Thoughts on conference

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

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.

 

I'm usually extremely straightforward.  I think this is the first time I've ever "trolled".  But, I have to say that it was a "troll" only in hindsight -- I was surprised by your reaction, actually.  I had assured myself that my mere "wondering what they were doing" would be not be taken as "islamophobia" and was taken aback to see that assurance shattered.  So I said I was trolling -- a bit of a fib, really.  I'd rather go back and take that back -- but it's too late.

As for what I assumed about your assuming those things -- I was overreacting.  And I was the one on a rant.  

You see, I got triggered.  Among other bad experiences, I was once called a racist in a FB conversation with a member of this forum with whom I am a FB "friend."  Why was I called a racist?  Not because I wrote anything that any reasonable person would consider racist, but because I failed to condemn President Trump in a message thread started by the person where Trump was being excoriated as a racist. I posted to correct a fact someone in the thread posted -- and it had nothing to do with Trump or racism.  And then, this FB "friend" followed me to my own timeline and made the accusation again.  Only this time all the people who had known me for decades came down on him for the false accusation, and he quickly left, having no fellow travelers to reinforce him there.  I get very emotional when such accusations get thrown my way.  Because I utterly hate racism.  Ancestors of mine suffered from it -- the only good Indian being a dead Indian, don't you know.  I am clearly OVERsensitive to this.  I also get heated when people throw around false accusations of racism, where there is no racism.

I apologize, because I shouldn't have gotten into it.  I should post less and think more.

[ttribe]

56 minutes ago, Rain said:

CFR anything that makes you think you have enough insight into their discussions, pondering and planning process to say they made a bad decision. 

Uggh...you are CFR-ing an OPINION.  Geez, the whole purpose of a CFR is to get a reference for items presented as fact that can be checked independently; opinions are clearly not that.  

[blueglass]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What do you think he will be 'governing'? According to the Handbook, his primary role is to provide training to those serving in the wards.

I don't think the high counselor will be governing or training the bishop who is the new young men president?  

[blueglass]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good news! Now I don't have to worry.

Wait, does he teach something even worse???

Yes far worse.  Teaching that the most crucial conception and births of human history Adam, Eve and Jesus Christ did not require a male and female joined as husband and wife.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

CFR anything that makes you think you have enough insight into their discussions, pondering and planning process to say they made a bad decision. 

Or for that matter,  Anything having to do with temples at all.

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I don't think the high counselor will be governing or training the bishop who is the new young men president?  

Governing, no. Unless the Handbook is completely changed, training will be a yes. Members of the high council already train ward leaders in all kinds of areas, including bishoprics.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Or for that matter,  Anything having to do with temples at all.

To @Rain and you, opinion is all I have on this matter. I've noticed some on here having a few, probably very few, negative opinions on how humans run the church. But it matters who does I guess.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Tacenda

[longview]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

When dealing with such a sensitive topic, there’s no way to not trigger people.  But I thought President Oaks was quite graceful in the way he handled it.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I also get heated when people throw around false accusations of racism, where there is no racism

When SJW speak about being triggered or shout outrage at supposed violations of politically incorrect expressions, what they are really doing is to coerce, humiliate, browbeat, indoctrinate, intimidate, whatever, the people who want to make straightforward observations about the world around them.  The Left has raised hypersensitivity to an art form.  Their incessant drumbeat tends to wear people down to the point of not wanting to have the spotlight glaring down on them.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Uggh...you are CFR-ing an OPINION.  Geez, the whole purpose of a CFR is to get a reference for items presented as fact that can be checked independently; opinions are clearly not that.  

You are right. The wording didn't set well with me when I wrote it. I should have spent more time wording it. I will go and retract the CFR and reword it even though I see Tacenda has already replied.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Calm, each of us, as humans, have our own areas that cause us to be sensitive or to over-react. I understand that condition. I guess what is disconcerting is that when another identifies a better path - for example, what is the benefit of worrying about it? Do you think God would create a heaven where some will be happy and others will be distraught? - we respond that we need to have our taking offensive protected and acknowledged as if it is something of value and great worth. 

Often I remember the refrain from elementary school, "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  Today that phrase is anathema. How often do we hear, "Words are powerful."  I heard on the news tonight. We are training individuals to take offense, to protest, to let others know that they are offended, etc.  It is just such an unpleasant societal feature and a sign of weakness. I also think it can easily lead to the destruction of a society. 

That refrain is false. It is basically a defense of verbal bullying as harmless. It is contradicted by scripture that talks more about the dangers of the tongue over that of even the sword. I think a more accurate statement would be the altered refrain: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can convince me I deserve it." It has also been my experience that the people who most strongly adhere to the idea that everyone is a weakling for getting hurt by words just has to be poked in the right way verbally and suddenly they go to pieces.

That being said in this case, yeah, getting offended over what President Oaks said is ridiculous. There are things worth contesting but that sermon was not one of them.

The idea that nine year olds are going to start badgering their parents with questions based on that talk is silly and overwrought hand-wringing. If it happens deal with it. Better they learn it from President Oaks than out on the streets.  

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, and I have no problem with it. I just get a bit annoyed that, just because I noticed the odd thing that doesn't happen around there EVER, as far as I know, and wonder what they're doing, that somehow makes me "a little Islamophobic".  Or a little Hellsangelophobic.  Or whatever.

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

You have a history here with how you talk about Islam. Pretending the reactions to your comment have no backstory and comes from a tabula rasa assumption is disingenuous.

Edited October 8, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

What is your objection to what was said in that interview? Nature vs. Nurture and the Church's non-position on it?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, and I have no problem with it. I just get a bit annoyed that, just because I noticed the odd thing that doesn't happen around there EVER, as far as I know, and wonder what they're doing, that somehow makes me "a little Islamophobic".  Or a little Hellsangelophobic.  Or whatever.

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

No, it was not that it was odd to you or even you were wondering what they were doing there.  It is that you went to the negative option first in your wondering:

Quote

 -- I got the possibly incorrect feeling that they were trolling for negativereactions.

 

[The Nehor]

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.

 

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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.

The problem is not that people in Utah would not travel. It is size. A temple can only accommodate so many people. Half the number of temples in Utah tomorrow and you would have lines out the door at the ones who that stayed and general decreased attendance. Put tons of temples in areas with scant membership and they would not have enough members to run it.

Don't you ever get tired of hand-wringing and being offended on behalf of all these people who never asked for your help? Is this your SACRIFICE? Sounds like you need your head examined.

The idea that the General Authorities are emphasizing Utah over the rest of the world is ludicrous, especially in the recent era. A quick overview of temple building through only 2012:

 

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To @Rain and you, opinion is all I have on this matter. I've noticed some on here having a few, probably very few, negative opinions on how humans run the church. But it matters who does I guess.

Think of a woman having a nice car, not fancy, just nice. Imagine her friend going around and telling people that the woman made a bad choice on the car knowing nothing more about the decision making than the car was nicer than what many of their group had. Telling people the choice was wrong and ludicrous.

Now imagine the friend finds out that the woman bought the car on auction at a low price. That she chose this car because it was reliable and she was going to be driving a lot and driving into places where it wouldn't be good for her to have car problems. That the reason she would be doing that was to help people.

Does the friend still feel she made a bad decision?  Maybe, but at least this time the friend has a little more input as to why the woman chose that car.

I got frustrated with your post, because as far as I was aware, you didn't know what went into the decision making. I don't know anything either. I can't make a judgment of why it would be a bad OR a good choice.

I did start to question when they announced it though, "what are they doing or planning that makes them think this is a good choice?" I've been looking at where some of those small temples are going and at the unrest in the world and thinking, "hmm. That's interesting. I'd really like to know more how that all got decided."  I'd love to pick their brains!

So what about instead of deciding they made the wrong choice without knowing what went into that choice, people started trying to come up with positive reasons that might have gone into making it, because logically if the only things to think about were distance and finances of the patrons then the temples would be going in those places. I have yet to meet anyone in those kind of decsion making positions that were that stupid or snobby. There must be something more and without knowing those things I don't feel in a good enough position to judge their choices.

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours 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. 

This does happen though it is rarer than media would have you believe. Some people will do anything to make their lives sound interesting and a child is an excellent pawn in this respect. This is also not the worst way that a child can be used like this. When I was training for CASA one of the cases I studied was a mom who tried to convince everyone her child was mentally and physically disabled. The extended family fled from her toxic life but she would make money and get affirmation off of this. Eventually the girl grew up to be a teen and was so stifled she got involved with a boy online and the pair of them ended up killing mom. I believe she is still in prison. I have some sympathy for her but little for mom. On a smaller scale horrible parents do this by forcing or coercing kids to become what will make mom admired or let dad live out what he feels were his missed opportunities in sports or dating or career or vice-versa on the genders.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

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

They thought about it for five minutes and quickly defaulted to the conclusion that would denigrate the apostles. Standard procedure.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 10/7/2019 at 10:29 AM, Stargazer said:

So, someone had taken a huge amount of trouble to dress up completely differently from how everyone else was dressing, and paraded around in a place where they were sure to be noticed, and because someone was wondering why they were doing this, that's some kind of phobia?  

You live in a very different social world to the one I occupy! Not a single day would go by that I don't see people in all kinds of dress that is influenced by religion or culture: Islamic veils of various kinds; Sikh turbans; men in robes, tunics and/or formal pyjamas; women in saris; etc. My rabbi friend has a long beard and forelocks and dresses in a long black overcoat. We have a Nigerian brother at church whose Sunday best looks very much like this:

When I entered the temple on Saturday for my shift, I passed a group of men who were leaving, all of them wearing formal sarongs.

What makes you assume that doing so requires 'a huge amount of trouble'? Or is intended to draw attention?

Edited October 9, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Think of a woman having a nice car, not fancy, just nice. Imagine her friend going around and telling people that the woman made a bad choice on the car knowing nothing more about the decision making than the car was nicer than what many of their group had. Telling people the choice was wrong and ludicrous.

Now imagine the friend finds out that the woman bought the car on auction at a low price. That she chose this car because it was reliable and she was going to be driving a lot and driving into places where it wouldn't be good for her to have car problems. That the reason she would be doing that was to help people.

Does the friend still feel she made a bad decision?  Maybe, but at least this time the friend has a little more input as to why the woman chose that car.

I got frustrated with your post, because as far as I was aware, you didn't know what went into the decision making. I don't know anything either. I can't make a judgment of why it would be a bad OR a good choice.

I did start to question when they announced it though, "what are they doing or planning that makes them think this is a good choice?" I've been looking at where some of those small temples are going and at the unrest in the world and thinking, "hmm. That's interesting. I'd really like to know more how that all got decided."  I'd love to pick their brains!

So what about instead of deciding they made the wrong choice without knowing what went into that choice, people started trying to come up with positive reasons that might have gone into making it, because logically if the only things to think about were distance and finances of the patrons then the temples would be going in those places. I have yet to meet anyone in those kind of decsion making positions that were that stupid or snobby. There must be something more and without knowing those things I don't feel in a good enough position to judge their choices.

 

I've been very snarky today, I'm sorry. I tend to read other's opinions about this elsewhere and what they say resonates, but you're right, I'm not in the people's shoes that determine where they build. But still stand by my opinion that smaller temples in so many parts of the world where people have almost zero money would be nice for them to get a temple if they so desire it. 

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've been very snarky today, I'm sorry. I tend to read other's opinions about this elsewhere and what they say resonates, but you're right, I'm not in the people's shoes that determine where they build. But still stand by my opinion that smaller temples in so many parts of the world where people have almost zero money would be nice for them to get a temple if they so desire it. 

I think everyone agrees that small temples are good for those areas for people with no money, which is why I feel there is more to the process than we know about. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This does happen though it is rarer than media would have you believe. Some people will do anything to make their lives sound interesting and a child is an excellent pawn in this respect. This is also not the worst way that a child can be used like this. When I was training for CASA one of the cases I studied was a mom who tried to convince everyone her child was mentally and physically disabled. The extended family fled from her toxic life but she would make money and get affirmation off of this. Eventually the girl grew up to be a teen and was so stifled she got involved with a boy online and the pair of them ended up killing mom. I believe she is still in prison. I have some sympathy for her but little for mom. On a smaller scale horrible parents do this by forcing or coercing kids to become what will make mom admired or let dad live out what he feels were his missed opportunities in sports or dating or career or vice-versa on the genders.

I'm not talking about how this is portrayed in the media at all. I'm speaking from my personal clinical experience as a therapist with extensive experience working with sexuality and gender identity issues. 

Most of these parents believe they are being loving and accepting of who their child is.  But this is part and parcel of the worldly view that has made an idol of sexual orientation. 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

He also stated that (many?) change their minds later. 

Id love a stat on that.  Not to catch him but for my own knowledge. 

80% of those seeking a consultation in a certain area resolved by/in adulthood last I read (add-on:  may have conflated two different things, see link and quote below for actual info).  I think I linked to it somewhere recently.  Will try and find it.

There were differences between those who resolved and those who didn't, but it was a small sample given the population is small to begin with and likely many do not seek treatment because it isn't a huge issue for them, money and convenience, fear of being identified, etc., so I think additional studies need to be done to confirm.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

This was how some attitudes of gender dysphoria which tended to resolve were described in the paper I read.  It was resolved so the individual was comfortable with their gender as is, so to speak.

I read several papers, this one is not the one I found below in the other post. This link in this thread may be it as it uses the terms "persisting" and "desisting" for unresolved and resolved iirc, but I was able to access it.  Will keep looking for it.

Found this one, you should be able to download for free the PDF.  If not, I guess that means the site recognizes this iPad as my husband's who has accounts here and there since he is a professor.  I get his handmedowns as old tech works for me.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peggy_Cohen-Kettenis/publication/49738851_Desisting_and_persisting_gender_dysphoria_after_childhood_A_qualitative_follow-up_study/links/09e4150655d20a7ec1000000/Desisting-and-persisting-gender-dysphoria-after-childhood-A-qualitative-follow-up-study.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Found one of the papers I have mentioned.

Quote

Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma28) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, the GD recedes with puberty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841333/#!po=13.4146

Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I'm not talking about how this is portrayed in the media at all. I'm speaking from my personal clinical experience as a therapist with extensive experience working with sexuality and gender identity issues. 

Most of these parents believe they are being loving and accepting of who their child is.  But this is part and parcel of the worldly view that has made an idol of sexual orientation. 

I was not suggesting that you were discussing the news stories (I figured it came from your background) but the news tends to pick up on the most extreme cases. I was just saying a lot of the pressure is more subtle.

But yeah it is disturbing when parents try to mold their children’s identity at that level for their own ego. It is not new either.

If anyone wants some nightmare fuel of child abuse have some courtesy of the most radical nuts in the 1968 German Student Movement.

Warning! This is horrifying: 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html