How to reconcile mixed messages from The Church

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You divided transgender people into a small minority you are behind and then the vast majority were victims or perpetrators of a huge plot to corrupt the youth. You literally said that for every one 'legitimate case' there were 100-1000 who accept this bad ideology. That might technically be a subset of the T but don't pretend this is a nuanced targeting of a small portion of them.

You wrote up that long piece and now are trying to backpedal with how much you don't care and trying to say my beef is with the feminists. If you mean TERFs then YEAH, I've got disagreements. I also know who is funding them. Calling them feminists is a bit of a stretch at this point.

You do know that the algorithims are just feeding you more of what you like to hear right? And a hearty dose of things that generate engagement which means controversial and nasty takes.

I know there are bisexual people convinced that gay and lesbian people deeply hate them because those are the kinds of videos the algorithims love to share. The video about the happy sapphic bi & lesbian couple is ignored but the gay guy who talks about who he will never date a bi man or the lesbian who spews hate at transgender people get lots of views and (angry) engagement. The system works! Can we burn it down now?

You literally said that there were 100 to 1000 transgender people you thought were doing everything wrong for every one good one. The backpedaling is amazing.

Also radical gender theory is a catch-all term created by anti-LGBT types. It includes transgender ideology, gender identity, and academic queer theory. If you are fighting those you are fighting the whole LGBT community. So yes I will continue to characterize as an attack on the entire community because that is what the words you are saying mean. If you mean something else say something else.

Point me to these people who are telling people that being gay or lesbian isn't real and it just means you are transgender and I will yell at them.

And no, I don't have to refute every one of these possibly fictional people who are so far into the T they are trying to eliminate the LGB. I don't have to think they have anything intelligent to add to the conversation because they don't.

I spend a lot of time, probably too much, in queer spaces both in real life and online. I feel like I am getting whiplash as you try to discredit an ideology that buttresses the whole LGBT community while insisting you are not targeting the LGB parts. Then you insist that less than 1% of transgender people aren't just following a fad but claim you aren't targeting the majority of the T, and then you elevate a tiny minority to some kind of status of increased validity despite the fact that most of the community really dislikes what they are saying.

And more whiplash. You were claiming it was mitigated by "detrans" voices and now suddenly there is exponential growth based on very anecdotal evidence. Which is it?

I acknowledged they are real and that they are a minority which is still what I am doing. I am not advocating for them to be brushed aside. Inasmuch as they could help us avoid people transitioning in error we should hear them. Too often though they are generalizing and claiming that all transgender people are completely wrong and that all the majority who are okay with their transition should be denied access to the medication and procedures to facilitate it. That part we can chuck out the door.

How much time do you spend listening to anti-Mormons claiming the whole church is a massive fraud on every level and should be destroyed and honoring their "lived experience".

Try at all.

Or stop trying.

Leave my friends alone. Stop repeating myths and half-truths used to stir up fear, anger, and hatred towards people I care about. They suffer enough already.

I stand by what I said before. Transgender people aren't the problem. They are just a convenient moral panic created by people who are the problem.

This! 

[CV75]

mistake

Edited January 26, 2024 by CV75

[california boy]

12 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Again, I'm hearing this from folks claiming to be LGB on various social media.  Twitter and Tiktok and the like. 

I'm running into them online.  Twitter, TikTok, Discord mostly. 

 

Wait.  Are we now using Twitter, TikTok and Discord as a reliable source to get information to use as a weapon against a group of people?  Have you read what Twitter, TikTok and Discord say about Mormons?  Do you rely on those voices to form your opinions about Mormonism?

[CV75]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but this is in the context of calling everyone unto Him and then telling some groups to keep a bit more distance. Kind of undermines the professed equality of the message.

Is it groups or is it individuals? I would say ultimately, individuals, since “Circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person…” as to participation decisions. So, I think it is a matter of calling everyone – every individual – unto Him and then reminding everyone (every individual) that mortal life imposes some temporary limitations to a fullness of their participation in mortality. We call each become as a little child in the context of who lives with and who is spared any particular limitation. But as with confusion, sorrow and relief are subjective experiences.

[BlueDreams]

On 1/24/2024 at 6:08 PM, Maestrophil said:

I watched this video and resonated with the confusion of The Church approving the baptism of a trans woman as a woman of record etc. Those actions conflict in my mind with messages of eternal gender and mariage from the pulpit.  
 

Are LGBTQ+ folks the current version of what blacks and the priesthood were pre- 1978? Is the proclamation wrong?  Not sure how to feel

 

 

Honestly, I'm not surprised that he's confused. I used to watch several of his videos, but stopped as got more and more into ID politics within the church. He has a stance that I think is hard for people to immediately recognize is out of step with the church because it feels very in-step at first. He absolutely believes and supports the theological tenets. Defends the structure and technical doctrines, etc. The problem is that he has a rigid right/wrong mentality that has little bend. When a view doesn't correlate with his assertions he finds it a threat or that it must be wrong. And he fights/debates with an absolute sense of knowing what is right. This creates an engagement with the church that gives little space for gray, little wiggle room for a continuing restoration, and little space for shifts/contradictions. 

So something like this becomes confusing. 

To me it seems pretty simple. The church is imperfectly trying to both maintain boundaries on what it believes is right while making space and practices to allow for people to find home here by not cause unnecessary offense. They are trying to balance both love and law as guiding principles in a topic that we don't have a ton or specific revelation on. So when you have that, you're going to have some messy policies. There's going to be things that don't make sense of have obvious loopholes or problems in implementation. We're not at a solid answer on this...an apostle said as much in an interview a few years back. So to me, this shouldn't be all that surprising. 

But I think it does when you become more absolutist. It reminds me of the prodigal son's brother. He did everything technically right, but he still couldn't join in the Joy of his father's home because he was misaligned in the full purposes of his father. One can technically get the Gospel while missing the greater purposes to it. 

When one fits more into that mindset, things like this will come off especially confusing. When you assume that the church wants to make space as best it can for anyone willing to turn to Christ, it becomes less shocking. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 26, 2024 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Honestly, I'm not surprised that he's confused. I used to watch several of his videos, but stopped as got more and more into ID politics within the church. He has a stance that I think is hard for people to immediately recognize is out of step with the church because it feels very in-step at first. He absolutely believes and supports the theological tenets. Defends the structure and technical doctrines, etc. The problem is that he has a rigid right/wrong mentality that has little bend. When a view doesn't correlate with his assertions he finds it a threat or that it must be wrong. And he fights/debates with an absolute sense of knowing what is right. This creates an engagement with the church that gives little space for gray, little wiggle room for a continuing restoration, and little space for shifts/contradictions. 

So something like this becomes confusing. 

To me it seems pretty simple. The church is imperfectly trying to both maintain boundaries on what it believes is right while making space and practices to allow for people to find home here by not cause unnecessary offense. They are trying to balance both love and law as guiding principles in a topic that we don't have a ton or specific revelation on. So when you have that, you're going to have some messy policies. There's going to be things that don't make sense of have obvious loopholes or problems in implementation. We're not at a solid answer on this...an apostle said as much in an interview a few years back. So to me, this shouldn't be all that surprising. 

But I think it does when you become more absolutist. It reminds me of the prodigal son's brother. He did everything technically right, but he still couldn't join in the Joy of his father's home because he was misaligned in the full purposes of his father. One can technically get the Gospel while missing the greater purposes to it. 

When one fits more into that mindset, things like this will come off especially confusing. When you assume that the church wants to make space as best it can for anyone willing to turn to Christ, it becomes less shocking. 

 

With luv,

BD

While I agree with this, I will note that even for people like me who are much more nuanced and try not to be black and white about things, I do perceive the church's position as black and white on these issues - thus making many of the church's actions confusing to me.  I agree with the video that mixed messages are being sent.  Take for example the books that have been published by Deseret Book (owned by the church) who are promoting ideas contrary to the black and white stance and "doctrines" of the church on LGBTQ issues.  Bishops publicly celebrating the redefinition of marriage and the marriage of gay men being called as the communications director of the church, etc.  We have been taught not to advocate for or condone gay marriage/sex, but that is exactly what many church leaders are doing by posting "love is love" and promoting such things. 

It certainly shows a huge shift in tolerance, but the fact that the church company is publishing some of this stuff that someone may have been excommunicated for trying to publish previously comes off as mixed messaging to me.  

I get the distinction between love and law, but a lot of this stuff goes beyond love into advocacy and condoning of things that are contrary to “law”.  I put law in quotes because I am one who believes these interpretations of law will change, and we are seeing the beginning of that.

Edited January 26, 2024 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

While I agree with this, I will note that even for people like me who are much more nuanced and try not to be black and white about things, I do perceive the church's position as black and white on these issues - thus making many of the church's actions confusing to me.  I agree with the video that mixed messages are being sent.  Take for example the books that have been published by Deseret Book (owned by the church) who are promoting ideas contrary to the black and white stance and "doctrines" of the church on LGBTQ issues.  Bishops publicly celebrating the redefinition of marriage and the marriage of gay men being called as the communications director of the church, etc.  We have been taught not to advocate for or condone gay marriage/sex, but that is exactly what many church leaders are doing by posting "love is love" and promoting such things. 

It certainly shows a huge shift in tolerance, but the fact that the church company is publishing some of this stuff that someone may have been excommunicated for trying to publish previously comes off as mixed messaging to me.  

I get the distinction between love and law, but a lot of this stuff goes beyond love into advocacy and condoning of things that are contrary to “law”.  I put law in quotes because I am one who believes these interpretations of law will change, and we are seeing the beginning of that.

Evidently the Church isn’t as black-and-white as some may perceive it to be!

For example, “advocacy” is mentioned only twice in the participation section of the Handbook (38.7.12 and 38.8.30), and not in a way that applies to the examples you provided. Two other specific mentions are: the use of meetinghouses (35.5.6.3) and terms of membership councils, where it is specific to a member having joined another church (32.6.3.2).

On the other hand, “intolerance” pertains to food allergies (18.9.3), and there is no mention of “tolerance” in the Handbook.

Mixed messaging is not the same as messaging that may have changed over time due to changes in societal norms, which is different than the message which is constant, though my observation is that black-and-white thinking may lead one to that conclusion. I think considering the messages that have not changed and what the Church has advocated since 1830 helps alleviate confusion.

[blackstrap]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you have any specific info on this item?

I watched a youtube short on this, be aware that triggering is likely:

congressional hearing on transwomen in prisons - Search Videos (bing.com)

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Evidently the Church isn’t as black-and-white as some may perceive it to be!

I was talking about their positions on gay marriage and gender.  Those are very black and white.  Therefore, publishing info that promotes things contrary to that black and white position looks like mixed messaging to me, at the very least is confusing.  

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For example, “advocacy” is mentioned only twice in the participation section of the Handbook (38.7.12 and 38.8.30), and not in a way that applies to the examples you provided. Two other specific mentions are: the use of meetinghouses (35.5.6.3) and terms of membership councils, where it is specific to a member having joined another church (32.6.3.2).

Not all messaging comes from the handbook.  Watch the video for other examples of messaging from the brethren about advocating for and condoning what the church considers to be black and white sin in this issue.  So, when you see bishops and others condoning and advocating for gay marriage being promoted to key communications roles in the church instead of being disciplined/silenced for publicly speaking against doctrines of the church...confusing, but I am happy to see it. 

Perhaps you looked over this whopper:

Quote

Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Mixed messaging is not the same as messaging that may have changed over time due to changes in societal norms, which is different than the message which is constant, though my observation is that black-and-white thinking may lead one to that conclusion.

You and I both know that the messaging on gay marriage and gender has been constant, in fact beaten to death by some (Oaks).  Please show me evidence that their position has changed due to societal norms.  Their position is black and white on these issues.  Is gay marriage not sin?  Is gender-transitioning condoned? Clearly not.  But then there are these mixed messages starting to pop up...  No one in their right mind would argue that these mixed messages show that the church is anything but black and white on issues such as gay marriage - hence the confusion. 

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think considering the messages that have not changed and what the Church has advocated since 1830 helps alleviate confusion.

That is actually precisely what causes some confusion.  

 

[Maestrophil]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Honestly, I'm not surprised that he's confused. I used to watch several of his videos, but stopped as got more and more into ID politics within the church. He has a stance that I think is hard for people to immediately recognize is out of step with the church because it feels very in-step at first. He absolutely believes and supports the theological tenets. Defends the structure and technical doctrines, etc. The problem is that he has a rigid right/wrong mentality that has little bend. When a view doesn't correlate with his assertions he finds it a threat or that it must be wrong. And he fights/debates with an absolute sense of knowing what is right. This creates an engagement with the church that gives little space for gray, little wiggle room for a continuing restoration, and little space for shifts/contradictions. 

So something like this becomes confusing. 

To me it seems pretty simple. The church is imperfectly trying to both maintain boundaries on what it believes is right while making space and practices to allow for people to find home here by not cause unnecessary offense. They are trying to balance both love and law as guiding principles in a topic that we don't have a ton or specific revelation on. So when you have that, you're going to have some messy policies. There's going to be things that don't make sense of have obvious loopholes or problems in implementation. We're not at a solid answer on this...an apostle said as much in an interview a few years back. So to me, this shouldn't be all that surprising. 

But I think it does when you become more absolutist. It reminds me of the prodigal son's brother. He did everything technically right, but he still couldn't join in the Joy of his father's home because he was misaligned in the full purposes of his father. One can technically get the Gospel while missing the greater purposes to it. 

When one fits more into that mindset, things like this will come off especially confusing. When you assume that the church wants to make space as best it can for anyone willing to turn to Christ, it becomes less shocking. 

 

With luv,

BD

great perspective

 

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was talking about their positions on gay marriage and gender.  Those are very black and white.  Therefore, publishing info that promotes things contrary to that black and white position looks like mixed messaging to me, at the very least is confusing.  

Not all messaging comes from the handbook.  Watch the video for other examples of messaging from the brethren about advocating for and condoning what the church considers to be black and white sin in this issue.  So, when you see bishops and others condoning and advocating for gay marriage being promoted to key communications roles in the church instead of being disciplined/silenced for publicly speaking against doctrines of the church...confusing, but I am happy to see it. 

Perhaps you looked over this whopper:

You and I both know that the messaging on gay marriage and gender has been constant, in fact beaten to death by some (Oaks).  Please show me evidence that their position has changed due to societal norms.  Their position is black and white on these issues.  Is gay marriage not sin?  Is gender-transitioning condoned? Clearly not.  But then there are these mixed messages starting to pop up...  No one in their right mind would argue that these mixed messages show that the church is anything but black and white on issues such as gay marriage - hence the confusion. 

That is actually precisely what causes some confusion.  

 

No gay marriage – not performed in the temple and membership participation conditions apply. Gender – semantics: eternal and doctrinal in some ways; mortally-expressed and policy-managed in others. Posted yesterday at 01:32 PM -  Posted 22 hours ago  -  Posted 21 hours ago . Which Church publications (you may include Dessert Books) promote otherwise? It would be helpful to provide quotes from the publications you share.

A state of confusion does make it difficult to allow a change in perspective as to whether a message is the result of black and white or non-dichotomous thinking. The handbook reflects the latter in its guidance to leaders, with the “Circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person…” guidance. I have found that overcoming confusion is better served by talking through it and trying to understand the other perspective than by defending the confusion. Likewise, faith can ameliorate some of the over- and under- thinking that so often accompanies confusion. I empathize with those who suffer from this personal, subjective response to issues of interest to them.

Snippets from a video are typically unhelpful since overall, general talks about sin (and what is and isn’t a sin), etc. can also be very contextual. Cleary defining something as sinful or a sin in one context doesn’t prove that the authority is a black and white thinker, or that the Church’s position on sin is the result of black and white thinking, or that no Church authorities employ non-dichotomous thinking.

The temple recommend question would be answered differently by the black-and-white and the non-dichotomous thinker, and by the confused and the more confident respondent.

The Church treats Same-Sex Marriage as a moral issue and contrary to the commandments of God: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng If one wishes to consider sin from the Church’s perspective and attitude, this article allows some contextualization: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin?lang=eng 

The gender-transitioning counsel, covered in other posts (so I won’t think them) is accompanied by allowances for membership participation and counsel acknowledging that circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person…”

Sometimes insistence that these are part of mixed messaging and the result of black and white thinking, or summarizing the Church's position and messaging from a black-and-white mindset may be more a matter of rhetoric than a symptom of confusion, but rhetoric and confusion themselves are often more a chicken-and-egg sort of dynamic.

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Which Church publications (you may include Dessert Books) promote otherwise? It would be helpful to provide quotes from the publications you share.

Throughout this thread you have relied on others to fill in information for you about the video.  Now you are asking for more references discussed in the video.  It would be helpful to watch the content being discussed on this thread before commenting on it.

The video gives several examples and quotes from books published by Deseret Book which promotes ideas “otherwise”.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Is it groups or is it individuals? I would say ultimately, individuals, since “Circumstances vary greatly from unit to unit and person to person…” as to participation decisions. So, I think it is a matter of calling everyone – every individual – unto Him and then reminding everyone (every individual) that mortal life imposes some temporary limitations to a fullness of their participation in mortality. We call each become as a little child in the context of who lives with and who is spared any particular limitation. But as with confusion, sorrow and relief are subjective experiences.

Groups as well. There are some prohibitions to defined groups.

I also voluntarily self-limit my participation in some aspects of the church knowing it could be dangerous to me, to local leaders,  and/or to the church’s image if the wrong people in the ward found out my sexuality and interpreted that in a bigoted way.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Throughout this thread you have relied on others to fill in information for you about the video.  Now you are asking for more references discussed in the video.  It would be helpful to watch the content being discussed on this thread before commenting on it.

The video gives several examples and quotes from books published by Deseret Book which promotes ideas “otherwise”.

I am commenting on the limited usefulness of short clips. since we are discussing your filtered interpretations of what you portray as mixed messaging, black-and-white thinking, promotion and advocacy, etc. This is the discussion phase of the post-video absorption, an opportunity to repeat and review points of bias and emphasis, and refute them!

[CV75]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Groups as well. There are some prohibitions to defined groups.

I also voluntarily self-limit my participation in some aspects of the church knowing it could be dangerous to me, to local leaders,  and/or to the church’s image if the wrong people in the ward found out my sexuality and interpreted that in a bigoted way.

Which groups are defined, which have to do with mixed messages from the Church on matters of Church members navigating a balance between sexual identity, sexual identity politics and restored covenants? Self-limiting, as you suggest, seems to be one way of doing this.

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 1/26/2024 at 8:31 AM, california boy said:

Wait.  Are we now using Twitter, TikTok and Discord as a reliable source to get information to use as a weapon against a group of people?  Have you read what Twitter, TikTok and Discord say about Mormons?  Do you rely on those voices to form your opinions about Mormonism?

"Weapon against a group of people"?   Again (for the third time this thread, and like the eighth time on this forum over the years), I'm not attacking a group of people.  I'm taking strong issue with a theory that's become popular in recent years.   So many folks who can't (or refuse to) tell the difference.  I hear so much about diversity and inclusion - but apparently that stops at diversity of opinion or diversity of thought.  Tell me @california boy, what do you think of the feminists, LGB folks, detransitioners, and trans people who are openly opposed to radical gender theory?  Do you accuse them of weaponizing information as well?  Are you able to think of them as perhaps not enemies, but as people with a different opinion?  

"Have you read what Twitter, TikTok and Discord say about Mormons?" I've been interacting with critics of my faith online for ~30 years now.  Starting with Usenet groups and dial-up bulletin board systems of the '90's.  And social media since it was invented.  Yes.  The answer to your question is yes.   Why is this a question?  Do you think the humans using those services to carry on public discussions are somehow less than, somehow not worthy?  Do their voices not matter?

"Do you rely on those voices to form your opinions about Mormonism?"  I've argued with them often about their opinions and beliefs.  But they all carry their lived experiences with them, and I tend to believe their stories.  Tell me @california boy, should I believe your stories, when you relate personal experiences about interacting with Mormons and LDS theology and whatnot?  If yes, then why should I not believe the stories of feminists, LGB folks, detransitioners, and trans people who speak genuinely from the heart about their negative lived experiences with a certain ideology that is quite popular in and out the LGBTQIA+ community?   

There.  You asked 3 questions, and I answered them, honestly and transparently.   I asked you questions in return.  I'd like to hear your answers. 

 

On 1/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, The Nehor said:

I stand by what I said before. Transgender people aren't the problem. They are just a convenient moral panic created by people who are the problem.

And I would patiently point out what I've said before, multiple times, across years: I'm not taking issue with transgender people.  I'm taking issue with a certain popular theory involving them.  A theory that is not shared universally by everyone, including transgender people.   Why is it so hard for you to grasp what I'm actually saying?  Why is your gut reaction so consistently to mischaracterize what I'm saying?  Do you believe there are different valid opinions to be had on such matters?  And if not, do you realize that makes you an enemy of diversity, someone who excludes based on opinion or belief?

 

Quote

Leave my friends alone. Stop repeating myths and half-truths used to stir up fear, anger, and hatred towards people I care about. They suffer enough already.

Let me try one more thing and then bow out.   I'll start with audacious claim.  @The Nehor, I get it.  I understand much about how trans people suffer.  I understand much about the problems they encounter, both by trying to navigate their lives in their own bodies, and by trying to navigate the world surrounded by people who often don't understand them, disbelieve them, think they're wrong, hate them, and even want to harm them.   I learned about their higher rates of mental illness comorbidities, their higher rates of suicide attempts and completions/alcoholism and drug abuse/being abused/homelessness/etc, somewhere in the 2010's.  By 2015, I had found a couple to interact with online and learn from directly.   Somewhere in that decade, I was amazed by a story my wife told me about an experience she had in high school the '80's, encountering a crying person in the girl's bathroom, trying to deal with clothing burns from a desperate attempt to do some binding, and reeling from the abuses received from classmates.  By 2018, I had found a small handful to interact with 1:1, face to face.   Their stories matter to me, for I am commanded, directly and unambiguously by my Savior and master, to love my neighbor.  I didn't know enough about them to love them, it's why I spent such effort over so many years to learn. 

Yeah, I work my TikTok algorithm to give me more of what I want.  And what I want is personal stories from different people.  Yes, I have to wade through an awful lot of polarized poison and hate, from all over, to get those stories.  For everyone I see who wants to weaponize arguments against trans folks, there's someone like you who treats me and my words as a threat against the safety and peace of people.  For every TERF there's a trans ally urging violence against them.   For every angry so-called christian fundamentalist urging some sort of governmental force against a viewpoint, there's an angry so-called trans ally urging mobs to form and fight back against cis power.   It's hard to wade through all the crap to get stories from the source, but it's possible. I've done it.

And, although you really seem opposed to admitting the validity of my experience, I've done all that and have a different opinion than you do about how to best think about/act about these folks.  Again, (for the last time this thread) starting in the 2020's, I started hearing from unlikely folks - feminists, lesbians and gays, detransitioners, and trans people - who were disagreeing with the currently-popular radical gender theory that so many have adopted.  

So here's my one last thing to try.   Here's some content from a detransitioner named Cat Cattinson.  (Screen name, obviously).   She's trying to be a singer, content creator, influencer.  I would like you to watch these 3 links, and see if she can be one of your friends, and number her among the people you care about.  If there's a special spot in your heart for these folks because of their unique struggles, she's got plenty to share. 

1. Her story in 12 minutes, where she talks about getting gender affirming medicine from Planned Parenthood after a 30 minute phone conversation with a doc.  Labs and medical/psych workup and counseling happened months later.  She talks about her negative experiences with the meds, and all the side effects that she had to research herself, having never been informed by the docs or shrinks.  She talks about some of the negative experiences she endured from her trans and trans-ally peers when she began questioning gender theory and socially de-transitioning.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhKyw3cQQgc

2. A recent TikTok showing some of the detrans criticism she sees and personally receives.  She's been called a "grifter" so often, she is trying to monetize her content by opening a "grift shop".   (Elsewhere, she talks about how using humor against the verbal and online abuses she suffers, works as a coping mechanism and boost to her mental health.)   https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8tChMcS/

3.  This is the most emotional one.  Here's her TT from 2 years ago, as she started taking her first trembling steps back into her singing passion.  She says the testosterone from her youth might have had a permanent life-long negative effect on her singing voice.  But she says the anger-to-love ratio she got from this TT was favorable enough to give her the courage to try.   https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8tCQJH5/

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.   (Everyone's, actually.)  Can you accept this person, who remains outspokenly critical about radical gender theory and the harm it does to our vulnerable youth?  Can you accept the validity of her story?  Can you acknowledge the existence of valid opposing viewpoints to your so-closely held gender theory?  For those who desire to be trans allies because of their struggles and challenges and the hate they receive - she has struggles and challenges and receives hate.  Can you find a way to be her ally too?

For this thread, the last word is yours TheNehor.  

 

 

Edited January 27, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[carbon dioxide]

The whole "transiting" thing is a bunch of nonsense from my point of view.  Chopping or adding body parts does not change one gender nor does giving hormones.  If the church starts moving on simple stuff like gender everything is changeable.   I see great wickedness entering the church and perhaps this is the reason the scriptures say that God pours his judgements out on the church first before the world.   The only reason God would do that is to root out the wickedness that the church became infected with.  If the issue of gender is not sacred and not changeable, nothing is.  Even the need for a Book of Mormon and belief in a Jesus Christ is up for debate and perhaps reversal.

Edited January 27, 2024 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

Church leaders have said in the past that as time progresses we will need to rely more on the spirit to get through things.   Sometimes I wonder if the Church itself is purposely doing crazy things just to see how much we will put up with and stay with it.  

[blackstrap]

Eternal reality and mortal reality can be different. We know of all kinds of oddities born into mortality. There are people with two heads, some with three or four legs. some without arms or legs. All these are externally visible, but it seems reasonable that there are anomalous features in the brain/mind/DNA . My question is, are all these also found in the eternal spirit ?  

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And I would patiently point out what I've said before, multiple times, across years: I'm not taking issue with transgender people.  I'm taking issue with a certain popular theory involving them.  A theory that is not shared universally by everyone, including transgender people.   Why is it so hard for you to grasp what I'm actually saying?  Why is your gut reaction so consistently to mischaracterize what I'm saying?  Do you believe there are different valid opinions to be had on such matters?  And if not, do you realize that makes you an enemy of diversity, someone who excludes based on opinion or belief?

Wrong. You couldn’t identify what “popular theory” you disagreed with as the one you named isn’t an actual theory but a catch-all term for theories involving all kinds of queer sexuality.

It is had to grasp what you are saying because you don’t seem to understand what you are saying. It is not mischaracterization to point out that you are wrong. I notice you didn’t respond to that part of my post. A cynical person might question why.

I do believe there a different valid opinions. Transgender people have different theories. They are hammering those out. I don’t consider ‘Over 99% of it is all peer pressure, joining in on this exciting new fad, and convincing gay and lesbian people they are actually transgender’ to be one of those valid theories.

43 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

Let me try one more thing and then bow out.   I'll start with audacious claim.  @The Nehor, I get it.  I understand much about how trans people suffer.  I understand much about the problems they encounter, both by trying to navigate their lives in their own bodies, and by trying to navigate the world surrounded by people who often don't understand them, disbelieve them, think they're wrong, hate them, and even want to harm them.   I learned about their higher rates of mental illness comorbidities, their higher rates of suicide attempts and completions/alcoholism and drug abuse/being abused/homelessness/etc, somewhere in the 2010's.  By 2015, I had found a couple to interact with online and learn from directly.   Somewhere in that decade, I was amazed by a story my wife told me about an experience she had in high school the '80's, encountering a crying person in the girl's bathroom, trying to deal with clothing burns from a desperate attempt to do some binding, and reeling from the abuses received from classmates.  By 2018, I had found a small handful to interact with 1:1, face to face.   Their stories matter to me, for I am commanded, directly and unambiguously by my Savior and master, to love my neighbor.  I didn't know enough about them to love them, it's why I spent such effort over so many years to learn. 

Yeah, I work my TikTok algorithm to give me more of what I want.  And what I want is personal stories from different people.  Yes, I have to wade through an awful lot of polarized poison and hate, from all over, to get those stories.  For everyone I see who wants to weaponize arguments against trans folks, there's someone like you who treats me and my words as a threat against the safety and peace of people.  For every TERF there's a trans ally urging violence against them.   For every angry so-called christian fundamentalist urging some sort of governmental force against a viewpoint, there's an angry so-called trans ally urging mobs to form and fight back against cis power.   It's hard to wade through all the crap to get stories from the source, but it's possible. I've done it.

You don’t get it. How do you understand how they suffer? I don’t. I love that their stories matter to you only because God commanded it. That is not the flex you think it is.

Dump the “both sides” garbage. You aren’t some enlightened centrist.

47 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And, although you really seem opposed to admitting the validity of my experience, I've done all that and have a different opinion than you do about how to best think about/act about these folks.  Again, (for the last time this thread) starting in the 2020's, I started hearing from unlikely folks - feminists, lesbians and gays, detransitioners, and trans people - who were disagreeing with the currently-popular radical gender theory that so many have adopted.  

So here's my one last thing to try.   Here's some content from a detransitioner named Cat Cattinson.  (Screen name, obviously).   She's trying to be a singer, content creator, influencer.  I would like you to watch these 3 links, and see if she can be one of your friends, and number her among the people you care about.  If there's a special spot in your heart for these folks because of their unique struggles, she's got plenty to share. 

1. Her story in 12 minutes, where she talks about getting gender affirming medicine from Planned Parenthood after a 30 minute phone conversation with a doc.  Labs and medical/psych workup and counseling happened months later.  She talks about her negative experiences with the meds, and all the side effects that she had to research herself, having never been informed by the docs or shrinks.  She talks about some of the negative experiences she endured from her trans and trans-ally peers when she began questioning gender theory and socially de-transitioning.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhKyw3cQQgc

2. A recent TikTok showing some of the detrans criticism she sees and personally receives.  She's been called a "grifter" so often, she is trying to monetize her content by opening a "grift shop".   (Elsewhere, she talks about how using humor against the verbal and online abuses she suffers, works as a coping mechanism and boost to her mental health.)   https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8tChMcS/

3.  This is the most emotional one.  Here's her TT from 2 years ago, as she started taking her first trembling steps back into her singing passion.  She says the testosterone from her youth might have had a permanent life-long negative effect on her singing voice.  But she says the anger-to-love ratio she got from this TT was favorable enough to give her the courage to try.   https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8tCQJH5/

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.   (Everyone's, actually.)  Can you accept this person, who remains outspokenly critical about radical gender theory and the harm it does to our vulnerable youth?  Can you accept the validity of her story?  Can you acknowledge the existence of valid opposing viewpoints to your so-closely held gender theory?  For those who desire to be trans allies because of their struggles and challenges and the hate they receive - she has struggles and challenges and receives hate.  Can you find a way to be her ally too?

For this thread, the last word is yours TheNehor.  

And again you claim you are opposed to “radical gender theory” and say there are gay, lesbian, and transgender people who are opposed to it. I literally just told you that that is a catch-all term for a bunch of different theories. So you are finding all these gay and lesbian people who think queer sexuality in general doesn’t exist including their own professed sexuality?

CFR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cat Cattinson. Okay, bit of background. Claims she identified as a boy at the age of 13. Wanted to transition. Started her medical transition in her mid 20s, took testosterone for less than a year, experienced health complications due to the testosterone, and stopped taking the medication. Claims there were insufficient barriers to her getting the testosterone and that she was not informed of potential side effects.

Okay, first off IF it was as easy to get testosterone as she claims she is an outlier and an exception. I know a lot of transgender people and it usually involves hunting down a doctor willing to even consider prescribing testosterone, jumping through hoops, and the like. Also how did someone in the year 2020 who claims they have wanted to transition for over a decade not hear about potential side effects? Also they are literally in the paperwork you get with the prescription.

So she took it for less than a year and detransitioned completely with almost no side effects. She chose this as an adult. She says she stopped because of health complications and not due to regretting her decision. Then she creates an online persona advocating for creating barriers to keep others from making a similar free choice. Why? Is she angry with herself?

Can you accept this person, who remains outspokenly critical about radical gender theory and the harm it does to our vulnerable youth?

SHE WAS AN ADULT!!!! Always have to try to drag young people into this even when her story has nothing to do with them. Why is that?

Can you accept the validity of her story?

Yeah, do you want the most cynical take on it? It didn’t work and testosterone caused her to have health complications so she had to stop and is so upset that it didn’t work that she doesn’t want anyone else to have access either. Is that true? I have no idea but hey, anti-transgender people always go with the most cynical and disturbing angle so why not apply it to everyone?

And no, I don’t think that is what actually happened.

Can you acknowledge the existence of valid opposing viewpoints to your so-closely held gender theory?

I do acknowledge their existence. They are wrong. Thank you for not limiting this question to transgender theories so I can say I am utterly convinced that queer sexualities are real because I have lived with one of them my whole life. Opposing views exist and they are wrong. I have been told that I have claimed I am bisexual to be trendy or to get attention and I think those who believe this are utter morons. The idea that I have kissed, dated, made out with, and had sex with other men to get attention is stupid. I spent much of my youth explicitly trying not to be interested in any of that.

For those who desire to be trans allies because of their struggles and challenges and the hate they receive - she has struggles and challenges and receives hate.  Can you find a way to be her ally too?

No, if she just wanted to warn people considering medical transitioning to think it through carefully, read up on side-effects, and the like then I could. She instead wants to prohibit others from getting medical treatment they desire ‘for their own good’. She wants politicians to decide what medical treatment people can receive and cut people off from treatment that helps them. I am not her ally. I hope she gets over her experience and stops monetizing it as fodder for the anti-transgender movement and their masters the alt-right.

I stand by my earlier statement. Transgender people aren’t the problem. The people who fetishize and hate them are the problem. And those who repeat their propaganda of course.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The whole "transiting" thing is a bunch of nonsense from my point of view.  Chopping or adding body parts does not change one gender nor does giving hormones.  If the church starts moving on simple stuff like gender everything is changeable.   I see great wickedness entering the church and perhaps this is the reason the scriptures say that God pours his judgements out on the church first before the world.   The only reason God would do that is to root out the wickedness that the church became infected with.  If the issue of gender is not sacred and not changeable, nothing is.  Even the need for a Book of Mormon and belief in a Jesus Christ is up for debate and perhaps reversal.

Yep, God is going to pour out his judgment on the world because of the tiny minority of transgender people in it. God loves burning the world because minorities are doing bad things. Ask any alt-Right Christian.

A cynical person might think that this whole thing is a smokescreen to direct hatred at a vulnerable minority to draw attention from the sins of the people in general before it is too late. Satan pulls this stunt all the time.

Satan: And you all fall for it every time. It is perfect!

Yep.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am commenting on the limited usefulness of short clips. since we are discussing your filtered interpretations of what you portray as mixed messaging, black-and-white thinking, promotion and advocacy, etc. This is the discussion phase of the post-video absorption, an opportunity to repeat and review points of bias and emphasis, and refute them!

CV, if it’s not inappropriate, could you share what you do for a living? And maybe your college area of study?  You have a unique style and I am curious about possible influences on you that helped create it.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

She talks about her negative experiences with the meds, and all the side effects that she had to research herself, having never been informed by the docs or shrinks. 

This is pretty typical with most doctors and psychiatrists in my experience for any medical topic.  It’s the rare doctor that has more than a cursory acquaintance with the drugs.  My daughter’s child psychiatrist (the only one available in Utah Valley) may have been the worst thing that happened to her because he refused to consider how the side effects of the drug he was prescribing would affect her other issues, even though I warned him.  Her sleep disorder became tons worse and is what likely caused her fibromyalgia, severity of migraines,etc.  

I know this approach (prescribe without detailed instructions or investigation of if it’s the best drug) when it has to do with transitioning shocks people, but my response is “same old, same old”.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I see great wickedness entering the church

It is not the confused and vulnerable people that have ever been the great wickedness examples of the scriptures, but the men in power trying to control the vulnerable or disregarding them, using them for greed and power.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Tell me @california boy, what do you think of the feminists, LGB folks, detransitioners, and trans people who are openly opposed to radical gender theory?  Do you accuse them of weaponizing information as well?  Are you able to think of them as perhaps not enemies, but as people with a different opinion? 

My opinion is that I have no right to control the lives of any of the people you mentioned.  But I do emphatically believe they have the absolute right to live their lives the way they see fit as long as the choices they make does not harm others,  Even God gives them that right.  If there are consequences to the choices they make then that is entirely theirs to deal with.  BUT I nor anyone else in this world has any right to interfere with their lives including bulling them to get them to conform with your own personal views.  It is dishonest and deceitful to spread misinformation on a group that is already marginalized and discriminated against.  Shame on you.   If you have used real data as the basis of your attacks, then maybe I would have felt the need to investigate further.  But, come on, Twitter, TikTok and Discord, as your source. You got to be kidding me.  You absolutely loose all credibility when you use Twitter, TikTok and Discord  as your source for ANY post.  Back it up with real data like Nehor did.  Dig a little deeper like Nehor did who totally obliterated the credibility of Cat Cattinson, your star source of all of your misinformation.  Get a grip.

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"Have you read what Twitter, TikTok and Discord say about Mormons?" I've been interacting with critics of my faith online for ~30 years now.  Starting with Usenet groups and dial-up bulletin board systems of the '90's.  And social media since it was invented.  Yes.  The answer to your question is yes.   Why is this a question?  Do you think the humans using those services to carry on public discussions are somehow less than, somehow not worthy?  Do their voices not matter?

I have not read what Twitter, TikTok and Discord  say about Mormons.  Should I?  Is what they are saying accurate?  You have been dealing with critics of your faith online for 30 years.  Do you find what is said about Mormons on Twitter, TikTok and Discord  to be accurate and a good place to find out the "real" information about Mormonism?  Would you direct those interested in the Church to Twitter, TikTok and Discord  as the best source to find the"real" truth about Mormonism over what the Church publishes? If not, why not?????

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"Do you rely on those voices to form your opinions about Mormonism?"  I've argued with them often about their opinions and beliefs.  But they all carry their lived experiences with them, and I tend to believe their stories.  Tell me @california boy, should I believe your stories, when you relate personal experiences about interacting with Mormons and LDS theology and whatnot? 

I don't rely on those voices to form my opinions about Mormonis.  I was a member for over 40 years.  Served in bishopric, was on the high counsel, taught seminary, went on a mission.  THAT is where I form my opinions about Mormonism.  And frankly I don't care whether or not you believe my experience with the Church. 

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

If yes, then why should I not believe the stories of feminists, LGB folks, detransitioners, and trans people who speak genuinely from the heart about their negative lived experiences with a certain ideology that is quite popular in and out the LGBTQIA+ community?   

You can believe anything you want.  I would hope that you would find better references than Twitter, TikTok and Discord .  Frankly, I can't think of a worse way to go about understanding any of those groups.

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

There.  You asked 3 questions, and I answered them, honestly and transparently.   I asked you questions in return.  I'd like to hear your answers. 

And I would patiently point out what I've said before, multiple times, across years: I'm not taking issue with transgender people.  I'm taking issue with a certain popular theory involving them.  A theory that is not shared universally by everyone, including transgender people.   Why is it so hard for you to grasp what I'm actually saying?  Why is your gut reaction so consistently to mischaracterize what I'm saying?  Do you believe there are different valid opinions to be had on such matters?  And if not, do you realize that makes you an enemy of diversity, someone who excludes based on opinion or belief?

When you start spreading misinformation about transgender people, then you are taking issue with transgender people.  My gut reaction to what you wrote using Twitter, TikTok and Discord  AS YOUR REFERENCE is about the worse possible way you could use to find truth about ANYTHING.  Try real data instead of crap people post on social media that they post mainly to get attention.

Did you know that all Mormons are brainwashed?  Yeah it is absolutely true.  I read about it on Twitter posted by a former bishop.  And he would know.  

I am not so disappointed about your post.  You have posted this nonsense before.  But what really saddens me is that there are no members except Nehor that is bothered that you use Twitter, TikTok and Discord  AS YOUR REFERENCE to spread this misinformation about the trans community.  These are the same members that are so upset at what the bishop who recently left the Church posted on one of your "treasured" social media sites.  Since he posted that Mormons are brainwashed, on Twitter, then it must be true.  Are you ok with that????

Edited January 28, 2024 by california boy