Is the church headed for a schism ?

[Conman52]

I everyone it's been a while. I'm hearing a lot of buzz lately about the church allowing Trans gender baptisms and gay couples not being exed taking the sacrament etc just not being able to go to the temple. Wow what a shift and at warp speed (for the tscc usually moves at a snails pace). I think we could be headed for a schism as we are almost community of christ !! Much faster than I predicted. What does everyone else think ?

[Hagoth]

I have heard a few examples, but I think they are far from any major change. A trans person can be baptized if they transitioned before investigating the church and if they get direct and specific permission from the First Presidency. Gay couples having callings and taking the sacrament seems to be mostly based on whether you are in a progressive ward with a very progressive bishop.

That said, I think they will have to eventually make those kinds of changes at the policy level to help stem the flow of young people leaving the church.

A schism would be very interesting to watch. There are two big obstacles that make a schism difficult. More than anything else, Mormons worship the Prophet and the Temple. You would have to be able to get a significant group of members to abandon both. Someone very convincing would have to declare themselves the REAL prophet in a way that would satisfy the more conservative members, and that person would have to promise new temples or a plan to gain control of existing temples. I suspect that would take the form of someone claiming to be The One Mighty and Strong, who talks to God directly and who has been told that the current church president is a fallen prophet and an enemy to God. I guess the sign to look for would be when half of the talks and testimonies no longer include of the current prophet and We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet begins to vanish from Sunday services.

I say bring it on.

[alas]

Wait, Hagoth, I thought Trump was the one mighty and strong. What? You are telling me he isn’t?

So, far the church has been pretty quick to excommunicate anyone on either side who starts to get any kind of fan base, before they can get even close to causing any kind of schism. And that seems to convince members not to get the idea that they could be a better prophet.

[hmb]

Here's the big picture. While us peoples are fussing over ridiculous ideas like if the Mormon church is going to allow transgender people to get baptized in the church...

This is a place where mormons of every stage can express ideas about mormonism. There is nothing ridiculous about questions around mormonism. There are real problems at the border that need to have solutions. What does that have to do with this thread? That can be discussed on some other thread in the coffee shop. This is the support page. Yes there is a lot of overlap, but it's not fair to label someone's question as ridiculous because you don't think it's important.

"That's what a bunch of spoiled, whiny, ungrateful individuals (transgender) ..."
So let mormons be mormons. Live and let live, as long as you fit the mold and don't demand respect for your differences. I'll bet those early mormons were considered spoiled and whiny, demanding to have a place in society. I'm sure there are some whiny, ungrateful individuals who are transgender, just like there are whiny, ungrateful individuals in EVERY group of like minded people. My goodness, but you like to lump whole groups of people as either wonderful or evil. Sigh.

"Once women have more influence in the church, men will find other ways to worship God. What I just explained isn't a Mormon thang, it's human nature!"
This is a sad statement. You are right that it isn't just a mormon thang. But you are wrong. It's not human nature to deny women equal opportunities in and out of the church. If men choose to leave an organization because some woman is in a position of authority, that says A LOT about those men. What do they fear? Why so threatened? The church has this set up as God's plan. Men rule, women submit. SMH.

"Many people who read what I just wrote want the church to fail, or become so progressive that it's not even the same church as it was 30 years ago. They gain happiness as they see the overall attendance numbers fall."
I know there are those who would celebrate the church tumbling. The harder the fall, the more cheering they'll do. I believe most exmos have walked away and don't really care. You'll have those who cheer, those who don't care, and those who are somewhere in between. My thoughts would be with those who are devastated by the fall. It was bad enough to navigate on my own timeline. Maybe you didn't mean that all exmos are bitter... but that's the way I read it. You come across as a bitter individual. I'm sorry if I am reading you wrong. Talking with people through text only platforms can cause incorrect impressions. Sometimes I agree with your writings, but mostly not. But hey, that is okay.

[wtfluff]

This is a place where mormons of every stage can express ideas about mormonism. There is nothing ridiculous about questions around mormonism. There are real problems at the border that need to have solutions. What does that have to do with this thread?

Here's a hint: A whole lot of what DB types is some sort of logical fallacy.

The example in this thread fits quite well into The Fallacy of Relative Privation:

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation, asserts that:

• If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
• The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
• In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

/End of my contribution to threadjack...


Edit: And I don't see LD$-Inc. headed for any sort of real schism any time soon.

People might leave here and there depending on changes that are made, but I don't see an organized schism happening.

Has anyone reading this thread seen any sort of real schism happen to LD$-Inc. in their lifetime where an actual breakoff group with "leadership" ended up being formed?

When was the last time any sort of schism happened to Brighamite LD$-Inc.?

Does anyone here consider the Denver Snuffer movement to be as Schism?

[Mayan_Elephant]

"That's what a bunch of spoiled, whiny, ungrateful individuals (transgender) ..."

So let mormons be mormons. Live and let live, as long as you fit the mold and don't demand respect for your differences. I'll bet those early mormons were considered spoiled and whiny, demanding to have a place in society. I'm sure there are some whiny, ungrateful individuals who are transgender, just like there are whiny, ungrateful individuals in EVERY group of like minded people. My goodness, but you like to lump whole groups of people as either wonderful or evil. Sigh.

"Once women have more influence in the church, men will find other ways to worship God. What I just explained isn't a Mormon thang, it's human nature!"

This is a sad statement. You are right that it isn't just a mormon thang. But you are wrong. It's not human nature to deny women equal opportunities in and out of the church. If men choose to leave an organization because some woman is in a position of authority, that says A LOT about those men. What do they fear? Why so threatened? The church has this set up as God's plan. Men rule, women submit. SMH.

This is a generalization that does not consider all the facts. It certainly does not consider all the facts or experiences of men and women in the Mormon church.

I suspect that many in the church are like me. I suspect many folks who are out of the church are like me. I suspect many republicans and liberals and Americans and non-Americans and democrats are like me. They know transgender individuals and they know families with transgender individuals. And - this is a significant and - they know a woman or two. Many people are women, believe it or not. Statistically, most people may be women. All these people, if they are like me, love one or more individuals, families and women in all their diversity.

In my opinion, a woman has a right to choose. They have the right to choose their healthcare providers and methods. They have the right to choose to get vaccinated or not. They have the right to work and they have the right to parent. They have the right to choose their kids' schools. They have the right to vote in a fair election. They have the right to carry a pistol and own a rifle with a threaded barrel and pistol grip. They have the right to laugh, to cry, to avoid trauma, to survive trauma, to be happy. They have a right to speak. They have the right to practice a religion.

Now, while there are many that agree with me - there are many that do not. It appears, more so now than ever before, that many folks would like to take away those rights from women, shame women for exercising their rights, and use propaganda to force women to abandon those rights.

As long as an issue is framed in the context of shaming women, degrading women, destroying women and slandering women - there will be opposition. If there are transgender issues within the church or our communities, let's deal with that. In the meantime, I will stand for women and their rights, including their rights to be moms, to go to church, to piss without a real or perceived threat, to have privacy, to decency and to respect. Making women pay the price so men and whiners can be happy in their victimization and grievances is nonsense. Extracting that price may indeed cause a schism, but it won't be on the terms of progressive ideals or regressive fear-mongering; it will be on the terms of basic human dignity and the universal right to equality - including the universal right for a woman to be a woman on her own terms.

[Zeezrom]

Here's the big picture. While us peoples are fussing over ridiculous ideas like if the Mormon church is going to allow transgender people to get baptized in the church...

How did Glenn Beck get on a NOM message board????

[Mayan_Elephant]

And I don't see LD$-Inc. headed for any sort of real schism any time soon.

People might leave here and there depending on changes that are made, but I don't see an organized schism happening.

Has anyone reading this thread seen any sort of real schism happen to LD$-Inc. in their lifetime where an actual breakoff group with "leadership" ended up being formed?

When was the last time any sort of schism happened to Brighamite LD$-Inc.?

Does anyone here consider the Denver Snuffer movement to be as Schism?

No. Snuffer was not a schism. Neither was Dehlin/MoSto. Neither was Kate Kelly. The closest thing I have seen to a schism was Monson's Prop 8 hatred campaign with its line in the sand and that went away like Hinckley's tattoo and multiple earring nonsense. The next closest thing was Otterson's media campaign that resulted in targeting of Grant Palmer (who said the same things as Richard Bushman) and the so-called essays. If anything, if the church approached a schism it was from an inside miscalculation or ego trip and it got taken care of like a corporation would take care of it.

Regarding the OP - your point is spot on, believe it or not.

All the bitching and moaning and carrying on about feelings and victimization from people on the outside who want attention for their grievance will not cause a schism. Dignity, compassion, the facts and reality are not on the side of this conspiracy theory.

[Mayan_Elephant]

Here's the big picture. While us peoples are fussing over ridiculous ideas like if the Mormon church is going to allow transgender people to get baptized in the church...

How did Glenn Beck get on a NOM message board????

Good question. We need more successful business owners on here. Is that what you meant?

[Dirty Bird]

Here's the big picture. While us peoples are fussing over ridiculous ideas like if the Mormon church is going to allow transgender people to get baptized in the church...

This is a place where mormons of every stage can express ideas about mormonism. There is nothing ridiculous about questions around mormonism. There are real problems at the border that need to have solutions. What does that have to do with this thread? That can be discussed on some other thread in the coffee shop. This is the support page. Yes there is a lot of overlap, but it's not fair to label someone's question as ridiculous because you don't think it's important.

"That's what a bunch of spoiled, whiny, ungrateful individuals (transgender) ..."
So let mormons be mormons. Live and let live, as long as you fit the mold and don't demand respect for your differences. I'll bet those early mormons were considered spoiled and whiny, demanding to have a place in society. I'm sure there are some whiny, ungrateful individuals who are transgender, just like there are whiny, ungrateful individuals in EVERY group of like minded people. My goodness, but you like to lump whole groups of people as either wonderful or evil. Sigh.

"Once women have more influence in the church, men will find other ways to worship God. What I just explained isn't a Mormon thang, it's human nature!"
This is a sad statement. You are right that it isn't just a mormon thang. But you are wrong. It's not human nature to deny women equal opportunities in and out of the church. If men choose to leave an organization because some woman is in a position of authority, that says A LOT about those men. What do they fear? Why so threatened? The church has this set up as God's plan. Men rule, women submit. SMH.

"Many people who read what I just wrote want the church to fail, or become so progressive that it's not even the same church as it was 30 years ago. They gain happiness as they see the overall attendance numbers fall."
I know there are those who would celebrate the church tumbling. The harder the fall, the more cheering they'll do. I believe most exmos have walked away and don't really care. You'll have those who cheer, those who don't care, and those who are somewhere in between. My thoughts would be with those who are devastated by the fall. It was bad enough to navigate on my own timeline. Maybe you didn't mean that all exmos are bitter... but that's the way I read it. You come across as a bitter individual. I'm sorry if I am reading you wrong. Talking with people through text only platforms can cause incorrect impressions. Sometimes I agree with your writings, but mostly not. But hey, that is okay.

Thanks for responding in a kind manner, it's refreshing to just be called bitter instead of uninformed or accused of being a right wing asshole.

So since we're talking about schisms and what could cause one to happen in the church, let me ask you this if you don't mind answering. Let's say the brethren change church doctrine and allow trans women to hold callings in the church that are for women, I mean they're women, right? Lets say a trans woman is called to serve in the relief society presidency. Do you see that as being progress, as the church accepting people for who they are, no matter sex, gender or whatever else?

Me personally, if that ever happens, I see that as the end of the mormon church. Yeah, they'll still have lots of money, they'll still have members but it's not the church.

Does that me sound bitter?

[moksha]

Thanks for responding in a kind manner, it's refreshing to just be called bitter instead of uninformed or accused of being a right wing asshole.

The Church is looking for ways to appease its right-wing membership but finds itself against a rock and a hard place when wanting tithe payers to survive a contagion. Most reasonable members would not want President Nelson to discard his medical knowledge and go against vaccinations or suggest ingesting bleach to satisfy its Dez Nat contingent.

[hmb]

Here's the big picture. While us peoples are fussing over ridiculous ideas like if the Mormon church is going to allow transgender people to get baptized in the church...

This is a place where mormons of every stage can express ideas about mormonism. There is nothing ridiculous about questions around mormonism. There are real problems at the border that need to have solutions. What does that have to do with this thread? That can be discussed on some other thread in the coffee shop. This is the support page. Yes there is a lot of overlap, but it's not fair to label someone's question as ridiculous because you don't think it's important.

"That's what a bunch of spoiled, whiny, ungrateful individuals (transgender) ..."
So let mormons be mormons. Live and let live, as long as you fit the mold and don't demand respect for your differences. I'll bet those early mormons were considered spoiled and whiny, demanding to have a place in society. I'm sure there are some whiny, ungrateful individuals who are transgender, just like there are whiny, ungrateful individuals in EVERY group of like minded people. My goodness, but you like to lump whole groups of people as either wonderful or evil. Sigh.

"Once women have more influence in the church, men will find other ways to worship God. What I just explained isn't a Mormon thang, it's human nature!"
This is a sad statement. You are right that it isn't just a mormon thang. But you are wrong. It's not human nature to deny women equal opportunities in and out of the church. If men choose to leave an organization because some woman is in a position of authority, that says A LOT about those men. What do they fear? Why so threatened? The church has this set up as God's plan. Men rule, women submit. SMH.

"Many people who read what I just wrote want the church to fail, or become so progressive that it's not even the same church as it was 30 years ago. They gain happiness as they see the overall attendance numbers fall."
I know there are those who would celebrate the church tumbling. The harder the fall, the more cheering they'll do. I believe most exmos have walked away and don't really care. You'll have those who cheer, those who don't care, and those who are somewhere in between. My thoughts would be with those who are devastated by the fall. It was bad enough to navigate on my own timeline. Maybe you didn't mean that all exmos are bitter... but that's the way I read it. You come across as a bitter individual. I'm sorry if I am reading you wrong. Talking with people through text only platforms can cause incorrect impressions. Sometimes I agree with your writings, but mostly not. But hey, that is okay.

Thanks for responding in a kind manner, it's refreshing to just be called bitter instead of uninformed or accused of being a right wing asshole.

So since we're talking about schisms and what could cause one to happen in the church, let me ask you this if you don't mind answering. Let's say the brethren change church doctrine and allow trans women to hold callings in the church that are for women, I mean they're women, right? Lets say a trans woman is called to serve in the relief society presidency. Do you see that as being progress, as the church accepting people for who they are, no matter sex, gender or whatever else?

Me personally, if that ever happens, I see that as the end of the mormon church. Yeah, they'll still have lots of money, they'll still have members but it's not the church.

Does that me sound bitter?

That doesn't come across as bitter. To me that comes across as your opinion based on your observations. I do agree with it not ending the church, but it would be very different than past years. I would add that it's already not the same church. Instead of increasing membership, the church now thrives on investment opportunities. I feel like they pretend it's an increase and growth thing. They are continuing to build or at least dedicate temples, and they are changing boundaries around, mostly, it seems, for combining shrinking areas. If your transgender scenario came to pass, that would be a kind of death nail on the existing church. They would have to come up with some fancy choreography to dance around that kind of change. It would chase away some, perhaps create more splinter groups, but LDS Inc would go on with their billions. That's how I think.

Regarding a trans woman becoming relief society president. Ideally it shouldn't be a thing. It shouldn't be "progress." It should just be. But, if the brethren made this change, it would be considered progress by some, and not by others. It depends on your view now. I've never had issue with LGBTQ people so it's easy for me to accept it as progress. This would be difficult for people who consider it a sin to be LGBTQ. If someone believes it's perverse, then they would think it as opposite of progress. When black people were given the PH, there were some very angry members. My mother's first comment was, "Glad my mother is dead." I get both happy and angry when a good standing member of the church decides that transgender individuals are suddenly okay, because their own child comes out. Bugs me that it WAS evil until it became personal, makes me happy that they NOW see the light. Worse though are parents or family members that shun a child for what they are or are not.

I don't know if I answered your questions, but those are my thoughts/opinions.

[Dirty Bird]

This is a place where mormons of every stage can express ideas about mormonism. There is nothing ridiculous about questions around mormonism. There are real problems at the border that need to have solutions. What does that have to do with this thread? That can be discussed on some other thread in the coffee shop. This is the support page. Yes there is a lot of overlap, but it's not fair to label someone's question as ridiculous because you don't think it's important.

"That's what a bunch of spoiled, whiny, ungrateful individuals (transgender) ..."
So let mormons be mormons. Live and let live, as long as you fit the mold and don't demand respect for your differences. I'll bet those early mormons were considered spoiled and whiny, demanding to have a place in society. I'm sure there are some whiny, ungrateful individuals who are transgender, just like there are whiny, ungrateful individuals in EVERY group of like minded people. My goodness, but you like to lump whole groups of people as either wonderful or evil. Sigh.

"Once women have more influence in the church, men will find other ways to worship God. What I just explained isn't a Mormon thang, it's human nature!"
This is a sad statement. You are right that it isn't just a mormon thang. But you are wrong. It's not human nature to deny women equal opportunities in and out of the church. If men choose to leave an organization because some woman is in a position of authority, that says A LOT about those men. What do they fear? Why so threatened? The church has this set up as God's plan. Men rule, women submit. SMH.

"Many people who read what I just wrote want the church to fail, or become so progressive that it's not even the same church as it was 30 years ago. They gain happiness as they see the overall attendance numbers fall."
I know there are those who would celebrate the church tumbling. The harder the fall, the more cheering they'll do. I believe most exmos have walked away and don't really care. You'll have those who cheer, those who don't care, and those who are somewhere in between. My thoughts would be with those who are devastated by the fall. It was bad enough to navigate on my own timeline. Maybe you didn't mean that all exmos are bitter... but that's the way I read it. You come across as a bitter individual. I'm sorry if I am reading you wrong. Talking with people through text only platforms can cause incorrect impressions. Sometimes I agree with your writings, but mostly not. But hey, that is okay.

Thanks for responding in a kind manner, it's refreshing to just be called bitter instead of uninformed or accused of being a right wing asshole.

So since we're talking about schisms and what could cause one to happen in the church, let me ask you this if you don't mind answering. Let's say the brethren change church doctrine and allow trans women to hold callings in the church that are for women, I mean they're women, right? Lets say a trans woman is called to serve in the relief society presidency. Do you see that as being progress, as the church accepting people for who they are, no matter sex, gender or whatever else?

Me personally, if that ever happens, I see that as the end of the mormon church. Yeah, they'll still have lots of money, they'll still have members but it's not the church.

Does that me sound bitter?

That doesn't come across as bitter. To me that comes across as your opinion based on your observations. I do agree with it not ending the church, but it would be very different than past years. I would add that it's already not the same church. Instead of increasing membership, the church now thrives on investment opportunities. I feel like they pretend it's an increase and growth thing. They are continuing to build or at least dedicate temples, and they are changing boundaries around, mostly, it seems, for combining shrinking areas. If your transgender scenario came to pass, that would be a kind of death nail on the existing church. They would have to come up with some fancy choreography to dance around that kind of change. It would chase away some, perhaps create more splinter groups, but LDS Inc would go on with their billions. That's how I think.

Regarding a trans woman becoming relief society president. Ideally it shouldn't be a thing. It shouldn't be "progress." It should just be. But, if the brethren made this change, it would be considered progress by some, and not by others. It depends on your view now. I've never had issue with LGBTQ people so it's easy for me to accept it as progress. This would be difficult for people who consider it a sin to be LGBTQ. If someone believes it's perverse, then they would think it as opposite of progress. When black people were given the PH, there were some very angry members. My mother's first comment was, "Glad my mother is dead." I get both happy and angry when a good standing member of the church decides that transgender individuals are suddenly okay, because their own child comes out. Bugs me that it WAS evil until it became personal, makes me happy that they NOW see the light. Worse though are parents or family members that shun a child for what they are or are not.

I don't know if I answered your questions, but those are my thoughts/opinions.

You say
"Regarding a trans woman becoming relief society president. Ideally it shouldn't be a thing. It shouldn't be "progress." It should just be. But, if the brethren made this change, it would be considered progress by some, and not by others. It depends on your view now. I've never had issue with LGBTQ people so it's easy for me to accept it as progress."

If you wouldn't mind, please help me understand your position. I hope I'm understanding you correctly. You're saying that it wouldn't bother you if a trans woman was called to serve in the relief society presidency, correct? Here's what I can't understand. For many many years I have read articles and watched/listened to 100s of podcasts that have had both progressive men and women complaining about how it isn't fair and completely misogynistic on the part of the brethren to sit at the head of the largest women's organization in the world! Otherwise known as the Relief Society. Over the years I have listened to progressive after progressive complain how it isn't fair that its usually a man that gives the concluding talk at the women's session of general conference. Many progressives believe the Relief Society should be put back in the hands of women like it was before I think David O McKay took it from the women. If i remember correctly, the relief society was ran solely by women up until the 1950s. Guess what! I agree with the progressives that the Relief Society should be put back in the hands of women! It should be ran by women and women alone. If Mormon women ran the Relief Society and wanted not to invite one of the brethren to speak at their conference then so be it, that would be their choice. It's their society and they should run it and be proud of it.

But here's the hypocrisy that's so obvious I can't get over how progressives can't see it, or maybe they just don't care about it! First, I'm not calling you a progressive because I don't know if you are, you don't seem like you are, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you probably agree with me that it would be better if the brethren relinquished power over the Relief Society and gave it back to the women of the church like it was in the olden days. Do we agree on that? And if so, if we do agree, could you explain why you think that would be a good idea for the brethren to relinquish their power over the Relief Society? While at the same time, lets say the brethren never relinquish power over the Relief Society, it seems you believe it would be OK if a man pretending to be a woman would be perfectly OK to be called as one of the three representatives of an all women organization of 7 million women? Is this correct? Because as it stands now, if I understand church hierarchy correctly, the prophet and his counselors, plus the 12, possibly three more if you include the first bishopric, all have more authority over the Relief Society than the three women that are at the head of the relief society. But in your opinion, it would be OK to swap out one of the three women and add another biological man (trans woman) to the already 18 men that are over the women of the relief society? How does this make sense?

[hmb]

While at the same time, it seems you believe it would be OK if a man pretending to be a woman would be perfectly OK to be called as one of the three representatives of an all women organization of 7 million women?

This is where we truly part ways. I don't believe most transgender individuals are pretending to be the sex they identify with. (I say "most" because you will always find an exception somewhere.) Therefore, a transgender woman would BE a woman and could be RS president. A transgender man could become a Bishop if he were worthy. I don't believe any amount of discussion will change the way either of us believes so a discussion would just be noise. I respect our rights to our beliefs and opinions. It becomes a problem for me when it turns into ugly name calling and finger pointing. Jokes and sarcasm don't have to be ugly and I do plenty of that, especially around present politics. It's good when we can identify the place we are completely different. We can disagree and leave it there.

[Dirty Bird]

While at the same time, it seems you believe it would be OK if a man pretending to be a woman would be perfectly OK to be called as one of the three representatives of an all women organization of 7 million women?

This is where we truly part ways. I don't believe most transgender individuals are pretending to be the sex they identify with. (I say "most" because you will always find an exception somewhere.) Therefore, a transgender woman would BE a woman and could be RS president. A transgender man could become a Bishop if he were worthy. I don't believe any amount of discussion will change the way either of us believes so a discussion would just be noise. I respect our rights to our beliefs and opinions. It becomes a problem for me when it turns into ugly name calling and finger pointing. Jokes and sarcasm don't have to be ugly and I do plenty of that, especially around present politics. It's good when we can identify the place we are completely different. We can disagree and leave it there.

In my opinion your logic on the trans issue is flawed, let me explain. So following your logic, a trans woman is a woman so that means it's perfectly acceptable for a trans woman to be part of the relief society presidency. OK, but what if that trans woman decides to de transition during serving on the presidency, does HE have to step down and let someone else represent the all women's organization?

[Mayan_Elephant]

While at the same time, it seems you believe it would be OK if a man pretending to be a woman would be perfectly OK to be called as one of the three representatives of an all women organization of 7 million women?

This is where we truly part ways. I don't believe most transgender individuals are pretending to be the sex they identify with. (I say "most" because you will always find an exception somewhere.) Therefore, a transgender woman would BE a woman and could be RS president. A transgender man could become a Bishop if he were worthy. I don't believe any amount of discussion will change the way either of us believes so a discussion would just be noise. I respect our rights to our beliefs and opinions. It becomes a problem for me when it turns into ugly name calling and finger pointing. Jokes and sarcasm don't have to be ugly and I do plenty of that, especially around present politics. It's good when we can identify the place we are completely different. We can disagree and leave it there.

It depends on what your definition of pretend is. I dont say that to dismiss or even contend with your point. Hell, I cant even say I agree or disagree.

I do acknowledge though, your entire point seems to rest on whether a person whose junk is complementary to using a urinal is pretending to be a woman in the women’s locker room or whether that person is actually a woman. Didn’t a SCOTUS justice punt fantastically on this point? We can give benefit of doubt. We can’t, however, confirm that all people agree in what is or is not “pretending” to be a woman.

In the context of the OP, detransitioning is a very interesting twist. It is interesting that one of the highest profile known cases involving detransition involves Harmeet Dhillon’s California law firm.

It is not surprising to me that detransitioning individuals are less accepted and supported in left/liberal circles than transitioning individuals. I think that is easily explained by the litigation in motion.

[hmb]

While at the same time, it seems you believe it would be OK if a man pretending to be a woman would be perfectly OK to be called as one of the three representatives of an all women organization of 7 million women?

This is where we truly part ways. I don't believe most transgender individuals are pretending to be the sex they identify with. (I say "most" because you will always find an exception somewhere.) Therefore, a transgender woman would BE a woman and could be RS president. A transgender man could become a Bishop if he were worthy. I don't believe any amount of discussion will change the way either of us believes so a discussion would just be noise. I respect our rights to our beliefs and opinions. It becomes a problem for me when it turns into ugly name calling and finger pointing. Jokes and sarcasm don't have to be ugly and I do plenty of that, especially around present politics. It's good when we can identify the place we are completely different. We can disagree and leave it there.

In my opinion your logic on the trans issue is flawed, let me explain. So following your logic, a trans woman is a woman so that means it's perfectly acceptable for a trans woman to be part of the relief society presidency. OK, but what if that trans woman decides to de transition during serving on the presidency, does HE have to step down and let someone else represent the all women's organization?

Yes.

But I don't think there is much flip flopping on this. We do hear of some who regret surgery. This is rare though. There have been transgender people for a long time. The media would have you think that it's a catchy disease infecting millions. In fact it's a small percentage of the population. I'm hesitant to agree with surgery on minor children though. Puberty blockers are one thing, but surgery? I'm not in agreement with that. I think young kids need time to sort it out, especially since social media has made it a huge thing. I'll leave it to the medical professionals and families to decide those things. Anyway, that is going down another hole, and we are off the church headed for a schism thing.

[Mayan_Elephant]

This is where we truly part ways. I don't believe most transgender individuals are pretending to be the sex they identify with. (I say "most" because you will always find an exception somewhere.) Therefore, a transgender woman would BE a woman and could be RS president. A transgender man could become a Bishop if he were worthy. I don't believe any amount of discussion will change the way either of us believes so a discussion would just be noise. I respect our rights to our beliefs and opinions. It becomes a problem for me when it turns into ugly name calling and finger pointing. Jokes and sarcasm don't have to be ugly and I do plenty of that, especially around present politics. It's good when we can identify the place we are completely different. We can disagree and leave it there.

In my opinion your logic on the trans issue is flawed, let me explain. So following your logic, a trans woman is a woman so that means it's perfectly acceptable for a trans woman to be part of the relief society presidency. OK, but what if that trans woman decides to de transition during serving on the presidency, does HE have to step down and let someone else represent the all women's organization?

Yes.

But I don't think there is much flip flopping on this. We do hear of some who regret surgery. This is rare though. There have been transgender people for a long time. The media would have you think that it's a catchy disease infecting millions. In fact it's a small percentage of the population. I'm hesitant to agree with surgery on minor children though. Puberty blockers are one thing, but surgery? I'm not in agreement with that. I think young kids need time to sort it out, especially since social media has made it a huge thing. I'll leave it to the medical professionals and families to decide those things. Anyway, that is going down another hole, and we are off the church headed for a schism thing.

I can’t see the difference between the chemical castration of a minor and the castration of a minor. Not that my opinion matters. I damn sure don’t expect anyone else to see a difference, but also suspect many do.

Detransitioners are rare in the context of the entire population. They are less rare in the context of people who transitioned. Do you know what the statistics are?

[alas]

In my opinion your logic on the trans issue is flawed, let me explain. So following your logic, a trans woman is a woman so that means it's perfectly acceptable for a trans woman to be part of the relief society presidency. OK, but what if that trans woman decides to de transition during serving on the presidency, does HE have to step down and let someone else represent the all women's organization?

Yes.

But I don't think there is much flip flopping on this. We do hear of some who regret surgery. This is rare though. There have been transgender people for a long time. The media would have you think that it's a catchy disease infecting millions. In fact it's a small percentage of the population. I'm hesitant to agree with surgery on minor children though. Puberty blockers are one thing, but surgery? I'm not in agreement with that. I think young kids need time to sort it out, especially since social media has made it a huge thing. I'll leave it to the medical professionals and families to decide those things. Anyway, that is going down another hole, and we are off the church headed for a schism thing.

I can’t see the difference between the chemical castration of a minor and the castration of a minor. Not that my opinion matters. I damn sure don’t expect anyone else to see a difference, but also suspect many do.

Detransitioners are rare in the context of the entire population. They are less rare in the context of people who transitioned. Do you know what the statistics are?

You are misunderstanding what puberty blockers are. They are not “chemical castration.” They are just a delay to development. So, if a 12 year old biological male decides he/she is really she, and wants to go on puberty blockers, then puberty is delayed, so they will not develop into a man. They are not castrated. Surgical transition is not don’t on 12 year olds and after they are old enough to go through the required year or two of counseling and after living as a woman for however long your state requires, then they may opt for bottom surgery, at which point, they may choose what you are calling castration. But if it is what they want and they are over 18, why is it the government’s business. I am all for government getting out of what is not governments business. Now if after a few years on puberty blockers, they decide they want to grow up to be a man after all, they go off puberty blockers, puberty hits and they grow a beard and all secondary sex characteristics, and the worst that can happen is they might end up a little shorter than if they had never gone on puberty blockers. They are then perfectly capable of having children and being a man in every sense of the word. So, I really do not understand the hysteria over puberty blockers. Are they medically risky. A little bit because they have an effect on bone growth as well as delaying puberty. So, if our 12 year old goes on puberty blockers, and at 14 they decide being male is their preference, no harm no foul. Why are you calling it castration when it is no such thing?

[Mayan_Elephant]

Yes.

But I don't think there is much flip flopping on this. We do hear of some who regret surgery. This is rare though. There have been transgender people for a long time. The media would have you think that it's a catchy disease infecting millions. In fact it's a small percentage of the population. I'm hesitant to agree with surgery on minor children though. Puberty blockers are one thing, but surgery? I'm not in agreement with that. I think young kids need time to sort it out, especially since social media has made it a huge thing. I'll leave it to the medical professionals and families to decide those things. Anyway, that is going down another hole, and we are off the church headed for a schism thing.

I can’t see the difference between the chemical castration of a minor and the castration of a minor. Not that my opinion matters. I damn sure don’t expect anyone else to see a difference, but also suspect many do.

Detransitioners are rare in the context of the entire population. They are less rare in the context of people who transitioned. Do you know what the statistics are?

You are misunderstanding what puberty blockers are. They are not “chemical castration.” They are just a delay to development. So, if a 12 year old biological male decides he/she is really she, and wants to go on puberty blockers, then puberty is delayed, so they will not develop into a man. They are not castrated. Surgical transition is not don’t on 12 year olds and after they are old enough to go through the required year or two of counseling and after living as a woman for however long your state requires, then they may opt for bottom surgery, at which point, they may choose what you are calling castration. But if it is what they want and they are over 18, why is it the government’s business. I am all for government getting out of what is not governments business. Now if after a few years on puberty blockers, they decide they want to grow up to be a man after all, they go off puberty blockers, puberty hits and they grow a beard and all secondary sex characteristics, and the worst that can happen is they might end up a little shorter than if they had never gone on puberty blockers. They are then perfectly capable of having children and being a man in every sense of the word. So, I really do not understand the hysteria over puberty blockers. Are they medically risky. A little bit because they have an effect on bone growth as well as delaying puberty. So, if our 12 year old goes on puberty blockers, and at 14 they decide being male is their preference, no harm no foul. Why are you calling it castration when it is no such thing?

I think we are talking about the same thing.

What is chemical castration?
Chemical castration, sometimes called medical castration, refers to the use of chemicals or drugs to stop sex hormone production. While many people know about this process as a way to stop sex offenders, medical castration is used as a treatment for tumors that feed on sex hormones. The treatment, also called hormone therapy, may be used to treat breast cancer and prostate cancer.

This is just one example that uses the terms interchangeably. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/t ... castration

Also, I am no doctor. I am just a dude. I am also just a parent and I have a bit of common sense. Not a lot. And I say bullshit - the effects of puberty blockers can be extreme and terminal. So no, it is not riskless. That is a bunch of propaganda that requires too much bias for me to go along with. Puberty blockers are a massive risk.

Puberty blockers may actually cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide.

https://acpeds.org/transgender-interven ... m-children