Leaderboard

The apparent suicide of Josh "Leelah" Alcorn visited my home today. My 14-year old daughter showed me a People Magazine article that laid the blame squarely at the parents' feet. The child wanted to be a girl, the parents gave her Christian bigotry, so she kills herself. Never mind that they did not interview the parents, and that a former editor of People is transgendered. Thankfully, my child was livid at the media's bias and hatred of Christians. So, I did some internet digging. Fortunately, the Washington Post published a column about the abuses of "doxing," and urging supporters of trans-teens to be more imaginative and positive, rather than using the net to skewer the parents. Better yet, the Wall Street Journal had a column by a well-regarded psychiatrist who argues that sex change is never really possible, that sex reassignment surgery results in a 20-fold increase in the likelihood of suicide, and that 70-80% of those young adults who experience feelings of transgender ideation eventually have those thoughts resolve (go away). That the secular public is so willing to blame and hate on Christians causes me to double-down on my assertion that atheists are much more efficient and effective war mongers than religious people ever were. http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/leeleah.alcorn.transgender.teen.commits.suicide.blames.parents.exploiters.ignore.science/47960.htm

What we can learn is that there is a culture out there teaching kids that if they can't wear what they want and have sexual relationships with whomever they want before their eighteenth birthday, life is not worth living. And people are dying because of that culture. The righteous indignation and accusations of culpability in Josh/Leelah's death are not inappropriate. They're just misdirected.As for Josh himself: I feel bad for the kid, but let's have no illusions. From what I gather, he left a suicide note--not for his parents--but for his adoring Reddit audience--laying the blame squarely at his parents' feet. He knew ruddy well what the LGBT movement would do with his death, and the suffering it would put his parents through (both in their mourning for him, and their pain at having the dogs of political correctness sicced upon them). Josh's flair for the dramatic does not sanctify his position in what was essentially an escalation of a family feud. What he did was first and foremost a bitter, vindictive, and spiteful act of revenge; and in his current state he is more than likely experiencing a dawning sense of horror at what he has done. Josh, the individual, deserves compassion; both for his humanity and for his particularly trying circumstances. Josh's suicide, the act, deserves condemnation and opprobrium for the malicious, infantile stunt that it was; not veneration, a prima facie vindication of the selfish motives that led to it, and an affirmation of the political forces that implicitly (or, perhaps, explicitly) encouraged him to do what he did. Barring knowing and intentional cruelty towards/mockery of the kid by his parents, this situation strikes me as very like the situation in Shel Silverstein's Little Abigail and the Beautiful Pony. From the standpoint of LDS theology, Josh may well have been a female spirit trapped, through a trick of genetics in this fallen world, inside a body with male genitalia. But it's largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that for Josh, adulthood and legal emancipation were eleven months away. As far as I know, all he had to do was to wait; keep wearing the clothes and answering to the name he'd used for seventeen years; and otherwise abide by the rules of the house. Who told him that death was preferable to eleven months of such a regimen? I daresay, not his parents. It is our current culture of instant gratification and being "authentic" at all costs (particularly, but certainly not exclusively, in sexual matters) that is primarily responsible for Josh Alcorn's death. I condemn that culture; and I execrate the individuals who exploit Josh's death in furtherance thereof.

Oh, for the love of...please turn off your TVs and read a book!

There's a big ol' huge world of difference between forgiveness and re-marriage.

So I'm moving and going through boxes getting rid of a lot of stuff I found a gold mine, I thought these papers were destroyed but I found a lot of family history that I took yrs ago from my grandfather and a second cousin so now I can have my grandfather sealed to his parents, my great grandfather and grant grand ma work done and have their children s work done this is on my father's side and some on mother s side. This is so cool!!! Now I just need to work on putting it all together. I also came across an old journal it was kinda fun reading it it was when I was in my twenties I need to down size so I am throwing it out it's to hard to keep logging it around and after I die there's no one who would want it. ( It's amazing what kind of treasures you find when you move.. I have tons of pictures some might be 60-70 yrs old. I'm keeping most of them though I did through out a picture of my father s hs. class, it wasn't in good shape nor bad shape.. I feel bad about this but you can't hold on to every thing. You just can't keep everything and there's no one to pass it on too. It's so cool to have a Temple in your back yard almost.

I thought that was Neurotypical. Now I'm all confused.

At this point, he is effectively just another eligible man (who happens to be the father of your children and your ex-spouse). Approach a relationship with him just as you would with any other man. How important is LDS Church membership and activity to you? And do you have any reason to believe he would not still find your Church participation as irritating as he did two years ago? My first-blush, totally unreilable impression is that you should not get involved with him again. (Please note the qualifiers.)

The Church has announced 11 new missions. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33045067&nid=1070&fm=home_page&s_cid=toppick2

Fitzwilliam Darcy

I'm not LDS anymore but if I were and actively lived the gospel and my goal was to receive all the blessings that the Lord has promised, I would not be marrying or remarrying someone who is openly against (anti) the Church. To clarify, I think there's a difference between that, and considering dating a non-member or someone who is of a different faith. As harsh as it reads, I agree with whoever said, "She can do better." I think OP can. There are a lot of men out there, many good men, many that are interested in the gospel and would be happy to find a woman to live the gospel with. My opinion, it's not law.

LOL. I wish we still had a laugh button. PV, you can sandpaper your teeth for all I care. (That might actually be pretty cool...) I doubt anyone is making adverse jugdments about your vanity based on skin sandpapering. Sanity, maybe.

The sad reality is that a faction of the LBGT community is ginned up for a war on Christianity. A major publication (granted, meant for entertainment--but still influential--People Magazine) all but endorsed the one-sided slam that the parents virtually killed their child by their alleged hate. Then I do 20 minutes of digging and find all sorts of new angles. Even LBGT-allies like the Washington Post are getting nervous at the vitriol on the net. Finally, the Christian Examiner article was very cautious, simply mentioning that there were obvious struggles that went beyond the whole transgender issue. There was no attempt to discredit or harm the reputation of the dead teen. If we don't discuss these matters, the religion-haters will be more than happy to monopolize. We need not shy away. However, we should carry ourselves, "innocent as lambs, but wise as serpents." Or, to borrow another famous quote and twist it: Speak softly, but carry well-grounded scientific research on our side.

PS. I hope they age up the kids from the first Incredibles. Not too much but it's been so long since the last.

They are finally doing an Incredibles 2! I've waited and wished so long. I would have preferred that sequel to Cars, etc.

If you inferred disrespect or denigration for the role of the father in a family, you badly misunderstood me. In most cases, I would largely agree with this assessment. But -- he left her. He walked out on his family. That is a huge matter, and not easily glossed over by saying, "Well, see, he's the father, so get back together with him if he allows it."

I understand that; but I believe such women are a statistical minority. And it's one thing to marry out of the church; it's another thing to marry a straight-up anti (which, based on Litzy's newest post, sounds pretty much like what we're dealing with). Also, I think the newly-uncovered fact that it was the husband who ended the relationship in the first place--and ended it specifically because Litzy wouldn't leave the church--as well as the age of the children here, counts for a lot in this particular case. And finally, I might be a little bit overly influenced by anecdote; but in the last year I've known three women aged 50+ in the ward I grew up in who remarried excellent, faithful men (one widow and two divorcees), and another widow in my current ward in her mid-30s who also just remarried. Obviously, I'm just some random dude on the internet with a loud mouth and a bunch of ill-informed opinions . . . but my gut reaction to this case is that if the OP wants to remarry, she can do better. I think I'd be more likely to be persuaded by the "reunite a broken family" perspective if the children were small; but it sounds like they are near adulthood. Oh, I heartily agree. But I usually go into a prayer with an idea of what my own best wisdom is telling me to do and ask the Lord to either confirm or debunk it. In this case, I'd be hard pressed not to go into the prayer with a presumption against pursuing the relationship. But that's just me, and as you say--it's the Lord that matters. :) Apologies for the cynicism, but I practice divorce law and cyncism is part of my job. So, I'm going to ask (and I know it's nosy, so I don't expect you to actually answer; but maybe you should at least consider it) . . . Sounds like the two of you had a "long term" marriage, which means there could well have been a pretty hefty alimony award in your favor. Are you sure that isn't part of his motivation here? There could well be some fault on your end; but "because I wronged him and I want to make it up to him" is a heckuva reason to marry someone. But, after all this, I'd still reiterate yjacket's observation that confirmation from the Lord is key here.

Your experience is also a concern of mine as I struggle to return to the Church, so I very much appreciate your post and look forward to the comments from others. I have found that the Miss Manners approach is often very effective in situations like these: be gracious and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but be ruthless about repeating facts. If you're asked to reintroduce yourself, do so cheerfully by saying something like, "This is our 4th Sunday here, for those of you who have not met us yet; most other people have met us already," as you look serenely upon the person who asked you to stand and reintroduce yourself. I guarantee you that this will put an end to reintroductions very quickly. "Vicious Sisters in Relief Society" would be a great title for my next novel, thanks. If these vicious comments pop up, and you decide they really are vicious and not just babbling from some tongue-tied sister who is struggling to make small talk, then let them become water on a duck's back to you. Smile wanly, pretend the comment never happened, and move on. Best wishes on your return.

Ask your ex (and yourself) what has changed that would make things happen differently this time? If there are some very good very solid answers, then consider it. Otherwise don't repeat your prior mistakes

I would strongly caution remarrying someone you divorced. You must remember the reasons why you divorced.

No. Ice cream is based on dairy, containing nearly 50% of it. Sherbet is based on fruit puree and only contains up to 2% dairy. Sorbet has zero dairy.

I would think the high school course would be much better if cops were actually there to give some of the presentation themselves. The second link is oustanding. I've noticed cops putting on "citizen police academy" training for interested citizens. I attended my local small-town cop's academy. 3 hours every Tuesday for 6 weeks. Fascinating stuff. I became a firm supporter of tasers after volunteering for a demonstration and taking a 4 second hit. (Hint - when they ask you how much of a hit you want, DON'T say 4 seconds. Go with 2 :)).

By not being as active as you could, you are kind of advertising that you have neither the time nor the inclination for a calling. Most callings take some sort of time commitment. I would suggest you reactivate yourself and become more involved. As anatess suggested in her excellent post, you can volunteer for something or ask your bishop for a calling--letting him know what sort of calling you are willing and able to do. I hope you read this post in the kindness it is meant and it does not sound too accusatory. I tried to be careful in my wording, Wishing you the best. :)

At least part of your question, to me, seems to center around several elements of textual criticism of the Bible. I don't know how deeply you have studied the field (I have only scratched the surface), but there are several authors, scholars, and researchers (mostly from broader Christianity -- I don't see a lot of LDS authors at the forefronts of Biblical textual criticism) who have made it their life's work to study the manuscripts and parts of manuscripts that we have in an effort to understand what is reliable in the Biblical text and what seems less supported by the available evidence. Obviously, a single internet forum post cannot cover in any kind of complete way this field of study. If you have not yet done it, I would suggest putting something like "biblical textual criticism" into your favorite internet search engine, and see what those who study the Bible at this level have to say about it. It certainly is not a field without controversy, but it is interesting to see what comes out of the study.

Sometimes the Missionaries in your area might be happy to take them off your hands.

Without question the Book of Abraham is an intellectual enigma. It would seem obvious that the text we have is by any measure a stretch from the facsimile that remain. But there is no question the style and structure is absolutely flavored in ancient Egyptian style and format. Ancient Egyptian science, mathematics and physics was based in relationships and ratios. This science was successful in producing the most enduring architecture in the entire history of mankind - including present day. Their understanding of sound harmonics is the foundation of modern music and their understanding of light and color harmonics was not duplicated in modern times until we mastered laser technology. Wonder of wonder - this technology came from no where and exploded in ancient Egypt during the era of Abraham. Our current science is based in a foundation of the rudimentary constructs of Newtonian physics and number theory. A couple of interesting constructs between modern Newtonian physics and number theory and relativistic comparisons to ancient Egyptian science and mathematics comes from the representation of pi and the square root of 2. Modern mathematics represents both of these numbers and ratios as irrational number that have and continue to confuse students trying to understand modern theory. The ancient Egyptians simply understood the ratio of pi as the ratio of a circle to its diameter and the square root of 2 as the ratio of of a side of a square to its diagonal. Sizing architecture to the ancient Egyptian was a simple matter of geometric ratios compared to modern mathematics based in number theory. Now with this background read and compare Abraham chapter 3 with Doctrine and Covenants section 88. Realizing that both cover in essence explanations of the same doctrinal ideas that came from the single source of Joseph Smith that was not an expert in Newtonian physics (obvious from personal writings) nor was there any understanding of ancient Egyptian science during the lifetime of Joseph. One being a wonderful match of ancient Egyptian understanding and one being a wonderful match for someone from a Newtonian era. Say what you will about Joseph Smith and his 3rd grade education but the empirical evidence that is presented in the text and structure of the Book of Abraham far exceeds even the most accomplished experts of our day. But the criticism remains that the translation of the Book of Abraham and the remaining facsimiles make no sense in our modern setting.