lostinwater

So very sad.

@pwrfrk You are missed (and this is another inactive/non-militant ex speaking). A balancing of perspectives is no less needed for it's being poorly received. Those who return angry echoes aren't the only ones who hear your words. i am sure many silent people feel some hope knowing another good person shares their thoughts. i hope you will reconsider.

As long as it's not just you who was laughing. It sounds like that was the case (i hope). Anyways, an apology from too-literal @lostinwater is needed, and meekly offered.

Now that - that's a really, really, really bad joke.

i'd never say never. But, i most definitely wouldn't take @NeuroTypical up on his bet. That is one i think he would win. And please scour these sources. There's a lot of false claims out there - which is really sad. i want to make sure i'm not spreading lies inadvertently. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. " - Brigham Young, JoD Vol 10, Page 110 http://jod.mrm.org/10/104 In short, as far as the common comforts of life, salvation, light, truth, enjoyment, and understanding are concerned, the Black African has precisely the same privilege as the white man. But they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.” ..... When the Lord God cursed old Cain, He said, “Until the last drop of Abel’s blood receives the Priesthood, and enjoys the blessings of the same, Cain shall bear the curse;” then Cain is calculated to have his share next and not until then; consequently, I am firm in the belief that they ought to dwell in servitude. ..... I would like masters to behave well to their servants, and to see that every person in this territory is well used. When a master has a Negro and uses him well, he is much better off than if he was free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have; but good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that. http://mit.irr.org/brigham-young-we-must-believe-in-slavery-23-january-1852

Someone said once that when you have met one person of a movement, you have met exactly one person of that movement. i've found this to be true - even though i don't always act like it... OK, ok. i almost never act like it. i certainly acknowledge that there are bigoted kinds of actions on both sides. Though i think underneath those bigoted actions are just people who are looking for the same things, but in different places, and by different means. And from what i've seen of the people on both sides, a bit of listening and understanding is about the only thing that serves any positive purpose.

Thanks. That's possible. Or another way of looking at it might be that they really didn't want any more bodies to have to cool off. And regardless, to take the motive one assumes gave birth to the actions of one person and then assume that the same motive gives birth to every other similar action. i just don't know about that one. And for the record, i don't like weaponized compassion either. But i'd just make sure you meet and talk with a person before impugning a negative intent. And even when it is there, i've found that indignation people use to justify anger is a very thin shell that is remarkably easy to crack.

i know some of these people. You're wrong about them. And it's also true that i think they are wrong about you. i didn't use to think so, but getting to know the people on this forum, i have seen that they are.

i really hope, in the early and introspective hours of the day, you don't still actually believe this. i mean, if one believes this sort of thing about the person who disagrees with them - that they are such a person as that - then i fear for the future of all of us.

Thanks @Vort Agree! Not comparable. And i'd say that most people who are lesbian, gay, etc., - do not march in the parade - and are rather normal people that have been caricatured as something not at all like what they are. Similar to how many Mormons are associated (incorrectly) with the things listed above. That i guess, was the point i was trying to get across. Not to try and draw a correlation between the two. Likening the Mormon church to the most outspoken gay pride activists would be a *very* weird correlation to make.

Thanks @Grunt No welcome demanded. i get why the people in the Mormon church do what they do - and i know it's with the best of intentions. It's fine. Thought it was an amazing article regardless- and portrays an alternative point of view i thought others would appreciate - but that's just my opinion.

Thank-you @Traveler Here's a heavily cited one that claims a linkage of some sort. But no doubt, there are dozens of refutations of this study and other studies cited nearly as often that say exactly the opposite. i sometimes think that about all studies ever prove is that we are capable of seeing things how we want to (if we haven't experienced what's being studied), or how we need to (if we have). Regardless, i don't know much about a genetic component of homosexuality. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321 But i know quite a bit about the genetics of various intersex conditions. It's not nearly as rare as a lot of people think. Talking 1.5-2% of the population. And it's certainly not limited to one's chromosomes. You'll not find me using that concept as a hammer with which to turn gender stereotypes into powder - hopefully that doesn't disappoint anyone. Actually, if anything, i think gender stereotypes are something society uses to turn these people into powder. Part of society wants to stick their label on you parade you around as a mascot, and the other prefers to forget that you ever existed. You are either an inconvenient truth, or an exploitable one. And there's just about every sort of variation you can imagine. There's the aneuploidys like Klinefelters or Turner Syndrome. But i think most people believe it stops there. Actually, any break or abnormality in the steroidogenesis pathway - assuming it doesn't kill you - cause intersex conditions. Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia/21-Hydroxylase Deficiency or 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency, etc., These are sometimes not found out until puberty when a person who is phenotypically one sex begin to develop sexually into the other as the amount of hormones increase (sex reversal). Or if they are found out at or near birth, doctors routinely commit the same/similar acts of physical mutilation without the person's consent that society at large turns back in horror and righteous indignation at when done later in life, with consent (ie T in LGBT). And all that is typically covered up on a person's birth certificate/hidden from them. If you've got any one of a number of point mutations in your estrogen or androgen receptor genes, you can have all the hormones in the world, but their impact in the cells will be either greatly reduced (mild or partial), or eliminated altogether (complete) - Estrogen Resistence or Androgen Insensitivity. Just about anything that upsets the hormonal axis and it's associated feedback mechanisms turns the whole thing on it's head. You can have sex genes translocate to different chromosomes - Swyer and De La Chapelle Syndrome. And who knows the various Asperger's/Autisim-like equivalents that probably account for the level at which a boy or girl expresses typically feminine or masculine traits, and the huge variety of secondary sexual characteristics that one sees. And that's just the cookbook. Actually, just 2% of the cookbook. The other 98% of the genome they're just figuring out what it does. DNA is nothing until it is expressed (translated and transcribed into proteins) - and heaven only knows the things that affect that. Genetic imprinting or methylation, etc., And then you add a spirit into that body on top of that. It's really sad. Movements don't offer a process of democratic election when selecting the people who represent them. It's pretty much whoever screams the loudest and most newsworthy (clickbait-able) stuff defines the movement. And then people who have not considered it worth their time to make an attempt to reconcile their fears of what you are with who you actually are foist their fears about what little they know about the movement on you as an intention to destroy what they care about. Many of the people grouped into this movement don't even identify with it. There's one quote in one of CS Lewis' books to the effect of, "That horrible thing that cannot be, and yet somehow is" that i think describes a prevailing viewpoint. Anyways, sorry, this is quite the diatribe - and i hope you don't take it personally. i know you are talking about behavior, and above is largely about physical reality. i'm talking about the fringe and you're talking about the larger constituency. But i just don't see how it's possible to take generalized observations about the whole and based on those to attempt to separate the mesh of untold interactions between the physical, mental/behavioral, and spiritual aspects of the fringe and then proceed to classify the fringe's various actions cleanly into one of the three bubbles, based on one's (or one's preferred Prophet) interpretation of a God who is beyond the comprehension of mortal mind, all while claiming total objectivity. And if one were to question what my point of writing this is, i am not sure. Not asking for anything. No agenda. No demands. Perhaps just to listen to my own words in the sea of voices that say differently. Really though, if your present course is giving you happiness, by all means, carry on! i think what many have realized is that real peace is only found when you stop letting others create the glasses you see yourself through. i think when you do that, you begin to see that you don't need to find someone who is willing to sell your own direct relationship to God back to you, in exchange for your obedience to their ideals. Regardless, God and Jesus are looking out for people on the fringe - and those in the middle. And that's all any of us can hope for - and more than all of us deserve.

Thanks @Fether i agree that lots of people think this. But i can tell you i know many people this is absolutely false for. It's certainly a common notion that everyone who is part of the LGBT community is a pedophile/pervert that marches in gay pride parades in flamboyant clothing in between their attempts to desegregate bathrooms, have homosexuality taught at the public schools, and deliberate attempting to destroy the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. It's also a common notion that mainstream Mormons actively practice polygamy, engage in evil masonic rituals in their temples, worship Joseph Smith as a God, do not believe in the Bible, and are not Christians. i'd suggest that both are false, and an indication that respectful exposure to the actual people involved, rather than the demons one makes them out to be, could prove helpful. This really is worth the time to read, for all engaged in this issue. https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

Thanks @Traveler Honest question - where do you draw the line between the innate and the learned, and what is the justification for placing it there? Really, it's just soliciting an opinion - not meant to be argumentative at all.

This presents almost no problem for the outside observer. It's quite easy to deny who someone else is (in perpetuity) - especially if you are not the one, or the person whose children, are forced to reconcile that point of view with reality.

@BJ64 This is absolutely amazing. Saying thank-you doesn't even come close to being adequate. This article only talks about LGBT, but i feel it applies to biologically intersexed people also. Seriously though, this is required reading.

Thanks. i know i need to be really careful here. What i meant is that, at least in my sister's case, there were elements within her marriage that were dysfunctional. And she was keeping those dysfunctional elements on life support, at her expense. i think one realization she came to was that she had to live within the marriage in a way that was sustainable in the long term for her. Lots of give and take in the short term. But simply ensure she exercised a reasonable set of rights, and then, let him make his decision. i've seen the other person make really big changes, or walk away. Anyways, sorry if you already took that meaning. But i just want to try and be really clear. Divorce is terrible. It's terrible even when it's needed. And to your point, with kids, there's almost always going to be perpetual involvement of the ex-spouse. Even if you divorce them, they are still a huge part of your children's lives - and thus, of your life also. Anyways, i hope things work out for you. You sound like a wonderful person who deserves all the happiness out there.

@jmom So sorry for this. My sister is in process of divorcing after nearly 15 years and 6 kids. It's been rough, complicated, and messy - and that's my outside perspective. Much, much worse for her. Divorce creates a lot of problems. A *lot*. In her case, they are better (most of the time). One thing that helped her was to create a environment that was workable, for her, long term. i'm not sure what that looks like for you. For her, that meant a lot of changes. The worst elements that she had control over were eliminated, after careful identification. And then, how to respond was his decision. Definitely, where to draw the line, what that line looks like, and how much that line should be adjusted based on circumstances is something i can't advise you on. i hope you have people familiar enough with the situation, on both sides, you can talk to. Anyways, i guess what i am trying to say is that slowly taking dysfunction off of life support is usually a really good thing. Perpetually sustaining dysfunction does neither you, nor your husband, any favors.

Perfectly said!

Thanks @Fether - good topic. Given enough time, i think yes, they could be integrated fully, even in the Mormon church. i'd say it's extremely likely, if the strong sense of being a separate community decreases and they are allowed to integrate into the more stable tracks of society. Honestly, i think this sense of community (and some of the painful behaviors that are often associated) developed because how they were treated made getting into some of these more stable tracks almost impossible. It's much easier now - and you see a lot of people doing it. Though as far as Mormon church integration, i can't imagine this would happen for at least the next several generations. Still, it's amazing how far the Mormon church has come already. Just 40 years ago, they were doing electric shock and vomit aversion therapy at BYU. In 120 years, it's gone from destruction of the homosexuals being the only way to stop homosexual crimes (GQ Cannon, 68th General Conference) to donating money to help those of them who are suicidal to get help. For more likely - and i think we have already seen this - is that the Mormon church's will take an increasingly conciliatory tone. To an extent, it's almost had to. There are almost too many members that don't accept the narrative that people who are homosexuals are this worthless wave of filth washing over the earth - because there is someone they know personally that is a good and kind person, and also a homosexual. And i really hope that people don't think homosexuality is that person's entire identity. My guess is that there are more people you have reasonably close ties with who you *don't* know who are homosexual than people you know who do. Certainly, for many, it's a very large part of their identity. But i think the reasons for that are similar to why Jews have a much stronger racial identity than do most other races - because people have been trying to eliminate both of them for a very, very, very long time. And that kind of experience definitely cements that one aspect of who you are into the forefront of identity - though not because you chose or wanted it to be.

So sorry you are dealing this. My Mom had a similar situation with a calling in the YW. i wish she had said no, but that was her situation, which i was well apprised with. For her, it was very true that the hardest decision was also the worst one. i lack that knowledge here, obviously. But anyone who attempts to tell you what you should do, attempting to give a respectful heft to their suggestions with righteous indignation rather than explaining and listening and/or displaying a non-selfish interest in you outside of the point in question - i'd recommend salting their advice, quite heavily. i really think most people, if they honestly ask themselves what their best self thinks they ought to do after fielding everyone's advice, will make a suggestion better for their lives than anyone else who thinks they know what that person ought to do.

Sounds like i should have just listened to the musical!

i just finished Hamilton by Ron Chernow. Fascinating book. There was a whole lot of soap opera in the lives of the founding fathers! If Burr hadn't killed Hamilton, i think Adams or Jefferson probably would have. They *hated* each other - and used almost every means in their power to scheme against and subvert one another. And one thing i've come out realizing is that there was *never* consensus on the constitution. Not even the people who wrote it could agree what it meant. Actually, especially not the people who wrote it. And even after they wrote it, they couldn't agree on how to interpret what they'd written. It took people like Hamilton - to take a blueprint and actually make a working machine out of it. i wonder sometimes if there can be such a thing as an apolitical SCOTUS judge. There are a lot of laws where applying them in a just way that acknowledges the realities of a society requires something more than just impartial interpretation. i have a lot more respect for the work that judges do now.

Very sorry for the issues you are dealing with - whether just hypothetically, or something in your life. The examples you provide are truly where the rubber hits the road. And here, to be honest, is where all the marketing falls flat. As you said, everyone has different examples of what it means to show love to someone. Jesus always said the perfect thing. Gentle rebuke, forgiveness - a mixture - whatever the situation required. He had this mix of all the attributes most of us can only practice one at a time woven together in this perfect mesh that could mold and adapt to every possible situation. Unfortunately, none of us have that perfect insight - at least i don't The best things i've found (that i usually still don't practice enough) are to not assume the insensitivity grows out of malice. If you think you see malice, go digging for the good by using questions to try to understand someone - without worrying about changing them - and then listening for answers. And then, just stick with them through the uncomfortable times. There definitely are exceptions, but from what i can see, they are relatively rare. i suppose that's less an answer than a strategy. A strategy that provides enough time for people to figure one another out.

@BornToGoodlyParents i'm very sorry you're going through this. The choice ultimately is yours, and yours alone - as it should be. But i'll suggest that it's worth the discomfort of sitting down with your family for a few hours, listening to their concerns about the Mormon church (without arguing every point), and then sharing your own (without being argued at). It's amazing - people can go almost whole lifetimes where disapproval of someone else's choices fester into disgust and mutual contempt - only because they've never taken the time and effort to understand them. Let that contempt grow big enough, and it's really, really, really hard to erase that specter of malice we have a tendency to build up around those we disagree with. From where i sit, the Mormon church is a complex mixture of good and bad - just like every person is. The Mormon church doesn't focus on their bad - and i don't think they should. i'd just go into things having looked the whole thing over. There's compelling arguments and heavenly people on both sides. Anyone who claims the Mormon church is entirely evil and wrong or entirely good and perfect in history, doctrine, and action is, in my opinion, not doing anyone any favors. Reality has a way of shattering bubbles of glass - the longer you the bubble is around, the more catastrophic the consequences when it gets smashed. And, in my opinion, rejecting the Mormon church or it's missionaries or some of it's doctrine is not rejecting Christ or God. i wish i would have known that a long time ago. Regardless, whatever your decision, i hope you find peace and happiness, and maintain a good relationship with your family. i think that's possible, with effort - and it's definitely worth it.