Women’s Ivy League Swimming?


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

@NeuroTypical I have the privilege/challenge of working through name/pronoun change with my daughter. Yes it feels wierd, after all, I've known her by the name her mom and I gave her years ago for her entire life. I would also add that there is a little bit of disappointment (maybe, not sure what word to put here) as she/they kind of reject the name we chose for her (but that wouldn't apply to generic Church members).

So, yes it is "weird", though I think I'd prefer a different word with fewer negative connotations (but I'm not enough of a wordsmith to come up with one). I'm not opposed to addressing her by name or using her/their preferred pronouns, but it is mostly just hard, this early in the process, to always remember the change. Their given name and pronouns come to me so automatically, that it is a slow process to retrain myself. I expect it would be even harder with a Church member that I may only interact with once per week or even less frequently. I can only hope that, as I have opportunity to interact with such people that they will be patient with me while I am trying my best to respect their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

One caveat -- maybe science just needs enough time (it also sometimes seems religion needs time to find truth like with slavery) to work it all out. If time is the great equalizer, perhaps the question of the moment is should we opt for a conservative position (assume pathology or exclusion until science clearly shows that change is needed) or should we opt for a progressive view where change maybe is considered or adopted until the change is shown to be wrong? I don't know.

In certain areas yes. All sorts of things are discovered with more time. Almost every day new discoveries are made...a potentially big one just a few days ago regarding heart disease and diabetes. However, I have found that the latest best guess of the scientists is never as good as the the word of the Lord. He is the one that knows, and can lead anyone to, the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, scottyg said:

However, I have found that the latest best guess of the scientists is never as good as the the word of the Lord. He is the one that knows, and can lead anyone to, the truth.

I know we like to say this as an absolute, but, especially looking back at the history of the word of the Lord against scientific cosmology (Genesis is the big player here), we find that the word of the Lord was a very poor guide to scientific truth. Even when it comes to moral truth, issues like slavery and racial issues suggest that the word of the Lord is not always accurately conveyed by scripture or prophets. This is where I continue to believe that we have not adequately addressed scriptural errancy and prophetic fallibility. When it comes to LGBT issues, how can we know (other than fallible testimony, since it is all too easy to conflate emotional or intellectual preference for the Spirit's witness) the word of the Lord on a subject? How can we know that the view of the current cadre of prophets and apostles accurately represents God's view? When disagreeing, why should a faithful member simply defer to the prophet (that feels too much like what helped perpetuate the priesthood ant temple ban decades past its expiration date)?

These are hard questions -- just like the questions these secular groups are wrestling with in transgender issues. My progressive inclination is to believe that the current cadre of prophets and apostles do not fully understand God's will for LGBT+ people, and that changes will be coming. Some of these changes are going to be in reaction to what science discovers along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

(other than fallible testimony, since it is all too easy to conflate emotional or intellectual preference for the Spirit's witness)

So sorry you feel that way. For me, the differentiation is quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

 When disagreeing, why should a faithful member simply defer to the prophet?

Because he's the Prophet, chosen to speak for God.  If an angel appeared to you would you assume your view trumped God's mouthpiece?   
 

It's not just one Prophet, either.  It's numerous Prophets and Apostles.    In my humble opinion, you can't use "faithful member" in the same sentence as not sustaining the Prophet.   My heart aches for the position your in, but I think you summed up your foxhole perfectly with "conflating emotional or intellectual preference".   Every talk ever given on the topic suggests you're on shaky ground with this line of thinking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share