Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How to reconcile mixed messages from The Church


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s pretty hard for me to get riled up about gender issues that are more theoretical as they relate to me personally vs gender issues that affect me daily.  
 

I’m on a flight right now and one hour ago I was sitting next to a man who it turns out is druuuuunk.  He grabbed my leg about 30 min into the flight- I asked him what was up and he just stared at me. I sat motionless for 10 min and then decided I could get up and move seats.  I was nervous that I WOULD OFFEND HIM and something bad would happen.  Took me 10 to shake that off and move ten rows back.  
 

(Attendant shared that she confirms he’s wasted and will not be allowed on his connecting flight.  Gave me a chance to press charges even.) 
 

As a woman, I never feel actually safe in the world.  There’s too much that happens on the daily that keeps me guarded.  I don’t know a life that my husband gets to live regarding independence power and a sense of safety.  But my lack of safety is due ONLY to men. Thank goodness for the good ones…
 

You wanna talk about that? Ok.  But the transgender people I know are all pretty cool honestly.  Except one, and it had nothing to do with voyeurism. FWIW. 

Of course no one wants to talk about that. Fighting against male presumptuousness would require punching up. It takes courage and a willingness to risk offending powerful people.

Much easier to punch down at a small minority due to the latest moral panic. It requires no courage and doesn’t risk much of anything. In fact you can get on the grifting circuit doing it.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Joshua said:

Don't worry—I agree with everything you said. It's great to be woke now! One question, though: will it be hard for me to fall asleep tonight now that I'm woke?

 

Now that I know I'm on the right side and not dangerous or cocky, I can see that the women in the picture below are being incredibly selfish and are probably a group of transphobic people who only want to fight for biological women in womens sports. Now that I'm woke i can tell that there's a good possibility that maybe one or two of the women in the picture quite possibly may be a white supremacists or xxzi! 

 

 

Screenshot_20240129_154916_Chrome.jpg

I have been reading your posts in this thread and realize you are trying to make a huge case that what? Transgender people shouldn't exist?  Is that the goal of your posts?  Do you think you have some God given right to control peoples lives like that?  

Or maybe you are trying to scare everyone that transgenders are invading bathrooms and locker rooms and we should all be up in arms about that.  But you seem to be arguing this from a point of incredible weakness.  You skip over all the facts, and even if you had presented all of the facts that greatly reduce your reasons for outrage, it is only a small handful of cases in the entire world.  WORLD!  You had to go to Canada which has different laws than the U.S.   So out of a population of 40,528,396 in Canada and 339,996,563 in the U.S, you found just how many cases to be outraged about????  Can you not step back just a little to see how ridiculous your argument is?  Honestly, I wish there was only a handful of murders like this, which seems much worse to me.  Don't see you going on for pages about that.  Why not?????  Murder is ok, but a transgender using a locker room is outrageous and should be blown way out of proportion????

Now lets suppose we grant you your wish and make every person use the locker room that matches their birth sex. Let's take a look at what women that transition to men look like.  Click here. It means that these women who have all transitioned to be me would be forced to use the woman's locker room.  Do you want to force these women who have transitioned to men use the women's locker room?  Would women be comfortable with these now men using the locker room?

Now lets look at what men look like that have transitioned to be women.  Click here

Which group look more threatening and objectionable?  Yeah I want your answer on this.  Or do you think you have the right to just decree that no one is allowed to transition?

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have been reading your posts in this thread and realize you are trying to make a huge case that what? Transgender people shouldn't exist?  Is that the goal of your posts?  Do you think you have some God given right to control peoples lives like that?  

Or maybe you are trying to scare everyone that transgenders are invading bathrooms and locker rooms and we should all be up in arms about that.  But you seem to be arguing this from a point of incredible weakness.  You skip over all the facts, and even if you had presented all of the facts that greatly reduce your reasons for outrage, it is only a small handful of cases in the entire world.  WORLD!  You had to go to Canada which has different laws than the U.S.   So out of a population of 40,528,396 in Canada and 339,996,563 in the U.S, you found just how many cases to be outraged about????  Can you not step back just a little to see how ridiculous your argument is?  Honestly, I wish there was only a handful of murders like this, which seems much worse to me.  Don't see you going on for pages about that.  Why not?????  Murder is ok, but a transgender using a locker room is outrageous and should be blown way out of proportion????

Now lets suppose we grant you your wish and make every person use the locker room that matches their birth sex. Let's take a look at what women that transition to men look like.  Click here. It means that these women who have all transitioned to be me would be forced to use the woman's locker room.  Do you want to force these women who have transitioned to men use the women's locker room?  Would women be comfortable with these now men using the locker room?

Now lets look at what men look like that have transitioned to be women.  Click here

Which group look more threatening and objectionable?  Yeah I want your answer on this.  Or do you think you have the right to just decree that no one is allowed to transition?

 

 

And you would have to have security checkpoints to card everyone who enters because there are enough who appear as female if you intended to enforce it.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Believe Riley Gaines. She knows the truth. Along with most biological women that want to have their sport leagues maintain fair competition.

If trans want to compete due to being trounced in men's sports, then they would have to set up their own trans league. AND leave the biological women alone!

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, longview said:

Believe Riley Gaines. She knows the truth. Along with most biological women that want to have their sport leagues maintain fair competition.

If trans want to compete due to being trounced in men's sports, then they would have to set up their own trans league. AND leave the biological women alone!

Yes, Riley Gaines has been hard at work promulgating the notion that transgender women have an inherent advantage over cis women in *checks notes* chess and that makes sense for some reason no one can explain to me. Looks like she just went mask off and made it clear that her opposition was never really about biological sex being an advantage. It is about humiliating transgender people. It always was.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
On 1/25/2024 at 9:08 AM, Maestrophil said:

Are LGBTQ+ folks the current version of what blacks and the priesthood were pre- 1978? Is the proclamation wrong? 

1. Yes. It’s easy to imagine a very similar video to that from the original post being made (only substituting LDS “negroes” being banned from priesthood and temple rites) in the early to mid-70’s as the general membership struggled with archaic views that pre-moral individuals with even a drop of African blood were less valiant than whites and barred from priesthood and temple sealings and other temple ordinances, and that interracial marriages were satanic and were synonymous with “death on the spot.” It’s hard to view one’s coworkers, friends  and even family members and their relationships as satanic when one witnesses the good fruits of such people and their relationships. 

2. The proclamation isn’t wrong—it’s current understanding and interpretation will continue to evolve and change over time, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. No wording will have to be altered, but eventually, a new revaluation will be gratefully received and placed alongside today’s current proclamation as the next answer to “a long promised day.” A modern Bruce R. McConkie will exhort members to forget previously unforeseen erroneous interpretations and get in line with the then-current prophet. 

We’re about 20 years (~halfway) to the doctrinal changes within 40 years I predicted and posted about two decades ago on this board. The video outlining the conflicting doctrinal push and pull between divergent perspectives is evidence of the grass roots changes in motion in real time. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Joshua said:

First, I didn't ever claim that transgender persons don't exist. I have stated that biological males have no place in women's athletics or in the locker rooms of women. If you read my post, you will notice that I am specifically referring about transgender women who are biologically male. 

 

Should it be permissible for a gay man to change or shower in the women's locker room if he finds that doing so makes him feel in a more comfortable environment? 

 

Should it be permissible for a heterosexual male who is feminine to change or shower in the women's locker room if he finds that doing so makes him much more comfortable?

Will you answer my questions and we can talk about the pictures you posted?

  

No and no.  NOW answer my questions.  Don't be a weasel.  Man up and answer the questions. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Joshua said:

In this context, what you have stated indicates that the church and the beliefs it holds are not in fact accurate. This is how easy it is! If the proclamation is subject to change based on the beliefs of the current prophet, then you are actually providing evidence that the Mormon church is not the only true and living church on the planet. 

Oh so the Mormon church is not the only true and living church on the planet because it reversed the ban against blacks that had been doctrine for over 150 years?  What do you do with that?  If that is the criteria, that ship has already sailed.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

1. Yes. It’s easy to imagine a very similar video to that from the original post being made (only substituting LDS “negroes” being banned from priesthood and temple rites) in the early to mid-70’s as the general membership struggled with archaic views that pre-moral individuals with even a drop of African blood were less valiant than whites and barred from priesthood and temple dealings and other temple ordinances, and that interracial marriages were satanic and were synonymous with “death on the spot.” It’s hard to view one’s coworkers, friends  and even family members and their relationships as satanic when one witnesses the good fruits of such people and relationships. 

2. The proclamation isn’t wrong—it’s current understanding and interpretation will continue to evolve and change over time, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. No wording will have to be altered, but eventually, a new revaluation will be gratefully received as the answer to “a long promised day.” A modern Bruce R. McConkie will exhort members to forget previously unforeseen erroneous interpretations and get in line with the then-current prophet. 

We’re about 20 years (halfway) to the 40 years I posted about anticipating two decades ago on this board. This post cast is evidence of the changes in motion in real time. 

Counterpoint: No.  Righteous LGBT members can hold the priesthood and attend the temple today.  Righteous black members during the ban could do neither.   It's a terrible comparison and should be offensive to black members.  

Yes, some stupid stuff was said about blacks during the ban that was wrong.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Joshua said:

First, I didn't ever claim that transgender persons don't exist. I have stated that biological males have no place in women's athletics or in the locker rooms of women. If you read my post, you will notice that I am specifically referring about transgender women who are biologically male. 

 

Should it be permissible for a gay man to change or shower in the women's locker room if he finds that doing so makes him feel in a more comfortable environment? 

 

Should it be permissible for a heterosexual male who is feminine to change or shower in the women's locker room if he finds that doing so makes him much more comfortable?

Will you answer my questions and we can talk about the pictures you posted?

 

He didn’t claim that you were making a case that transgender people don’t exist, he said you were trying to make a case that transgender people SHOULDN’T exist. Don’t change people’s words. 

Link to comment
On 1/26/2024 at 6:20 PM, 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.

I hate that for you. One of my YW counselors was openly bi-sexual (at least with me, and she seemed like she was comfortable with talking about it) but she was married to a man so that probably made all the difference. Members probably thought she made the right “choice.” She was also a new convert, so maybe didn’t come with all the baggage she would have if she had grown up in the church. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, Riley Gaines has been hard at work promulgating the notion that transgender women have an inherent advantage over cis women in

Testosterone reduction and testing for trans do nothing to prevent harm to biological women athletes. Even in non-contact sports like swimming and tennis (among others), it is grossly unfair because of the headstart men have growing into their teens. Men have more massive bone structures and much stronger ligament webbings, more powerful upper body strength, and superior endurance. THAT is not mitigated at all by testosterone reduction. There is NO way of leveling the playing field except to make it truly voluntary among ALL participants (mandates by college associations and leagues are evil and unfair). Too many biological women have been severely injured by trans (above and beyond what is normal for same sex competition).

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

*checks notes* chess and that makes sense for some reason no one can explain to me.

What? Whut u mean?

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Looks like she just went mask off and made it clear that her opposition was never really about biological sex being an advantage. It is about humiliating transgender people. It always was.

Mask off? Riley has always been consistent in her reasoning and advocacy. She has never assaulted anyone but her life was threatened by campus extremists (at least once) and actually had to be escorted to a classroom to escape a violent mob throwing punches on her.

This is yet another vile attempt by you at character assassination which you do too frequently. Reconsider your ways (I recommend you remove this tagline from your signature block that appear under your posts "Always be punching Nazis!" because you risk mobbing people who truly are against totalitarianism <including nazis>).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joshua said:

I never said that.

No one said that you said it, they said that’s what you are DOING. 
 

You are constantly ignoring what people say, you don’t answer questions, and you keep moving the goalposts.  Your agenda here is quite clear. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

No one said that you said it, they said that’s what you are DOING. 
 

You are constantly ignoring what people say, you don’t answer questions, and you keep moving the goalposts.  Your agenda here is quite clear. 

Massive deflection on your part?

Link to comment

Not to be a board nanny, but maybe we ought to get more in line with the subject of this thread. Is the church sending mixed messages? It appears that way. The church is really in a conundrum, imo.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Joshua said:

OK. Can THEY show ME that THAT'S what I'm DOING? I don't think THEY can. 

 

Just answer the questions I asked that you PROMISED you would answer if I answered your questions first.  Now you are on some new tangent without doing what you promised to do.  Quit being such a weasel.  Answer the questions.

 

Here is my. post again so you don't even have to scroll to the top of the page.

 

Quote

 

I have been reading your posts in this thread and realize you are trying to make a huge case that what? Transgender people shouldn't exist?  Is that the goal of your posts?  Do you think you have some God given right to control peoples lives like that?  

Or maybe you are trying to scare everyone that transgenders are invading bathrooms and locker rooms and we should all be up in arms about that.  But you seem to be arguing this from a point of incredible weakness.  You skip over all the facts, and even if you had presented all of the facts that greatly reduce your reasons for outrage, it is only a small handful of cases in the entire world.  WORLD!  You had to go to Canada which has different laws than the U.S.   So out of a population of 40,528,396 in Canada and 339,996,563 in the U.S, you found just how many cases to be outraged about????  Can you not step back just a little to see how ridiculous your argument is?  Honestly, I wish there was only a handful of murders like this, which seems much worse to me.  Don't see you going on for pages about that.  Why not?????  Murder is ok, but a transgender using a locker room is outrageous and should be blown way out of proportion????

Now lets suppose we grant you your wish and make every person use the locker room that matches their birth sex. Let's take a look at what women that transition to men look like.  Click here. It means that these women who have all transitioned to be me would be forced to use the woman's locker room.  Do you want to force these women who have transitioned to men use the women's locker room?  Would women be comfortable with these now men using the locker room?

Now lets look at what men look like that have transitioned to be women.  Click here

Which group look more threatening and objectionable?  Yeah I want your answer on this.  Or do you think you have the right to just decree that no one is allowed to transition?

 

 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not to be a board nanny, but maybe we ought to get more in line with the subject of this thread. Is the church sending mixed messages? It appears that way. The church is really in a conundrum, imo.

Thank you - yes, I think there needs to be some clarification form the leaders pretty quickly IMO.  

I have landed on the fact that allowing someone to be baptized while being a transitioned person is still in the gray area because baptism isn't a gender specific covenant - and the temple isn't currently an option because it IS gender specific.

BUT, it does open up a discussion about the 'eternal nature' of gender.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, gopher said:

Counterpoint: No.  Righteous LGBT members can hold the priesthood and attend the temple today.  Righteous black members during the ban could do neither.   It's a terrible comparison and should be offensive to black members.  

Yes, some stupid stuff was said about blacks during the ban that was wrong.

Your counterpoint presumes that I suggested the church’s treatment of LGBT individuals and their relationships is exactly the same as it treated African negroes and their posterity. I made no such claim—I said that circumstances about I pending doctrinal changes were similar, but never claimed the doctrines or policies themselves were identical.

The church has had many changes to previously-promoted and widely accepted so-called “core” doctrines. Any of these changes are likewise “similar” in the fact that they changed or were abandoned over time, regardless of whether they were identical, the latter being beside the point.

As for the comparison being “terrible and offensive to black members,” many black individuals across many religious Faiths have compared anti-gay policies to anti-black policies, chief among them including Coretta Scott King, wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King:

”There’s a reason why I, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and other LGBT individuals and organizations link the issues of African-American civil rights and gay civil rights: Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, told them to. In a remarkable address before the Task Force's annual meeting, Mrs. King gave a forceful statement on the importance of gay rights to the overall civil rights struggle (read Mrs. King's entire speech here.)

And this was not the first time Mrs. King made it clear that groups like the Concerned Women for America have no idea what they're talking about when they try to speak on behalf of African-Americans by criticizing the struggle for gay equality.  Excerpts of Mrs. King's numerous public statements in favor of gay civil rights are posted below.  Please feel free to cite any of the following quotations the next time a far-right extremist dares to speak on behalf of Martin Luther King and America's African-American community: 

Make Room At The Table for Lesbian and Gay People

Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.  "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

Homophobia is Like Racism and Anti-Semitism

Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.

MLK's Struggle Parallels The Gay Rights Movement

Quoting a passage from her late husband's writing, Coretta Scott King
reaffirmed her stance on gay and lesbian rights Tuesday at a luncheon
celebrating the 25 anniversary of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national gay rights organization. "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.

Mrs. King is Outspoken Supporter of Gay and Lesbian People

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.

Sexual Orientation is a Fundamental Human Rights

We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.

We Need a National Campaign Against Homophobia

"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader. - Reuters, June 8, 2001.

Justice is Indivisible

For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.... I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950’s and ‘60’s. The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, press conference on the introduction of ENDA, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.”’

http://www.historymuse.net/readings/CorettaScottKingBlackandGayCRts.html

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joshua said:

To begin, I am an atheist who recognizes the significance of religion in contributing to the development of a healthy society that is capable of housing a diverse range of individuals from a variety of different origins. That Joseph Smith is a prophet of God is not something I believe in. I am okay with the fact that I do not know the reason why he created a religion, just as I am okay with the fact that the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses created that religion. I think that he created a religion based on his own beliefs. However, this does not imply that other individuals should not be able to take use of the advantages that come with adhering to a faith such as Mormonism. 

 

Now, let's talk about your inquiries. Of course, there are transgender persons. I have stated this in my previous post. It is you who is attempting to persuade us that any and all transgender individuals are in agreement with the agenda that the greater transgender group is attempting to coerce people into accepting. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but not all transgender women want to shower alongside biological females. I have an uncle who is a transgender woman, and he would never even consider entering a locker area that is only for women. However, when it comes to the children in the family talking to him, he does not ask to be addressed as a lady, despite the fact that he is completely certain that he is a woman. He is their uncle who dresses as a woman because he finds that doing so helps him feel better and enables him to live his life in an authentic manner without the need to take medication in order to get through life. During the past thirty years, I have played golf with him hundreds of times and have spent thousands of hours in his company. However, I can only recall two instances in which someone attempted to discuss with him the reason he is dressed in a manner that is more representative of a lady. Despite the fact that the transgender community is making a concerted effort to convince individuals who have never interacted with a transgender person otherwise, the majority of people in western society are fully content with respecting transgender individuals. 

 

The issue arises when individuals who derive their sense of self from belonging to a group begin to attempt to impose their will on other individuals who have no interest in having anything to do with the product or service that they are marketing. This occurs in every kind of group that places a higher value on the identity of the group than it does on the identity of the individual. The trans movement desires for trans people to identify as a group, not individually. The transgender group has pushed its cause to an extreme level, to the point where they want people to defy common sense and permit biological males to undress in front of little girls. At this point in time, the transgender movement has reached such a high level of extremism that lesbians and females who are unsure of who they are are being entangled in the movement, believing that they are transgender when, in reality, they are not. They are discovering, after only a few years, that they are nothing more than a typical lesbian or a woman who enjoys engaging in activities that are typically associated with men. The evidence that the transgender movement at the moment is being run by a group of extremist who do not care about the collateral damage that may occur is provided by the de-transgender movement. 

 

 You have chosen photographs that depict individuals who have spent a significant amount of money to achieve a particular appearance. Are you aware that the majority of transgender people do not have the financial means to pay for the surgery that are necessary to achieve that look, correct? The majority of transgender persons do not resemble the individuals depicted in those photographs, just like the majority of men do not resemble Brad Pitt, and the majority of women do not resemble Angelina Jolie. When you post photographs like that and want others to believe that the trans women depicted in those pictures are genuinely real women, are you aware that you are giving the impression that womanhood is nothing more than a costume? That if a man can soend enough money to look the part, then he's a better looking woman than a actual women. Transgender ladies are not the same as regular women! Put an end to your attempts to trick children! Having to grow up in today's world is already a challenging experience. Girls already have enough challenges in life to fit in and look beautiful, now they need to compete against biological males? And people wonder why more and more young women need therapy to cope with getting through life. 

 

What exactly are you proposing then?

What would a non-extremist approach be, from your perspective, that would be better for society, better for women, and better for transgender people? 

Is it too much to ask to respect a persons preferred pronouns?  I noticed that you use the pronouns "he" and "his" for your relative who identifies as a trans woman.  It seems that even the LDS church is officially respecting preferred pronouns on baptism certificates. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Joshua said:

In this context, what you have stated indicates that the church and the beliefs it holds are not in fact accurate. This is how easy it is! If the proclamation is subject to change based on the beliefs of the current prophet, then you are actually providing evidence that the Mormon church is not the only true and living church on the planet. 

On the contrary, Joshua--making room for continuous revelation is absolutely NOT indicative that "the Mormon church is not the only true and living church on the planet."  It's just the opposite--the strength and heart of the LDS Church's claim of being the "only true and living church" is that it was founded on the concept of a living prophet receiving new revelation specifically for each generation's unique circumstances and regarding contemporary issues. 

After all, Latter-day Saints believe that through his prophets, God will "yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

Consider that "apostles and prophets are human, fallible and subject to their own opinions and emotions just like the rest of humanity. This does not, however, diminish their capacity to speak in the name of the Lord on issues which affect our eternal salvation. We pay heed to the words of the living prophet who has been called to guide the church in our time, while relying upon the standard works to help us understand and confirm these teachings.

It is claimed by some that the Church frequently changes its doctrine. They point to teachings of early church leaders such as Brigham Young (often quoting from the Journal of Discourses) and criticize modern church leaders for not accepting or implementing every pronouncement recorded by these early leaders.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by a living prophet, who is authorized to speak on the Lord’s behalf to the Church to address the issues of our day. We value the words and teachings of prophets who have lived in the past. We are encouraged to study the scriptures in order to apply the lessons taught by these great individuals to our present lives. Each prophet who has lived was called to teach and guide the people of their specific time. The situations which we face in today’s society are unique to us, and dealing with them requires the ongoing guidance of a living prophet.  

We are fortunate to have so many detailed teachings of the early prophets of the restoration. There is much wisdom to be gained by studying their counsel. It is not, however, reasonable to expect that everything taught by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young applies to us today. Many things that these men taught were relevant to the 19th century church. In order to help us determine how to apply the teachings of past prophets to our present lives, we have a living prophet.

In 1981, Ezra Taft Benson said:

The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.

Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.[2]"

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, longview said:

Testosterone reduction and testing for trans do nothing to prevent harm to biological women athletes. Even in non-contact sports like swimming and tennis (among others), it is grossly unfair because of the headstart men have growing into their teens. Men have more massive bone structures and much stronger ligament webbings, more powerful upper body strength, and superior endurance. THAT is not mitigated at all by testosterone reduction. There is NO way of leveling the playing field except to make it truly voluntary among ALL participants (mandates by college associations and leagues are evil and unfair). Too many biological women have been severely injured by trans (above and beyond what is normal for same sex competition).

And this is important at professional levels. We are talking about literal High School students.

4 hours ago, longview said:

What? Whut u mean?

Mask off? Riley has always been consistent in her reasoning and advocacy. She has never assaulted anyone but her life was threatened by campus extremists (at least once) and actually had to be escorted to a classroom to escape a violent mob throwing punches on her.

This is yet another vile attempt by you at character assassination which you do too frequently. Reconsider your ways (I recommend you remove this tagline from your signature block that appear under your posts "Always be punching Nazis!" because you risk mobbing people who truly are against totalitarianism <including nazis>).

So what is the biological advantage that transgender women have over cis women when it comes to chess? If this is truly just about unfair physical advantages and the integrity of women’s sports and she is, as you said, “has always been consistent in her reasoning and advocacy” then why advocate to exclude transgender women from playing chess?

A cynical person such as myself just quickly concludes that the whole ‘unfair biological advantage’ was a justification developed to promote the cause of excluding transgender women and not the other way around. Then they ruin it by taking it beyond the arena where the whole biological advantage applies. Note that this also includes shooting pool where it is also hard to argue for a biological advantage. Also not sure I agree with the current consensus that chess is a sport but that is a minor quibble.

It was never about the integrity of women’s sports. It was always about punching down. Transgender people aren’t the problem. It is the weirdos obsessed with them that are. And I showed earlier in the thread who most of them are.

So keep punching Nazis everyone. You’re doing them a favor.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Would love to tell you whst I propose. But first, would you tell me if you think the LGB is the same as the TQIA+ when it comes to how they identify? I say that the LGB relies on biology and the TQIA+ relies on how they identify.  

 

Do you not have any idea what the “I” stands for?

Because LOL! This is a dumb statement.

Also a lot of the “T”, “Q”, and “A” categories probably have a biological factor but the idea that the “I” category is psychological?

Whew, I am sharing this with some friends. They will love it.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Would love to tell you whst I propose. But first, would you tell me if you think the LGB is the same as the TQIA+ when it comes to how they identify? I say that the LGB relies on biology and the TQIA+ relies on how they identify.  

I asked first.  

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...