Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/27/19 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    Logging in for just a minute to weigh in on this because it's so personal to me and because I don't know who else to vent to. First, @Vort lifts are illegal in all but one or two competitions. So that's really a non issue. Regardless....agreed. Stupid.......etc... So most of you probably don't know this because I haven't mentioned it but I was a ballroom dancer all through highschool and college and have competed in the highest amateur level dance competitions at BYU and other places many, many times. BYU has always held different standards than other competitions, and even the Pros competing for the national championships at BYU have been required to abide by BYU's standards to compete. The primary way this has been seen is in the dress. Ballroom Dance outfits can be very immodest. BYU ballroom competitions do not require the same level of dress that they would on campus, obviously, but they do have standards. The woman's dress, for example, must come down to mid thigh (including slits in the back, etc.). The shoulder straps for the women must be at least an inch thick. The man cannot wear a see-through top. Stuff like that. Additionally there are rules against lewd dance moves that will get you disqualified. Once again, this is still subjective, and what's considered appropriate on the dance floor in competition might be inappropriate in other places. But straight-up grinding and the like or butt grabs or such would get one disqualified for certain. But full body contact is required in certain dances ("Standard" dances such as waltz, foxtrot, etc.). Dips and sexually provocative movement is common in the Latin style. All ballroom dancing is a "sexual" style of dance in that it is created for the sexes to do with one another in roles -- the female and the male. The interplay between the sexes is a part of ballroom. Sex (not the act, but the "gender" difference) is core to it. Even in same-sex dancing, one of the partners must take the role of the female, and one of the male. The dances work that way. Both people cannot lead. Both people cannot move forward at the same time. Both people cannot dip each other simultaneously. Etc. So now we have a serious double standard. A woman who wears a spaghetti shoulder strap gets disqualified because BYU maintains a strict moral code despite the world's views, and yet two guys can wrap their arms around each other, dip and sway, gyrate their hips in synchronicity, place their hand anywhere on each other but "there", and dance cheek to cheek and crotch to crotch with nary a word said? Are you freaking kidding me?! I am absolutely SHOCKED by this decision. What happened to standing for truth and right no matter the consequence? Really? So you can't host the professional national championship anymore? Boo-hoo! Do you stand for God and His truths no matter the consequence or do you cave for the world because of the world?! A friend suggested that maybe BYU was contractually obligated to host until a certain time, and thereby contractually obligated to comply. The article didn't sound like that was the case to me. They might be obligated to follow the rules if they host, but required to continue hosting?? And if they don't, or don't follow the rules, and they get sued, and lose millions...are we really not willing to stand for what's right at any cost? I cannot believe it! I'm honestly stunned. Alright...that's my two cents. I'm out of here again. I probably shouldn't have posted, in that Third Hour is still allowing juvenile progressively offensive articles published on their site, and I'm not going to stick around posting while that's the case. But I do read the threads often. However, this one has been on my mind for the few days since the news broke and really bugging me, so I needed to vent a bit. But I'm done now. Someone should start a thread (unless I missed it) on the banning of gay conversion therapy in Utah too. Less offensive than this, imo, but the way it's being reported and handled, still....maybe worth a discussion. I will note that I'm going to post one other update in a few days or so with some news. But otherwise, don't expect me to actively reply. Edit: One other point I forgot to mention: What about cross-dressing? If two men are dancing together does one of them get to wear a dress? Does that dress have to also come to the man's mid thigh, etc? Can BYU discriminate against men dancing in the women's role in women's clothing, or is that something they're caving on too?
  2. 10 points
    Ran into a tithing discussion on Facebook, and to my surprise a repeated comment rubbed me the wrong way. The question began with just what income/increase/services/returns/social security/investments are we supposed to pay tithing on? (Cue Backroads: finances are soooo booorrrrrring). Now, because of the bore that is finances, I would never judge another's interpretation of tithing. However, every other person was chiming in with the cutesey chant of "do you want gross blessings or net blessings?" And for some reason, it drove me bonkers. It made it sound tithing was not a commandment but a... Blessing grab. As I currently understand it, there is no official accountant-approved calculation for determining one's 10% increase tithe, just a 10% determined between one and the Lord. I do not doubt the miracles and blessings associated with tithing, but I don't know if I'm comfortable with the notion of "net/gross blessings".
  3. 9 points
    For some reason, this reminds me of an experience I had 19 years ago. I was the teacher for the gospel doctrine class, where most LDS adults go (went) for Sunday School during the old 3-hour block. On this particular Sunday, we were studying in the Book of Mormon and I was reviewing the story of the Lamanite king Lamoni (more of a regent viceroy, really; he was subservient to his father, who was called "the old king"). By the efforts of the repentant supermissionary (and Nephite prince) Ammon, Lamoni is converted through a mighty experience, bringing his family and most of his household with him into the Church organized by Alma. A bit later, while Lamoni is traveling with Ammon, the two happen across Lamoni's father, the old king. Lamoni's father demands an accounting of what Lamoni has been doing, why he [Lamoni] didn't come to a great feast organized by the old king, and why Lamoni dares to travel openly with a filthy Nephite. Lamoni explains his entire conversion experience, whereupon—to Lamoni's utter shock—his father rejects the story and demands that Lamoni kill Ammon and come back home with the old king. After reviewing this well-known Book of Mormon story, I shook my head and made some comment like, "How did Lamoni think it was going to go? Did he really believe his father was just going to accept what he said?" Whereupon an old friend and class member John explained, "Brother Vort, you grew up in the Church, so you probably don't understand how it is to feel the Spirit and conversion when you've never had it before. Everything fits together and becomes so obvious that you assume anyone else will see it, too. You want to tell everyone this great thing you have found. And it's shocking when you find out that other people reject your testimony and flat out don't believe you." I believe John was right about both aspects. I believe that new converts often experience a great shock when they discover that their heartfelt and seemingly obvious testimony is rejected. I also believe that many lifelong Latter-day Saints, even those who really do have strong testimonies and are themselves deeply converted, may have developed a sort of jaded view that prevents them from understanding the surprise felt by the new converts on coming face-to-face for the first time against a reality that the long-time members have experienced since childhood and take as a matter of course.
  4. 9 points
    Vort

    Health Care Solutions

    I have a close relative who has in the last five years become independently wealthy. We weren't raised that way, but that's his position today. He's a rich man with a poor man's brain. When his wife had a baby two years ago, they found themselves shopping around for a hospital. Since they are uninsured, he planned to pay out of pocket. But he found that when he asked about the cost of procedures (specifically childbirth, but also any and all other medical procedures, including ultrasound procedures and simple checkups), he was invariably met by a fixed gaze and a look of perplexity, followed by, "I have no idea. You'll have to talk to Billing about that." And, by the way, Billing didn't know, either. The amount charged for a routine medical procedure was unknown to any of the people working at the hospital or clinic. Think about that. Can you think of any other business transaction we make where the underlying cost is literally unknown AND UNCARED ABOUT by pretty much everyone who works in that business? This is a primary reason health care in the US is in such abysmal shape. The costs are all hidden, and therefore price gouging is built into the system. People cannot shop around. Competition doesn't exist. Socialized medicine? Hah! It's already perfectly socialized! In the US health care industry, capitalism on the individual level is dead. The solution is not to bury it deeper. The solution is to revive capitalism.
  5. 9 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Pornography Addiction

    Welcome! I think the reality is that sometime, somewhere, there is going to be a relapse. That’s just the reality of porn issues. That does *not* mean he’s a bad guy or that you shouldn’t marry him. Nor does it mean he’s *definitely* going to relapse. But: —You should keep your expectations tempered and consider whether occasional relapses going forward are something you’re willing to deal with; —You should also consider the possibility that statistically, a large number of LDS young men have struggled with this sort of thing; and this young man is at least being forthright about it—which, many others aren’t. Perhaps the issues you know about with him are preferable to the issues some other would-be husband conceals until after the wedding? —You should stay close to the Spirit. Seeking advice is great, but various people are going to have anecdotes that run the whole gamut between “sure, you’ll have a great marriage!” and “run away as fast as you can”. None of us know him. None of us know you. God knows you both. —You shouldn’t let anyone suggest you “owe” anything to this young man, or to anyone else except to yourself and to your God. After marriage you will need to be forgiving and willing to overlook flaws and be self-sacrificing—but before marriage, you get to (and need to) look out for number one.
  6. 9 points
    Up at the altar there are souls...some are repenting, others are quietly joyful. There are tears, holy silence, and a lady in the corner is even laughing. A deacon is concerned by the seeming irreverence of this woman and goes over to whisper in the pastor's ear. He responds quietly, yet with force, "Leave that woman alone. I know her backstory. She has never laughed in her life and tonight she's experienced the joy of the Lord." Meanwhile, in the back are a group of teens snickering about how fake the church is, and how there's nothing happening up front except a bunch of showboating: Sophomoric cynicism that feigns to be insightful and honest commentary.
  7. 9 points
    anatess2

    Financial Whistleblower

    “Would you pay tithing instead of water, electricity, or feeding your family if you knew that it would sit around by the billions until the Second Coming of Christ?” Yes sir, yes we would.
  8. 8 points
    A lot of mistakes can be avoided by application of the Chesterton’s Fence scenario. It would be one thing if progressives said “Okay, women want to be in the army/corporate boardroom. Those fields tend to have a ‘locker room’/‘good old boys’ atmosphere, so these are the challenges we can expected and here’s how we’re going to deal with them”. But of course, that’s not what happened—when conservatives raised those concerns and said “look, to make this work you’re going to have to make some structural changes that we aren’t ready for, and people are going to get hurt, and are you sure you’re ready to pay the price here?”; we were told “women are tough, they can do anything a man can do, and corporations/military units won’t see any major change in the way they do their work”. And then, twenty years in, and all of a sudden it’s “holy crap, we have a rape culture and we need to spend millions of dollars to reprogram men and impose promotion quotas!” And we conservatives are just rolling our eyes, like “this surprised you? Really?” Issue after issue is like this—they want to force a minimum wage and then wonder why companies aren’t hiring. They force city centers to accept low-income housing and then complain when the industrious, law-abiding citizens flee to the suburbs. Then the well-to-do come back to the slums and rehabilitate them, and progressives complain about “gentrification”. They want to control prices of medical care and don’t understand why no one wants to be a doctor anymore. They openly mock marriage as a “piece of paper” and a remnant of patriarchal oppression while glorifying extramarital sex, and then demand more money to support single-parents who discover too late that maybe men are more useful to mothers than bicycles are to fishes (and of course, we need counselors for all the delinquents who grow up in those homes). They demand free access to poisonous intoxicating substances, and then shriek about how we need more public spending for addiction rehabilitation services. And frankly, progressives have never had sustainable, consistent, sustainable, applicable idea of what it even means to “get it right” in the first place. The Civil Rights Act was enough—until it wasn’t. Affirmative action in public institutions was enough—until it wasn’t. Hiring quotas in private institutions, we’re now told, will be enough-for now. Oh, and maybe reparations; but naturally we won’t be giving you a number, and when we do, you can rest assured that a later generation will decide that your number was too low, and in fact it was so low that it was an insult constituting a new form of oppression and we’ve got to start again from zero. We saw this with gay rights, too, with breathtaking speed—within a decade we went from “we don’t even want your marriages, we just want to be left alone” (Lawrence) to “you MUST publicly agree that we are doing a good thing are and seal that agreement with your official records and your tax subsidies” (Obergefell)—and plans are in the works to rain hell on the institutional and individual holdouts via the tax code and the schoolhouse and the accreditation bureau and the workplace and the storefront. Either progressives didn’t seriously think through the ramifications of what they wanted, or they just plain lied about what they wanted. The specific examples you cite—slavery/Jim Crow, women’s suffrage, and labor issues, are interesting; because none of them were the result of liberty. They were de jure restrictions on liberty; the result of government attempts to correct for what the prevailing culture might have called ”structural inequalities”—the supposed intellectual/physical/emotional inferiority of blacks and women, and the supposed passivity and ignorance of the laboring class. Jim Crow was a government act. The Civil War was essentially triggered when Dred Scott tried to strong-arm all Americans into accepting slavery as the law of the land. Bans on women voting were also enshrined in law; as were police (and sometimes military) enforcement of restrictions on unions and strikers. The solution to all of those problems was liberty and equal justice under law. Whenever government deviated from those principles to try to make up for historical/natural/economic injustice it inevitably botched the balance, punished a new generation of innocents, and enshrined racial/religious/class/gender-based resentment and animus into the next iteration of American culture. The founders didn’t exalt “liberty” because they were too provincial to figure out how to overcome man’s baser instincts. They exalted liberty because they were philosophers enough to understand that man’s baser instincts don’t tend to change over centuries/millennia; and they were historians enough to understand that any republic that prioritizes some value above liberty itself will beget a government that starts chipping away at liberty, which will beget factions trying to gain control of that government for their own ends, which over the long term can only beget a civil war. That’s the perspective from which Lincoln crafted the Gettysburg address—that the civil war over which he presided had arisen because the nation had failed to live up to its founding principles of liberty and equal treatment under the law.
  9. 8 points
    They aren't performing it as an extension of the State. Just because the State inserted itself in something it shouldn't have doesn't mean it owns that thing. Marriage existed long before the State decided they owned it.
  10. 8 points
    BYU vs Harvard? Easy answer: Return on Investment It's like buying a Ferrari vs a Honda - if your objective is to go from A to B, a Honda will get you there as reliably as a Ferrari and you'll get a lot more for your money. - if your objective is to race from A to B, your Ferrari will get you there faster than a Honda and dig a big hole in your pocket. - if your objective is to get a good education among people of a specific religious practice, your Honda is the best place for that. - if your objective is to show off to or gain erudite fraternity friends, your Ferrari will have the most influential people if you can get them to let you into their club. etc. etc. Before you choose a university - any post high-school education - you first have to know WHY you need college and pick the college that achieves that purpose that provides the biggest return on your investment. A trade school or a direct apprenticeship might just be a better place where you can achieve that purpose.
  11. 8 points
    Just_A_Guy

    LDS Missionary arrested

    If Utah had been a mandatory-clergy-reporter state, this guy would never have come forward at all. As it was, he was able to make a confidential confession to his leadership; and by continual ministry, the Church was able within five months to get this kid into a position where he ultimately came forward of his own accord and, in the presence of his own criminal defense attorney, not only made a full confession but turned the computer over for further analysis. In the meantime, one presumes his bishop was very careful not to put him into a calling that gave him access to children. But for clergy privilege, this guy would have been completely undetected (and his victims wholly unidentified) down to the present moment. Scenarios like this are exactly why many states offer clerical privilege: in the long run, it lets us cast a wider net than we otherwise could; particularly in states where confessional religion is so pervasive. Oh, by the way: the juvie court system deals with literally hundreds of teenaged boys who did everything Alyk did and more. They do their time, and at age 21 they are released—no criminal record, no sex offender registry, nothing to warn the community what they have done and what they are capable of. If we’re going to give a pass to democratic governments whose whole raison d’être is to find predators and remove them from the community, then it’s inconsistent for us to get righteously indignant when a church that openly values repentance, forgiveness, and confidentiality is going to take advantage of perfectly legal processes in furtherance of those values.
  12. 8 points
    In the 1980s liberals and secularists were deathly afraid that Judeo-Christian morality would be forced down their throats by the scary Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. The reality was that most of us believed in free will/agency, and accepted that morality could be embraced or rejected. We heeded the calls for tolerance and plurality. Now we have a Christian high school in Seattle (King's) and a Catholic one in a suburb (Kennedy, Burien, WA) be lambasted by local media for "anti-gay" policies (i.e. millennia of church teaching that is suddenly shocking). So...welcome to the fight for religious liberty. Somehow, I do not expect the secular fundamentalists to be nearly so tolerant and pluralistic as we were.
  13. 8 points
    The problem here IMHO is that so many people are obsessing about what the HCO will let them do, rather than considering what is right and/or what the Lord wants them to do. Gay displays of physical affection are wrong—if not inherently sinful as a per se violation of chastity, than certainly wrong as a colossally reckless step in the direction of unchaste behavior and an insensitive act of toying with and deliberately cultivating human emotions and desires that must at some point be reined in/terminated. This didn’t suddenly change just because some bureaucrats in the HCO manifested their own spinelessness/treachery. BYU and/or the Church condemns a lot of behaviors that many (most?) students participate in anyways. While some gay BYU students may sincerely fear HCO retribution based on past events (and I note that Professor Brau had no problem indulging in a little turnabout when he gloated about the possibility of siccing the HCO on conservative students who admonished gay students for unvirtuous behavior)—I daresay the sticking point for most of these protestors isn’t the threat of administrative retribution. They’re ticked off that BYU is still in the business of making statements about right and wrong, particularly on matters of sexual behavior. They thought they had the camel’s nose well and truly into the tent.
  14. 8 points
    Vort

    The Book of Mormon made understandable

    Some years ago, I wrote a short synopsis of the Book of Mormon for @Sunday21. To my surprise and satisfaction, several people found it useful. I have since thought it might be a useful jumping-off point for others such as my youngest, who will soon be 14 and might appreciate a 10,000-foot view of things. So I copied it out, put it in a Google doc, and edited it some. It is nothing like official, of course, and contains some of my own interpretations, doubtless along with some errors. But for whatever it's worth to anyone, here's a link. The Book of Mormon made understandable (overview)
  15. 8 points
    Every parent needs to watch his six-year-old child die painfully of cancer to know what real life is like. Every person needs to go to war and watch his buddy's head get blown off to know what real life is like. Everyone needs to go to a state prison for three years to know what real life is like. I don't believe most people are really this stupid. They just don't think before they speak. I had an uncle in Provo, now deceased for many years, who as a young man lived for a time in California. He would speak in glowing terms of the magical land of California, where the land was cheap and the weather always fine, and how people there were "real", unlike the rubes in Provo he rubbed shoulders with. One golden day, sometime in or around 1989, at over 60 years of age, he succeeded in his dream, sold his house on east Center street, and moved himself and his family of six back to California. How exciting! How transformative! How awesome! He moved back within six months, desperately happy to be back safe in Provo, and with nothing but bitter criticism about the Godless miscreants in that cursed hellhole of California. He couldn't get his old house back, of course, but he was happy just to have a home up in the hills in west Provo, near Orem. Never complained again about Provo for the rest of his life, as far as I ever heard.
  16. 8 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Revelation that separates spouses

    I can’t say that God would or wouldn’t reveal something like that to a man. The fact that *any* man would go so far as to tell his wife that he had received such a revelation, however, makes me question a.) how did he think you’d take something like that? b.) why would he tell you that? What does he expect you to do about it in the here-and-now? Does he expect it to be a valid excuse for behavior you might otherwise object to? and c.) what made him think he might come out of such a conversation alive? The sheer bone-headedness of saying something like that to one’s wife, combined with his statements about being down and isolated, makes me think there may be some mental health issues at play here.
  17. 8 points
    Handbook 2 Section 19.1.1 (bold mine): The Primary President should absolutely be notified in advance that someone in the primary will be released.
  18. 8 points
    The idea of “I obey moral standard x because I expect blessing y in return” is, as I recall, a legitimate stage Kohlberg’s scale of moral development; and I don’t begrudge anyone if that’s where they are. But . . . We are expected to move beyond that stage; and it’s disappointing when a seemingly disproportionate share of the Church’s discourse/curriculum seems tailored to appeal to folks who are at that particular stage. That being said, the “net-tithing net blessings” has a kernel of truth underlying it—not that there’s a strictly transactional relationship to tithing; but that tithing is an application of the Law of Consecration and that if we go into it looking for ways to get by doing the bare minimum, we are spectacularly missing the point of the principle and probably limiting the joy and personal growth that comes from sincerely and selflessly living a consecrated life.
  19. 8 points
    Vort

    Financial Whistleblower

    Doctor Nelson didn't make enough money from his time as a world-renowned heart surgeon, you see. So now he has a sweet gig where, at 95 years old, he spends 80 hours per week traveling around from meetinghouse to meetinghouse helping people, and for this life of luxury he receives the exorbitant sum of around $120,000 per year. If only he could have made that kind of coin during his surgery days! Maybe he could have afforded to retire instead of working hard into his tenth decade.
  20. 8 points
    Vort

    Progression between kingdoms?

    It seems to me that this is temple symbolism. In the temple, we use ascension through (not progression between) the kingdoms of glory as an explanatory metaphor for the purpose of our lives here. We go from a lesser glory to a greater glory. Our lives here in mortality are called "telestial", and the earth of our mortality is specifically referred to as a telestial kingdom. But that does not mean that we have been finally judged and assigned to THE telestial kingdom. Our mortal probation is accomplished in this fallen state so that we can experience both the evil and the good, and see if we want to choose the good. I can certainly understand how such teachings might somehow seem to be talking about post-resurrection progression between kingdoms of glory. But I think that's a misapprehension of the teachings. We have been taught repeatedly, from many sources, that THIS LIFE is the time for us to prepare to meet God, and that after our resurrection, we will be assigned to the eternal glory for which we have fitted ourselves. I think the "progression between kingdoms" doctrine is a dangerous one, because it openly encourages the attitude of "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with us...Yea, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." I strongly believe it to be a false doctrine; but even if it were true, it's still dangerous, because it encourages people to do the wrong thing. Until the prophet comes out openly teaching that doctrine—which he never will—I think it best to declare the doctrine of progression between kingdoms as a false doctrine. (Which it is, and would remain even if it happened to be factually correct, which I reiterate is a thing I strongly disbelieve.)
  21. 7 points
    mirkwood

    The COVID thread

    You can be briefly detained by police if they have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Those of you throwing around "innocent until proven guilty" have a flawed understanding of the justice system. Your presumption of innocence is applied in the courts and the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. You can say what you want about the incident, but at least know your correct terminology and understand the difference between detention, arrest, reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
  22. 7 points
    David Burge (aka “Iowahawk”) has observed that liberals often go through a four-stage process: —Identify a respected institution —Kill it —Gut it —Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect. Christianity has been a victim of this process since long before modern political liberalism made its arrival. It got to the where it was “Christians” who tried to steal the gold plates from Joseph Smith, “Christians” who shot little Sardius Smith at point-blank range, “Christians” who gang-raped Eliza Snow and scored of other Mormon women, “Christians” who murdered Joseph Smith, “Christians” who drove the Saints of God out of their country and then turned on each other for a hundred years of unlimited warfare from the Civil War to World War 2 and beyond. “Christians” who have told God to shut up, preferring to worship their biblical exegeses. “Christians” who are increasingly replacing the scriptural Jesus and His law, with a bizarre libertine hybrid of Santa Claus and omnipotent pimp. We looked at the word “Christian”, saw it for the hollowed-out shell that it was, and said “screw that. We don’t want it.” And we went off into the wilderness; and with God’s help we built something new, something blessed, something wonderful—and we acquiesced as the world called that thing “Mormonism”. But the Second Coming draws ever nearer; and it would seem that before the Bridegroom returns—one of His instructions is that the bride to go and get her skin-suit back. So, we will. Nominal “Christians” may consider themselves to be on notice—if they aren’t going to live and love their religion—their true religion; there are yet Saints who will.
  23. 7 points
    Vort

    Comical manufactured outrage at BYU

    BYU allowing protests against political actions or figures? Yep, I get it. BYU allowing protests against Church doctrine? Nope, I don't get it.
  24. 7 points
    Fether

    New Handbook

    Put in context of this quote too ”A member who has received elective medical or surgical intervention for the purpose of attempting to transition to the opposite gender of his or her birth sex (“sex reassignment”), or who has socially transitioned to the opposite gender of his or her birth sex, may not receive a temple recommend. Area Presidencies will help local leaders sensitively address individual situations (see 38.6.21). A member who does not pursue medical, surgical, or social transition to the opposite gender and is worthy may receive a temple recommend and temple ordinances.” seems pretty clear the stance hasn’t changed. my parents are actually going through a situation where this would apply very well. My sister ( used to be brother ) Is still on the church records. When my parents moved into their new ward, they weren’t sure how to approach it, because they didn’t want youngmen in the ward coming to the house looking for my little brother, when he transitioned to a girl. If for some reason, she decided to go to the church (for baby blessings or friend’s farewells), it would be appropriate to refer to her by the name and pronouns she prefers. Though she cannot participate and ordinances or go to the temple, she can be referred to as however she pleases. Ive Referred to this before, but Ben Shapiro gives an interview with Joe Rogan where he shares that in the public speaking setting, he fights transgender ideology at every point. But in a personal one on one and social communication, he will always referred to them by the Pronoun they preferred. I think the church is taking a similar approach. none of this seems liberal, just respectful.
  25. 7 points
    Just_A_Guy

    New Handbook

    I was doing baptisms in the temple with my oldest daughters last Saturday, and an (unrelatedly) eleven-year-old girl serving as one of the witnesses took an especial pride in telling me I was doing it wrong. She called me out several times. I couldn’t help but admire her earnestness in spite of my impatience with what I took to be her pedantry. Regarding the right-versus-left thing: yes, a lot of it’s cultural; but I think it’s safe to presume that many of our ritual gestures/signs/tokens were restored to us with an awareness of this cultural baggage and an expectation that said baggage might be used to approach/interpret those rituals. The “right-hand-as-hand-of-covenant” thing, applied in the temple, had brought me to some very interesting insights and connections that I would not have otherwise made.