Leaderboard

I admit that they could not have chosen a better and more appropriate name.

Yep, and something I never saw (at least from this brother) has already removed me from his life. He initiated the setting on Facebook where I can't see him anymore nor any post even if we post on the same message. He even told our mother that it was either him or me, and he now has blacklisted her because she chooses both (the shame of her to love both sons). It's sad (oh well, his choice) but this is exactly what we have been warned about. The devil will rage in the hearts of men in the last days, and he will pit them against their brother/sister. This is because I don't adhere to the ideologies of mammon with regards to the LGBTQ.

We sadly have multiple families/individuals in our ward who have been to the temple, and for all intents and purposes were "fully active" members; who now, have not been to church in over 2 years since the church won't "authorize" homosexuality. They fly the pride flag proudly on their homes, and tell all they meet that the church will be changing soon...that they will soon 'embrace love' and 'accept everyone as the Savior would'. A great deal of pressure will come from within just as much as from the outside.

Yep, this is a perfect example, and yes, if we look at the Bible and the Book of Mormon we know before Christ came the first time those that believed were targeted by those that did not. What will be even more concerning is the members of the Church who are in support and do support such actions. We will see this also, and already are seeing this to a point.

The following is another example. In coming days their rationale will shift to Christianity. How will the saints react when not just a state, but individuals are targeted? https://www.ksl.com/article/50448324/group-cancels-salt-lake-convention-over-utah-laws-on-abortion-transgender-girls-sports

After several weeks, I feel great (after 6 months of chem and radiation, I had forgotten what it feels like to be myself). Follow up tests are showing no cancer remaining, so the chemo and radiation were very successful. Now the surgeon is giving me a choice. Stick with the tried and true treatment plan and cut the offending part of my gut out, because we know through years of experience what the risk of recurrence is (pretty small). Or forego surgery (a less tested and less understood course of action) and see what happens. The idea of skipping surgery is, naturally, appealing. But I'm just not sure I want to take on the uncertainty. If the cancer were to come back, there would be the regret of not having done everything we could now to prevent recurrence. If we do surgery and it comes back, well, then we shake our fist at God until we get it out of our system, then submit to His will. If only there was a way to see into the future, but there isn't, so I feel inclined to go with the known risk rather than the unknown risk and have surgery. It's a bit of a tough decision, but that seems best with what we know now.

So, I just had a discussion with my wife about this topic. And she's further along the anti-med track than I am. So, I think it was very easy for people to believe I was as far as her. I'll try to remedy that by explaining here what I told my wife. Eventually, she agreed. The science of medication begins with a theory based on chemistry, biology, & biochemistry. The theories need to be backed up by studies that show the efficacy of the medication in actual human beings. There were enough studies that said that these medications provided significant numbers to state that these were valid methods of treatment. However, with any medication, there are outliers. Usually, fully approved drugs need to have a very low outlier percentage. But many of the medications show numbers all over the board. They are not 1% or 2%. They range from 8% to 40% failure of these "outliers". This is one reason why some medications must be prescribed by a competent physician. If you happen to be one of the outliers, he can make a determination of whether to switch drugs or not... especially if you happen to have an adverse reaction to it. Any mood altering drug must be carefully monitored to see how any given individual will react to the drug. The theory behind most modern anti-depressants is that Depression is caused by low serotonin levels. Raising them through drugs will hopefully treat the depression. The trials show the following: Many people who take drug A show symptoms B. Some outliers are always present. What they don't show is: Raising the levels of serotonin specifically was the mechanism by which the drug functioned to produce symptoms B. How do we know that symptoms B is a sign of coming out of depression? i.e. some of the symptoms can only be dependent upon the patient being honest about what they are feeling. While they do a placebo control group, that is not nearly enough to determine the truthfulness of patients being treated with Drug A. Even so, obviously SOMEthing is working. Why else would we have a series of patients that seem to be getting on with their lives when treated with the drug? This one overarching symptom, to me, is the one true result that we can depend on. Are they getting on with their lives? The question then becomes, how can we verify that the serotonin was the trigger that helped them? We only have theories based on our accepted knowledge of biochemistry. Studies have been done in many cases in many ways to determine if this is really the mechanism. And many of them seemed to say "no". This is not what is causing the change. The study I linked to in the OP was a study of studies. What were the commonalities? What were the procedures? What were the results? Etc. The primary thing that they reported on was if we have a theory that X causes Y, then the converse would also be true. But these studies found that Y is not caused by X in otherwise healthy individuals. So, why do we still think that getting rid of X will cure Y? My non-professional opinion is that when we see that these medications do work, there appears to be some other mechanism at work. This would explain why some meds work on some patients, but not others; and all are at varying levels regardless of the level of depression or the change in serotonin levels of the patients.. The real cause of depression is Q, or R, or S, or T... depending on the patient. And any individual drug may have a secondary effect that gets rid of Q. Another has a secondary effect of diminishing R... You get the idea. So, while the medication in question may have some good effects that we're measuring, the mechanism of that medication may very well be something other than the current theory. I'd like to know what the actual mechanism is so that we don't have such a long phase of "trial and error" before we get to the correct medication for the individual case. If we knew, then we could actually look for the real cause (Q, R, S, T...) instead of assuming everyone is depressed because of X. That sure would have helped me earlier in life.

That does look more like Hyrum's death mask than Joseph's. I could believe it.

I'm going with, Hyrum.

So, whatever it does or does not do, treatment using anti-depressants that are based on serotonin levels doesn't seem to work. Again, it's literally not saying what you are claiming. I think you're totally missing the point of everything you're quoting. I can see nothing in this paper saying anything like "using anti-depressants that are based on serotonin levels doesn't seem to work". There's nothing here looking at the effectiveness of various forms of treatment. This isn't a paper about what happens when we try to treat depression. There's nothing here looking at treatment effectiveness. This is a paper that looks at what we thought we knew about the biochemical causes of depression. It talks about "whether tryptophan depletion (which lowers available serotonin) can induce depression". Tryptophan depletion isn't a treatment for depression. It's something they tried to see if it made people depressed. It talks about how "there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity". That's talking about depressed folks' serotonin levels. It's not about what happens when we give depressed people a serotonin boost. It talks about how there is little "evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression". That's looking at the biochemistry of depressed people. It's not talking about what happens when we try to treat depressed people to make them less depressed. There's some stuff indicating how depression treatment actually lowered serotonin levels, but again, it's not measuring effectiveness of treatment. It's measuring serotonin levels. Again, the jury has been pretty firmly out for a number of decades: Yes indeedily-doodilly, antidepressants that boost serotonin levels, clearly, unambiguously, proven in study after study, do indeed have an overall positive impact on mood. Perfect? Nope. Always? Nope. 100% reliable? Nope. The best choice every time? Nope. Side-effect free? Nope. Never ever harmful? Nope. But overall positive impact on mood? - you bet. Literally 10 seconds of googling: 1999 - NIH - Efficacy of SSRIs and newer antidepressants in severe depression: comparison with TCAs 2015 - Psychiatry Advisor - New Analysis Reconfirms Effectiveness of SSRI Antidepressants 2018 - The Lancet - Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 2019 - Mayo Clinic: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) And another 10 seconds of searching the church website: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1989/02/mental-illness-in-search-of-understanding-and-hope?lang=eng "Perhaps 90 percent of depression victims can be helped. Therapy that teaches the patient to modify negative thought patterns to change his emotions is very helpful. Antidepressant medications are also quite effective. Priesthood blessings and prayer can lend spiritual power and aid healing." Elder Holland: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/like-a-broken-vessel?lang=eng "If things continue to be debilitating, seek the advice of reputable people with certified training, professional skills, and good values. Be honest with them about your history and your struggles. Prayerfully and responsibly consider the counsel they give and the solutions they prescribe. If you had appendicitis, God would expect you to seek a priesthood blessing and get the best medical care available. So too with emotional disorders. Our Father in Heaven expects us to use all of the marvelous gifts He has provided in this glorious dispensation." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/09/young-adults/i-finally-admitted-that-i-had-depression-jesus-christ-helped-me-out-of-the-darkness?lang=eng "I have felt strength and hope and light come from both spiritual and temporal tools. Here are a few practices that bring light into my life each day that you can try too: 7. Don’t be ashamed to see a doctor or of taking antidepressant medications—these are tools Heavenly Father has provided for us to heal."

"I'm queer" was said in the same sentence as "I'm a daughter" and "I'm a child of God" and "I'm a young women's president". It was merely a morally neutral descriptor of just another part of her personality. I don't expect this sister to go around apologizing for her lesbian impulses. That's none of my business, and I don't want it to be. Rather, I expect her to do what everyone else does: Not talk about her weaknesses in public unless they're actually relevant to the discussion. And when she does feel the need to discuss her weaknesses, she should take care not to try to portray those weaknesses as acceptable or herself as a victim of everyone else because of her weaknesses. I would expect no less of the reformed alcoholic, the smoker, or the guy who swears a lot.

It bugs me a bit as well but I'm always told it is now acceptable usage. A bit like splitting infinitives and saying "begs the question" when you mean "raises the question". A few years ago someone gave me a very amusing book called "Doctor Whom". Doctor Whom is similar to Doctor Who, with the exception that he travels the universe correcting everyone's grammar, making a lot of enemies in the process!