Transgender pronouns and baptism

[Vanguard]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry about misunderstanding. It’s hard enough in person and online is pretty much impossible.
 

For me Just like “ideal marriages should not mix-race” is seen as inherently bigoted by a large swath of people, likewise, to a large swath of people “ideal marriages are between men and women” is seen as inherently bigoted (myself included). 

Ok. But what if I maintain that religious belief about marriage yet still support what I also believe should be the right of two men to marry civilly?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree practically speaking it will likely stick, just as Mormon will.  But while I love the fluidity of English for the potential beauty of prose and poetry as well as the fun of playing with words, I can still be troubled by trends that I see are likely to lead to miscommunications and  verbal conflict.

I think that’s fair. And it’s not entirely futile either. I believe that the church, by showing it is serious about “Mormon” (changing websites, choir names, social media names) etc has made significant progress there and if the concerted effort continues, I think they will continue to make headway. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Ok. But what if I maintain that religious belief about marriage yet still support what I also believe should be the right of two men to marry civilly?

For me? Yes. I find Latter-day Saint theology to be inherently bigoted on gay related issues  (as well as gender and womens issues) regardless of whether they are trying to impose those beliefs on society as a whole.  On the flip side I’m an apostate covenant breaking sinner. Worse I led my six (!) children  out with me.  Whatareyougonnado?

[carbon dioxide]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For me? Yes. I find Latter-day Saint theology to be inherently bigoted on gay related issues  (as well as gender and womens issues) regardless of whether they are trying to impose those beliefs on society as a whole.  On the flip side I’m an apostate covenant breaking sinner. Worse I led my six (!) children  out with me.  Whatareyougonnado?

I suppose Christ is a bigot as well.  Christ judges us by eternal law and those that pass are allowed into heaven and those that don’t are cast out.  If having rules and standards means one is a bigot, so be it. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I suppose Christ is a bigot as well.  Christ judges us by eternal law and those that pass are allowed into heaven and those that don’t are cast out.  If having rules and standards means one is a bigot, so be it. 

Right!? I don’t understand why it’s a big deal. You get to believe the wicked are going to hell and the justified are going to heaven. I’m in the “cast out” group so why would anyone in the “allowed into heaven” group care what I think of their beliefs about marriage?

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A dictionary doesn’t define words, it describes how words are used. 

People misuse words all the time.  A dictionary should be there to correct misuse. Not to promote misuse by giving people excuse to keep misusing it.  Let me explain more on why I disagree with the Merriam-Webster dictionary with their definition of transphobia.   I find it to be very inconsistent and this inconsistency is based on Political correctness or "wokeness" rather than an being objective.  I understand meanings of words may change over time but the changes should not be based on bias.  They should be based on being correct with the dictionary as a whole.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines phobia as "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.  Good standard definition.

They then add to this with transphobia. "transphobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people."  They add "discrimination" to the the definition of phobia.  Why?

In the definition of "discrimination" they mention NOTHING about it being a phobia

Full Definition of discrimination
1a: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
racial discrimination
b: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
the film viewed by those with discrimination
3a: the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
a bloodhound's scent discrimination
bpsychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

Discrimination has nothing to do with a phobia yet it pops its head up in transphobia.  Why?  They don't include discrimination like in the following

claustrophobia
abnormal dread of being in closed or narrow spaces
2: a feeling of discomfort or discontent caused by being in a limiting or restrictive situation or environment

glossophobia
: fear of public speaking
In anticipation of speaking in public, a person with glossophobia can experience a dry mouth, weak voice and uncontrollable body shaking.

Notice "discrimination" is not asserted in these examples.  Why? The Merriam Websters falsely adds the act of discrimination to transphobia because this change is not based on internal consistency but political correctness.  The act of discrimination is not based on a phobia.  It has nothing to do with a phobia UNLESS it is based on an irrational fear which is most cases is not present when discrimination against transgenders occurs. The act of discriminating against a transgender is not a phobia by itself yet the Merriam-Websters falsely asserts it is when transgenders suddenly become the subject.

People would say that I am transphobic because I don't believe transgender women should be in a woman's bathroom.  My view is not based on an irrational fear but the simple premise that transgender women are NOT women.  They can never be women.  My view may be discrimination in some people minds but its not a phobia.  It is NOT transphobia or transphobic.  Yet this dictionary asserts a phobia where it does not exist.

Edited January 5, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

People misuse words all the time.  A dictionary should be there to correct misuse. Not to promote misuse by giving people excuse to keep misusing it. 

One, sure and the dictionary does this by describing how words are actually used. Two if enough people “misuse” a word it isn’t misuse it’s a change in the meaning. Languages evolve over time

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Let me explain more on why I disagree with the Merriam-Webster dictionary with their definition of transphobia.   I find it to be very inconsistent and this inconsistency is based on Political correctness or "wokeness" rather than an being objective.  I understand meanings of words may change over time but the changes should not be based on bias.  They should be based on being correct with the dictionary as a whole.

It’s correct because that’s how a substantial subset of the population uses the word. It has nothing to do with being politically correct. The opposite actual. I can think of nothing more Orwellian or politically correct than to have some non-accountable group tell us how a word is able to be used. 

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines phobia as "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.  Good standard definition.

They then add to this with transphobia. "transphobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people."  They add "discrimination" to the the definition of phobia.  Why?

In the definition of "discrimination" they mention NOTHING about it being a phobia

Full Definition of discrimination
1a: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
racial discrimination
b: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
the film viewed by those with discrimination
3a: the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
a bloodhound's scent discrimination
bpsychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

Discrimination has nothing to do with a phobia yet it pops its head up in transphobia.  Why?  They don't include discrimination like in the following

claustrophobia
abnormal dread of being in closed or narrow spaces
2: a feeling of discomfort or discontent caused by being in a limiting or restrictive situation or environment

glossophobia
: fear of public speaking
In anticipation of speaking in public, a person with glossophobia can experience a dry mouth, weak voice and uncontrollable body shaking.

Notice "discrimination" is not asserted in these examples.  Why? The Merriam Websters falsely adds the act of discrimination to transphobia because this change is not based on internal consistency but political correctness.  The act of discrimination is not based on a phobia.  It has nothing to do with a phobia UNLESS it is based on an irrational fear which is most cases is not present when discrimination against transgenders occurs. The act of discriminating against a transgender is not a phobia by itself yet the Merriam-Websters falsely asserts it is when transgenders suddenly become the subject.

People would say that I am transphobic because I don't believe transgender women should be in a woman's bathroom.  My view is not based on an irrational fear but the simple premise that transgender women are NOT women.  They can never be women.  My view may be discrimination in some people minds but its not a phobia.  It is NOT transphobia or transphobic.  Yet this dictionary asserts a phobia where it does not exist.

Using transphobic doesn’t mean you have a phobia. It’s one word. They say you are transphobic. When people say they understand a concept, they aren’t saying they are standing under something.

 

ETA - Webster is tame btw by including the “fear” upfront. If I could have linked to it, I would have used google’s definition (from Oxford) “having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.” Nothing about a phobia there just like how when you look at a definition for understand there is nothing about standing under. Further from Wikipedia:

Transphobia is a collection of ideas and phenomena that encompass a range of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general. 

I’m sorry this offends your sensibilities but it’s just how the word is used. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Nofear]

Wrangling of definitions aside, it is still respectful and appropriate to allow a social group the term they want or will tolerate being called.
Good examples where groups both tolerate or embrace their moniker with respect to an opposing side.

• Pro-life and Pro-choice
• Gun Rights groups and Gun Control
• Pro-Democracy and Pro-Beijing (or Pro-China, or Pro-Establishment)
• Free Market Capitalist vs Socialist

Not good examples where the one or both sides don't like the moniker and/or the opposing side lacks one.

• Anti-Mormon vs Apologist
• Homophobe, Transphobe vs Pro-traditional Marriage
• Environmentalist vs ???

I'm sure other examples exist. As mentioned before, while there may be little hope that this tiny corner of the internet may not change things, that doesn't mean change can't or shouldn't happen here.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Wrangling of definitions aside, it is still respectful and appropriate to allow a social group the term they want or will tolerate being called.
Good examples where groups both tolerate or embrace their moniker with respect to an opposing side.

It just depends on what your motivation is. If your deepest goal is to show respect, you might choose one word choice. If your deepest goal teaching divine truth / giving a divine warning you might choose different language. Similarly, if you are trying to combat what you view as a deeply harmful ideology that might impact your word choice. 

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right!? I don’t understand why it’s a big deal. You get to believe the wicked are going to hell and the justified are going to heaven. I’m in the “cast out” group so why would anyone in the “allowed into heaven” group care what I think of their beliefs about marriage?

Apparently some religious organizations are not satisficed  with just being allowed into heaven.  They want to push their way of thinking onto all the cast outs of the world.  Even to the point of trying to pass legislation that would narrowly define marriage into what they believe.  Any push back from the cast outs would be viewed as religious persecution.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

They want to push their way of thinking onto all the cast outs of the world. 

Looking at Prop 8, prop 22 (just ones I am familiar with) as well as Apostle Dallin Oaks advocacy white papers in the 1980’s (not to mention everything that came decades before on race) makes it very hard to assume good faith on the part of the church when it comes to its current actions. 

[Vanguard]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For me? Yes. I find Latter-day Saint theology to be inherently bigoted on gay related issues  (as well as gender and womens issues) regardless of whether they are trying to impose those beliefs on society as a whole.  On the flip side I’m an apostate covenant breaking sinner. Worse I led my six (!) children  out with me.  Whatareyougonnado?

Fair enough. I think it is a low bar you advocate for when labeling those in religion who take such a stance (without overt resistance) about marriage but then again, all sides are certainly guilty of broad brushstrokes. For what it's worth, I do not view you in the ways you seem to champion when speaking of yourself as an 'apostate covenant breaking sinner' consigned to hellfire or some such... : (  

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Apparently some religious organizations are not satisficed  with just being allowed into heaven.  They want to push their way of thinking onto all the cast outs of the world.  Even to the point of trying to pass legislation that would narrowly define marriage into what they believe.  Any push back from the cast outs would be viewed as religious persecution.

That is a part of democracy.  Every side is attempting to push their views on the other side.  The church simply pushed the normal view of marriage which was their right.  They key is when one loses in a democracy, they accept the decision and move on.  The church is not pushing any legal attempt to overthrow these issues.  They simply have established their policies in the church on how they will deal with the issues which is their right to do

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

That is a part of democracy.  Every side is attempting to push their views on the other side.  The church simply pushed the normal view of marriage which was their right.  They key is when one loses in a democracy, they accept the decision and move on.  The church is not pushing any legal attempt to overthrow these issues.  They simply have established their policies in the church on how they will deal with the issues which is their right to do

The church is not your run of the mill pollical group.  they claim a divine mandate. They publish policies meant to give them political standing in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and then spin this into a "revelation" after the fact.   I have no problem with a religious organization's doctrine and beliefs.  I have a real problem when that organization pushes those beliefs in a political way.  Then the scream religious persuasion when they get push back.  

Edited January 6, 2022 by sunstoned

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

They publish policies meant to give them political standing in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and then spin this into a "revelation" after the fact.   

Can you clarify this statement?  I don't really understand it.  What policies does the church have that have given the church political standing, that the church would not have without the policies?

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

The church is not your run of the mill pollical group.  they claim a divine mandate. They publish policies meant to give them political standing in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and then spin this into a "revelation" after the fact.   I have no problem with a religious organization's doctrine and beliefs.  I have a real problem when that organization pushes those beliefs in a political way.  Then the scream religious persuasion when they get push back.  

The church has a right to push its position on gay marriage just as a gay right organization pushes their position.  The people and the courts decided the issue. Religious organizations have just as much a right to give their position on an issue as an non religious one.  That is how our system works.  It is not like gay rights get to advocate their side and religious ones have to shut up.  

Edited January 6, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[sunstoned]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The church has a right to push its position on gay marriage just as a gay right organization pushes their position.  The people and the courts decided the issue. Religious organizations have just as much a right to give their position on an issue as an non religious one.  That is how our system works.  It is not like gay rights get to advocate their side and religious ones have to shut up.  

The church doesn't have a right to become a political organization and still claim tax exempt status.  They aggressively pushed their anti same sex marriage ban to the tune of 20 million dollars.  Much of this they got from leaning on individual members.   It is one thing to believe a certain way and quite another to push your belief on others.  The church tried to push their beliefs on others with regards to prop 8 and it blew up in their face.  People, and even many members, thought that was a bridge too far.  The PR damage from this failed campaign was severe.  And yet Oaks keeps pounding on this one key.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Can you clarify this statement?  I don't really understand it.  What policies does the church have that have given the church political standing, that the church would not have without the policies?

The proclamation of the family policy was created and put into place to give the church standing in court cases involving same sex marriage.  The genesis of this came from the Hawaii supreme court case involving same sex marriage.  It wasn't until years later that Oaks decided that this policy was really a revelation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family:_A_Proclamation_to_the_World

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/14/historical-context-of-the-family-proclamation/

[carbon dioxide]

26 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The church doesn't have a right to become a political organization and still claim tax exempt status.  They aggressively pushed their anti same sex marriage ban to the tune of 20 million dollars.  Much of this they got from leaning on individual members.   It is one thing to believe a certain way and quite another to push your belief on others.  The church tried to push their beliefs on others with regards to prop 8 and it blew up in their face.  People, and even many members, thought that was a bridge too far.  The PR damage from this failed campaign was severe.  And yet Oaks keeps pounding on this one key.

  501c status does not mean an organization can’t advocate in political views.  The vast majority of tax exempt organizations often do involve themselves in political issues.  The fact that the church maintains its tax exempt status shows the church acted within the bounds of the law to maintain it.  The church has good lawyers and tax experts 

Edited January 6, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

17 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The church doesn't have a right to become a political organization and still claim tax exempt status.  They aggressively pushed their anti same sex marriage ban to the tune of 20 million dollars.  Much of this they got from leaning on individual members.   It is one thing to believe a certain way and quite another to push your belief on others.  The church tried to push their beliefs on others with regards to prop 8 and it blew up in their face.  People, and even many members, thought that was a bridge too far.  The PR damage from this failed campaign was severe.  And yet Oaks keeps pounding on this one key.

Keep in mind as well.  More money was spent to defeat Prop 8.  A lot of money came from tax exempt organizations.  The People of California decided the fate of prop 8.  If money buys election results, Prop 8 should have been defeated.  
 

My only complaint with the church is that it’s efforts was not needed.  Prop 8 was going to pass regardless of whether the church got involved.

Edited January 6, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[sunstoned]

15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Keep in mind as well.  More money was spent to defeat Prop 8.  A lot of money came from tax exempt organizations.  The People of California decided the fate of prop 8.  If money buys election results, Prop 8 should have been defeated.  
 

My only complaint with the church is that it’s efforts was not needed.  Prop 8 was going to pass regardless of whether the church got involved.

I don't disagree with you.  It did pass, and then was declared unconstitutional in federal court.  This was later supported in the SCOTUS. The church could have saved all kinds of dollars and credibility by staying out of the political fray. Too bad it didn't know in advance what was going to happen.

[sunstoned]

22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

  501c status does not mean an organization can’t advocate in political views.  The vast majority of tax exempt organizations often do involve themselves in political issues.  The fact that the church maintains its tax exempt status shows the church acted within the bounds of the law to maintain it.  The church has good lawyers and tax experts 

Yes, I agree that the church as a very good and expensive law firm that helps them create policy and decide policies.  All good corporations should have a strong legal arm.  

[Nofear]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Yes, I agree that the church as a very good and expensive law firm that helps them create policy and decide policies.  All good corporations should have a strong legal arm.  

Somehow I get the impression you meant this as a slight against the Church. I can be in agreement with the statement and not view as such. Should the Church be a bumbling organization blithely ignorant and careless about the political environment in which it operates? I vaguely recall something about wise as serpents and harmless as doves...

[Stormin' Mormon]

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The church doesn't have a right to become a political organization and still claim tax exempt status

No, they can't become a partisan organization and still claim tax exempt status. But being partisan and being political are too very different things.

To be partisan is to support a political party. The church is very clear that they do not support any political candidates or political parties. They are very clealry and unambigusoly non-partisan.

But they are not non-political, and there is no ethical issue with a tax exempt organization advocating issues rather than candidates.

There is often overlap in these definitions, which can cause confusion. When an issue is supported by 95% of one party and 5% of the other, support for the issue can appear to be partisan. 

This is why a few months back, ACB said in a speech that the Supreme Court is not partisan and then got laughed at by people who don't know the difference between partisan and political.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon
Correction of typos

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I don't disagree with you.  It did pass, and then was declared unconstitutional in federal court.  This was later supported in the SCOTUS. The church could have saved all kinds of dollars and credibility by staying out of the political fray. Too bad it didn't know in advance what was going to happen.

I believe winning or losing really was not the point. We are to stand for Christ and the gospel in all times and places win or lose.  If the church and the members just stand aside, we are under condemnation for not standing for the right.  If we stand for the right and lose, that is ok.  The sin is not on our head.  If society accepts unrighteous things after been warned, they have no excuse when the judgements come.  
 

Some have said the church was on the wrong side of history when it opposed same sex marriage.  I don’t see it that way.  The only ones that are on the right side of history is the side the Lord allows to remain on the earth.  At some point, the Lord will clean house.

Edited January 7, 2022 by carbon dioxide