Just_A_Guy

ChatGPT is that annoying kid in your fifth grade class who always raises his hand and smugly thinks he knows the answer and whom the adults all treat as some kind of wunderkind—but whom the rest of the class realizes doesn’t know nearly as much as he thinks he knows and is effectively useless in most real-life situations.

We’ll give you 15%.

I was feeling kind of guilty because some of my coworkers in the Attorney General’s Office and I sometimes joke about how we have all the contacts and procedural knowledge necessary to set up a drug ring that would make us all millionaires. But, after reading some of y’all’s posts, I feel a little more virtuous.

In rereading this I suppose I ought to clarify that Schrier is not pooh-poohing transgenderism/gender dysphoria as a whole. She is merely pointing out that in juvenile-onset, female-to-male transgenderism, there is a social contagion aspect to the spread of the phenomenon that suggests individual cases may not be permanent and thus render permanent hormonal* or surgical interventions particularly problematic. *She also makes a case that hormonal interventions are being touted as “completely reversible” even though they really aren’t.

In Irreversible Damage (which I’ve written about on these forums before), Abigail Schrier discussed at some length the effect of social media influencers and peer groups; including the fascinating trend that within social circles—once one natal female “comes out” as transgender, two or three more tend to come out over the next few months. She looks at it as a modern manifestation of the same sort of cultural phenomenon that drove the Salem Witch Trials (where an overwhelming number of convicts were accused by teenaged girls). Naturally, the million-dollar question here is, “define ‘protect’”? If kids who come out are being killed, beaten, raped, etc. by their parents, then ok. But overwhelmingly, that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is that parents who react with anything less than a “full steam ahead”—even otherwise very progressive parents, and in some cases even parents who are themselves gay or lesbian—are by default presumed guilty of (or at least predisposed towards) bigotry and emotional abuse. The fact that a teenager demands secrecy is often accepted as per se proof of the objective need for secrecy. (And to be fair, there are a LOT of parents who don’t handle this kind of thing well; including a few who go so far as to kick their kids out and more who visibly let their disgust for their child’s declared preference overshadow their underlying love for their child. But then again—anecdotes of this nature tend to be clouded by the millennia-old predilection of teenagers for jumping to the conclusion that a parent expressing concern about the teenager’s potentially problematic behavior automatically translates as a complete lack of love.) Remember 5-10 years ago, when Mormon bishops who encouraged teenagers to stay chaste in one-on-one interviews were accused of “grooming” even though the parents were fully aware of the timing and general character of those interviews? And now here we are, with secular teachers telling kids in one-on-one interviews how to permanently modify their bodies to prepare for the sort of sexual experiences that the teacher thinks the child ought to find most pleasurable—and the consensus seems to be that it’s fine that parents aren’t even allowed to know about it! My, how the worm has turned! From an LDS theological standpoint, I think the nuance getting missed here is that there is not a perfect identity between “mind” and “spirit”. We know that physiological traits, chemical imbalances, and experiential trauma all impact how the “mind” functions; and that behavioral and personality disorders are real and often only (mostly) manageable, not curable. We believe the spirit is “in there” playing a role, of course. But there’s no reason to believe that the mortal mind is any more true to its ideal eternal, perfected spiritual form than the mortal body is. It may well be that some “male” spirits are born into “female” bodies (and vice versa) (for what it’s worth, I suspect that this is more likely to have applicability to truly physiologically/genetically intersex folks, rather than those who merely experience gender dysphoria.) Similarly, by analogy, it may well be that the spirit doesn’t enter the fetus until sometime in the second or third trimester and so a first-trimester elective abortion is not a “killing” at all. But in both cases—the consequences for blithely moving forward and being wrong are potentially so catastrophically damaging and morally abhorrent; that the Church recommends (and, frankly, demands) a certain course of action until we receive further light and knowledge. In the secular/policy realm—for consenting adults, if they can find a doctor willing to do the surgery, then it’s none of my business (at least until we have universal health care; I don’t care to see my premiums going up to cover this sort of thing). I do suspect we are going to need to change some liability statutes down the road to address the issue of detransitioners who feel they were pressured into transition or simply feel they weren’t vetted thoroughly enough to begin with. But kids are another issue, and I’m not quite sure where I fall there. I’ve been inclined to feel like those who equate hormone blockers/surgery for children with child abuse, are being too heavy-handed; I’d rather defer to parents. I think drag shows/drag story hours should probably be evaluated on a case by case basis according to how sexualized they are (Mrs. Doubtfire OK; twerking, lingerie, and bouncing prosthetics not OK). But I’ve seen some pretty scary crap lately with parents celebrating their children’s first doses of blockers even as the children themselves scream, cry, and try to physically resist their injections. But again—even as I shudder at that, I think of all those parents who have their baby sons circumcised for little better reason than “tradition” or because they want the son to “look like Dad”. (Yeah, I know there are still differences; but I can’t shake the feeling that I’m just a bit of a hypocrite.) At minimum, I think it’s fair to make parents perpetually civilly liable for any financial costs of de-transition that their children incur. And of course if a parent is demanding transition over the child’s express objection, then by all means send it to CPS. But I don’t know that I’d go further than that.

First off: props for the courage that it takes to talk about it. Going through that kind of thing stinks, and I’m sure it’s been a rocky road since then. Second off: You need to report this; to your legal authorities and to the Church. Yes, the perp is dead. But as you probably know—in all likelihood, your bishop did this to others too. Law enforcement and/or the Church may have resources to do follow-up and identify other victims and make sure they have the help that they need. Going to the media and launching a whole PR campaign may be overkill—but that absolutely does not mean you are obligated to keep this completely secret. Lastly: I think you need to find legal counsel. You don’t want a mad dog who’s out to embarrass the Church and/or milk it dry. On the other hand: under the circumstances, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the Church to cover any unreimbursed mental health/ counseling expenses, or that kind of thing; and my experience is that they are usually willing to help out. (Obviously, you’ll want to bear in mind that they get a lot of spurious claims; so you (or your attorney) will probably be asked some pretty probing questions over the course of settlement discussions. And that can be an ordeal in and of itself.) Again you want to be really careful that you pick an attorney who is willing to follow your agenda, rather than using your story to further their own agenda or political grudges. And of course, you are going to have to do some soul searching to figure out where lies the line between “making me (as) whole (as possible)”, versus “vengeance is mine!”. I find that wandering into the latter course is often tempting but, in the long run, rarely particularly helpful. Best of luck.

“You Mormon government hacks are just trying to meet your church’s child-stealing quota.” ”No ma’am, they made us do separation of church and state. Now we can steal as many kids as we want.”

Tangent: To be fair, DeSantis is merely revoking a corporatist-government alliance that a free-market conservative would argue never should have existed in the first place and that became intolerable when the apolitical private-sector partner became nakedly political. Though I suspect you’re right that many conservatives are approaching the situation from primarily an emotional, not an intellectual worldview.

I am planning a longer response; but prefer to do so on a full keyboard rather than a smart phone (since this is a delicate topic and I want to give it the care it deserves) and I cannot access this site with my work computer. To be very brief: I am a lawyer practicing child welfare law. I take domestic abuse extremely seriously. I also recognize the horror of emotional abuse, while also being painfully aware that “emotional abuse” can be a slippery term that is often weaponized in order to delegitimize “perpetrators” or excuse the destructive behaviors of “victims” in ways that lead to unjust results as accusers cash in on the sympathy society has traditionally offered to survivors of physical, sexual, and unquestionable emotional abuse; ultimately cheapening those survivors’ experiences and sufferings. I am also aware that in a significant minority of cases, domestic abuse by one partner (whether physical or emotional) is often a response/escalation to abusive behavior by the other partner. I am further aware that, in certain circles of Mormonism, it has become fashionable to use terms like “abuse” or “violence” to describe a situation where the Church is doing something the speaker happens to disagree with. And if the criticism in the OP is that the LDS Church isn’t doing enough to deal with “emotional abuse” perpetrated within LDS families—I’m not altogether sure it’s fair to attack the Church for an inadequate response to a phenomenon that I, who am supposed to deal with that phenomenon for a living (and who hold government certification to do so), am not entirely sure how to define or (in the absence of explicit victim disclosure) identify. In light of all that, I wanted to take a little more time with your post to really make sure I understood what your position is (and what it is not) and reply in an accurate, articulate, and appropriately nuanced way; and in the interim I asked a probing question so I could better understand the breadth and scope of your position. And to the extent that your response tries to create a power dynamic by evoking in us a sense that we should feel shame for having manifested a disturbing sense of sexism that is (presumably) outside the bounds of normal humanity: on what basis do we, your audience, acknowledge that you are simply participating in the traditional rough-and-tumble of people with varying opinions trying to debate and negotiate over their positions, as opposed to—say—accusing you of perpetrating emotional abuse against us? These are tough questions; they deserve thoughtful responses. You’ve clearly done your homework. Give us some time to do the same!

Interesting; thanks! Your post (understandably) focuses on emotional abuse perpetrated by husbands against their wives. For the sake of rounding out the discussion: what kinds of emotional abuse would you say husbands are at risk of suffering from their wives? What indicators of female-on-male emotional abuse should church leaders be watching for, in addition to the flags you list above?

Maybe you’re thinking of oleander? (Edit: just Googled it and, holy cow! I had no idea!)

Well played, sir!

And the wisteria in Lauterbrunnen is in full bloom—or was, last week, when I was there. I think we all need some time in the Alps.

I totally agree, except that to me it can’t stay in my head because it has virtually no discernible melody or rhythm. It’s not memorable. The whole thing comes off to me like a mishmash of random phrases/combinations of chords, none of which tie into each other—like a kid with ADHD sat down to practice his piano because his parents told him to, and isn’t really practicing but is just making noise to make Mom think he’s practicing.

Jamie can correct me, but I think the notion of a foreign peer/prince coming in and becoming “king of England” by marrying the queen has been a sore spot since Elizabethan times. (Victoria’s husband was, I believe, a German peer; and Prince Phillip was technically Greek). It’s probably a bit sexist, but “queen consort” to a birthright king traditionally hasn’t been nearly as problematic as being “king consort” to a birthright queen.

I hope the UK keeps the monarchy, and I think it’s a pity both that the ceremonial prerogatives of the peers were diminished and that the traditional spiritual/Christian aspects of the ceremony were watered down. I hope they come back when it’s William’s turn. In another discussion I recently wrote: I can see the merits in the role of a monarch who embodies all that is good, virtuous, and traditional about a nation: and who is proud of his nation’s accomplishments and sincerely loves his subjects. Then again, as I went on to note: But Daffy Prince Chuckie hardly meets any of those criteria. (And to be fair, that’s a heckuva role to be born into.)

My evidence professor actually used quite a few clips from My Cousin Vinnie. I haven’t watched it all the way through, but apparently they do pretty well on the procedural aspects of trial.

Law school has the same effect.

I had always been under the impression that children who die as children will be raised to maturity during the Millennium after their resurrection. If that’s the case, it seems logical that during that maturing process they would naturally have an opportunity to receive those ordinances and make the covenants associated with them; thus, doing their ordinances by proxy before their resurrection would be duplicative.

It strikes me that if a member of my congregation had really done all that stuff overseas, he’d be a blithering idiot to let anyone in his ward know about it. And if he’s really got as many bad guys looking for him as your plot demands, there would never be a good/ safe/ appropriate time or place for a traditional wedding reception. It seems to me that he’d also have to be a bit of a narcissist/ sociopath if, having leaked all that info and in light of the Church’s current policies, he *insisted* that the wedding take place in the temple (as opposed to having a quiet and secure civil ceremony literally whenever and wherever he wanted to, and then doing the sealing later when security permitted). The only situation in which I can see the Church locking down a temple to make the kind of accommodations you describe, would be for a very high-ranking government official (ie federal legislator, Cabinet-level executive branch member, or SCOTUS justice; or *maybe* a state governor).

Somewhat relevant: apparently the Boston temple’s steeple was just replaced due to water seepage issues with the original. The new steeple, like the old one, has Moroni on top of it. So while Moroni isn’t being put on newer temples, it seems that we are not about to see a church-wide purge of the symbol where it already exists.

Well, and my understanding is that initially early Christian house churches celebrated the Sacrament/ Eucharist/ Lord’s supper in the context of a full meal. God teaches a lot through symbol/ allegory/ analogy; but every symbol/ allegory/ analogy breaks down at a certain level. I don’t think the primary point of the Mosaic sacrifices was to emphasize the pain that Jesus would go through (though I imagine that for a lamb, having its throat slit until it bleeds to death is no picnic); the point was something pure and blameless being killed prematurely through no fault of its own and offering relatively little resistance in the process. Now, I *do* think that the penal substitution paradigm of atonement has more limitations than we in the Church might be used to pointing out. The way we talk about it often leaves the impression that even if a person repented, and even if they had truly had their heart changed and through Christ’s grace had developed not only an determination to serve Him eternally, but the actual capacity to do so perfectly, and even if God in His omnipotence knew that the penitence was sincere and in his parental love stood ready to receive the sinner back into His arms—even for all of that, our rhetoric often suggests that we *still* could not be saved because there’s some third-party entity called “JUSTICE” (or: the “justice” attribute of God the Father) to whom/ which somebody, even if not the sinner, needs to “pay the price” by feeling the full pain of the sinner’s misdeeds so that some cosmic account of moral debits and credits can be brought back into balance. Maybe I just need to reread Alma’s sermon to Corianton; but at the moment I’m not quite convinced that’s exactly how the process actually works. Maybe it’s more that our understanding of Christ’s suffering seals our devotion to Him, and binds us to the people we have wronged (and vice-versus) so that, if we will, we can forgive past outraged and enjoy Heaven together.

I sort of get that; and I don’t want to be unsupportive or unduly critical. On the other hand, I would want to be careful not to create a sort of “Potemkin ward”, where what is presented to the visiting authority is seriously disconnected with the reality of life in your congregation And the idea that your area office has been ignoring your physical facilities requests for years and is only just granting them now that an apostle is en route, frankly horrifies me. That’s not how things are supposed to work; and I hope Elder Christofferson is made aware of the situation. (I revere the apostles and try to sustain the seventies and area presidencies; but I give no deference whatsoever to the Church bureaucracy, who in my experience contains an unpredictable mix of amazingly good human beings as well as a disproportionate share of obsequious and superficial snots.)

In all seriousness: Elder C. isn’t coming to your branch to be entertained or impressed. He’s coming to see how things are working in your branch, and to advise you accordingly. (In Utah, apostles occasionally do drop in on random congregations with little-to-no notice; President Oaks did that to us back in 2019.) I think the best thing you can do is just to treat this like any other meeting. (Unless you’ve been doing anything nakedly apostate in your meetings, in which case I would encourage your branch to knock it off. 🙂 )

Well, it seems like in both cases they are describing heartburn and using it metaphorically. I don’t know that Revelation had to have been intentionally borrowing from Job . .