All Activity

When I said "You know." I didn't mean what the words say. There are expressions which are understood not necessarily according to the literal meaning. What I meant more literally was, "Hey y'know how some people seem to be slow at getting punchlines?" Words are hard. But its all we have to try to communicate. What do you think about the Word became flesh? I almost certainly miss a lot of the implications of that too. Anyway, ICE is probably easier. Let's try to understand that first.

Why is it necessary to you to insist it’s binary instead of bimodal? There are other human systems that are strongly bimodal and yet no one has issues with describing variations on the spectrum rather than insisting on there just being two modes and everything is one or the other. For example, handedness…it’s not either right or left even though the vast majority of people (over 90%) are one or the other. Sex (and I mean biology and not gender) was defined long before we knew of the existence of X and Y chromosome, so why should we only use them to define sex? There are those who produce eggs, get pregnant and have children who also may possess some male biological characteristics. There are those who produce fertile sperm who may have some female biological characteristics. Others may need help with only some aspects, but still be a mother or father in any meaningful biological sense. https://www.pacificfertilitycenter.com/blog/intersex-fertility-care-exploring-your-reproductive-options There are plenty of professional organizations that define sex on the basis of multiple biological characteristics. Why insist the only relevant ones are the chromosomes and then dismiss the variations and their expressions that even occur with them as irrelevant anomalies? AI did the work below:

Miserere. What does your reply mean? Can you explain its popularity to me? I am truly ignorant. Heh. You know. I don't get jokes. I get some. But often not. Was this a joke?

Had a similar experience and same.

The omnipresence of God being portrayed as a big false doctrine is my recollection as well, and in its place was the LDS teaching that "God has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as a man's". I also remember trying to find the best interpretation to explain away the uncomfortable concept of an omnnipresent God which not only shows up, but is repeated from different angles, in verse 41 of Section 88: "He [God] comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." Now I'm going to venture into the fringe zone: The word "comprehend" has two meanings: One meaning is, "to deeply understand". "Comprehend" also means "to include or comprise". Okay if we give that second definition a test drive? Not to exclude the first definition, but to deliberately include the second: "He [God] includes and comprises all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." Kinda shakes things up a bit, doesn't it? I'm not claiming that reading is consistent with the rest of LDS doctrine, but I do think that reading of the word "comprehend" is consistent with the rest of that verse. Not that I'm challenging you or @bluebell or even Bruce R. McConkie to either a scripture duel or a testimony duel, but that verse (and in particular with that reading of the word "comprehend") has become something I am very comfortable with.

I agree and state that if you are a government actor and need anonymity when carrying out violent government actions outside of a literal war zone then 99.9% of the time something has gone horribly wrong. “Hans…..are we the baddies?” levels of wrong.

I don’t think this counsel would improve anyone. It is the old “there are rats in the basement but they hide when the lights come on so if we leave the light on all the time then the rat problem is solved” thing. If we behave badly when we think there is no way for it to be traced back to us then online civility is the least of our problems. I don’t know how to cleanse the inner vessel but this solution is just a thin coat of whitewash hiding negative emotions and resentments. I see why an apostle would want it to stop. It is bad PR for the church if members are jackasses online but this is hacking at the leaves of the problem and leaving the branches and the roots.

It's not working when GA skip right past the firehoses of lie-based messaging that is directly driving animosity. Elder Cook blasts past the ongoing reality that powerful interests harm continually harm and exploit weaker people. After giving widespread harm-making a pass, he attacks one of the last remaining methods people have to safeguard themselves.

Could you elaborate on what "trans occurrences" means? Do you agree or disagree that DSDs are developmental variations and disorders within the binary system of male and female, and that there is no third sex? So are space aliens. So are dragons. And there are people who "identify" as these things. But these folks are humans, not space aliens or dragons or dogs or whatever, which means that their incongruent-with-reality notions are a manifestation of mental illness. I assume you concur with the foregoing, is that right? If so, what differentiates one form of what I see as incongruent-with-reality thinking (a human being saying "I 'identify' as a dog") with another incongruent-with-reality thinking (an adult male saying "I 'identify' as a woman")? Why is the former rejected and the latter embraced and ratified and endorses. Both are incongruent with reality, AFAICS. If you disagree, I would like to listen to what you have to say. You are free to respond as much or as little as you like. Thanks, -Smac

You are my favorite person today.

That last bit implies that angels mimic Judeo-Christian culture. Probably insulting to angels.

They don't negate the binary because binary is the natural default. My point is that there are a number of studies on genetic variation that directly lead to trans occurrences; ranging from physical intersex to individuals with mismatched chromosomes relative to their presenting genitalia. As to why I used only unicorn, it's because it was the easy fantasy creature on your list. Do I really need to go through and address every one, or will you stop imagining subtext in my statements? BTW, based on your post, I'm pretty confident you had AI prepare at least half of what you said. I don't consider that good faith, counselor.

It could have been just my ward or the couple of teachers I had, but my memory is in my early years (pre 15 probably, but might be prior to university), omnipresence of God (meaning the Father) was treated as a big false doctrine, something that made us different from those Trinitarians. I do think there has been less negative emphasis placed on it in my experience and instead just explaining the LDS version, but again could just be because that wasn’t my home ward anymore. This was Northern California, not Utah btw.

Yep, Gone with the Wind falls into this category. 300 does too. Sometimes you get horrible art with a horrible message. Gods & Generals is the first thing that jumps to mind in recent history.

Yes, the light of Christ, sorry for being confusing. When I read Manol's statement about this not being a mainstream teaching it caught me off guard so I had to go and look to see if he was right (because that's not how I remembered it). These were some of the first things to come up in the church's (horrible awful) search engine:

I’m interested in knowing your own answers to your own post.

None of these links negate the sexual binary. They describe developmental variations and disorders within the binary system of male and female. In humans (as in other mammals), sex is binary because there are two gametes—sperm and ova—and two corresponding developmental pathways organized around the production of one or the other. This is the definition used in evolutionary biology and developmental biology. Chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy are mechanisms that implement that binary; they are not the definition itself. There is no third sex, nor is there a "spectrum" of sexes, and DSDs are not outside the sexual binary. They are, instead, disorders or variations in the development of the male or female pathway. Individuals with these conditions are still male or female (or, in rare ambiguous cases, have mixed or incomplete development of one of the two pathways). They do not produce a third type of gamete or open a third developmental trajectory. The Scientific American piece and the ASRM sheet make a rhetorical move, not a biological one. Both emphasize complexity, overlaps, and rare developmental disorders, then treat that complexity as if it invalidates the binary. Complexity in the mechanisms of sexual differentiation does not abolish the binary outcome those mechanisms are organized to produce. The same articles note that medicine and law continue to classify people as male or female because that classification tracks the underlying reproductive reality. Calling the binary “overly simplistic” is a value judgment about how much weight to give rare edge cases, not a demonstration that the edge cases constitute additional sexes. The neurobiology paper (Roselli) is about gender identity and sexual orientation, not about the definition of biological sex. It discusses prenatal hormonal influences on brain development and behavior. It does not claim that biological sex itself is a spectrum or that DSDs create new sexes. Conflating questions about identity or orientation with the definition of sex is, in my view, a category error. On the "Unicorn" comment, I find it interesting that describing people who "identify" as one is "insulting," but noting that some people "identify" as a space alien, or as a wolf, or as being nine feet tall, or as being the son of Elon Musk, or as being a child, is not insulting. Could you elaborate? How is "I am a woman because I 'identify' as one" distinguishable from "I am a dog because I 'identify' as one"? Why is the latter not taken literally by people like you (I assume) but the former is taken literally? Thanks, -Smac

This is what my first link shows (MZ being identical, DZ being fraternal). My guess is sex hormones might be harder to tease out because I have seen studies suggesting that as well. I like the intro in that link: Then it summarized 7 twin studies the Review apparently ignored while depending on the eighth for its findings…a study which itself urged caution drawing that conclusion as the finding was inferred as they couldn’t assess the type of zygote if I understand correctly. They only assumed there were likely identical twins, they didn’t establish it.

Do you mean the Light of Christ? As opposed to his spirit that ‘inhabits’ Christ’s resurrected body? It is sometimes written as the Spirit of Christ…so you may mean that, but it gets confusing with the small ‘s’. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/light-of-christ

From what I recall, mouse and primate models have been able to simulate through early ER activation during prenatal development, changes in brain structures that are generally sex-specific. These structural changes generally don't see significant activation until hormones begin to reactive those structures later in life (namely the equivalent of puberty). Naturally, human brains are much more complex, and can't be (currently) studied in the same way, but this would align with gender dysphoria becoming more pronounced in puberty when those self-same structures that were influenced during prenatal development experience elevated sex-hormone concentrations and binding. Also (and big caution on trusting my memory here), I believe twin studies have shown a higher preponderance of transgenderism amongst both twins with identical twins, than in fraternal twins, which would lead credence to models that suggest a complex interaction between genetic predisposition, and other factors (social, environment, etc.).

His spirit as in the spirit of Christ. At least that’s what it teaches on the church’s website. But as far as Holy Ghost is also a God, then yes God is omnipresent in that way as well in our teachings.

For me it’s a complicated yes

This - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ This - https://www.asrm.org/advocacy-and-policy/fact-sheets-and-one-pagers/just-the-facts-biological-sex/ This - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/ This - https://genetic.org/variations/ Please note - I am NOT saying that ALL instances of trans orientation are due to a genetic contributor. However, the science does indicate a strong possibility that at lease SOME instances are genetically influenced. And, yes, your comparison to unicorns is insulting to people dealing with this issue. Despite your efforts to appear dispassionate in your analyses, your lack of empathy betrays you time and again.

Okay! Maybe we have more common ground here than I had realized. My recollection is that the emphasis is on God having a body of flesh and bone and therefore presumably having a physical location, that location being described in the Book of Abraham. So... is it your understanding that God is literally present in the room with you right now? And if so, is the answer simple or complicated? For me, the answer is a simple Yes.

His spirit being the Holy Ghost (why not his own spirit? Iirc, once resurrected, a spirit is tied too closely to the body to be omnipresent….at least that was what I was taught as a kid. In traditional Christianity, God the Father is spirit, but would they label that omnipresent spirit as the Holy Ghost or the Father? The Trinity is typically three persons. I assume God the Father is a spirit, the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and Jesus is body and spirit. Which seems to me means God’s spirit is different than the Holy Ghost/Spirit. But could be wrong.