All Activity

Apollo XIII, is on my list of 100 favourite films. And like Kenngo, I watch every time on TV.

Apollo XIII, yet again. There are certain movies I'll watch any time they are on no matter how many times I might have seen them previously, and this is one of them. A few memorable moments: Blanche Lovell, Apollo XIII mission commander Jim Lovell's mother, who tells one of her worried granddaughters, "Don't you worry, Honey. If they could build a washing machine that could fly, my Jimmy could land it." When someone from the NASA press office has a disagreement with Jim Lovell's wife, Marilyn, she says emphatically [although the return of the astronauts is very much up in the air at this point], "You can take that up with my husband when he gets home!" Before the astronauts' departure on their mission, a reporter asks Jim Lovell about times he'd been in tight spots in the military, and he describes an occasion in which he was trying to find his way while flying a mission on a pitch black night with no points of reference when suddenly, all of the electronics on his aircraft cut out [including lights]. Only then [in the total darkness, and, in fact, because of the total darkness] was he able to see a ship below him because it churned up fluorescent algae in its wake, giving him a reference point to find his bearings. He tells the reporter, "So, uh, you uh, never know what events are to transpire to get you home."

Ouch!?! Eww!?! -Smac

Right, so the data analyzing overall GDP was country-by-country, and like all of the other WomenStats data, each country was "rated" on a five-point scale from least polygamous to most polygamous, with more factors taken into account than just whether or not polygamy was legal in a country or not. -- When I looked up the WomanStats project online just now, I saw that it was actually started by BYU, which I hadn't known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WomanStats_Project I presume a greater factor involved in marking whether a country is very polygamous or not would be prevalence. I didn't know anything specific about Angola, but my wikipedia search just now says that even though polygamous marriages aren't legally recognized in Angola, they are very common, "Although polygamy is officially illegal in Angola, the practice is known to be widely socially acceptable and very prevalent among the Angolan population." Apparently polygamy is less prevalent in Bahrain, even though it is legal there: "Like many nations in the Muslim world, polygyny is legal in Bahrain. However, according to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights' write-up on women's rights in Bahrain at the present time, polygamy is only practiced by a minority of Bahraini citizens" The graph of course, even though it is by location, is by continent/region, not country like the WomanStats data, so it's a general visual showing overall performance of regions, with the more polygamous "regions" of the world showing to have significantly more extreme poverty. I understand that you would perhaps prefer to see a graph detailed country-by-country as that would of course be more accurate, but to me it still works to show the overall trend that the more polygamous parts of the world are the more impoverished parts of the world. The actual WomanStats data is much more nuanced than "polygamous" or "monogamous" and "impoverished" or "not impoverished", due to the five-point rating, and it shows that the 170 countries that they measured followed this scale, but all that might be more difficult to put into one graph unless the graph were to be interactive. All of the data for the WomenStats project is online so you can look it up there: https://www.womanstats.org/mobile/index.html — I don't happen to have an account there myself.

Ouch!?!

The presence of sexual content on television, streaming, and in movies is a real issue, and parental control over it is often imperfect. That does not resolve the narrower question raised by the Florida statute. The law does not attempt to regulate every form of sexual imagery minors might encounter. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards regarding what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. That is the longstanding obscenity-as-to-minors standard. I keep saying this because it seems to not be getting much attention: Live, in-person commercial performances differ from mediated content in important ways. Parents can more readily limit or supervise what comes into the home through ratings, parental controls, and device settings. A commercial venue that knowingly admits children to a qualifying adult live performance is a different setting—one the law has long treated as subject to age-based restrictions. It may be that, historically, existing rules were largely effective at keeping children out of traditional adult venues such as strip clubs. In recent years, however, some venues have sought to present sexually explicit live performances in settings that are specifically intended to include children. The newer statute responds to that development by applying a clear, neutral standard to all qualifying adult live performances, regardless of the identity or orientation of the performers. It is not limited to any one type of event. Pointing to the broader problem of media exposure does not make a targeted limit on certain live performances incoherent. We already accept many age-based rules without first requiring that every other avenue of similar content be eliminated. The question is whether this particular restriction is justified on its own terms. The distinction is not simply “live versus filmed.” The statute targets a specific conduct: knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the obscenity-as-to-minors test. That is different from the separate (and imperfect) systems that already exist for broadcast, streaming, and theatrical films—ratings, parental controls, time-slot restrictions, and the practical ability of parents to limit what enters the home. Whether a particular drag show or Pride-related performance is more or less explicit than a given movie or television scene is a factual question that varies case by case, and in the end is immaterial. The statute does not depend on a blanket ranking of entire categories. It asks whether the specific live performance, taken as a whole, meets the three-part standard for material that is unsuitable for the child’s age. Some will; many will not. Broadcasting raises different issues under different legal frameworks. The statute at issue does not regulate broadcasting, and hypothetical questions about what would be permitted if the same content were only televised do not determine whether a state may set age limits on admitting children to qualifying live commercial performances. Those are separate regulatory domains, just as age limits on entering an adult club are separate from rules governing what may air on television. In short, the law draws a line around a particular commercial setting and a particular act (knowingly admitting a child). It does not require proving that every other form of sexual content is more restrained, nor does it turn on whether the same material would be treated identically if it appeared only on a screen. Thanks, -Smac

What is it specifically that you have seen happen at a drag show or a pride parade that makes you feel like the government should regulate it any more than it regulates explicit sexual acts, nudity and much more blatant immoral beavior in movies and on TV that is broadcast into homes of minors and are difficult for parents to control. After all, parents can choose to attend a drag show or pride parade with their children, but have a much more difficult time controlling what their children see in movies and on TV. Is the only difference is that drag shows and pride parades parents can make the choice and easily control what their children view as opposed to the graphic sex scenes and full frontal nudity that regularly occur in the movies and TV is that one is live and one is filmed???? Would you be ok with drag shows and pride parades being broadcast? Do you think that drag shows and pride parades are more explicit than nudity and sex shown on TV and movies? Could a drag show simulate sex acts as long as it was broadcasted?

I'd be happy to evaluate whatever analysis it was that led you to this conclusion. If so, doesn't that cut against the "Hey, this new statute is unnecessary because we already had one that covers this stuff" argument? I think there are plenty of heterosexual people who are prosecuted under obscenity laws, child-endangerment laws, and so on. Plenty of white people too. Plenty of Christians as well. Criminal statutes with differentiated application based on sexual orientation or race or religion would be unconstitutional. The Florida statute does not do any of that. The relevant decision is from the en banc Eleventh Circuit (not the Eighth), which vacated the preliminary injunction against Florida’s statute. The majority held that the law tracks the longstanding “obscenity-as-to-minors” standard recognized by the Supreme Court: material that, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors, is patently offensive under contemporary community standards regarding what is suitable for minors, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The court rejected the claims that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad or vague and concluded the challenger was unlikely to succeed on the merits. Obscenity—including material that is obscene as to minors—is not protected speech under the First Amendment. That is settled doctrine, not an “imagined” exception invented for this case. The statute does not ban every drag performance or every Pride-related event, nor are "straight" performances/events exempted from it. Instead, the statute restricts knowingly admitting a child to any live performance that meets the statutory criteria above. On parental rights, again, they are fundamental, but they have never been treated as an absolute trump card that disables every age-based restriction on commercial exposure of minors to sexual content. Neither Supreme Court nor circuit precedent in Florida requires a parental-consent exception for regulations of material that is obscene as to minors. States already limit minors’ access to certain live entertainment, alcohol, tobacco, and other categories without first proving that every parent would make the same choice. The “persecution of groups who aren’t straight-white Christians” framing converts a content-based restriction (tied to sexual explicitness relative to the child’s age) into a claim of viewpoint or identity-based targeting. The statutory text applies to any qualifying adult live performance regardless of the performers’ identities. Whether particular shows meet the criteria is a factual question; the constitutional validity of the underlying standard is what the en banc court addressed. In sum, the appellate ruling does not treat the speech as categorically protected, does not treat parental preference as automatically controlling, and does not rest on the identity-based persecution narrative. It rests on the obscenity-as-to-minors doctrine. Thanks, -Smac

What "other reasons" do you have in mind? Again, parental rights are important and broad, but they are not unlimited. The rights and interests of the child, and of society, may also play a role in justifying state intervention. I don't think "take over parental control" is accurate. Parental rights exist, but they have always had some constraints. I have previously provided extensive examples of sexually explicit behavior at drag shows, Pride parades, etc. which I find to be problematic, particularly in relation to children. Florida and other states have long allowed non-sexual social nudity in designated private settings such as AANR-affiliated resorts and certain clothing-optional venues. Those places operate under an explicit legal exception for nudity “in any place provided or set apart for that purpose,” and AANR clubs emphasize a family-friendly, non-sexual code of conduct. Simple nudity in that context is not treated as indecent exposure. The Florida statute at issue is narrower. It does not ban all nudity around minors, nor does it ban every Pride parade or every drag performance. It prohibits knowingly admitting a child to an “adult live performance” that depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, specific sexual activities, lewd conduct, or lewd exposure of prosthetic/imitation genitals or breasts when the performance, taken as a whole: Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest; Is patently offensive to prevailing adult community standards regarding what is suitable for the age of the child present; and Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present. That is the longstanding “obscenity-as-to-minors” standard. It targets sexualized performances aimed at adult audiences, not ordinary social nudity or non-sexual public events. A family nudist resort where people of all ages are, it is argued, simply unclothed in a non-sexual recreational setting is not the same thing as a commercial show that includes simulated sexual acts, exaggerated sexualized dancing, or other content designed to appeal to adult sexual interests. I have some personal reservations about these things, but we live in a pluralistic society. In any event, the law already draws that kind of distinction in many areas (public indecency, age-restricted entertainment, material harmful to minors). Treating every instance of nudity as equivalent to every sexually explicit live performance collapses a distinction the law has maintained for a long time. I’m not “railing against” all LGBT events. The question is whether the state may set age limits on commercial live performances that meet the statutory criteria for being unsuitable for children. Florida’s statute attempts to do exactly that. Whether particular shows cross the line is a fact-specific question; the principle that some adult-oriented sexual performances can be restricted for minors is not novel. You are pointing to a legitimate issue: a great deal of sexual content is available to minors through television, streaming, movies, and advertising, and parental oversight of that material is often inconsistent. That is a fair observation. I'm less persuaded that it is a moral one. That we have allowed children to be exposed to sexually explicit context is not, in my view, a justification to throw off any and all constraints intended to protect children. It also does not answer the narrower question raised by the Florida statute. The law does not claim that live adult performances are the only source of sexualized material minors encounter, nor does it require that every other form of exposure be eliminated before any limit can be placed on commercial live shows. Most regulations work that way: We restrict minors from buying alcohol even though they may see adults drinking on television. We restrict minors from certain rated films in theaters even though similar content exists online. We set age limits on casinos, tobacco, and adult businesses even though the underlying themes appear elsewhere in media. And on and on. The existence of other, sometimes more pervasive problems does not make a targeted restriction incoherent or hypocritical. There are also differences in kind that matter. A live performance in front of an audience is an immediate, in-person experience, often commercial and specifically marketed. Streaming or cinematic content is mediated, usually subject to ratings systems, parental controls, and the practical reality that parents can (and frequently do) limit access in the home. Those distinctions are imperfect, but they are not imaginary. The statute targets knowingly admitting a child to a live show that meets the statutory criteria for being unsuitable for minors; it does not attempt to solve the entire landscape of media exposure. If the broader concern is that sexual content reaches children too easily across many platforms, that is a legitimate subject for separate discussion about things like ratings enforcement, parental tools, platform responsibility, and so on. It does not follow, though, that therefore no age-based limits should exist on commercial live adult performances. Pointing to worse or more widespread examples elsewhere is a classic “not as bad as” move; it shifts the focus rather than addressing whether the specific restriction is justified on its own terms. Again, parental authority over children is fundamental, but it has never been absolute. The state already draws lines around what adults may expose minors to commercially: material harmful to minors statutes, age-restricted theaters and clubs, restrictions on selling certain sexual content to children, and limits on public indecency. Those rules exist alongside parental rights; they do not wait for every other form of exposure (TV, streaming, billboards) to be eliminated first. The Florida statute does not outlaw all sexual content or strip parents of guidance over their own living rooms. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the statutory test for being unsuitable for minors—appealing to prurient interest, patently offensive for the child’s age, and lacking serious value for that age. That is a narrower rule than the “state controls every sex act a child might see” claim suggests. Whether a particular depiction is pornographic does not depend on the medium alone. The law has long treated live, commercial, in-person performances differently from mediated content that parents can more readily control at home. Demanding that every other source of sexual imagery be banned before any limit can be placed on adult live shows is an all-or-nothing standard the law has never required. The statute we’ve been discussing does not single out LGBT events. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial adult live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive for the child’s age, and lacks serious value for that age. That standard applies regardless of the sexual orientation or identity of the performers. A heterosexual burlesque show meeting the same criteria would fall under it just as readily. Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing paragraph? If not, I would like to hear about your disagreement. I’m not arguing that parents should have no role, or that every form of sexual content in media should be treated identically. I’m arguing that the state may set age limits on certain commercial live performances without first solving every other avenue through which sexual imagery reaches children. Pointing to television, streaming, or advertising does not make a targeted restriction on live adult shows incoherent. As for you speculating about motives: I have no animus toward LGBT people. Disagreement about where to draw age and content lines for minors applies to both the "gay" and "straight" segments of society (to the extent we want to divvy ourselves up that way), and is not the same as hostility toward a community. It seems an ongoing challenge for some folks to cope with disagreement about their worldview. I think some Latter-day Saints construe any and all critiques of their faith as "attacks," as "anti-Mormonism" (candidly, I have done this in some instances). Similarly, some in the LGBT community seem to construe too many things to be hatred or "hostility" (your word) rather than what they really are: instances of disagreement in a pluralistic society. Reasoned and principled and civilly-expressed disagreement is not hate or hostility. It's just disagreement. So when, as here, the response shifts from the content of the rule to speculation about my personal reasons for discussing it, the underlying policy question tends to get lost. I’m willing to keep discussing the merits of the restriction itself—what the statute actually covers, whether the line is drawn in the right place, and how it compares to other age-based limits we already accept. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective. We seldom agree, but sometimes we do. And in any event, I find value in listing to perspectives which vary from my own. Thanks, -Smac

Plenty of ways to test whether their interpretation of the law is an anomaly or congruent with general principles of constitutional jurisprudence. Broadly, I think the majority opinion is more in line with those general principles. No, it means that legal analysis reliant or or derived mostly/entire from AI is fairly suspect. Thanks, but I'm not interested in exploring this in this thread. Thanks, -Smac

An update: House Judiciary Approves Bill Establishing Right to Sue for Damages on Trans Surgery Another lawsuit: ‘I thought gender surgery would make me feel better. I was misled’ A Grok summary: Informed consent. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Cutting off healthy body parts. Lifelong medical regimens. Comorbidities. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Informed consent. Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Article about Soren Aldaco: Woman claims gender-affirming doctors ‘gaslit’ her into transitioning: ‘Disguising harm as compassion’ Back to the first article: I am curious how many "detransitioner" lawsuits we will see. Thanks, -Smac

I really wish the author of those 2 websites cited sources better and used them better. We had a discussion about the evidence site a while ago (https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75679-historical-monogamy-doctrine-website/) and back then I had gone through several of the points and found some minor issues with how it was cited. Just made it hard to track down things. An example on this new page is section "53 ~ Extreme poverty has decreased in every country of the world, except for polygamous ones ~". The source for that claim is a World Bank chart that doesn't actually show what the author wants. It isn't separating out the countries by polygamy, but by location. If I look at actual countries that have legal polygamy vs those that don't, I see contradictory evidence. Angola, which is Sub-Saharan but doesn't have legal polygamy, is increasing its extreme poverty. Bahrain, which is not Sub-Saharan but does have legal polygamy, is apparently without any extreme poverty. Because the claim is absolute (every country except for polygamous ones), it is really easy to refute. The claim needs to be softened and it should be using a graph that actually shows what the claim is. Another example is the author writes "Brigham Young's first plural wife, Augusta Adams Cobb, was denied a divorce from him after continued written requests and despite her having another man she wished to remarry" with absolutely no sourcing. First, Augusta is not his first plural wife, that would be Lucy Ann Decker. And I tried to find the evidence behind that statement and the best I could find was that Augusta regretted having married Brigham instead of Joseph Smith because it caused problems for her Boston kids (from her first husband). She didn't care for Brigham after a point and he didn't allow her a divorce (though he allowed quite a few others) but she didn't have another man she wished to remarry. She asked to be sealed to Jesus and Joseph (this is after Joseph's death) so it seems more like a dig against Brigham (he isn't good enough for her) - https://yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-polygamy/episode-158-augusta-adams-cobb-and-other-boston-mormon-women/ Another example is the section "74 ~ Male guardians marrying female wards ~". The author first quotes from Ann Eliza Young which is a big red flag because we know that she did make up things so you can't just accept her word by itself. And then the section has this really long quote without a source. I thought that quote would be easy to find (it is 2 paragraphs long with some really unique phrases) so I searched for it. And I couldn't find it. I tried several times. I asked to AI searchers to find it. I finally found what I think is the source of it because the story is very similar, but it is not the same English. It is from an 1861 book by Jules Remy detailing a trip he made to Utah in 1855 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/A_Journey_to_Great-Salt-Lake_City%3B_with_a_sketch_of_the_History%2C_Religion_and_Customs_of_the_Mormons_and_an_introduction_on_the_Religious_Movement_in_the_United_States%2C_in_Two_Volumes%2C_Vol._II_(IA_dli.granth.73851).pdf). In there, around page 174, he tells a story about a mother/daughter that he meets and it is very similar. Except it has some interesting parts. First, when the husband asks to marry the step-daughter, she says no, the mother says no, and even Brigham Young doesn't help him. The husband then marries another woman to be spiteful and this new wife discovers what happened and is angry. She is the one that tosses out the first wife and daughter, not the husband (though he probably didn't care at this point). And section "86 ~ Reports of overt polygamy coercion" has 2 issues. First, it quotes Emma Lynette Richardson. I know that story really well as she is a sister of my ancestor. The story is a lot more complicated than what the website is implying. At the same time that she is married off, her mother (Mary Ann) and father (Edmund) do one of the oddest things. Edmund had been sterilized back east and so when they arrived in Utah and were baptized (yes, they came to Utah before being baptized), they felt like they needed more kids. But Edmund was incapable of doing that. So, they asked Brigham Young for an idea and he proposed that he divorces them, marries Mary Ann to an upstanding man in the community, and have children come through that marriage. Then Brigham would divorce Mary Ann from that other man and remarry (and seal) Mary Ann to Edmund. This is what they did (I'm a descendant of one of the sons from this odd relationship). No one in the community knew about it. Mary Ann lived in her own house and there is debate on whether Edmund lived with her, left and never visited during the time, or left and did visit (I lean to the later). Emma Lynette was 14 at this time and would absolutely have noticed a man coming to stay the night (or Mary Ann might have gone to his house, we don't really know). So, she was married off to get her out of the house (and the Mormon Reformation was happening so that influenced who she was married off to). It is a weird situation and very sad for Emma Lynette (her first 2 kids die from a pandemic and she later leaves her husband and finds a much better husband). But I would not say it is a polygamy coercion situation. It also talks about the story of Levi Savage and his 2 young wives (they are his stepdaughters). When I looked for the source of that story, it turns out that what the author wrote is backwards. They went to Salt Lake, got married (without any issues or running away) and then on the way back, that is when the woman disappears. So, she is already married and not being coerced into the marriage. She is just being coerced to going back to her husband. The source of this was her history sketch in familysearch.org Sorry for the long windiness but I really wish the author of that site did much better with the sources. It is frustrating to read through it and keep feeling like something is missing or incorrect and then to actually look into a few and have my fears validated. It makes me distrust the entire site.

https://kutv.com/news/local/audio-recording-leaked-after-accidental-shooting-in-lds-church I didn’t declare what I did or didn’t know other than if this was covered up…. It wouldn’t be the first time.

I’d suggest the event was Constitutionally protected free speech and that the rights of parents outweigh whatever imagined danger to children you may have. Criminally prosecuting this event would have lost, regardless of the statute. The fact that they were able to find a way to win lawfare against them anyway just shows how much power the government has when it is bent on persecuting groups who aren’t straight-white Christians.

There are reasons for laws that apply to general public safety such as age for alcohol Minors can get tattoos with parents consent, which is also appropriate and parents are capable of deciding what is appropriate for their own children. Child labor laws are put into place because parents have forced their children to work to help bring in money for the family and in doing so, may very well put their own need ahead of their children. Trying to control ponography in this day and age is a problem and is incredibly difficult for anyone to control. So your examples are not really issues that the state has taken over the rights of parents to have a say on how to raise their children. There are other reasons for state control. At least we can agree to that. Ok, let's talk about the list you have come up with that you feel gives presidents to the state to take over parental control. You do know that nudity is not illegal for minors with parent approval. Are you familiar with AANR, the national nudist association that encourages nudity for all ages including minors which has been operating in this country for over 90 years. They have over 180 resorts and camp grounds mostly in America as well as some internationally. Florida alone has Florida has dozens of organized nudist and clothing-optional resorts, communities, and campgrounds.Pasco County alone hosts around 13 major nudist resorts. All of the resorts affiliated with AANR are family friendly and allow minors. There are also hundreds of naked bike rides that occur around the country such as the one last week in Portland. Would you say that a Drag Show, Pride Parades, and all the other LGBT events you rail against more suggestive than people walking around naked in the presence of minors? Maybe you are not aware (sarcastically) but minors are constantly being exposed to all those heterosexual lewd sexual activities nightly pipped directly into their homes via streaming on their TV's, at the movies, billboard ads, magazines, on a daily. basis. Scenes of totally naked adults having sex exposing real breasts and other body parts are served up for the viewing of minors. Tell me, what specific sex acts have you seen adults perform at a drag show or pride parade that is not portrayed way more graphically and intimately nightly on every TV and movie theater in this country? Where is the outrage when parents allow THIS kind of sexual entertainment any night of the year with no need to go anywhere except their own living rooms? Yet you are outraged if parents are allowed to bring their children to a drag show or pride parade. So perhaps you can explain why you are so focused on live events and completely ignore sexual content in every single other format. Your list is pretty vague on what you mean by sexual excitement, lewd conduct and Lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts? i am having a hard time being outraged as you are by a drag show and a pride parade when minors are allowed to be exposed to all of those every single night of their lives on television, at the movies, on billboards, magazine ads etc that are far more explicit than someone dressed in drag or dancing in a speedo at a pride parade. Are you claiming now that pornography portrayal of sex is as graphic as a float going by with guys dressed in speedos? Or a strip club where men pay for lap dances and alcohol is served. That seems pretty far fetched. Maybe you could point to a LGBT event that is as graphic as your examples. Parents are empowered to have authority over their own children to control and monitor all sexual content, not the state. That is well established law in this country. Your neighbors, the city council, governor and any other elected official does not control what sex acts your children are allowed to view. When legislators start passing laws restricting parents right to allow children to view all sexual content bombarded at minors, outlawing R rated movies television programs, billboard and magazine ads and all the other constant bardment of heterosexual acts that currently have no such restrictions THEN you can stand on your soap box and demand that drag shows and pride parades be included in state controlled laws taking parents choices and guidance out of their hands. Is a sex act somehow not pornographic if a minor sees it on TV or at the movies? In short, my perspective is that you seem lazer focused on LGBT events with sexual content that parents willingly bring their children to, but have said nothing about the constant bonbardment of heterosexual content that occurs every single day where parents have far less control over what their children are exposed to. This is why many on this board find you constant attacks against the LGBT community but don't even acknowledge the sexual content minors are surrounded with that is completely legal and left for parents to deal with.

Or 74.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.

The fact that these judges were in the minority doesn't mean their opinions were wrong. And if AI is an incompetent lawyer because it sided with the minority, does that mean the judges in the minority are also incompetent? I'd like to offer a legal dispute that is still in the courts as a case study on whether AI is ready for primetime lawyering. This is a huge sidebar, but I think you might be interested in it because it is in your specific wheelhouse. Case A more detailed AI-generated overview of the case is below, but basically, an HOA of a condo sued a resident because the HOA dues were allegedly not paid, and received a summary judgment. The HOA is now suing to foreclose on the homeowner. That would seem pretty open-and-shut, but the attorneys who took this on didn't know what they were getting into. Rather than giving you my own biased and unskilled evaluation, I uploaded all of the complaints, motions, counter-complaints, etc., into Claude's top publicly available model and asked it the following: Prompt I'd like you to review the attached documents and do the following: First before evaluating these documents, create a brief rubric of how the legal skills of a lawyer may be evaluated from the briefs they write in a civil case. If I was reading a case and wanted to objectively evaluate the legal skills of the respective legal representatives who argue the case, what would I look for? Then, in very general terms and without naming the specific parties, give a very brief, very high-level overview of the dispute. 100 words max. Refer to the parties generically as "homeowner", "condo association", "management company", etc. Next, do a blind evaluation of the legal skills of each party in the above case using the matrix you described above. When applying it, make your own evaluation of the documents and the arguments they make, and also consider whether one side or the other conceded points the other side made and what that indicates about the legal skills of the respective parties. Go full beast mode on this point--maximum effort. How do the respective legal teams stack up? Finally, give a brief overview of the respective legal teams. Don't name any individuals or law firms--just give a general description of what kind of individuals and firms they are--white-shoe international law firms? Respected regional firms? Etc. In your response, relay the court and case number in case somebody wants to look it up, but otherwise keep everything anonymous to the casual observer and search bot. Claude

I happen to like her efforts regarding Heavenly Mother, and of doctrinal polygamy being harmful. I'm less familiar with her as a poet/performer. She ascribed to a different narrative of Mormon polygamy history than I do, so I diverged from her on that point.

I realize that the Greek word τέλειός (as "fully developed") has the flavour of anti-platonism because it flies in the face of one of those favourite concepts of post-apostolic Christian philosophies, aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) (self-existence, self-causation, self-causality and autocausality), which is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. As a part of this belief, an aseitous God is said to be incapable of changing (see Hebrews 13:8). Changing implies development, and so to describe God as "fully developed" implies that He somehow improved Himself. Since God was, and is, and is to be the Absolute Perfection, there is no need to change: he is αὐτουσία (unchanged, says Gregory of Nyssa), or as Thomas Aquinas puts it: actus purus (Latin for 'Pure Actuality' or 'Pure Act' referring to the absolute perfection of God); and ipsum esse subsistens (being itself subsisting). But nevertheless, Matthew uses τέλειός to describe God. Heresy! Personally, I find interpreting "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" [Hebrews 13:8] as aseity to be a philosophic eisegesis of the nature of God. And from this we also get the Impassability of God. God has no body, parts, or passions -- meaning He cannot love, hate, or even get angry. Yet deus irae is all over the scriptures. I suppose you've heard the phrase "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture." Well, it's all over your theology.

I've had that happen to me enough times that if I'm going to write a tome instead of a brief note, I write it in Notepad or Notepad++, and only when complete do I then copy/paste it into MDDB. In the past I have occasionally written some really smashing posts (my own assessment) only to have them fall into the bit bucket. Very frustrating.

I have done it myself for stuff online and known others who have as well, in one case I know it was changed based on the input, can’t remember in other cases. Doing so resulted in my being part of a survey group (covered something unrelated, but obviously it showed they appreciated rather than ignored my input).

Talking about me, perchance? 🤪

Given the apparent eagerness (based on investment) of the government to prosecute, seems like it’s a good assumption that the charges would not have stood up and that is why they weren’t filled.

Is there anything the church does or does not do that cannot be criticized by you as some sort of cover-up or nefarious attempt to [insert dastardly act of dishonesty]? And since you seem to know so much, just how many times have church leaders covered up a gun incident at a church building? Can you list some of them? Or is this one of those "studies show" or "experts say" kind of deals?

In my recent stint as stake clerk we had a bishop who was receiving FO support for his family. The SP was not in the chain of approval for the payments (that was completed at the bishopric level), but every payment was specially reported in the monthly stake finance report. There was also a notation in the report that there needed to be documentation of the stake president's approval for the FO support. Kind of what it sounds like to me, too.