Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[smac97]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Is it possible to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions, particularly as to important moral issues?  I think it is.

Not in any way that is likely to make the other person feel truly loved.

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also it is telling that you still see this as a “personal decision”.

"This" being sexual behaviors, yes, such are "personal decisions."

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We also aren’t talking about “personal decisions”.

Yes, we are.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We are talking about who someone is.

Respectfully, no.  Sexual behaviors are what a person does, not what he is.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is why they don’t feel love. You can love a child who sins in spite of the sin because the sin is not fundamental to who they are and they can realistically choose to change.

I agree.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This kind of condescending acceptance doesn’t work in this case.

Not sure what you mean here.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If they were raised in the church there is a good chance they have been trying to make a different “personal decision” for some time already before talking to you. They failed as virtually everyone does at making a different “personal decision”.

The decision to keep the Law of Chastity is a "personal decision."

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Just not courteously disagree.

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"This" being sexual behaviors, yes, such are "personal decisions."

Yes, we are.

Respectfully, no.  Sexual behaviors are what a person does, not what he is.

I agree.

Not sure what you mean here.

The decision to keep the Law of Chastity is a "personal decision."

This split between being gay and acting gay and one being just something that happens and one being a sin is a very recent theological innovation in the Church. Turn back to the 70s and 80s and just being gay was itself a sin or proof that you had previously sinned causing you to be gay.

It is an ad hoc rationalization without any revelation behind it. Revelation didn’t create it. It was thrown together as an apologetic to continue to justify bigotry while realizing that the previous reasoning was unsupportable by evidence and was irrational. Think it will last another decade or will we continue to be blown about by every wind of doctrine as reality tears holes in this new justification?

How long until actual revelation is sought? How many will lose their faith before we turn to what is supposed to be the thing that sets us apart from all other faiths? Or will we just continue to copy the philosophies of men and not bother to mingle in scripture and hope for the best? 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am referring to behaviors.  Actions.

That would be compelled speech.  Are you on board with referring to Russell M. Nelson by honorifics and titles which you dispute (e.g. "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc.)?  How about if I "kindly" ask you to refer to the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which [] the Lord [is] well pleased"?  Are you willing to “accept/ratify/endorse/celebrate” the faith of the Latter-day Saints by going along with these requests?

I think preferred pronouns are less a matter of moral reprehensibility and more a matter of compelled speech, of asking someone, "kindly" or otherwise, to speak things they do not wish to speak, or which things they feel are incongruent with reality.  

Again, I was referencing actions and behaviors. 

I have many friends and family members who are behaving in ways which contravene the Law of Chastity.  I love them regardless, but I reject the notion that I am obligated, as a condition of friendship or maintaining familial harmony, to accept / ratify / endorse / celebrate behaviors I find morally wrong.  

I find it rather strange that we live in a time where a person goes about, publicly or privately or both, asking/demanding that others accept / ratify / endorse / celebrate that person's sexual preferences, "identity," behavior, etc.  And stranger still for the person to take umbrage when people whom he knows subscribe to a partoculat code of sexual ethics decline to accept / ratify / endorse / celebrate behaviors incongruent with those ethics.

Thanks 

-Smac

I still have no idea of what you are talking about. Just so I can understand your position, can you give me an example or two of somebody asking you to accept/ ratify/ endorse/ celebrate behaviors you find morally wrong?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

"This" being sexual behaviors, yes, such are "personal decisions."

Yes, we are.

Respectfully, no.  Sexual behaviors are what a person does, not what he is.

I agree.

Not sure what you mean here.

The decision to keep the Law of Chastity is a "personal decision."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Sexual behavior is a personal decision as you said.  So why are you trying to insert yourself into that decision?  You actually don't have any responsibility to insert your opinion into that decision any more than you have to insert yourself into other peoples sins they may have. If you base your relationships on whether another person has what you consider are sins, then exactly how many people could you have in your life?  None?

You act as if the Law of Chastity hasn't changed multiple times in the history of the Church.  There was a time where most people in the world considered Mormons as that sect that allows men to sleep with other women that they weren't even legally married to.  So most of the leaders of the Church should be treated as shacking up with multiple women they weren't legally married to.  And yes, sleeping with underaged girls were also not a problem.

Then the Church changed the Law of Chastity to mean only having sexual relationships with someone you were legally married to, a complete departure from previous teachings.  

Now the Law of Chastity evidently is only sexual relationships with someone you are legally married to that the Church approves of.  Without any revelation, Church leaders have decided that same sex marriages don't count as a marriage in the view of the Church without any input from God.  Why are you so sure that God condemns legally married gay couples?  If it is just an opinion, then it seems really weak to be condemning someone simply because you have a different point of view.

And then there is this thought.

Quote

"Any humane and reasonable person must conclude that if the ends, however desirable, are uncertain and the means are horrible and certain, these means must not be employed."   -Howard Zinn-

Just something to think about.  I don't expect for you to change your point of view, but maybe you can see that you are condemning others simply because they have a different perspective about what you think God wants them to do.

Edited December 21, 2024 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Smac:  Are you on board with referring to Russell M. Nelson by honorifics and titles which you dispute (e.g. "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc.)?  How about if I "kindly" ask you to refer to the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which [] the Lord [is] well pleased"?  Are you willing to “accept/ratify/endorse/celebrate” the faith of the Latter-day Saints by going along with these requests?

This is smac’s comment above.  

I see it more in line with respecting someone’s wish to avoid comments like “so-called prophet” or “Joe” rather than prophet or Joseph or not using Mormon and using Latter-day Saint instead as the preferred pronouns and names are not replacing pronouns and names that work for the individual or that they are comfortable with in many cases (most?), but they are replacing ones that upset them, come across as insults whether intended as such or not.  

The names and such chosen as replacements are usually simple and do not elevate the person above others as would labels you are suggesting.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sexual behavior is a personal decision as you said.  So why are you trying to insert yourself into that decision?  You actually don't have any responsibility to insert your opinion into that decision any more than you have to insert yourself into other peoples sins they may have. If you base your relationships on whether another person has what you consider are sins, then exactly how many people could you have in your life?  

I don’t see Smac’s reasoning as not choosing to associate with those he disagrees with, but more in line with certain evangelicals that have said they refuse to pray with LDS because they don’t want to give LDS the impression that LDS are right with God because that might lead LDS to not see a need for repentance and truly coming to God.  These evangelicals sincerely believe they would harm LDS by praying with them.

Smac can say whether my view is accurate or not. 

Edited December 21, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

And yes, sleeping with underaged girls were also not a problem.

Underaged at that time or underaged now?  And if underaged back then, in what sense?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Sexual behavior is a personal decision as you said.

I am glad we can agree on that.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So why are you trying to insert yourself into that decision?  

I am not.  To the contrary, I would like to hear a lot less about other people's sexual behaviors, preferences, "identities," and so on.  

I would like to see fewer efforts and compelled/coerced speech, such as that raised by Analytics.

I would like to see less punishment of speech.  What is going on in Europe, particularly the UK, is quite troubling.

Pride Month (month) is a 30-day corporatized slog involving endless public reminders and declarations about sexual identities/preferences/behaviors.

If members of the LGBT community want to identify themselves predominantly/primarily by their "sexual identity" (and if some of them want to publicly flaunt its associated behaviors, as exemplified by, for example, highly sexualized grotesqueries at some Pride parades and events) and then go about telling everyone else about that identity, they certainly have that right (though the public sexual exhibitionism, particularly when done in the presence of children, needs to be addressed).  I am not inserting myself into these decisions.  I am a bystander who would prefer to have less of this stuff on public display.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You actually don't have any responsibility to insert your opinion into that decision any more than you have to insert yourself into other peoples sins they may have.  

I have not suggested otherwise.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If you base your relationships on whether another person has what you consider are sins, then exactly how many people could you have in your life?  None?

I reject the premise.  I do not base my relationships on whether another person has what you consider are sins.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You act as if the Law of Chastity hasn't changed multiple times in the history of the Church.  

You act as if the Law of Chastity has changed multiple times in the history of the Church.

The Law of Chastity centers on marriage.  Until very recently, marriage entailed sexual relations between a husband and wife.  A few years ago, the central premise of the concept of marriage was effectively upended and re-defined to include, for essentially the first time the history of the world, relationships between members of the same sex.  The Church, not willing to let secularists do an end-run around its doctrine, clarified what should have been obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Church: that marriage is, doctrinally speaking, between a man and a women, as are the authorized parameters for sexual activity.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

There was a time where most people in the world considered Mormons as that sect that allows men to sleep with other women that they weren't even legally married to.  So most of the leaders of the Church should be treated as shacking up with multiple women they weren't legally married to.  And yes, sleeping with underaged girls were also not a problem.

Then the Church changed the Law of Chastity to mean only having sexual relationships with someone you were legally married to, a complete departure from previous teachings.  

Well, no.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Now the Law of Chastity evidently is only sexual relationships with someone you are legally married to that the Church approves of.  

"Evidently."

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Without any revelation, Church leaders have decided that same sex marriages don't count as a marriage in the view of the Church without any input from God.  

Respectfully, I reject this characterization.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Why are you so sure that God condemns legally married gay couples?  

For a variety of reasons.  As I have noted many times before (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here), AoF 1:9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  I think God fundamentally altering the Law of Chastity to allow for same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage will never happen.  It's about as pristine an example of "wishful thinking" that we are ever likely to see.  However, in a de minimis sense, I am open to the possibility.  I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If it is just an opinion, then it seems really weak to be condemning someone simply because you have a different point of view.

Respectfully, I reject the premise.  I don't think "it is just an opinion."

2 hours ago, california boy said:

And then there is this thought.

Quote

"Any humane and reasonable person must conclude that if the ends, however desirable, are uncertain and the means are horrible and certain, these means must not be employed."   -Howard Zinn-

Just something to think about.  

Okay.

I see nothing remotely "horrible" about the Law of Chastity.  To the contrary, I find it a profoundly important and beautiful framework for sexuality.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't expect for you to change your point of view, but maybe you can see that you are condemning others simply because they have a different perspective about what you think God wants them to do.

I have not condemned anyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 21, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Just not courteously disagree.

I do not think I have been discourteous.

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This split between being gay and acting gay and one being just something that happens and one being a sin is a very recent theological innovation in the Church.

Actually, I think "sexual identity" is a very recent sociological innovation in society.  Prior to the mainstreaming of this concept, the Church proscribed the behavior, alongside other behaviors (such as fornication).  

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Turn back to the 70s and 80s and just being gay was itself a sin or proof that you had previously sinned causing you to be gay.

The 70s and 80s were the formative years of the "sexual identity" concept, the period in which it gained ascendency due to its political utility (see, e.g., Hamba's comments and citations quoted here, here, here, here, here, here).  Some relevant excerpts:

Quote

1. Sexual identity is a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century. Before that, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities. Same-sex behaviour, of course, has been ubiquitous. 
...
2. This new social construct spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility. In many ways, one can read the wholesale invention of 'gay marriage' and the current legal and social attempts to silence all dissent to it as the clearest indication that the discourse has gone from merely ascendant to genuinely hegemonic.

3. In their quest for normalisation and domestication, all ascendant discourses attempt to mask their genealogies by creating narratives of having 'always already' existed.
...

4. Under the direction of the prophets, the Church has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities. Consequently, whilst the Church recognises the reality of same-sex behaviour (and even same-sex attraction, though one could reasonably argue that this is itself a modern construct, arising from the suggestive influence of the normalisation of homosexuality as an identity), the Church has maintained the sharp distinction between behaviour and identity.

5. The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those, like you, who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity -- but it is a position far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination. It also is in harmony with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic.

6. Fortuitously, the Church's position also happens to be a defence of revealed truth relating to these issues. 

Your comments here typify point #3 above.

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is an ad hoc rationalization without any revelation behind it.  Revelation didn’t create it.

I respectfully disagree.  

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It was thrown together as an apologetic to continue to justify bigotry

And so it goes.  Discussions such as this often devolve to the "You're a Bigot!" line. 

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

while realizing that the previous reasoning was unsupportable by evidence and was irrational.

Well, no.  The Church's doctrines regarding sexuality, marriage, eternal increase are quite cogent and reasonable.  Same-sex behavior, in addition to not being biologically coherent, similarly does not work in the Church's doctrine, eschatology, etc.

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Think it will last another decade or will we continue to be blown about by every wind of doctrine as reality tears holes in this new justification?

I made the following comment in 2019:

Quote

Quote

What would you and others do if one day this doctrine changed as well?

What doctrine?  The Law of Chastity?

I think this hypothetical is extraordinarily unlikely.  However, AoF 1:9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  I think God fundamentally altering the Law of Chastity to allow for same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage will never happen.  It's about as pristine an example of "wishful thinking" that we are ever likely to see.  However, in a de minimis sense, I am open to the possibility.  I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I have seen zero indicators in the intervening five years that the Church is moving away from its normative teachings about the Law of Chastity, and ample evidence that it will continue to refine and improve its teaching of the principles.  The principles, though, remain the same. 

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How long until actual revelation is sought?

I sure would like to see a published and canonized revelation on these matters.  If and when that happens, and if this revelation upends the last nearly 200 years of prophetic guidance and counsel on matters relating to the Law of Chastity, I will seek out revelatory confirmation of such developments, and then happily eat crow.

"If."

On the other hand, I am concerned that there are folks who tend to exhibit devotions to a set of unbending ideological propositions regarding same-sex attraction, same-sex marriage, etc., and that if these people were to encounter a conflict between such propositions and "actual revelation," some (many?) would be more inclined to privilege and prioritize these ideological propositions over the revelations.

Again, "if."

Having surveyed the totality of prophetic and apostolic counsel given over the last many decades re: the Law of Chastity and SSA and same-sex marriage, I am not sure if a specific revelation is actually needed.  Candidly, I think we already have the answers, so the issue is more about what we are going to do with those answer.  Consequently, and with respect, I think your notion of "revelation" coming along to radically re-define the parameters of marriage and sexuality so as to encompass same-sex behavior and relationships is about as pristine an example of "wishful thinking" that we are ever likely to see.

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How many will lose their faith before we turn to what is supposed to be the thing that sets us apart from all other faiths?

You refer here to revelation?  To living prophets and apostles, whose collective counsel you are characterizing as "bigotry"?

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Or will we just continue to copy the philosophies of men and not bother to mingle in scripture and hope for the best? 

I do not believe the Church will ever bend the knee and doctrinally capitulate to sociopolitical trends which contravene revealed truths.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Smac:  Are you on board with referring to Russell M. Nelson by honorifics and titles which you dispute (e.g. "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc.)?  How about if I "kindly" ask you to refer to the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which [] the Lord [is] well pleased"?  Are you willing to “accept/ratify/endorse/celebrate” the faith of the Latter-day Saints by going along with these requests?

This is smac’s comment above.  

I see it more in line with respecting someone’s wish to avoid comments like “so-called prophet” or “Joe” rather than prophet or Joseph or not using Mormon and using Latter-day Saint instead as the preferred pronouns and names are not replacing pronouns and names that work for the individual or that they are comfortable with in many cases (most?), but they are replacing ones that upset them, come across as insults whether intended as such or not.  

The names and such chosen as replacements are usually simple and do not elevate the person above others as would labels you are suggesting.

My comments are more about loaded language and compelled/coerced speech.

If someone wants to refer to Russell M. Nelson as "President Nelson," there is no stacked deck, no loaded language there.  A person like Analytics, who {EDIT} strongly disagrees with and  regularly speaks against and criticizes the Church, does not does not cede any ideological or rhetorical ground by using this designation.  Conversely, if I were to "kindly" ask Analytics to refer to Pres. Nelson Nelson by honorifics which do cede ideological ground (e.g. "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc.), then I think he (Analytics) would be justified in declining to go along with such "kindly" requests.

Similarly, "preferred pronouns" are, in my view, ideologically loaded terms.  If a man wants to go around "identifying" as a woman, I am largely indifferent to such matters.  I become less indifferent when "preferred pronouns" are presented.  As Nehor and others on this board so amply and regularly demonstrate, there is an overarching - though often unspoken - element of coercion in these "kindly" requests.  Go along with the pronouns or be branded a bigot.

I don't expect Analytics to refer to Pres. Nelson as "our beloved Prophet," even if I were to ask him nicely.  And I would not ask him, "nicely" or otherwise, because the request carries with it presuppositions that I would not want to put onto him.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 21, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Sexual behavior is a personal decision as you said.  So why are you trying to insert yourself into that decision?  You actually don't have any responsibility to insert your opinion into that decision any more than you have to insert yourself into other peoples sins they may have. If you base your relationships on whether another person has what you consider are sins, then exactly how many people could you have in your life?  

I don’t see Smac’s reasoning as not choosing to associate with those he disagrees with,

I haven't said much about "association."  Rather, my prior comments about "personal decisions," to actions/behavior.  I am positing that it is possible (quite possible, even) to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions to engage in behaviors/actions which carry important moral consequences.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

but more in line with certain evangelicals that have said they refuse to pray with LDS because they don’t want to give LDS the impression that LDS are right with God because that might lead LDS to not see a need for repentance and truly coming to God.  These evangelicals sincerely believe they would harm LDS by praying with them.

Smac can say whether my view is accurate or not. 

Not very accurate, but I appreciate the effort.  I am somewhat ambivalent about attending a same-sex wedding, as the symbolism of such attendance is often tied up with ratifying / endorsing / celebrating the union.  I may need to make that decision in the future.  Meanwhile, however, I have no qualms with "associating" with gay couples and individuals in most other contexts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A person like Analytics, who despises and disrespects the Church at every opportunity,

It is hard to believe your analysis of Analytics and others’ comments will be fair or even vaguely objective when you interpret his comments to mean this.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

A person like Analytics, who despises and disrespects the Church at every opportunity,

It is hard to believe your analysis of Analytics and others’ comments will be fair or even vaguely objective when you interpret his comments to mean this.

"despise" = "feel contempt or a deep repugnance for"

You think that Analytics does not feel this way about the Church?  That he does not disrespect the Church?

I'll retract it if you feel it's unfair, but that would be surprising to me.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, however, I have no qualms with "associating" with gay couples and individuals in most other contexts.

It wasn’t about the associating aspect of my analogy I was thinking of in regards to you***, but why you care not to appear to give any sign of approval in these cases…you appear to consider such behavior sinful and I was assuming you believe it is harmful to a person to sin and you will not act as if it is not.

I am less sure now whether it is more of what you don’t want to communicate to others for their good or whether it’s more about what you see as affecting your own behavior, your own desire to choose how to respond…or something else.
 

***given your willingness to go to the meeting with your daughter as you described a bit ago, I don’t see any lack of willingness to associate in general.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You think that Analytics does not feel this way about the Church?  That he does not disrespect the Church?

I don’t think he feels that way for all aspects of the Church nor do I see him expressing such feelings at any opportunity that is presented to him.  I see a lot of missed opportunities for him to be disrespectful instead.

iow, I think your comment is a significant overstatement of his behavior and likely feelings.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not think I have been discourteous.

Actually, I think "sexual identity" is a very recent sociological innovation in society.  Prior to the mainstreaming of this concept, the Church proscribed the behavior, alongside other behaviors (such as fornication).  

The 70s and 80s were the formative years of the "sexual identity" concept, the period in which it gained ascendency due to its political utility (see, e.g., Hamba's comments and citations quoted here, here, here, here, here, here).  Some relevant excerpts:

Your comments here typify point #3 above.

I respectfully disagree.  

And so it goes.  Discussions such as this often devolve to the "You're a Bigot!" line. 

Well, no.  The Church's doctrines regarding sexuality, marriage, eternal increase are quite cogent and reasonable.  Same-sex behavior, in addition to not being biologically coherent, similarly does not work in the Church's doctrine, eschatology, etc.

I made the following comment in 2019:

I have seen zero indicators in the intervening five years that the Church is moving away from its normative teachings about the Law of Chastity, and ample evidence that it will continue to refine and improve its teaching of the principles.  The principles, though, remain the same. 

I sure would like to see a published and canonized revelation on these matters.  If and when that happens, and if this revelation upends the last nearly 200 years of prophetic guidance and counsel on matters relating to the Law of Chastity, I will seek out revelatory confirmation of such developments, and then happily eat crow.

"If."

On the other hand, I am concerned that there are folks who tend to exhibit devotions to a set of unbending ideological propositions regarding same-sex attraction, same-sex marriage, etc., and that if these people were to encounter a conflict between such propositions and "actual revelation," some (many?) would be more inclined to privilege and prioritize these ideological propositions over the revelations.

Again, "if."

Having surveyed the totality of prophetic and apostolic counsel given over the last many decades re: the Law of Chastity and SSA and same-sex marriage, I am not sure if a specific revelation is actually needed.  Candidly, I think we already have the answers, so the issue is more about what we are going to do with those answer.  Consequently, and with respect, I think your notion of "revelation" coming along to radically re-define the parameters of marriage and sexuality so as to encompass same-sex behavior and relationships is about as pristine an example of "wishful thinking" that we are ever likely to see.

You refer here to revelation?  To living prophets and apostles, whose collective counsel you are characterizing as "bigotry"?

I do not believe the Church will ever bend the knee and doctrinally capitulate to sociopolitical trends which contravene revealed truths.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You learn nothing. When something is disproven or shown to be false it pops right back up again.

Also you are still quoting Hamba’s posts as an authority which is just sad. That is seriously the best evidence you can throw together? You should find better support or give up that line of attack.

Edited December 21, 2024 by The Nehor

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You learn nothing.

You seldom offer substance.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

When something is disproven or shown to be false it pops right back up again.

Oh.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Also Hamba is still quoted as an authority which is just sad.

He substantiated his arguments with reasoning, citations, etc.  You don't.  Your say-so carries little weight.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think he feels that way for all aspects of the Church nor do I see him expressing such feelings at any opportunity that is presented to him.  I see a lot of missed opportunities for him to be disrespectful instead.

iow, I think your comment is a significant overstatement of his behavior and likely feelings.

Okay.  I revised it and apologize to @Analytics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You seldom offer substance.

You seldom offer coherence.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

He substantiated his arguments with reasoning, citations, etc.  You don't.  Your say-so carries little weight.

Whereas your mendacious chopping up of posts into tidbits and throwing one liners at them is weighty and substantive discourse.

If you want to be a jerk to transgender people and deny them rights go for it but don’t expect that doing it politely will shield you from being called a bigot. Their rights are an existential question for them in many ways while you have virtually nothing at stake except some vague “taking a stance” garbage that is somehow supposed to be viewed as a virtue. I am pretty sure church members picked this kind of victimization weirdness from the more nutty evangelicals. The ones who brought us great hits like the Satanic Panic and the Gay will convert your children hysteria. They were wrong before and are still wrong now. I am not convinced it is an innocent error. Latching on to dubious horrible stories or theoretical dangers is how this propaganda is created.

“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.” - C.S. Lewis

Hail Satan!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I revised it and apologize to @Analytics.

Thanks,

-Smac

What are you doing up at this insane hour?  There are way too many Americans on the board tonight. I am used to Dario and occasionally Nehor, but it is almost crowded tonight, lol

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

This is smac’s comment above.  

I see it more in line with respecting someone’s wish to avoid comments like “so-called prophet” or “Joe” rather than prophet or Joseph or not using Mormon and using Latter-day Saint instead as the preferred pronouns and names are not replacing pronouns and names that work for the individual or that they are comfortable with in many cases (most?), but they are replacing ones that upset them, come across as insults whether intended as such or not.  

The names and such chosen as replacements are usually simple and do not elevate the person above others as would labels you are suggesting.

I wonder how long would continue to associate with someone who continued to use that language after he kindly asked them to use the prophet’s correct name. I don’t think he would try to compel it, he would just disassociate.
 

Trans people would very likely do the same thing if someone refused to use preferred pronouns. They would disassociate . So how is that compeled speech? 

Edited December 21, 2024 by Peacefully

[Peacefully]

54 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I wonder how long would continue to associate with someone who continued to use that language after he kindly asked them to use the prophet’s correct name. I don’t think he would try to compel it, he would just disassociate.
 

Trans people would very likely do the same thing if someone refused to use preferred pronouns. They would disassociate . So how is that compeled speech? 

Meant to say “I wonder how long SMAC would continue…”

[smac97]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you want to be a jerk to transgender people and deny them rights go for it but don’t expect that doing it politely will shield you from being called a bigot.

"Jerk."

"Bigot."

Again, discussions such as this often devolve to this, as it's all you've got.  Agree with you or be branded a bigot.  You can't use reasoning and evidence and logic to defend the ideology that puts biological men into women's spaces (bathrooms, sports, prisons), that justifies radical medical interventions on gender-dysphoric minors, that is predicated on the incongruent-with-biological-science-and-reality notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, and so on.  So you instead seek to shout down and suppress viewpoints which diverge from that ideology, or even question it in any way.

You presuppose that males have a "right" to enter into women's spaces (bathrooms, sports, prisons).  That is the point in dispute, so I reject it as a presupposition.

As for the daily dose of "You're a Bigot!", I just saw these:

Yep.

Anyhoo, a person cannot "become" something he is not merely because he subjectively "identifies" as such.  I don't think we are doing any favors to these folks by joining them in this false perception of reality.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Their rights are an existential question for them in many ways

Well, no.  There is nothing "existential" about biological men having access to women's bathrooms and sports, so your claim as to those is overwrought and incorrect. 

There are some potential safety issues to some individuals re: "trans women" (biological men) in men's prison.  I acknowledge that.  But there are also substantial safety concerns as to the actual female inmates in women's prisons when biological males are moved there.  And I think ideologues pushing for this are never going to consent to any sort of limiting principle, which effectively results in any male prisoner being able to transfer to a women's prison by claiming to be trans. 

Because of this, I have attempted to explore the potential limiting principles (or the lack thereof) in relation to housing biological men in women's prisons.  As I have noted previously, I am curious how to create constitutionally-sufficient metrics for differentiating "fakers" from, as it were, "real" trans women (I reject the notion that any of them are "women," but I'll go along, arguendo, with the hypothetical distinction noted here).  As usual, you have nothing substantive to say about such matters, and instead resort to snark, emotionalisms and ad hominem.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

while you have virtually nothing at stake except some vague “taking a stance” garbage that is somehow supposed to be viewed as a virtue.

And more ad hominem.

As both a Latter-day Saint and as a citizen of the United States, I am observing troubling developments re: trans ideology and its advocates, and am sorting out a position on them.  Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't give much thought at all to what "trans"-identifying people do in their private lives, and I still don't.  But we are no longer speaking of purely private behaviors.  Instead, we are speaking of biological men intruding into women's bathrooms (without, it seems, any limiting principles), sports (same), and prisons (same), of radical, life-altering medical treatments/interventions on gender dysphoric minors, and so on.  The idealogues are the ones foisting this stuff onto the general public, and then people like you complain when people start to pay attention to it.  And rather than address these issues on their merits and using substantive reasoning, analysis, evidence, logic, etc., you pretty much always go for the "You're a Bigot!"-style attempts to shout down and suppress viewpoints which differ from yours. 

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am pretty sure church members picked this kind of victimization weirdness from the more nutty evangelicals.

I think the majority of people, not just members of the Church and "nutty evangelicals," have questions and concerns about biological men in women's bathrooms, sports, and prisons, of radical, life-altering medical treatments/interventions on gender dysphoric minors, and so on.  And rather than address those questions and concerns, you brand anyone who has them, anyone who voices a viewpoint different from yours on these matters, a bigot.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hail Satan!

I don't think you should say such things, even in angry jest.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 21, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see Smac’s reasoning as not choosing to associate with those he disagrees with, but more in line with certain evangelicals that have said they refuse to pray with LDS because they don’t want to give LDS the impression that LDS are right with God because that might lead LDS to not see a need for repentance and truly coming to God.  These evangelicals sincerely believe they would harm LDS by praying with them.

Smac can say whether my view is accurate or not. 

Do you see that attitude as Christ-like behavior?  Is this how we should treat others that are different than ourselves?

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

My comments are more about loaded language and compelled/coerced speech.

If someone wants to refer to Russell M. Nelson as "President Nelson," there is no stacked deck, no loaded language there.  A person like Analytics, who {EDIT} strongly disagrees with and  regularly speaks against and criticizes the Church, does not does not cede any ideological or rhetorical ground by using this designation.  Conversely, if I were to "kindly" ask Analytics to refer to Pres. Nelson Nelson by honorifics which do cede ideological ground (e.g. "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc.), then I think he (Analytics) would be justified in declining to go along with such "kindly" requests.

Similarly, "preferred pronouns" are, in my view, ideologically loaded terms.  If a man wants to go around "identifying" as a woman, I am largely indifferent to such matters.  I become less indifferent when "preferred pronouns" are presented.  As Nehor and others on this board so amply and regularly demonstrate, there is an overarching - though often unspoken - element of coercion in these "kindly" requests.  Go along with the pronouns or be branded a bigot.

I don't expect Analytics to refer to Pres. Nelson as "our beloved Prophet," even if I were to ask him nicely.  And I would not ask him, "nicely" or otherwise, because the request carries with it presuppositions that I would not want to put onto him.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you expect or kindly request that non-members refer to missionaries using the titles “Elder” and “Sister”? That is a better analogy.