Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question


person0
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, person0 said:

As to Elder Oaks having your back, I would encourage you to consider his perspective on this specific topic:

Quote

That is also why the Lord has required His restored Church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, to oppose changes that homogenize the differences between men and women or confuse or alter gender. (Link) (emphasis mine)

I believe it is very clear that changing one's language in ways that confuse or alter gender would fall into that category. 

I totally understand the strong opinion against using preferred pronouns and acknowledging transitions and whatnot.  But I have to balance Judge not and Judging with Oaks' Divine Love talk from 2022, and also include what's in the handbook, where "Transgender Individuals" now has an entire section all for itself.

Quote

Transgender individuals face complex challenges. Members and nonmembers who identify as transgender—and their family and friends—should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love.
...
Some people experience feelings of incongruence between their biological sex and their gender identity. As a result, they may identify as transgender. The Church does not take a position on the causes of people identifying as transgender.
...

Church leaders counsel against elective medical or surgical intervention for the purpose of attempting to transition to the opposite gender of a person’s biological sex at birth (“sex reassignment”). Leaders advise that taking these actions will be cause for Church membership restrictions.

Leaders also counsel against social transitioning. A social transition includes changing dress or grooming, or changing a name or pronouns, to present oneself as other than his or her biological sex at birth. Leaders advise that those who socially transition will experience some Church membership restrictions for the duration of this transition.

Restrictions include receiving or exercising the priesthood, receiving or using a temple recommend, and receiving some Church callings. Although some privileges of Church membership are restricted, other Church participation is welcomed.
...
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.

Folks are making sure that last sentence's use of the term "may", gets highlighted.  But at the end of the day, if Fred turns into Shelia and wants to be called sister Shelia and moves into your ward, your bishop may chose to announce it in sacrament as "We've received the records of sister Shelia Lastname.  Everyone who can raise a hand of fellowship for Shelia and her family, please indicate by raising the right hand."

Would you raise your hand and welcome the person born Fred but wants to be called Shelia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Folks are making sure that last sentence's use of the term "may", gets highlighted.  But at the end of the day, if Fred turns into Shelia and wants to be called sister Shelia and moves into your ward, your bishop may chose to announce it in sacrament as "We've received the records of sister Shelia Lastname.  Everyone who can raise a hand of fellowship for Shelia and her family, please indicate by raising the right hand."

Would you raise your hand and welcome the person born Fred but wants to be called Shelia?

Actually, I am so grateful that my Bishop does not currently have the permission or authority to make an announcement like that.  The reason is because my wife and I fought for over a year and were able to get our Area Presidency to officially clarify that leaders in our Area should avoid anything that could be perceived as affirmation of or support for a gender transition, including the use of preferred pronouns that do not match a member's biological sex.

It all started when one of my children was being impacted and we disagreed with ward leaders regarding the final section you quoted from the handbook.

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.

More important than the 'may', this passage only grants permission to record the name, and then separately to use the name.  It does not grant permission to use pronouns in any way, shape, or form.  The text only recognizes that an individual may decide to change their pronouns for themselves.  Members/leaders who then choose to grant themselves permission to use those pronouns, are adding in that which is neither expressly nor incidentally permitted by the text.

Of course I would welcome Sheila into the Ward, and strive to treat Sheila with the love and respect our Savior expects of us.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I totally understand the strong opinion against using preferred pronouns and acknowledging transitions and whatnot.  But I have to balance Judge not and Judging with Oaks' Divine Love talk from 2022, and also include what's in the handbook, where "Transgender Individuals" now has an entire section all for itself.

Folks are making sure that last sentence's use of the term "may", gets highlighted.  But at the end of the day, if Fred turns into Shelia and wants to be called sister Shelia and moves into your ward, your bishop may chose to announce it in sacrament as "We've received the records of sister Shelia Lastname.  Everyone who can raise a hand of fellowship for Shelia and her family, please indicate by raising the right hand."

Would you raise your hand and welcome the person born Fred but wants to be called Shelia?

Sister Shelia -- No.

Sheila -- Yes.

Shelia isn't a "sister". The name change doesn't change the biological sex and eternal gender of the individual. "Sister" Shelia does, and Satan rejoices in such loving support that will confuse children and potentially cause (which already has) them to commit sin they would have never without cultural acceptance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, person0 said:

Actually, I am so grateful that my Bishop does not currently have the permission or authority to make an announcement like that.  The reason is because my wife and I fought for over a year and were able to get our Area Presidency to officially clarify that leaders in our Area should avoid anything that could be perceived as affirmation of or support for a gender transition, including the use of preferred pronouns that do not match a member's biological sex.

It all started when one of my children was being impacted and we disagreed with ward leaders regarding the final section you quoted from the handbook.

More important than the 'may', this passage only grants permission to record the name, and then separately to use the name.  It does not grant permission to use pronouns in any way, shape, or form.  The text only recognizes that an individual may decide to change their pronouns for themselves.  Members/leaders who then choose to grant themselves permission to use those pronouns, are adding in that which is neither expressly nor incidentally permitted by the text.

Of course I would welcome Sheila into the Ward, and strive to treat Sheila with the love and respect our Savior expects of us.

Wow! Good for you and your local authorities for making the hard right choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, person0 said:

image.png.640ce4cf4d3b80caead8e46e84235bc2.png

I just wish to point out that, true to form, this shirt is a lie.  Satan doesn't respect pronouns.  He'll be the first to destroy you and your pronouns and mock your foolishness the whole time.  Liar from the beginning and for all eternity.

(PS: I respect pronouns, just not the erroneous / grammatically incorrect use of them.  My pronouns are I, me, mine, and myself.  I'm happy to share them with you, should you wish to use them for yourself... :D Isn't it strange how you're not me and yet we can both be I...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
44 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I just wish to point out that, true to form, this shirt is a lie.  Satan doesn't respect pronouns.  He'll be the first to destroy you and your pronouns and mock your foolishness the whole time.  Liar from the beginning and for all eternity.

This is where things get confusing. Those who idolize Satan generally don't actually believe he exists. They are drawn to and idolize the idea of him as the adversary of Judeo-Christian dogma. As such, it is the Satanists themselves who determine what their idea of Satan represents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Godless said:

This is where things get confusing. Those who idolize Satan generally don't actually believe he exists. They are drawn to and idolize the idea of him as the adversary of Judeo-Christian dogma. As such, it is the Satanists themselves who determine what their idea of Satan represents. 

And Satan is just as happy to mock them as he leads them on to destruction.  He'll take those who really believe in him, those who use his name while claiming not to believe in him, and those who call him God - he's an equal-opportunity destroyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2023 at 11:41 AM, mikbone said:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Do you think the corollary to the above verse applies to those with SSA?

That's an awfully presumptive (and accusative) question.

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."  Yes. I'm familiar with all such verses. But you're making the same mistake that so many others make when reading this entire passage.  Context matters.

Jesus was explaining that the Law of Moses was a lesser law.  Now he was asking his followers to raise the bar.

  • Thou shalt not kill -- > Don't be angry, don't cuss them out, don't call him names.
  • Thou shalt not commit adultery --> Don't even look upon a woman (who isn't your wife) to lust after her.
  • Always stay true to your oaths --> Keep all your commitments regardless of whether you've sworn a formal oath or not.  Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
  • Love thy neighbor --> Love thine enemy.

Do you honestly believe that being angry at someone is equal to killing them?

Notice that I said "they can be a member in good standing" and "your thoughts and feelings are of lesser magnitude."  That doesn't mean they are without sin or weakness.  It means that it isn't cause for excommunication or other Church discipline.  I'd hope you understand the difference.

Some may think I'm psychotic for admitting this, but I've had several times in my life where I was so angry with someone, who I definitely believed to have been worthy of capital punishment, that I began planning out how I might dispose of the body such that I could get away with it.  And, yes, I believe I could have disposed of enough evidence that there would have been much more than reasonable doubt as to my guilt.

Am I worthy of excommunication?  Have I lost all opportunity for Celestial Glory?  No.  Why?  Because I never went through with it.  I never ACTED on that plan.

Was that mental exercise a sin?  Absolutely.  But the sin I was guilty of certainly wasn't murder.

We all have weaknesses.  We all have evil tendencies.  And if every tendency or thought was exactly the same as the act, we'd all be in a lot of trouble.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2023 at 7:31 AM, Carborendum said:

That's an awfully presumptive (and accusative) question.

Yup.

Do you think that God continues to have lustful temptations, or has he learned how to control his desires?

I’m not claiming to be perfect. 

Lustful desires sometimes lead to paths of destruction.

I’m pretty sure there have been many General Conference talks recommending that we bridle our thoughts.

Glad you’re not a murderer.

 

Guess I’m put off when a group of people define themselves by their lustful desires.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2023 at 7:31 AM, Carborendum said:

Some may think I'm psychotic for admitting this, but I've had several times in my life where I was so angry with someone, who I definitely believed to have been worthy of capital punishment, that I began planning out how I might dispose of the body such that I could get away with it.  And, yes, I believe I could have disposed of enough evidence that there would have been much more than reasonable doubt as to my guilt.

Detalis...

CD4FE6C9-BA4C-48CF-8980-B2C947CA5FCF.gif.02cec375724f818aba31fe7000a06b9d.gif

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was feeling kind of guilty because some of my coworkers in the Attorney General’s Office and I sometimes joke about how we have all the contacts and procedural knowledge necessary to set up a drug ring that would make us all millionaires.  

But, after reading some of y’all’s posts, I feel a little more virtuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I was feeling kind of guilty because some of my coworkers in the Attorney General’s Office and I sometimes joke about how we have all the contacts and procedural knowledge necessary to set up a drug ring that would make us all millionaires.  

But, after reading some of y’all’s posts, I feel a little more virtuous.

Apparently it's common for the guys who drive those Brinks armored trucks to contemplate ways to steal the money from the back and get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I was feeling kind of guilty because some of my coworkers in the Attorney General’s Office and I sometimes joke about how we have all the contacts and procedural knowledge necessary to set up a drug ring that would make us all millionaires.  

But, after reading some of y’all’s posts, I feel a little more virtuous.

Oh really?

Knock knock

 

knock.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2023 at 3:09 AM, LDSGator said:

All great points. 
 

In my experience (especially offline in social settings) people will mostly treat you how you treat them. If you make stupid and rude comments about their beliefs or lifestyle, they’ll probably do the same to yours. If you treat them with common courtesy, they’ll treat you the same to. Works most of the time. 

This is actually a kind of sad reflection on human nature that people are so willing to let their behaviour and standards be determined by the behaviour and standards of others. This is exactly the approach to life that Christ warned against and taught about in Matthew 5: 43 - 48

 

43  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt alove thy bneighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, aLove your benemies, cbless them that dcurse you, do egood to them that fhate you, and gpray for them which despitefully use you, and hpersecute you;

45 That ye amay be the bchildren of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth crain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye alove them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 aBe ye therefore bperfect, even as your cFather which is in heaven is dperfect.

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This is actually a kind of sad reflection on human nature that people are so willing to let their behaviour and standards be determined by the behaviour and standards of others. This is exactly the approach to life that Christ warned against and taught about in Matthew 5: 43 - 48

 

43  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt alove thy bneighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, aLove your benemies, cbless them that dcurse you, do egood to them that fhate you, and gpray for them which despitefully use you, and hpersecute you;

45 That ye amay be the bchildren of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth crain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye alove them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 aBe ye therefore bperfect, even as your cFather which is in heaven is dperfect.

You lost me. Didn’t He say “Do unto others as you would have done to you?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This is actually a kind of sad reflection on human nature that people are so willing to let their behaviour and standards be determined by the behaviour and standards of others. 

I mean, there is a reason that some souls will not be able to hang out with God in the Celestial Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difficulty because there is an effort to change the meaning of terms by the LGBTQ+ community.  This began with the changing of the term gay from a positive good thing to describe all people with a good and happy disposition to someone with SSA.  The term currently being changed defines love.  Love is no longer defined as someone that chooses to behave in a manner to benefit others but rather someone that enables and supports others fulfilling even their distractive desires and behaviors towards themselves and the propagation of their species. 

@mikbone has a thread called unconditional love that deals with the problem we now face concerning love.  It is impossible to love someone (have charity) and contribute to their destruction – even or especially if they are being self-destructive.   The LGBTQ+ community wants to define love as support and to enable others without and caveat.  They are not far off because in essence we are talking about individual agency and if we love someone, we will support their exercise of agency – even if their agency is self-destructive.   There is a most difficult line that love (charity) cannot cross because of agency – we can support and in a sense enable but we cannot contribute to evil and self-destruction.

To be honest – I do not know have to navigate this fine line of love (charity).  If someone wishes to come to church, I believe we ought to accept them with a hand of fellowship and love – regardless of whatever sins that have.  Of course, they cannot harm others – that is not what I understand as extending a hand of fellowship and love is.  I do not know how we communicate that they are choosing a bad path and still show love and charity.  The only answer I hear is to follow the Holy Ghost but I am not 100% sure I can in every circumstance – which is and must be inclusive in being tried in all things.

It is most difficult for me to love (charity) for those I do not like very much because of their attitudes towards things I hold sacred.  It is most difficult because I do not even know what such love (charity) actually looks like.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2023 at 4:23 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I totally understand the strong opinion against using preferred pronouns and acknowledging transitions and whatnot. 

I get it too, but if you don’t respect their pronouns/beliefs, you open the door for them not to respect your beliefs either. If you can’t be polite to one another it’s probably best to just ignore each other so you don’t cause drama or make things uncomfortable for everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I get it too, but if you don’t respect their pronouns/beliefs, you open the door for them not to respect your beliefs either.

Social insight: They will never respect your beliefs. Never. Not in a thousand years, not with the mindset they have. If you respect their beliefs and "respect their pronouns" (a stupid phrase, let's admit), do so because you believe it the right thing to do. Don't do it because they will reciprocate. They will not reciprocate. The best you can ever reasonably hope for is tolerance, and the Left abandoned any pretense to tolerance a generation ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Social insight: They will never respect your beliefs. Never. Not in a thousand years, not with the mindset they have. If you respect their beliefs and "respect their pronouns" (a stupid phrase, let's admit), do so because you believe it the right thing to do. Don't do it because they will reciprocate. They will not reciprocate. The best you can ever reasonably hope for is tolerance, and the Left abandoned any pretense to tolerance a generation ago.

More social insight: if you automatically assume every leftist won’t respect your beliefs, you’ll carry a massive chip on your shoulder and act rude to them because you think you know how’ll they act. Which is fine, no one is forcing anyone to be polite. Again though, you give up your right to whine and play victim.  If you assume things about them, they can assume things about you. 
 

You also lose the right to complain if someone uses the same tone against you that you use to them. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

More social insight: if you automatically assume every leftist won’t respect your beliefs, you’ll carry a massive chip on your shoulder and act rude to them because you think you know how’ll they act.

This is incorrect. Knowing how the Left reacts, and even wrongly applying that to every individual Leftist, does not mean that you will act rude to them in turn. It means that you can see what's happening, and perhaps that you are overgeneralizing from a broad truth to individual applications that you are not qualified to make. The accusation of overgeneralization leading to evil acts is itself an overgeneralization.

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Which is fine, no one is forcing anyone to be polite. Again though, you give up your right to whine and play victim.  If you assume things about them, they can assume things about you.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the Left does not assume false and vicious things about those who disagree with them, regardless of assumptions (or lack thereof) the opposition may make about the Left.

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

You also lose the right to complain if someone uses the same tone against you that you use to them. 

Only if that tone is justified (or unjustified) in both directions. If someone is hitting me and I say, "Quit hitting me!", that person is not therefore justified in returning, "YOU quit hitting ME!", or "It's okay when I hit you, because it's fair, but you aren't allowed to hit me!"

Please note that this is exactly the Left's playbook: "It's okay when we do it, because we're virtuous, insightful, and awakened to reality. But it's not okay when you do it; just another example of your dishonesty and corruption."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the Left does not assume false and vicious things about those who disagree with them, regardless of assumptions (or lack thereof) the opposition may make about the Left.

Yup, they sure do. Nor did I ever imply otherwise. 

 

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Please note that this is exactly the Left's playbook

Do you think the right wing has a playbook?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been hanging out with a group of progressive activists weekly for a year and a half now.  We get together to solve all the world's problems.  I have a valuable place there, as the only white conservative Christian, and many of them have been in a leftist bubble their entire lives.  

So they'll ask me "how come right wingers do this or that?" and I'll give them an answer.   When it's an answer they can agree with, they give respect.  An example would be: "The hate from the right largely comes from ignorance and fear peddled by media that monetizes outrage, same as left wing hate."

When it's an answer they do not agree with, they do not give respect.  An example would be "Mormons are one of the world's last great patriarchical systems, we believe we're following God's path for us when we support and preach the traditional family, and we won't be changing any time soon."

When I say stuff like the latter, they respond with "Well, we appreciate that everyone comes to this discussion where they are, and we are all trying to grow out of our biases into something better, so thanks for your honesty."  In other words "You're wrong and you'll never have my respect until you change your beliefs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've been hanging out with a group of progressive activists weekly for a year and a half now.  We get together to solve all the world's problems.  I have a valuable place there, as the only white conservative Christian, and many of them have been in a leftist bubble their entire lives.  

So they'll ask me "how come right wingers do this or that?" and I'll give them an answer.   When it's an answer they can agree with, they give respect.  An example would be: "The hate from the right largely comes from ignorance and fear peddled by media that monetizes outrage, same as left wing hate."

When it's an answer they do not agree with, they do not give respect.  An example would be "Mormons are one of the world's last great patriarchical systems, we believe we're following God's path for us when we support and preach the traditional family, and we won't be changing any time soon."

When I say stuff like the latter, they respond with "Well, we appreciate that everyone comes to this discussion where they are, and we are all trying to grow out of our biases into something better, so thanks for your honesty."  In other words "You're wrong and you'll never have my respect until you change your beliefs."

Do you think it’s time for a national red state/blue state divorce?

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