All Activity

Hopefully the latest IOS update will solve the way too long lasting disaster that was my autocorrect and predictive text, etc. Google tells me I was not the only one suffering. Since the update occured, it seems much better. Let’s test it. Turley No problem there. Will be interesting to see what happens next time his name comes up. It was never a problem that I remember before the update autocorrect disaster.

Name on 2019 https://www.westsiderag.com/2019/12/04/new-upper-west-side-giving-machine-is-a-charity-vending-machine I wasn’t able to be sure, but it did appear to me the Giving Machine in Toronto did not refer to the Church. All the other images I saw had the name on it so far. https://www.instagram.com/givingmachinetoronto/?hl=en possibly another one….The name is not on the front, but might be on the side. The Church is mentioned at the end of the ad. https://givingmachineskc.org

Hi all - Any of you all served in Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia? We met a very kind grandma and grandpa at the Temple recently. They shared part of their experience in 2016 serving in Serbia. They said their branch (small congregation) had 8 (eight) members and that was it, including them - and possibly including a pair of younger missionaries! Wow! They also shared that the younger missionaries in that area have to learn Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian. Absolutely guaranteed they had the Lord’s help and the gift of tongues to help them. Sadly, the senior couple also shared that after they completed their mission and returned home, the branch may have dissolved or been discontinued. Apparently it was part of a stake which crossed the borders of some more than one country or ethnic area and the branch was too far or of a disagreeable area or there were political problems. I hope the branch members have been able to stay strong and faithful. I don't know - did the stake need to cross borders into a military zone? or was the branch too far and had too few resources? No online options? Since I'm not familiar with the area and its history, I used AI to produce this: Around 2016, the political and military conflicts in Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia were largely residual effects of the Yugoslav Wars, which took place in the 1990s. Here are some key points to note: Kosovo Conflict: Although the conflict in Kosovo had largely subsided by 2016, tensions between Serbia and Kosovo remained. The two countries had been engaged in EU-facilitated talks since 2011, but progress was slow ¹. Croatia-Serbia Relations: Relations between Croatia and Serbia were still strained in 2016, due to unresolved issues from the Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995). However, the two countries had made efforts to improve relations, including the establishment of a joint commission to investigate war crimes ². Slovenia-Croatia Border Dispute: Slovenia and Croatia had a longstanding border dispute, which remained unresolved in 2016. The dispute centered on the Bay of Piran and the surrounding land border ². Radical Nationalism: Radical nationalist groups remained active in all three countries, posing a threat to regional stability. These groups often promoted anti-minority and anti-EU sentiments ¹. Overall, while the region had made significant progress in rebuilding and reconciliation since the Yugoslav Wars, lingering tensions and unresolved issues continued to affect Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia in 2016. tl;dr: what and how do GA's do to help branches and wards in areas that are facing conflict? Also, what and how do GA's help members who live in countries where Christianity is illegal?

Maybe so? The machines in my city right now have the Church's name on them. Maybe they're an older model, but they definitely do have the Church's name on the side.

Was that this year? I got the impression that has changed. It may be that the newest machines don't have them and the older machines do.

You are assuming that “transwomen” are a subtype of women. They are not. They are men. Anyone who is male at birth is male at death, because sex cannot be changed, regardless of the procedures one undergoes. Women’s spaces are protected from men because men, as a group, are a risk to them. Men as a group are physically stronger and more likely to commit violent crimes against women than other women are. And transwomen are men. I have already given you plenty of evidence of violent crimes committed by scores of trans-identified men. And did you see the article I shared about how the majority of trans-identified men in Wisconsin prisons have committed sex crimes? How do you explain that? Since you asked (or demanded), here is more evidence: https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/sex-relationships/article/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk?region=global And here: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ How much evidence is enough for you, sir?

That's what I get for trusting an auto-generated transcript, I suppose. But also surprising because the Church's name is on the machines. I've seen that with my own eyes in my hometown.

Okay. Thanks, -Smac

A person's biological sex is empirically testable. A person's religious beliefs are not. Well, no. Thanks, -Smac

OK, I decided to go ahead and watch it as double speed though I did skip the last part when they switched to helping an exmo. They talked about the ratio of what actually gets to the person in need and what goes to administrative costs. They did say that 100% of the money goes to the charity, but some of that may go to the charity's administrative costs. I don't know everything about how it works, but I think a lot more goes to the person in need with the giving machine. For example, the way I understand it from my charity they would give us say $100 for 5 diaper bags and then we have to give receipts listing those diapers for $100 so 100% does go to the person in need. They brought up the charity needs someone to make the report. It may be true that the charity pays those people to do things like that (no one is paid at my charity - it's all volunteer) so if you need to pay someone extra to do those things then you could sort of count those funds as not being 100%. Generally, though I think those administrative costs were already built into the charity. Either way, 5 people are going to get those diaper bags, it just may mean that administrative costs go up overall. They did mention that they look into the charities' finances to make sure they are on the up and up which is a great thing. Then they mentioned how they do not have the same openness with the church's own finances which is a valid point though it is a separate topic from the Giving Machines. @OGHoosier you said "how they don't like that the Church puts its name on the machines". Actually, they talked about how the church does not put its name on the machines. You also said, "trying to make the worst of a good situation". I actually found that they were pretty fair with what they said. They took some shots at the church, but they had a lot of good things to say about the handling of the giving machines.

Well, you could lower the temperature, but you seem unwilling or unable to do so. I'll let you do do. Thanks, -Smac

Stepped up enforcement of good laws could be a good thing. However Stepped up enforcement of bad laws would be a bad thing. As I said earlier the law needs to be changed to allow for 1. a realistic legal way to come in to the country (if there is no practical, way to come in the country, people are going to choose an illegal way). The analogy I like to give is imagine you come to a stop light that doesn't turn green. After a while, if you see no police, and you think it is safe you are going to run the stop light and break the law. The stop light has to turn green for a long enough time for you to actually comply with the law. For most of these people there is no green light. 2. There needs to be a statute of limitations on immigration law enforcement. If you can put a statute of limitations on kidnapping, bank robbery and attempted murder, you should be able to put one on immigration enforcement. Once the law has been changed to address those two items, I would have no problem with increased enforcement.

Oh, I guess since we only handle the logistics, it's not fair we get to put our name on the boxes? I'm sure if petty ant-mo's want their "organizations" to get credit for doing something good, they can, when their "organization" does something good.

Surely you must have more detail. Is it a property requirement? Edit: Okay, I see what you mean. Basically, they can't prove that they have sufficient ties which will compel them to go back to the home country when their visa is expired. Seems sensible from an enforcement end but would create difficulties. It seems like any modification of this would require a stepped up immigration enforcement.

The US doesn't grant a tourist visa if you are a poor person with relatives in the US. (technically if you can't "Prove" strong ties to your home country. Basically if you are a poor Mexican with family here, they won't grant you the visa.

I speedread the transcript and looked at all the slides so you don't have to. They literally admit that there's no malfeasance, that charity watchdogs say the Giving Machines are as clean as can be, the money goes where they say it does. The video is an hour-long rant about how they don't like that the Church puts its name on the machines and "takes credit for people's donations" by so doing, and bog-standard complaints about how the Church could donate the amount they collect from their own accounts if they want to. That's all they have to say. They finish it off by suggestions for a giving machine for new Exmos which includes, among other things, a VPN for P*rnHub and a kit to make people uncomfortable at the temple. These people are bad faith grifters trying to make the worst of a good situation and probably pocketing Youtube money along the way. I wish they'd have been happier in the Church, but failing that we are better off for their absence.

Sorry! Can you add "Turley" to your dictionary, maybe?

Hold on, what are visas for then? Is there an obstacle to that I don't know about?

I remember a case when i was working in an immigration law firm. There was a woman from Canada who came to the US as a young woman, married here, and even had Grand Children here. She basically forgot that she was Canadian, so did everyone else in the US. She forgot to renew her green card years earlier and it didn't seem to be an issue (she was white and that helped). One day as she hears that a relative was dying in Canada and she goes up there and all of a sudden they US didn't want to let her back in.

You seem to understand, how can we get SMAC to understand? The US government does not let people come from Mexico to visit family in the US if they are poor and have family here. SMAC doesn't seem to believe this. The only way for some of my immediate family to overcome this obstacle is to apply for permanent residency, even though they have no intention of being permanent residents. They just want to see their families. People who are already hear don't dare leave to go home because it may mean they never see their loved ones again. The only work around for them to be able leave the country is, ironically to become permanent residents of the country the want to leave.

Right away you switch from people coming here legally to citizenship. Not everyone who wants to come here legally wants to become a citizen. It is not the same thing. Lets just start with getting here legally then we can address citizenship. Open borders/Closed borders is a false dichotomy. The openness of a border is is a matter of degree not some binary mechanism I am not for the abolition of visas, I'm for changing the process of getting a visa so that people can have a legal way of getting here. It is pretty clear you are not following what I am saying, I don't know how help you. I keep pointing out absurd outcomes of the current system and You really haven't addressed them. I really have a hard time believe that you understand how the US immigration laws actually, really, work in the real (not internet) United states.

It's an hour and a half long so I don't want to watch it. I can tell you I am with an organization that has been helped twice with it and is currently in machines again this year. We have been given so many funds. Then we were required to have receipts of all of the items given with those funds.

You are making the leap that just because trans women were born as males, then ALL of them should be viewed as dangerous and threatening. In 2022, the imprisonment rate for Black women (64 per 100,000) was 1.6 times the rate of imprisonment for white women (40 per 100,000). Should we also pass laws not allowing any black women in restrooms because they are convicted of more crimes than white women? Do you judge all of them the same simply because they are born with a black skin? Lets get some facts into your assertion. This study found No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds. So are you making your assumption based on facts or just fear and emotion? When you make blanked statements that ALL transgender women should not be allowed in women's bathrooms simply because they have transitions from being biological males, then you are judging every single one of them as a group, not individually. You completely ignore that to transition, they must take testosterone blockers and they start taking estrogen. Estrogen changes their bodies quite radically. Fewer erections and a decrease in ejaculation. ... Less interest in sex. ... Slower scalp hair loss. ... Breast development. ... Softer, less oily skin. ... Smaller testicles. ... Less muscle mass. ... More body fat. Does that sound like every other male that you are comparing them to? Maybe there is a reason why the study determined there is no increased risk of trans women using women's bathrooms. Also, since you somehow assumed that I didn't read your post when I responded, did you read this part of my post? I will make this a CFR. Show me where trans women are as dangerous to women as biological males to other women in the bathroom. Because the studies that I have read don't support your assertion. They are not comparable to biological males. You do know what a CFR is right? Provide proof of your statement or withdraw your assertion.

I wouldn’t think somebody who just shrugs and goes about their day would spend so much time talking about it. No, this isn’t the only delusional belief that is privileged. Which is the other one? Quoting Richard Dawkins: Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (pp. 112-113). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. I will speak plainly. Just as a transgender individual pretending to “really” be a woman doesn’t make it true in the real world, you pretending that your religious beliefs are scientifically plausible, much less true, doesn’t make that true, either. Yet like a wide swath of contradictory and equally implausible religious beliefs, our society grants you a ton of privilege with your false beliefs. Over the years, you and I have talked a little bit about how science has conclusively proven your religious beliefs are false, and of course you deny it. Part of your denial is pointing out that there are a few people with scientific credentials who believe in this or that religion (at least in their private lives). And of those people, a few believe the same impossible things about God and Jesus and Joseph Smith that you do. But that doesn’t prove that these implausible ideas are true or even plausible. All it does is illustrate the level of privilege your impossible beliefs enjoy. I can’t help but wonder if the reason you are so bothered by people believing false things about their own sex is because they remind you of yourself.

https://youtu.be/S32H1-THYhg This has popped up a few times on my feed when talking about the Giving Machines. I admittedly hadn’t watched it, but is there something that is not being said about what the Giving Machines are doing? I’m not much of a podcast guy but if I need to I can try and pay attention long enough to get to their main points.