All the transgender hullaballoo


Recommended Posts

I recently saw some data on the increasing numbers of people identifying as transgender or whatever other space of the LGTBQ+ world these days and today I think I had an epiphany.

By and large, the people really don't bother me. In my view, it's largely cultural. While I scratch my head and roll my eyes over the need to be declared another gender, I have had little issue with a little blurring of gender roles. Of course we don't need to hang tight to gender roles and ideals of whatever decade you want. Of course men can do "girly" things and women can do "manly" things. A good friend from high school is the most boyish girl I've ever met: boyish hair cut, can count on one hand the times she's worn a dress, usually just shops men's clothes, is in the Coast Guard and works as a mechanic. Also married to a man and is a wonderful mother who is obsessed with babies. Whatever. I don't even mind the clothes that much, though I would point out the general cuts of clothes tend to suit masculine/feminine body types rather than being gender neutral. Sure, do whatever you want, who cares if it's traditionally masculine or feminine?

Back to my epiphany: I'm beginning to think that, yes, there may be something in fact wrong with too much free-for-all when it comes to gender roles. At what point does such confusion of such things completely negate the purpose of male and female all together? If we are given divinely appointed genders and duties (which I'm sure are of a higher order than who does the cooking and the yard work), is it not important to recognize differences?

Perhaps I should be a little more wary of the mess of it's all the same for genders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The controversy is that officially undergoing gender reassignment has permanent consequences. Even the hormones and other chemicals can be life-altering if someone holds to the routine for too long regardless of whether or not they actually undergo the physical surgery. 

Basically, it's something that there's no going back from. 

Because of this, quite a few individuals, including individuals who did transition, are objecting to the prospect of minors transitioning, and feel that only legal adults who have undergone psychiatric evaluation should begin the process. This is where the controversy and legal battles are coming from, whether or not minors are informed and mature enough to consent to the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Backroads said:

I recently saw some data on the increasing numbers of people identifying as transgender or whatever other space of the LGTBQ+ world these days and today I think I had an epiphany.

By and large, the people really don't bother me. In my view, it's largely cultural. While I scratch my head and roll my eyes over the need to be declared another gender, I have had little issue with a little blurring of gender roles. Of course we don't need to hang tight to gender roles and ideals of whatever decade you want. Of course men can do "girly" things and women can do "manly" things. A good friend from high school is the most boyish girl I've ever met: boyish hair cut, can count on one hand the times she's worn a dress, usually just shops men's clothes, is in the Coast Guard and works as a mechanic. Also married to a man and is a wonderful mother who is obsessed with babies. Whatever. I don't even mind the clothes that much, though I would point out the general cuts of clothes tend to suit masculine/feminine body types rather than being gender neutral. Sure, do whatever you want, who cares if it's traditionally masculine or feminine?

Back to my epiphany: I'm beginning to think that, yes, there may be something in fact wrong with too much free-for-all when it comes to gender roles. At what point does such confusion of such things completely negate the purpose of male and female all together? If we are given divinely appointed genders and duties (which I'm sure are of a higher order than who does the cooking and the yard work), is it not important to recognize differences?

Perhaps I should be a little more wary of the mess of it's all the same for genders?

As we consider all this "stuff" - I would make two comments"

First: It is possible that genetics are sometimes messed up.  I realize that a baby can be born with physical genetics that run a spectrum rather than a one or another demarcation.  I understand that a child can be born with varying physical genetic confusion.  For the record - I do not think this is a good thing.  I also do not think this is what is going on to cause almost all what is going on with the current gender confusion.  I also believe we should regard all humans (despite genetic conditions) as children of G-d.  If any individual has a defect - we should encourage them to seek corrections when possible.  I am not so sure we ought to support going from something that is not considered a defect - to something else (defective or not). 

The second comment has to do with something I experienced in college in a psychology 101 class.  One day at the end of class the teacher called out the names of most of the class to stay behind.  After the few that were not called out had left the professor requested that at our next class when he displayed the color blue that we would all respond that the color was red.  At our next class the professor displayed a large color card and asked what color was being displayed.  The class all agreed on the color.   Then the professor displayed a blue card.  One by one all the students (that were told to say so) responded with red.  What was interesting was that even the students that knew otherwise but were not part of the plot, likewise responded with red.  This phenomenon had a name (that I do not recall) but the idea that people would go along with something that was obviously wrong because they do not want to appear "different".  What surprised me the most is how easy it was to convince them to go along weather it be someone like myself that was asked to help with the deception or those that knew otherwise but did not want to appear to oppose. 

I honestly believe that many individuals with reasonable intelligence are caught up in this whole LGBTQ+ because it is a thing of our time.  I speculate we are watching one heck of a social experiment of people that would otherwise think more logically being easily coerced to go along with the scam - especially when it involves someone that they care for deeply.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Backroads said:

I recently saw some data on the increasing numbers of people identifying as transgender or whatever other space of the LGTBQ+ world these days and today I think I had an epiphany.

By and large, the people really don't bother me. In my view, it's largely cultural. While I scratch my head and roll my eyes over the need to be declared another gender, I have had little issue with a little blurring of gender roles. Of course we don't need to hang tight to gender roles and ideals of whatever decade you want. Of course men can do "girly" things and women can do "manly" things. A good friend from high school is the most boyish girl I've ever met: boyish hair cut, can count on one hand the times she's worn a dress, usually just shops men's clothes, is in the Coast Guard and works as a mechanic. Also married to a man and is a wonderful mother who is obsessed with babies. Whatever. I don't even mind the clothes that much, though I would point out the general cuts of clothes tend to suit masculine/feminine body types rather than being gender neutral. Sure, do whatever you want, who cares if it's traditionally masculine or feminine?

Back to my epiphany: I'm beginning to think that, yes, there may be something in fact wrong with too much free-for-all when it comes to gender roles. At what point does such confusion of such things completely negate the purpose of male and female all together? If we are given divinely appointed genders and duties (which I'm sure are of a higher order than who does the cooking and the yard work), is it not important to recognize differences?

Perhaps I should be a little more wary of the mess of it's all the same for genders?

I think the point of negation is when the companionship of the Holy Ghost is muted to the point of disunity with Zion, and where the covenants of the Restoration are avoided and broken. The Family Proclamation is a great guide for every family or any denomination or faith tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I recently saw some data on the increasing numbers of people young people under 30 identifying as transgender or whatever other space of the LGTBQ+ world these days and today I think I had an epiphany."

I corrected it for you.  Here's the source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/

And here's a handy chart:
image.png.d88bada4d339290cdb5739a51b895a54.png

I'd like to beg a rather obvious question: How does that 18-29 demographic break down?   I'd like to see a chart for 18-20, 21-24, and 25-30.

My hypothesis is our youngest and most gullible kids who have spent the last 2-3 years being indoctrinated into such things by public schools are now adults, and are doing most of the self-identifying.  And those in colleges, similarly indoctrinated, will be slightly less affected.  And the 25-30 year olds look more like the older adults.  That's all my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I am less concerned about the world and more so about the Church.  Currently, the General Handbook contains the following in section 38.6.23 paragraph 9:

Quote

"If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address, the name preference may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. The person may be addressed by the preferred name in the ward."

The guidance clearly states that a preferred name may be used, and gives no such indication for preferred pronouns, though it acknowledges that such a preference might exist.  In my ward, however, our Bishop and some youth leaders are choosing to interpret that they should use the preferred pronouns (we have socially transitioned youth).  In my view, using preferred pronouns teaches inappropriate lessons and sets an improper example to both youth who experience transgender feelings, and those who don't.

This prompted me to communicate with my Stake President and higher leaders the following message, which specifically focuses only on the principle of honesty, to keep it as brief and simple as possible:

Quote

We believe in being honest and true.  In the FSY pamphlet it says:

"Be honest with yourself, others, and God at all times. . . Do not rationalize that being dishonest is acceptable, even though others may think it does not matter."

By using pronouns that suggest an individual's gender is something other than what we know their true biological and eternal identity to be, we are expressing and teaching by example that dishonesty is acceptable and can be rationalized when we are doing it in order to make someone feel better.  If so, then perhaps we might ask, "what other circumstances also justify dishonesty?"

To my understanding, since the Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour,” there has been no exception given for a circumstance where our neighbor gives us permission or pleads with us to do so, or even where doing so might help our neighbor in some way.

Ought we justify in committing a little sin?  Surely we must not.  Though we are all sinners and each of us fall short of the glory of God, and despite the reality that most of us have faltered in our honesty at one point or another, we ought not set an example to rationalize doing so through the teaching, instruction, and policies of the Church.

The wonderful news is that, in contrast, we can show love and respect to transgender individuals by striving to exclusively use their preferred name, and in doing so express our willingness and desire to accept them as they are, while remaining true to the principle of honesty and the integrity of the doctrine regarding their true identity as a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father.  As we love, serve and fellowship them, we can pray that through the Spirit and Christ's atoning power, they may be moved upon to embrace additional truth, and grow ever closer to our Savior and His ways.

We are awaiting an official response and potential escalation, if necessary.

I don't understand why faithful members are so easily willing to adapt themselves into using  language that validates an identity that is biologically, doctrinally, and eternally false.  It is a struggle for me to send my children to youth classes because an unsafe environment now exists within the Church where they will be taught to embrace falsehood.  We don't have to acquiesce in order to show true Christlike love and acceptance of those who are at a different point on the path back to Christ.

I believe that Christ would not use pronouns for an individual that were contrary to their true eternal identity, because He is perfect.

I am willing to accept the Lord's will and instruction, but I am currently unable to comprehend upon which doctrinal principle it would be appropriate to validate a false identity.

What, if anything, am I missing?

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, person0 said:

Unfortunately, I am less concerned about the world and more so about the Church.  Currently, the General Handbook contains the following in section 38.6.23 paragraph 9:

"If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address, the name preference may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. The person may be addressed by the preferred name in the ward."

The guidance clearly states that a preferred name may be used, and gives no such indication for preferred pronouns, though it acknowledges that such a preference might exist.  In my ward, however, our Bishop and some youth leaders are choosing to interpret that they should use the preferred pronouns (we have socially transitioned youth).  In my view, using preferred pronouns teaches inappropriate lessons and sets an improper example to both youth who experience transgender feelings, and those who don't.

This prompted me to communicate with my Stake President and higher leaders the following message, which specifically focuses only on the principle of honesty, to keep it as brief and simple as possible:

------------------------

"We believe in being honest and true.  In the FSY pamphlet it says:

"Be honest with yourself, others, and God at all times. . . Do not rationalize that being dishonest is acceptable, even though others may think it does not matter."

"By using pronouns that suggest an individual's gender is something other than what we know their true biological and eternal identity to be, we are expressing and teaching by example that dishonesty is acceptable and can be rationalized when we are doing it in order to make someone feel better.  If so, then perhaps we might ask, "what other circumstances also justify dishonesty?"

"To my understanding, since the Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour,” there has been no exception given for a circumstance where our neighbor gives us permission or pleads with us to do so, or even where doing so might help our neighbor in some way.

"Ought we justify in committing a little sin?  Surely we must not.  Though we are all sinners and each of us fall short of the glory of God, and despite the reality that most of us have faltered in our honesty at one point or another, we ought not set an example to rationalize doing so through the teaching, instruction, and policies of the Church.

"The wonderful news is that, in contrast, we can show love and respect to transgender individuals by striving to exclusively use their preferred name, and in doing so express our willingness and desire to accept them as they are, while remaining true to the principle of honesty and the integrity of the doctrine regarding their true identity as a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father.  As we love, serve and fellowship them, we can pray that through the Spirit and Christ's atoning power, they may be moved upon to embrace additional truth, and grow ever closer to our Savior and His ways.

-----------------------

We are awaiting an official response and potential escalation, if necessary.

I don't understand why faithful members are so easily willing to adapt themselves into using  language that validates an identity that is biologically, doctrinally, and eternally false.  It is a struggle for me to send my children to youth classes because and unsafe environment now exists within the Church where they will taught to embrace falsehood.  We don't have to acquiesce in order to show true Christlike love and acceptance of those who are at a different point on the path back to Christ.

I believe that Christ would not use pronouns for an individual that were contrary to their true eternal identity, because He is perfect.

I am willing to accept the Lord's will and instruction, but I am currently unable to comprehend upon which doctrinal principle it would be appropriate to validate a false identity.

What, if anything, am I missing?

The handbook states their prefered name may be used. It does not say it must be, nor does it say preferred pronouns need to be.

I am willing to use almost any name a person wants, as long as it is their legal name and is not overly bizzare. If Bob changes his name to Sally, then his name is Sally. Stupid choice, but that is his name. I would likely call him Sal for short.

I will not however...use preferred pronouns. Caitlyn Jenner for example is Caitlyn...that is his legal name on his drivers license. He is male though...end of story. I will not call him a she.

Edited by scottyg
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, scottyg said:

The handbook states their prefered name may be used. It does not say it must be, nor does it say preferred pronouns need to be.

I am willing to use almost any name a person wants, as long as it is their legal name and is not overly bizzare. If Bob changes his name to Sally, then his name is Sally. Stuipd choice, but that is his name. I would likely call him Sal for short.

I will not however...use preferred pronouns. Caitlyn Jenner for example is Caitlyn...that is his legal name on his drivers license. He is male though...end of story. I will not call him a she.

I agree, though personally I am willing to accept a preferred name in the same way I would a nickname or common name; I myself don't use my legal name except where required because it is a somewhat complicated native Arabic name.  Is it reasonable for me to expect that my children should not be taught by the example of their leaders to do differently?

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

This prompted me to communicate with my Stake President and higher leaders ... We are awaiting an official response and potential escalation, if necessary. ...  What, if anything, am I missing?

Humility.  Righteous judgment.  Putting that sustaining vote into meaningful action.

I've seen an awful lot of "my local leaders are wrong, so I'm gonna write the Stake President, and go even higher if necessary" stuff in my life.  Wanna know how many of them ended up getting what they think they wanted?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Humility.  Righteous judgment.  Putting that sustaining vote into meaningful action.

I've seen an awful lot of "my local leaders are wrong, so I'm gonna write the Stake President, and go even higher if necessary" stuff in my life.  Wanna know how many of them ended up getting what they think they wanted?

I hope to determine two things:

  • How does the Church encourage us to interpret section 38.6.29 paragraph 9
  • If different than my current understanding, upon what gospel and doctrinal principles am I to understand it so that I can know that it is not in clear and direct conflict with other doctrine and be able to teach it to my children.

I would like for Church leaders to expect the members to adhere to doctrines during Church functions.  And by expect, I do not mean force; I just want to be able to clearly show my children that what we are teaching them at home is correct, even if other adult members of the Church do not fully adhere to the same ideals.  That is not to judge those other individuals, only to show my children that they should not look to them as examples in that specific thing.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that spirits who were “intended” to be one way, with relative frequency are born into bodies that fall short of the form the spirit was intended to take—people are born without limbs, or with congenital defects in this organ or that.  We know that some of these defects occur at the genetic level (propensity to breast cancer, for example).  People being genetically intersex is a thing (we used to have a forum participant here who claimed to be genetically intersex), and I regret not having engaged with them better to learn more about it firsthand.

Similarly, there seems to be a physiological basis for many (not all) natal males who at some point identify as females—exposure (or lack thereof) to various hormones in utero seems to affect whether certain physical features of the brain develop in a particular way.  

But . . .

There is also a subset of male-to-female transsexuals, and (from what I gather, though data in the latter case seems to be lacking as occurrence of male-to-female Gender Dysphoria in statistically significant numbers is apparently very new) nearly all female-to-male transsexuals, for whom socialization seems to play a major role.  Up until a few years ago, in cases where gender dysphoria had only presented for the first time in adolescence (as opposed to early childhood), the general therapeutic approach was “watch and wait”, giving the kid space to figure things out on their own and not pushing them to prefer one potential identity over any other.  When that was the approach, something over 60% of such kids eventually “grew out of it”.  But now the prevailing therapeutic approach seems to be to lock ‘em into (“affirm”) a new identity early—announce new names and pronouns to all their contacts (guaranteeing that any backpedaling will result in social humiliation), give ‘em hormones (with a false promise that their effects are completely reversible), give ‘em puberty blockers (with another lie about potential reversibility), give ‘em top surgery, give ‘em bottom surgery . . . and once started down this path it becomes very, very hard for a kid to change direction.  I suspect that’s one reason that the Church handbook discourages both medical *and* social transitions, and names both as grounds for the imposition of certain membership restrictions.

On the other hand:  it just seems like common courtesy to call someone by the name they want to be called.  I transitioned from a diminutive nickname to a more “adult” nickname around middle school, so I have some appreciation for people who are conscientious about that sort of thing—but I also have little sympathy for people who make a big dramatic performance out of the fact that someone slipped up and called them by their “dead” name.  These people have known and loved you all your life—have a little charity, for Pete’s sake!  

But pronouns . . . Yeah, except in the case in genetically intersex people:  that’s perpetuating an untruth.  I’ll try not to cause pain by needlessly using a pronoun they reject in their presence; but I won’t call them something they’re not. 

Going back to the socialization aspect:  I said it in another recent thread, and I’ll say it again:  if it’s legit to stay home from a ward meeting to avoid an epidemic of a disease that kills/maims virtually zero percent of the kids who get it, I think it’s legit to stay home from a ward meeting because the leadership is openly embracing an epidemic whose effects on a child’s body and future are far more catastrophic.  The fact that one spreads biologically and the other socially is, to my mind, a distinction without a difference—the effect is the same.  And what’s more—to all appearances, the modern mental health establishment doesn’t want it to stop.

Until we understand what causes the spread and come up with some proven methodologies to counteract it—as a parent, it seems we have few options to protect our own kids from this other than isolation.  And that is a tragedy.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But pronouns . . . Yeah, except in the case in genetically intersex people:  that’s perpetuating an untruth.  I’ll try not to cause pain by needlessly using a pronoun they reject in their presence; but I won’t call them something they’re not.

I agree with essentially everything you said, including the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a push in many areas of society to indoctrinate youth in the LGBT culture.  It's mostly working, and if you aren't active in your schools you're allowing.  Most parents aren't even aware of the extent it's happening.  
 

The Church is struggling to create a culture of love and acceptance while remaining doctrinally sound.  What this means varies depending on a member's views.  Organizations, such as the Joseph Smith Foundation, are popping up to oppose the cultural push.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

There is a push in many areas of society to indoctrinate youth in the LGBT culture.  It's mostly working, and if you aren't active in your schools you're allowing.  Most parents aren't even aware of the extent it's happening.  
 

The Church is struggling to create a culture of love and acceptance while remaining doctrinally sound.  What this means varies depending on a member's views.  Organizations, such as the Joseph Smith Foundation, are popping up to oppose the cultural push.  

There’s a lot I’d like to say about the Joseph Smith Foundation but that I couldn’t substantiate without waiving whatever bits of anonymity I still have in this forum.  So obviously, you’ll have to take the following with the caveat that it comes from a random anonymous guy on the internet.

But suffice it to say:  be really, really careful with them:  There are some people involved with that organization who are not as devoted to the Gospel that was taught to us, as they would like us to think they are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s a lot I’d like to say about the Joseph Smith Foundation but that I couldn’t substantiate without waiving whatever bits of anonymity I still have in this forum.  So obviously, you’ll have to take the following with the caveat that it comes from a random anonymous guy on the internet.

But suffice it to say:  be really, really careful with them:  There are some people involved with that organization who are not as devoted to the Gospel that was taught to us, as they would like us to think they are.  

There are lots of people involved with this forum who aren't as faithful as they'd like us to believe they are.  
 

I don't pay much heed to anonymous gossip.  

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

There are lots of people involved with this forum who aren't as faithful as they'd like us to believe they are.  
 

I don't pay much heed to anonymous gossip.  

I understand, and that’s fair.  I will just say:  wickedness comes in many forms.  Stick closely to the Church’s living priesthood authorities, no matter what the JSF may encourage you to do either now or in the future.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I understand, and that’s fair.  I will just say:  wickedness comes in many forms.  Stick closely to the Church’s living priesthood authorities, no matter what the JSF may encourage you to do either now or in the future.

I'm not a member of the JSF, I only cited them as an example.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2022 at 6:59 AM, Grunt said:

There is a push in many areas of society to indoctrinate youth in the LGBT culture.  It's mostly working, and if you aren't active in your schools you're allowing.  Most parents aren't even aware of the extent it's happening.  

I teach for a charter, which many families hope to avoid the indoctrination of the state. However, Utah keeps a very tight reign on its charters and they have little wiggle room. 

Anywho, I was previewing next year's curriculum, and I'm already seeing the creep. I'm picturing some unhappy families next year. The good part that my job of previewing was to state my thoughts and I have a secondary role of "representing the families of Utah" to our parent organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2022 at 7:06 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s a lot I’d like to say about the Joseph Smith Foundation but that I couldn’t substantiate without waiving whatever bits of anonymity I still have in this forum.  So obviously, you’ll have to take the following with the caveat that it comes from a random anonymous guy on the internet.

But suffice it to say:  be really, really careful with them:  There are some people involved with that organization who are not as devoted to the Gospel that was taught to us, as they would like us to think they are.  

I still haven't figured out who you are. I wonder if I'm supposed to know? Am I out of the Utah loop?

Anywho, I am seeing so much little things creeping up in church culture. A desire to please the world. A lot of it's earnest: how can we love and welcome all our brothers and sisters in this modern dispensation?

Yet it seems a path of pins and needles and a big bad wolf if we're not watching our steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I still haven't figured out who you are. I wonder if I'm supposed to know? Am I out of the Utah loop?

Anywho, I am seeing so much little things creeping up in church culture. A desire to please the world. A lot of it's earnest: how can we love and welcome all our brothers and sisters in this modern dispensation?

Yet it seems a path of pins and needles and a big bad wolf if we're not watching our steps.

Note to you and @Just_A_Guy - both of whom I respect.  I use to worry a lot about the internet and maintaining my private identity.  Mostly for my family.   I have long had the impression (from my youth) that I would be called upon to seal my testimonial witness with my life.   To be honest, I have long pasted the time I thought this would happen and in that sense I am becoming more careless with my identity on the internet. 

It is my impression that the LGBTQ+ culture will play a significant and primary roll in the final scenes of the Last-days prior to the return of Christ.  However, it is my experience that there is a spectrum within the LGBTQ+ culture - in short not all within that culture are in harmonic agreement with their more "extreme" counter parts.  I do not want to label some (that I consider friends) as my enemy.  I use to think that the brother opposing brother dynamic of the Last-days would be political (similar to our Civil War) - I am more inclined toward the possibility that such divisions in our social structure will more likely follow LGBTQ+ ideologies. 

For myself, I am hard pressed to draw a hard line between me and anyone else.  I would if I could postpone such as long as possible.  Yet, I have seen the preparations for "war" in such matters accelerate exponentially and become prominent as of late.  Things I thought impossible just a few years ago have become mainstream and beyond to the point of forcefully mandated.   Long gone are the social morals to which I was raised.  So much has changed and so much more is changing - the greatest of which is the exponential increases in violence towards opposition and the excuse of it when in support of a cause one believes in or performed by someone one cares for.  I also am hard pressed to follow thinking I find illogical and emotionally based.  When someone says they are following their heart - I think a train wreak is eminent.   I have discovered that many live their life almost enterally based on emotions.  It is impossible to debate emotions or emotional conclusions. 

The worse and most illogical emotions come from personal pleasures.  And as much as it is or seems illogical - hate, revenge and violence are all fueled by pleasure - especially pleasure in the moment.   When my children were little and we were all in the car going somewhere the most oft question was, "Are we there yet?"  I use to think that particular question foolish but now I am reconsidering and finding myself asking the question - "Are we THERE yet?"  We have to be close????

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2022 at 7:06 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s a lot I’d like to say about the Joseph Smith Foundation but that I couldn’t substantiate without waiving whatever bits of anonymity I still have in this forum.  So obviously, you’ll have to take the following with the caveat that it comes from a random anonymous guy on the internet.

But suffice it to say:  be really, really careful with them:  There are some people involved with that organization who are not as devoted to the Gospel that was taught to us, as they would like us to think they are.  

Never heard of them until today. They seem like the kind of odd LDS folk (odder than most) who made up a club of "faithful" followers who are the only ones who really understand the hidden meanings of the gospel...as if they know and understand secrets that others don't - when in fact we do, we just choose to hold certain things sacred and don't speculate about others over the dinner table to show off how enlightened we are.

I'm not a fan of those who delve into "vain mysteries" and "deep doctrine", and subsequently enjoy putting forth their own interpretations of past prophets' words to match their view of how the church should be today. Best to just keep the commandments and follow the living prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Never heard of them until today. They seem like the kind of odd LDS folk (odder than most) who made up a club of "faithful" followers who are the only ones who really understand the hidden meanings of the gospel...as if they know and understand secrets that others don't - when in fact we do, we just choose to hold certain things sacred and don't speculate about others over the dinner table to show off how enlightened we are.

I'm not a fan of those who delve into "vain mysteries" and "deep doctrine", and subsequently enjoy putting forth their own interpretations of past prophets' words to match their view of how the church should be today. Best to just keep the commandments and follow the living prophet.

That's quite a description for a group you never even heard of until today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I'd heard of them before today, they seem to link pretty solidly to the ldsanswers.org folks.

Folks who spend time speaking out against the ouija board, well, falls into a certain category of relevance for me.
https://ldsanswers.org/5-reasons-our-family-does-not-celebrate-halloween/

Claims that "The dominant [church history] narrative is not true"?  
https://ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/

Hm... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

That's quite a description for a group you never even heard of until today.

Well, their stuff is all there for everyone to see. Read a few things, watched a few videos...most of it is opinion peddled as fact. True, maybe. False, maybe. I've been around gospel radicals before, and they aren't for me.

Snap judgement...perhaps. But I lose nothing by not associating with them. And for what it's worth, just being on their website doesn't feel right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scottyg said:

Well, their stuff is all there for everyone to see. Read a few things, watched a few videos...most of it is opinion peddled as fact. True, maybe. False, maybe. I've been around gospel radicals before, and they aren't for me.

Snap judgement...perhaps. But I lose nothing by not associating with them. And for what it's worth, just being on their website doesn't feel right.

I've never spent much time on their website and don't know that much about them at all.  Sometimes being on this website doesn't feel right.    I just chuckle when people dismiss some things they don't know anything about.

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