the church. The letter was sent to my bishop and stake president, and then to the first presidency....Only to be told over a year later that I would not be allowed to do his work, that only the Temple presidency in Salt Lake could perform the baptism. Some months later after that, my bishop received a letter that his work was completed in Salt Lake....he passed this copy off to me...of which I possess.

It never had occurred to me until now, how this has impacted me (until last night actually)? I know of other members who were allowed to do their excommunicated families work....the only difference was that my dad was gay. Why do some member families get to do work and not others? (The letter doesn't give an official reason why, but my bishop speculated that this was the case...and they must have taken the "sins" into account)...and what other reason would there be? Why is the policy of the church that Gay Deceased Persons family members are not given permission to do the work themselves for their dead? Has anyone else had this experience, or would be willing to comment on what they know about why this was handled this way? I can't imagine that we would be keeping this a secret behind the scenes, and my hope is that there is another reason that I am not aware of. But for the life of me....that seems to be the only reason they would have said no to me doing my own father's work. This was just a few years ago....I just want to try and understand it.

Please keep insensitive comments to yourself....I don't want this thread to drift off into a debate. I would like to discuss policies, their appropriateness, and why or why not this may be occurring. Thanks for your understanding in advance.

*Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

In my mind it is perhaps a silver lining to observe that this was not a hasty decision and that after prayerful consideration the priesthood holders involved in making the decision determined it was of benefit to proceed with your request and perform the ordinances. I would hope that because they did advance the cause and it was well considered that perhaps one might hope that it means there was greater feelings of success and acceptance on the other side of the veil.

Thanks for your comment...you would hope...however if you will read my comment I just posted....you will see if feels very beaurecratic and seems to me that each time we had to deal with the offices of the first presidency, whoever was in charge of our case, was letter of the law and not spirit...they were completely disconnected from our family situation....I wrote that in the letter they requested of me...I never heard anything back. (This was about my mom's sealing). My local leadership was awesome with my dads situation !!!! They were sensitive, and my mom felt that way about her local leadership too....but they were shocked at the requests being made at the handling of our specific situations (my mom's as well).

What's done is done...but we could do better.....I visualize some judgemental secretary reading through the case, and seeing things she doesn't like about our family situation as she goes through our records with a fine tooth comb,...it didn't feel like the cases were handled with love, more like judgement.....btw....there were things I'm not posting that were requested that I'm not going to go into, but it felt like a character assasination at one point in the sealing case....my step dad was put through an ordeal on his end as well simply based on his exes accusations....basically, if you are ever accused of anything by anyone, they may request you to "prove" your innocent on unrelated issues even if you're innocent. It's messy.


This has been my experience. It does not mean this is everyone's....like I said...maybe it was some judgmental secretary in the office.

[LukeAir2008]

The handbook of instructions is slightly ambiguous but essentially explains that a living excommunicated person can have their blessings restored no sooner than one year after rebaptism and this must be approved by the First Presidency.

The same instruction is referred to with regard to the dead but it only mentions excommunicated persons who have been rebaptized. No mention of individuals who have died before rebaptism.

So basically it’s down to the First Presidency to resolve these situations which is what has happened.

[Michelle]

I think there may be more here that you are missing. I don't mean that unkindly.

When I had my sealing cancelled from my first husband it required me to write a letter and for him to write a letter. Luckily, my bishop was patient and went over, in person, many times until he got a hold of him and he did write the letter. We were told to expect it to take a long time since it needed first presidency approval, however it was done within a few weeks (perhaps due to the nature of the divorce-he decided he wanted to live a gay lifestyle and wanted the divorce.)

However, on another note. My dad was also excommunicated (3 times I believe) after the last one it is my understanding that he was told he could not be re-baptized in this life, if he should want to be, but that it would have to be taken care of in the hereafter. (I don't see him wanting to be baptized again in this life, he runs a fairly successful website helping people leave the church) but since he already did 3 other times, he could surprise me.

Perhaps there are things about your dad's history with the church that you are unaware of that made it more difficult than it was for the sister you mentioned, who was allowed to do the work.

[Spaced_Out]

It is fair that every person gets opportunity to comment, and the general authorities get an accurate account. As you say your father was openly gay so how is it dredging up past sins or sensitivities, I fail to understand what your issue is. You don't even have an accurate account of his church records. It is more about your feelings.

The church gave you a response on the first letter that it required additional authority that can only be done by an authorised person with higher authority. Pray about it and let it go - the only way you will be able to understand is healing from the spirit of God. Looking beyond the council of your PH leaders will always only lead to more problems, disillusionment and darkness.
One needs to believe that God answers prays - if you listened to General Conference the topic of rebaptism for endowed members was addressed, you see a wonderful personal message - let go and loose yourself and all thing will become clear.

[LukeAir2008]

There is huge difference between doing Temple work for the dead when they have never been members of the Church - Pope John Paul 2 for example who was vicariously baptized 4 times in 2006 - and someone who was previously a member of the Church and the Church has details of their sexual activities on record.

Better to do what Elder Todd Christofferson’s ‘gay’ brother, Tom, has done and get back in the Church before you die.

[Juliet]

My first thought was they did it to protect you from Devils and generational ties attached to your dad, that would attack you and your children in revenge, kind of like when Jesus cast out legion and legion begged to go into the swine, if you had done the work, and released your dad from a similar type of stronghold, they would have left your dad but attacked you. So, the first Presidency and Apostles can see these things and properly take care of them. Just like you take battery acid to a professional to properly dispose of it, you don't want to do that yourself.

Having had my own set of evil attachments from generational curses, be grateful your dad is free, and please remember it isn't his fault. He is and had always been a good person. Any voice that says otherwise is not from a true source.

[gardener4life]

Perhaps there are things about your dad's history with the church that you are unaware of that made it more difficult than it was for the sister you mentioned, who was allowed to do the work.

I just had to comment on this part. I have seen that this is usually the case with people. It takes them a long time to admit and believe that a family member can do hard to others. By the time they do sort of...get with the program and admit it they've usually been in denial a long time. Thus...there are often many more cases than they realize of harmful behavior.

I hope that helps. it's not meant to be offensive or hurtful. But it helps to understand human nature.

[Spaced_Out]

It is the problem when people only have strong testimony of a few principles of the gospel. Watching a few sessions of general conference this weekend that I had missed (in Australia the conference is shown a week later due to the time zone differences), there was a lot of discussion on the plan of salvation and gender, the family unit.

The thought came to me that the poster only has a strong testimony of a few of the principles of the gospel and one of them is temple ordinances, so it becomes the one hobby horse of his life, and when things don't go the way he expected then it is accusing the leadership of the church an, writing strong notes to them. Accusations of discrimination against homosexual person where the situation has nothing to do with the sins of the deceased person, just the type of ordinance required. This is evidence by his lack of understanding of the church standpoint on gay lifestyle, spiritually preparing for a year to do baptism.

Discipleship requires us to be humble and patient waiting on the Lord. There are many things that have bothered me over the years, I just accept them patiently and in time revelation is received, knowledge understanding and enlightenment. One does not have to wait till these things happen to move on, just put them in the deep recesses of your mind forget them and months years later it comes to you.

There is not one member of the church that at some time has not been offended by a PH leader or a decision of the church. Some apply patience, some readily just accept, some get bitter an it leads to excommunication.

I was once badly offended in the temple, it was youth baptisms and I took my father in laws name to get baptised ( I had a very strong relationship with him), he passed away with very limited understanding of the gospel. Both my wife and I are converts). I was assigned to assist with conformations - I heard his name come up for baptism and stuck my head out of the conformation room to witness the ordinance being preformed - one of the temple presidency started chastising me and screaming in a hushed voice that I need to stay in the conformation room are too many people wandering around. He did not look like he was in a good mood and thought it not worth the argument so just went back to doing conformations, and missed it. It only bothered me for about 20s then moved on - knowing it was done, no big deal to get upset simply not worth the negative energy.

[LDS Physician]

This is my own personal Story.

A few years ago, my father died. He died of AIDS, he had lived a gay lifestyle near the end of his life--but expressed a desire to find God, religion, and where he fit in with the gospel of Jesus christ (I personally have different views the the church on homosexuality, but that is a separate issue, and I keep my feelings to myself at church).

Church policy is that if a member was excommunicated and has died, a letter must be written requesting first presidency approval before their work can be done. My father never had an official court to my knowledge (but I don't know for sure because there was some distance between us before he died, but he may have removed his name from the records)....either way, I wrote a letter to the church, and waited over a year to have them approve his "baptism for the dead"....it is common procedure for families to ask the first presidency approval when someone was excommunicated or no longer on the records of the church. The letter was sent to my bishop and stake president, and then to the first presidency....Only to be told over a year later that I would not be allowed to do his work, that only the Temple presidency in Salt Lake could perform the baptism. Some months later after that, my bishop received a letter that his work was completed in Salt Lake....he passed this copy off to me...of which I possess.

It never had occurred to me until now, how this has impacted me (until last night actually)? I know of other members who were allowed to do their excommunicated families work....the only difference was that my dad was gay. Why do some member families get to do work and not others? (The letter doesn't give an official reason why, but my bishop speculated that this was the case...and they must have taken the "sins" into account)...and what other reason would there be? Why is the policy of the church that Gay Deceased Persons family members are not given permission to do the work themselves for their dead? Has anyone else had this experience, or would be willing to comment on what they know about why this was handled this way? I can't imagine that we would be keeping this a secret behind the scenes, and my hope is that there is another reason that I am not aware of. But for the life of me....that seems to be the only reason they would have said no to me doing my own father's work. This was just a few years ago....I just want to try and understand it.

Please keep insensitive comments to yourself....I don't want this thread to drift off into a debate. I would like to discuss policies, their appropriateness, and why or why not this may be occurring. Thanks for your understanding in advance.

*Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

It sounds to me as if your father likely did request to have his name removed from the records. When this occurs and the person decides later to rejoin the church then it requires the First Presidency to review it and then, if approved, the person has to receive a restoring of their prior covenants (temple) which is accomplished by a laying-on-of-hands blessing by a greater authority than stake president (although it can be delegated to the stake president locally).

Did your father ever receive his endowment in life? If that is the case, I bet this is what happened and that it had nothing to do with his homosexuality.

Many blessings to you!

[TrueIntent]

This is my own personal Story.

A few years ago, my father died. He died of AIDS, he had lived a gay lifestyle near the end of his life--but expressed a desire to find God, religion, and where he fit in with the gospel of Jesus christ (I personally have different views the the church on homosexuality, but that is a separate issue, and I keep my feelings to myself at church).

Church policy is that if a member was excommunicated and has died, a letter must be written requesting first presidency approval before their work can be done. My father never had an official court to my knowledge (but I don't know for sure because there was some distance between us before he died, but he may have removed his name from the records)....either way, I wrote a letter to the church, and waited over a year to have them approve his "baptism for the dead"....it is common procedure for families to ask the first presidency approval when someone was excommunicated or no longer on the records of the church. The letter was sent to my bishop and stake president, and then to the first presidency....Only to be told over a year later that I would not be allowed to do his work, that only the Temple presidency in Salt Lake could perform the baptism. Some months later after that, my bishop received a letter that his work was completed in Salt Lake....he passed this copy off to me...of which I possess.

It never had occurred to me until now, how this has impacted me (until last night actually)? I know of other members who were allowed to do their excommunicated families work....the only difference was that my dad was gay. Why do some member families get to do work and not others? (The letter doesn't give an official reason why, but my bishop speculated that this was the case...and they must have taken the "sins" into account)...and what other reason would there be? Why is the policy of the church that Gay Deceased Persons family members are not given permission to do the work themselves for their dead? Has anyone else had this experience, or would be willing to comment on what they know about why this was handled this way? I can't imagine that we would be keeping this a secret behind the scenes, and my hope is that there is another reason that I am not aware of. But for the life of me....that seems to be the only reason they would have said no to me doing my own father's work. This was just a few years ago....I just want to try and understand it.

Please keep insensitive comments to yourself....I don't want this thread to drift off into a debate. I would like to discuss policies, their appropriateness, and why or why not this may be occurring. Thanks for your understanding in advance.

*Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

It sounds to me as if your father likely did request to have his name removed from the records. When this occurs and the person decides later to rejoin the church then it requires the First Presidency to review it and then, if approved, the person has to receive a restoring of their prior covenants (temple) which is accomplished by a laying-on-of-hands blessing by a greater authority than stake president (although it can be delegated to the stake president locally).

Did your father ever receive his endowment in life? If that is the case, I bet this is what happened and that it had nothing to do with his homosexuality.

Many blessings to you!

That still doesnt answer the question....after a person is excommunicated or name is removed, and dies...The family makes a request of the first presidency to have blessings restored. A Re-Baptism is required in both cases, whether they are exed, or name removed. The families are usually allowed to perform this baptism on behalf of their dead (as a woman in my ward experienced this)....I was not allowed to....You need to read all the former posts....excommunicated (or names removed) must be rebaptized......the families perform the baptism.....i was not allowed to, I knew others that were. My question is why? My former bishop said certain keys may be required....but that still doesnt answer why my case, and not theirs?....the only difference was sins.. They would only allow a temple presidency in salt lake. if keys mattered for mine, why didn't they matter for the other lady in my ward who got approval to perform her baptism for her deceased excommunicated family member.

[inho]

It sounds to me as if your father likely did request to have his name removed from the records. When this occurs and the person decides later to rejoin the church then it requires the First Presidency to review it and then, if approved, the person has to receive a restoring of their prior covenants (temple) which is accomplished by a laying-on-of-hands blessing by a greater authority than stake president (although it can be delegated to the stake president locally).

Did your father ever receive his endowment in life? If that is the case, I bet this is what happened and that it had nothing to do with his homosexuality.

Many blessings to you!

That still doesnt answer the question....after a person is excommunicated or name is removed, and dies...The family makes a request of the first presidency to have blessings restored. A Re-Baptism is required in both cases, whether they are exed, or name removed. The families are usually allowed to perform this baptism on behalf of their dead (as a woman in my ward experienced this)....I was not allowed to....You need to read all the former posts....excommunicated (or names removed) must be rebaptized......the families perform the baptism.....i was not allowed to, I knew others that were. My question is why? My former bishop said certain keys may be required....but that still doesnt answer why my case, and not theirs?....the only difference was sins.. They would only allow a temple presidency in salt lake. if keys mattered for mine, why didn't they matter for the other lady in my ward who got approval to perform her baptism for her deceased excommunicated family member.

I am not sure if it matters whether a person requested his name removed or was excommunicated. However, as I said earlier I, too, think that it matters whether a person was endowed or not. The restoration of the blessings for a dead is done in the same ordinance prayer as the confirmation. It is not done by just anyone, but only those who have been delegated that authority. Since confirmation is customary to do quickly after the baptism, they don't let the family to do that either.
If a person is not endowed, then no restoration of blessings is needed and the baptism + confirmation may be done by the family. The family members may also stand as a proxy in the rest of the ordinances, which will be done for the first time for the deceased.

[TrueIntent]

It sounds to me as if your father likely did request to have his name removed from the records. When this occurs and the person decides later to rejoin the church then it requires the First Presidency to review it and then, if approved, the person has to receive a restoring of their prior covenants (temple) which is accomplished by a laying-on-of-hands blessing by a greater authority than stake president (although it can be delegated to the stake president locally).

Did your father ever receive his endowment in life? If that is the case, I bet this is what happened and that it had nothing to do with his homosexuality.

Many blessings to you!

That still doesnt answer the question....after a person is excommunicated or name is removed, and dies...The family makes a request of the first presidency to have blessings restored. A Re-Baptism is required in both cases, whether they are exed, or name removed. The families are usually allowed to perform this baptism on behalf of their dead (as a woman in my ward experienced this)....I was not allowed to....You need to read all the former posts....excommunicated (or names removed) must be rebaptized......the families perform the baptism.....i was not allowed to, I knew others that were. My question is why? My former bishop said certain keys may be required....but that still doesnt answer why my case, and not theirs?....the only difference was sins.. They would only allow a temple presidency in salt lake. if keys mattered for mine, why didn't they matter for the other lady in my ward who got approval to perform her baptism for her deceased excommunicated family member.

I am not sure if it matters whether a person requested his name removed or was excommunicated. However, as I said earlier I, too, think that it matters whether a person was endowed or not. The restoration of the blessings for a dead is done in the same ordinance prayer as the confirmation. It is not done by just anyone, but only those who have been delegated that authority. Since confirmation is customary to do quickly after the baptism, they don't let the family to do that either.
If a person is not endowed, then no restoration of blessings is needed and the baptism + confirmation may be done by the family. The family members may also stand as a proxy in the rest of the ordinances, which will be done for the first time for the deceased.

That would make sense. I wonder if anyone would be able to confirm or deny. Thank you for your post

[inho]

That would make sense. I wonder if anyone would be able to confirm or deny. Thank you for your post

Well, since you seem to know a family, who was able to be baptized for their deceased you could perhaps try to inquire them if that person was endowed while living or not. I only know that exposés of temple ordinances give words for combined confirmation and restoration of blessings for dead.

[TrueIntent]

That would make sense. I wonder if anyone would be able to confirm or deny. Thank you for your post

Well, since you seem to know a family, who was able to be baptized for their deceased you could perhaps try to inquire them if that person was endowed while living or not. I only know that exposés of temple ordinances give words for combined confirmation and restoration of blessings for dead.

I live in a new state....and I'm really just curious because of some experiences.

[Crackers]

TrueIntent, are just read a post of yours in a different thread. Are you female?

[TrueIntent]

TrueIntent, are just read a post of yours in a different thread. Are you female?

do I sound like a dude? Last time I checked I was.... Why do you ask?

[Crackers]

TrueIntent, are just read a post of yours in a different thread. Are you female?

do I sound like a dude? Last time I checked I was.... Why do you ask?

Sorry, I suspect I have missed something somewhere. Wouldn't you have to be a man to stand as proxy in ordinances for another man?

[Crackers]

I have no idea why that smiley face grew to that size. Imagine it a normal size, if you would.