yjacket

I tend to agree more with Rob on empathy/sympathy . . .but my view is more nuanced. Empathy the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this I will never have empathy for transgender, I can't possibly relate to it. I've never had those types of confusions, I've never been close to that or homosexual stuff. But then again, I don't need to have empathy for transgender. I can certainly have sympathy for those who are confused, I imagine that it is very difficult. I've been through very difficult stuff in my life, so I can have sympathy that what they are going through is very difficult for them. Sympathy for them as in "I imagine it is really rough", but not empathy as in "I have a similar understanding of how it exactly feels". Quite frankly, it's very difficult to have true empathy b/c we are all different, all unique and experience things differently from each other. The only Being who truly knows how we feel and can truly empathize with us is our Savior, Jesus Christ. It is to Him we should look for empathy, not from man. I think of it this way with my kids. My kids might say Dad, I hate you or that is so unfair, etc. I have sympathy for them and I can say-you know if I were in your shoes I'd probably feel the same way. But I don't have empathy, yes as one point I was a child, but that was so long again and I've grown as an adult so much that I really have either forgotten or don't know, I can't have empathy for them. And quite frankly I'm not a child, my brain thinks and operates at a completely different level than a child so I can't really have empathy-but I certainly can have sympathy for them.

If you ever want to know what really has happened in America regarding LGBT and the pushing of this evil agenda to accept sin as normal, just read After The Ball, written in 1990. Ever wonder why prior to 1990 the LGBT community got no traction in American Society? What changed? How did it change? Well this is the manifesto, it even says it right here: To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this "a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style. Do you know what they called for in the book? Wake up and smell the coffee folks. As a society we have been brainwashed and it has been conducted in a very coordinated effect (but you see b/c it was written by a psychologist, it's all good, b/c in our modern society rather than relying on scriptures and Modern Prophets, Psychologist have been our gods and our false prophets. Here are some highlights (remember it was written in 1990). Homosexual behaviors are absolutely a perversion and as a society we have accepted it hook, line and sinker and it's only going to get worse. Legalized marriage and adoption rights. • Mandated “domestic partner” policies for all employers, public and private. • Vast increases in government funding for all homosexual programs. • Explicit homosexual “education” at all levels of schooling. • More homosexual teacher/“role models” in the schools. • Broad dissemination of explicit homosexual literature in schools and public libraries. • Abolition of “age of consent” laws. • Abolition of all state and local statutes restricting homosexual behavior. • Criminalization, prosecution, and persecution of “homophobes,” i.e., religious “bigots.” • A dramatic increase in the visibility of provocative and “diverse” manifestations of the gay subculture. • Expanded pervert programming on television. • Rapid expansion of the gay revolution to small-town, suburban, and rural America. • Admittance of homosexuals and lesbians into Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other private youth groups. An article reviewing the book was written in 1998. https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14947-the-queering-of-america

I don't doubt that at all. I also don't doubt that some individuals who have a mistress could say the same thing about their mistress. But as Christians, we call it what it is . . .sin. So as Christians we call homosexual behavior what it is . .. sin. It doesn't matter how much "love" they have for their partner, God does not approve and it is therefore sin. This ain't hard folks.

And unfortunately in 2017 too many people are willing to accept sin and call it good rather than call it what it is . . .sin. ;-)

Completely illogical. You believe it is completely chemical that triggers anger? That is totally false. The emotion of anger has physiological responses to it-the result of which probably includes chemical responses. But it's not chemicals that cause the anger. If that is the case then we can say, welp I can't help my anger b/c it's "chemical", totally false. I know anatess you suffer from explosive anger-but I guarantee you it's not a chemical thing you body produces that then causes your body to have explosive anger. Quite frankly, that's just an excuse for lack of self-control (and no I'm not picking on you, or being a jerk, etc. I'm just telling you what it is-but I do not mean to dog you). No, anger arises out of situations that we are placed in. If one is sitting in the Temple meditating I doubt there will be anger, yet in 15 minutes outside the temple if someone hits you unprovoked and crashes your car you will most likely feel anger. Was there a "chemical imbalance" that just magically appeared 15 min. later-no not at all. Again, no one has demonstrated or proved or shown scientific evidence of a "chemical imbalance". It is a totally made-up construct by men with three-letters after their name to explain something they don't have a clue about. If you want to suppose that there is a "chemical imbalance", you are free to do so, but again it is a completely unsubstantiated claim. It's similar to boys who believe their spirit really is female. It's totally made-up and only provable in their own heads as a way to justify or make sense of what they feel. Claiming it is a "chemical imbalance", does one thing and one thing only-it shifts the responsibility. By claiming I have a "chemical imbalance" I get a free pass, I don't have to be accountable for the way I feel, my actions, etc. b/c "I can't help it". When time after time it has been shown and proven that individuals can be happy in the most dire circumstances, i.e. we humans have the ability to control how we feel, how we think. That is the distinguishing feature between men and beast . . . we can control, harness, change, and channel our emotions and our thoughts.

That is true, but we as a society need to stop giving crap advice when we don't have a clue about it. There is absolutely 0 evidence for a "chemical imbalance", could it be-sure it could be, but I'd like to see a heck of a lot more evidence before we as a society start spouting off-you have depression! oh my go to the pysc. doctor, he'll tell you you have a "chemical imbalance", he'll give you pills and he'll make it all better! The article above spells out that major depression drugs are ineffective for 50% of those who suffer with depression. 50%! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, a placebo would do better than that! What is this? Believe in fairy-tale magic? I'd much rather put my faith in God rather than in some quack (who if they were honest would admit they don't have a clue).

If you need more proof just read: https://bbrfoundation.org/discoveries/moving-beyond-‘chemical-imbalance’-theory-of-depression The long and short of the article (written in 2012) is basically an admission "We don't have a freaking clue as to what we are doing".

Dude. Get off the medication. Your psychiatrist is using you as a guinea pig. Look there is absolutely no such thing as a "chemical imbalance". It has never been measured, studied, etc. When someone (a psychiatrist, especially) says you have a "chemical imbalance" they are full of crap. I'm an engineer and a scientist and if there was such a thing as a "chemical imbalance" it would be measured. You go to the doctor and you have high blood pressure. That is measured, you have high cholesterol-that is measured. We have measurements for all sorts of biological things, cancer (check), diabetes (check), blood issues (check). If at some point science gets to the point that a psychiatrist can point to and say . ..see look your meta-thamulas is at 1.5 and the average is .5, you're meta-thamulas is obviously elevated-take this medicine to regulate your meta-thamulas. Then, I'd say sure you have something wrong. Until then, it is absolute 100% horse-doogie. Right now, quite frankly your psychiatrist doesn't know what is wrong, and he never will know what is wrong-therefore in an attempt to look smart and act like he knows what he is doing (when he really doesn't and if he was honest he would admit so . . .but b/c insurance-or the state/federal gov.-do pay for it, he can take you for a ride b/c if he didn't he'd be out of a job) he prescribes, xyz medicine. 2 months later . . .he asks-did that work? It doesn't so then he prescribes abc, 2 months later . . . did that work? All the while you are his guinea pig. And in addition, a new science article came out (that does actually have some science in it)-that describes how taking these psycotic drugs can actually do more harm than good. I can't recall the article but basically taking these drugs messes with how your body accepts dopamine-causing big problems. As to how to fix the problem. Certain things help (don't know if it will make a difference). But you have to make sure you are getting enough sleep, make sure you are getting sunlight, make sure you are eating properly and getting the right vitamins. Find a purpose, something you enjoy. Do you have a job? Finding a reason to get up in the morning is important. Sidenote: I'm convinced our welfare state contributes a lot to some of these issues-when you have a choice between actually starving and working . .. you'll work and work is one of the things that gives purpose in this life. Just remember, you are responsible for you own life and you get decide how you live it. When you own your own problems, you figure out a way to make that problem much less of a problem.

I agree it is not the equivalent; I made a comment on what evil porn has brought in general (more of a side-topic than directly related). No a boy who believes his "true" spirit is female is delusional and that thinking has no basis in scriptures, prophets, etc. except in the mind of the individual. If they want to believe that, fine go ahead and believe it, but don't try to convince or ask for acceptance from others (i.e. try to persuade others to that viewpoint).

The older I get, the more that I truly believe this to be the case. Porn shows so many evil practices . . .homosexual behaviors are made normal, deviant behaviors are made normal, etc.

One of the greatest lies in modern society is that truth is subjective and that is completely incorrect. And everyone will eventually learn the full truth, if not in this life than in the Spirit Prison. God's great commandments are first, Love God and second Love your neighbor. In today's modern society we put them backwards, we say first it's love your neighbor, then well if you feel like it love God. We have a modern society that completely disregards simply keeping 1 day in 7 days reserved for God, yet we can pontificate how great it is that we have "progress" that allows LGBT to do whatever they want? So absolutely no, God's first question to us isn't going to be "How did you treat your neighbor", it's going to be "How did you Love Me?" And there is the rub, "If ye love me, keep my commandments", many, many times goes directly against how the world says we need to "love our neighbor". I don't care how humble one is or how how much service one provides . . .if one does not set God 1st above all else then it is all for naught. And no the purpose of life wasn't to come to earth to learn truth . . .the purpose of life was to come to earth to gain a body, experience life and then to try us as to how well we would do in this life with a body . . . .it is a test. A test to see how much we Love God. If we love God more than this earth, we will inherit the Celestial Kingdom, if we don't than we will inherit another portion of glory. God has told us how we are able to inherit the Celestial Glory, if we Love Him enough and abide by the precepts necessary to inherit the Celestial Kingdom, then by the grace of Jesus Christ who Atoned for us, we will inherit it. If not, we won't. That is why how we think is so important. We know that how we think in this life, will carry over into the Spirit World; we might learn more truth over there, but in order to inherit the CK we must change ourselves to be more like Christ and Love God above all else. That's why it's important for members of the Church, who have been given more light and knowledge to stay within the mainstream of the Church and to not go off into weird ideas about what may or may not be happening with our Spirits. We have been given Truth, we know where to find it (in the scriptures and prophets), to accept the doctrines of the world and mingle them with scriptures go against what we have been taught . . .we have been taught to not accept, "the philosophies of men . . .mingled with scriptures". If we Love God then we will not accept this . . .a Love of God is a Love of His Truth, His Doctrine, His Word, His Commandments . . .and then doing them.

It really depends on the circumstances. Fornication with a prostitute and you are endowed is way different than fornication with your fiance (neither are good), but one is we got carried away and we didn't have enough self-control-the other is I was just looking for it. But I agree, engaged and fornication with your fiance will most likely be some form of probation, for the endowed member maybe dis-fellowship but that is as far as I can see it.

Well, Obama never really pulled out of Iraq (or the middle east), like Paul and I wanted to. It will be 17 years after 9/11 . . 17 flipping years, 15 years being in Iraq?? My goodness, sometimes you've just got to realize the reality of the situation. If you can't "win" in that period of time-you ain't never gonna win. Yes we should just abandon the middle east-let them figure it out-and prevent them from coming here. But anyways, I don't think we have a fundamental disagreement about how much evil we should allow in . . .politics is war without violence. There are moral ways to fight it and immoral ways to fight it and I'm for moral ways to fight for it-but I also understand that most people don't care about morality in politics-they just care about power and obtaining it. One of the reason's why I actually like Trump is b/c I became very aware and astute to all the really nasty, dirty, immoral, tricks the establishment played on Paul. It was blatantly obvious-they'd leave him out of a poll even though he was in 3rd place (they'd go 1,2,4,5,6,etc). Quite frankly, I love that Trump is skewering the establishment. And as a plus, I actually agree from a libertarian perspective with a lot of his ideas (not all-but they are almost all more libertarian than establishment R/D). And it's a matter of perspective, if one see both establishment R/D as the same (as I do), then having a Trump in office is awesome.

'08 wasn't winnable on platform the R's wanted to run. McCain is the ultimate neo-con; I don't think he's ever seen a conflict he hasn't wanted to get involved in and then bomb the crud out of the people. The Rs in '08 completely misread the voters-they pushed McCain (establishment neo-con) at a time when the country was war-weary. Obama won, not b/c he was minority, but b/c the country wanted out of war. Had the Rs listened to Ron Paul in '08, they would have won. They didn't need to incorporate everything Paul said, but they needed to wise-up to what was happening and they didn't. They did everything in their power to kick-out, ostracize, belittle, etc. Paul. They didn't listen in '08, nor in '12 and in '16 they (the R establishment) finally got their butts handed to them. What I find hilarious is the exact same people who told me I wasn't "really" a Republican, or had such anger towards me in '08 for not towing the party line are the same ones who decided they were "neverTrumpers" and that it was their job to resist Trump. Their hypocrisy was stunning. The R establishment got what was coming to them, good and hard.

IMO, a year engagement is way too much-that is just asking for trouble. It should take at most 6 months to plan a wedding. Why the long wait? Little girls grow up thinking they want to have a big wedding, with lots of guests, etc. etc. etc. people spend 10k+ on a wedding. And it's completely false. A wedding shouldn't cost but maybe a grand (and that is mostly for food at a reception). Being LDS, we have a free place to get married, either the temple or the church building. You know who you want to marry, she said yes, what are your waiting for to actually getting married? At this point, no you will not be married in the temple starting out and that is a shame, but such is life. Get married and in a year get sealed.

My last comment on this; I pretty much agree with Ben Shapiro on transgenderism, mostly on abortion, but not so extreme:

Of course anatess. Thank you. To you last sentence. I quite frankly really don't get it. As I've said time and time again, there is absolutely nothing in scriptures or in words of the prophets that indicate this and in fact it is the opposite. What is so mind-boggling to me is that members of the church believe this new-age insidious doctrine. Do people honestly not read the words of the prophets and apostles? No they'd rather turn on the TV, watch Will and Grace and then say, yeah that's cool-no it's not. When he was an Apostle Kimball wrote the following: As we read the scriptures quoted or referred to above, we observe that they list virtually all the modern transgressions, though sometimes under ancient names. Let us review the lengthy list: Murder, adultery, theft, cursing, unholiness in masters, disobedience in servants, unfaithfulness, improvidence, hatred of God, disobedience to husbands, lack of natural affection, high-mindedness, flattery, lustfulness, infidelity, indiscretion, backbiting, whispering, lack of truth, striking, brawling, quarrelsomeness, unthankfulness, inhospitality, deceitfulness, irreverence, boasting, arrogance, pride, double-tongued talk, profanity, slander, corruptness, thievery, embezzlement, despoiling, covenant- breaking, incontinence, filthiness, ignobleness, filthy communications, impurity, foolishness, slothfulness, impatience, lack of understanding, unmercifulness, idolatry, blasphemy, denial of the Holy Ghost, Sabbath breaking, envy, jealousy, malice, maligning, vengefulness, implacability, bitterness, clamor, spite, defiling, reviling, evil speaking, provoking, greediness for filthy lucre, disobedience to parents, anger, hate, covetousness, bearing false witness, inventing evil things, fleshliness, heresy, presumptuousness, abomination, insatiable appetite, instability, ignorance, self-will, speaking evil of dignitaries, becoming a stumbling block; and in our modern language, masturbation, petting, fornication, adultery, homosexuality; and every sex perversion, every hidden and secret sin and all unholy and impure practices. These are transgressions the Lord has condemned through his servants. Let no one rationalize his sins on the excuse that a particular sin of his is not mentioned nor forbidden in scripture. How much more plain can it get? If it were true that we had mis-assignments of gender, do you not think the prophets would say so? And in addition, let's just play this out here. We know 100% for a fact that God does not do things by force, i.e. each Spirit that comes down to this earth comes here by choice. If that is the case, isn't it just as plausible (since we are venturing into the realm of speculation) that the so-called female spirit actually choose to be in a male body? We have no idea at what point the spirit enters the infants body-but we should all be able to agree that a the spirit enters after the body is determined to be male or female. So isn't it just as likely that the individual choose to come to earth as a male? That they accepted the roles and responsibilities of being male? Shoot, since God does not take away our agency, isn't it just as likely that the individual knew prior to coming to this earth that they would be a male and accepted that responsibility? Again, this is absolute insanity-we are speculating in a realm that doesn't need to be speculated in. Has the world gone mad? Do people truly not see with their spiritual eyes what is happening? There is no way one can read the scriptures and words of the prophets and accept this philosophy. The Church does not allow individuals who have physically acted out their transgender fantasies to go to the Temple? Yet we are indulging their philosophical fantasies? And we don't need to be a leader in the Church, a prophet, apostle, etc. to stand up to this. We've been given true doctrine-it's plain as day. Yes people who are deviant certainly need help-but we do them no favors by catering to their wants and feeding their speculations. Obviously, people who believe in transgender, etc. can do what they want and live their life as they see fit, but we still need to understand what is right and what is wrong. We don't need to be a Church leader to say adultery is wrong, or most other sins, yet the popular culture has become one that if one stands up and says this philosophy of transgender is wrong, one is excoriated and labeled a "bigot"-and heaven forbid someone ever be called a "bigot".

Well, I believe the quote was 27 vs 25. The fact is God commanded us to be fruitful and multiple and that can only occur within the bounds of marriage. The side of the equation that you are not looking at is kids-once a woman hits 35 pregnancy become high-risk. If you marry by the time you are 30 (and you wife is 30), you'll be lucky to have 2 kids. Kids are meant for the young, not for the old-you can do it but raising a toddler at age 45 is vastly different than raising a toddler at age 25. And I guarantee you nobody on their death bed said "boy I wish I'd had less kids". If fact, it is my opinion that the greatest work I will ever do in this life, the greatest contribution I can ever have in this life is to raise the next generation in righteousness. I consider myself a good citizen and if I can raise double the amount of good citizens it means the next generation will be more Christlike than the current. A career and job is what you do to provide for a family-it exists so the family can survive. Thinking that a career comes 1st, then the family is backwards and against all the teachings of the scriptures and prophets. Food for thought, the US right now is below the re-population rate of 2.1 births per woman (it's at ~1.9), i.e. as a society the US is literally dying off. I've done my job to keep it above 2.1 (I wish I could have done more, but such is life). It is a demographic winter (thank you femin-nazis!!), honestly people don't realize as a whole how bad this will actually be in a couple of decades. Think Russia, Japan, etc. We have really done a number on the rising generation about teaching and emphasizing career, work, material goods more than family . . . And agree on being "totaling ready for marriage" that is a complete myth. You are never ready and will never be totally ready. You can't fully understand what it means to be a husband/wife and the role you need to play until you are one. The only thing you can do is look at role-models of successful marriages (i.e. ones that have been married for decades) and try and emulate what they do.

Welcome to the new age brother. This is just the culmination of decades and decades of feminism. Once upon a time in a not too distant past there was such a thing as a housewife; as a general rule of thumb the husband was expected to work outside the home and bring in money so the family could survive and the wife was expected to manage the affairs of the household. That's why girls were taught Home Ec. in High School. Now this isn't to say that the roles never crossed boundaries or that husband and wife weren't to help each other out (in fact they were expected to help each other out)-however they had distinct roles and responsibilities. Being responsible for something is different than doing it yourself-being responsible means you take ownership of it and ensures that it gets done-either by yourself or by someone else (i.e. husband or children). But you see, all that housework was just simply too "demeaning to women"-never mind the fact that someone must do it and someone must be the responsible party to ensure it gets done. And this is what happens when an individual doesn't take ownership or responsibility over something-it doesn't get done. And quite frankly, breaking the responsibility to ensure the household is well put together to two individuals doesn't work quite well-I'm sure there are exceptions but as a general rule it doesn't work. What do you break it into, I'll take the upstairs you take the downstairs?? No, it works well when one single individual has the entire responsibility and then delegates to others to get it done. Quite frankly, this is where we have failed as a society to teach the next generation. We teach that in marriage "all you need is love" . . .well sort-of, it's about Christ-like love which the older I've gotten I've realized has many more facets than just what is thought of as in "I love you know matter what you do". Marriage is about working together to accomplish something greater than the individual could accomplish on their own-a helpmeet for each other. We haven't taught the rising generation what are appropriate roles wives and husbands should play and as such kids grow up thinking I just need love or someone I'm attracted to or someone who is just spiritual-or pretty-or xyz. They then get married, find out each individual now has completely different expectations about what a functional marriage should look like in practice. We teach the qualities one should look for in a mate, but we don't teach the roles that one should play as husband or as wife. I would suggest the following, as head of household, sit down and have a conversation about what each of you believe the separate roles and responsibilities each of you should play as husband and wife. This isn't dictatorial, but a conversation. For example, she might say she believes she should do all the laundry and you all the dishes or whatever. Once you decide on appropriate responsibilities, then you have to let her completely manage it. One can never learn to be responsible if someone is micromanaging every decision. But if she doesn't know how to do it, then that is where training comes into play (and this might be the case as again we have failed to teach the rising generation....). And that is where the tough part comes into play-in marriage one must learn to allow your spouse the ability to do things the way they see fit-suggestions are fine and good-but ultimately let the other person flourish without criticizing. As a sidenote it is my belief that in general one individual should be wholly responsible for a specific task or groups of tasks (for children you rotate them). The reason being is that specialization in a specific task breeds efficiency. Could I go and get the groceries-sure I could-but b/c I'm not specialized in it, it is much faster, quicker, more efficient if my wife does it. On occasion do I get something from the store if necessary or she needs it-sure I help out. My wife can specialize in getting groceries and I can specialize in fixing stuff around the house. In our respective roles and responsibilities we help each other out. I make her life easier by her not having to work, worry about mowing the grass, fixing cars, etc. And she makes my life easier by cooking, cleaning, taking care of the house. And as long as each one of us is pulling our own weight, with help from the other, life is blissful. Life gets really rough when one party decides to slack off, or something happens where they cannot fulfill their role (job loss, health problems, etc.). But when it works well, life is awesome.

I can certainly get on board with "feel in sync" vs. "in sync" and there is a very important difference between the two. There is a very important shift that is occurring among culture; transgender, just like homosexuality although much earlier, was recently removed from the DSM and classification as a "mental disorder". And how or why does something get removed from the DSM? It gets removed when they vote on it. It is a social construct that gets voted on. " The British Psychological Society stated in its June 2011 response to DSM-5 draft versions, that it had "more concerns than plaudits".[67] It criticized proposed diagnoses as "clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgements... not value-free, but rather reflect[ing] current normative social expectations", noting doubts over the reliability, validity, and value of existing criteria, that personality disorders were not normed on the general population, and that "not otherwise specified" categories covered a "huge" 30% of all personality disorders. "

Okay, maybe we are coming a little closer to agreement. But you still didn't answer the question. The doctrine that are spirit can be one gender and our bodies be another gender has no basis in scripture, Church doctrine, etc. Please address that line above.

That is fine you disagree with my as anatesse says "salt-of the earth" way. And I understand that in many cases, what is seen here is only one side of the equation. I think you confuse hate of the philosophy of men and evil doctrine with hate of an individual. And absolutely that is 100% not the case. Those individuals who suffer or through choice become LGBTQ, etc. are Children of God, heirs to His throne-God loves them more than they can possibly imagine. His Son died on the cross so that they might live with Him. And yes, we need the pure Love of Christ-it is the only thing that will heal this broken world. But as a parent the one thing I have learned is that love unfeigned comes with a huge responsibility-that is the responsibility to correct when necessary. And as members of the Church, we need to be extremely careful about allowing the philosophies of men to enter into our lives. If we accept a doctrine that is not supported by scriptures, then we should keep it to ourselves. The only other reason to discuss a doctrine not supported by scripture is to either convince ourselves more of that doctrine or to convince others of it. Absolutely for individuals who struggle or choose LGBT, etc they have issues. I don't claim to know why they struggle or choose it, nobody knows, all we do know is what is correct behavior and doctrine. Very few people on this earth will be able to understand what they are going through-in fact the only one who does is God and Jesus Christ. So rather than talk to a message board about it-talk to God about it. I have many pains in my life that in today's parlance I "suffer in silence", but I don't really "suffer in silence", I suffer under God's grace and His Son, but I don't need to talk about it. The very first principles of the Gospel are 1st Faith in God and Jesus Christ and 2nd Repentance. How can one repent if one doesn't know the difference between what is right and what is wrong?

A statement, intended to deflect on the plain truths about this topic. I may not have the best ability to say things with the "right" tact-but prove me wrong on the doctrinal, scriptural basis with this topic, Eowyn.

ergo for some people it is not (smacks head). Again, this statement has absolutely 0 basis in Church doctrine or scriptures. This is my point. This is a philosophy of man mingled with scripture. It is so amazing that people can't see this. 100% we know gender is an eternal principle, i.e. spirits have gender. There is absolutely 0 doctrinal basis for the idea that the spirit gender and the mortal body can be "out of sync". Nothing, 0, nada, zilc. The idea that they can be out of sync is not supported anywhere-except in the minds of those who accept this pernicious, evil doctrine. I don't know how much more simple it can be. CFR that this philosophy is supported by Church doctrine. You won't, you can't, it is a philosophy of men . . .mingled with scripture-have you been to the Temple? How much more plain can it get? The really sad commentary that is occurring within the members of the Church is that they would rather subscribe to current social beliefs rather than read what Apostles, Prophets, and scriptures have said and taught. They let the media do the thinking for them rather than go to the source of Truth and Light. I ask you, which is more in line with the revealed Word of God? That their spirit is a different gender than their body or that their is something wrong with their mind and mental state?

I agree with much of what you've said. My point has been that while this individual certainly has the right to think that a mistake was made and their spirit is the opposite of what their body is-there is absolutely nothing in scripture, Church doctrine, or words of prophets that have ever come remotely close to suggesting this-in fact the opposite of it. I can absolutely get on board with the sentiments that these individuals are conflicted, and that they need help. What I cannot get on board with is agreeing with the philosophy of men that their spirit is really a different gender than their body. I cannot get on board with the need to "accept" their behavior-for those who choose to act out-or that I even need to entertain these evil ideology. If they want to believe that-fine-but we need to stand against incorrect doctrine and teach correct doctrine. I will show you why. You state that everyone's eternal body will align with that identity. We know in the scriptures that our bodies will be restored to their perfect state-that not one hair on the top of the head will be lost. This means that those who have been born with physical and or mental defects will be cured or perfected. Therefore this means one of two things; in the resurrection to a Celestial body (for trans people) either your boy parts will be changed to girl parts or the mental defect (which is what I personally think it is) will be cured. So if in the resurrection, the Celestial body really should be a girl body-why on this earth would we not want to correct that malfunction? We attempt to correct physical deformities, but why not this one? Which is more plausible-that transgender is a mental condition on this earth? Or a condition that needs correction in the resurrection? I highly suggest if you want to figure this out read Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith-written while he was an Apostle about 60 years ago. While your friend may not be trying to change society-plenty of individuals who are afflicted with the same problems are. plenty of evil men who are trying to destroy the family are most assuredly doing their best to change how society thinks about transgender individuals. And they have done a really good job at it. None of us our Christ, and we are not the ultimate judge, but we are commanded to judge righteously. And righteousness is found in the scriptures and in the words of the prophets. I can certainly agree that your friend is in a conflicted state and he will need the help of God and Christ to overcome this and that if not in this life in the next. If you can agree that the philosophy of their spirit gender not aligning with their mortal body is a philosophy of men and has no basis in scripture or prophets-then I think we have come to an agreement.