person0

My understanding is that, as a result of the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria social contagion affecting American teenagers, the numbers are inverted from what you are suggesting. Since I began researching this issue when it first swept through my ward a few years ago, I have always heard/read that females significantly outnumber males in terms of transitioning, particularly beginning during the teen years. I wonder if the males simply get more publicity due to the greater societal conflict caused by a male to female transition? That said, I do agree with your premise, it ultimately will depend on how the math works out.

Not sure how long ago you last researched the stats but my current understanding is that, when factoring in today's minors, that number essentially inverts (more biological women transitioning).

I have considered, on occasion over the past year or so, that aside from the various plausible circumstances that could bring this to pass, an additional circumstance could be a large swath of repentant detransitioned women, who, depending on the extent of their initial transition, may not have a realistic opportunity in this life to fully participate in a marriage as a result of the changes they previously underwent. I would imagine this potentially being in combination with other ways the prophecy might be fulfilled. Thoughts?

Can you elaborate on why it would matter? If the point of the parable is to demonstrate (as many modern prophets have indicated) that at Christs coming, only the 'wise' saints will be prepared, despite all being forewarned of it's imminence, then, in that context, I'm not sure what additional value the distinction between virgins and girls would provide.

If we're hopping on the speculation train, don't the Ezra's Eagle folks say that there will only be 4 more US presidents total, or something like that?

Usually, the pronouns being replaced such as 'he' or 'she' come up when speaking about someone, not when speaking to them. As such, I would imagine it would be far simpler to refer to people using only their name, especially in an environment with so many students in and out each semester. I don't understand how it is respectful to validate an individual's false perception of themselves. Seems to me that if we truly respect someone, we would be honest with them, though we may be tactful. Using someone's name should accomplish both. Would you be punished for using their name only? If the answer is yes, I would prayerfully consider seeking out a new employer.

Oh, I agree with you 100%. I have no intention of backing down from the truth. Instead, I can speak the truth without being beholden to internal feelings of pent-up anger. There have literally been moments where I have felt that I no longer want to be a member of the Church, but in the same feeling also knew that there is nowhere else for me to go because I know the Church is true and so I can't/won't leave. The concerns I have and the changes and directness I would like to see from our leaders remain, but I don't have to let them burden me. I previously mentioned how our Area received guidance from our Area Presidency for leaders to avoid any affirmation of an individual's transition, and that my wife and I fought for over a year to achieve that small victory, but during that year, I would sometimes have two+ hour meetings with Stake leaders where I spent most of the meeting in anger and frustration, and where I let that anger and frustration show in the way I communicated. I don't want to feel those feelings internally anymore; I want to act in righteousness without taking it personally when others disregard the things they ought to believe. I want to be able to speak with boldness without anger, so that I can stand for truth at all times and in all things and in all places, without the spirit of contention. I have the tendency to become contentious when standing up for what is right and true, and I want to let go of the things that cause that contentious spirit to swell within me, so I can stand for truth with even greater power by always preserving the Spirit of the Lord. I want the Spirit to work through me to pierce the hearts of others, and to achieve that I can't start a conversation with peace and the Spirit and allow contention to swell up and take over. I initially disliked Pres. Nelson's talk, from the moment of hearing it live, not because it isn't truth, but because experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker", similarly, I have already seen comments from members to the same effect from Pres. Oaks message. To me it seems so clear that is not what was intended, and seeing others twist what seems so obviously true has a tendency to make me angry. Rather than feeling anger, I want to feel sorrow at the wickedness of the world and love that leads me to stand for truth without any vindictive feelings. I want my anger to be converted into mercy and into the desire for as much mercy as is possible to be shown at the day of judgement. Hopefully I am explaining this well enough, but this is ultimately about me wanting to improve myself and become more Christlike and has nothing to do with backing down from the truth. I too will oppose the adversary, and I want to do it the right way, so I can do it with maximum power and efficacy, and minimum impact on my emotional state, regardless of outcome, because I know that in the end, the righteous will be victorious.

I've decided to try to just let it go. I know the Church is true, and I know the Lord has a plan that will not be frustrated. I can strive to live and teach the truth where I am able, and then just let go the things I cannot/should not control, and trust that the Lord will show me and others the way. I will strive harder to have the holy spirit with me at all times, to help me be the man I want to be, and more importantly, the man our Heavenly Father wants me to be. Despite the evils of the world and the work of the adversary, with Christ's help, I got this! And so do you! (Interestingly, it isn't as if most of us don't already know these things, but it is astounding how much angst we can feel to preserve our environment, especially when we see our family, friends, and brethren being torn down by the adversary. These are truly the last days, and it is becoming more and more clear that learning to navigate them is part of our calling as Latter-Day Saints!)

This is the part we seem to be missing (from my perspective).

Yeah, that's been part of it. I teach my children that we are to strive to be honest in all that we do, even when it is hard/painful. I think ultimately, the more important issue at the heart of all this is, "how can we be united as Latter-Day Saints if we believe different doctrine?" I believe the simple answer is that we can't, but am open to other perspectives. If we can't, as I suspect, then at what point will we coalesce to believe and observe the same doctrine?

If that's what you think I have admitted, then there has been a grave miscommunication. I find no difficulty whatsoever in being around LGBTQ+ members. I am struggling with being angry at the fact that members who hold leadership positions are affirming LGBTQ+ lifestyles, specifically, they are affirming transitions, and in so doing are teaching other members to follow their example. Even more specific than that, I struggle with getting angry about having to defend the truth of gospel doctrine on these matters to leaders who already have a responsibility to believe it and uphold it. And more specifically, I tend to start those conversations calmly and end up angry when a leader refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly true. Hence the struggle with being a peacemaker in such a situation.

Uh, this is a nationwide issue. I'm pretty sure that's why Elder Oaks' addressed it.

Uh. . . forgiving them isn't my issue. The issue is that they don't stop because they believe what they are doing is right, despite being dishonest and contrary to the doctrines of the gospel. If they were to turn from that, I would have no problem whatsoever.

Not sure if either of your suggestions seem appropriate. I think it is best to use the individual's name, and always use their name and avoid using any pronouns at all. In doing so, I can be respectful without forcibly imposing their biological pronouns, and also without being dishonest. It isn't as simple as you are making it sound. Ultimately we are talking about leaders who directly or indirectly influence my children and other members of the Church. To be clear, none of the people I have an issue with are people who deal with gender dysphoria. I am concerned about leaders who affirm transitions through word and deed, in contrast to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

I don't disagree with anything in that transcript.

My understanding, and that which our Area Presidency was willing to issue guidance on, is that only names should be observed. Problem #1, I don't really care about other things enough for that to be realistically feasible. Or perhaps better said, the other things we could discuss we also don't have in common. That said, in general, the individuals relevant to this discussion have much more disdain for me than I do for them. I don't tend to hold grudges, and I would have no problem sitting down to play a game or have a chat at any time.

To know what the actual Christlike thing to do is. To know when my anger is righteous, like Captain Moroni, and when it is not. I have been in meetings with leaders where I had to ask them to explain how it is possible to teach someone that they are a daughter of God, and then in the next breath refer to them with male pronouns without contradicting what they just taught for both that child and all the other children in the room witnessing it. They didn't have an answer other than to ask something like "what about just loving that person?" To even be in a situation where it is needful to point out that problem, and the problem with the logic of the response is very frustrating at best, but I find it hard to hold back my anger because I am speaking with someone who's responsibility is to know better on such fundamental issues. I think those leading and teaching other members of the Church, especially youth, should be expected to both believe and uphold the teachings of the Family Proclamation, and just the doctrines of the gospel in general. Not sure how much a thing could be confirmed/enforced.

Today during our Elder's Quorum meeting, we discussed President Nelson's recent conference talk, Peacemakers Needed. Within the context of this thread, I really struggle with this, and I think I would appreciate more examples of real life application from the brethren. One thing that bothered me is that, this quote from the talk seems to easily lead to the false conclusion that confrontation is never the answer: Pres. Nelson gives a very clear context for his message later, saying: I brought up in the meeting today that confrontation, contention and conflict are sometimes the answer, such as liberating captive people's during WW2, and that Pres. Nelson was referring specifically to how we interact with one another. All that considered, I can't seem to help but feel the anger rise when I consider sending my children to Church with leaders who's 'difference of opinion' means they will lead my children astray, either by their words, or their actions which betray their words, and which will betray the doctrine of Christ and the Restored Gospel. It is too much for me to expect perfection from human leaders, but somehow, when they are lacking in areas that are fundamental doctrine, I don't know how to act or feel. How was Alma able to cope with Alma the Younger leading astray members of the Church? I can only imagine that he at least taught against the flattering words of his wayward child, but we don't really know. We do see other examples of prophets and missionaries publicly defending the truth against those who sought to destroy it, such as Sherem, etc. This message is what strikes me the most: What happens when it is a brother/sister in your ward and those views violate everything you believe in, and also violate everything you are under the impression that they are also supposed to believe in as members of the Church (especially when it is one in a leadership position)? Will an angry cutting retort help? No, but what will help? And how can we accomplish it. And how can I avoid being angry when I can see so clearly how the allowance of these things has directly impacted my children and the children of others? With as much gospel focus as we try to have in our home, have I not taught my children well enough that they will see these actions of others and ignore them and forge their own way on the covenant path? Am I actually angry at myself for not being a good enough father and example? Or is at least some of my anger and frustration justified? If so, how do I channel it into being a peacemaker and maintain composure? I often feel like an outsider and stranger just for believing in and defending the principles of the gospel in the Church from whence they come. How can I/we cope in such surroundings? This stuff is hard, and I really seem to suck at it, and most of the time I don't know what to do. Elder Oaks' answer was helpful at validating the truth, but as @Carb pointed out, seemed lacking in the practical application department. Thoughts?

Awesome! If you have time and want to meet up for lunch or stop by to meet the family, just shoot me a direct message and we'll make it happen.

Actually, I am so grateful that my Bishop does not currently have the permission or authority to make an announcement like that. The reason is because my wife and I fought for over a year and were able to get our Area Presidency to officially clarify that leaders in our Area should avoid anything that could be perceived as affirmation of or support for a gender transition, including the use of preferred pronouns that do not match a member's biological sex. It all started when one of my children was being impacted and we disagreed with ward leaders regarding the final section you quoted from the handbook. More important than the 'may', this passage only grants permission to record the name, and then separately to use the name. It does not grant permission to use pronouns in any way, shape, or form. The text only recognizes that an individual may decide to change their pronouns for themselves. Members/leaders who then choose to grant themselves permission to use those pronouns, are adding in that which is neither expressly nor incidentally permitted by the text. Of course I would welcome Sheila into the Ward, and strive to treat Sheila with the love and respect our Savior expects of us.

I advocate for this methodology as both kind and honest. I don't really think it is debatable. Using a pronoun that is not eternally/biologically accurate is deceitful at best. Outside of being completely oblivious, any excuse to knowingly use them is to participate in deceiving our fellow man. Not only is one affirming a false and self-destructive decision of the individual, they are actively participating in both deceiving those around them who may be oblivious into believing the gender identity is real, as well as setting a bad example to others who may know the truth by participating in social pressure to also engage in the deceptive behavior and acceptance of the false identity as reality. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground option here. As to Elder Oaks having your back, I would encourage you to consider his perspective on this specific topic: I believe it is very clear that changing one's language in ways that confuse or alter gender would fall into that category. The laxity of members in acknowledging this will further contribute to it being enabled to spread more rapidly. We must "Stand for Truth", albeit with love and as much kindness as possible within the confines of the absolute truth of the Restored Gospel.

If a physics degree is necessary to be a perpetrator of this phenomenon, I think I better go get me one, because I point stuff like that out all the time to my wife! 😆

Considering that love is a principal of action, our Father's infinite love for us moves Him to work to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life. His love extends such that he will work to ensure that each of His children will be given sufficient opportunity to receive all he has to give, and for those who still fall short, He will ensure that they still end up with more than they otherwise would have had. Because of the atoning sacrifice of our Savior Jesus Christ, who was prepared and provided for us by our Father, even the Son's of Perdition will receive immortality, and all others will receive an inheritance of joy above that of this earth, which joy will never end. While such love cannot quite be said to be unconditional, it is most certainly perfect, and because of His grace, is much more than we deserve. The question is why would he love us and grant us opportunity beyond what we deserve? His glory and joy are made full as each of His children participates in and partakes of it. Because of this, it makes sense that he would give His children every possible opportunity to receive what portion of it they can become eligible for, similar to how we often give our children multiple chances to turn from their misdeeds so that both we and they can experience the joy of a particular reward, such as dessert or a particular activity or opportunity.

With a plethora of variations of these for sale, how much more plain and clear could it get?

And what Stake leaders are willing to do about it, if anything. But yeah, I agree, I just happen to be in one of those areas, unfortunately. We do our best to teach our kids as well. We had a very tough battle for a while because one of our children was being led astray and down a destructive path. She is doing well right now, but she has a long life ahead of her.