Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question

[laronius]

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

So then, in regard to trans LDS members and pronouns, which approach do you think best displays "love and dignity"?

1. Disregarding their preferred pronouns and treating them as if they're mentally ill.

or

2. Meeting them where they are and respecting the life choices they've made, with hopes that they will align their identity more with the Church at some point in the future.

Neither one of these options is perfectly fair to both you and the trans person, but one of them comes more from a place of love and dignity imo.

The Church's stance on LGBTQ members will never be completely satisfactory to both sides of the issue, but I think the idea is that the proper application of Christ-like love can help bridge the distance. Yes, it's a two-way street. No, the other side won't always reciprocate. But isn't giving unreturned love the ultimate Christ-like act?

I don't agree with this. It is truth that's sets us free and only then can a person truly be happy. And if a person is not ready for the truth we don't start pretending it's not the truth. Modern revelation teaches us that we need to teach truth and even reprove if necessary (as moved upon by the Holy Ghost) and then show forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy. We can teach correct principles and show love at the same time. Anything less only makes us hypocrites and reinforces a lie. I don't see how that would ever help a person.

[person0]

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It is, but it’s clear to all of us you are struggling with how to treat the LGBTQ+ members. You’ve even admitted it. 

If that's what you think I have admitted, then there has been a grave miscommunication.  I find no difficulty whatsoever in being around LGBTQ+ members.  I am struggling with being angry at the fact that members who hold leadership positions are affirming LGBTQ+ lifestyles, specifically, they are affirming transitions, and in so doing are teaching other members to follow their example.

Even more specific than that, I struggle with getting angry about having to defend the truth of gospel doctrine on these matters to leaders who already have a responsibility to believe it and uphold it.  And more specifically, I tend to start those conversations calmly and end up angry when a leader refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly true.  Hence the struggle with being a peacemaker in such a situation.

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, person0 said:

find no difficulty whatsoever in being around LGBTQ+ members. 

No, not at all. Like I’ve said here many times, I can’t imagine any of the LDS conservatives here ( @Vort @mirkwood @Anddenex @Just_A_Guy oryourself) treating an LGBTQ+ member poorly.  
 

So no, that’s not what I meant. 

 

11 minutes ago, person0 said:

I struggle with getting angry about having to defend the truth of gospel doctrine on these matters to leaders who already have a responsibility to believe it and uphold it.  And more specifically, I tend to start those conversations calmly and end up angry when a leader refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly true.  Hence the struggle with being a peacemaker in such a situation.

That’s what I meant as well. 

[zil2]

@person0, the only approaches I can think of to your situation are:

• Prayer - lots of it - you really need the Holy Ghost to guide you here
• Studying, to the the point of memorization, if possible, the relevant scriptures
• Collecting the relevant General Conference talks - a tag or notebook in the Church's "Library" app so that you can pull it all up as needed and quote and cite directly
• Charity - to see these leaders through Christ's eyes (as much as any of us can do that)

Beyond that, pure love brings courage and sometimes courage is needed to confront sin.  The Lord had some pretty strong condemnations all through the Bible for leaders who led his sheep astray.  If called to speak, speak the truth; if called to teach, teach the truth.  Were I in your shoes, I don't think I'd hesitate to tell my children that their leaders were wrong and shouldn't be trusted on this issue.  Growing up in "low-density Zion", knowing that everyone else would be doing something different from what my family did made it a little easier to be different - I was expecting to be different, expecting the temptations and mockery - not saying that's easy, but expectation helps.

Finally, with all that study, I think I would never say phrases like, "you're wrong", "that's false", "you're leading people astray" (unless the Holy Ghost clearly told me otherwise).  Instead, I would not directly respond at all, but would rather say, "In the book of Moses we read...", "In his 2009 GC talk, Elder So-n-So said..." and just read the doctrine / gospel / truth.  Remember what Alma had to say:

Quote

Alma 31:5 And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.

Don't try to logic them or argue, quote the word to them.  And inoculate your children against false leaders - kids often like their leaders, often trust them more than parents - you need to find a way to counter that tendency.

(Ignore anything I wrote above that the Spirit tells you to ignore, and follow his promptings instead. )

Edited May 28, 2023 by zil2

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

(Ignore anything I wrote above that the Spirit tells you to ignore, and follow his promptings instead. )

The Spirit prompted me to ignore this parenthetical warning.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

1. Disregarding their preferred pronouns and treating them as if they're mentally ill.

What does it look like to 'treat someone as if they're mentally ill'?

I know three people with PTSD, half a dozen with some type of depression or anxiety disorder, more than a few dealing with suicidal ideation, someone with paranoid delusions, and someone with dissociative identity disorder.  I've thought I've been treating all of them the way I should, but I'd like to hear what you have to say, in case I've been doing it wrong all this time.

Edited May 28, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[person0]

30 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Beyond that, pure love brings courage and sometimes courage is needed to confront sin.  The Lord had some pretty strong condemnations all through the Bible for leaders who led his sheep astray.  If called to speak, speak the truth; if called to teach, teach the truth.  Were I in your shoes, I don't think I'd hesitate to tell my children that their leaders were wrong and shouldn't be trusted on this issue.

Yeah, that's been part of it.  I teach my children that we are to strive to be honest in all that we do, even when it is hard/painful.

I think ultimately, the more important issue at the heart of all this is, "how can we be united as Latter-Day Saints if we believe different doctrine?"

I believe the simple answer is that we can't, but am open to other perspectives.  If we can't, as I suspect, then at what point will we coalesce to believe and observe the same doctrine?

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, person0 said:

I think ultimately, the more important issue at the heart of all this is, "how can we be united as Latter-Day Saints if we believe different doctrine?"

The funny thing is, the way this question (or instruction) is always worded tends to distract from the correct answer - we see the "we" and think it's a group effort.  In reality, it's an individual effort and it happens as each individual draws closer to Christ, becomes a better disciple, becomes one with Him.  Each person drawing closer to him draws closer to all the others who are drawing closer to him (like the tip of a cone).  Those who decline to draw closer to him will fall (or stay) farther and farther away and never be united with the Saints.  Thus, the way you do it is to draw closer to Christ - help your wife to do the same, teach your children to do the same.  Focus all your effort on him:

• Scripture study is no longer scripture study, it's studying the word of Christ, learning about him, seeking for his instructions and examples.
• Prayer is no longer prayer, it is seeking to learn God's will, seeking the power of His Son in your life, and to become worthy of and sensitive to his Spirit
• Church is no longer Church, it is the worship of God and learning of Christ's gospel
• etc.

FWIW.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

"how can we be united as Latter-Day Saints if we believe different doctrine?"

We are all at different levels of progression.  

We should all be united in our understanding of core or eternal doctrine.

Supportive, policy, and esoteric doctrines are allowed some interpretation and change depending of the situation.

I have interpreted scriptures differently at different times in my life, understand, and level of progression.

[scottyg]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

I think it is best to use the individual's name, and always use their name and avoid using any pronouns at all.  In doing so, I can be respectful without forcibly imposing their biological pronouns, and also without being dishonest.

This is what I do, and what I believe the Lord would do. He would not lie or indirectly encourage / reenforce sin in any way.

[scottyg]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

If that's what you think I have admitted, then there has been a grave miscommunication.  I find no difficulty whatsoever in being around LGBTQ+ members.  I am struggling with being angry at the fact that members who hold leadership positions are affirming LGBTQ+ lifestyles, specifically, they are affirming transitions, and in so doing are teaching other members to follow their example.

Even more specific than that, I struggle with getting angry about having to defend the truth of gospel doctrine on these matters to leaders who already have a responsibility to believe it and uphold it.  And more specifically, I tend to start those conversations calmly and end up angry when a leader refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly true.  Hence the struggle with being a peacemaker in such a situation.

Just musing, but perhaps they hold those leadership positions not because they know, but so they can gain experience, learn, and eventually come to know. I had a leader once who was a terrible choice for the position...he was  truly just awful. But, the man he became over those few years was much different than who he was before.

[scottyg]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

@person0

 

35 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The funny thing is, the way this question (or instruction) is always worded tends to distract from the correct answer - we see the "we" and think it's a group effort.  In reality, it's an individual effort and it happens as each individual draws closer to Christ, becomes a better disciple, becomes one with Him.  Each person drawing closer to him draws closer to all the others who are drawing closer to him (like the tip of a cone).  Those who decline to draw closer to him will fall (or stay) farther and farther away and never be united with the Saints.  Thus, the way you do it is to draw closer to Christ - help your wife to do the same, teach your children to do the same.  Focus all your effort on him:

• Scripture study is no longer scripture study, it's studying the word of Christ, learning about him, seeking for his instructions and examples.
• Prayer is no longer prayer, it is seeking to learn God's will, seeking the power of His Son in your life, and to become worthy of and sensitive to his Spirit
• Church is no longer Church, it is the worship of God and learning of Christ's gospel
• etc.

FWIW.

Home centered. Church supported.

Edited May 29, 2023 by scottyg
Formatting error

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

What does it look like to 'treat someone as if they're mentally ill'?

I know three people with PTSD, half a dozen with some type of depression or anxiety disorder, more than a few dealing with suicidal ideation, someone with paranoid delusions, and someone with dissociative identity disorder.  I've thought I've been treating all of them the way I should, but I'd like to hear what you have to say, in case I've been doing it wrong all this time.

I have no doubt that you treat these people exactly how they ought to be treated.

I don't know that I've ever encountered anyone with dissociative identity disorder, and the extent of my experience with paranoid delusional people is in a controlled medical environment. In that setting, I've noticed that professionals and patients alike are generally encouraged not to legitimize ideas and perceptions that likely aren't real. The same can be said of people who suffer from mood disorders, PTSD, and SI. There are things that the brain tells those people that shouldn't be validated. The rule of thumb is that emotions are always valid, but the urges and cognitive processes associated with them aren't necessarily valid. Someone feeling worthlessness and self-hate is valid. Acting on that feeling through self-harm, substance abuse, or harmful behavior towards others is not. 

So, when discussing trans people, you hopefully can see why your beliefs regarding the cause of their gender dysmorphia might influence how you treat them. If you believe that it's a mental illness, then modern psychology dictates that you probably shouldn't encourage or validate affirmational behavior. But if it's a lifestyle choice, then it is prudent to treat their lifestyle as valid, even if your church doesn't necessarily consider it righteous. 

My understanding of the Church's stance on the matter* is that acting on gender dysmorphia is considered sinful behavior, in the same way that acting on same-sex attraction is sinful. The Church seems to recognize the choice involved in these lifestyles, and offers guidance on how people who make those choices should be treated, both from a disciplinary standpoint and a fellowship standpoint. I haven't seen anything from the Church that seems to suggest that gender dysmorphia and affirmation is an indication of mental illness.

*the extent of which admittedly is mostly limited to what the Church handbook says on the issue and what Elder Oaks said in the video in this thread, so please feel free to correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

So then, in regard to trans LDS members and pronouns, which approach do you think best displays "love and dignity"?

1. Disregarding their preferred pronouns and treating them as if they're mentally ill.

or

2. Meeting them where they are and respecting the life choices they've made, with hopes that they will align their identity more with the Church at some point in the future.

Neither one of these options is perfectly fair to both you and the trans person, but one of them comes more from a place of love and dignity imo.

The Church's stance on LGBTQ members will never be completely satisfactory to both sides of the issue, but I think the idea is that the proper application of Christ-like love can help bridge the distance. Yes, it's a two-way street. No, the other side won't always reciprocate. But isn't giving unreturned love the ultimate Christ-like act?

I guess its possible, and maybe somewhere it actually is the case, that some definitions of love include doing all and everything that the loved person wishes. I know what happens when you give a child everything they want even though you love them more than anything else. 

Edited May 29, 2023 by askandanswer

[person0]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

We should all be united in our understanding of core or eternal doctrine.

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

[NeuroTypical]

24 minutes ago, Godless said:

So, when discussing trans people, you hopefully can see why your beliefs regarding the cause of their gender dysmorphia might influence how you treat them.

We need to make sure we're using the same definition of 'treat' here.  I'm not a professional anything, and don't provide treatment for anything.  I took your original use of the word in the sense of how humans should treat each other, in the non-medical non-therapeutic sense.

So, in a broad sense, no my beliefs regarding what causes folks' problems don't influence how I treat them.  And no, I don't regard any sort of dysphoria or dysmorphia as a lifestyle choice.  If some boy wants to dress like a girl because they're exposed to the notion on social media and pressured into it by folks on instagram, I'm against such things.   But I think what we're talking about here, are folks who are suffering in some way with feelings of incongruence with their biological reality.  Rough analogies could be drawn with suicidal folks (in extreme pain and desperate to end the pain).  Or someone having a severe PTSD flashback (I had a buddy who was up on his roof for 2 days with his gun because he couldn't tell the difference between living at home and being back in Vietnam under fire.)

I'm totally unqualified to give any sort of righteous judgment on the cause of people's problems.  PTSD tends to be trauma based, suicidal ideation can be too, or it can be from a disorder, or even an unforeseen reaction to medication.  Causes of depressions and anxieties and the like are wide, and even today not fully understood.  

So I can treat people with love and acceptance, and I'm not going to urge someone to medically or surgically transition, any more than I'd urge the suicidal person to do whatever it takes to ease the pain, or help the PTSD person barricade himself against 50 year old threats that aren't real, or what have you.  When it comes to meds and surgeries with possibly permanent, possibly debilitating negative impacts, I'm sure as heck going to require a top-tier standard of care requiring the best informed people to shoot for better solutions first.  And when dealing with minors, I'm sure as heck going to deal with that study indicating high rates of desistence, when forming opinions about legislation that hides a child's condition from parents, or rushes double mastectomies on minors because "you can either have a dead daughter or a living son". 

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

I think ultimately, the more important issue at the heart of all this is, "how can we be united as Latter-Day Saints if we believe different doctrine?"

Its a fairly limited example in its narrow application, but in World War 2 we had Latter-Day Saints who believed in the same doctrine trying to kill each other. 

[askandanswer]

On 5/24/2023 at 5:53 AM, 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?

I think that every person has the right to decide how they want to be addressed and every person has the right to decide how they will address anybody else. I’m not sure why one decision should be respected more than another. If either person decides not to go along with the preferences of the other I would not be inclined to see that as sufficient evidence for any conclusions about love or respect or the lack thereof. As long as the purpose for using a pronoun is being accomplished, I don’t think it matters a lot what pronoun is used.

[LDSGator]

20 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Its a fairly limited example in its narrow application, but in World War 2 we had Latter-Day Saints who believed in the same doctrine trying to kill each other. 

I never thought about that. Was the church that well known in Europe/the Pacific at that time?

[askandanswer]

9 hours 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. 

After reading the papers this morning can I ask that you increase the frequency of your meetings?

[askandanswer]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I never thought about that. Was the church that well known in Europe/the Pacific at that time?

I suspect you would have had some Germans and English/Americans shooting at each other. I heard that a lot of Germans left the country in the lead up to the second world war but we know that Elder Uchtdorf's family didn't. It may well have happened in more recent examples of conflict in Eastern Europe. Given how widespread military service was in Japan during the 1940's my guess is that even the very small number of Japanese LDS would have been somehow involved. 

[askandanswer]

9 hours ago, LDSGator said:

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

This didn't work out well for India in 1947 or the divisions of Vietnam and Korea into north and south. And if there was a red/blue state divorce you could so easily end up with a situation similar to India/Pakistan where both countries are controlled by someone the other country doesn't like and both countries have control over a large nuclear arsenal with.

[old]

2 hours ago, scottyg said:

 

Home centered. Church supported.

All well and good until everyone goes to Church, or Church activities and each person has been taught different things at home.  So Church supported means, support everyone in their own version of truth they teach at home?

[LDSGator]

21 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This didn't work out well for India in 1947 or the divisions of Vietnam and Korea into north and south. And if there was a red/blue state divorce you could so easily end up with a situation similar to India/Pakistan where both countries are controlled by someone the other country doesn't like and both countries have control over a large nuclear arsenal with.

I totally disagree with that. No one would invade anyone and Cali and Texas wouldn’t go to war. If anything, it would be similar to (but no, not identical) Brexit. The UK hasn’t bombed France yet. 

[person0]

I've decided to try to just let it go.  I know the Church is true, and I know the Lord has a plan that will not be frustrated.  I can strive to live and teach the truth where I am able, and then just let go the things I cannot/should not control, and trust that the Lord will show me and others the way.  I will strive harder to have the holy spirit with me at all times, to help me be the man I want to be, and more importantly, the man our Heavenly Father wants me to be.

Despite the evils of the world and the work of the adversary, with Christ's help, I got this! And so do you!

(Interestingly, it isn't as if most of us don't already know these things, but it is astounding how much angst we can feel to preserve our environment, especially when we see our family, friends, and brethren being torn down by the adversary.  These are truly the last days, and it is becoming more and more clear that learning to navigate them is part of our calling as Latter-Day Saints!)