All Activity

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way? Or did you just assume they were connected. This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do. So someone crossdressing is pornography. Again, turning drag queens and transgender people into pornography. You deny doing it and then keep doing it. That performance was done by a carnival troupe and not a drag queen organization or transgender group. It is disturbing how you assume the two must be connected. Again, crossdressing is the equivalent of a striptease. Again, turning people into porn. The term grooming and sexualization are being stretched beyond belief here. Child beauty paegents sexualize children. Children attending an event does not sexualize the child. You are using propagandist scare terms in an unexamined way. And you want to criminalize it? Drag queens reading children’s stories are not anything like a burlesque drag show. Also again, it is not confusing to children. In other words you want to police the choices of other parents. You are quite the busybody about other people’s choices. No, it is really not. Children get the concepts of queerness and transgender people pretty easily. It is the adults that are confused. I really suspect this is people who feel confused and have a problem with queer people projecting their insecurities onto children. Hence the assumption that evil adults are corrupting children when children don’t find queer people disgusting and unnatural. Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that?

Well, yeh! That is what I have been trying to say on this forum since 2017! Ha! It is most likely a truth, because our Fundamentalist friends make it a point to seek out and approach members of the LDS Church wherever they can be found! Pageants and Temple Square are such places!

Or you (or your wife) unsubscribed, or changed the privacy settings in your LDS Account, or simply stopped falling within whatever recipient groups people were using to send those messages. LCR doesn't require every ward email to be sent to "all members." You can select various groups of recipients, including groups based on organizations and callings. So if the emails you used to receive were Relief Society emails, quorum emails, activity announcements sent to particular groups, etc., it's entirely possible for your pattern of receiving ward email to change without somebody making a "calculated decision" to stop communicating with you. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of what actually happened in your case, obviously. Maybe someone really did deliberately exclude you. But you're treating your inference as an established fact when there are much more mundane possibilities. And Tithing Declaration is different from ordinary communications because the Church says all members are invited to meet with the bishop to declare their status. As such, I don't find it particularly suspicious that someone who hasn't been receiving other generic emails would nevertheless receive an invitation to Tithing Declaration. You're conflating "people can make donations while they are there" with "that's what the meeting is for." Tithing Declaration goes from 9/1 - 12/15 now, so what ledger do you suppose people are supposed to be settling up in September, October, or November? The Handbook states that the purpose of the meeting is to (1) declare your own status, and (2) make sure your contribution records are accurate. You are free to declare yourself as a full, partial, or non-tithe payer. In all the times I've served as a Ward Clerk, I've never once had the Bishop walk out of a Tithing Declaration (previously, Tithing Settlement meeting) and ask me to prepare an invoice for the family. You can believe the meeting exerts social or religious pressure to pay tithing - I think there's an element of that involved as well - but that's quite different from claiming its purpose is to get people in the room so the Church can collect money from them. I already did: because it's Tithing Declaration, and Bishops are instructed to invite all members to attend. I'm not surprised that you received an invitation to attend an annual, Church-wide process that you are supposed to be invited to - even if you didn't personally receive an invitation last year. Maybe the Bishop / Executive Secretary has gotten better at sending out invites; maybe he felt inspired to reach out to everyone this year individually, rather than just announcing it over the pulpit during Sacrament Meetings; maybe he's following direction from the Stake President who emphasized it in their most recent leadership training meetings. It could literally be any number of things other than "they want money." Look, I'm sorry if you feel your Ward has ignored you for the last 2.5 years, and it's sad that the first personal contact you've received recently has been an administrative invitation to Tithing Declaration. If that were your only complaint, I would be fine with that. But you don't leave it there - instead, you keep changing it into 'after 2.5 years they finally contacted me because they want money,' and I just don't think that's what's going on.

Thanks, I have posted the link to the site. I understand most of what the author is saying, but it is an astonishing cornucopia of terms and concepts. Someone did a lot of work on this. It is a shame it is almost impossible to decipher.

Nope. So not the library readings you specifically mentioned? Then why did you mention them at all? In other words I don’t believe you.

If you can’t tear down and deconstruct your own beliefs with as much fervor as you deconstruct those of others then what are people even doing with their lives? 😉

Most of the Evangelicals I have encountered have been fundamentalists then. I might have horrible luck.

I don’t know if it still stands, but someone online offered his services free to Dehlin when this first showed up.

True. Attention seekers and people trying to make a statement often underestimate the price they will pay in an attempt to get that attention or make that statement, especially if they desire to do so at trial. Discovery and motion practice are both very costly and can take many months or even years to complete. Litigants who prolong litigation for the purpose of claiming they are fighting the good fight and soliciting donations so they can continue to do so often underestimate the cost of litigation and overestimate donations. Mr. Dehlin enjoys the benefits of defending a case where the plaintiff isn’t likely to engage in “death by litigation” tactics. I trust the Church does what is necessary to vigorously pursue its claims in Court with defendants that refuse to enter into reasonable settlements but does not bludgeon defendants with endless discovery and motion practice of questionable relevance.

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem. Part of having conversations is explaining our respective positions. @Analytics has presented what I see as a denial of something fairly obvious. Again, I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." @Analytics never articulated a distinction, and has now withdrawn from the discussion. @california boy has now withdrawn. And my point remains unrebutted. There's no obligation to rebut it, of course. Here's how I deal with @Analytics reasoning, such as it is: I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" (which I see as the practical outcome of his preferred policy position) and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" (which is his own statement of his preferred policy). But it looks like the discussion may be winding down. That's okay. This is a good opportunity for us to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." No need to conclude with zingers or putdowns. We can share our respective thoughts, compare and contrast them, evaluate them in light of reasoning and evidence, and then choose how to proceed. I think women's spaces were originally created to benefit women and girls in terms of safety and privacy (and, re: women's sports, fairness). I think such spaces have always been based on biological sex, not subjective self-identifications (with some potential limited, case-by-case exceptions for persons with actual DSDs). Discussion of people with DSDs in this context is, in my view, almost purely pretextual. We all know that we are not speaking of that tiny percentage of persons whose biological sex remains intractably epistemically uncertain. Virtually the entirety of this discussion is about men going into women's spaces, and justifications/rationalizations therefore. In a contest between the interests of women/girls and men who subjectively "identify" in ways incongruent with reality, I think the interests of the former should prevail. That some men have dressed up to look like women and entered into women's bathrooms does not mean that they should. I think subjective "self-identity" is an unworkable and unenforceable policy in terms of maintaining sex-segregated spaces. It has the net effect of eradicating those spaces. I think the Kansas statute is quite defensible, and I hope it withstands constitutional challenges. I think these efforts, the deliberate and public instances of men making incursions into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc., together with the deliberate and public instances of exposing small children to highly sexualized live adult performances, are not healthy or appropriate developments for our society. Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if drag queen sexualized story hours are actually any more common than non drag queen ones. It’s not like there have never been lines crossed by cis gendered books at the library before (anything to do with sex education for example has likely been involved in a controversy).

My sister and her husband bought their first home in Kearns, and sadly it doesn't have have a safe feel there with all the gangs. My sister and husband have since moved to California in a peaceful area.

I don't think I have. I think Analytics' position requires him to talk out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he disputes the need for any limiting principles, but then he denies not wanting to impose any limiting principles. When asked to articulate limiting principles, all he can come up with is "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." That is no principle at all. It doesn't limit anything. It does not allow any enforcement mechanism. As I see it, "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" is de facto "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all." Analytics denies this, but won't explain why. I have been listening to people who disagree with me. Where I have not understood their position, I have asked for clarification. At other times I have pointed out flaws and gaps in reasoning and fallacies. That's not an unwillingness to understand. It's just disagreement. For example, when @Analytics categorically refuses to articulate any coherent limiting principles, that needs to be addressed. When the practical result of his preferred policy will be the eradication of sex-segregated spaces, he refuses to acknowledge or address that. When he persistently injects fallacies and distractions from the topic so as to discuss me instead of the topics at hand, that needs to be addressed. What some "transgenders actually look like," sure. But that's not really pertinent to our discussion, since my preferred public policy is to administer sex-segregated spaces by biological sex, not by "self-identity" or what people "look like." No woman has ever, in the history of the world, ever "transitioned into a man," nor has any man ever "transitioned into" a woman. Instead, what we often see see is biological males who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women. A man putting on a dress and makeup does not make him a woman. His subjective self-identity doesn't make him a woman. We can and should treat such persons with respect, but respect ought not include going along with falsehoods and delusions. Okay. "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." I am there. I hope you are too. Thanks, -Smac

You can posts links to Wikipedia here. Documentation is encouraged But I'm sure you can see why we are confused, and don't grasp the subtle differences that you are aware of.

I posted this in a prior thread on April 19: On April 19, his website shows this at the bottom: "© 2005-2026 Open Stories Foundation. All rights reserved. Mormon Stories is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." It probably says something similar, if not the same thing, today (but I haven't checked). But if you look up the website in the Wayback Machine, there is no disclaimer as recent as the January 31 2026 capture, and it only says this at the bottom of the webpage: "© Copyright 2005 - 2026 | Mormon Stories. All rights reserved." He added that change to the website as a result of the mediation process before he refused some of the other requests.

I'm sorry your husband had to go through that. It seems the bullies get away with so much and the good guys are treated so badly sometimes. Before I got married I worked at the University of Utah's credit union and I had a lot of experience with banking before getting that job. But my boss who happened to be female, didn't like LDS, at least it seemed so because she was awful to this returned male missionary and he was an awesome and personable teller with the customers, well she fired him. Little did I know at the time that I was next on the chopping block and I got fired right after, they said because I wasn't cross selling. My first job and only one that I've been fired.

If any of you would like to make your head spin, please go to the Reformed fundamentalism wikipedia site. It may win the prize for the biggest mish-mash of terms I have ever read. It even talks about mainstream fundamentalism and a whole host of other terminology. It speaks about your example of Reformed Baptists, who tend to be more fundamentalist than evangelical. (notice small f and e). Anyway, I don't know if the rules allow me to post the link to this Wikipedia site, but it is really entertaining and confusing to a fault. I have enjoyed reading it. I hope you all enjoy it too. It appears I can post the link to this miasma of terms. I am 77 years old and I have never seen such a hodge-podge of terms. Enjoy! Reformed fundamentalism - Wikipedia

Might be more about the attention, also a pride thing, than the money.

This hadn’t occurred to me as I ignore that kind of stuff usually. Here is what Chat suggested as possible because a new upload/reloading does reset ar zero. Looks like there is a valid reason to fight it, though it was his choice to mimic it. I wonder if he offered to do it in future videos. Seems like that would be admitting it is needed and give foundation for the Church to insist, but surely it could be phrased as ‘in the spirit of cooperation even though the current disclaimer is sufficient, we will be adding a written and spoken disclaimer, etc etc.

That’s possible but in the past, none of the emails were personalized just said something like “dear ward family.” From the same guy that sent this one. And it wasn’t all official with a scheduling link and all. One of the comments was if you guys would like to come in please let me know and I’ll schedule you with the bishop or something like that. Doesn’t read like any canned settlement email I ever got. it reads more like “yea the bishop and I know yall don’t want to come in but just throwing it out there in case. “

Mr. Dehlin could have all the work done to produce and insert clear and prominent disclaimers in all of his publications and webcasts for a small fraction of what he will spend to defend, and most likely ultimately lose, a lawsuit that the complaint makes clear (thanks Weebles) he brought upon himself by refusing to make disclosures that would not include anything that is contrary to his stated intentions. With experience gained from representing a wide variety of clients, I can state with certainty that pride is often an expensive vice.

I actually ordered a sleeveless top from Quince, first time in maybe 42 years to buy a sleeveless shirt, haha. Got it in the mail today, tried it on and too bad the arm holes were larger than I thought they'd be. Or oversized, because surprisingly the sleeveless garments have a generous arm hole to hide the garment with tops. So it's the way the Quince shirt was made. My husband has tried to get garments that are sleeveless but you're right there is a strange phenomenon occurring out there and they're sold out. My husband sometimes has shirts with sleeves that don't hide his garment sleeve, so that's why he wanted to try the sleeveless. But I wonder how these look under white church shirts, if they look like those wife beater undershirts, hopefully everybody understands that term, who are reading this. I did buy the sleeveless shirt on a whim, not too sure I can bring myself to actually wear one for sure. I was able to buy sleeveless garments online, but bought them too small, they're tight! And first time this has happened, I tried sticking my leg in a new pair of garment bottoms and stuck my leg in and it was sewn wrong across the would be opening a couple of inches and couldn't put my foot in. I snipped it and I made it work. But it left a really small hole so it works.

If the "personalization" is just adding your first name, that technology has existed for decades now. Pretty much as soon as spam was invented, that technology existed. I would not consider that to be a personal email but just another mass email. The same thing is possible with texting as well. So if you see a text that just has your name as the only personalization and the rest of the text looks like it is a spam, that's probably what was used. This sounds very much like he pushed a button on the screen and it sent out a mass email to all members.

The episodes have no disclaimers in them. Nothing in the end either. So, he would have to put in quite a bit of work to insert the disclaimer as it is currently not there. And I don't know if that impacts result sorting. Does an edit to a video cause it to be considered a new video and loose all of its likes?

I actually can't see it either. It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things. Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason. And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons. The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing. Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination. How is that not a "laissez faire" approach? If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom. Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point? Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.