Richard Ostler listen learn and love. Is i5 understanding, or rebellion against church doctrine?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you implying that our prophets and apostles haven't spoken clearly on this subject?

They have but they always appeal to tradition or the philosophies of men to back it up. Not revealed truth.

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone demanded a " Thus saith the Lord..." in order to follow clear scriptural doctrine?

It is not at all clear in the scriptures. We have an Old Testament command of doubtful authenticity and/or translation. Then we have a bunch of New Testament references that are more about religious practices than sex.

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If a brother and sister desire to marry should they demand a "Thus saith the Lord..." before they abandon their plans?

And of course we have to compare being attracted to your own gender it to pedophilia, bestiality, and/or incest because for whatever reasons everyone assumes an equivalency.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They have but they always appeal to tradition or the philosophies of men to back it up. Not revealed truth.

It is not at all clear in the scriptures. We have an Old Testament command of doubtful authenticity and/or translation. Then we have a bunch of New Testament references that are more about religious practices than sex.

And of course we have to compare being attracted to your own gender it to pedophilia, bestiality, and/or incest because for whatever reasons everyone assumes an equivalency.

Try harder... I left off the first two because there can be no consent from one of the parties. The example of consenting adult siblings is perfectly legitimate for comparison purposes.

So I ask you... Where is a clear "Thus saith the Lord..." confirming church policy that disallows siblings from marrying?

Or ...

Explain to me why you would deny consenting adult siblings the opportunity to marry?

Edited March 30, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/28/2025 at 9:46 AM, manol said:

Well I certainly don't disagree with this!  Still imo we are to do the best we can down here.

We have been taught to love our neighbor, and we have been taught that judging our neighbor is NOT our job.  Imo we don't need to wait until we understand everything underlying those two teachings in order to align ourselves to them. 

Sounds good to me.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Try harder... I left off the first two because there can be no consent from one of the parties. The example of consenting adult siblings is perfectly legitimate for comparison purposes.

Usually the response is that power dynamics from childhood do not end when you become an adult and the danger of grooming leading to such a marriage is more likely to entrap victime. So not analogous.

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So I ask you... Where is a clear "Thus saith the Lord..." confirming church policy that disallows siblings from marrying?

A fair question but you should really be asking the apostles instead of me. I am perfectly okay with people requesting clarification from the apostles on this point.

You are shifting the burden of proof here. I want revelation on a point. You are whinging that that would mean we might need revelation on more points. I say that is great. More revelation good! Treating revelation as a slippery slope where getting some might lead to the desire for more is silly. 

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Explain to me why you would deny consenting adult siblings the opportunity to marry?

The same reason it is illegal for public teachers to have sex with their students even if the student is legally of age. The dangers of predation.

So no, same gender relationships are not analogous to incest.

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Usually the response is that power dynamics from childhood do not end when you become an adult and the danger of grooming leading to such a marriage is more likely to entrap victime. So not analogous.

A fair question but you should really be asking the apostles instead of me. I am perfectly okay with people requesting clarification from the apostles on this point.

You are shifting the burden of proof here. I want revelation on a point. You are whinging that that would mean we might need revelation on more points. I say that is great. More revelation good! Treating revelation as a slippery slope where getting some might lead to the desire for more is silly. 

The same reason it is illegal for public teachers to have sex with their students even if the student is legally of age. The dangers of predation.

So no, same gender relationships are not analogous to incest.

Plus genetics.

[MustardSeed]

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

Plus genetics.

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Rain said:

Plus genetics.

I didn’t want to deal with that not applying to some queer relationships since biological reproduction is unlikely or impossible and possibly suggesting it is okay in those instances.

[JVW]

On 3/26/2025 at 11:30 PM, grapevine said:

He was a ysa Bishop and says he had a few gay people in congregation.  Seems to seek out people with same gender attraction.  Wrote books on listening learning and loving.  However could that be going as far as condoning and wanting the church to change?  Seek not to counsel your God.

 

Church leaders are very compassionate to those that struggle with temptations, want them to overcome them.  However the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.  Jeffrey R Holland said in Oct 2014 Conf Jeausmhad infinite capacity to forgive, but never said it was ok to sin ever.

 

Wants us to repent of sins, confess and forsake rather than justify and continue.  M. Russell Ballard said false prophets are those that justify homosexual behavior and champion legalization of so called same gender marriage.

 

There is not a place in the church for practicing gay members.  Anymore than practicing adulterers, co habiters, adulterers, thief’s, or any other sins.  Lord can’t lower standards to accommodate disobedient children.

Repentance is possible for people that engage in serious sins and hopefully people will repent.  Seems like he is searching* out those people and seeking justifications.  You can’t commit serious sins and be a full time member of the church.

 

If you don’t yield you will be leased and can continue in the church.  There are some people that overcome same gender attraction and are married to opposite sex people.  Others don’t yield.  Those that repent can move forward in the church too.  
 

We should be compassionate is he advocating that?  Or is it justification for things the Lord has said are serious sin?  Many gay people do have biological children, and  those that avail themselves of so called marriages have a high divorce rate, some have had multiple marriages.

 

I don’t know what percentage of those people avail themselves of so called marriages but seems like there is less cohabitation among opposite sex couples when those things are available.  Besides monogamy in gay community is rare to begin with.  I think few people have the same partner there life.  
 

Sin is legalized is still sin in the eyes of God.  Many General Authorities are very compassionate with people who have those challenges.  Like woman taking in adultery Jesus told her to sin no more and she believed.  They shed tears with people that struggle with temptations.  Even those that yielded as well.

 

but they help people  turn away from sin.  Not try to lower lords standards so what people are doing are not sins.  Saying peope, should leave church if they have to to show love for gay children.  Jesus himself said he that loves Father or mother or son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

People,wit(gender dysphoria and lbgt are things that people struggle with.  But shouldn’t we listen to prophets.  Being compassionate to those with temptations is one thing.  However advocating there sins could be more of justification.  Is what he does compassionate, or more of a justifucati9n for people that yield to temptation not wanting it to be sin?

 

Sad thing is those that never repent will be miserable and sadly the devil does not support those that follow him in the end but speedily drags them to hell.  That’s why people should  repent before they are drug down by Prince of darkness.

 

I can't believe that this OP resulted in 5 pages. I wonder how many pages I could get just posting random lorem ipsum text and throwing the word quiltbag+ in there? I have no idea what the OP is trying to say, and I don't think he's commented since in order to clarify.

For the record I believe that trans is a social contagion for women and a fetish for men, and that any divergent sexual attraction is, in part, related to aluminum in the brain and/or porn. Have fun everyone.

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

For the record I believe that trans is a social contagion for women and a fetish for men, and that any divergent sexual attraction is, in part, related to aluminum in the brain and/or porn. Have fun everyone.

CFR - really for all of it. I know that ROGD has been discredited. Where the rest of this stuff comes from, I really have no idea, and would like to know.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, JVW said:

For the record I believe that trans is a social contagion for women and a fetish for men, and that any divergent sexual attraction is, in part, related to aluminum in the brain and/or porn. Have fun everyone.

You could abbreviate that and just say;

”I believe in pseudoscience”

 

If true, I would have to paraphrase Tony Stark in saying:

”I am Aluminum Man.”

The hard question is whether to go with the American or British pronunciation.

In any case as a depraved pervert I can confirm that your guess is wrong.

Edited March 31, 2025 by The Nehor

[Teancum]

On 3/29/2025 at 11:41 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

T's are always welcome to choose to join the ranks of those detransitioning and qualify themselves to go to the House of the Lord.

Those experiencing SSA, who feel unable to marry heterosexually, are welcome to choose to exercise faith, follow prophetic counsel, live worthily single and receive the fullness of Celestial blessings, or live how they want and enjoy mortal life on their terms.

It's all a choice.

It is amazing to me the certitude that people who are dogmatic and seem certain that they have the truth are so flippant about clearly difficult things like human sexuality and transexual issues. And Latter day Saints I know were kinda this way over the priesthood ban and they still are about the priesthood bad for women and a variety of things.  And this not withstanding that there is a myriad of things over the history of humans that religion has gotten very very wrong. Even to the point of killing heretics and dissenters. Yet here we are in the 21st century and you just flippantly say people can simply de-transition and "qualify" to attend the temple and so on and well homosexuals' should just live a celibate life. Easy for you to be flippant about such things. @bluebellwho seems a solid believer seems to have become wise enough to understand that some things really are not quite that simple. I think your comments on this thread are a good example, at least to me, as to why overall religion is really not all that great for humans to be so dogmatic about.

[Teancum]

On 3/29/2025 at 6:00 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/07/29/liberal-churches-are-shrinking/

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/04/06/converts-children-missionaries/

 

Thank  you

[Teancum]

On 3/29/2025 at 11:55 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Speaking the truth, even in love, has always been seen as self-righteous...

That is because it is self righteous and thinking you are cloaking it in love is disingenuous.

On 3/29/2025 at 11:55 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

(see the examples of Abinadi, Alma and Amulek, and others in the Book of Mormon who were asked "What great sin have we committed to be judged of you?")

It's par for the course.

 

Another example of why religion is bad for us.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 3/29/2025 at 6:00 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/07/29/liberal-churches-are-shrinking/

The problem here is that it doesn't actually appear to be true. Or rather - that conservative churches are in fact shrinking - and catching up to more liberal groups. Consider this study. What we see in this study shouldn't be a surprise. More conservative religious groups have managed to keep from declining as much as their more liberal counterparts because those that stay are older or are bouyed up by immigrant populations. Between 2013 and 2020, the median age for the more conservative churches rose the most - white evangelicals jumped from 53 to 56 over this seven year span. Even Mormonism is included in this group - increasing from 44 to 47. At the same time, white mainline protestants saw their median age decrease (from 52 to 50). This suggests that what was happening was that older people were moving in a more conservative direction and younger people were moving in a less conservative direction (at least for those that have stayed religious).

Part of what makes this relatively recent decline interesting is that it is largely skewed by gender. While men have been disaffiliating from churches, women have been doing so in much higher numbers - and primarily younger women. And this is where the figures are catching up with the conservative churches. Mormonism isn't bucking this trend either. The headline of this article (published this past Saturday by Deseret News) isn't really accurate, but it points to a problem that exists in Mormonism:

Quote

In some faith traditions in the U.S., men make up a larger proportion of the membership. For example, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, men make up 52% and women 47%, which is a subtle reversal from the last Religious Landscape Study study in 2014, in which men and women breakdown fell at 46% and 54% respectively.

A shift of 7% in a decade isn't a small thing - and the evidence suggests that it was much less than a decade. In the survey data referenced at this link, when looking at LDS women between 18 and 30, between 2015 and 2019 73% of Mormon women reported that they viewed religion as "Very Important" compared to 53% in the 2020-2023 time frame (a drop of 20%). Similarly, weekly attendance dropped from 73% to 59% when comparing that same time periods. There isn't a corresponding shift for men. The recent article from Deseret News that I linked to suggests that there is a real connection between this decline in women participating in traditional conservative churches (including Mormonism) and progressive viewpoints:

Quote

But despite similar religious practices, young Christian men and women are increasingly divided on social and political issues. This divide is not due to differences in faith but rather broader cultural and social influences, according to Daniel Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life, who wrote about the gender gap between Christian men and women.

Over the past decade, young Christian women have become more supportive of abortion rights, while young men have grown less supportive of LGBTQ issues, widening the ideological divide. Young Christian women are more progressive, with 61% supporting abortion rights (compared to 48% of men) and 75% believing homosexuality should be accepted (versus 49% of men), according to Pew. Women are also more likely to favor a larger government providing public services.

What seems likely, Cox wrote, “is that young Christians are being exposed to the same cultural divides afflicting secular young people.” Even when attending the same church, the social context for young men and women differs significantly: Young Christian women are more likely to have close friends who identify as LGBTQ, which influences their views on policies related to these issues, he wrote.

Mormonism is not escaping this trend. It is problematic to talk about the decline of Churches in terms of their progressive content without also acknowledging that the conservative churches are aging - they are losing their younger members rapidly - and in particular in a gender imbalanced fashion. Conservative churches will continue to have slower declines - but this is in part due to gains made in immigrant communities. And it can only sustain itself for so long - as the median age rises, so to will population declines. The sharper declines we are currently seeing in these more conservative churches may become even more dramatic with the current shift in immigration policies here in the United States.

Finally, there is no question that the LDS Church is still growing (at very modest rates). And U.S. growth of the Church is still climbing (at least on the formal membership roles) - but the annual growth rate is less than 1% currently in the U.S. - and if most of that growth is coming from children of record, and young people are the most likely to disaffiliate, there are going to be problems. With the rising median age of LDS Church membership in the U.S., we can expect actual numbers to start to decline relatively soon (in the next few years) unless there is something that alters that trajectory. Of course, the international LDS Church will likely continue to grow into the foreseeable future.

Edited March 31, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

CFR - really for all of it. I know that ROGD has been discredited. Where the rest of this stuff comes from, I really have no idea, and would like to know.

Lol, no CFR needed. I'm stating a belief. It's not really founded on anything. But since you are curious, my (very brief and not thorough) reasoning is as follows:

- Women have a history of altering their behavior based on the behavior of their peers. Anorexia has a social contagion element (first article to pop up when searched: https://centerfordiscovery.com/blog/eating-disorders-contagious/). Tourette's actually has a social contagion element (first article to pop up when searched: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-catching/202110/the-girls-who-caught-tourettes-tiktok). I don't believe trans would be a thing in the female population without social media because before social media it wasn't really a thing.

- Men are creeps, obsessed with sex, western culture is porn culture, and teenage years are hard. Due to the fact that porn is now 4k video, VR, etc. not like VHS and magazines of old it's causing all sorts of brain rewiring. Men dressing up as women has always been a male fetishist thing. I don't think that I'm presenting some new novel idea here.

I will add a caveat here that I'm referring to the uncommitted trans. If someone gets bottom surgery that is a huge commitment and it's way harder than taking drugs. Taking drugs and crossdressing is not a difficult thing to do, bottom surgery is an entirely different animal.

Porn isn't something that I imagine I could really persuade people on whether or not it's addictive. If you know, you know. Most people who are addicted to anything don't even recognize that they are addicted until they hit rock bottom, after all the first step in overcoming addiction is recognizing that you have a problem. Considering the sheer amount of time people around the world spend watching porn, for me it's just an intuitive no-brainer. And to say that porn doesn't cause any change to brain chemistry or wiring is stupid, everything we do has an impact on our brains. The Hub has stopped reporting on certain annual metrics since 2020, but consider this 2019 annual review the Hub released: https://fightthenewdrug.org/2019-pornhub-annual-report/ Every ***minute*** in 2019 there were 80,000 site visits, 220,000 video views, and 11,000 hours watched just on this one site.

Here is an article that stands out as fairly comprehensive while balancing digestibility regarding potential impacts of injecting aluminum. It is well sourced but you'll have to suspend any preconceptions you may have that would cause you to not consider the evidence provided as the author who compiled the information frames it around the Autism debate, which is a very touchy subject. It's probably a 1-2 hour read. https://jbhandley.substack.com/p/international-scientists-have-found

IDK what ROGD means.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

Lol, no CFR needed. I'm stating a belief. It's not really founded on anything.

I’m shocked.

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

But since you are curious, my (very brief and not thorough) reasoning is as follows:

- Women have a history of altering their behavior based on the behavior of their peers. Anorexia has a social contagion element (first article to pop up when searched: https://centerfordiscovery.com/blog/eating-disorders-contagious/). Tourette's actually has a social contagion element (first article to pop up when searched: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-catching/202110/the-girls-who-caught-tourettes-tiktok). I don't believe trans would be a thing in the female population without social media because before social media it wasn't really a thing.

If they just want to be accepted with the queer ‘cool kids’ there are much easier identities to claim. Demiboy, demigirl, non-binary, bisexual, whatever. All are pretty well accepted. All will get you much less persecution. The only social contagion aspect for trans people is that it is marginally more okay to be open about it. 

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

- Men are creeps, obsessed with sex, western culture is porn culture, and teenage years are hard. Due to the fact that porn is now 4k video, VR, etc. not like VHS and magazines of old it's causing all sorts of brain rewiring. Men dressing up as women has always been a male fetishist thing. I don't think that I'm presenting some new novel idea here.

Odd, my femboy phase was brought on by my then-gf’s desires. She was bi too and liked to dress me up when she was feeling sapphic. She was the creep?

And it is not exclusively a male fetishist thing. Also you don’t have to identify as trans to crossdress. Femboys are a thing and crossdressing is common in queer and/or kink spaces. Again, if it is just a fetish you don’t have to transition. I knew a guy who put on a skirt primarily to attract women though he liked the feel of it too. It worked.

Also in my younger and wilder days I spent a lot of time in the fetish and kink scenes. The women were often more obsessed. I wouldn’t say they were creepy as that has a predatory aspect to it. More intense definitely.

 

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

I will add a caveat here that I'm referring to the uncommitted trans. If someone gets bottom surgery that is a huge commitment and it's way harder than taking drugs. Taking drugs and crossdressing is not a difficult thing to do, bottom surgery is an entirely different animal.

The “uncommitted trans”? Getting bottom surgery is not some make or break for trans people. Most never get any form of ‘bottom’ surgery. Getting it is less a matter of commitment and more a function of how your dysphoria manifests, whether you want it, how much of a risk you are willing to take, and (especially in the US) whether you can afford it. 

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

Porn isn't something that I imagine I could really persuade people on whether or not it's addictive. If you know, you know. Most people who are addicted to anything don't even recognize that they are addicted until they hit rock bottom, after all the first step in overcoming addiction is recognizing that you have a problem. Considering the sheer amount of time people around the world spend watching porn, for me it's just an intuitive no-brainer. And to say that porn doesn't cause any change to brain chemistry or wiring is stupid, everything we do has an impact on our brains. The Hub has stopped reporting on certain annual metrics since 2020, but consider this 2019 annual review the Hub released: https://fightthenewdrug.org/2019-pornhub-annual-report/ Every ***minute*** in 2019 there were 80,000 site visits, 220,000 video views, and 11,000 hours watched just on this one site.

Quite a bit of truth there.

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

Here is an article that stands out as fairly comprehensive while balancing digestibility regarding potential impacts of injecting aluminum. It is well sourced but you'll have to suspend any preconceptions you may have that would cause you to not consider the evidence provided as the author who compiled the information frames it around the Autism debate, which is a very touchy subject. It's probably a 1-2 hour read. https://jbhandley.substack.com/p/international-scientists-have-found

There is no “autism debate” around vaccines. There is science and pseudoscience. Now it also somehow makes you gay and/or transgender and/or kinky?

And the source is someone who has jumped on the discredited but lucrative ‘vaccines cause autism’ bandwagon that was started by a scammer and has a history of being pushed by more scammers but some insist there must be some truth behind it despite all the ongoing scamming.

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

IDK what ROGD means.

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, basically the idea that peers cause suddenly occurring gender dysphoria. The one study that seemed to back this idea was based on parents of transgender kids saying that it was ‘peer pressure’. When you asked actual trans people not so much. Nor do the numbers back this up when you try to correct for everything else. Transgender and other queer people more likely to be open about it because it is more permissible? Yeah, that is happening. People without dysphoria jumping to be transgender for clout or something is not really a thing.

[JVW]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I’m shocked.

If they just want to be accepted with the queer ‘cool kids’ there are much easier identities to claim. Demiboy, demigirl, non-binary, bisexual, whatever. All are pretty well accepted. All will get you much less persecution. The only social contagion aspect for trans people is that it is marginally more okay to be open about it. 

Odd, my femboy phase was brought on by my then-gf’s desires. She was bi too and liked to dress me up when she was feeling sapphic. She was the creep?

And it is not exclusively a male fetishist thing. Also you don’t have to identify as trans to crossdress. Femboys are a thing and crossdressing is common in queer and/or kink spaces. Again, if it is just a fetish you don’t have to transition. I knew a guy who put on a skirt primarily to attract women though he liked the feel of it too. It worked.

Also in my younger and wilder days I spent a lot of time in the fetish and kink scenes. The women were often more obsessed. I wouldn’t say they were creepy as that has a predatory aspect to it. More intense definitely.

You are trying to tell me that men aren't perverted creeps motivated, in large part, by sex in many aspects of their social life? I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Nice meme though, made me chuckle.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The “uncommitted trans”? Getting bottom surgery is not some make or break for trans people. Most never get any form of ‘bottom’ surgery. Getting it is less a matter of commitment and more a function of how your dysphoria manifests, whether you want it, how much of a risk you are willing to take, and (especially in the US) whether you can afford it.

I understand that it doesn't matter for trans people. Nothing matters to them except for me to buy into their personal belief system that isn't scientifically provable. It matters to me though. If someone feels so passionately about it that they do more than the "feel good" parts of trans then I have respect for their commitment.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no “autism debate” around vaccines. There is science and pseudoscience. Now it also somehow makes you gay and/or transgender and/or kinky?

And the source is someone who has jumped on the discredited but lucrative ‘vaccines cause autism’ bandwagon that was started by a scammer and has a history of being pushed by more scammers but some insist there must be some truth behind it despite all the ongoing scamming.

My reply hasn't even been up long enough for you to have read the entire article. You're right, there is no debate - for you, because you aren't being scientific. There's always a debate in science, the moment the debate stops science is dead and has become religious dogma. Go read the article and then come back and we can chat about it. I personally don't believe that vaccines cause autism, doesn't mean that the article sucks though, it's a great article.

I don't know a lot of stuff. But I know that aluminum is a neurotoxin and people are injecting a bunch of that crap en masse and I go outside and see people walking around and they act like they have brain damage.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, basically the idea that peers cause suddenly occurring gender dysphoria. The one study that seemed to back this idea was based on parents of transgender kids saying that it was ‘peer pressure’. When you asked actual trans people not so much. Nor do the numbers back this up when you try to correct for everything else. Transgender and other queer people more likely to be open about it because it is more permissible? Yeah, that is happening. People without dysphoria jumping to be transgender for clout or something is not really a thing.

Thanks for the definition.

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 minutes ago, JVW said:

But since you are curious, my (very brief and not thorough) reasoning is as follows:

Well, let me offer a little insight. I will repeat the idea that ROGD (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria) has never been established through evidence - that is the technical term for your notion of transgenderism as a "social contagion". You can read about the issues here if you want. Transgendered persons (those who suffer from Gender Dysphoria) aren't generally treated when they are young. There is some use of puberty blockers (to allow for decisions to be made one individuals are older) but even the use of this therapy is trending downwards. Medical professionals aren't going to simply take a young girl who has seem something on social media and move forward with a gender dysphoria diagnosis. They are going to follow the clinical guidelines. And, of course, the idea that someone develops the symptoms and related conditions associated with gender dysphoria through social interaction hasn't been demonstrated (studies attempting to look at this issue have tended to find evidence against it as the link explains).

Making a claim like this is problematic - because it is akin to arguing that not only is transgenderism bad, it is contagious - and that we have to aggressively push back on it to prevent a transgender epidemic. It is a way of dehumanizing transgender people - of not only making them other, but portraying that other as an existential threat to the rest of us.

18 minutes ago, JVW said:

I don't think that I'm presenting some new novel idea here.

And you seem to be confusing a bunch of issues here. There is little doubt that consuming too much porn will alter your view of sex. But, viewing porn doesn't make a person gay - and it doesn't make someone transgendered. There is a strangeness to your suggestion that "Men dressing up as women has always been a male fetishist thing." Of course its more than a little sexist right? It is involved more with a cultural sense of masculinity. After all, women can dress up as men all the time - and nobody considers it to be a fetishist thing. Historically, this is a relatively recent development. In early modern England, women would dress as men - for a variety of reasons - and none of them were fetishist (as far as we know) - until the courts in England declared that a woman dressing as a man must be a prostitute. (See how that matches what you are suggesting here?) In any case, you seem to be missing the entire issue that gender dysphoria is a real condition.

But, what consuming porn doesn't do is give you same-sex attraction. It doesn't make you transgendered. Given the fact that an estimated 91.9% of women and 98.9% of men (adults) in the U.S. have consumed porn at some point, you would think that we would be spiraling into extinction. But, that simply isn't happening. When we discuss porn addictions and the problems that can come with it, we are discussing something that is itself an exception. Parents of gay children and those that eventually identify as transgendered have a very different experience about where these differences come from. Even the LDS Church recognized the fact that same-sex attraction is something that some people are born with (as opposed to developing through that severe porn addiction that they developed as a young child). Which brings us finally to the pseudoscience -

43 minutes ago, JVW said:

Here is an article that stands out as fairly comprehensive while balancing digestibility regarding potential impacts of injecting aluminum.

Let's accept at face value the claim that there is a link between aluminum ajuvants and autism spectrum disorder. The problem you have is that the connection between the two (evidenced by higher levels of aluminum in the brains of individuals with ASD) is seen as a potential connection caused by some not-understood process which tends to leave more aluminum in the systems of those who develop ASD. Elevated aluminum levels (and we all ingest aluminum on a regular basis - it is the third most common element in the earth's crust, following only Oxygen and Silicon in prevalence). What we don't have is this same build up in other people - and there isn't a strong correlation between ASD and transgenderism or same-sex attraction. The suggestion that because high concentrations of aluminum in the brain can cause neurological issues of an identifiable sort means that it could also cause other neurological issues isn't a rational connection. So, I think (again) that you are way, way, way off in left field. But that's just me.

The only thing that I find deeply disturbing here is the claim that transgenderism is a social contagion. That claim is nonsense. But it isn't a harmless nonsense. And that means that spreading it is doing harm. You should stop.

[Benjamin McGuire]

@JVW I did want to add something. Embedded in all three of these things is the suggestion that same-sex attraction, gender dysphoria, and so on - they are all abnormal. When you talk about aluminum, the suggestion (as wrong as it is) is that if aluminum in the brain can cause the pathology ASD, then it might also cause the pathology of same-sex attraction, or gender dysphoria (and if not aluminum - perhaps something else). That is, in your view, this behavior is unnatural and so it must have a cause that is something other than genetics and biology. So when you throw all these things out here - it's kind of like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if anything sticks. It's not that you care which explanation works (they certainly don't work together), its more that you just need to feel like there is something that keeps any of this from being natural (and so to some extent normal). That's what this feels like to me. Is there a reason why you feel compelled to find something (really anything) that contradicts that narrative?

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Making a claim like this is problematic - because it is akin to arguing that not only is transgenderism bad, it is contagious - and that we have to aggressively push back on it to prevent a transgender epidemic. It is a way of dehumanizing transgender people - of not only making them other, but portraying that other as an existential threat to the rest of us.

Perhaps there are other reasons, but this seems like a significant motivator behind the church's latest transgender policies. Transgender (who have transitioned in some way) cannot teach any class (adult or youth) and cannot work with youth in any capacity. I haven't been able to think of a different motivation for these policies other than some kind of fear of "contagion." Seems like a real problem if, as you say, transgenderism is not contagious (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it isn't). This is a big reason why I am so troubled by the church's latest transgender policies.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps there are other reasons, but this seems like a significant motivator behind the church's latest transgender policies. Transgender (who have transitioned in some way) cannot teach any class (adult or youth) and cannot work with youth in any capacity. I haven't been able to think of a different motivation for these policies other than some kind of fear of "contagion." Seems like a real problem if, as you say, transgenderism is not contagious (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it isn't). This is a big reason why I am so troubled by the church's latest transgender policies.

Does this include those who choose not to transition at all, not even socially? I am not seeing anything in the handbook or on the website indicating this, but if someone tells the bishop they experience feelings of being a different gender, but say they do not act on them at all, would an annotation be made and restrictions from teaching occur?

 

[MrShorty]

@Calm The "guiding principles" document that accompanies the handbook limits these restrictions to those who "...pursue surgical, medical or social transition away from their biological sex at birth...."