Thoughts on conference

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He said:  "In most children, such uncertainty decreases significantly lover time."

I don't know the stats... he could be correct on that.  But that doesn't mean that over time as uncertainty decreases they become opposite sex attracted.  Their uncertainty could decrease and they become more certain that they are LGB or T.  He didn't say.

True.  But since he stated it in making a point I assume he was suggesting the former.  

I know when I was in the 6th grade i wondered if I was a boy.  That changed in the 7th grade. 

Now I understand I am very female, with some masculine traits. That was highly confusing for me in 1980. 

How wonderful it would have been for someone to explain the normalcy of that to me when I was 9 or 10. 

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Nothing should surprise you in Olympia WA. In fact, anything normal should be a big surprise in Olympia 😳

That much is certain.  It didn't start out that weird, but lately.... wow.  This described incident occurred when things were far less weird than they are now.

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It wasn’t that you noticed something unusual that suggested to “me” a bit of racism.  Your attempt to “troll” and get a rise required some language that suggested to me a bit of racism.  What I’m noticing now is admitting to bait and switch. So that’s a game I’m not into. 

Actually, I was being a bit disingenuous  It didn't start out as a troll, it just started out with me saying something that I fully expected to be taken neutrally.  Like "of course just wondering what they were doing isn't Islamophobia".  My shock was in discovering that I couldn't even admit to wondering what they were doing without having Islamophobia attributed to me.  THAT is what hit my button.  Criminy, I didn't think it was THAT bad.

And yes, I know that the language is now filled with land mines.  But I suppose if one is Polish, one can still make Polack jokes.  That freedom still exists, at least.  Or maybe not.

 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He said:  "In most children, such uncertainty decreases significantly lover time."

I don't know the stats... he could be correct on that.  But that doesn't mean that over time as uncertainty decreases they become opposite sex attracted.  Their uncertainty could decrease and they become more certain that they are LGB or T.  He didn't say.

In this interview with Pres. Oaks, he seems to think he's an authority on this concept. I'm so afraid for our youth or the older crowd that are believing members, what they must be going through because of this mind boggling hoopla over their "nurture" not "natural" being. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Edited October 8, 2019 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, gopher said:

I agree, that's certainly inappropriate to discuss around young children.

Bwahahaha!

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

... One has to be deaf and blind to stay out of danger of accusations of prejudice in one form or another.  

Not to mention dumb ... as in, unable to speak.

[Ahab]

I said: "I think his point is that he wants to decide when and what they hear.  A control issue, if you were to ask me."
And then you said: Incorrect.  As a parent, I’d like to be the one to decide when it is most appropriate to have discussions about sex with each of my young children.  I think that is common among parents.  Our schools have to get a sign parent permission slip before broaching these subjects with our kids. 

What do you mean what I said was incorrect???  By your own words you are saying you want to control when and what they hear regarding what we have been talking about.  It is common among parents but that doesn't mean that urge to control is not a control issue. And try as you might you won't really be able to control when they have those kinds of discussions or hear things about what we have been talking about.  You can control when you  talk with them but that doesn't mean other people are going to wait until you have that discussion with them.  This is a perfect example of parents holding back on providing sexual education for their children because they don't feel they are ready for that kind of discussion.  And if you do not act soon, they're going to be hearing a lot more about things like this so that by the time you do get around to talking to them about it they'll be saying something like: "Dad, I already know all about it".because they will have heard what they think is all there is to it from other people who have already talked to them about it.

If I were you I would be thanking our Church leaders for trying to teach them the truth about things like this, rather than complaining because you were not the one to tell them.  At ;least what our Church leaders are saying is true and much better than the muck going around in the world, generally.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

He also spoke of children being uncertain of their sexual orientation and to be careful with premature labeling.

I see increased premature labeling from parents and others as early as 3. Thank goodness that is still rare, but it is common to see it by age 8. 

[Tacenda]

Utah has too many temples, IMO. Where we have members saving money and spending nearly all of it just to travel to the temple to marry or take their endowments out. These are usually the poorest members among us. But here in Utah we have how many temples within just a few miles? It's ludicrous. Build smaller temples nearer to those that aren't fortunate enough to have the money to travel long distances. Whomever is making these poor decisions, because our church is also a corporation, need to have their heads examined.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I see increased premature labeling from parents and others as early as 3. Thank goodness that is still rare, but it is common to see it by age 8. 

I have, honestly, never observed this.  Aside from parents naturally assuming their children are opposite sex attracted, I've never seen parents labeling their children by age 8.

Perhaps you were referring to parents labeling their children as straight when they are still young?

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Utah has too many temples, IMO. Where we have members saving money and spending nearly all of it just to travel to the temple to marry or take their endowments out. These are usually the poorest members among us. But here in Utah we have how many temples within just a few miles? It's ludicrous. Build smaller temples nearer to those that aren't fortunate enough to have the money to travel long distances. Whomever is making these poor decisions, because our church is also a corporation, need to have their heads examined.

I agree...what a waste of monies that could be used for other things.  It should be okay for some Utahns to travel alittle...it is called sacrifice.

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have, honestly, never observed this.  Aside from parents naturally assuming their children are opposite sex attracted, I've never seen parents labeling their children by age 8.

Perhaps you were referring to parents labeling their children as straight when they are still young?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-parenting/u-s-parents-accept-childrens-transgender-identity-by-age-three-idUSKBN14B1C8

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-parenting/u-s-parents-accept-childrens-transgender-identity-by-age-three-idUSKBN14B1C8

I don't see where that article supports the claim that it is common for parents to label their child's sexual orientation by age 8.  Is there a specific quote or stat you have in mind?

Edited October 8, 2019 by rockpond

[kllindley]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have, honestly, never observed this.  Aside from parents naturally assuming their children are opposite sex attracted, I've never seen parents labeling their children by age 8.

Perhaps you were referring to parents labeling their children as straight when they are still young?

No. I am specifically taking about parents labeling children L, G, and T.  It is a natural and unavoidable consequence of accepting the unscientific belief of "born that way." 

I'm not surprised that you haven't seen it. I am talking about my clinical experience. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not to mention dumb ... as in, unable to speak.

Well, I was going to mention dumb, as well, except I thought it might be taken as an insult.  Since the word also means stupid, although in context it means unable to speak.

See, ya gotta watch every darned word.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No. I am specifically taking about parents labeling children L, G, and T.  It is a natural and unavoidable consequence of accepting the unscientific belief of "born that way." 

I'm not surprised that you haven't seen it. I am talking about my clinical experience. 

So you're saying you've never seen parents label their children either L, G, or T by age 8?  I don't see why you would.  8 year old children don't have any sexual urges, as far as I know.  They commonly use words "yucky" or "cooties" to refer to what you can get from the opposite sex.

Until 12 or 13 or so when their sexuality begins to develop they usually play with people of the same sex, but I don't see that as any justification for calling them L or G.  I would begin to wonder though if any boy started wearing dresses or a girl wore...hmm, what would a girl dress iike to dress like a boy would?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

On 10/7/2019 at 1:05 AM, Rain said:

It wouldn't have phased me and you said yourself that most other people didn't take notice, but then I've spent time in Israel.

As I said, it didn't faze me, either.  And this wasn't Israel where such sights are common and unremarkable, it was Olympia, Washington where such sights are so rare that I had never seen such in 30 years of residence. I was just puzzled about what they were doing. Because it was UNUSUAL.

I wonder what people's reaction would have been if I had seen someone walking around in my US mall dressed like any of these, and said I wondered what they were doing:

 

Would someone say that I was being a little "greekophobic", "spanishophobic" or "Germanophobic"?

Edited October 8, 2019 by Stargazer

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So you're saying you've never seen parents label their children either L, G, or T by age 8?  I don't see why you would.  8 year old children don't have any sexual urges, as far as I know.  They commonly use words "yucky" or "cooties" to refer to what you can get from the opposite sex.

Until 12 or 13 or so when their sexuality begins to develop they usually play with people of the same sex, but I don't see that as any justification for calling them L or G.  I would begin to wonder though if any boy started wearing dresses or a girl wore...hmm, what would a girl dress iike to dress like a boy would?

I'm saying I have seen it, far too often.  

I agree that at that age children don't actually have a sexual orientation. But that doesn't stop many in the world from trying to tell them they do. 

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm saying I have seen it, far too often.  

I agree that at that age children don't actually have a sexual orientation. But that doesn't stop many in the world from trying to tell them they do. 

Oh, good grief!  So you're saying you've seen some parents actually try to recruit their children to become either L or G or T?  Like seeing little boys age 8 playing together and thinking they are gay because they're playing with boys instead of with girls?

Do they actually tell you their children are L or G or do they just wonder if they are because of the sex of the people they play with?

Edited October 8, 2019 by Ahab

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Oh, good grief!  So you're saying you've seen some parents actually try to recruit their children to become either L or G or T?  Like seeing little boys age 8 playing together and thinking they are gay because they're playing with boys instead of with girls?

Do they actually tell you their children are L or G or do they just wonder if they are because of the sex of the people they play with?

It is a lot more than who they are playing with. In fact that usually has nothing to do with it.  But yes, maybe a little boy likes showtunes and enjoys drama. Maybe he's a little sensitive, emotional, "prissy," or some other trait that a parent thinks must mean he is gay. Some parents just assume, but others are happy to announce to friends that their child is L, G, or T.  In these situations, this labelling  is not hidden from the child. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

It is a lot more than who they are playing with. In fact that usually has nothing to do with it.  But yes, maybe a little boy likes showtunes and enjoys drama. Maybe he's a little sensitive, emotional, "prissy," or some other trait that a parent thinks must mean he is gay. Some parents just assume, but others are happy to announce to friends that their child is L, G, or T.  In these situations, this labelling  is not hidden from the child. 

I see. Very sad.  And as impressionable as they are at such a young age, having their parents think and act like they are gay, for example, could lead to them acting like they are because that is what they think they are because other people treat them as if they are.

Some people should just not be parents since they don't do a very good job of it.  We'll fix that in the next round, I think, unless they start acting like good parents should act.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Not sure where you get that idea.

Plucked out of.......................thin air.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just for clarification. Is it a common LDS belief (meaning most believe it) that you will be living in literal physical houses in the celestial kingdom? From the discussion here it seems so, but sometimes this board (from what I gather) isn't necessarily representative of the common/standard view.

We have no defined Doctrine on anything unless it's in the scriptures, and most of what you hear is literalistic stuff from hundreds of years ago passed down from early American protestantism.

So there is a continuum of shades of grey between God breathed literalism and guys like me. 

But for me it's all about compatible paradigms between say a literal Adam and Eve, and a symbolic loss of Innocence.

But I see no incompatibility between cognitive science and Jung and the story of literal people named Adam and Eve, in what we learn  - about loss of innocence -  in both storys.

Regarding the ambiguity of defining doctrine, we are kind of allowed to make up our own to a certain extent. Answer the temple recommend interviews properly and honestly and you are good to go. Orthopraxy, not Orthodoxy

This is as official as it gets:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Rain said:

Apparently she is in good company.  

She caught it immediately and put it in her conference notes. She remarked, " Did he really say that?" I said, "What?" She said, "The Devil Cheetath their souls...."

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I said, it didn't faze me, either.  And this wasn't Israel where such sights are common and unremarkable, it was Olympia, Washington where such sights are so rare that I had never seen such in 30 years of residence. I was just puzzled about what they were doing. Because it was UNUSUAL.

Great! What of it?  Did I express one word relating to Islam, other than that they were dressed in Muslim garb?  Did I take issue with their faith?  No, I didn't.  And you just ASSUMED that I had a problem, just because I noticed them and wondered what was up.  

THIS is what I am amazed about.  In the occasion I mention, I did not visibly react to how these men were dressed; I did not fear for my life that they were going set off suicide vests; I wasn't looking to see if they were hiding AK-47s under their robes.  I was just wondering what they were doing dressed so peculiarly FOR THE VENUE.  This was something entirely foreign to the area.  As if a man in a spacesuit showed up in the middle of a village in Mali and got offended because people were looking at him funny.  By the way, I thought they might be trolling for reactions because of the looks THEY were giving everyone else, who were, like me, trying to act like they saw nothing.  

Actually, I kinda proved what I was trying to prove.  That we have suddenly gotten so sensitive about flipping everything, that a person dare not so much as notice that someone is dressed differently for fear that he's going to get labelled as "-phobic" or "intolerant".  

Actually, @Rain, what I was doing with my post was trolling for everyone's reactions.  All of you who have assumed things about me because I admitted that I noticed something unusual and was curious about it.  

Did I say anything to indicate that I thought they were terrorists?  No, I did not, and I wasn't worried about that at all.  But you seem to be assuming that is what I thought.  Isn't that a degree of prejudice in itself?  You read about my reaction to a very unusual event and went off on a rant, assuming in me all kinds of things that weren't the case.

No kidding?  Why would the church do that, do you think?

Are you assuming that I assuned all those things? 

I did not. Nor did I go on a rant.

Well actually, I did assume that you would be honest in what you said rather than "troll" for reactions. I don't find that productive nor do I find that it builds trust so I will leave you this topic and take care of how I talk with you next time.

 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Utah has too many temples, IMO. Where we have members saving money and spending nearly all of it just to travel to the temple to marry or take their endowments out. These are usually the poorest members among us. But here in Utah we have how many temples within just a few miles? It's ludicrous. Build smaller temples nearer to those that aren't fortunate enough to have the money to travel long distances. Whomever is making these poor decisions, because our church is also a corporation, need to have their heads examined.

What evidence makes you think you have enough insight into their discussions, pondering and planning process to say they made a bad decision?

Edit: took out the CFR as ttribe correctly noted I was asking for a CFR on an opinion.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Rain