Just_A_Guy
-
Posts
15562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
260
Posts posted by Just_A_Guy
-
-
I agree with @zil2. The requirement for a legal adoption prior to performing the sealing ordinance is a modern Church administrative policy, but that doesn't nullify the ordinance itself.
But there's something more important at play here. God only honors the sealing ordinance (or any other priesthood ordinance) if, in addition to the proper formalities being observed by the proper authority, the Holy Spirit of Promise gives its ratifying seal of approval (D&C 132:7); which is conditional upon the parties' worthiness and their ongoing living in harmony with the covenants that pertain to the ordinance.
Do you think the Holy Spirit ratified your sealing to your mother's husband?
I don't know anyone in your family, but based on what you say here . . . I'd be inclined to answer "no".
-
19 hours ago, Vort said:
I asked ChatGPT why the speed of light was so excruciatingly slow. The AI firmly corrected me by insisting that the speed of light was not at all slow, and was in fact unbelievably fast. It took a bit of back and forth before I could convince ChatGPT to concede that c might indeed be considered slow, though it would not actually grant the point outright.
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.
-
-
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.
-
12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
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).
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.
- scottyg and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
21 hours ago, Godless said:
Pressured by whom?
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).
2 hours ago, Godless said:OTOH, teachers have a responsibility to protect their students, and it's a sad reality that this sometimes means protecting kids from their parents. So I suppose my stance on this is that I don't want to be the type of parent that my son's teacher feels the need to protect him from.
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!
On 5/18/2023 at 12:06 PM, Godless said:This is an interesting thought experiment. We see examples all the time of people being born into imperfect bodies, and modern technology has come a long way in giving us the ability to correct physical imperfections. Gender dysphoria is a condition under which a person feels very strongly that their biological gender is wrong. The mind (you can replace "mind" with "spirit") believes with every fiber of its being that it's in the wrong body. What is the medical justification for refusing to fix that?
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.
-
17 hours ago, Shon Schip said:
Back in 1983 I was molested by my bishop, I was 14 years old. I thought what he did was normal at the time 40 plus years later I realize it wasn’t. I love The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I don’t want to bring anything bad to the church but I was deceived. The bishop has passed away. What do I do?
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.”
- mirkwood, Carborendum and mikbone
-
3
-
29 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
Correct.
All you need to so is look down here. Conservatives, generally skeptical of government force, love how DeSantis is using…government force….against Disney.
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.
-
2 hours ago, schematic_dreamer said:
I find it disturbing that the only comments on my post so far are to point out that men are abused as well.
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?
-
38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
And here I was thinking: Isn't wisteria poisonous?
Back to physics vs literature again.
Maybe you’re thinking of oleander?
(Edit: just Googled it and, holy cow! I had no idea!)
-
3 minutes ago, Vort said:
Yes, riding through the Old Country yesterday in my locally sourced Maserati, enjoying the unspoiled vineyards and rolling Tuscany countryside, the clear, scented air of the villa, music in the air, the servants chatting jovially in their native Florentine dialect, really brought home to me the fact that it's the simple things in life that count, those that mere vulgar money cannot buy.
Well played, sir!
-
6 hours ago, zil2 said:
Speaking of asking questions, I just have to ask this, @romans8:
It's Saturday morning (perhaps afternoon) in Switzerland (or so your profile says). The Alps are right there outside your door, . . .
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.
-
On 5/2/2023 at 3:26 AM, Jamie123 said:
Call me a Philistine, but I've never understood what people see in this piece. To me, it sounds like the music they play in elevators. I daresay there are beauties there, as this girl points out...
...but they've always been inaudible to me.
(I'd better put on my flame retardant suit before any music-lovers arrive!)
P.S. After writing that, I've had Clare de Lune tinkling away in my head all morning, so I suppose there must be something about it.
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.
-
19 minutes ago, askandanswer said:
And @Jamie123do you know why the Queen's husband was the Duke of Edinburgh, but Camilla is the Queen?
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.
-
2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:
We watched the king's coronation today. First time I ever saw one (except on film of course) - I wasn’t born when the queen was crowned. One disappointment though: no coronets. To explain, peers of the realm (lords) have robes and crowns similar to the monarch's (though naturally less elaborate) and though they do wear the robes on some occasions, they NEVER wear their crowns (or coronets) except at the coronation. I had been intrigued to see what they all looked like with their silly hats on, but no such luck. In the new "slimmed down" ceremony the peers were "requested" not to wear their crowns. Well, this was the only time in a generation they'd ever get to wear them, so what is the point of not letting them?
Yes, yes, I know - monarchy is an anachronism and we ought to have a President like the good ol' U S of A, apple pie and all the rest of it. Actually I'm quite fond of apple pie, but we've had a king (or queen) for well over a millenium and it would be a shame to abolish it just to keep up with our American cousins. (Our good sister Anatess would have plenty or answers to that if she were here, but of course she's not.)
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.)
-
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I'll bet you loved My Cousin Vinny and A Few Good Men.
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.
- Carborendum, Vort and LDSGator
-
3
-
20 hours ago, Vort said:
BTW, Gator's OP is spot-on that those who major in physics (or probably any engineering degree) spend the rest of their lives scoffing and shaking their heads at Hollywood productions that ignore the laws of physics. Doesn't necessarily ruin the movie, but it does set the expectations bar higher.
Law school has the same effect.
- Vort and Carborendum
-
2
-
13 hours ago, zil2 said:
I wonder if it won't all be taken care of in the Millennium. It is curious, and will be interesting to learn more, one day.
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.
-
22 hours ago, Ironhold said:
Scenario I came up with while mulling over a series idea.
There's a rather prominent member of your congregation. He was a military officer during a recent peacekeeping effort, and let's just say he made a few enemies in the process, the kind of enemies that post bounties on people they don't like.
Well, he's finally engaged to someone.
Word goes out, however, that because of his specific situation certain security precautions are going to have to be undertaken.
The marriage won't take place in the temple that serves your congregation.
The date cannot be announced ahead of time, and the ceremony will have to be conducted outside of normal operating hours to ensure that as few people are in the building as possible.
Witnesses will be selected on the basis of their ability to keep everything secret and crack a few skulls if it comes to it.
The reception will not be immediately after, as that would give the date away, and in fact no reception will even be planned until after the couple are safely back home.
How would it make you feel knowing that you're in the same congregation?
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).
- Carborendum and LDSGator
-
2
-
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.
- Carborendum and LDSGator
-
2
-
1 hour ago, mikbone said:
The last supper.
Passover feast.
Parable of the wedding feast.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/46bednar?lang=eng
I’m sure I could go on and on.
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.
3 hours ago, rcthompson88 said:I was recently reading a non-LDS book about Holy Week. One of the points raised in the book was a critique of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement or the idea that Christ's suffering and death was a substitution for our own suffering owed through sin. Their basis for this critique comes from the fact that animal sacrifices, such as ones at Passover or Yom Kippur, were not sacrifices where pain or suffering was meant to be inflicted on the sacrifice. Instead, it was to be a quick and efficient process.
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.
-
13 hours ago, askandanswer said:
No, I'll definitely be putting more time and effort into my musical preparation than I do for an ordinary meeting. I've also started reading all of the General Conference talks he's given since being called as a General Authority.
It seems the church is not treating this as an ordinary meeting either - I've heard that they are sending someone out from the Area Office to see what needs to be done to the chapel itself to prepare for the visit. Members have been asking for years for certain jobs to be done at the chapel, to no avail, but I'm anticipating that some of them will be done before Elder Christofferson arrives.
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.)
Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question
in General Discussion
Posted
Maybe there are regional differences. But my understanding is that in many areas of the country (including Utah, as I understand it), a supervisor broadcasting his religious beliefs would be understood as “creating a hostile work environment” and would be shut down in fairly short order—and could be subject to regulatory and civil liability if he didn’t.
People who disagree with me bringing their “whole selves” to work, wouldn’t be nearly as much of a sore spot if the people who agree with me hadn’t already been warned on pain of firing, public shaming, and/or lawsuit to keep their mouths shut.