All Activity

Yes. Your racism is very sad.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/08/17/1-dead-2-critically-injured-in-kearns-funeral-shooting/ https://www.fox13now.com/news/crime/police-investigate-possible-gang-connection-in-deadly-shooting-outside-church-funeral-in-kearns Interesting that the police were contacted before the shooting and they were there and heard the shots.

Another murder at a funeral in Utah today. What is the deal with the Tongan’s? Does the church need to provide armed security at meetinghouses where Tongans attend? Since January this is homicide number two at an lds funeral. sad

Different mission presidents I bet or whoever makes the decision.

I don’t care as long as they behave themselves. How would I even know to care if they pass as a woman?

Just like is and isn’t porn.

Okay. Okay. Seems like the negation of sex-segregated spaces, since what counts as "passing" and what does not is almost certainly unworkable. What about just a regular guy, not a man dressed and "passing" as a woman, but a straight-up man? Don't see how to exclude them. Thanks, -Smac

I completely agree. I don’t myself. That’s why I see an issue with the edge cases where someone can visually pass as the other sex. I would prefer to have a passing trans woman use the restroom I am in rather than a passing trans man. If that ever happens to me, I will be mildly freaked. Added: that freak will include significant vicarious anxiety and discomfort I assume the other will be feeling as most likely they really, really don’t want to be there.

Given you and others don’t view trans women as women or trans men as men, if I leave off trans or biological, I mean biological. I try to speak the language of those I am speaking with using words as they do unless I specify I don’t.

If you read the talk, he is definitely talking generally imo. He is talking to the audience as one community of which he is part.

We're at a pretty pass when I have to ask you to clarify what you mean by "men" and "women." I think many women and girls do not want men in women's bathrooms. I think plenty of men feel the same about women in men's bathrooms, but less due to safety concerns and more due to privacy/dignity concerns. Okay. Glad we cleared that up. Thanks, -Smac

I agree. I think one could point out the difference by looking at someone when their health gets to the point they can no longer serve. Do they get severance pay or does the allowance continue? If no cut in pay for less or no service, it’s not a salary imo.

It was just strange to me you referenced solely the men who would feel awkward and not the women. I was trying to figure out what you were talking about….I assumed you yourself were referring to trans women, the edge cases in your view who do not visually look like they should be in a woman’s bathroom and was wondering if you saw something different between the cases. I didn’t mean you to repeat everything, didn’t mean to make you work, could have just said something along the lines of left out the biological women, but they are included, of course, in the same line of reasoning.

I absolutely believe it is continual. God is the source of being and creates our being, just as the Son is begotten from the Father continually. He is not the clock maker of the deists.

"Background" about abortion? How does that relate to sex-segregated bathrooms? Yes. We should expect to see varying constitutional analyses in the state appellate courts. I'm not sure why you are bringing up abortion or the "religious right's" efforts pertaining to it. Could you clarify how this is relevant to sex-segregated bathrooms? "This" being sex-segregated bathrooms? Oddly, the Kansas legislature has apparently attempt to enact a statute setting the level of constitutional analysis is set by statute: I haven't looked into this, and I have no experience with Kansas jurisprudence, but it seems almost axiomatic that under basic separation-of-powers principles, the judiciary, not the legislature, determines what standard of review the state constitution requires and whether a particular law satisfies it. A statute can supply definitions, substantive rules, and legislative findings, but it cannot dictate to the courts the applicable constitutional test or compel a finding that the test is met. That said, I think you "it's all political" approach to jurisprudential thought is not a reliable thing. Moreover, because the statute on its face differentiates based on sex, it necessarily requires strict scrutiny. There are three standards: (1) the rational basis standard, which requires only that the enactment bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state interest; (2) the heightened or intermediate scrutiny standard, which requires the enactment to substantially further an important state interest; and (3) the strict scrutiny standard, which requires the enactment serve some compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to further that interest. The determination of which of the three standards applies depends on the nature of the right at stake. The second on applies. Generally, under intermediate scrutiny, a law or government action must serve an important (or significant) government interest, and the means used to achieve that goal must be substantially related to the interest. The government holds the burden of proof to justify its action. I asked Grok to take a stab at guessing how things will turn out: We'll see. Interesting that you keep attempting to frame litigation in provocative, slanted terminology. Anyway, in March the court in Doe "denied a requested temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the law": More here: While certainly not definitive, that the plaintiffs' failure to establish a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the underlying claims (the article above references "successful likelihood," but that may be a typo) would not normally be encouraging to the plaintiffs. In cases such as this there really isn't a factual dispute, but rather the dispute pertains to constitutionality. If they could not demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing at the outset of the case, I'm not sure much will change in the future. Yes, we'll see. Sex-based separations in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities have long been treated as constitutionally permissible. Federal courts in recent years have generally upheld biological-sex rules in analogous settings (schools, prisons, etc.), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 Skrmetti decision applied only rational-basis review to a related transgender regulation. Thanks, -Smac

Neither does the Catholic Church, as dogma can be, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, refined, understood better, and declared.

Do you believe in continuing revelation? or is the primitive Christian Church held to stricter standards than the LDS church when it comes to source material?

I agree. I don’t think Elder Shumway was lying here. The fact that full-time General Authorities receive a living allowance is hardly a recent discovery—it was publicly reported in Church financial reports in General Conference as early as 1944 and acknowledged in Church publications long before Elder Shumway’s talk. It seems much more likely that Elder Shumway was speaking about the general practice of unpaid Church service. The overwhelming majority of Church service is performed without financial compensation, which is the longstanding basis for describing the Church as having an “unpaid ministry.” The wording may be imprecise, but calling it a lie seems unwarranted. If Elder Shumway were actually trying to conceal the fact that GAs receive a living allowance, it would be a rather odd thing to “lie” about when that fact was already publicly known.

In the other thread, I pointed out how weird it is that you always focus on getting joy out of seeing other people finding out they are wrong. Over the years, you have also consistently discussed resurrected genitalia. That is also very weird, especially because you think it is some sort of gotcha. First, you act like Christians over the past 2000 years, including some of the most intelligent and educated minds of western civilization, never considered these things. Second, I’ll say it clearly: resurrected humans have penises and vaginas. Can we move on? Or do you still want to discuss genitals?

Why do you always post about how happy you are going to be to see someone find out they are wrong? It’s really… gross. No room for metaphors and figurative language in your life, eh?

You should hear the Grateful Dead talk about improvisation and the group mind, where they are simply observing the music play itself through them as one being. And don’t worry about Rush coming to your mind. The Grateful Dead comes to my mind in all sorts of threads 😁

It's hard to know about change though, since his was a special VIP tour for him specifically and given by the managing director of Temple Square. Not a general, every day tour. The weird thing is I know something like 20/25 years ago they did talk about the other wives when I went. And I think (though I'm not sure) in later years when I went again they didn't, just like you experienced. So why they had it, but then didn't have it, I don't know.

What transgender men/biological women? You don’t think they have difficulties using women’s restrooms, they won’t be harassed, recorded, threatened as well? (Maybe not physically threatened on that moment, but put at risk by being recorded, doxxed, etc)? I think I have addressed this at substantial length. "The discomfort that can arise in edge cases under a sex-based rule is real. I acknowledge that." "The awkwardness that can create for the individual woman who has chosen to present herself as being male (or vice versa) is real. So is the alternative of letting identity or presentation override sex, which creates a different and broader set of costs for the people the female (or male) category was created to protect, and it eliminates any stable limiting principle." "Highly masculinized females remain female under a sex-based criterion; they use the women’s facility. The awkwardness that can arise in those edge cases is real. It is still a different—and smaller—problem than admitting anyone into women's space on the basis of subjective identity or appearance (or not even based on that)." "The discomfort this creates for some individuals who present or identify differently is real, but it does not require us to redefine the category or surrender the boundary" "I acknowledge that rule will sometimes produce awkward situations for people whose appearance does not match their sex. That is a real cost. But then, the alternative rule (access according to self-identification) also produces costs: loss of privacy, safety concerns, and competitive unfairness for the group the spaces were created to protect." "In short, the policy requires people to use the facility that matches their sex. Residual social friction for a small number persons is a genuine downside worth managing with good complaint procedures and common sense. But I think it is not a reason to abandon the sex-based boundary that protects the group for whom the spaces were created: women and girls." "Sex-segregated spaces are created and maintained for the benefit of women and girls, or half the population. I think the Kansas legislature passed the law to benefit woman and girls. Sex-segregated spaces impose some difficulties on a statistically small - even tiny - number of men." "The awkwardness that can create for the individual woman who has chosen to present herself as being male (or vice versa) is real. So is the alternative of letting identity or presentation override sex, which creates a different and broader set of costs for the people the female (or male) category was created to protect, and it eliminates any stable limiting principle." "A consistent sex-based rule will sometimes create awkward or painful situations for people whose appearance or identity diverges from their sex. That is a genuine cost, and practical accommodations (single-occupancy options, etc.) can reduce it without erasing the boundary. But the alternative rule, access by self-identification, imposes a different set of costs on the far larger group for whom the spaces were created, and it removes any stable limiting principle. Once sex is no longer the criterion, there is no coherent basis for excluding any male." "On the specific example: a sex-based rule does mean that a female person who has taken steps to appear male still uses the women’s facility (or a single-occupancy option where available). That can be awkward for the individual. The alternative rule of letting identity or appearance control means male people who identify or present as female, and anyone else as well, gain access to women’s facilities. That creates a different set of costs, borne by the women the space was created to serve, and it removes any stable way to exclude males who might exploit the rule." "So as between the seemingly competing and incompatible interests and preferences of (A) biological women and girls and (B) biological males who, having taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women, which set of interests and preferences should prevail? In my view, I think the prevailing group should be the one for whom sex-segregated spaces were created: biological women and girls." It appears that we differ in a few things, but we both acknowledge that the Kansas law can have some adverse effects on men who "identify" as women and so want to enter women's bathrooms. Where we differ is whether the alternative approach has some adverse effects on women and girls (for whom sex-segregated facilities were intended to protect). Thanks, -Smac

I don't think it was a lie for two reasons. The weakest reason is because an allowance isn't the same as being paid for time served or work being done. The (in my opinion) stronger reason it's not a lie is because it seems clear (to me at least) that he's speaking in generalities. In general those who serve in the church receive no compensation whatsoever.

Very good to know. The last time I went through was probably around 2010 or 2011. It sounds like it has already gotten a lot better.