Doctor Steuss

May future generations look at my own barbarism with compassionate understanding, but also not fall into the trap of making excuses for it. I should be better, regardless of this time that I live in. Light may shine more dimly based on where we are, and the society we find ourselves immersed in, but it shines nonetheless. The fault of my inability to be an enlightened version of me, that future generations won't look upon with uncomfortable distain, ultimately falls on me. Or so go my pre-caffeine smarmy thoughts while reading [at the time, Elder] Kimball's talk. Here's to those eventual awkward Thanksgiving dinners where my grandkids look on in shocked embarrassment, and proclaim, "Grandpa, you can't say that!" Hopefully I'll have my wits enough to still to listen and change.

I'm glad I stumbled on this thread, as I just shared some personal experience on another -- and this has me perplexed about the two Stakes I informally participate in (my home Ward/Stake, and my parents'). I don't attend church anymore (other than for special family/friend things), but I happily volunteer whenever I get a call to (mostly to help with security at events, but occasionally to help clean the chapel, or a service project for someone). Whenever I volunteer helping with security, I am told who each person is that's armed. As far as I know, they are tasked with concealed carry for regular meetings as well, not just events at the chapel. The Stake and Ward security leads always make sure we all know who is armed in the chapel. Them being armed is something they are asked to do by the head of security (whether at the Stake or at the Ward level). I only know three of them personally, so I don't know about all of their backgrounds (we don't usually have time for casual get-to-know-you chit-chat). One is a detective, one is a motorcycle cop, (both with metro) and one is a constable (for the county). I assumed this was standard practice nowadays at all Wards and Stakes, but apparently either my area has gone rogue, or there are special exceptions granted. As far as I know, there wasn't really anything in the valley as far as a string of threats or anything like that, which precipitated the change. I'm not even sure how long the Stake and Wards have had a security related calling... I just know I started being asked about 10-ish years ago to help (and that's when I became aware of it). ETA: If there is anyone who is tasked with this, who knows if this isn't supposed to be knowledge, please let me know and I'll happily delete this and my other comment (as I started to think about it, there's likely a certain level of "security" in people *not* knowing that there's specialized security).

Your OP contained a statement (and sentiment) that was unambiguously racist. That doesn't mean that you are racist. People who aren't racist can say and do things that are racist. People who are anti-racist can and do say racist things. I slip up just like everyone else. It's kind of part of our evolutionary hardwiring as tribal creatures. Once it's pointed out, we then get to decide if we want to abandon the racist thing we did or said, or if we want to defend it and make sure it becomes a part of who we are and no longer just something we did or said. It can be hard getting past that initial self-protective drive, and step back and be able to separate ourselves from our words and actions. The unintended intent of our words doesn't define us, but what we chose to do when we discover how our words are perceived certainly does have weight on who we are. I apologize for derailing a somber thread, about a tragic event, with word-policing. To get more towards the topic. While I don't attend church, I do occasionally get called to come help with security for events (sometimes my home ward, and sometimes my parents' ward). There is a security head for the each Stake, and each ward (that reports to the Stake security lead). While I can only definitively speak about my experience with events, I can all but guarantee that in regular meetings the Bishopric, and the ward security lead know every single member in that ward that has been tasked with concealed carry. I just assumed this had become standard practice, but this has me wondering if it's something that is only in some regions.

From: What's the deal with the Tongans? To: They just so happen to be Tongan. I thought it'd take the satirical mirror longer to do its work. I didn't even have to pivot into asking "What's the deal with the Jews." (That rascally definite article sure carries a lot of snarl in it, doesn't it?)

I'm glad you think white people are a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed much more, given the number of examples and how long it's been a problem. Hopefully the church starts providing security where white people attend, given that they've been the source of violence at meetinghouses for far longer than these recent instances with Tongans. Maybe we can add metal detectors to chapels, and search bags and cars of white people trying to gain access to meetinghouses. Make them show ID, and current tithing settlement statement to confirm they aren't typical white people just there to cause trouble. What's the deal with white people, anyway? Hopefully the police can focus on the white people and this white on white violence.

Yes, any repeated attacks on LDS congregations committed by a specific demographic need to have security provided to protect from that specific demographic.

[Deleted... the path will inevitably lead to darkness.]

I'm assuming if I search, I'll find the OP broad-painting the demographic that was represented in the most violent attack on an LDS congregation in recent history, that happened less than a year ago? Y'know, for consistency.

While he apologized after being called out for it, I think it's helpful to remember that he has compared a transgender individual passing as their preferred gender identity as being on par with them committing rape. When someone passing as their preferred gender is seen as a violent act against you and society, it's easy to minimalize endangering their lives in return.

When I first encountered the “yes, all men” statement online, about 16 years ago (I think[?]), I admittedly made it all about me, rather than the people who have been conditioned through real-life experiences to have to live with that level of anxiety and threat assessment. Rather than trying to understand the world that most women experience, I felt the compulsion to push back, because if I wasn’t that type of person, and my dad isn’t, and my brothers aren’t, and so on… then obviously it isn’t “all men.” Now, I try to do my best in situations where I’m a “stranger” to lessen potential anxiety. I know I’m not a threat, but I also recognize that others don’t know that. Sometimes there's a level of hurt, when I find out someone thought I was mean, or racist, or violent, or a douchebag because of my appearance, but I also know what I look like to a lot of people and that there wasn't intentional malice in their subconscious real-time threat assessment of me. While I know that I’m not a predator, I also know that I am physically intimidating, and that men and women generally view me as potentially threatening if they don’t know me. I make modest adjustments to my behavior, when possible to help with that. I think one thing that may help in this conversation is simply remembering that women are people. They aren’t some mysterious “other,” or monolith. From that starting point, one need only put yourself into another person’s shoes. Not into a woman’s shoes… just another human being’s shoes. Some self-reporting data from college attending men indicates that as high as 60% of men have engaged in sexual harassment, coercion, intimidation, and assault. Those same self-reporting studies have found as many as 16% of men have committed legally-defined rape. The few behavioral studies generally put it at around 25% of men who have committed some form of sexual assault. Those are the high-end numbers (other self-reporting studies have found lower numbers), but the fact that this is self-reported data (at least with the first two -- the other is a bit more complicated) I think speaks volumes. Also, most of this is college aged men. Men that haven’t even lived a quarter of their lives, already self-reporting that high of a rate. If you’re in a room with 10 men, there’s a likelihood (at least from the available research) that at least 2 of them have sexually assaulted a woman. Potentially half of the men in that room have used coercion, intimidation, or refused to accept that “no” is a complete sentence, at some point in their lives. That’s difficult to fathom, unless you’ve been one of the people who have experienced it first-hand. I’m not sure what empathetic thought experiment can work best for every person. I know a lot of men have difficulty putting themselves into a frame of mind where the potential of being a victim of rape is tangible in any meaningful way. It can be just too much of a foreign concept. Perhaps thinking of it as, if half of men had a tendency to just punch other dudes in the special-no-no-place, would it have absolutely no impact on how you viewed the world? Say you were fortunate and had never been punched, but you had multiple friends who had… wouldn’t that change your worldview in some way? Would you in no way start assuming that ever man you encountered had that potential, and you had to wait and see if they didn’t (all the while, anxiously waiting for that statistical roll of the dice)? Anecdotally (and trigger warning), an ex of mine was once raped by a family friend. She had known him for 30 years. Their families regularly did things together, and the kids all referred to each other as cousins, and their relationships matched that familial label. For 30 years she had shared life experiences with this “cousin.” For 30 years he had hung out with her friends (I met him multiple times, and he always seemed like a great guy). For 30 years their families spent important moments together. Then, one day, she woke up with a knife to her throat, and he proceeded to rape her. Another friend of mine was serially raped by her two brothers for almost a decade. Her mom and others just assumed she was “slow” because she never spoke. The brothers both went on missions, and were seen as regular up-standing LDS boys (one is now dead, and the other is serving two consecutive prison sentences for rape). There aren’t always warning signs. There isn’t some blinking light of “I’m potentially going to rape you.” To the women who have experienced it, particularly from someone who had always been “safe” -- to those women, it is potentially “all men.” So, is it mildly inconvenient for me to alter how I conduct myself in public and private? Meh, not really. Maybe at first, trying to remember to do the little things, but now it’s second nature. Asking a woman that I’m on a date with, if it’s ok that I just put my arm around them, or asking at the end of a date if it’s ok if I kiss them on the cheek or if just a fist-bump would be more comfortable (providing the alternative yourself can always be helpful) -- it just becomes second nature. Being aware of my surroundings and how others perceive me is far less tedious than the hyper-awareness a lot of women have to bear. Gradually too, treating women like fully self-actualized individual people tends to make them see you the same way. Creates great opportunities for friendships, and to be the person they feel comfortable telling their traumas to. Of course, I know that we’re all built different. Some women can’t have male friends, because if there’s any level of attraction, there’s too much of an urge to jump bones. Similarly there are men that can’t too. Because (*drum roll*), just like men, women are people. Not sure if this adds anything of value, or if it's just everyone circling their respective wagons at this point, but hopefully it wasn't just a waste of bandwidth (and needlessly abusing the keyboard with my sausage fingers).

I'm glad you were able to overcome your apprehension, and hopefully with time you'll be able to find the root cause that makes you see yourself as a potential rapist, and help find coping strategies where it isn't a potential roadblock to helping people. Best case scenario, you'll be able to reach a point where you no longer view yourself as a potential rapist.

Free will is so integral to Mormonism's ethos, that theologically there were people ("spirits") who were in the presence of God, experiencing His full Glory firsthand, who were still able to make a free will choice to rebel against Him. Even the posthumous rights are believed to be able to be accepted or rejected by the person they are performed on behalf of. Making the government (or anyone, for that matter) force compliance to the "one true religion" negates a core foundational belief of Mormonism. In fact, forced acceptance of the Gospel was Satan's plan within the Mormon mythos. At least that's this agnostic heathen's perspective.

Somewhat related to the topic of surgeries to alter one's body. The American Journal of Surgery published a systematic review about a year ago. For breast augmentation, the regret ranged from 5-9%. For body contouring, the regret rate was as high as 33%. Prostatectomy regret rate was about 30%, and bariatric surgery was almost 20%. They even noted the regret rates for non-surgical life decisions, like having children (7%), and getting a tattoo (16%). One that I looked up recently (due to some funk I am dealing with) was the regret rate for surgery for degenerative conditions of the spine. About 6% of people regret surgery. Note that with a lot of these surgeries there's no going back from. Once the surgery is done, you are stuck for life with it. Yet, there aren't scores of internet warriors poo-pooing people's personal decisions to get bariatric surgery, or prostatectomies, or spinal fusions, demanding government intervention. The regret rate for gender-affirmation surgery (from the systematic review in AJS)? A whopping 1%

Hi Rory, my dear old friend. I hope you and your loved ones are well. From a Christian perspective (or more specifically, your tradition and knowledge) -- Given Christ's teaching(s) regarding those who are born eunuchs, do you think it possible that infertility isn't necessarily a defect, but a way in which God sets aside those chosen for higher purposes and eternal inheritance? Just musing. Big Squeezy-Hugs, Stu

Anecdotal, but my nephew just got home about 6 weeks ago from a stateside Spanish speaking mission (SC Charleston). His final few months, the branch was struggling quite a bit because so many people were afraid to leave home to go to Church. He also said tracting because an effort of complete futility because no one was going to open their door to a pair of 6-foot plus blonde dudes in suits. One man he taught was deported a few weeks after he was baptized.