All Activity

The murder rate with black on black is wildly disproportionate. Is this a race problem? No. Does it have something to do with the glaring absence of fathers from the home? The statistics is overwhelming. What brought this about? Government welfare policies for forcing fathers OUT of the home. Also, government abysmal policies with inner-cities public schools. There are plenty of problems among "white" ethnicities. White trash, appalling lack of gratitude, hedonism, etc. Generally, human nature.

I'm glad you think white people are a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed much more, given the number of examples and how long it's been a problem. Hopefully the church starts providing security where white people attend, given that they've been the source of violence at meetinghouses for far longer than these recent instances with Tongans. Maybe we can add metal detectors to chapels, and search bags and cars of white people trying to gain access to meetinghouses. Make them show ID, and current tithing settlement statement to confirm they aren't typical white people just there to cause trouble. What's the deal with white people, anyway? Hopefully the police can focus on the white people and this white on white violence.

My dad’s time in the bishopric was a little later than your dad’s experience (i.e., late ’80s and throughout the ’90s), so that may account for some of the difference. I don't really agree with the characterization that the Church has been “dishonest” about its history, but that may partly be a consequence of our different experiences as well. I grew up LDS in the Bible Belt, so I was exposed to anti-Mormon literature and arguments against the Church from a fairly young age. That caused me to seek out information about Church history and controversial issues more than the average member did at the time. As a result, a lot of the things that people today describe as shocking discoveries simply weren't discoveries for me. That's not to say I think the Church has always done a particularly good job of making all of that information accessible to the average member. It clearly hasn't. I think the Church has improved considerably in that regard over the years, particularly with things like the Joseph Smith Papers, the Gospel Topics Essays, Saints, and the amount of historical material now available through the Church's own websites. So I'm perfectly comfortable with the criticism that the Church used to present some parts of its history in a simplified, correlated, or less-than-comprehensive way, and that it could have done a better job making some of the messier parts more accessible. I just don't think that is synonymous with being “dishonest” about its history. Perhaps because I encountered many of these issues earlier than most, I don't experience the Church's increased transparency today as an admission that the previous story was a lie. I just see it more as the Church becoming much better at making the fuller and more complicated history readily available to ordinary members.

And would you support exactly the same remedy for to support a trans-gendered student in the same situation? Disciple for disruption and targeting. No contact orders?

I usually just sit on my phone for the Captia exercise. Butt dialing the answers seems to be quite effective.

In related news, a Texas judge just struck down a law banning anyone under 18 from attending drag shows.

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will. It's your hypothetical, and it's about a legal issue, so I'd rather have clarity than assumptions. These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. Such a claim seems quite implausible. Unlikely. Pretextual. Bad faith, even. But again, it's your hypothetical. On what basis do these individuals "claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy?" Moreover, what are your thoughts about your hypothetical's application to a situation where Student A calls Student B a boy not because Student A "deeply believe{s}" Student B is a boy, but rather because Student B actually is a boy? Student A's position is based on biological fact and reality (quite unlike the position of those individuals in your hypothetical). If Student A does not subscribe to ideologically-driven equivocations and re-definitions of basic words like "man" and "woman" and "boy" and "girl" (so as to include, for example, men who "identify" as women within the ambit of the definition of "woman"), is it your position that the school - an extension of the State - ought to have the legal authority to compel Student A to adopt semantic presuppositions that they do not want to adopt, and/or that it can punish them for refusing to do so? Again: Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting, and getting her real help. None of that requires a campus speech code about “gender identity” which seeks to compel and/or punish students' speech. I doubt it. I am not persuaded that the Tinker test allows schools - agents of the State - to compel speech. I hope we all get nervous when we start hoping that the State does have this power. Thanks, -Smac

Even when the trans person looks more masculine than most of the men in the men's bathroom. Yeah that is going to make women believe there are men in their restroom. And you think that is preferred over using the restroom that matches how you present yourself. It won't. Yet the only people that are affected by not being able to use the restroom they present themselves as are trans. That may not be your intent, but that is exactly the result of your ban. Same with banning trans people. If a trans person grooms or abuses a minor, that person should be removed, reported and prosecuted. It is exactly the same. Banning people for possible crimes that might be committed apply to both cases. Of course. I totally agree. All crimes committed by anyone should be reported. Who doesn't agree with that? You keep narrowing down this issue to a black and white males in mens room, females in women's restrooms. But as has been shown numerous times, how a person looks makes a huge difference in how people perceive them. I know you like to not move one inch on this subject, but perhaps you would consider the following, keeping in mind what real trans people actually look like. So here is my proposal. All people must. used the sex listed on their drivers license or identity card. A person who is transitioning must be under physicians care and received hormonal therapy for 12 months or longer. If they have done that, their doctor must fill out a declaration that they are treating their patient who is in transition to their chosen sex. That document can be taken to the DMV and their license/ identity card adjusted to now meet the sex they present themselves as. This does a few very important things. It eliminates the crazy guy who just declares himself to be a woman in order to cruz in the women's restroom. It also allows those transitioning to not get harassed in the women's room for being in the wrong restroom. And women feel safer because they are assured that the person using the woman's bathroom is more interested in being a woman than just there to harass them. In many cases, women may not even realize someone is trans that is using the restroom, unlike current solution that forces masculine people into protected women's spaces. Can you just think about this before reverting to your diatribe that you seem to feel you need to repeat over and over again? Let's find a real solution that actually works better for everyone.

Not sure to what "nope" here is referring. I have never suggested any such thing, and unequivocally denounce and deny and reject it. Under the Tinker test, likely so. I have never said anything like this. I have never said that my political and religious beliefs justify mistreatment of anyone. I dispute that "discrimination" = using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (generally). I dispute that "discrimination" = using a person's legal name. I have regularly spoken against any mistreatment of anyone in the LGBT community. All of us are entitled to basic and presumptive notions of civility and kindness. My perspective on this issue is borne of reasoned analysis. Not bigotry or hate or fear. I think efforts by some in the trans community to use the power of the State to compel and/or punish speech is one of the faster ways for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. I also think that ongoing and pervasive efforts by some in the trans community to use indiscriminate and unreasoned accusations of "bigotry" to silence other viewpoints is likewise a good way for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. It comes across as desperate and emotional. In the absence of reasoning and evidence, go with hyperbolic ad hominem. And then do it again. And again. Until the accusation is so watered down and trivializing that it loses potency. Nonetheless, I have appreciated your input here. Irrational and unjust accusations aside, you have been willing to have some substantive discussion about a very difficult topic. While we have not changed each other's minds, perhaps we have helped each other further explore our respective positions in ways we would otherwise not have explored. Thanks, -Smac

Nope. So far, we've demonstrated that you think targeted sex based harassment against a student Is ok for a school to act on. Targeted religious harassment against a student is something that its ok for a school to act on. Targeted racial harassment against a student is ok for a school to act on. But targeted trans-gender harassment against a student is not ok for a school to act on because it goes against your strongly held political and religious beliefs. That is textbook bigotry in my book. edited for clarity

Agreed-glad they got them

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will. These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. So curtail the bullies speech, correct? Disrupt the bullies course schedule? Would it be ok to compel them to use the appropriate name and pronouns if they choose to address your daughter?

Define what true deities are, and try by presupposing multiple real gods did exist, what the attributes of true deities are. Unless, your diffinition is there can only be one, then you are shifting the meaning of biblical gods to God. We could discuss that. Is Baal not a genuine supernatural entity that actually exists, that people call and worship as a deity or not? If you now grant that Baal refers to an actually existing supernatural being, but deny that this being is a god, even as the Bible says he is, then you've moved the goalpost from Are gods of Deuteronomy and Psalms are mere idols? to Are existing gods truly gods?

This is getting weird. Legal analysis sometimes requires scrutiny of things that persons new to it find discomfiting. Nevertheless, what "misgender" means has, I think, some substantial legal import in this context. I think it's been pretty clear that I do not subscribe to recent trends in trans ideology. So when I reference my daughter, I think you can safely assume she is a girl, a biological female. And Patricia is unequivocally female. She does not have a DSD. She acknowledges that she is a girl (she does not "identify" as a boy). Am I on track here? Got it. These hypothetical students are doing this not because there is a plausible basis for viewing Patricia as a boy, and not because Patricia is claiming to be a boy, but rather simply to tease/bully here. Am I on track here? And these students have no legitimate basis for stating that "a male has just exited the women's bathroom" because Patricia is biologically female. Am I on track here as well? So we're back to "misgender." By "misgender your daughter" you mean they are using biologically/linguistically incorrect pronouns (he/him) to reference Patricia, correct? By "misgender your daughter" you do not mean they are using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (she/her) to reference Patricia, correct? That would be very troubling. The Patricia hypothetical is ugly, and a school should be allowed to stop it. I think it is not the same case as a student demanding biologically false pronouns. Patricia is a girl. “Patrick,” plus hallway announcements that “a male just left the women’s bathroom,” is not a disagreement about metaphysics. It is a targeted campaign to humiliate one identified student with a false name and a false sex. That is ordinary sex-based harassment. Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting, and getting her real help. None of that requires a campus speech code about “gender identity.” And it really does not require the school - an extension of the State - to compel students to speak words they do not want to speak. In contrast, a boy who "identifies" as a girl is asking classmates to treat a male as if were a female. That is an ideological request. Refusing that request is a statement about sex. It is not inventing a mock name for a girl and hunting her at the bathroom door. One is ridicule of a known person with facts inverted to wound her. The other is declining to affirm a contested and biologically incoherent claim. Lumping them together is how “don’t torment Patricia” becomes “you must say she/her about a male.” So, what a public school should be allowed to do in Patricia’s case: Stop repeated, directed ridicule of a particular student. Tinker already covers speech that materially disrupts school or invades another student’s rights. A pack following one girl and announcing her as a man in the hall is that. Keep sex-separated spaces. The cruelty in the hypo depends on the students lying about her sex. The fix need not be “gender identity” rules, but can rather be enforcing that girls’ facilities are for girls and that classmates may not run a public ritual of humiliation. Address the self-harm as a safety and clinical problem with her parents. This does not require the school to adopt one side of the sex/gender debate as official truth. The foregoing approach does not encroach on the First Amendment, and would likely be just as effective, if not more so, than an approach which does encroach on the First Amendment. What the school should not be allowed to do, in either case: Treat every use of sex-based language as “bullying” because someone is distressed. Compel other students to use words they believe are false. Collapse “don’t single out Patricia for a false name” into “you must use preferred pronouns.” If the only tool you have is “'misgendering' is harassment,” you cannot tell these situations apart. If you can tell them apart, you do not need that tool. Protect Patricia from a targeted lie about her. Do not conscript the rest of the school into a pronoun rule that would have the school - the State - punish a student for saying a boy is a boy. Thanks, -Smac

This presupposes that Student A has, or should have, a legal obligation to "avoid using any undesired name" ("undesired" by Student B). Can Student A also be punished for calling Student B "Andy" instead of "Andrew" if Student B dislikes the former? Looks like we're both on board with a "case-by-case" approach. We may differ as to how many of those cases will pass the Tinker test. I am not suggesting otherwise. Rather, I am evaluating what schools can do about it while remaining within constitutional parameters. Wife beating did not involve potential and/or actual infringements on First Amendment protections. What we are discussing here does involve that. Thanks, -Smac

Feel free to ask me privately if you want to discuss specific details and it feels awkward here (especially if there are foods that cause issues for you). I am not an expert, but I know where to find some of them. And given my low energy level, picked up lots of tricks for making it easier.

Not sure this is what you are looking for: https://gregkofford.com/products/exploring-mormon-thought-1?

This is getting weird. I have no access to your hypothetical daughter's gametes (which I believe is how you define both sex and gender) nor do I want it. Let me try again. Let's pretend you have a daughter named Patricia. Patricia has always struggled with body issues because she doesn't feel as attractive as her sister or mother. At school there are a few individuals that claim to believe that Patricia is actually a boy. These students refuse to use your daughter's name. Instead they call her Patrick. When Patricia exits the women's bathroom and these individuals are nearby, they loudly point out that a male has just exited the women's bathroom and "What is the world coming to when we allow men into women's spaces". These bullies (my term, but feel free to disagree) loudly misgender your daughter in class and in the hallways. These students never overtly threaten your daughter. Your daughters grades are dropping. You found out she is cutting classes she shares with these students. She's starting to cut herself and express suicidal thoughts. What if anything *should* the public school be allowed to do to address this situation.

I think a lot of adults are oblivious to how much “teasing” is actually bullying and is cruel, even if unintentional. And if it’s persistent, I have major doubts about it not being intentionally cruel because there are ways to avoid using any undesired name if one wants to. Along with being oblivious to what can be bullying, many adults are oblivious to how much that can affect the quality of life for our kids. My daughter had a very smart, very cruel young lady in her elementary classes who was very good at tormenting while not breaking any obvious rules. I don’t believe high schools and younger should be restricted to set in stone rules and instead should operate more on a case by case basis so these kinds of tyrants don’t have free rein to play their power games. My daughter was never a threat, but I was definitely worried she would be a target because she was best friends with the popular girl that the queen bee wanted to own. Thankfully my daughter’s friend protected her. I had tutored her after school when they first immigrated, they would play a lot, so my daughter was her first and enduring Canadian friend (even if she was technically American having spent her first month in the US). I also had a good relationship with her. She was wonderful herself, but also dominated by the tyrant to a great extent because their families were close having immigrated at the same time and were involved in the same communities outside of school. It made it impossible for her to threaten to distance herself from the tyrant in order to dampen the power games, which was pretty much the only thing that worked. Just because ‘teasing’ kids by kids has been happening for ages doesn’t mean it’s healthy or not a big deal. Wife beating happened for ages, we finally grew up enough to realize it wasn’t a man’s right or duty to ‘discipline’ his wife. Once we put in enough effort to really determine how much kids are affected by such treatment when young, we will be horrified at the damage that was allowed. And thinking it’s better that they get exposed to cruelty in their youth so they will toughen up and be ready for the real world doesn’t understand that the more confident kids are the ones that feel secure and relaxed, not the ones that act tough because that’s how they protect themselves.

Many thanks for the advice, very welcome. Over the last week or two, I have managed to get a fibre based breakfast. I can now get to work on the main meal(s) of the day. Once I get in to a routine, and I am a person who likes routine. I should be able to get along with a better diet.

Elder Stevenson said, "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". It's "I'm", not "we're". Again, is it your position that Elder Stevenson was not speaking in in a representative capacity for the Church when addressing the NAACP? I previously addressed the distinction people sometimes draw between “regret” and “apology.” From the Essay: What are your thoughts about this? "It" being suppositional explanations for the policy? I guess we differ a bit about what "astray" means in this context. You have said: False teaching leads people in the wrong path, to worship a false God. For example, Joseph Smith teaching that God is not God from all eternity. This is not the God faithful Jews or the majority of Christians worship. Take another example the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He is Michael the Archangel, not God. This is a false Christ. They are being led down the wrong path. Another example: LDS Christians believe the Godhead is three Gods. Evangelical Christians believe in one God, eternally existent as three personages. You believe the later teaching leads believers astray. I have said: I still am not sure what you mean by "astray." I'm not sure conclusions of this sort will ever "necessarily" follow. Gardner's assessment, like anyone else's is not empirically falsifiable, after all. And I don't think Gardner positions his assessment as "necessarily" correct. So I'm not sure that's a "flaw," as it may just be epistemic humility. Gardner: Scripture Central: I am curious as to your thoughts about the above ideas. And what is your perspective on this "caution position?" Might this also indicate errors in interpretation of The Book of Mormon? Could you explain more about this "original revelation" (the one "institut{ing} the ban")? If it was not recorded, how do you know there was one? Is it possible Brigham Young instituted the ban without "{a} revelation from God"? It was, after all, presented not at the Church's General Conference, but in a legislative session. That is sort of odd. How do you reconcile attributing the ban to Joseph Smith, and Joseph's purported attribution of the ban to God, with his ordination of Elijah Abel? Might it be that the ban was not revelatory, but that the removal of it was? In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve believed a false teaching by Satan and they were led astray. Satan does deceive us sometimes. And the Lord allows it to happen. But here you seem to be equating "astray" with committing a sin. I'm not sure that's accurate. Thank you for sharing this. It looks like we may disagree a bit about what "lead people astray" means in the context of the comment appended to OD-1. Your assessment is much broader than mine. Wrong is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are pulling people towards Michael the Archangel, their version of Jesus. That is a false Christ. Or it is an incorrect belief about Christ. Sounds clear to me. And yet here we are, both of us intelligent and fairly well-informed as to the Restored Gospel, but with fairly divergent conceptualizations of what Pres. Woodruff had in mind. See above ("Leading people astray means using influence..."). Another quote from Joseph Smith: Thoughts? I appreciate you sharing your perspective here. Thanks, -Smac

Nutrition wise, it’s always best to eat fruit whole. I can’t remember any fruit that is better to eat cooked like there are some veggies that are easier to absorb nutrients from. If you can tolerate milk and don’t like yogurt, you can always add some quality cacao to it (I think our favorite is Guittard) for a treat. I also like hot Golden Milk (turmeric and some other spices, doesn’t need sweetener for me). If you like yogurt, try kefir. It has even more variety of bugs in it than store bought yogurt so great at helping to build a healthy gut some come with a lot of sugar, but you can always use your blender to add your own fruit flavor. If you can’t handle milk, kefir and yogurt are good substitutes for many as the bugs digest a lot of the lactose for you (same with sourdough bread, though that varies…I use a tarter version and that seems to prevent the sugars in wheat from exploding my gut). Water is best. If the quality of water you are getting from the tap ain’t great, invest in a filter. I would search online for the best in your area. Even a Brita type can make a difference. I had a really hard time drinking lots of water, it would slosh in my stomach and give me headaches. Adding a bit of salt helps balance the electrolytes for me and I add a bit of sugar as well as that helps the sodium get absorbed. Apparently I am very sensitive to changing electrolyte levels and more than a cup of water in an hour makes my head woozy, etc I can guzzle it down just fine with the addition. I started out using electrolytes capsules, but the cost goes up so much and the amount of anything but sodium isn’t worth the cost, I can get supplements cheaper if I actually need those. The homemade stuff works just as well, if not better as it mixes better. Adding a small amount of fruit juice (how much depends on your calories for the day) if you dislike the straight salt/sugar mix is good. I also use powdered raspberry, my daughter uses mango. You can also throw in frozen fruit to keep it cool as well as add flavor. If you are interested in the nutrition side of things, but don’t know where to start, my dietician recommends using Chat to come up with recipes and meal plans if you need help, especially if you are picky about food (I am not, but my body really is and I feel soooo much better with staying within the lines on this). My experience is always double check the math, especially when it’s dealing with teaspoons and tablespoons. Sometimes it increases when it’s supposed to be decreasing or the reverse. You want chat to calculate the macros (protein, carb, fats…maybe fiber, can’t remember what category that falls into) as well as keep an eye on the micronutrients. There are some free or not too expensive decent food tracking apps as well that would even be better if you don’t mind using them. Let me know if you are interested, I can point you to the ones recommended for me, but you can also use AI to find one that fits what you want best And when cooking something the first time it is very important to follow a recipe as described. Once you know what it is supposed to taste like, then one can fool around with it changing spices, cooking process (bake rather sauté) etc. There are lots of good videos out there. It can be a fun hobby to get involved in. Even if you don’t want to invest much time or money, looking into meal prep techniques and how to use different variations with meal planning is well worth the time investment. I would keep stuff simple as you start using apps and tracking nutrients and calories. Maybe even figure out 3 days of meal plans and repeat them until the tracking becomes natural. That way there is not as much calculation. Another thing is to pick your favorite breakfast and have that daily (assuming it’s pretty well balanced, I use overnight oats with fruit and protein powder to hit the protein, fiber and rainbow for that meal) and maybe even the same lunch or a very simple to calculate lunch (few items or maybe even a healthy prepackaged meal) and then put creativity into your main meal.

Yes, any repeated attacks on LDS congregations committed by a specific demographic need to have security provided to protect from that specific demographic.

I would very much appreciate some recommendations for sources that explain in some detail the LDS concept of God the Father as an exalted man. My guess is that it would be inclusive of describing His spirit nature and perhaps soul. If that is a distinction that is made. It would be helpful if it also includes the Father's literal relationship (physical and spiritual) with Christ. I have several books on the "Mormon" Jesus, but I don't believe I have any specifically about the Father from a modern LDS scholar. Thanks.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask. But I am rather curious about the official LDS Church position on interpretation of its three unique scriptures. I was taught in college and seminary that the Bible contains at least five different types of literature, each requiring a unique manner and method of interpretation. The one thing that they all have in common is their inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the process of the Bible's creation. To be properly understood, however, each type of literature in the Bible requires a correct description as the type of literature it was intended to be. I don't think I have ever read an interpretative guide for the Book of Mormon officially sanctioned by the LDS Church. In part I ask because over the past few months I have been reading several well-written books on the manner and method of the creation of the content of the Book of Mormon. However, neither book really deals with how the reader is to interpret a given passage based in part on the type of literature (poetic, prophetic, parable, etc.) that it represents. Thanks. I hope this question does not take the thread off track too much.