Dan refutes Ben

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Did you miss @smac97 earlier thread on the topic of gender reassignment? A very lengthy discussion with numerous examples of "intervention" on under age children and a growing number of "de-transitioners" regretting the devastation on their lives.

Reuters has a 2022 statistical report - - - detailing: Puberty blockers, Hormone therapy, Top surgeries (mastectomies).

"A total of 17,683 patients, ages 6 through 17, with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis initiated either puberty blockers or hormones or both during the five-year period. Of these, 4,780 patients had initiated puberty blockers and 14,726 patients had initiated hormone treatment."

That statistic is not about gender reassignment surgery. It is about gender-affirming care. Surgery is very rare on minors. This fact is constantly and deliberately obscured.

Conflating the two (maliciously or ignorantly) just confuses the issue even more. Puberty blockers are not on the same level of intervention as “top surgery” or facial reconstruction and the like.

Also the detransitioning stats are warped by people temporarily or permanently detransitioning due to financial reasons and people who detransition due to social scorn or familial alienation and the like. Those aren’t people regretting their decision. It is people realizing the price is too high. And you are conflating things again talking about children and then jumping to detransitioning as if they are always connected. Most people who detransition are adults.

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Sorry if I gave you this impression. My point was Elder Lyman KNEW he needed a course correction but chose to keep "this minor wrinkle" secret from the Brethren. He claimed never to have had physical relations with her. Who knows but him and her. In any case he needed to consult with the Brethren about his second residence and be prepared to receive counsel.

"Impression"?  

"Minor Wrinkle " for a man in his position.

Uh huh.

There are absolutely no excuses.

Even if he felt that he could not "help himself" he should have resigned the morning after the first time.   He was not only damaging himself but the church reputation as well.

It could have been handled confidentially and never mentioned again, but here we are now, years later.

His position implies that his main goal in life should be one who "overcomes the world", but he acted like a confused teenager with no experience at overcoming anything.

It's a sad tale, we should not have even known about.   He needed to stand up like a Mensch.

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Puberty blockers are not on the same level of intervention as “top surgery” or facial reconstruction and the like.

That and the fact that the vast majority of individuals who receive "top surgery" as part of a gender affirmation treatment are not trans-men but CIS gendered men and boys:

Quote

When considering use of gender-affirming breast reductions among cisgender males and TGD people, the study found that cisgender males accounted for the vast majority of breast reductions, with 80% of surgeries among adults performed on cisgender men and 97% of surgeries among minors performed on cisgender male teens.

This is something that the earlier study did not address. When we discuss gender affirmation care, there is a significantly large amount of care going towards CIS gendered individuals who display traits associated with the other sex. 97% of breast reduction surgeries performed on minors for reasons not medically required for other diagnoses (like breast cancer) were performed for biological males who identified as male gendered - and their breasts were causing problems for their gender identity as males. This is partly why the other figures - about the hundreds of infants who are born in gender ambiguous states - matters. There is a desire to see gender as rigidly binary, but the biology itself isn't nearly as rigid as people want to believe.

As for the LDS Church, they formally disconnected biological sex from gender in the Proclamation on the Family: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal ... identity and purpose." There is no biology in the pre-existence, and at the very least, you would have to believe that somehow every individual born into a biologically ambiguous sexual body was corrected appropriately by surgeons as infants to avoid having to recognize that there is an existing problem. The LDS Church has decided in recent years (2020 handbook changes) to deal with this by policy - what is interesting here is that the LDS Church policy is - at least in it's content - is not much different from the view being criticized (this is from the General Handbook, 38.7.7):

Quote

Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals. Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary. Special compassion and wisdom are required when youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity experience emotional conflict regarding the gender decisions made in infancy or childhood and the gender with which they identify.

There is a clear recognition - both that some individuals may require gender affirming care including surgical interventions, and the recognition that such interventions when performed early may not have been made in the right direction. This is a problem that isn't going to go away any time soon. The LDS Church has a larger problem than some of the more progressive protestant branches of Christianity because they have rigid gender/biological sex roles in the Church and its hierarchy. A great deal is made about these ambiguous children in the context of holding the priesthood, getting married and sealed, and so on.

Edited January 26 by Benjamin McGuire

[Kenngo1969]

Thanks for the downvote ... Love those!    Sorry for having the wrong opinion , but ... whatever!  

 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The most frequent references in scripture to immigration and immigrants occur in the Old Testament, and can been seen by looking at two important words used to translate the concept in the Hebrew: Stranger and Sojourner. The primary instruction for ancient Israelites can be found in Exodus 22:21 (and the parallel texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 23:7 -

Leviticus 19:33-34

The Israelites weren't always particularly good at treating the immigrants in their lands as if they were natives, but, the commandments are there with regard to that.

The New Testament follows the Old Testament in much of its language, substituting the Greek παροικος and ξένος for the Hebrew גֵּר - but it is translated the same way. Matthew 25 has that bit in there that deals specifically with foreigners (aliens) in the parable of the sheep and the goats:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

To use a fairly neutral source, Strong's concordance defines the Greek word this way:

Now, I will also agree that immigration issues are significantly different today than they were three millennia ago (for innumerable reasons). However, as far as the Old and New Testaments describe the treatment of the immigrant - the stranger/sojourner/alien in your land, the scriptural texts are pretty clear. Criminalizing immigrants and then claiming that there is a morality in deporting them because they are criminals does not seem to fit well into that scriptural message. Trying to claim that the scriptures say the opposite of what they say is going even a step farther ...

I think these examples show general attitudes and principles, summed up with charity, must undergird all practical solutions, in this case specific immigration problems in our day. The method or approach to problem-solving is councils, and in this case, a secular application of the approach taught in the D&C.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not sure what you mean by this. Civic virtue is the idea that we should place the common good above our own. But, the current polarization seems to be at that lower level. The debate is over whose good do we want to promote, and how do we define our society for whom that good is supposed to exist. This is always the problem with identity politics. When we fragment society into groups, we are no longer really able to engage with a good for the entire society.

That is what I mean, and by teaching it children learn to be good citizens who actively participate in their community and act in a way that benefits others. Combined with charity and councils, the effects of polarization (including identity politics) can be overcome, prevented or softened so that workable solutions can be formulated. This includes looking out for the altruists so they can keep benefitting others.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

As for the LDS Church, they formally disconnected biological sex from gender in the Proclamation on the Family: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal ... identity and purpose."

"they formally disconnected" ? Oh come on now! Only in your most feverish imaginations.

The Proclamation has zero occurrence of the word sex in the text. And just ONE reference to the word gender which you outlined. It is VERY telling how you used ellipses to hide or obscure two important words.

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." - - - this is the state required for the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is no biology in the pre-existence,

We do not know the process by which intelligences became spirit children of Heavenly Parents. We DO know we have Heavenly Father whose gender is definitely MALE. And Heavenly Mother whose gender is definitely FEMALE. Spirit children are explicitly SONS and DAUGHTERS. Nothing in between. No ambiguity. Any confusion during mortal existence will be decisively resolved in the Eternities by re-affirming gender identity established in the pre-existence.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and at the very least, you would have to believe that somehow every individual born into a biologically ambiguous sexual body was corrected appropriately by surgeons as infants to avoid having to recognize that there is an existing problem.

At the new born and infant stage, this problem is very rare.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The LDS Church has decided in recent years (2020 handbook changes) to deal with this by policy - what is interesting here is that the LDS Church policy is - at least in it's content - is not much different from the view being criticized (this is from the General Handbook, 38.7.7):

38.7.7 is only referencing the new born and infant physical anomalies. NOT to later years in which there is emotional discontent or disturbance that is sometimes arbitrarily and too frequently diagnosed as gender dysphoria.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for the downvote ... Love those!    Sorry for having the wrong opinion , but ... whatever!  

 

I’m often rude on here. But I can’t imagine having the gall to complain about downvotes if for example I said Russell Nelson was standing on a soap box and virtue signaling. Some people are such snow flakes. 

Edited January 26 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m often rude on here. But I can’t imagine having the gall to complain about downvotes if for example I said Russell Nelson was standing on a soap box and virtue signaling. Some people are such snow flakes. 

Oh, I know!  Agggghhhhhh!  I'm melting ... melting!!! 😁  

I can't imagine President Nelson:

• Giving a political sermon, and
• Targeting someone who was invited to attend that sermon and who was sitting in the front row.

But, perhaps I don't know President Nelson as well as I thought I did.  

Edited January 26 by Kenngo1969

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, longview said:

"they formally disconnected" ? Oh come on now! Only in your most feverish imaginations.

Nope, it's not in my imagination, sorry.

1 hour ago, longview said:

The Proclamation has zero occurrence of the word sex in the text.

The part that I highlighted is taken directly from something written by Elder James Talmage in 1922:

We affirm as reasonable, scriptural, and true, the eternity of sex among the children of God. The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life. It was an essential characteristic of our pre-existent condition, even as it shall continue after death, in both disembodied and resurrected states .... [The] scriptures attest a state of existence preceding mortality, in which the spirit children of God lived, doubtless with distinguishing characteristics, including the distinction of sex, "before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. "The Eternity of Sex," Millennial Star (24 August 1922): 530. The term was changed to gender because of the awareness of the difference between biological sex and gender - an issue that we were of aware of in the 1990s, and not in the 1920s. In any case, there is clearly a disconnect between an attribute that you can have in a disembodied state and the biology that comes with mortality. And this is true whether you like it or not.

1 hour ago, longview said:

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

The problem is, as I will keep pointing out, that it is clear from the evidence here in mortality, that biological sex is not an essential characteristic of "individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." This in and of itself should be self-evident. The problem that arises comes when we draw the conclusion that biological sex is always equivalent to that individual eternal gender. The problem that we face is that with our limited understanding, we aren't in a position to determine what everyone's eternal gender is simply by looking at their biology - and this is particularly true for those who are born into bodies that have an indeterminate biological sex (intersex persons). When doctors perform gender reassignment surgeries on infants, they do so using their own best judgment as to which to assign (including which gender they think will most likely work out best for the individual). But this still leaves open the question of whether or not that guess was right or not.

1 hour ago, longview said:

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." - - - this is the state required for the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom.

I am not arguing against this point. The issue is about what happens when someone is assigned the wrong biological gender at birth. Perhaps you want to suggest that this would never happen. The LDS Church Handbook at least recognizes the difficulty.

1 hour ago, longview said:

We do not know the process by which intelligences became spirit children of Heavenly Parents. We DO know we have Heavenly Father whose gender is definitely MALE. And Heavenly Mother whose gender is definitely FEMALE. Spirit children are explicitly SONS and DAUGHTERS. Nothing in between. No ambiguity. Any confusion during mortal existence will be decisively resolved in the Eternities by re-affirming gender identity established in the pre-existence.

But we aren't yet in the eternities, and whether you like it or not, we have people that are facing a problem where their biology and their eternal gender is misaligned. Now, I have no idea whether or not this is the cause of gender dysphoria. The LDS church suggests that it may be the cause of it in at least some cases. But this sort of rigid thinking on your part doesn't reflect any reality that am aware of.

1 hour ago, longview said:

At the new born and infant stage, this problem is very rare.

So is gender reassignment surgery for minors. And this is part of the point I am trying to make. You are letting your ideology drive all of what you say rather than any look at what is actually happening.

1 hour ago, longview said:

38.7.7 is only referencing the new born and infant physical anomalies. NOT to later years in which there is emotional discontent or disturbance that is sometimes arbitrarily and too frequently diagnosed as gender dysphoria.

So, you should actually read it first ... "However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary." The way that this seems intended is to suggest that by waiting to perform gender reassignment, parents and children can discover what their gender is before taking steps to allow their biology to conform to that gender identity.

Clearly though, it seems unlikely that you and I are ever going to come to some sort of agreement on this issue ...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, I know!  Agggghhhhhh!  I'm melting ... melting!!! 😁  

I can't imagine President Nelson:

• Giving a political sermon, and
• Targeting someone who was invited to attend that sermon and who was sitting in the front row.

But, perhaps I don't know President Nelson as well as I thought I did.  

Help me out with which part you disagree with. Which part is political?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump

Edited January 26 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Help me out with which part you disagree with. Which part is political?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump

I appreciate, so much, your very kind, very helpful invitation to steer the conversation [more] political.  I refuse to believe, however, that you don't know that, under the rules of this forum, such an action would get me banned or would result in the thread being locked—and while you might not mind either of those outcomes, I'm not going to oblige you.

Thanks, all the same, for your very kind invitation!  

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I appreciate, so much, your very kind, very helpful invitation to steer the conversation [more] political.  I refuse to believe, however, that you don't know that, under the rules of this forum, such an action would get me banned or would result in the thread being locked—and while you might not mind either of those outcomes, I'm not going to oblige you.

Thanks, all the same, for your very kind invitation!  

I take your offending post to point out only two things: virtue signaling / swaggering does not persuade, no matter who we congratulate or condemn for these kinds of communication (or correctly perceive the intent or not); and, there is some truth in liberalism, some truth in conservatism, whether religious/doctrinal or political/partisan.

So what's the problem? [Insert the "shrug" emoji here, I can't find it  !!!]

Edited January 26 by CV75

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

virtue signaling / swaggering

None of which was more in evidence in her sermon than a typical general conference sermon. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I appreciate, so much, your very kind, very helpful invitation to steer the conversation [more] political.  I refuse to believe, however, that you don't know that, under the rules of this forum, such an action would get me banned or would result in the thread being locked—and while you might not mind either of those outcomes, I'm not going to oblige you.

Thanks, all the same, for your very kind invitation!  

Lol. Was it her plea to “genuinely care for one another”? Was it her call for mercy towards those that are scared? A plea to have mercy and be compassionate to immigrant and LGBTQ folks. So political. Was it this hateful rhetoric? “honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.” oh my gosh lady. Get off your hateful soapbox! My conservative snowflake ears are burning!

 

Edited January 27 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

None of which was more in evidence in her sermon than a typical general conference sermon. 

I wasn't looking at it from that perspective, and I'm not comparing or judging his, yours or or any other poster's perceptions.

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Lol. Was it her plea to “genuinely care for one another”? Was it her call for mercy towards those that are scared? A plea to have mercy and be compassionate to immigrant and LGBTQ folks. So political. Was it this hateful rhetoric? “honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.” oh my gosh lady. Get off your hateful soapbox! My conservative snowflake ears are burning!

Now provide some comparative quotes from the last general conference (this is a CFR for your claim that there is no more virtue signaling / swaggering in her sermon than a typical general conference sermon. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/24/2025 at 11:21 AM, Mfbnew said:

.............................

....... I think that our new "Post-Mormon" church is well established to become postmodern as well- which enhances- I believe- the entire idea of personal revelation.   Our dear prophet President Nelson is actually -imo- the most postmodern church president we have ever had- but my historical knowledge of church history is quite weak really.

Crudely stated postmodernism is about "my truth" vs "your truth".   You can't get closer to that then a church which encourages receiving one's own revelations!

To be direct, I think J.S. Mill was a wonderful philosopher, but his position was incomplete as compared to, say, James or Heidegger, Rorty , or Wittgenstein.

"Strong interaction of opposing views" imo clearly shows a progression in ideas, and for me, sticking with JS Mill is like wanting to stick with a Model T Ford rather than something more contemporary.

Mormon to post-Mormon to post-modern is an intriguing sequence, and much of what you say here makes sense.  However, I still love Mill, and I like the way the Brethren reach consensus over time.  God seems to prefer that we figure things out for ourselves, even though the faint of heart complain about that aspect of the Gospel.  We should welcome the school of hard knocks.  We are visiting here to learn, not on vacation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now provide some comparative quotes from the last general conference (this is a CFR for your claim that there is no more virtue signaling / swaggering in her sermon than a typical general conference sermon. 

From Nelson:

”Vulgarity, faultfinding, and evil speaking of others are all too common. Too many pundits, politicians, entertainers, and other influencers throw insults constantly. I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign, and vilify anyone who does not agree with them. Many seem eager to damage another’s reputation with pathetic and pithy barbs!”

Oh the humanity! The soapboxing virtue signaling!! (emphasis mine)

Further:

“My dear brothers and sisters, how we treat each other really matters! How we speak to and about others at home, at church, at work, and online really matters. Today, I am asking us to interact with others in a higher, holier way. Please listen carefully. “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy”10 that we can say about another person—whether to his face or behind her back—that should be our standard of communication.”

“Brothers and sisters, the pure love of Christ is the answer to the contention that ails us today. Charity propels us “to bear one another’s burdens”16 rather than heap burdens upon each other.”

My poor liberal ears are bleeding from the scorn!

Edited January 27 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Now provide some comparative quotes from the last general conference (this is a CFR for your claim that there is no more virtue signaling / swaggering in her sermon than a typical general conference sermon. 

I posted a GC talk earlier in the thread on unity that her sermon reminded me of (absent the specific call out to Trump).  I can’t remember when it was from though.  Perhaps you missed my post?

Edited January 27 by Calm

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From Nelson:

”Vulgarity, faultfinding, and evil speaking of others are all too common. Too many pundits, politicians, entertainers, and other influencers throw insults constantly. I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign, and vilify anyone who does not agree with them. Many seem eager to damage another’s reputation with pathetic and pithy barbs!”

Oh the humanity! The soapboxing virtue signaling!! (emphasis mine)

Further:

“My dear brothers and sisters, how we treat each other really matters! How we speak to and about others at home, at church, at work, and online really matters. Today, I am asking us to interact with others in a higher, holier way. Please listen carefully. “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy”10 that we can say about another person—whether to his face or behind her back—that should be our standard of communication.”

“Brothers and sisters, the pure love of Christ is the answer to the contention that ails us today. Charity propels us “to bear one another’s burdens”16 rather than heap burdens upon each other.”

My poor liberal ears are bleeding from the scorn!

A man said that though.  Seriously, I feel this isn’t a fair comparison.  For example, I’m getting in a bathroom break, a snack break, or doing really anything else but listening to what is being said when a woman gets up and speaks in GC. 
 

As a straight white man who is looking forward to the next four years, I generally have next to zero interest in hearing anything said by a lesbian bishop who thinks she speaks for Jesus.  (I see conflicting reports she had an open marriage, lived with two dudes, etc.  I dunno, she looks like a lesbian, and I don’t have to pretend to care if I’m wrong anymore). 
 

But…

 

As has been pointed out, she had a captive audience.  Trump couldn’t just get up and get a Diet Coke.  And I just feel it’s disrespectful to waste his time like that.  Anyways, everyone in the country, except you guys apparently, have moved on from this.  And her 15 minutes are over.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

For example, I’m getting in a bathroom break, a snack break, or doing really anything else but listening to what is being said when a woman gets up and speaks in GC.

Assuming you are serious….if you are not, please let me know.

Why do you think it’s appropriate to ignore women speakers in GC?

Quote

 I don’t have to pretend to care if I’m wrong anymore

Why would you feel the need to pretend in the past?

Edited January 27 by Calm

[halconero]

Genuine question:

If the president attended General Conference, and Patrick Kearon delivered his famous talk on refugees, would we suggest that Elder Kearon “targeted” the POTUS?

And if so, why is that a bad thing?

If Christ’s ministers aren’t “targeting” those in the world in most need of Christian principles and ethics, what are we even doing here?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, SteveO said:

I don’t have to pretend to care if I’m wrong anymore

If you were trying before, you weren’t fooling anyone. Just sayin’

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

Now provide some comparative quotes from the last general conference (this is a CFR for your claim that there is no more virtue signaling / swaggering in her sermon than a typical general conference sermon. 

I'm horning in the middle of this conversation and probably need to butt out, but if a sermon was needed at hand, then so be it!