All Activity

I think God desires our closeness, in our hearts if not in physical proximity, and I think it's wonderful that Catholicism has a way for its members to experience the Presence of God in both ways. My understanding is that the Divine is present where two or more are gathered in his name (no mention of a requirement that they agree about everything), and perhaps that gathering "place" can even be an internet forum.

There are longstanding laws against voyeuristic conduct and sexual exhibitionism that can apply in locker rooms. The fact that someone has a right to be in the locker room does not give them a right to engage in otherwise illegal conduct once they are there. In Kansas, for example, exposing yourself to a nonconsenting person is criminal if it is done with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire; merely being naked while changing or showering obviously isn't enough. Kansas also criminalizes certain invasions of privacy, including surreptitiously observing someone in circumstances where that person is entitled to privacy. (Kansas Secretary of State) Of course there are fuzzy cases. Incidental looking isn't voyeurism, and incidental nudity isn't exhibitionism. Someone might even get sexual gratification from looking or being looked at and never cross the line into provably criminal conduct. That's an inherent feature of communal locker rooms, not something created by allowing transgender people to use them. But when the line is crossed, these offenses do not suddenly become unprosecutable merely because the defendant was entitled to enter the locker room. The larger point is that I'm criticizing a Kansas law that went into effect less than six months ago. I've looked for examples in Kansas where a victim or police said that someone was engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct in a restroom or locker room but could not be stopped or prosecuted because Kansas lacked this new sex-at-birth-based entry restriction. I haven't found one, and nobody I've asked has produced one either. No law will prevent every bad act or make every difficult case provable. The relevant policy question is whether this new law solves a demonstrated problem—and whether the problems it creates outweigh whatever benefit it provides.

I certainly don't want to tell people to disregard real threats or potential assaults. While I believe people have the right to choose which restroom to use, I also think they also have a responsibility to take other people's sensibilities into consideration. I think a "reasonable person" test can be applied here, and the right to choose the most appropriate space for a urinary emergency isn't a license to assault or intimidate others.

I've done some research on this, and going back to 1926, a federal law that standardizes drivers license doesn't say that "sex" needs to be shown on it. Rather, it says "Every such license shall bear thereon the distinguishing number assigned to the licensee and shall contain the name, age, residence address and a brief description of the licensee for the purpose of identification, also a space for the signature of the licensee." That is the real purpose: to help a police officer ascertain that the person who presents the license in fact the same person who was licensed to drive. A group of doctors never said the most important piece of information on a medical alert bracelet is the sex listed on your original birth certificate, and therefore that needs to be displayed on everyone's ID. A group of vital records registrars never got together and said that vital record information needs to be placed on a drivers license and carried around with people. And you don't need a drivers license to use public restrooms. Yes, it does. Actually, it defeats the original purpose. The NYT article that was too long to read tells the story of somebody who was pulled over and the cop was quite confident the drivers license was invalid because it said "Female" with the driver was obviously "Male." The real purpose is to help cops verify that the driver that presents the license is the one licensed. It isn't a vital record. That's why it doesn't show weight at birth, name at birth, place of birth, and have a baby photo. Insisting that the licence contain biological sex rather than an accurate description of what the person looks like is a radical departure from the explicit original purpose. If that were the case, then you should oppose the Kansas Law. Emily Quinn is, objectively, a male. She he has testicles and XY chromosomes. When she he was born, her his doctor incorrectly put "female" on the birth certificate, not knowing she he is really a male with androgen insensitivity syndrome. But now in Kansas, it is against the law for Emily Quinn--a biological man--to use the men's restroom because of a mistake made by a doctor about 35 years ago. I've tried to illustrate with photos why the place where you want to draw the line is in fact defective, and why drawing the line there creates more problems than it solves. We have to weirdly agree to disagree about whether the people I've shown belong in the men's room or the women's room. My point in this post and the last is about Constitutional scrutiny. If "sex" is defined as biological sex or the sex assigned at birth (things that aren't necessarily the same), it is a violation of privacy to put that personal medical information on a document that needs to be shown to others every time you vote or cash a check. I'm arguing that regularly requiring this disclosure to others in contexts that are totally unrelated to bathrooms is a violation of the individual's personal autonomy. That doesn't mean the state doesn't have an interest in putting birth certificate information on a driver's license, but it does mean that this need needs to withstand strict Constitutional scrutiny. You don't put birth length, birth weight, and baby photos on a driver's license. That is because the purpose of the drivers license isn't to summarize vital records about an individual. The purpose is to help police officers ascertain that the person presenting the license is the person who is in fact licensed to drive. Again, "sex" is on drivers licenses to help an officer ascertain that the person presenting the license is the person licensed to drive. The Federal 1926 law I linked to above says it is intended to be a "description of the licensee for the purpose of identification." If we are going to meet that explicit, original purpose, an accurate description of this person is a man, not a woman.

I miss Mark, too.

At our parish, we try to have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This means that someone volunteers to keep our Savior company as He shows Himself in His chapel under the appearance of consecrated bread for each of the 168 hours of every week. I think most of us do it once a week. That is what I do. My hour is 3:00 every Wednesday morning. It seems like the least I can do as a retired guy who can grab a nap any time almost every day. One main idea behind this practice is to remember how it seemed like Jesus desired fellow company with some of His Apostles during His agony in the Garden. The Heart of Jesus is unfathomable. He doesn't need us...and yet He expresses these desires for us. Before the Last Supper, wherein Catholics believe that Christ celebrates the first Mass He says, "With desire I have desired..." What? I guess that means He wants to do this thing with an intensity that we might find hard to relate to? "...to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15) This is why the Mass is also named the Paschal (Passover) Mystery. The time went so quickly this morning. I could not get over the idea of God who creates out of nothing is about six feet away, out in the open, easy to see. The same eternal God has been waiting for me this morning in this humble manner, so unimposing? There is a natural doubt that man can attain to a union with a Being so far above us. I understand the appeal of God being a man. But I also understand the appeal of God being infinitely more. The Incarnation of Christ gives us both. One author puts it this way speaking of Christ assuming our nature: "...it strengthens our hope all the more since it brings the excellence of our nature home to our consciousness, and shows us that we, elevated as we are above all creatures, can and ought to achieve perfect happiness in closest union with God." ---The Mysteries of Christianity, Matthias Scheeben, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO (1947), p.417 Sometimes my differences of opinion with my LDS friends can make me ponder delightful beliefs, as happened this morning in pondering over again some of the beliefs that we agree upon and those we don't. At the end of my hour, I was thinking about how different it might be if mfb were here. I might be frustrated, but I miss him very much. I hope Mark is okay. He made me think so much harder than I ever would have without his opposition to my transcendent God. I would be happy if he could poke his head in here, and offer his misgivings...and then I would probably get angry! Heh. May the good Lord bless our absent, but well remembered friend/adversary Mark Bukowski, and may God draw him to his His loving heart, even if God created ex nihilo. Yeah, I know Mark, it doesn't make sense unless God has a heart. (I am speak anthropomorphically. Of course. That is the only way we know how to express ourselves, and that is why God speaks to us that way too, Mark!) Sorry for taking the last word, my friend. I know you would have more to say.

It has been 20 years since I lived there, but when I did, if this is the double chapel I was thinking of it is where at least 1 Tongan ward met. I can't remember if there was another Tongan ward or maybe a Samoan ward too as we had quite a few Tongans and Samoans who lived there, but I think there were 2 Tongan wards at that chapel. And yes, some parts of that area were pretty rough, and it wasn't just Tongans. So no, I don't think it is odd.

Just a thought. Maybe one gang may have known/suspected that the other gang may have been attending the funeral, and decided to be present.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/08/17/kearns-shooting-1-killed-2-injured/ Chat claimed the funeral was for a gang member, but I am not seeing that in the links it gave me, so could have made it up. Maybe mixed up with previous shooting? You don’t have to be LDS to use our chapels for funerals, but the family likely were imo. Now gang members being active or devout…that is more debatable. Iirc, one of the people involved in the previous case had spoken at the funeral and then went outside to smoke…again doesn’t mean not active and devout as we had a neighbour who had reactivated, but struggled with a smoking addiction, beat it too eventually, but it took its toll, died recently. Good guy. Still someone smoking or being in a gang…bet that links with a significant drop in activity level

Have no clue. Family probably originally was, but many have been here for several generations (started coming in the 1920s, really established in the 1950s). Not all who came were LDS converts though. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=52551592&itype=cmsid

Yea that’s plausible.. I’m assuming they are all Mormons tho right? Or at least mostly?

Okay. Much appreciated.

Mission presidents get reimbursed for living expenses, BYU tuition and missions paid for kids, funds to fly kids out to see them, funds for birthday and christmas presents, dance / violin etc lessons for the kids. Lots of stuff. I dont think they are paid a salary though. Also they are instructed to not tell their tax preparers any details about their financial agreement with the church....that one is interesting. Maybe a nothing burger Source is 2006 mission presidents handbook pp80 if you can find one. Scribd has it if you have an account.

In Utah if using the chapel for a funeral, you tend to live in the same neighborhood. Gangs can overlap the same neighborhood surely? A church parking lot is an easy gathering place whether one is there or not for church. Our chapel parking lot in CA was a school bus stop and often where people carpooling would meet as they headed up to the freeway. I suspect very few parking there were LDS. It was the only place to park safely on that somewhat long stretch….think there was also an empty lot at the intersection with the freeway (or the road that went to the freeway, should doublecheck the map). 1/3 of the kids waiting for the bus were LDS for high school because of seminary. Just me for junior high because we lived down the street. added: memory was right, it was the freeway. They have a Caltrans Park and Ride there now. The busstop by the Church is even officially marked. Only one on the road…which wasn’t as long as I remembered it, but very wooded. I would always get lost driving around up there in my dreams, lol. The Church parking lot is really the best meeting place in the area with easy access to the freeway. The rest of the road is residential except for a little fruit stand.

It makes as much sense to me as anything I or any other LDS has come up with about the ultimate…the ultimate is grounded in mystery.

It wouldnt matter if my commander had been in Vietnam or Desert storm.. he still wasnt involved in the fight we were in and was safely ensconced behind the wire, sandbags and bunkers and did not participate in any combat. He wasnt part of the we. We were a unit with divisible assets who would be attached to other organizations for missions. Our commander didnt even plan missions, he was working part time for a higher guy and part time being our commander. Our missions were strictly Company size (~120 troops) down to platoon size (~30-60 troop) which is what I was leading at the time. He didnt come under fire, he didnt lead missions, he didnt engage in combat, we wasnt wounded. He did not participate in the combat missions "WE" were on. My own company suffered 48% casualties and the fact his existence somewhere at HQ where no one could find him made him definitely not part of the "WE." Granted his job wasnt to be out with us, but to take credit for what "we" did as if he was a participating team member is irritating. My platoon was routinely parted out to go augment other missions and I wasnt with some of the squads who went out. Many times they came back with some crazy stories. In one engagement they killed ~35 AQI. They kicked butt and were my troops but I wasnt on the mission with them and there is no way I would have told them ... "we kicked butt tonite." Best idea is for these guys to quit saying we have no paid clergy. It isnt true and it rarely adds anything of value to the talk or conversation unless they want to virtue signal which is probably a majority of the motivation IMHO.

God existed eternally, unlike Creation, which marks the beginning of time. God is One, but God is also Three, in a different sense. God would not be the only one. There would be two others Persons who have the same divine nature as the Father. If God is omnipresent, there is nothing that can surround God for Him to be inside of. This would go back to what was said above about "Him who the worlds could not contain, was contained in the womb of the Blessed Virgin." As man, the person of Christ was contained. As God, the Person of Christ, made Mary the Mother of a Person who was unbounded Existence, God. I understand you saying "Hmmmm". How? Why? Why is there something instead of nothing? The fact of existence is an amazing mystery. Maybe an eternal God has something to do with it? I apologize for saying this poorly. Of course you are welcome to explain a different understanding of why there is anything. Like, why would matter exist before God made it? Maybe we should worship matter if God depends on it or else He wouldn't exist? Hmmmmm. You very much agree that the Father won't mind if we overestimate what He is. I am not infallible. I am not even a philosopher. I believe the most that I can possibly believe about God. There is a passage in the Psalms where the Israelites were chided for doubting that God could provide for them in the wilderness, and it seems like He was insulted (anthropomorphically speaking). With God all things are possible, or maybe not ALL things? Why must we doubt that God could create matter out of nothing? Why Is that flawed speculation for the presence of matter? Why do we have to believe that nobody made matter? It strikes me as impersonal and without purpose. Does that make any sense? What if God can make matter out of nothing? Maybe it would be an insult (anthropomorphically speaking)? The universe is already a mind blowing place anyway. Why limit God? For religious reasons, I instinctively want two P's. #1) A Person, #2) A Purpose. I can't worship in a universe that doesn't begin with at least a Person and a Purpose. Creation ex nihilo has provided that. I can't go back on that without losing my religion. So I am biased. Maybe I am not objective. If it is about the problem of evil, God will exonerate Himself or not someday. I am not worried about that. I believe we will all see that God brings good out of evil. What is evil? It is a defect of what is good. It is a cleft palate. It is immorality and strife with neighbors and selfishness. But all of these evils involve good natures. They are negatives. Evil is not positive. It isn't a thing, but the lack of a thing. Evil is in a sense, less than nothing, a negative, a corruption of the good, and God intends to bring good out of that! How much more then should it be possible that we should believe that God can bring good (matter for instance), out of pure neutrality, mere nothingness? Nothingness is so much better than evil! Maybe I should just erase this whole thing calm? I know you will be nice though even if it seems ridiculous to you. I don't know what else to say right now. God bless, Rory

Hmm and the attendees at the funeral and the warring gangs just so happened to both be Tongan. Pretty odd coincidence

How would the security costs be an issue? JFYI the latest filing with the SEC (the one the church used to lie on...) states the Domestic (US) stock holdings of the church were valued at ~$60BN. Even a 1% dividend yield off that (Im sure they get a bit more) is over $600million annually. That should be enough to take care of the additional costs. That doesn't even take into consideration all the bonds, foreign investments, real estate and for-profit businesses the church has. The only cost the church cant afford is whatever they just don't feel like paying or that they can get the members to pay for. Also consider the increase of the value of the portfolio from Q1 '26 to Q2 '26 was an increase of ~$7BN.... more than the entire estimated annual budget for the church. the $600Mil alone could pay the annual salary for 3K security guards at a total compensation rate of $200K per year. Imagine what $7BN could pay for in terms of security. I doubt they would need 3K additional security personnel. The church spends money in direct relation to what they feel is worth paying for and that says a lot.

The first one I linked to - https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/08/17/1-dead-2-critically-injured-in-kearns-funeral-shooting/

Where are you reading that the people involved were not there for the funeral? Sure an odd place for two warring gangs to bump into each other and start shooting.

It doesn't seem like the people who were involved in the shooting were there for the funeral. Or at least, that's how the news articles read to me. One of the articles mentioned how the police don't believe there is any relation. So just bad coincidence.

I don't think "what's the person doing" or if it is "creepy behavior" would work. That isn't prosecutable. Because a locker room allows behaviors that would normally be considered creepy. How do you define "she is hanging out in the locker room more than she needs"? How do you prosecute that? That's why I feel like this change is going to limit prosecution to only assault and I guess things that involve external things (like a phone). But exhibition, voyeurism don't require those. So they cease to be prosecutable. Also, maybe I'm misreading you, but telling someone who was a victim of exhibitionism to "get over it" feels a little callous.

Correct. I had forgotten them. My memory remembers the MP in Moscow as having both college age kids and a three year old, but now I am wondering if I am mixing up his family with the bishop’s. We took the little girl to the zoo with our 5 year old. (Who is now 36, so reasonable my memory is uncertain). There weren’t a lot of animals and the ones there often looked pretty sad as they had been suffering, sometimes starving, heard a few got stolen and sold, some maybe even eaten during the previous turmoil. Anyway, the MP would have had to be rich to have his family with him there. Added: My husband confirms he had his family. Can’t remember who the girl belonged to though. Half our life ago almost, he pointed out. More I think about it, the more I think the little one was the bishop’s. She was born in Finland as at that time it was safer to fly mummy there to deliver than stay in Moscow’s hospitals. Which means they were there longer than three years.

Perhaps for a different kind of gas since she’s teaching teenagers?