How to reconcile mixed messages from The Church

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

worries, everyone reading this thread with a shred of common sense understands you have an agenda that doesn't consider how the most vulnerable women in our society are treated.

Common sense would tell you to read more than one thread to figure out someone’s agenda.
 

You have no clue about Nehor. He has been much more of an advocate for women on this board than you have. For one thing, he actually reads what we write and intelligently responds back as well as providing answers when questioned. 
 

Appreciating him as a discussion partner does not imply I agree with everything he says or does….saying what shouldn’t have to be said because I bet it needs to be said for you.
 

Currently I wish he would remove the punch nazis reference as that plays too much as outrage to me.  However, him doing outrage is rare enough it doesn’t overwhelm his posts.  Nor do I feel the need to constantly point out where I disagree with him if I find he’s provided useful information or a thought provoking idea and give him a rep point. I would rather be challenged for my ideas in ways that drive me to find better support or take an honest appraisal of my beliefs rather than shift to a mindless mob approach of yelling outrage as if that the only meaningful way to approach an issue. 

Edited January 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Where did MS say anything about Nehor?  You seem kind of fixated on him.

The fact that so many women, who have openly supported the necessity of having safe spaces for women and girls in the transwomen debate, find your arguments on here to be abhorrent should give you pause.  You are actively harming your cause and alienating people who would otherwise be allies.  

Ridiculing and misrepresenting the women here apparently didn’t give him the response he wanted (does he want a battle of outrage porn or does he want the women to meekly fall in line with his male instincts for protecting those little women?), now he’s seeing if he can set Nehor off I am guessing since he knows Nehor isn’t going to agree with his tactics. 

Edited January 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Exactly! Thank you for saying this! I'm not going to get political because of the huge red banner on the top of the page that says "seriously no politics" but everyone knows what and who he's talking about. But same goes for you. You said I was dangerous, but want to have a decent conversation. What you said us no different than The Nehor's punch Nazis. 

You are dangerous because you think you know things you do not know and you think you have a right to pressure others to accept your ideas and mock and ridicule them when they refuse to do so (apparently part of your persuasion tactics) and ignore them at will as you continue to pretty much dismiss my and others’ comments that you are misreading us.
 

You are dangerous because you apparently don’t believe you are trying to dominate others, but protect them by telling them the right and wrong ways to respond to issues.  You are advocating aggressive tactics and I have seen you use them on the board with those you disagree with.

OTOH I have never seen nor heard of Nehor’s punching a Nazi so even though he told me he was serious, I don’t know if when it comes to the moment he would be violent. 

I have no doubt you will continue to mock and ridicule others to pressure them to go along with your nonsense. 

Edited January 31, 2024 by Calm

[gopher]

22 minutes ago, Joshua said:

 

Have you heard that employers are forcing male employees to transition to women so they only have to pay them 77 cents for every dollar they made as males?

Source: the Internet

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Joshua said:

All the videos I posted are women explaining how women feel and I just so happen to agree with the women I post videos of. 

The Nehor has chosen to demean Riley Gaines, the women that started the LGB alliance and a couple more. 

Have I posted a video of a man explaining how women should feel about women's issues? Don't think so. 

I tore apart her ideology. I don’t know her. I do know she has no business claiming to be representative of a subsection of the LGBT community.

13 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Nehor has no tolerance for people who don't agree with his radical agenda.

My radical agenda for what exactly? You mostly talk about your weird locker room and communal showering obsessions. I think it is a good idea to get rid of those. Both the prevalence of those kinds of changing and showering facilities and also whatever makes you fantasize about them all the time.

 

You have tried to get me to ally with people who detransition who teach transphobic things. So I can meet you half way. I am allied to some destransitioners. For a more wholesome take on this whole thing many (though not all) transgender spaces welcome detransitioners as still being able to identify as one of them (if they want to). Some detransition for social reasons, some due to expense, some due to results not being what they hoped, and some because they think it was a mistake for them to transition. There are even some who socially transition back to their gender assigned at birth who continue to take HRT because it improves their quality of life in some way. In general transgender people consider them to still belong. It is only when they start trying to cut others off from being able to transition that they tend to become unwelcome.

This kind of wholesome exchange amongst the larger LGBT community is fairly normal. There are spats and disagreements amongst us at times. I know the most about the bisexual community and I know that most of our spaces our response to someone realizing they were wrong to identify as bisexual and realize they are gay, lesbian, or straight is to congratulate them on figuring out more about who they are, say they are still welcome, and wish them the best. When people wander in unsure of who they are many are afraid of calling themselves bisexual since they don’t feel certain. We lay out the definition (they are very broad) and tell them they are welcome to try the identity on and if it doesn’t fit they can adjust later and that we won’t be offended. Sadly some have been sipping our enemy’s Kool-Aid and are convinced we are a bunch of angry gatekeepers who are exclusive in who we let in and consider anyone who uses our “label” for a while and then discards it as traitors. We don’t. We like all the other communities. Even if we weren’t actually generally accepting on a practical level we are the group that is dating EVERYONE else. It is heartwarming when a teenager wanders into one of our spaces confused and lost and afraid we are going to throw them out asking if they might be one of us. They get the standard answer that only they can decide that but they are welcome to stay while they figure it out.

I wonder if by grooming some mean that someone had the audacity to care about their children.

Are there toxic sub-groups in the community? Yeah, but they aren’t who our enemies think they are.

Many bisexual people are transgender. Many transgender people are gay and lesbian. This is one of the reasons the LGB nonsense is so patently ridiculous. You can’t throw out the T and pretend you support the LGB. There is too much overlap. Same with the A, I, and Q. Then you look at who is funding these efforts to divide the larger community and who is funding TERFs and it is utterly unsurprising where the money leads. Don’t pretend to be representing us while feeding from the troughs of those who want to paint us all as groomers and threats to society.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, gopher said:

Have you heard that employers are forcing male employees to transition to women so they only have to pay them 77 cents for every dollar they made as males?

Source: the Internet

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, gopher said:

Have you heard that employers are forcing male employees to transition to women so they only have to pay them 77 cents for every dollar they made as males?

Source: the Internet

Lots of transgender stuff on the internet lately:

Quote

“Quentin” is a 14-year-old assigned female at birth who now identifies as male against the wishes of his parents. His transition was supported by one of his unmarried teachers, who is not a virgin. He stole his parents’ car and drove to the hospital, where a doctor immediately began performing top surgery on him. Afterward, driving home drunk from the hospital, Quentin became suicidally depressed, and he wonders now, homeless and ridden with gonorrhea, if transitioning was a mistake. 

We just made Quentin up, and that’s okay. It doesn’t mean stories like his aren’t potentially happening everywhere, constantly. Good journalism is about finding those stories, even when they don’t exist. It’s about asking the tough questions and ignoring the answers you don’t like, then offering misleading evidence in service of preordained editorial conclusions. In our case, endangering trans people is the lodestar that shapes our coverage. Frankly, if our work isn’t putting trans people further at risk of trauma and violence, we consider it a failure.

We stand behind our recent obsessed-seeming torrent of articles and essays on trans people, which we believe faithfully depicts their lived experiences as weird and gross. We remain dedicated to finding the angles that best frame the basic rights of the gender-nonconforming as up for debate, and we will use these same angles over and over again in hopes that this repetition makes them suffer. As journalists, it is our obligation to entertain any and all pseudoscience that gives bigotry an intellectual veneer. We must be diligent in laundering our vitriol through the posture of journalistic inquiry, and we must be allowed to fixate on the genitals.

https://www.theonion.com/it-is-journalism-s-sacred-duty-to-endanger-the-lives-of-1850126997

Or on a lighter note:

Quote

EVERYWHERE—As the influence of the nation’s transgender individuals continues to encroach on the freedoms of the U.S. populace, sources confirmed Tuesday that increasingly powerful trans person Tori Randall is now capable of using every single bathroom in the country at once. “Tori has become so trans that she can enter every single bathroom in the continental United States simultaneously, and there’s absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop her,” said Cincinnati city officials in a statement echoed by officials in thousands of other towns and cities across the nation, where every single stall in both public and private bathrooms is being currently occupied under the formidable capacities of the single trans individual. “This is what happens when there’s not enough legislation to keep transgender people out of our bathrooms. Now she’s in every women’s bathroom and every men’s bathroom. She’s in our bathroom and your bathroom. She’s in bathrooms in every country club even though she’s not a member; she’s in every stall at JFK Airport even though she doesn’t have a flight. Her piss and **** are at this very moment traveling down the drains of every single bathroom at every single billionaire’s gated mansion, and there are billions of U.S. toilets all flushing at once. She doesn’t need the code at Starbucks. She can travel through bathroom walls. Soon, as the trans community becomes increasingly confident in its omnipotent abilities, we could see them all develop the capacity to bend the laws of space-time, at least as far as bathrooms are concerned. We should all be very, very afraid.” At press time, reports confirmed the trans person’s powers had only grown as she used every last drop of water in the Northern Hemisphere to wash her hands.

Quote

STOCKTON, CA—Cackling as the steps of the dastardly plan crystallized in her mind, local trans teen Brie Chandler told reporters Tuesday that she had hatched a nefarious plot to undergo years of medical treatments and counseling to win at swimming. “It’s oh, so simple: several years of sweet-talking medical professionals, receiving hormone therapies, and enduring complex gender-affirming surgeries, and that swimming trophy will be mine!” said the 17-year-old high school senior, who provided a step-by-step account of her knavish conspiracy to take fourth or even third place in a high school or Division III collegiate swimming competition by transitioning to a female identity. “I don’t even want to be a woman—I just want to win at swimming. Imagine how I’ll laugh with glee up there on the winners’ podium, knowing that all I had to do was lie about my gender identity issues through months or years of psychiatry sessions, take a ****load of androgen blockers, go to speech therapy, and recover from multiple invasive surgeries! Those feelings of isolation as my family members struggle to accept my social transition, the bureaucratic headaches of having to change my legal documents to reflect my correct identity, and becoming more likely to be the target of harassment from strangers will be nothing compared to holding that trophy in my devilish little hands!” The trans teen noted that there was only one thing threatening her nefarious ploy to change her gender to beat several girls at a regional swimming competition, which is that she doesn’t know how to swim.

Quote

WASHINGTON—Warning citizens of a rising threat to the nation’s youth, U.S. officials cautioned Tuesday that knife-wielding doctors were roaming the country in search of adolescent children they could force to be trans. “Across America, parents are watching helplessly as trained surgeons compel their sons to become daughters and their daughters to become sons,” said FBI director Christopher Wray, who cited reports that detailed how hordes of doctors were marauding through all 50 states, waylaying as many teenagers as possible, and performing gender-reassignment surgery on them against their will. “We’re told these savage physicians are sharpening their scalpels as we speak, having discarded the Hippocratic oath in favor of a new creed, one that commits them to never resting until they’ve found every single teen in the United States and turned their penis into a vagina or their vagina into a penis. They hold a blade in one hand and a breast implant in the other. Often, a few of them will gang up on a male teen and force-feed him estrogen pills before stripping him naked and forcing him to wear a pretty dress.” According to local sources throughout the nation, once the knife-wielding doctors have successfully swapped every teen’s gender, they probably have plans to go around swapping them all back again.

 

[The Nehor]

 

My t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions that are already answered by my shirt.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

Have you heard that employers are forcing male employees to transition to women so they only have to pay them 77 cents for every dollar they made as males?

Source: the Internet

Love it Gopher! I'll bet if I search this something comes up! Nope, just the wage part came up, lol! 

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Have you heard that employers are forcing male employees to transition to women so they only have to pay them 77 cents for every dollar they made as males?

Source: the Internet

Shhh! You’re gonna give some companies an idea! 🙃

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, gopher said:

Great quotes, but they have nothing at all to do with what I posted since you clearly missed the point.  I understand you view it differently as nonbeliever, but I don't view it as a comparison of policies.  The church's treatment of LGBT individuals is based on willful and sinful behaviors committed by the individuals.   That's one reason the comparison to the priesthood ban should be offensive to black members.   Their situation was much worse.  There was no sin they could repent of in order to be admitted into full membership in the church during the ban.  Not trying to be obnoxious, just stating the obvious for the sake of discussion.

As far as changes to doctrine, it's Christ's church so He can make whatever changes He wants, whenever He wants.  Commandments with severe penalties don't seem to change often, with the exception of polygamy which is sinful except when it's not.  I'm not confident that God is pleased with those who believe they can violate His commandments with the hope that someday He will change His mind.

So your point is that blacks' situation was "much worse" than gays and lesbians since "there was no sin [blacks] could repent of in order to be admitted into full membership in the church during the ban," which is "obvious" to you.  Did I get that right?  If so, I agree with you on everything I just restated.

Regardless, that's beside MY point, which you evidently seem to have missed, as well.  I agree that blacks' situation was much worse than gays and lesbians. I agree that blacks were prohibited from holding the priesthood based on innate, unchosen personal characteristics (in their case, their native ancestry). 

The idea that blacks "had it worse" is beside my point, which is simply that church doctrines and policies change over time.  Blacks' ability to hold the priesthood is only one of such changes; other doctrinal/policy changes over time include prohibition of temple sealings for interracial couples (much more analogous to prohibition of temple sealings for same-gender couples than the priesthood ban), changes mandating/allowing/prohibiting the practice of plural marriages (also more analogous to marriage between same-gender couples), changes to the covenants and wording of the endowment ceremony (which we obviously won't discuss here due to board rules) and the law of adoption, members' use of birth control, the historical geography of the Book of Mormon, the 'principle ancestry" of the Book of Mormon" vs. the genetics of the native peoples of the Americas, the literal translation of a book of breathings vs the revelatory nature of today's "Pearl of Great Price," etc. 

While you contend that the church's prohibition of temple marriage for same-gender couples "isn't as bad" as blacks being denied the priesthood (which I agree with), my point is that the church's prohibition of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will ultimately be analogous--that is, I believe the church will eventually drop it's prohibition same-sex sealings just as it dropped it's prohibition of interracial sealings.  More broadly, I also believe that the church will change it's doctrines around same-gender couplings just as it has made changes to other, less-similar doctrinal changes, such as plural marriage, birth control, and others I mentioned previously.

And yes, I agree with you fully when you say that when it comes to changes in doctrine, it's Christ's church so He can make whatever changes He wants, whenever He wants. That's my point--I believe "He" will do so, as has been done with other doctrines, some more similar than others.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

For some reason, I'm apparently not seeing all of Joshua's actual posts--only his posts being quoted by others, I think...?  Case in point, in Teddy's post on the bottom of page 7, Teddy quotes Joshua as follows (even though I cannot see Joshua's post in question):

Quote

The most hilarious part of the discussion is about to be revealed! On page 8, a man writes that he was raised in a variety of cultures that do not represent the puritanical concern that the United States of America has with nudity. He argues that it is not uncommon to see naked women on billboards, on yogurt, on toilet paper, and on public transportation throughout Europe. In the following paragraph, he says that families are stripped down by their parents, including children as young as toddlers and teenagers. And somehow the Mormon women on this thread don't see this as problematic? Aren't Mormons still required to wear clothes that help them stay modest? If my memory serves me correctly, the Mormon religion is known for its strong emphasis on modesty. However, for some reason, not a single Mormon voiced their disapproval of the conduct of families taking showers together. This piques my interest for sure! This is fascinating!

NO.  Emphatically NO.  

I did NOT say that "families are stripped down by their parents." In ANY sense of those words.  You are absolutely twisting my words into something I did not say. To repeat, I said: 

Quote

There, we'd huddle under the showers for warmth alongside many local European families, where mothers, fathers, teenagers and toddlers would strip naked and huddle together under the showerheads, grateful for the warming water and steam after a cold day on the chilly watercourse.

No parents were "stripping" teens or children.  To elaborate and provide further clarification: After enjoying hours of cold, water-logged fun kayaking down a river in central Europe, soaking wet groups that had completed the course, including families or youth-groups like ours, would exit the river and run to a large locker room by the river's edge which included rows of partitioned-off communal showers.  Groups traveling together would congregate in alcoves and sections of the locker room and communal showers, and many would hurry to the streaming hot showers fully clothed in their fridged water-logged clothing for the immediate gratification of warm water. 

As they would warm up, they would then gradually peel off their heavy, sopping wet clothing.  Husbands and wives would help each other out of their clothes, mothers would often help their daughters and fathers would help their sons, and everyone would assist the younger kids. Nudity would vary from partial to full, depending on the comfort of each individual in any group, with families and youth groups gathered in the adjacent shower alcoves and changing areas.  Most older kids, teens, and parents would usually have their own shower head, though younger kids would sometimes share the same shower.  Nudity, whether partial or full, didn't faze the Europeans, for whom nudity was not sexualized--it's just part of the human experience.

The point was that families were innocently sharing spaces to get warm after a fun day on the river, each focused on themselves and their own needs, without salaciousness, sexualization, or any perceived threat of each-others' unclothed bodies.

Joshua, the fact that YOU sexualized the above, adding a layer of predatory behavior on the part of the parents, says more about you than it does the innocence of these families, who found nothing to be scandalized by. In doing so, you exemplify my point on how many people in the states oversexualize things that are in no way inherently sexual or evil, in and of themselves. 

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Daniel2

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

So your point is that blacks' situation was "much worse" than gays and lesbians since "there was no sin [blacks] could repent of in order to be admitted into full membership in the church during the ban," which is "obvious" to you.  Did I get that right?  If so, I agree with you on everything I just restated.

Regardless, that's beside MY point, which you evidently seem to have missed, as well.  I agree that blacks' situation was much worse than gays and lesbians. I agree that blacks were prohibited from holding the priesthood based on innate, unchosen personal characteristics (in their case, their native ancestry). 

The idea that blacks "had it worse" is beside my point, which is simply that church doctrines and policies change over time.  Blacks' ability to hold the priesthood is only one of such changes; other doctrinal/policy changes over time include prohibition of temple sealings for interracial couples (much more analogous to prohibition of temple sealings for same-gender couples than the priesthood ban), changes mandating/allowing/prohibiting the practice of plural marriages, changes to the covenants and wording of the endowment ceremony (which we obviously won't discuss here due to board rules), members' use of birth control, the historical geography of the Book of Mormon, the 'principle ancestry" of the Book of Mormon" vs. the genetics of the native peoples of the Americas, the literal translation of a book of breathings vs the revelatory nature of today's "Pearl of Great Price," etc. 

While you contend that the church's prohibition of temple marriage for same-gender couples "isn't as bad" as blacks being denied the priesthood (which I agree with), my point is that the church's prohibition of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will ultimately be analogous--that is, I believe the church will eventually drop it's prohibition same-sex sealings just as it dropped it's prohibition of interracial sealings.  More broadly, I also believe that the church will change it's doctrines around same-gender couplings just as it has made changes to other, less-similar doctrinal changes, such as plural marriage, birth control, and others I mentioned previously.

And yes, I agree with you fully when you say that when it comes to changes in doctrine, it's Christ's church so He can make whatever changes He wants, whenever He wants. That's my point--I believe "He" will do so, as has been done with other doctrines, some more similar than others.

What is the basis of your belief that the Church will eventually begin to perform same-sex marriage sealings, other than the precedent that other doctrinal, practice and policy changes have been made along the way?

I'm looking for some reasoning beyond the opinion that other changes along the way are examples of natural conformity to changing societal norms or advancements in science and religious scholarship. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

For some reason, I'm apparently not seeing all of Joshua's actual posts--only his posts being quoted by others, I think...? 

This is what occurs when you block someone. Perhaps that’s what occurred? 

[MrShorty]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the basis of your belief that the Church will eventually begin to perform same-sex marriage sealings, other than the precedent that other doctrinal, practice and policy changes have been made along the way?

I won't speak for @Daniel2. IMO, whenever we talk about the purposes and value of marriage, same-sex marriages can accomplish all of the purposes and provide all of the same benefits ("fruits," if you will) that opposite sex marriage provides -- except, obviously, the opportunity to make new humans (a limitation that knowledge and technology seem intent on removing). Much like opposite sex marriages, same-sex couples have to learn selflessness, flexibility, compromise. They can experience the joys that come from sharing a life together with someone. Should they choose, they can adopt children and experience all of the joys and challenges of rearing children in a difficult world.

Everytime I have seen this topic discussed, the only "downsides" to same-sex marriage are rooted in specific beliefs about the next life. There's a strong belief out there that male and female are required to create spirit children, and that is why only opposite sex couples can be exalted. In reality, we "know" very little about the nature of exaltation. It really wouldn't take that much "doctrinal change" to relax the requirement for male-female pairing to be exalted.

[bsjkki]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is what occurs when you block someone. Perhaps that’s what occurred? 

I think he got thread banned because his posts are gone. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I think he got thread banned because his posts are gone. 

The post with record downvotes probably did that 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The post with record downvotes probably did that 

I am shocked the thread didn’t get locked.

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the basis of your belief that the Church will eventually begin to perform same-sex marriage sealings, other than the precedent that other doctrinal, practice and policy changes have been made along the way?

I'm looking for some reasoning beyond the opinion that other changes along the way are examples of natural conformity to changing societal norms or advancements in science and religious scholarship. 

My answer would be a combination of what you wrote as well as what Mr Shorty said.

• The church has a history of holding on to both conservative, and sometimes entirely unique, beliefs for as long as is tenable.  As you mentioned, eventually, changes in social norms, advancements in science, and religious scholarship advance to eclipse previously held beliefs, and Mormon theology and/or interpretation adjusts through modern revelation (examples of such changing doctrine include organic evolution, literal/physical death prior to the fall, the historicity of many different events in scripture, BOM historicity, Lamanite DNA, and even the innate nature of sexual orientation).
• The kinship and familial bonds, rights, and responsibilities created by civil marriage have proven to be an inherently beneficial thing for couples, any children they are raising, as well as society as a whole. That concept is just as true as it is for same-gender couples as it is for divergent-gender marriages. These are the 'good fruits' mentioned by MrShorty.
• The LDS Faith is very family-centric... it only makes sense that as society increasingly supports families lead by same-gender couples, the church will evolve to be inclusive of them, as well.
• One of the main driving forces for acceptance that I see within the church is that LDS families continuously wrestle with the fact that many of their own sons, daughters, grandkids, brothers and sisters, cousins, and others are coming out.  Unlike the foreign trait of being of African descent, homosexuality spontaneously and naturally occurs within family units, regardless of religious affiliation or identity.  It's easier to demonize those that are perceived to be alien or foreign (as racism does).  It's much harder to demonize one's own LGBT family members based on their sexuality/gender/gender identity when LDS parents and siblings witness their growth and evolution from birth, within their own family structures, even and in spite of being taught religious values to the contrary from virtually inception.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Daniel2

[CV75]

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I won't speak for @Daniel2. IMO, whenever we talk about the purposes and value of marriage, same-sex marriages can accomplish all of the purposes and provide all of the same benefits ("fruits," if you will) that opposite sex marriage provides -- except, obviously, the opportunity to make new humans (a limitation that knowledge and technology seem intent on removing). Much like opposite sex marriages, same-sex couples have to learn selflessness, flexibility, compromise. They can experience the joys that come from sharing a life together with someone. Should they choose, they can adopt children and experience all of the joys and challenges of rearing children in a difficult world.

Everytime I have seen this topic discussed, the only "downsides" to same-sex marriage are rooted in specific beliefs about the next life. There's a strong belief out there that male and female are required to create spirit children, and that is why only opposite sex couples can be exalted. In reality, we "know" very little about the nature of exaltation. It really wouldn't take that much "doctrinal change" to relax the requirement for male-female pairing to be exalted.

I would add that temple marriage is rooted also in specific beliefs about the first estate (Heavenly Mother), Creation (Adam and Eve), the mortal estate and eternal covenants made in a temporal estate (D&C 132 and the like), the physical resurrection and the eternal round. What doctrinal change would offset what is already known about these and their tie to exaltation?

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

My answer would be a combination of what you wrote as well as what Mr Shorty said.

• The church has a history of holding on to both conservative, and sometimes entirely unique, beliefs for as long as is tenable.  As you mentioned, eventually, changes in social norms, advancements in science, and religious scholarship advance to eclipse previously held beliefs, and Mormon theology and/or interpretation adjusts through modern revelation (examples of such changing doctrine include organic evolution, literal/physical death prior to the fall, the historicity of many different events in scripture, BOM historicity, Lamanite DNA, and even the innate nature of sexual orientation).
• The kinship and familial bonds, rights, and responsibilities created by civil marriage have proven to be an inherently beneficial thing for couples, any children they are raising, as well as society as a whole. That concept is just as true as it is for same-gender couples as it is for divergent-gender marriages. These are the 'good fruits' mentioned by MrShorty.
• The LDS Faith is very family-centric... it only makes sense that as society increasingly supports families lead by same-gender couples, the church will evolve to be inclusive of them, as well.
• One of the main driving forces for acceptance that I see within the church is that LDS families continuously wrestle with the fact that many of their own sons, daughters, grandkids, brothers and sisters, cousins, and others are coming out.  Unlike the foreign trait of being of African descent, homosexuality spontaneously and naturally occurs within family units, regardless of religious affiliation or identity.  It's easier to demonize those that are perceived to be alien or foreign (as racism does).  It's much harder to demonize one's own LGBT family members based on their sexuality/gender/gender identity when LDS parents and siblings witness their growth and evolution from birth, within their own family structures, even and in spite of being taught religious values to the contrary from virtually inception.

Despite the pressures upon them on many fronts, doctrines can be conserved and built upon as well as reversed no matter the impetus one might assign for reversal. The Family Proclamation seems to be an example.

What do you think has led to the reduction in demonization of LGBTQ+ family members in families belonging to our Church, and might this not bolster the current doctrine on temple marriage as a result of the long view covenants provide Church members irrespective of sexual identity?

[LoudmouthMormon]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am allied to some destransitioners. For a more wholesome take on this whole thing many (though not all) transgender spaces welcome detransitioners as still being able to identify as one of them (if they want to). Some detransition for social reasons, some due to expense, some due to results not being what they hoped, and some because they think it was a mistake for them to transition. There are even some who socially transition back to their gender assigned at birth who continue to take HRT because it improves their quality of life in some way. In general transgender people consider them to still belong. It is only when they start trying to cut others off from being able to transition that they tend to become unwelcome.

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are there toxic sub-groups in the community? Yeah, but they aren’t who our enemies think they are.

I bowed out of this conversation a few pages ago, offering to let Nehor have the last word, so please just consider this a passing comment, and not a continuation of the debate.   Honestly @The Nehor, your two quotes here is about 80% of what I've been trying to say in this thread and others.   Glad to hear you can understand detransitioners to an extent, and even support some of them.  And glad you see there are toxic sub-groups in the larger community.   I'd agree the whole topic gets instantly divisive and turned into rhetorical clubs that agenda-driven idealogues use on each other.  It's one reason why I've been so surprised and edified to hear increasing numbers of feminists, women, LGB folks, and trans folks speaking out against the excesses seen in some of the TQIA+ community.

I guess the only difference between me and thee at this point, is difference of opinion about how valid the activist detransitioner's message and story is, and how prevalent the toxic sub-groups.  Pain is pain, injustice is injustice, and ppl urging other ppl to drink bleach and die in a hole is bad even when said to people with whom you disagree.

"In general transgender people consider them to still belong. It is only when they start trying to cut others off from being able to transition that they tend to become unwelcome."

Another way of saying exactly the same thing: "Sometimes transgender people exclude detransitioners.  It often happens when the detrans person starts saying stuff not in line with the "mainstream trans" (if that's such a thing) ideology.  But there are some people who just cut them out the instance a detrans person no longer acts like or believes what the people think they must act like and believe."

You work on that problem from your end, and I'll work on it from mine.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"In general transgender people consider them to still belong. It is only when they start trying to cut others off from being able to transition that they tend to become unwelcome."

Another way of saying exactly the same thing: "Sometimes transgender people exclude detransitioners.  It often happens when the detrans person starts saying stuff not in line with the "mainstream trans" (if that's such a thing) ideology.  But there are some people who just cut them out the instance a detrans person no longer acts like or believes what the people think they must act like and believe."

You work on that problem from your end, and I'll work on it from mine.

Yes, they exclude people who are actively trying to hurt them by denying them access to medical transitioning. To put this in church terms they are the “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. In many cases the sheep costume is really bad and obvious. I am not going to try to change that kind of exclusion. It is healthy to expel these people from your spaces. To be clear often the wolves in this metaphor are deeply hurting but there is no way to realistically help them while their goal is to hurt others.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I think he got thread banned because his posts are gone. 

Yeah, he was either thread banned or board banned.

[longview]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is healthy to expel these people from your spaces. To be clear often the wolves in this metaphor are deeply hurting but there is no way to realistically help them while their goal is to hurt others.

Sincere question: do you seriously promote the use of puberty blockers?

Considering that it can cause premature onset of osteoporosis in teenagers and young adults.

Second question: what do you consider the minimum age for surgical alteration for minors?

Considering that it destroys the reproductive function and ability to breastfeed.