Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question

[Grunt]

24 minutes ago, person0 said:

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!)

I'm not sure what you mean by "let it go".  I'll oppose the adversary and stand for Christ in all places, even on this forum.  Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

[person0]

24 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "let it go".  I'll oppose the adversary and stand for Christ in all places, even on this forum.  Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Oh, I agree with you 100%.  I have no intention of backing down from the truth.  Instead, I can speak the truth without being beholden to internal feelings of pent-up anger.  There have literally been moments where I have felt that I no longer want to be a member of the Church, but in the same feeling also knew that there is nowhere else for me to go because I know the Church is true and so I can't/won't leave.  The concerns I have and the changes and directness I would like to see from our leaders remain, but I don't have to let them burden me.

I previously mentioned how our Area received guidance from our Area Presidency for leaders to avoid any affirmation of an individual's transition, and that my wife and I fought for over a year to achieve that small victory, but during that year, I would sometimes have two+ hour meetings with Stake leaders where I spent most of the meeting in anger and frustration, and where I let that anger and frustration show in the way I communicated.  I don't want to feel those feelings internally anymore; I want to act in righteousness without taking it personally when others disregard the things they ought to believe.  I want to be able to speak with boldness without anger, so that I can stand for truth at all times and in all things and in all places, without the spirit of contention.

I have the tendency to become contentious when standing up for what is right and true, and I want to let go of the things that cause that contentious spirit to swell within me, so I can stand for truth with even greater power by always preserving the Spirit of the Lord.  I want the Spirit to work through me to pierce the hearts of others, and to achieve that I can't start a conversation with peace and the Spirit and allow contention to swell up and take over.

I initially disliked Pres. Nelson's talk, from the moment of hearing it live, not because it isn't truth, but because experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker", similarly, I have already seen comments from members to the same effect from Pres. Oaks message.  To me it seems so clear that is not what was intended, and seeing others twist what seems so obviously true has a tendency to make me angry.  Rather than feeling anger, I want to feel sorrow at the wickedness of the world and love that leads me to stand for truth without any vindictive feelings.  I want my anger to be converted into mercy and into the desire for as much mercy as is possible to be shown at the day of judgement.

Hopefully I am explaining this well enough, but this is ultimately about me wanting to improve myself and become more Christlike and has nothing to do with backing down from the truth.  I too will oppose the adversary, and I want to do it the right way, so I can do it with maximum power and efficacy, and minimum impact on my emotional state, regardless of outcome, because I know that in the end, the righteous will be victorious.

[Carborendum]

On 5/25/2023 at 7:00 PM, mikbone said:

Detalis...

No, you mustn't.

Suffice it to say that I've found it impossible (for me) to delete ALL forensic evidence.  But if you remove enough of it that there must be certain logical leaps for it to be traced back to you, then it is more difficult to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Quite often, it would require the investigator to actually know (or make a firm guess about) what happened and why, in order to link the remaining pieces of evidence to you.  But those leaps may or may not be enough to convince a jury.

That is where interrogation comes in.  And they are very skilled in how to get suspects to give up indirect information, and sometimes direct information.  

I know I'm not smart/skilled enough to outwit a skilled interrogator.  So, my position would be to take the 5th and wait for a lawyer.  And that's good advice for both the guilty and the innocent.

[Carborendum]

On 5/24/2023 at 10:59 AM, mikbone said:

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

Here is where we agree.

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, person0 said:

My understanding, and that which our Area Presidency was willing to issue guidance on, is that only names should be observed.

This is the wording in the handbook.  But the wording was just worded to cause some "implication" that pronouns should also be noted and used.  But as several on this forum pointed out, it only mentions pronouns in passing.  But wording is that the "name" may be noted and used.

Anatess visited me and they apparently live in a fairly liberal part of Florida.  Their bishopric has counseled members of the ward to use the preferred pronouns for people in the ward.

This is certainly causing a separation in the Church.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

59 minutes ago, person0 said:

experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker",

If they do, you can use his own footnote to prove them wrong:

Quote

Now, I am not talking about “peace at any price.”¹⁸ I am talking about treating others in ways that are consistent with keeping the covenant you make when you partake of the sacrament.

Quote

18. Being a peacemaker does not require us to agree with the ideas or beliefs of others.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/47nelson?lang=eng

Publishing Peace means preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ - I agree with my stake president - this is what it really means to be a peacemaker.

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

No, you mustn't.

You messed it up.

The correct response is, Get used to disappointment.

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, mikbone said:

You messed it up.

The correct response is, Get used to disappointment.

You're right!  I totally missed that!  Dang it!  A chance like that...

[old]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is the wording in the handbook.  But the wording was just worded to cause some "implication" that pronouns should also be noted and used.  But as several on this forum pointed out, it only mentions pronouns in passing.  But wording is that the "name" may be noted and used.

Anatess visited me and they apparently live in a fairly liberal part of Florida.  Their bishopric has counseled members of the ward to use the preferred pronouns for people in the ward.

This is certainly causing a separation in the Church.

The Handbook is also ambiguous enough to allow for a multitude of activities that would not be acceptable years ago.

It's a steamroller with no end in sight.

[Ironhold]

I have had people on both sides of the political aisle wish me dead for being a member of the church. 

Ultimately, the only difference is in why they wished me dead.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

I have had people on both sides of the political aisle wish me dead for being a member of the church. 

Ultimately, the only difference is in why they wished me dead.

I’ve gotten the same sort of things said to me. Evangelicals think I’m going to Hell because I accept the BOM as scripture and some people on the left think I’m crazy for believing in a God at all. 
 

I sort of like it, to be honest. People telling me I’m going to Hell makes me giggle because it’s so unoriginal. Heard it 10,000 times before. 

[askandanswer]

7 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I sort of like it, to be honest. People telling me I’m going to Hell makes me giggle because it’s so unoriginal. Heard it 10,000 times before. 

Sounds like it would be a big step up from Florida.

Edited May 30, 2023 by askandanswer

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Well you're already in Florida aren't you?

LMBO!!! 
 

Greatest place on earth bro. 

[scottyg]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Anatess visited me and they apparently live in a fairly liberal part of Florida.  Their bishopric has counseled members of the ward to use the preferred pronouns for people in the ward.

That's pretty brazen of them.

It's also sad that some would leave the church over not being spoken to in a particular manner. Rather than having a testimony of the restored gospel these folks treat the church as if it were a social club.

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, scottyg said:

That's pretty brazen of them.

It's also sad that some would leave the church over not being spoken to in a particular manner. Rather than having a testimony of the restored gospel these folks treat the church as if it were a social club.

I don’t disagree with you, but don’t ever forget the social aspect of churches. If someone doesn’t feel comfortable or out of place for whatever reason, all of us should do our best to make them feel welcome. 
 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by LDSGator

[old]

40 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I don’t disagree with you, but don’t ever forget the social aspect of churches. If someone doesn’t feel comfortable or out of place for whatever reason, all of us should do our best to make them feel welcome. 
 

 

Depends on what they are doing and preaching.  If Bob is coming to Church with his mistress and sits in the front row while his wife with his kids are sitting in the back . . .you better believe Bob should be made to feel uncomfortable and out of place.

If Bob has committed adultery, but is repentant, knows he has done wrong instead of flaunting it, then yes.  The idea that EVERYONE no matter ANY reason should be comfortable at Church and should be welcome has got to go.

Edited May 29, 2023 by old

[Grunt]

29 minutes ago, old said:

Depends on what they are doing and preaching.  If Bob is coming to Church with his mistress and sits in the front row while his wife with his kids are sitting in the back . . .you better believe Bob should be made to feel uncomfortable and out of place.

If Bob has committed adultery, but is repentant, knows he has done wrong instead of flaunting it, then yes.  The idea that EVERYONE no matter ANY reason should be comfortable at Church and should be welcome has got to go.

This.   People willfully don't follow the Prophet then want to be made comfortable with it.  Sorry.  I love you.  I accept you.   I'm probably not going to take advice from you, though.

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, old said:

Depends on what they are doing and preaching.  If Bob is coming to Church with his mistress and sits in the front row while his wife with his kids are sitting in the back . . .you better believe Bob should be made to feel uncomfortable and out of place.

If Bob has committed adultery, but is repentant, knows he has done wrong instead of flaunting it, then yes.  The idea that EVERYONE no matter ANY reason should be comfortable at Church and should be welcome has got to go.

Fair enough. I mostly agree with you but I also use common sense. How you treat others matters.
 

Also, I’m really stupid but I understand a bit about human nature. If you treat others terribly, you’ll treat me terribly too. Even if I behave exactly how you’d like me to. It’s just a matter of time. 

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 

Also, I’m really stupid but I understand a bit about human nature. If you treat others terribly, you’ll treat me terribly too. Even if I behave exactly how you’d like me to. It’s just a matter of time. 

This is another false tactic.  Not making someone feel better about their sin isn't "treating them badly".

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

LMBO!!! 
 

Greatest place on earth bro. 

I wouldn't go that far, but I do go to Florida regularly for vacations. 

On the actual topic of the thread currently being discussed...

Some of us do not have a choice on the matter in our jobs or publicly.  At the university we ARE TO USE the preferred pronouns the students request us to use unless they are vulgar or extreme.  In the cases where we think they may be vulgar we have discretion but must bring it up to the administration ASAP to be addressed and to determine whether it truly is vulgar or not.  If it is extreme (for example, someone demands that their pronouns are Super/Your Majesty), we have no choice at the moment (though in theory it should have been looked at before the class began) but can bring it up to the administration and THEY will make the determination whether it is appropriate or not.

Does not matter if we have tenure or not, these are the rules which we are not bound by.  I have had students that are not even on the transition medications request that they are called by transgendered pronouns (pronouns of a different gender than what they were born as).  It doesn't matter, we use the terms they request as a matter of respect towards the students. 

I imagine this is becoming more standard at many of the colleges and universities in the United States these days.  Some probably have it more strictly enforced, some less.  I imagine some jobs are also having these types of instructions for employees. 

I don't know of anyway that someone in this type of position would be able to avoid these rules unless they decided to quit.  I DO feel that when you use someone's preferred pronouns (as long as they are not in the extremes) that they tend to give you more respect and listen better to what you say. 

In that regards, if I ran into someone at Church I would probably still adhere to the same idea, though it would be a little bit more difficult.  It kind of goes against my grain to do it, BUT, I also know that it is more respectful to respect their choices, even if I feel they are wrong choices, than to try to do something they've probably experienced many times previously and make them angry. 

It's a hard area to deal with.  I probably also feel a little more pressure in public because, it is expected of me in my job.  What I do publicly COULD also be held against me in my employment as well (yes, what professors do in their public life sometimes has ramifications on their university life). 

There are some places and areas where the freedom to choose what you want to or feel like you should do in this arena are quickly closing off.

[LDSGator]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

wouldn't go that far, but I do go to Florida regularly for vacations. 

Speaking of that, I’ll be in Georgia next month bro. Brunswick. 

[NeuroTypical]

19 hours 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. 

19 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Was the church that well known in Europe/the Pacific at that time?

Pretty dang fascinating article: 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-forty?lang=eng

 

Also, here's a heartwarming recent story from a saint in Finland.  (For those who don't know, Finland suffered horribly during WWII, and there is still an awful lot of bad blood between Finns and Russians.)

Quote

Yesterday I attended sealings in our temple in Finland. You know our connections with Russia, we have not always liked each other. The moment of seeing the Finnish sealer sitting  with the the Ukranian refugee brother on one side as a witness and the the Russian brother on the other side, all dressed in white, serving the dead, uniting families together for eternity. That was just beautiful, that was what this life is about. That's what the gospel does.

Thought I'd share it with you.

 

[person0]

51 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

At the university we ARE TO USE the preferred pronouns the students request us to use unless they are vulgar or extreme.

Usually, the pronouns being replaced such as 'he' or 'she' come up when speaking about someone, not when speaking to them.  As such, I would imagine it would be far simpler to refer to people using only their name, especially in an environment with so many students in and out each semester.

I don't understand how it is respectful to validate an individual's false perception of themselves.  Seems to me that if we truly respect someone, we would be honest with them, though we may be tactful.  Using someone's name should accomplish both.

Would you be punished for using their name only?  If the answer is yes, I would prayerfully consider seeking out a new employer.

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Pretty dang fascinating article: 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-forty?lang=eng

 

Also, here's a heartwarming recent story from a saint in Finland.  (For those who don't know, Finland suffered horribly during WWII, and there is still an awful lot of bad blood between Finns and Russians.)

 

I wasn’t aware there were that many LDS in Europe at the time. The horrific killings of the JW’s are well known, and they should be, but it’s clear LDS suffered greatly too. 😞 

[old]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

It kind of goes against my grain to do it, BUT, I also know that it is more respectful to respect their choices, even if I feel they are wrong choices, than to try to do something they've probably experienced many times previously and make them angry.

This is why the Left, the LBTQ+, etc. win the war.  They convinced a whole bunch of people that it was better to be "nice and kind" than to stand up for truth and not give into delusional thinking.

"even if I feel they are wrong choices".  You are saying it is better to be quite and never tell someone they are wrong then to speak up, tell them they are crazy and then take the hit for saying they are wrong.

I am NOT suggesting go looking for a fight, what I am saying is that if the fight comes to you, standing up and being counted is much better than groveling on your knees.

Edited May 29, 2023 by old