All Activity

You know your missionaries are still children. And they are poor as F. because they too have to pay your church tax. Now I just met the boys, and they were all marvelous. But they did not yet fully read the bibles. They were not ready and a child should have a good childhood UNTIL 21. It is the foundation of the harsh cruel adult live. It was a joy to play some Forza Horizon 3 and some Microsoft Flight Simulator and some CoD with them. Finally some relief and joy for them.

Now this was heavy stuff, maybe play some games to ease up.

My strongest weapon, for when an evil jedi invades your mind.

Oh and if you think Corona was bad, go google Mirrorbacteria. It will be the end of God's creation.

This sign I found at the end of the old bible I recognize the pyramid with the all seeing eye, the same as on your US Dollar and behind it... the nuclear sign??? The whole page is for this sign. I respect and fear it.

I have something important to tell you. I do not want to anger you with this message. Do not just listen to any voices you hear! The openly available CIA documents on Uri Geller as well as the movie Men who stare at Goats tell us that the mind can be invaded and voices can be sent and received by our heads. There are other gods in this existance besides the god of christendom. The zoroastrian god, also Baal Hamon, the jewish god who seems to be Lucifer if some Rabbies are to be believed, god knows what the dinosaur reptiles before us believed in. Do not forget that this planet belonged to the reptiles, the dinosaurs or dragons and Christian imagery shows angels dominating the dragon and the dragon is clearly mentioned in the bible. Christians shall not have any god besides "god". The Jehovas whitness who I want to join btw. have a name for him its Jehova and that is the name of the Christian god. Now I warn you and you should heed this warning. Be wary of the craftiness and the lies and deceit of the jew. For he rules the 2 party system of the USA and his star is for the pyramid on the north and for the pyramid on the south pole. He claims to control the world. Silverstein made an anti terror insurance of the WTC 1 year prior to the planes hitting it. He made billions and kept the money. This is how far they will go. They even struck the pentagon and since then you have been a vassal state doing their bidding. Half of ISIS came from guantanamo. We live in The end of days. Be aware. They will come for you. And worse, they will divide and conquer, so they will try to make you fight your fellow christian or muslim brothers. This is why I direct my message to every Mormon out there, including the lowest in the hirarchy. Because we the people we share responsibility. And to the white people among you. You are Arians from Persia. You are NOT caucasian and NOT proto indo european. You traveled through the Kaukasus and then claimed europe when the ice subsided. Never forget. Everyone on earth except Jews and possibly Hindus is a fellow christian. The Aztecs fell easily to the spanish because millenia ago we were their masters and that is why their King refused to do war against the spanish. But it ended badly. La noche triste. You can replay the events in Age of Empires 2. Heed my words. The jew will come for you. But not every jew is bad. But Zionism poisons their minds. Wenn du willst, ist es kein Traum! - Theodor Herschel

Hello all, he means me with Dario. I welcome and am thankful for your initiative of creating this thread. A moderator with moderation power must move my content over here because I can't do that.

I think you are correct: we do agree more than we disagree. As for His criteria? I suppose we could look at Matthew 7:21 ("Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."). True. We will each of us be judged individually. And I don't think we need to worry much about what criteria He will be using to judge others, just those He uses to judge us as individuals. Well, that is its primary purpose. I also think it functions as "Exhibit A" in the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the Church itself. If the book is what it claims to be (the "antecedent"), then certain "consequents" follow. Sill a matter of faith, of course. But answering if the Church is what it claims to be is, I think, going to come down to the book as a testament, an authentic testament, of Jesus Christ. We do agree on a lot. I am glad of that. Thanks, -Smac

Society started changing the laws around 2013 in California when it started to allow transgender people to use the bathrooms of their choice. So if "society got along fine without such laws", then why was that law necessary (technically it was a statewide school administrative decision so not a law passed by legislature but is pretty similar in effect). It was then 2014 when the first law was attempted to restrict bathrooms to the sex, pretty much in reaction to the 2013 change. So doesn't that seem like the start of this whole bathroom battle was the change to society to allow transgender in bathrooms and people are just trying to get back to how society was previously. Female specific bathrooms is a fairly new invention. In the Victorian and earlier, women didn't have toilets that they could use in public. They had to stay pretty near their homes. The creation of female public bathrooms is considered to have helped with emancipating women and letting them get out in the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilets_at_the_Great_Exhibition has a quote "It has been argued by Prof. Clara Greed that the lack of such toilets in the Victorian era was actually intentional, and a mechanism to control the movement of woman and exclude them from public spaces." A term used for this is "urinal leash" where women were leashed to their homes because there were no toilets available for them. I think the reason we didn't have "bathroom laws" before 2013 was because we lived with a societal code: If you were a man, you used the men's toilets. And if you were a woman, you used the women's toilet. And if you were transgender, you didn't tell anyone and tried to use the toilet that you felt comfortable. But now, we have laws that allow people who look like men to use the women's toilet and people who look like women to use the men's toilet. So the societal code has broken down and there are people who are afraid that the change in the societal code could be dangerous. Maybe we'll go back to having the "urinal leash"?

I think we agree on much more than we disagree. I have a different view of John 14: 6 perhaps. I believe that verse is stating a simple fact. No one will come to the Father but by Christ as the judge on the Day of Judgment. He is the judge and jury. He makes the decision, so yes we will "come" to the Father by (or through Christ). He is the decider in chief. The question is what will His criteria be? That is where my uncertainty comes to the foreground. I don't believe the Bible gives us the criteria given the vast disparity of billions of living people over the millennia. I still can't quite figure out what the Book of Mormon claims to be beyond another testament of Jesus Christ. I stipulate that it is that. I am with you on all your certainties and uncertainties in your list. I am certain that the LDS church is a Christian church, filled with some who are themselves Christians and others who are not, just like any other Church. Being a Christian is an individual thing; I am pretty certain of that. Will there be non-Christians (in this life) who Christ will welcome into the presence of the Father? Yes, I think so. That is where the wideness in His mercy part comes in. Best wishes.

I don't think Peter Enns teaches with certainty that certainty is a sin. I think he teaches that it can be sinful. No, I am not certain the LDS are wrong in their beliefs. I just don't worry about it. My wife and I were just talking about all the folks in Tibet-Nepal border area who died in the flood. Probably less than 1% of them Christians of any kind. Am I worried for their eternal destiny? Not really. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy. They will all appear on that day in front of Christ since no man (or woman) cometh unto the Father but by Him. He will be a loving and just judge. I leave them in his hands.

I was thinking about Dario today! People come and go. It seems like many have gone. I thought you might be one of those, Dario. Anyway Dario, what is on your mind?

You don’t seem to care about objections (in the sense of adapting your preferred approach) from any trans advocacy group, I'm not sure why you would say that. I may not agree with much of what "trans advocacy" organizations have to say, but I certainly want to listen and give them their due consideration. In that sense, I do "care." I do see it as a "weakness." CB's proposal contradicts a number of what I think are the basic tenets of "trans" ideology, as well as the advocacy organizations that seek to present and entrench and enforce them in society. To stake out a position based on ideology, and then immediately formulate a proposal that fundamentally undercuts the basic tenets of that ideology, is - in my view - not a very strong position. Thanks, -Smac

But it does when used to create onlys and others. I am still working on understanding your perspective here. John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Acts 4:12 - “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 — “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” John 10:9 — “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” John 10:7–8 — “I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.” Was Jesus here "creat{ing} onlys and others" in John 14:6? Were His apostles doing that in the other passages? To be sure, given your experience, I can see how a poor sampling of Latter-day Saint culture has treated sacred matters as things to be bragged about or used to disparage others. I am very sorry that happened. I do not think what the Latter-day Saints said to your wife was an accurate representation or reflection or application of the teachings of the Church. Don't all Christians say that "only" Jesus saves? As for "certainty," I think it is more apt to say that "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). There may be some very few persons who can legitimately claim to have epistemic "certainty" of certain sacred matters. For most of us, though, we believe. We have faith. That faith can, over time, perhaps be tested and strengthened to the extent that a person may claim "certainty" of some things. In contrast, there are some rhetorical conventions in the Church which, while well-intended, are the product more of culture and repetitive experiences than actual, studied faith. Hence when a ten year old girl stands up in Fast & Testimony meeting and says (recites, really) "I'd like to bear my testimony I know this church is true...", I admit I entertain the possibility that this young person has indeed had some fantastic spiritual experience that has removed all doubt, but also the possibility that she has incorporated a stock phrase she has heard several times as a workable formulated expression of faith, and in which "know" means "strongly believe." Anyway, "blind spots." Yes, we all have them. I quite agree with you there. None at all? John 14:6 seems to indicate that those who affirmatively refuse to accept Jesus Christ's atonement will not be the beneficiaries of it. Isn't that a pretty big criterion? Perhaps the most fundamental and almost exclusive one? I too value incertitude, because is gives us the opportunity to thresh our beliefs and differentiate between what we believe in with "certainty" or much potency, and what we believe in as matters for which uncertainty is the byword. Jesus Christ as the Son of God? I strive for certainty on that point. Obedience to the commandments as an expression of faith in Christ? I strive for certainty on that point. Repentance as an essential component of daily life? I strive for certainty on that point. Is the Book of Mormon what is claims to be? I strive for certainty on that point. Was Noah's flood global or local? I don't know. Uncertainty/incertitude governs that question (though I lean to the latter). Was Job a real person or not? Uncertainty/incertitude. Were the conquest of Canaan and the slaughter of the Amalekites divinely mandated as depicted in the OT? Perhaps. Lots of uncertainty/incertitude. Has God ever mandated polygamy? Apparently, but I struggle with it. Uncertainty. Unearned or false certainty likely is. But maybe certainty can happen in some limited respects. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). I don't know. Frankly, I'm not sure it is always incumbent upon us to pursue "certainty" where faith and obedience are sufficient to carry the day. It is a good thought, and one I endorse and share. Thanks, -Smac

Isn’t being certain that certainty is a sin or even just wrong contradictory with holding a position of incertitude? ” I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him. ” Are you not certain LDS are wrong in their beliefs about ordinances and authority being required by God as part of our covenant to enter back into his presence? Neither do we. In the end it will be those who want to be of the family of God (those exalted will be of the Church of the Firstborn, the Restored Church is merely a mortal vehicle as should be obvious from the inclusion of “Latter-day” in the name since eternity has no “latter days”, only mortality) and those that don’t. “The faithful saints were made members of the Church of the Firstborn in eternity, since they receive through Jesus Christ the inheritance of the firstborn (D&C 93:21–22).” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/firstborn?lang=eng

You don’t seem to care about objections (in the sense of adapting your preferred approach) from any trans advocacy group, so not seeing why you bring this up for others’ POV as if it’s a weakness.

But it does when used to create onlys and others. Using the Johari Window as a valid construct, many of my LDS friends have huge blind spots. As do virtually all religious groups who base their doctrine on certainty and onlyism. I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him. I value incertitude because it gives greater meaning to my faith in Christ as impartial judge. I also am replete with my own blind spots which I freely admit. I also have my own hidden quadrant in my life's Johari Window. I might not go so far as Peter Enns, the Evangelical scholar, in declaring certainty as a sin. However, I do believe in a wideness in God's mercy and trust Christ's judgment in that final day. I do not believe there will be Mormons, Moravians, Muslims, Methodists and Mennonites at the judgment seat. I believe there will be humans there, judged by an all-wise and benevolent judge. That might be a good thought for you with your lawyer mentality. Best wishes.

This seems to be quite vague and subjective. It can be deployed to describe almost anything. How do we go about quantifying what is and is not "symbolic violence?" For example, when Christians declare that Jesus is the sole source of salvation, do you take that as "symbolic violence" leveled against non-Christians? How do we know when a thing "goes beyond disagreement?" In this context, for example, the Church presents, as a foundational truth claim, that angelic ministers descended from heaven and restored priesthood authority that had previously been lost from the earth. This is a teaching that, while public, is not really publicized. It's an important doctrinal principle, as disagreements over authority have long impeded professed Christian groups and individuals in various ways. It's in our belief system, and it's in our manuals and missionary lessons, but we don't go around and publicly flaunt it or brag about it. If two people separately approach a house, one of them being a police officer with a search warrant for the house (looking for weapons) and the other being a private citizen who keeps tabs on things in the neighborhood, one of them has legal authority to enter into the house, and one of them does not. The civilian genuinely feels cares for the welfare of his neighbors, and that is admirable, but it's not the same as actually having law enforcement authority. I don't think it is "symbolic violence" to say so. That "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The Latter-day Saints believe that the "Light of Christ" influences, or can influence, every child of God. We also believe that the Spirit can and does move and influence people of every walk of life. We do have a particularized assessment of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" as referenced in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45. Acts 2:38 associates it with baptism, and so with priesthood authority. We believe such authority is something that must be bestowed by those who have it and under proper authority. And we do invite anyone who wants to join our church to do so through baptism. I struggle to characterize this as "symbolic violence." I am sorry to hear this has happened. "{W}hen we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." (D&C 121:37.) I can't formulate a good faith circumstance in which the above behavior is expressed. It ought not to be. Gratifying pride and vain ambitions, methinks. I'm sorry about that. Also worthwhile tools to avert conflict: humility, kindness, circumspection. The Third Convention was a very interesting chapter in the history of the Church: And here: The question of authority is interesting and important. It is not in any way intended to demean or disparage any group or person. Thanks, -Smac

I think it is. You want to eliminate, either de jure or de facto or both, women's spaces by letting anyone into them. That is "something new and radical." I don't know that any of this is "incumbent" on me. This is, after all, just a message board. And your say-so about "zero evidence" is just an assertion. And whether the Kansas law was "needed" is a matter of perspective and preference and policy. This is the kind of statement that makes it hard for me to take you seriously. That biological sex is not observed, and that it is instead voted on or "assigned" by a doctor, is "something new and radical." And probably 99.98% of the time, the doctor correctly identifies the child's biological sex. What the doctor does is not a "judgment call." A judgment call is a subjective decision or choice made using personal opinion and experience because there is no clear rule, fixed formula, or single right answer. The doctor looking at the baby is working off objective criteria (external sex characteristics), not subjective ones. I don't think that is how "assigned at birth" means. I think what is typically meant is this: a doctor (or midwife) looked at the newborn and recorded a sex on the record, and they want that recording treated as a bureaucratic label rather than an observation of the child. I think the gap between us is that you seem to think that what a doctor does is subjective and/or arbitrary (a "judgment call"). I don't think that. If I say "black licorice tastes great," that is a judgment call. This is not akin to what a doctor is doing because a child's biological sex is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion. If I say "California borders on the Pacific Ocean," that is not a "judgment call," and is instead a statement of fact that I am acknowledging. My say-so does not alter the reality of what is being observed. This is akin to what a doctor is doing because a child's biological sex is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion. In very rare circumstances, yes. That means the doctor's declaration of the child's biological sex was factually incorrect. It does not mean that biological sex is subjective or left to the discretion of the doctor to choose. Right. But again, "assigned at birth" is intended to man a doctor (or midwife) looked at the newborn and recorded a sex on the record, and they want that recording treated as a bureaucratic label rather than an observation of the child. I do not think I said this. I have made allowances for the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs and whose biological sex is insuperably epistemically uncertain. Emily Quinn is, as I understand it, an XY person with complete androgen insensitivity (CAIS). That is a disorder of sex development in a male reproductive pathway. Exceedingly rare exceptions to the rule, yes. Well, no. Your proposal has the exception swallow the rule. My maintains the rule. I don't think males who "identify" as women can rely on an exception/exemption for persons with DSDs as a basis for opening women's bathrooms to everyone. But they are exceedingly rare. And they have no relevance to so-called "trans women" who do not have a DSD. Lia Thomas. Lily Tino. Dylan Mulvaney. Drag Queen Story Hours and drag shows with children in attendance. All very public. All really trying to garner attention. As for "winning issue," I'm not sure what that means. I think men should not be in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports or prisons. Publicized incidents in which men have accessed these spaces openly are fairly new. I think "trans" issues have garnered a lot of attention. Outside of the few threads such as this, I think very little about the topic. I do feel that there is much harm coming from this movement, both to adults and children. At its most fundamental level, the movement affirms deluded, incongruent-with-reality notions that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, that sex is a spectrum and not a binary, that biological sex is "assigned" by a doctor, that expressing suicidal ideation as a basis for obtaining sex trait modification procedures is legitimate, and that anyone who disagrees or questions these assertions, even in communications full of respect, civility and decorum, is a "bigot." I think advocates of trans ideology have done, and continue to do, a lot of harm to a lot of people. Not just those with Gender Dysphoria, but their family members and friends and co-workers who effectively feel coerced into complimenting the Emperor's New Clothes, or else lose their association, be called a "bigot," be accused of trying trans people to suicide ("Would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son" is at or near the apex of emotional blackmail and manipulation of parents). Lily Tino and Lia Thomas and Dylan Mulvaney and marchers in parades, and demonstrators/protesters, and so on are all actively courting public attention, and they are getting some. I think this point could have been made without attempting to distract and personalize. You persist in personalizing. I don't watch Fox News. I occasionally come across links to its content, but no more than CNN, MSNow, and so on. Thanks, -Smac ETA: Regarding taking each other seriously (about biological sex being assigned or not), I remembered posting this a while back: The "Letter to the Editor" responses to the above article mostly from medical professionals were . . . pretty frank. Here's an example (emphases added): Another (emphasis added): Another (emphases added): Another (emphases added): Another: Another: Another (emphases added): Much of the foregoing commentary seems to contravene some of the most foundational precepts in popular and trendy narratives about "trans" ideology. And the people speaking here have all sorts of medical credentials after their names. "{T}he alteration of language and the falsified understanding of biological sex, applied to all people, is the result of extreme activism which is increasing societal hostility towards trans people." I see this as what I am observing in many instances: altering language, falsifying understanding of biological sex, and doing these things by way of "extreme activism" or the influence thereof. "Alpert and colleagues report in a BMJ Editorial 5th June 2021 that characteristics of external genitalia at birth are 98% accurate in defining sex at birth. They go on to say that these are ‘flawed constructs’ around sex assigned at birth. Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’." Biological sex is observed, not "assigned." This ought not be controversial, but not only is it, anyone who affirms it is denounced as a "bigot." "It is true that different authors, mainly related to the ideology of gender post-feminism and from philosophical dialectics, have been affirming for years that biological sex is an artificial construction that must be discarded. Nonetheless, it is a serious danger that, on a clinical and healthcare level, a piece of data that is biological is relativized." This. There are people "relativizing" biological sex, portraying it as something subjective and arbitrary, and therefore changeable. "It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc." Again, this seems to be axiomatic, on par with "water is wet" and "circles are round." And yet here we are, watching people sincerely and with a straight face declare that biological sex is "assigned to a human being at birth." "{C}onsidering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person (based on complete and real information), and also the normalization of trans people. In reality, denying that transgender people have a biological sex at birth is stripping their own requests for gender reassignment of foundations." I think this is correct. "I am baffled by the idea of referring to 'sex assigned at birth'. Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not 'assigned'. ... Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense." "Assigned at birth." "Sex is a spectrum." "Sex is a social construct." "A woman is anyone who 'identifies' as one." "Trans women are women." And so on. These are factually and linguistically incoherent claims, but anyone who disagrees with them at all is denounced as a "bigot." I have long taken you seriously as a person. I think you are quite smart and articulate and well-educated and well-informed on a variety of issues. Taking you seriously is a rather easy thing to do. The difficulty comes when you stray into areas in which, in my view, ideological capture has caused you to say things that just aren't so. I'm not speaking of differences of opinion or taste or belief. I am, instead, speaking of things that are empirically and obviously true, and which you nevertheless deny. In any event, I do appreciate you sharing your perspective here. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t understand this reasoning. Can you clarify? If you made a pagan cry because you asserted that Jesus is the Christ rather than affirming their own beliefs, then you would be being committing symbolic violence towards that pagan? Also, are you saying that the best way to have faith is to abstain from all certainty? So the best way to have faith in Christ is to remain uncertain that He is the Christ, for example? That seems like a paradox considering some of the things you have asserted previously so I must be missing something.

Doing well?