Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
alas
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by alas » Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:45 am

Palerider wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:57 am
alas wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:33 am
asb wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:23 am
One other observation here.

1. It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that at least 1.5 of humans are born intersex, that is biologically neither male nor female.

2. Oaks said, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ip-session

3. If what Oaks said is true, the fact that "binary creation" isn't actually a thing means that the whole plan of salvation is frustrated and is null and void.
Thus, Oaks denies the power of God to save.

Is there honestly any other way to look at it?
Oaks knows that if people are really born with no clear indication if they are male or female, or with male chromosomes and a female body, that his view of the plan of salvation is called into question. That is exactly why he has fits about the whole thing. He knows that science proves him wrong and he just can’t stand to be wrong.

He wants life to be simple and it isn’t.
Putting on my TBM hat here for a moment:

I think both of the above statements may be unintentionally misrepresenting the Mormon view.

Isn't Oaks really saying that in Eternity the creation of spirits is really binary and that bodily complications here on Earth are just temporary glitches that like many other temporal problems, have to be lived with until they are corrected in the resurrection? Isn't that part of the purpose of the resurrection; to make perfect all of those temporal failings that so unjustly clouded our lives?

So the church expectation is similar to that of the gay issue. One needs to live as "normally" as possible while adhering to the law of chastity. A difficult hand to be dealt assuredly but it will all work out in the end.

Thus an ambiguous body here on Earth will be perfected according to it's "spiritual gender" whether that spirit is male or female, when this life is over. In the Mormon view, gender is strictly binary in the eternities. Not on Earth....

Ok. NOM hat back on:

The issue then becomes one of policy. How does the supposed church of God deal with those who struggle with these issues? Are we talking about "sin" or are we talking about a temporal malady over which the individual may have little control?
I would agree with you if Oaks was Holland. But Oaks is fuming angry at the people with what Holland would call a birth defect. Oaks isn’t reacting to a birth defect, but a moral transgression. Oaks isn’t pounding the pulpit about children born deaf and trying to correct the birth defect. But a child born with ambiguous genitals, who the doctor guesses is male, and then grows up feeling inside like she is a she and the doctor screwed up with his guess, well, that send Oaks climbing right up the wall. The psychology behind his anger says he is really angry because his view of his religion is threatened. He protesteth too much.

See, being born into the wrong sex of body isn’t seen as a birth defect. Well, the transgender folk see it that way. But the church sees it as they are born into the correct body, but their evil tendencies make them want to defy God and be the opposite sex. Even if they are XY but have a female body, well that can’t be that they are insensitive to male hormones, they want to be male because they are defying God. God had them born with female genitals. Period. It is t that simple and that makes Oakes angry.

Keewon
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Keewon » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:24 pm

Alas wrote: But the church sees it as they are born into the correct body, but their evil tendencies make them want to defy God and be the opposite sex. Even if they are XY but have a female body, well that can’t be that they are insensitive to male hormones, they want to be male because they are defying God. God had them born with female genitals. Period. It is t that simple and that makes Oakes angry.
It all comes back to the "Why would a loving Heavenly Father do this to his children?" meme Packer let out. Science (and the experiences of a large minority of people) has got to be wrong, because if it is right, that says God either screws up or is malevolent or Church doctrine is wrong. None of those conclusions is acceptable. Therefore science is wrong, and everyone who is persuaded by science is weak, just like Bruce McConkie taught about evolution.

The gloves are off.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1839
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:51 pm

Keewon wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:24 pm

It all comes back to the "Why would a loving Heavenly Father do this to his children?" meme Packer let out. Science (and the experiences of a large minority of people) has got to be wrong, because if it is right, that says God either screws up or is malevolent or Church doctrine is wrong. None of those conclusions is acceptable.

The gloves are off.
And the above concept seems so obtuse to me. Leadership should know better. Firstly it ISN'T Heavenly Father "doing it" to his children. It is the permitting of the experience to occur, which is quite different.

Is the experience just or fair? Of course not. It was never meant to be. But the learning that takes place through the experience is of such a profound nature that it can be achieved in no other way. That's another subject altogether.

The participation in Earth or temporal life effects EVERY aspect of the human experience. So why should the gender issue be an exception? Whether it is the body or the brain/mind, everything is subject to imperfection in this life.

The only hope we have is that a just God will make all whole again in due time.

Or if one is a non-believer in God, one day all suffering will surely be over.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

Keewon
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Keewon » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:52 pm

Palerider wrote:The participation in Earth or temporal life effects EVERY aspect of the human experience. So why should the gender issue be an exception? Whether it is the body or the brain/mind, everything is subject to imperfection in this life.

The only hope we have is that a just God will make all whole again in due time.
While I agree that looking at gender atypicality as an innate imperfection, to be lived with, learned from and eventually fixed is much more humane and generous than viewing it as a moral flaw, or worse, deliberate disobedience. But on the other hand, for loving parents and leaders to say to a kid who is in every other respect just fine "You're body and brain aren't the way Heavenly Father wants them to be, but if you are patient and faithful it will all be made right in the next life"- I'm not sure which I'd prefer, the condemnation or the assurance. A sensitive kid anxious to please his parents and make worthy life choices - it's got to hit him or her hard in their self esteem.

To me, it seems like the view that "homosexuality is just a cross to bear and I will not judge another's cross" is another (kinder) level of judgment.

Consider how black members of the Church were taught to view themselves until 1976. Black skin was a curse and constant reminder that they had been guilty of offenses against God before they were born, but if they were faithful the curse would be lifted and they would once again be white and delightsome like their European Nordic / Alpine brethren.

Why not view atypical gender identity / orientation as just naturally occurring variation among human beings? Being left handed used to be considered a flaw, but it's no big deal nowadays. All the current sociological evidence suggests that gays and lesbians make just as good parents - in some ways possibly better, since they have to work harder to be parents - as straight parents. Our lives are enriched by our LGBT+ community. I don't see any reason outside scientifically brittle dogma that there should be any stigma at all.

Keewon
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Keewon » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:31 pm

Keewon wrote:since they have to work harder to be parents
Sorry-- I meant "since they have to work harder to become parents", adoption and all that.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by alas » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:38 pm

Keewon wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:52 pm
Palerider wrote:The participation in Earth or temporal life effects EVERY aspect of the human experience. So why should the gender issue be an exception? Whether it is the body or the brain/mind, everything is subject to imperfection in this life.

The only hope we have is that a just God will make all whole again in due time.
While I agree that looking at gender atypicality as an innate imperfection, to be lived with, learned from and eventually fixed is much more humane and generous than viewing it as a moral flaw, or worse, deliberate disobedience. But on the other hand, for loving parents and leaders to say to a kid who is in every other respect just fine "You're body and brain aren't the way Heavenly Father wants them to be, but if you are patient and faithful it will all be made right in the next life"- I'm not sure which I'd prefer, the condemnation or the assurance. A sensitive kid anxious to please his parents and make worthy life choices - it's got to hit him or her hard in their self esteem.

To me, it seems like the view that "homosexuality is just a cross to bear and I will not judge another's cross" is another (kinder) level of judgment.

Consider how black members of the Church were taught to view themselves until 1976. Black skin was a curse and constant reminder that they had been guilty of offenses against God before they were born, but if they were faithful the curse would be lifted and they would once again be white and delightsome like their European Nordic / Alpine brethren.

Why not view atypical gender identity / orientation as just naturally occurring variation among human beings? Being left handed used to be considered a flaw, but it's no big deal nowadays. All the current sociological evidence suggests that gays and lesbians make just as good parents - in some ways possibly better, since they have to work harder to be parents - as straight parents. Our lives are enriched by our LGBT+ community. I don't see any reason outside scientifically brittle dogma that there should be any stigma at all.
I think in some ways, we are talking about too many different things at once. We have bounced through intersex, transgender, and now homosexual. I think from a scientific as well as a religious perspective those are different things. Intersex might be a clear birth defect. While transgender is a brain that is feminized with a body that is masculine, so a kind of disconnect between body and identity. While homosexual is questionable still. Is it a birth defect if it is partly genetic, which it is. Or, since we can cause it in animals by manipulating the hormones in the mother’s body, so it might be partially a birth defect.

I have no clue how God is going to handle these things.

Basically, what I am saying is we don’t know enough to know a religious doctrine. We can’t say religiously what the after death life is like for straight cis “normal”people. Like Oaks bad insensitive joke about the woman who wanted to know if she had to share a mansion in heaven with the first wife. Why pretend we know what will happen in the after life, but we don’t. So, let’s stop telling gays they will be made straight, cause we don’t know and it is beyond arrogance for church leaders to pretend to know.

Personally, I hope my lesbian, autistic spectrum daughter is still lesbian and on the autism spectrum, because that is who she is. I don’t want her fixed. Oh, when she was an impossible toddler, yeah I wanted her fixed before I killed her. I hope my color blind son gets to choose if he wants to stay color blind, because now, with glasses to fix color blindness, he doesn’t want it fixed. That is who he is. But I want my daughter in law to still be part of my family. I love her, so I hope my daughter keeps loving her. I want my autistic grandson to stay the sweet weird child he is. He doesn’t need fixing.

Transgender folk, well they see the person their brain says they are as who they are, and who am I to tell them they are wrong and need to change their brain to fit their body. It is easier to imagine them in the body they desire rather than to change who they feel they are. So, how is God going to “fix” them, except to give them the body the want.

We just don’t know enough so why pretend we do.

Keewon
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Keewon » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:56 pm

Alas wrote:Personally, I hope my lesbian, autistic spectrum daughter is still lesbian and on the autism spectrum, because that is who she is. I don’t want her fixed. Oh, when she was an impossible toddler, yeah I wanted her fixed before I killed her. I hope my color blind son gets to choose if he wants to stay color blind, because now, with glasses to fix color blindness, he doesn’t want it fixed. That is who he is. But I want my daughter in law to still be part of my family. I love her, so I hope my daughter keeps loving her. I want my autistic grandson to stay the sweet weird child he is. He doesn’t need fixing.

Transgender folk, well they see the person their brain says they are as who they are, and who am I to tell them they are wrong and need to change their brain to fit their body. It is easier to imagine them in the body they desire rather than to change who they feel they are. So, how is God going to “fix” them, except to give them the body the want.

We just don’t know enough so why pretend we do.
That's beautifully said about your family. I have two children on the spectrum, and one who recently came out as trans. I've known for years that the latter was struggling with gender issues, and have been waiting for him to bring it up so we could take the next step together. I'm not sure how easy it will be to adjust pronouns if and when the time comes. His twin sister has come to me in tears about her sense of loss at losing her brother, and we have used the common marriage joke "you're not losing a brother, you're gaining a sister" sort of thing. It's definitely a journey.

I realized after I wrote my post that I was talking generically about atypical gender issues while others had homed in on intersex and transsexuality specifically. I was just trying to make the point that if a person isn't burdened by their situation it shouldn't be necessarily considered a flaw to be fixed. Their well being should take precedence over societal norms. As to genuine medical conditions and how they can be treated in this life or the next, there are lots of unknowns.

User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1121
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Not Buying It » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:48 am

Blashyrkh wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:22 am
You have kind of made my point. Why are we getting all wound up and demanding society change for 2% of the population? I always wanted to be an aeronautical engineer but due to my lack of comprehension of the higher levels of math I went into the law field. So should I be given a pass and be allowed to design aircraft because I suffer from a mental disorder. Yes I have been diagnosed with dyscalculia. It's a real mental disorder. My brain doesn't do well with more than four digits. No, I move one. I don't demand that everyone accommodate my intellectual issues. It is not normal to be transgendered according to the LDS culture. Then leave the LDS culture. Problem solved. Look, I left the church for X,Y and Z. I realize their beliefs and they run contrary to my own. I don't get the people who sit and bitch about a group they obviously disagree with. I don't like the KKK so I don't join and I move on. But is it really going to do anything to sit and moan about their beliefs? Not to them. Not to me. Why do people think they have to change the thoughts of everyone who disagrees with them? Let the LDS disagree with transgenders, gays, whomever. Move on if you don't agree with their beliefs. Start your own church that loves everyone except Mormons.
You know it’s not that easy. You know that. Or you should anyway. A kid gets born into an oppressive, controlling, repressive Church, gets brainwashed from day 1 the Church is not only always right but obeying it is the only way he or she gets to be with his or her family forever, most of his or her family and friends are all wrapped up in it and think they will lose him or her forever if he or she leaves it - those chains are not easy for most people to escape. I like that you feel comfortable going against what everyone else here thinks sometimes, Blashyrkh, I really do, but nothing sets me off more than when someone makes it sound like leaving the Church is an easy, effortless decision where a person just walks away and it’s that simple. If you’ve left the Church, you should know that. Leaving the Church is the hardest, most gut-wrenching heart-rending thing most of us will ever do in our entire lives, and I find it callous, unempathetic, disingenuous, and supremely wrong-headed to make it sound like walking away from the Church is as easy as picking a different fabric softener.

I don’t want to squelch a dissenting voice that keeps NOM from being an echo chamber, but you are dead wrong on this one.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4554
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Hagoth » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:50 pm

I understand Bashyrkh's point, but it seems like it applies equally well to just about every topic we discuss here. If we could just walk away without thinking about it or without concerning ourselves with those who still have their head in a vice or waiting for the blade to fall this forum would not exist. Many people have just walked away, which is one reason the forum remains echo- chamber-ish. It really is kind of silly to talk endlessly about magic rocks and golden books when you don't believe in them.

Maybe Mr. Oaks can outline a conversion therapy program for people who are hopelessly attached to a particular definition of the word 'translate.' I just hope it doesn't require shocking my genitals like another program he approved of.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

Keewon
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Keewon » Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:39 pm

Blashyrkh wrote:It is not normal to be transgendered according to the LDS culture. Then leave the LDS culture. Problem solved.
Except even then the problem is not solved. The LDS church uses its political muscle to impose its doctrinal views on members and nonmembers alike, as with Proposition 8. LGBT+ aren't demanding anything other than the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the interference of people who want to impose their view of "normal" on others.

Blashyrkh
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:39 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Blashyrkh » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:18 pm

Keewon wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:39 pm
Blashyrkh wrote:It is not normal to be transgendered according to the LDS culture. Then leave the LDS culture. Problem solved.
Except even then the problem is not solved. The LDS church uses its political muscle to impose its doctrinal views on members and nonmembers alike, as with Proposition 8. LGBT+ aren't demanding anything other than the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the interference of people who want to impose their view of "normal" on others.
This happens everywhere. Why just point out the LDS church for promoting their political agenda? Have you ever lived in the South? The born-agains push their agenda. It happens everywhere. Liberals push their agenda on conservatives and vice-versa.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1839
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:22 am

Keewon wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:39 pm
LGBT+ aren't demanding anything other than the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the interference of people who want to impose their view of "normal" on others.
Mmmmm.....I'm not so sure about that. There are militant LGBT+ers who want to ram it down your throat and to disrespect another's beliefs in a way that disregards freedom of speech and religion.

In some ways it is understandable considering they have been discriminated against but that also raises the second issue you have pointed out.

Who and how do we decide what is "normative"?

Ancient societies used evolved cultural mores and religion to establish proper behavior. Much of the world still works on that premise to one degree or another.

But that is quickly changing. With the advocacy and pushing of a totally secularized society there is a truncation of long established anchors that set the boundaries of acceptable behavior. That isn't entirely a bad thing, but it opens the door wide to the forced acceptance of detrimental behavior.

It makes government and special interest groups the arbiters of acceptable behavior because ALL long held authoritative anchors have been severed. The people of the nation become subject to the whims and desires of small vocal groups and government creates law according to the lowest common denominator.

We can no longer determine at the stoplight whether the car in front of us is rolling backwards or we are rolling forward. There is nothing that is a fixed point from which to navigate.

There is no "normal". Anyone who can convince or persuade others that a certain behavior is harmless or innocent has a chance of forcing the rest of us to comply even against our will and belief system.

How do you solve that dilemma?

Jefferson wanted to protect the rights of the minority and rightly so. But Franklin and Hamilton were very concerned that the downfall of the nation would be when the people could no longer differentiate between "Liberty" and "LICENSE".

They are not the same.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1121
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Not Buying It » Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:31 am

Palerider wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:22 am
Keewon wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:39 pm
LGBT+ aren't demanding anything other than the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the interference of people who want to impose their view of "normal" on others.
Mmmmm.....I'm not so sure about that. There are militant LGBT+ers who want to ram it down your throat and to disrespect another's beliefs in a way that disregards freedom of speech and religion.

In some ways it is understandable considering they have been discriminated against but that also raises the second issue you have pointed out.

Who and how do we decide what is "normative"?

Ancient societies used evolved cultural mores and religion to establish proper behavior. Much of the world still works on that premise to one degree or another.

But that is quickly changing. With the advocacy and pushing of a totally secularized society there is a truncation of long established anchors that set the boundaries of acceptable behavior. That isn't entirely a bad thing, but it opens the door wide to the forced acceptance of detrimental behavior.

It makes government and special interest groups the arbiters of acceptable behavior because ALL long held authoritative anchors have been severed. The people of the nation become subject to the whims and desires of small vocal groups and government creates law according to the lowest common denominator.

We can no longer determine at the stoplight whether the car in front of us is rolling backwards or we are rolling forward. There is nothing that is a fixed point from which to navigate.

There is no "normal". Anyone who can convince or persuade others that a certain behavior is harmless or innocent has a chance of forcing the rest of us to comply even against our will and belief system.

How do you solve that dilemma?

Jefferson wanted to protect the rights of the minority and rightly so. But Franklin and Hamilton were very concerned that the downfall of the nation would be when the people could no longer differentiate between "Liberty" and "LICENSE".

They are not the same.
There may be some militant LGBT+ers who go too far, but that is true of any group. The vast majority of LGBT+ are asking for exactly what Keewon said - "the basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the interference of people who want to impose their view of "normal" on others". Well said Keewon. On what basis can we deny it to them? The writings of fanatical members of what at the time was a small, insignificant religious movement from thousands of years ago?

I am not sure that we are in any danger that acceptance of the LGBT+ lifestyle "opens the door wide to the forced acceptance of detrimental behavior." What "detrimental behavior" would that be, exactly? Committed, loving, fulfilling relationships between two homosexual men or women? A trans lifestyle where someone abandons the cultural norms that forced them to be something they believe they are not with all of their soul? I reject the idea that acceptance of traditionally off-limit homosexual and trans behaviors automatically lead to a society where open bestiality and uninhibited pedophilia become acceptable. Acceptance of LGBT+ lifestyles does not in any way promote actions that are dangerous or harmful to innocent people. And the predominance of Judeo-Christian values in our culture over the last several hundred years hasn't exactly eliminated pedophilia, has it?

When you say that "ALL long held authoritative anchors have been severed", are you referring to the Bible and Judeo-Christian values? In a world of many differing values and worldviews, what makes them objectively better than any others? And I would point out that these "long held authoritative anchors" have been extremely problematic in a lot of different ways. For example, they have been easily corruptible to serve the ends of the powerful exploiting the weak and vulnerable, and they don't appear to make our culture any more moral than any other in any discernible way - and are just one of many, many competing values systems that have gained large following in this wide world of ours.

So you are right, "There is no "normal". " But there never was. There were only powerful factions in our society who forced their worldview on others, and we have no reason to think their worldview was objectively better than any other. There never was an indisputable "fixed point", we only think there was because there was one that was so predominant in our particular culture for so many centuries.

We haven't lost any fixed and unchangeable truths, because the predominant value system in our culture didn't have a monopoly on them. We aren't adrift without a fixed point, because there never really was one. There was just a point we clung to as it floated around in a sea of other points, a vast , undulating ocean of diverse ideas, some better than others, but none objectively "fixed" in any real sense of the term. We just thought it was fixed because we were bobbing around with it.
Last edited by Not Buying It on Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by alas » Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:34 am

Palerider wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:22 am
Keewon wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:39 pm
LGBT+ aren't demanding anything other than the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the interference of people who want to impose their view of "normal" on others.
Mmmmm.....I'm not so sure about that. There are militant LGBT+ers who want to ram it down your throat and to disrespect another's beliefs in a way that disregards freedom of speech and religion.

In some ways it is understandable considering they have been discriminated against but that also raises the second issue you have pointed out.

Who and how do we decide what is "normative"?

Ancient societies used evolved cultural mores and religion to establish proper behavior. Much of the world still works on that premise to one degree or another.

But that is quickly changing. With the advocacy and pushing of a totally secularized society there is a truncation of long established anchors that set the boundaries of acceptable behavior. That isn't entirely a bad thing, but it opens the door wide to the forced acceptance of detrimental behavior.

It makes government and special interest groups the arbiters of acceptable behavior because ALL long held authoritative anchors have been severed. The people of the nation become subject to the whims and desires of small vocal groups and government creates law according to the lowest common denominator.

We can no longer determine at the stoplight whether the car in front of us is rolling backwards or we are rolling forward. There is nothing that is a fixed point from which to navigate.

There is no "normal". Anyone who can convince or persuade others that a certain behavior is harmless or innocent has a chance of forcing the rest of us to comply even against our will and belief system.

How do you solve that dilemma?

Jefferson wanted to protect the rights of the minority and rightly so. But Franklin and Hamilton were very concerned that the downfall of the nation would be when the people could no longer differentiate between "Liberty" and "LICENSE".

They are not the same.
I think this comes back to “your right to swing your arm stops at my nose.”

Are the militant LGBT people really taking away anything from straights? Well, their right to pretend that gays should not exist. The straights who are screaming about their religious freedom being taken away, well, I just don’t see how their religious freedom is gone if they are forced to sell a cake to someone who sins. Should the electric company be allowed to shut off the power to a whore house? If you sell cakes for a living, then sell cakes, and putting whatever writing on the cake is part of selling cakes. If you don’t want to sell a certain kind of cake that should be clear too all customers. Wedding cakes, should mean all weddings. Just like electricity mean electricity. Oh, the baker is horrified to have to put the requested message on the cake, good god grow up. Either you sell wedding cakes or you don’t sell wedding cakes. It is like refusing to write “happy Bar Mitzvah” because you are Christian Same damn thing.

I just get tired of people like Oaks abusing the right to choose your religion to mean you get to be hateful.



With the transgender issue, the church punishes people who attempt to change the physical sex of their body. Now if it is a “birth defect” why not allow them to surgically correct the birth defect. Psychology has found no way to change their brain when the feel they are in the wrong sexed body. So why not allow them to correct the mismatch in the ways science has found works? Oh, because having surgery to remove your penis freaks some men out? Well, how does it hurt those straight cis men? Interferes with their religious freedom? No it doesn’t. It interferes with their sense that there are easy answers.

If science says it is some kind of birth defect. Why the hell wont the “religious people” let them fix the birth defect. It is the same as saying that because this person was born joined to their twin, we can’t do surgery to separate them. It is the same as saying if God saw fit to have your born deaf, we can’t use modern medicine to fix it.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:32 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by The Beast » Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:18 pm

Apologeticsislying wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:11 pm
The next step for Wendi and Sheri is to rewrite the D&C (under RMN's seer stone revelation, but of course, we cannot abide insubordination) showing the Lord wishes the succession of his prophet when he passes onto his second anointed eternities is to be had by his eternal partner, his wife. Wendi for President!
I think Wendy the Witch is behind all of it. She starts whispering in Rusty's ear while he's asleep. He wakes up thinking the big G is talking to him. She leaves the room to allow for this manly exchange to happen, while she goes to the next room and keeps talking through the wall. Rusty's none the wiser and still thinks it's the big G. Wendy comes back when it's all done and pretends to not know anything asking, "So...what did HF have for you tonight dear?"
Are you on the square? Are you on the level?

Blashyrkh
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:39 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Blashyrkh » Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:30 pm

Not Buying It wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:48 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:22 am
You have kind of made my point. Why are we getting all wound up and demanding society change for 2% of the population? I always wanted to be an aeronautical engineer but due to my lack of comprehension of the higher levels of math I went into the law field. So should I be given a pass and be allowed to design aircraft because I suffer from a mental disorder. Yes I have been diagnosed with dyscalculia. It's a real mental disorder. My brain doesn't do well with more than four digits. No, I move one. I don't demand that everyone accommodate my intellectual issues. It is not normal to be transgendered according to the LDS culture. Then leave the LDS culture. Problem solved. Look, I left the church for X,Y and Z. I realize their beliefs and they run contrary to my own. I don't get the people who sit and bitch about a group they obviously disagree with. I don't like the KKK so I don't join and I move on. But is it really going to do anything to sit and moan about their beliefs? Not to them. Not to me. Why do people think they have to change the thoughts of everyone who disagrees with them? Let the LDS disagree with transgenders, gays, whomever. Move on if you don't agree with their beliefs. Start your own church that loves everyone except Mormons.
You know it’s not that easy. You know that. Or you should anyway. A kid gets born into an oppressive, controlling, repressive Church, gets brainwashed from day 1 the Church is not only always right but obeying it is the only way he or she gets to be with his or her family forever, most of his or her family and friends are all wrapped up in it and think they will lose him or her forever if he or she leaves it - those chains are not easy for most people to escape. I like that you feel comfortable going against what everyone else here thinks sometimes, Blashyrkh, I really do, but nothing sets me off more than when someone makes it sound like leaving the Church is an easy, effortless decision where a person just walks away and it’s that simple. If you’ve left the Church, you should know that. Leaving the Church is the hardest, most gut-wrenching heart-rending thing most of us will ever do in our entire lives, and I find it callous, unempathetic, disingenuous, and supremely wrong-headed to make it sound like walking away from the Church is as easy as picking a different fabric softener.

I don’t want to squelch a dissenting voice that keeps NOM from being an echo chamber, but you are dead wrong on this one.
If something, anything is keeping you from being happy and you for whatever reason cannot leave then I feel sorry for you. If your family/friends cannot accept your decision then you have some poor family members. Life is short. Really short. If you spend it pleasing other people rather than find your own joy then that is your own fault. The day I finally ran from the church I felt like a whole new person. I could find true joy now rather than be oppressed by the COB. Everyone has to make that decision. Is maintaining your family/friends and living a life you despise more important than being true to yourself and believing what you truly want to? Then quit complaining that the church makes you feel bad when their principles don't jive with yours.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 1839
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:05 am

Not buying it and Alas we may just have to agree to disagree here. I always respect your opinions.

But in this case I can't see myself repeating your arguments to explain to my eleven year old grand daughter why she is forced to share the public restroom with a 6' 2", 225 lb, male looking, hairy person in a dress and high heels who thinks his/her right to express themselves as a woman takes precedence over the security and privacy of an eleven year old girl. She deserves better. Where do her rights begin???
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
fetchface
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by fetchface » Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:53 am

Palerider wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:05 am
Not buying it and Alas we may just have to agree to disagree here. I always respect your opinions.

But in this case I can't see myself repeating your arguments to explain to my eleven year old grand daughter why she is forced to share the public restroom with a 6' 2", 225 lb, male looking, hairy person in a dress and high heels who thinks his/her right to express themselves as a woman takes precedence over the security and privacy of an eleven year old girl. She deserves better. Where do her rights begin???
Maybe we could build bathroom stalls that are actually private, like other countries? You know, something that just anyone couldn't just look right into whenever they want? I mean, it's not as if we don't already have sicko men who go after young boys or anything...
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Fifi de la Vergne
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:56 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Fifi de la Vergne » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:02 am

fetchface wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:53 am
Palerider wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:05 am
Not buying it and Alas we may just have to agree to disagree here. I always respect your opinions.

But in this case I can't see myself repeating your arguments to explain to my eleven year old grand daughter why she is forced to share the public restroom with a 6' 2", 225 lb, male looking, hairy person in a dress and high heels who thinks his/her right to express themselves as a woman takes precedence over the security and privacy of an eleven year old girl. She deserves better. Where do her rights begin???
Maybe we could build bathroom stalls that are actually private, like other countries? You know, something that just anyone couldn't just look right into whenever they want? I mean, it's not as if we don't already have sicko men who go after young boys or anything...
This was my thought as well. My teenage son was propositioned in a public restroom, which still freaks me out. Also, this is not a creepy thing (just exasperating), but I've had my share of little kids peeking at me under the stall. I haven't figured out why the American design is for stalls with partial doors, but there are lots of reasons I'd prefer a full door.
Joy is the emotional expression of the courageous Yes to one's own true being.

User avatar
fetchface
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by fetchface » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:17 am

Fifi de la Vergne wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:02 am
This was my thought as well. My teenage son was propositioned in a public restroom, which still freaks me out. Also, this is not a creepy thing (just exasperating), but I've had my share of little kids peeking at me under the stall. I haven't figured out why the American design is for stalls with partial doors, but there are lots of reasons I'd prefer a full door.
Yep, the idea that this is some new problem that is brought to the table by transgender individuals is just false. We have problems with the way we design public restrooms that start with the assumption that we are totally safe in the presence of our own gender. The assumption is that we don't even need privacy if we are all men or all women. I bet few of us made it through the public school system without being harassed at least once during a private moment in a bathroom stall...

Let's fix that problem first. The truth is that anyone who can enter a public restroom can invade our privacy in a public restroom any time they want.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests