Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, longview said:

You pulled THAT out of thin air. Strictly your invention.

CFR please.

 

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_Gaines

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_Gaines

This is where I would side with the wokesters©- in competition where physical prowess isn't an advantage necessarily (chess, curling, etc...) go ahead and make them non-gender specific.

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

6 hours ago, longview said:

You pulled THAT out of thin air. Strictly your invention.

CFR please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_Gaines

From your link this statement:

Quote

In November 2023, Gaines confirmed working with FIDE to prevent transgender women from playing in women's chess. This prompted criticism from PinkNews for claiming that trans women had an advantage at chess.

This will not satisfy the CFR. It is very apparent that you and pinknews are both extreme radicals and in the same camp. Can you provide reliable independent mainstream evidence of Gaines actually working with FIDE to "ban" trans from participating in women's chess tournaments?

Keep in mind that just because Gaines praised FIDE for keeping women's chess tournaments "trans-free" does NOT mean she had any influence in pressuring FIDE to take that course. There are plenty of chess venues where mixed participation are freely offered. Even including very young players competing against adults.

[longview]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

 

https://x.com/AverageSteveS/status/1729672940214509738

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, longview said:

https://x.com/AverageSteveS/status/1729672940214509738

I’m really confused. You asked for a reference for the quote “If she wants to oppose trans women in all women’s competitions go for it.” I provide a quote where she says she opposes trans-women in all sports. Is this your way of acknowledging you were wrong?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

From your link this statement:

This will not satisfy the CFR. It is very apparent that you and pinknews are both extreme radicals and in the same camp. Can you provide reliable independent mainstream evidence of Gaines actually working with FIDE to "ban" trans from participating in women's chess tournaments?

Keep in mind that just because Gaines praised FIDE for keeping women's chess tournaments "trans-free" does NOT mean she had any influence in pressuring FIDE to take that course. There are plenty of chess venues where mixed participation are freely offered. Even including very young players competing against adults.

What are you talking about? I am saying she opposes all trans people participating in women’s sports and competitions. I am not arguing she is some secret powerbroker making decisions. She is a nobody. A pawn. She is trotted out for talk shows and committee hearings and to drum up sympathy from the base. She isn’t pressuring anyone into anything.

[longview]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m really confused. You asked for a reference for the quote “If she wants to oppose trans women in all women’s competitions go for it.” I provide a quote where she says she opposes trans-women in all sports. Is this your way of acknowledging you were wrong?

My objection to begin with was the absolute qualifier "ALL". Not at all realistic.

The twitter post you were showing is very vague on context. Gaines in that post did NOT specify if she started with FIDE and worked from the top down. Or if she was simply supporting her associates among the general members of her association. My link was taken a few posts after the one you were showing demonstrated that even in chess tournaments there is a huge disparity between men's tournaments and the women's in terms of numbers. It shows how women are hard pressed to even compete with the top six or seven tiers of of the men's.

Even though chess do NOT require physical size or brawn, there are still enough serious differences that many women would appreciate being able to participate in chess tournaments set aside for women. I would venture to guess that professional men's tournaments most likely allow any and all comers including children, women and even trans. On the other hand, tournaments designated for women should NOT be subverted by trans wanting to "crash the party".

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, longview said:

My objection to begin with was the absolute qualifier "ALL". Not at all realistic.

Quote

Women's opportunities are meant for women, full stop. Men shouldn't be in women's category in chess, pool, or any sport.

How much more clear does she need to be?

[Peacefully]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

My objection to begin with was the absolute qualifier "ALL". Not at all realistic.

The twitter post you were showing is very vague on context. Gaines in that post did NOT specify if she started with FIDE and worked from the top down. Or if she was simply supporting her associates among the general members of her association. My link was taken a few posts after the one you were showing demonstrated that even in chess tournaments there is a huge disparity between men's tournaments and the women's in terms of numbers. It shows how women are hard pressed to even compete with the top six or seven tiers of of the men's.

Even though chess do NOT require physical size or brawn, there are still enough serious differences that many women would appreciate being able to participate in chess tournaments set aside for women. I would venture to guess that professional men's tournaments most likely allow any and all comers including children, women and even trans. On the other hand, tournaments designated for women should NOT be subverted by trans wanting to "crash the party".

What serious differences are there between men and women chess players? 

[longview]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How much more clear does she need to be?

Several reasons. To begin with, Gaines did NOT specifically mention FIDE.

6 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

What serious differences are there between men and women chess players? 

Please refer back to the link I posted relating to Seeking's twitters.

[MrShorty]

On 6/6/2024 at 2:08 PM, smac97 said:

I'm not going out of my way to find ways to reject prophetic counsel.

Does this tend to make us right or make us conservative? I can't help but look at the history of the priesthood and temple ban and think that -- at least that part of our history -- could have used a bit more "going out of [our] way to find ways to reject prophetic counsel" and a bit less loyalty and obedience to fallible prophets/apostles.

It seems to me that there must be a muddy, messy middle ground between the two extremes. An appropriate balance between blindly rejecting everything prophets and apostles (ancient and modern) teach and blindly accepting everything they teach. One of my frustrations is that it seems no one wants to talk about how to navigate that unstable equilibrium between two slippery slopes (one leads to blind acceptance and one leads to blind rejection). At the end of the day, it seems that I can only hope to do my best and hope that God knows how to redeem me from my mistakes.

[MrShorty]

On 6/6/2024 at 2:18 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

So the haters here need to quit saying that we taught as doctrine the opinions put forth by individual apostles about the Priesthood ban.

You're probably right, but I'm not sure it is a better look. Either way, we denied an entire race of people (with exceptions as Br. Reeves documents) salvific ordinances for 100+ years. If that was done on the whims of a few prophets and apostles without full buy in from all of the prophets and apostles, that is an additional level of concern that points even more strongly to our inability (sometimes) to discern God's will.

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

we denied an entire race of people (with exceptions as Br. Reeves documents) salvific ordinances for 100+ years.

I've already addressed this, but I will address it again:

Salvific ordinances were not and were never denied to anyone.

Exalting ordinances were delayed (right or wrong) for a time with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here.

Even if we doesn't agree with what was done, we should at least get the facts straight and not let the haters dictate the narrative.

[MrShorty]

salvific vs. exalting seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

Delayed suggests that performing ordinances is not really that important, since they can just as easily be done later (by proxy, if necessary). If no one is ever denied any blessings that were delayed because of the church's mistakes, therefore the church can do and teach anything it wants because God will redeem everyone no matter what.

Sounds like our own LDS version of Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace." Is it important for the church (and its leaders and members) to accurately discern God's will?

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

salvific vs. exalting seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

There is absolutely a difference in Latter-day Saint theology- which we are discussing.

Salvation is in a kingdom of glory up to the 2nd level of Celestial Glory.

Exaltation is exclusively reserved for the highest degree of Celestial Glory.

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Delayed suggests that performing ordinances is not really that important, since they can just as easily be done later (by proxy, if necessary). If no one is ever denied any blessings that were delayed because of the church's mistakes, therefore the church can do and teach anything it wants because God will redeem everyone no matter what.

Sounds like our own LDS version of Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace." Is it important for the church (and its leaders and members) to accurately discern God's will?

Apparently you didn't really read what I said.

I clearly stated that no eternal blessing promised to the faithful will be denied to those who live faithfully according to the covenants available to them.

Very clearly not cheap grace. 

God's eternal blessings to the faithful are not limited by (possibly) faulty policies instituted by His Church.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, longview said:

The twitter post you were showing is very vague on context. Gaines in that post did NOT specify if she started with FIDE and worked from the top down. Or if she was simply supporting her associates among the general members of her association

Yes, it was vague and absolute.  But it was Gaines who chose to post there and with that approach, she did not add qualifiers when she could have.  This is not a case where context is being ignored as far as I can see, so it would appear she is okay with a global interpretation.  I think the CFR has been answered whether or not it accurately shows her views or not, because the lack of accuracy is on her in this case.

[Calm]

LDS do confuse salvation and exaltation a lot, but I think that does not remove the difference, which in my view is salvific teachings and ordinances save us from hell (through Christ of course) while exaltation allows us to become one with Christ and the Father and be given all that they have.

 

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

salvific vs. exalting seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Calm said:

LDS do confuse salvation and exaltation a lot, but I think that does not remove the difference, which in my view is salvific teachings and ordinances save us from hell (through Christ of course) while exaltation allows us to become one with Christ and the Father and be given all that they have.

 

 

Which is important to distinguish, because letting the idea persist that we barred blacks from salvific ordinances leaves the impression with the uninformed that the Church condemned them to hell, which is false.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Which is important to distinguish, because letting the idea persist that we barred blacks from salvific ordinances leaves the impression with the uninformed that the Church condemned them to hell, which is false.

True, but when we (as a church) refused to teach blacks unless they came to us (and I suspect even then there were roadblocks put in their way) and as individuals rejected them as brethren (there are unfortunately stories of Black members not allowed to attend church) even if in the end the Lord ensures everyone has what they truly desire and deserve, it was still a massive wrong imo not to share what we believed were truths that led to greater happiness in this life.  Because we apparently didn’t know what to do with a people or didn’t want to have to be stewards over them (since priesthood holders would have to be assigned), we chose to ignore blacks as deserving of eternal happiness in the here and now.  And if we pass that off as no big deal because in the end everyone will have what they need and deserve, I believe we deserve to have that beautiful gift taken from us so we can learn what it means to be denied the fullness of the gospel in this life.  

Personally I think enough members recognize the cost of what we as a church did in not reaching out to all our brothers and sisters all along as we were able that I believe that won’t be a lesson the whole Church will need to undergo, but I can imagine the Lord may provide some lessons along the way to make that point sink deeply into all of us….perhaps the Church growing so strongly among people that were neglected in the past will create such opportunities.

It was not a small thing.

Edited June 8 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Apparently I not making my point clearly enough...

I am not discussing the right or wrong of the Priesthood prohibition- I am addressing what the Priesthood prohibition was and was not.

It was not a ban on saving ordinances- which is an untruth that keeps being peddled here.

Again, I am not opining on the morality of the prohibition or how it affected people. I am simply dealing with the facts.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I am simply dealing with the facts.

And as someone who aims for precision with the facts, I believe we also need to be aware of how presenting the facts can appear, which may be dismissive in this case depending on how it’s done.

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

And as someone who aims for precision with the facts, I believe we also need to be aware of how presenting the facts can appear, which may be dismissive in this case depending on how it’s done.

I don't feel the need to virtue signal everytime single I am correcting a persistent error that should be clear by now.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't feel the need to virtue signal everytime single I am correcting a persistent error that should be clear by now.

That you think of it as virtue signaling to recognize complications surrounding “facts” is problematic in my view and is likely to influence how you present ‘just the facts’ whether you realize it or not.

Edited June 8 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

That you think of it as virtue signaling is problematic in my view and is likely to influence how you present ‘just the facts’ whether you realize it or not.

I have been trying to post in a way that is less plain spoken- apparently that is not enough unless I'm willing to throw something in to show how how I am ashamed of the past (even when just stating a fact) or unless I give those opposed to the Church every benefit of every doubt?

I refuse and believe I will just go back to being more blunt, as it appears it makes absolutely no difference either way as to how you perceive and react to my posts.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Exalting ordinances were delayed (right or wrong) for a time with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here.

 

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

There is absolutely a difference in Latter-day Saint theology- which we are discussing.

Salvation is in a kingdom of glory up to the 2nd level of Celestial Glory.

Exaltation is exclusively reserved for the highest degree of Celestial Glory.

Since we are discussing facts…

This is from Mark Peterson (a prophet seer and revelator at the time):

Quote

If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the Celestial Kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a Celestial resurrection.

https://archive.org/details/RaceProblemsAsTheyAffectTheChurchMarkEPetersen/page/n15/mode/1up

So I’m not sure that the following is a factual statement: “with the understanding that they would be given in a future time and the understanding that the faithful would receive every blessing available to the promised to the faithful in eternity no matter what mortal barriers existed here.” 

What do you think?