Gender Identification - NO HATE!

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks Carb.  No argument.  i have my opinion - you have your opinion.  But opinions they are.  i make no claim that the bible explicitly calls out and justifies feelings of gender conflict. 

Honestly, i am posting this on a Mormon forum.  i'd be foolish indeed to suppose that any amount of intellectual wrangling was going to result in people magically discarding their views and join me.  

However, i do ask that people not use the bible as evidence of the correctness of their opinion.  Or that at least before they do so, they provide something that substantiates that claim.  And i also reiterate the request that precipitated my first post of the day - that people move their discussions on homosexuality to a different thread - because not doing so reinforces the false stereotype that all people with feelings of gender conflict indulge in homosexuality.

Why are you still avoiding my question?  I'd say that you realize that your position is a weak one from an intellectual stand point.  And you know you have no answer.  So you stand by your opinion knowing there is no logical rationale for it.  

You can make yourself feel more comfortable by telling yourself that it is all opinion.  But is that really going to help your friend?  Is he going to lead a full and complete life going down that road?

A female spirit in a man's body.  You still don't know what that's supposed to mean.  But you're willing to stake your eternal salvation on it?

[lostinwater]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Then we are at an impasse, the Scriptures are God's Word to us through His Prophets.  Modern Prophets are men called of God to teach the world His Truth.  If one cannot use the Bible (i.e. scriptures, words of Prophets, etc.) then what is the point?  

Then we are just debating about what everyone thinks and instead of their being One Truth, the Truth becomes whoever has the better argument to persuade everyone else over to their side.  In fact, if we ditch the scriptures, then Truth becomes whatever each individual wants it to be . . .otherwise known as moral relativism. Now if that is the path you want to go down, be my guest, but a word of warning.  Moral relativism is an extremely dangerous ideology, that at the end of the day boils down to might makes right, and that is extremely dangerous.

Thanks @yjacket for the civil and kind tone of this post.  It is much appreciated.

i actually welcome all scripture that people can bring in showing that my friend's feelings are wrong, or incorrect.  i'm not an active Mormon - nor is my friend - but certainly feel free to use anything you wish.  

i agree on moral relativism.  i just don't get why people insist my friend is somehow part of the movement to make morals relative.  i guess it is association by generalization and guilt by association.  Unfortunate, though.  

[lostinwater]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why are you still avoiding my question?  I'd say that you realize that your position is a weak one from an intellectual stand point.  And you know you have no answer.  So you stand by your opinion knowing there is no logical rationale for it.  

You can make yourself feel more comfortable by telling yourself that it is all opinion.  But is that really going to help your friend?  Is he going to lead a full and complete life going down that road?

A female spirit in a man's body.  You still don't know what that's supposed to mean.  But you're willing to stake your eternal salvation on it?

Thanks Carb.  Yes - it's my opinion.  Equal in weight and value to your opinion.  And also equal in passion and strength to yours.  i'll gladly continue to admit this as many times as you demand that i admit it - though i think the point has been established already?  

Yes, i stake my eternal salvation on what i believe.  because what else do i have?  Am i supposed to stake my eternal salvation on what someone else believes?  i know this is hard for many people here to believe, but yes, i really do believe my friend.  i don't want to believe something and know deep down it isn't true.  i believe it.  

Yes - i believe my friend is a female spirit in a man's body.  That seems self explanatory (to me, you can disagree).  i think you are referring to explaining what it means to be a female spirit or a male spirit?   Yep - no problems  - i concede that i can't FULLY explain what it means to be a male or female spirit.  i gave you my best attempt already.  But does the inability to explain the characteristic of spiritual gender mean it doesn't exist?  Did gravity no exist because we couldn't explain it at first?

Carb - honestly - i am not attempting to change your mind.  It's set in stone - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. All i ask is that you not claim biblical justifications for saying my friend's feelings are sinful or incorrect.  If you don't do that, then all that is left is a continuation of posts like these - whose only fruit is anger and contention.  

[yjacket]

35 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i agree on moral relativism.  i just don't get why people insist my friend is somehow part of the movement to make morals relative.  i guess it is association by generalization and guilt by association.  Unfortunate, though.  

In any movement, there are several different types of people.  Some are leaders who actively push an agenda (those who write and follow books like After The Ball), some are individuals who subscribe to the beliefs and then their are those who don't quite know but that have already succumb to the ideology of the movement-they may not be active participates but have joined an ideology without even really knowing it.  They have been persuaded and joined it without even realizing it and then their are others who feign ignorance of any such thing and make it seem as if they are just "asking questions" when their point all along was to push an agenda.

Which one you are, I don't know and I don't really care either-only you know that answer.

What I can say, is that yes the ideology you are espousing is moral relativism.  Why? Because again their is absolutely 0 proof of your ideology in any recorded history, in any scriptures, in any modern prophets, except your word. Unless you claim to be a prophet, what you are espousing is your own theories and ideologies.  So you are either trying to persuade believing LDS members that they should believe you (i.e. that your spirit really is the opposite of what your body is), or you are trying to say that all that really matters is what each individual thinks (i.e. b/c you believe it-therefore it must be true).

I really have to wonder what exactly is your point on this thread?  We've had 17 pages of going around and around. You aren't an active believing member, you've come to a mostly active believing member forum (that in some way shape or form is actively funded by believing LDS members) and then you've said don't use the bible (i.e. the scriptures) to defend the Christian point of view.

So I'm curious, what exactly is your point here?

As a sidenote (again, only you know), but I'm not terribly confident that we are talking about "a friend" here-I don't know of a friend who would defend their friend's POV on this so vehemently-my guess is that we are really talking about you-which is fine.

Edited February 27, 2017 by yjacket

[lostinwater]

2 minutes ago, yjacket said:

In any movement, there are several different types of people.  Some are leaders who actively push an agenda (those who write and follow books like After The Ball), some are individuals who subscribe to the beliefs and then their are those who don't quite know but that have already succumb to the ideology of the movement-they may not be active participates but have joined an ideology without even really knowing it.  They have been persuaded and joined it without even realizing it and then their are others who feign ignorance of any such thing and make it seem as if they are just "asking questions" when their point all along was to push an agenda.

Which one you are, I don't know and I don't really care either-only you know that answer.

What I can say, is that yes the ideology you are espousing is moral relativism.  Why? Because again their is absolutely 0 proof of your ideology in any recorded history, in any scriptures, in any modern prophets, except your word. Unless you claim to be a prophet, what you are espousing is your own theories and ideologies.  So you are either trying to persuade believing LDS members that they should believe you (i.e. that your spirit really is the opposite of what your body is), or you are trying to say that all that really matters is what each individual thinks (i.e. b/c you believe it-therefore it must be true).

I really have to wonder what exactly is your point on this thread?  We've had 17 pages of going around and around. You aren't an active believing member, you've come to a mostly active believing member forum (that in some way shape or form is actively funded by believing LDS members) and then you've said don't use the bible (i.e. the scriptures) to defend your point of view.

So I'm curious, what exactly is your point here?  

Thanks @yjacket

Sorry - i said it in my last response, but will say it again.  Please use the Bible!  i read the Bible every day.  i love the New Testament.  

Valid question on my point.  Perhaps because i doubted at first - i wanted to 'try' my own opinion and see how it held up.  Because talking about something you say you believe - having to defend it as others attempt to find its weaknesses - it makes the belief more real - in the same way that loving God through the hard times makes your love for God more real than it would be if it had never been challenged and tested.

And also just the dialogue.  To see how open/closed people were about this topic.  To affirm that we can disagree, but civilly.  To try and understand someone who disagrees with me rather than marginalizing, generalizing, and hating them.

But, what is my point now?  Honestly, i think there isn't much of one left.  i think i've presented an alternate way of thinking about things.  Some have received it more than others - which is fine.  And i've seen an alternate way of thinking about things too, and that is great.

i didn't come here to get in an argument, and if i stay and continue to comment, i don't think any good thing can come of it.

Anyways, the challenge is forever open to find a biblical basis for condemnation of my friend's feelings.  i also hope people won't post things about homosexuality here - because that was never what this thread was about.  But i can't control that.

i'll happily comment on a post that quotes a scripture/verse - but anything else, you are right @yjacket - there is no further point.

 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

anatess, I mean this in a nice way but I think you're picking at nats here.  You haven't been through exactly what your child has been through.  You were raised in a different environment and a different culture-the same with my kids. Yes, I was a kids once. But I have a somewhat lazy child, I was never like that-so no I can't empathize with that. Just b/c I was a child once doesn't mean I can remember and know what it is like to be a child.  Shoot that was decades ago-I have memories of it but that's about it. The point being that as of this point right now-all I can really do is sympathize and tell them, yeah if I were your age I'd probably feel like that too-but I'm not so I don't.  

The difference being with Christ is that I'm pretty sure he has all knowledge whereas I've grown/become different but I don't have all memories for a previous point in life. I don't need empathy to be a good parent, in fact I might say empathy might be a hindrance to being a good parent.   

Empathy is "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." I'd argue that if I as a parent I am sharing the feelings my child has then I'm doing it wrong. I asked my Dad (whom I have an absolutely awesome relationship with as an adult), if when we were kids if he ever really, really cared how we felt.  His response, "No, not really". I just laughed after he said that b/c frankly that is the same attitude I have with my kids.  I don't really care much about how they feel. My job is to teach and train them how to be responsible, honorable, decent human beings in this life and I don't really care how they feel about it or the methods I use to train them.

Yea, I can't relate to that.  It's like an alien world to me.

 Empathy doesn't require that you are exactly in the same experience.  Merely that the experience invoke the same emotional or even physiological conflict.  Not caring how my child feels is totally alien to me and my family traditions.  Yes, of course, in the course of discipline, it might be that... say, my father, doesn't care what I feel about the matter as what he feels is the best route for me supersedes what I feel but that has never came across to me as he didn't understand exactly how I felt - simply that it didn't matter to the direction he wanted me to go.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yea, I can't relate to that.  It's like an alien world to me.

 Empathy doesn't require that you are exactly in the same experience.  Merely that the experience invoke the same emotional or even physiological conflict.  Not caring how my child feels is totally alien to me and my family traditions.  Yes, of course, in the course of discipline, it might be that... say, my father, doesn't care what I feel about the matter as what he feels is the best route for me supersedes what I feel but that has never came across to me as he didn't understand exactly how I felt - simply that it didn't matter to the direction he wanted me to go.

I wrote-up a bit, but it got gobbled and I'm too lazy to rewrite.  Long story short, each individual is responsible for their own feelings and happiness-teaching them that is important. Being cold is wrong and being emotionally invested in every little thing the kid does is wrong-it's a balance.

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Sorry - i said it in my last response, but will say it again.  Please use the Bible!  i read the Bible every day.  i love the New Testament.  

And you won't find in the Bible or the New Testament some of the issues that affect our day.  The Bible doesn't mention abortion. Primarily b/c trying to have an abortion prior to modern medicine would almost be a death sentence (there were superstitious ways to naturally have an abortion, but that's about it). The Bible doesn't mention cloning. There are plenty of things the Bible doesn't mention that are artifacts of the modern world. That is specifically why I have made reference to modern scriptures and modern Prophets.

You've set a head's I win, tails you lose situation. You seem to believe that if the Bible doesn't specifically mention this condition, then it must be okay. When that is the wrong way of looking at the Bible. It is a guidebook that gives plenty of principles and guidelines according to God-if one searches it and has the Spirit then the truth of all things can be known.  It is also why we have modern Scriptures and Modern Prophets, to help us understand better God's will in modern times.

In this thread, I have already quoted to you words of a modern Apostle who was later a Prophet of God and you rejected them. Now you have set the standard to only using the Bible on an LDS site that believes in modern scriptures and Prophets of God. That's not a fair fight.

That's coming into a bar, picking out the meanest looking fellow who's a former Marine and then you start punching him-1/3rd through the fight you stop and say, well this just ain't right to make it fair you big Marine need to have one hand tied behind your back and you have to hop on one leg and you have to be blind-folded.  You then roundhouse the guys one leg and say SEE I WON!!!

 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 

That's coming into a bar, picking out the meanest looking fellow who's a former Marine and then you start punching him-1/3rd through the fight you stop and say, well this just ain't right to make it fair you big Marine need to have one hand tied behind your back and you have to hop on one leg and you have to be blind-folded.  You then roundhouse the guys one leg and say SEE I WON!!!

 

@yjacket is describing how he spends his weekends. 

[yjacket]

Just now, MormonGator said:

@yjacket is describing how he spends his weekends. 

lol if only.  My luck would be I'd pick the Marine who was a former sniper and with his snake-like reflexes and super-sonic hearing who would hear me as I attempt a pitiful roundhouse, throw a punch right in the kisser and I'd be down for the count.

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I wrote-up a bit, but it got gobbled and I'm too lazy to rewrite.  Long story short, each individual is responsible for their own feelings and happiness-teaching them that is important. Being cold is wrong and being emotionally invested in every little thing the kid does is wrong-it's a balance.

I don't see empathy as robbing the kid of responsibility for his feelings.  Being empathetic doesn't necessarily follow that you choose to be invested.  Being empathetic means you get what they're going through so you are peddling advice or help or even brushing it off knowing full well its effectiveness to the given situation because you know how that felt.  It's discipline based on personal knowledge rather than theory.  The effect is also different - having empathy changes the approach to discipline even when it doesn't change the direction you're wanting to go with it.  Having empathy builds trust in the child as he realizes the parent understands him so the advice/discipline meted out comes from that knowledge and not just authoritarian posturing.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, yjacket said:

lol if only.  My luck would be I'd pick the Marine who was a former sniper and with his snake-like reflexes and super-sonic hearing who would hear me as I attempt a pitiful roundhouse, throw a punch right in the kisser and I'd be down for the count.

I broke my foot a few years ago. I was in a cast, on crutches, everything. Second time I've broken my foot. When asked by my stake president what happened, I deadpanned "Bar fight, but you should see the other guy. He couldn't handle his whiskey or a roundhouse kick!" 

[yjacket]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I don't see empathy as robbing the kid of responsibility for his feelings.  Being empathetic doesn't necessarily follow that you choose to be invested.  Being empathetic means you get what they're going through so you are peddling advice or help or even brushing it off knowing full well its effectiveness to the given situation because you know how that felt.

We are probably closer than you think and are arguing over terminology.  But here goes:  Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

I do not think it is good to share the feelings of a child. I am certainly sympathetic, but I do not share the feelings (nor do I want to) of either a toddler, pre-teen, or teenager. 

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, yjacket said:

We are probably closer than you think and are arguing over terminology.  But here goes:  Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

I do not think it is good to share the feelings of a child. I am certainly sympathetic, but I do not share the feelings (nor do I want to) of either a toddler, pre-teen, or teenager. 

Then yes, we have a completely different understanding of the word.  Empathy, in my understanding, is a necessity to Love.  Love cannot happen when you cannot share the feelings of somebody as if it was yours.  Jesus is up there, we are down here.  Yet he can feel and share how it feels as he begs the Father to forgive us.  I believe this is what He wants of us as he instructs us to serve one another.

In any case, the difference is irrelevant to the transgender issue at hand, I think.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks Carb.  Yes - it's my opinion.  Equal in weight and value to your opinion.  And also equal in passion and strength to yours.  i'll gladly continue to admit this as many times as you demand that i admit it - though i think the point has been established already?  

Yes, i stake my eternal salvation on what i believe.  because what else do i have?  Am i supposed to stake my eternal salvation on what someone else believes?  i know this is hard for many people here to believe, but yes, i really do believe my friend.  i don't want to believe something and know deep down it isn't true.  i believe it.  

Yes - i believe my friend is a female spirit in a man's body.  That seems self explanatory (to me, you can disagree).  i think you are referring to explaining what it means to be a female spirit or a male spirit?   Yep - no problems  - i concede that i can't FULLY explain what it means to be a male or female spirit.  i gave you my best attempt already.  But does the inability to explain the characteristic of spiritual gender mean it doesn't exist?  Did gravity no exist because we couldn't explain it at first?

Carb - honestly - i am not attempting to change your mind.  It's set in stone - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. All i ask is that you not claim biblical justifications for saying my friend's feelings are sinful or incorrect.  If you don't do that, then all that is left is a continuation of posts like these - whose only fruit is anger and contention.  

You know that none of that is what I said.  But you keep reiterating things that don't address the question.  You say "it's an opinion".  But opinions have some basis.  Some logic or rationale.  You are mistaking it for just a "view" or "a way of looking at it."  That may seem like semantics, but it is getting at the heart of what you're denying.

I'm asking what the basis is.  You are hinting at, but not actually saying, it is just a gut feeling.  Nothing more.  I've avoided saying it because I didn't want to put words in your mouth.  But if it is just a gut feeling, then I disagree that it is equal in weight and value to my opinion.  When I have a basis for my opinion (several in fact) and you have none, then there is more weight and value for mine.

I'm seeing a pattern here of denial and avoidance which I am unable to reconcile with someone who is being open and honest.  The two things you refuse to investigate are the basis for belief in the female spirit in a man's body; and the relationship between transgender and homosexuality.  That is really strange.

The truth is that your friend is actually suffering from same sex attraction.  But he decide that he can't be gay because he knows homosexuality is sinful. OH! But if he's actually a female spirit then it's not SSA.  He's simply in the wrong body.  Yes, the body is the problem.  And he can't be blamed for the body he was put in.  See, it's God's fault he feels this way, not his own. 

That is why you're avoiding these topics.  You know that is what the rationale is.  You know that is why you don't want to admit it or discuss the connection between homosexuality and transgender.

And even though there is no evidence, there is no revelation, there is no scripture to support this, that's what he's clinging to because it is the only way he can justify him "being the way he is" instead of trying to change himself.  You know that's the truth.

He'll eventually figure out that as a female spirit, he can't hold the priesthood on earth.  So, as a man, he won't be able to perform any church callings that would be required of a man.  So, he'll eventually leave the faith.  He cannot serve two masters.  There is no other option other than repentance.  Going on believing this delusion is not going to allow him to abide by truth.  And you supported him in doing that.  Sad.  

Honesty is the first requirement of open and honest discussion.  And if you cannot abide by that, then I'll bow out.

The only reason why you're going along with this is that you are extremely close to him.  I don't know how close.  But to be defending such an ephemeral concept in someone else must mean that you are a close relative or a fiancee or something along those lines.  I actually suspect that you ARE him -- the female side of him.  I'm sure you'll deny that, even if it is true.  But if you haven't been open about other things, I have no reason to believe any denial.  Oh, but that's just my opinion and you can choose to ignore it.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

I'm asking what the basis is.  You are hinting at, but not actually saying, it is just a gut feeling.  Nothing more.  I

 

I had some input into this discussion on the early pages of this thread so I'm going to share my opinion.

What is the scriptural basis of a Spirit getting placed in an intersexed body?  This topic is so ignored that there is no official policy of the church that addresses them in regards to their qualification or disqualification for priesthood ordination.  What is the scriptural basis of a Spirit getting placed in an intersexed body with the parent choosing which gender would make them thrive in society better?  How about these androgen insensitive males that look like this but do not have a uterus and instead have an XY chromosome with undescended testes?  What's the scriptural basis of them qualifying or not qualifying for the priesthood?  How do these cases fit in with the teaching on Eternal Genders?

In any of these cases, we see that it is not as black and white as we all like to think.  Therefore, to me, I don't place any limits on God.  I have no problem with the possibility that God would place a male spirit in a female body in the same manner that God would place any spirit into flawed morality with all kinds of mortal challenges.  It is just another byproduct of The Fall.  The issue is when we jump to the conclusion that because the female body has a male spirit that it would then make it imperative for that male spirit to demand Priesthood Ordination.  That's a non sequitur.  After all, a male spirit born into a body with cerebral palsy may not qualify for Priesthood ordination either and it wasn't so long ago that black males did not qualify for the Priesthood.  So, obviously, it is not against God's law for a male spirit to not have the opportunity for Priesthood ordination in this life.  And in that regard, I don't believe it is Godly injustice for that male spirit to serve in Relief Society.  And, there's no eternal law that spirits who do not partake of Eternal Marriage in this life would be barred from it in all eternity.  There is a reason that male spirit is born into a female body and that could possibly be so that he can experience the female side of mortal service.  So, I don't really see any conflict with Eternal Law. on the matter.

 

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Honesty is the first requirement of open and honest discussion.  And if you cannot abide by that, then I'll bow out.

Honesty is a requirement for open and honest discussion, yes.  But it is always a bad idea to think that you understand somebody better than they understand themselves and call them a liar, or at the very least, in denial.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Eydis]

On 2/17/2017 at 6:32 PM, lostinwater said:

@Eydis - Thank-you for you detailed response.  

I apologize if I was not clear.  When i talk about conflict, i am not referring to the conflict between our physical desires and our spiritual ones.  i am referring to the conflict one senses when there is a difference between who we feel ourselves to be, and how we are made manifest in this earthly realm.

When i say physical manifestation of the conflict, i mean that there are millions of bodies whose gender is not clear-cut.  

i guess i don't see how knowing that our body is not an accurate expression of who we are (and maintaining a hope that one day it will be) is equivalent to yielding to our carnal nature.  or am i misinterpreting?

 

 

 

Yes, I wasn't trying to say it is equivalent.  I was only saying that assuming that a person could differentiate where the feeling of "who we feel ourselves to be" is coming from is difficult.  How does one know that "who we feel ourselves to be" is not solely coming from the nature of the body?

If one cuts themselves off from the presence of the Lord, if they let the "natural man" take over their life, what do they feel their self to be?  They still feel like they are something.  If one is cut off from spiritual influences that does not mean they feel like a zombie, a hollow shell.  They still feel like they are something and still have a sense of self.  But that sense of self is the natural man not the spiritual self.  We are dual natured, meaning two separate natures.  One feels the self is one way, the other feels the self is the other way.  All I am saying is that if a person falls in love with the wrong self, the carnal self, then by definition one is not "putting off" the natural man.  So, we have to be very careful how we differentiate where the feeling of self or as you put it "who we feel ourselves to be" is not really the carnal self which in and of itself is a conflicted, changing, not clear image.

Mosiah 3:19 " For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord "

[lostinwater]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You know that none of that is what I said.  But you keep reiterating things that don't address the question.  You say "it's an opinion".  But opinions have some basis.  Some logic or rationale.  You are mistaking it for just a "view" or "a way of looking at it."  That may seem like semantics, but it is getting at the heart of what you're denying.

I'm asking what the basis is.  You are hinting at, but not actually saying, it is just a gut feeling.  Nothing more.  I've avoided saying it because I didn't want to put words in your mouth.  But if it is just a gut feeling, then I disagree that it is equal in weight and value to my opinion.  When I have a basis for my opinion (several in fact) and you have none, then there is more weight and value for mine.

I'm seeing a pattern here of denial and avoidance which I am unable to reconcile with someone who is being open and honest.  The two things you refuse to investigate are the basis for belief in the female spirit in a man's body; and the relationship between transgender and homosexuality.  That is really strange.

The truth is that your friend is actually suffering from same sex attraction.  But he decide that he can't be gay because he knows homosexuality is sinful. OH! But if he's actually a female spirit then it's not SSA.  He's simply in the wrong body.  Yes, the body is the problem.  And he can't be blamed for the body he was put in.  See, it's God's fault he feels this way, not his own. 

That is why you're avoiding these topics.  You know that is what the rationale is.  You know that is why you don't want to admit it or discuss the connection between homosexuality and transgender.

And even though there is no evidence, there is no revelation, there is no scripture to support this, that's what he's clinging to because it is the only way he can justify him "being the way he is" instead of trying to change himself.  You know that's the truth.

He'll eventually figure out that as a female spirit, he can't hold the priesthood on earth.  So, as a man, he won't be able to perform any church callings that would be required of a man.  So, he'll eventually leave the faith.  He cannot serve two masters.  There is no other option other than repentance.  Going on believing this delusion is not going to allow him to abide by truth.  And you supported him in doing that.  Sad.  

Honesty is the first requirement of open and honest discussion.  And if you cannot abide by that, then I'll bow out.

The only reason why you're going along with this is that you are extremely close to him.  I don't know how close.  But to be defending such an ephemeral concept in someone else must mean that you are a close relative or a fiancee or something along those lines.  I actually suspect that you ARE him -- the female side of him.  I'm sure you'll deny that, even if it is true.  But if you haven't been open about other things, I have no reason to believe any denial.  Oh, but that's just my opinion and you can choose to ignore it.

Thanks Carb.  

i have to be done with this discussion.  You are asking me a question and telling me you won't believe the answer i give before i give it - so what is the purpose of responding?  i tell you i believe what i say and you tell me i actually know my beliefs are wrong.

This whole thread came into being as a result of me explaining, defending, and justifying my opinion.  i get that the reasons i have my opinion may not be sufficient for you - but to claim i have cited nothing more than gut feeling (though that is certainly a part of my belief) as the reason i have for believing as i do.....i mean, would it do any good for me to say it all again?

And i hope people here don't think that just because i am not active in the church it means i've somehow rejected God or abandoned faith.  i am closer to Him now than i ever was before - more as a result of His goodness than mine.  i do not repent of my beliefs because i find no flaw in them.  i can only repent when i act contrary to my beliefs - and such would surely be my course should i ever feel they were wrong.  You can explain away my beliefs as willful moral relativism because you and those you associate with don't happen to share them - but it is God's word that will decide - and i feel comfortable in keeping my current beliefs.

Anyways, i really hold no malice towards you or any of the people who disagree with me - even disagree vehemently.  i hope that feeling is reciprocated - but i have no control over it.

Everyone - thank-you for the discussion on this topic.  i appreciate everyone's feedback, their passion, their perspectives, and their kindness.  They all have great value.  To those whom i have offended, i apologize - please know that was never my intention.

i wanted to avoid anger and hatred in this thread (as per the title) - both coming from me and from others - and if i continue, it is clear that won't be possible.  Feel free to discuss more, but there can be no further comments in this thread from me - to anyone.  

Edited February 28, 2017 by lostinwater

[a mustard seed]

6 hours ago, Eydis said:

Yes, I wasn't trying to say it is equivalent.  I was only saying that assuming that a person could differentiate where the feeling of "who we feel ourselves to be" is coming from is difficult.  How does one know that "who we feel ourselves to be" is not solely coming from the nature of the body?

If one cuts themselves off from the presence of the Lord, if they let the "natural man" take over their life, what do they feel their self to be?  They still feel like they are something.  If one is cut off from spiritual influences that does not mean they feel like a zombie, a hollow shell.  They still feel like they are something and still have a sense of self.  But that sense of self is the natural man not the spiritual self.  We are dual natured, meaning two separate natures.  One feels the self is one way, the other feels the self is the other way.  All I am saying is that if a person falls in love with the wrong self, the carnal self, then by definition one is not "putting off" the natural man.  So, we have to be very careful how we differentiate where the feeling of self or as you put it "who we feel ourselves to be" is not really the carnal self which in and of itself is a conflicted, changing, not clear image.

Mosiah 3:19 " For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord "

I really like this perspective and it rings true to me. I have often tried to invite my non-active mother to church with me and despite believing in the church, she drinks, smokes, and has intimate relations outside of marriage(her and my father are divorced). Over the years, she has gone through cycles of years of activity followed by nonactivity, over and over. She keeps telling me that she will someday but that right now she's not done being "Marie" like the sinning self is her real self and that is what she truly perceives about herself. Being so close to my own coming back to the church, I can definitely say that it is almost like an on-off switch of personality when I transition between what I want to do and what I know I should be doing. The one part of me gets really excited about scriptures and praying and the temple and service. The other part of me is very relaxed about it all, makes justifications, gets lazy about standards for basically everything, and selfishly makes excuses for why I can't do things or what people are entitled to. When you're in that state of mind, either one, it is easy to believe that is who you really are.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks Carb.  

i have to be done with this discussion.  You are asking me a question and telling me you won't believe the answer i give before i give it - so what is the purpose of responding?  i tell you i believe what i say and you tell me i actually know my beliefs are wrong.

This whole thread came into being as a result of me explaining, defending, and justifying my opinion.  i get that the reasons i have my opinion may not be sufficient for you - but to claim i have cited nothing more than gut feeling (though that is certainly a part of my belief) as the reason i have for believing as i do.....i mean, would it do any good for me to say it all again?

And i hope people here don't think that just because i am not active in the church it means i've somehow rejected God or abandoned faith.  i am closer to Him now than i ever was before - more as a result of His goodness than mine.  i do not repent of my beliefs because i find no flaw in them.  i can only repent when i act contrary to my beliefs - and such would surely be my course should i ever feel they were wrong.  You can explain away my beliefs as willful moral relativism because you and those you associate with don't happen to share them - but it is God's word that will decide - and i feel comfortable in keeping my current beliefs.

Anyways, i really hold no malice towards you or any of the people who disagree with me - even disagree vehemently.  i hope that feeling is reciprocated - but i have no control over it.

Everyone - thank-you for the discussion on this topic.  i appreciate everyone's feedback, their passion, their perspectives, and their kindness.  They all have great value.  To those whom i have offended, i apologize - please know that was never my intention.

i wanted to avoid anger and hatred in this thread (as per the title) - both coming from me and from others - and if i continue, it is clear that won't be possible.  Feel free to discuss more, but there can be no further comments in this thread from me - to anyone.  

Regardless of how you feel or how anybody else feels about the matter, it shouldn't drive you away from Church.  So, I hope that this isn't keeping you away from Church.  Being close to Heavenly Father can only be realized when one makes and keeps Covenants.

[yjacket]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Regardless of how you feel or how anybody else feels about the matter, it shouldn't drive you away from Church.  So, I hope that this isn't keeping you away from Church.  Being close to Heavenly Father can only be realized when one makes and keeps Covenants.

Well I think it actually depends.  If this individual starts spouting off this personal doctrine in SS or decides to go to the opposite sex 3rd hour class, I think within a short period of time they will be having a conversation with the Bishop. While the Church is open to all those who wish to join in worship, there is a bound to what that entails.  Common sense and civility in Church should dictate where that line is.

I am always amazed by those who leave the Church and then say they feel closer to God then they ever have before. I wish them well on their journey. We will all inherit the glory to which we merit.  Tying into another thread about God being all-knowing, I think a huge part of this life isn't so much about proving to God that we are worthy of the Celestial Kingdom (b/c He probably already knows), it's about proving to ourselves that we are worthy of it.  Some individuals will be satisfied with a Telestial glory others with a Terrestrial glory. We all have different paths in this life, even if there is only One Path to God.

Edited March 1, 2017 by yjacket

[Bad Karma]

On 2/28/2017 at 2:02 PM, lostinwater said:

Thanks Carb.  

i have to be done with this discussion.  You are asking me a question and telling me you won't believe the answer i give before i give it - so what is the purpose of responding?  i tell you i believe what i say and you tell me i actually know my beliefs are wrong.

This whole thread came into being as a result of me explaining, defending, and justifying my opinion.  i get that the reasons i have my opinion may not be sufficient for you - but to claim i have cited nothing more than gut feeling (though that is certainly a part of my belief) as the reason i have for believing as i do.....i mean, would it do any good for me to say it all again?

And i hope people here don't think that just because i am not active in the church it means i've somehow rejected God or abandoned faith.  i am closer to Him now than i ever was before - more as a result of His goodness than mine.  i do not repent of my beliefs because i find no flaw in them.  i can only repent when i act contrary to my beliefs - and such would surely be my course should i ever feel they were wrong.  You can explain away my beliefs as willful moral relativism because you and those you associate with don't happen to share them - but it is God's word that will decide - and i feel comfortable in keeping my current beliefs.

Anyways, i really hold no malice towards you or any of the people who disagree with me - even disagree vehemently.  i hope that feeling is reciprocated - but i have no control over it. 

Everyone - thank-you for the discussion on this topic.  i appreciate everyone's feedback, their passion, their perspectives, and their kindness.  They all have great value.  To those whom i have offended, i apologize - please know that was never my intention.

i wanted to avoid anger and hatred in this thread (as per the title) - both coming from me and from others - and if i continue, it is clear that won't be possible.  Feel free to discuss more, but there can be no further comments in this thread from me - to anyone.  

So, unless anyone/everyone subscribed to your very contradictory "beliefs" which fly in the face of scripture, you're going to pick up the ball and run away, in the very game you've created? You do realize that scripture, covenants, the like, are not flavors of ice cream one can order up as they wish, swish 'em around to suit an out of sync with the gospel life style. You've tried to stuff an ideology that demands others give in to the absurd possibility of a female spirit in a male body and vice versa. If you yourself didn't find it absurd, why then the creation of a thread saying contrary? As if somehow, the spirit of a duck inhabited a lobster? (Both are tasty with butter, by the way)

You wanted to avoid anger and hatred in the thread? Who is angry at you? Who hates you? EVERYONE has been kind to you, well, except me, I have avoided the thread until this moment, and I am not angry with you or hate you either, I just think you are 180 degrees off course in the search for truth, I also strongly wonder if you're not really talking about your friend, that perhaps you're talking about YOU whilst you've a hunger for social acceptance from the LDS church while living outside that which the church and it's members ascribe. (You would not be the first)

So, you're going to pick up your ball and bail because you didn't get your way, and you're miffed at Carb for what he's said, I don't see what is so bad about what Carb has said. I think Carb was kind enough to respond to you, disagree with proper decorum. This isn't "The Church of Lostinwater of Latter Day Saints".  This is quite well established as the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints, it's his gospel, he keeps his word, his word is known, unchanged, yours for the taking. 

I don't know why you're angry, in the thread, people seem to like you and want you around. Does it need to be the "Church of the Special Snowflake of Latter Day Saints"? You do know Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, right? 

I wish you all the best in your travels along the way in this odd struggle called life, don't forget to stop and smell the roses now and then whilst along the way, mind the bees though. 

That is literally my .02 cents in an 18 page thread I have until this moment, observed. 

[anatess2]

On 3/3/2017 at 10:01 PM, Bad Karma said:

So, unless anyone/everyone subscribed to your very contradictory "beliefs" which fly in the face of scripture, you're going to pick up the ball and run away, in the very game you've created? You do realize that scripture, covenants, the like, are not flavors of ice cream one can order up as they wish, swish 'em around to suit an out of sync with the gospel life style. You've tried to stuff an ideology that demands others give in to the absurd possibility of a female spirit in a male body and vice versa. If you yourself didn't find it absurd, why then the creation of a thread saying contrary? As if somehow, the spirit of a duck inhabited a lobster? (Both are tasty with butter, by the way)

You wanted to avoid anger and hatred in the thread? Who is angry at you? Who hates you? EVERYONE has been kind to you, well, except me, I have avoided the thread until this moment, and I am not angry with you or hate you either, I just think you are 180 degrees off course in the search for truth, I also strongly wonder if you're not really talking about your friend, that perhaps you're talking about YOU whilst you've a hunger for social acceptance from the LDS church while living outside that which the church and it's members ascribe. (You would not be the first)

So, you're going to pick up your ball and bail because you didn't get your way, and you're miffed at Carb for what he's said, I don't see what is so bad about what Carb has said. I think Carb was kind enough to respond to you, disagree with proper decorum. This isn't "The Church of Lostinwater of Latter Day Saints".  This is quite well established as the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints, it's his gospel, he keeps his word, his word is known, unchanged, yours for the taking. 

I don't know why you're angry, in the thread, people seem to like you and want you around. Does it need to be the "Church of the Special Snowflake of Latter Day Saints"? You do know Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, right? 

I wish you all the best in your travels along the way in this odd struggle called life, don't forget to stop and smell the roses now and then whilst along the way, mind the bees though. 

That is literally my .02 cents in an 18 page thread I have until this moment, observed. 

Well, if somebody calls me a liar I'd walk away too.  Because, what's the point?   But then, that's just me.

Edited March 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

On March 3, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Bad Karma said:

So, unless anyone/everyone subscribed to your very contradictory "beliefs" which fly in the face of scripture, you're going to pick up the ball and run away, in the very game you've created? You do realize that scripture, covenants, the like, are not flavors of ice cream one can order up as they wish, swish 'em around to suit an out of sync with the gospel life style. You've tried to stuff an ideology that demands others give in to the absurd possibility of a female spirit in a male body and vice versa. If you yourself didn't find it absurd, why then the creation of a thread saying contrary? As if somehow, the spirit of a duck inhabited a lobster? (Both are tasty with butter, by the way)

You wanted to avoid anger and hatred in the thread? Who is angry at you? Who hates you? EVERYONE has been kind to you, well, except me, I have avoided the thread until this moment, and I am not angry with you or hate you either, I just think you are 180 degrees off course in the search for truth, I also strongly wonder if you're not really talking about your friend, that perhaps you're talking about YOU whilst you've a hunger for social acceptance from the LDS church while living outside that which the church and it's members ascribe. (You would not be the first)

So, you're going to pick up your ball and bail because you didn't get your way, and you're miffed at Carb for what he's said, I don't see what is so bad about what Carb has said. I think Carb was kind enough to respond to you, disagree with proper decorum. This isn't "The Church of Lostinwater of Latter Day Saints".  This is quite well established as the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints, it's his gospel, he keeps his word, his word is known, unchanged, yours for the taking. 

I don't know why you're angry, in the thread, people seem to like you and want you around. Does it need to be the "Church of the Special Snowflake of Latter Day Saints"? You do know Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, right? 

I wish you all the best in your travels along the way in this odd struggle called life, don't forget to stop and smell the roses now and then whilst along the way, mind the bees though. 

That is literally my .02 cents in an 18 page thread I have until this moment, observed. 

The OP has shown amazing grace and class throughout this entire conversation. She's also showing great maturity in walking away because the conversation can't really go further without becoming contentious.  I'm proud of her. Hope she sticks around here. 
 

Edited March 6, 2017 by MormonGator