All Activity

Therefore you saw we should be just as violent and cruel to others because ‘they started it’. Vile stuff ya weirdo.

White supremacy and a bunch of anti-semitism. Lovely. And a kind of ancestral essentialism where all white people did something because a few of their ancestors (who were the ancestors of virtually everyone else on the planet too) did something. And a lot of bad history and taxonomy and giving dinosaur sapience for some reason. Weird. And wrong.

Someone suggested this may be the root of the speculation: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/leadership-instruction-october-2023/summary-how-meetinghouses?lang=eng “ We have been commanded to gather together often to remember Jesus and strengthen each other in Him: “I give unto you … a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:74). Meetinghouses provide opportunities for receiving ordinances, teaching and ministering one to another (see 3 Nephi 26:19; Moroni 6:5–6), and welcoming friends. They serve multiple functions: Worship and ordinances Teaching Activities Administration Ongoing efforts are making meetinghouses more Christ centered and inviting. Some of these efforts include: Adapting to local culture and environment. Choosing meetinghouse art that is Christ centered and inclusive. Incorporating policy adjustments in the General Handbook for use of meetinghouses outside of Sunday meetings. We are considering opportunities to improve the focus on the Savior and ordinances and provide a more joyful experience for members and friends. These opportunities include: Flexible and adapted designs for new construction. Adjustments to existing buildings.” Someone else described this YouTuber as the LDS version of the National Enquirer, so accuracy is unlikely to be high if so.

Subjective

Local to who, Germany?

Please show your fiancée this thread so she knows who she is marrying and has a true choice if she is not aware of this side of you already.

This is an explicit, violent threat of extremism child murder. This post should be reported to local law enforcement authorities immediately, as statements involving explicit harm to children and targeted violence are unlawful threats.

I have previously asked, and now ask again: I am quite willing to listen to what you have to say. Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are inaccurately characterized as such? Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are not widely accepted by these folks? As for LLMs and political bias, seems like your preferred on - ChatGPT - has its own issues: AI chatbots face major backlash over left-wing bias: ‘Can no longer be considered neutral and cannot be trusted’ In any event, I think all Grok did was compile most of tenets I would have (I have addressed many of this in threads on this board). Good luck departing from those tenets - and publicly saying so - while staying in the good graces of trans advocates, both the groups and the self-appointed online and social media guys. That there is no governing body to definitively establish "tenets" of trans ideology is one thing; to say that no generally-accepted tenets exist at all is, I think, incorrect. Okay. Still hope to see you identify the "tenets" in my list which, in your view, are not fairly characterized and/or are not widely accepted by advocates of "trans" issues/ideology. Your list overlaps with mine only at the edges. Most of it is a different position: liberal courtesy plus “don’t be cruel,” not the set of largely asserted and controverted axioms that I listed and which I see played out all the time (and I documented numerous examples of trans advocacy groups using them). The overlap: Item 1 (the experience is real) and item 2 (ordinary civil protection) are compatible with almost any serious view, including mine. Item 4 (sex and identity are distinguishable) rejects “identity is sex.” Item 5 (policy case by case) rejects “identity wins in every space.” Item 6 (medicine is empirical) is a rejection of my list’s “affirmation is non-negotiable / questions are harm” tenets. So relative to my list of tenets, this "steelman" keeps the humanitarian floor and drops the metaphysical and institutional big ticket claims. Again, I have documented numerous instances of trans advocacy organizations asserting and/or presupposing the tenets in my list. As for reasonableness, 2, 4, 5, and 6 in your list are reasonable as a minimum if “ally” only means “don’t abuse people and don’t pretend biology vanished.” Frankly, I don't think most folks in the "trans" community would accept this minimal commitment, particularly if coupled with a rejection of the tenets in my list. Item 1 is reasonable if “take the experience seriously” means the distress and the self-report exist, not that the self-report is the last word on sex. Again, good luck getting that milquetoast item endorsed by other "trans" allies and such. Item 3 is the hinge. “Usually call her a woman” is courtesy. In practice that courtesy is how “trans women are women” gets treated as the default in every room until someone names a sexed rule. The item tries to wall that off (“does not require believing biology changed”). I think this works as etiquette, but it becomes your tenet #2 the moment "courtesy" is demanded in sports, prisons, medicine, or law. 1 can slide into your tenet #4 if “take it seriously” means “do not contradict the identity claim.” As written, it does not have to. 5 is the honest item—and the one activist frameworks usually will not accept. A person who means 5 is not an “ally” in the HRC/GLAAD sense. They are a liberal who will lose the room the first time they say “not in women’s sports” or "Hey, deep down we all know that 'trans women' are not really women" or "sex is a binary, and is not something that can be changed so that person in one category can 'transition' into the other" or "In the end, I think we need to put *some* parameters on what does and does not count as a 'trans woman.'" In sum, your list is a steelman of a moderate position that I think comes nowhere near being acceptable by most "trans advocacy" organizations and self-appointed "allies." It overlaps with my list of tenets a bit, but also contradicts quite a few. I am quite willing to publicly say whether I think my list is a decent summary of fairly widespread tenets of trans advocacy. I am curious if you will reject any of those tenets. I don't think my list is "maximalist." I think it reflects widely-held tenets, as evidenced by the post in which I documented examples of most of those tenets from "trans advocacy" sources. I never called or characterized the list as a "creed" (this, in your view, is ChatGPT exhibiting apolitical views)? And what's with this "smuggling" stuff. I posted the list for the world to see and invited feedback on it. I didn't say they were "minimum propositions," but rather that they are widely-held propositions, both by trans advocacy organizations and individual "allies." I mean, good luck getting away with going to, say, a "Trans Pride" rally or some such and saying any of the following: Re: Tenet 1 (Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither): "I am a 'trans' ally. However, I think we need to set aside the notion that a person's 'stated identity' is determinative of whether that person is a man or a woman or neither. Biological sex determines that." Re: Tenet 2 (Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes)). “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan. “I am a 'trans' ally. However, deep down we all know that 'trans women' are not really women, but are instead men who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and 'identify' as women. "Trans women are women" only in an entirely figurative/suggestive sense, that's all." Re: Tenet 3 (Self-identification is sufficient). No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid. "I am a 'trans' ally. However, there must, in the end, be some sort of barebones criteria to qualify as 'a woman.' Subjective identity is unworkable because it's untestable and unfalsifiable. Those two former NBA players have effectively destroyed the idea that being a "trans woman" can be based solely by self-identification.'" I compliment @california boy and @SeekingUnderstanding for being willing to come to this board and present/endorse a "Steps A-C" proposal which differentiates "trans women" who meet specified criteria (such that they can use women's bathrooms) and those who do not (and so are to be excluded from women's bathrooms). This is a really small venue though. I would be more impressed and surprised if CB presented his proposal in writing and widely disseminated it. See also public declarations denying that "sex is a 'spectrum' and a 'social construct.'" I'm okay with that. I posted the list, and then documented numerous examples of these "tenets" being presented by trans advocacy groups. Candidly, I think "moderate propositions" are there, but they are not nearly as widely-held and endorsed as the list I provided. In other words, the "absolutist" and other extreme tenets seem to be largely assumed and axiomatic in the trans community. Frankly, I am astonished. By your metric I am a trans ally. "Transgender people are real people describing a real experience," I affirm this, with some clarification (along the lines of "but that experience, however strongly felt, cannot override biological reality. A man cannot 'become' a woman by 'identifying as one, nor can anyone migrate from one category in the sexual binary to the other"). "and in both our personal interactions and our laws we should try to treat them with dignity, courtesy, and fairness while dealing honestly with biological reality and legitimate competing interests." I affirm this, with some clarification ("Such 'honest dealing' must include a kind, but still candid and direct, rejection of incongruent-with-reality notions such as 'Trans Women are Women' (they are not women, and acting or pretending to act as if they are is furtherance of falsehood and delusion), 'a "woman" is anyone who identifies as one' (this is a circular and nonsensical definition, as 'woman' means, and has always meant, 'adult human female,' which necessarily excludes men - including 'trans women' - from that definition"), '"sex" is a spectrum' or '"sex" is a social construct' ("sex" is a biological reality, not a subjective identity, not a spectrum, not a social construct)). Thanks, -Smac

Again, outdated. Bible Hub is useful for quick interlinear word lookups and comparisons, but their other sections like its commentaries or concordances rely heavily on public-domain works from the 1800s (such as the original Strong’s Concordance published in 1890). James Strong did not have access to the massive archaeological and linguistic discoveries that revolutionized modern Old Testament scholarship today. The Ugaritic Texts (1929) proved beyond doubt that terms like adat El (assembly of El) and bene elim (sons of the gods) in the Bible was taken directly from the language of other older Semitic cultures, all of which are always referring to a divine council of real gods. Thus, in Psalm 82 and Psalm 89, the elohim are in the clouds (shaḥaq), presiding over nations, because they never were "human judges". The Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) proved the Qumran manuscripts preserved older Hebrew readings, like the bene Elohim in Deuteronomy 32, that had been altered in the later Jews' Masoretic Texts. And because old lexicographers lacked these Near Eastern texts, they frequently forced usages into categories that fit their own theology, creating a whole new, artificial definition for elohim as "human judges." Sorry but modern scholarship has moved on. Today, Hebrew scholars, regardless of whether they are Evangelical, Jewish, Latter-day Saint, or secular agree that the "human judges" translation of elohim in Psalm 82 and Exodus 21/22 is linguistically unviable. Category #2 (Heavenly Beings) is Category #4 (Demons) & #5 (Pagan Gods). You listed Deuteronomy 32:17 under Category #4 ("demons / not deities"). But look at what Deuteronomy 32:17 actually says "They sacrificed unto demons [shedim], not to God; to gods [elohim] whom they knew not..." When the Bible explicitly calls Baal and Chemosh elohim, on what authority do you have to turn around a reclassify them as "not deities"? The Bible says they are elohim; you are overriding the text to say, "No, they aren't." The Galatians 4:8 proof-text is pointing out that whatever gods he meant, either idols made of wood/stone, or imperial rulers claiming divinity, do not possess a divine nature, not that other divine entities do not exist or lack real divine authority over their lands Elyon gave to them. The exception proves the rule. Moses is explicitly stated to be placed in the position of elohim to Pharaoh ("See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"). The text specifically framed this as a functional delegation to a good human. You are imposing your new definition of "deity" onto ancient Hebrew terminology and then declaring anything that doesn't fit your invented modern definition isn't a "true god." By saying the Divine Council members are "real spiritual beings, but not deities," you are introducing a category that does not exist in the Hebrew Bible. Yahweh, Baal and the bene elohim (sons of God) are all elohim. The Bible does not reserve the word elohim only for Yahweh and then use it "metaphorically" for everyone else. Your non-Biblical definition that an entity must be equal to other Gods like Yahweh to be a "true deity," means then true polytheism never existed in human history. After all, in Greek, Canaanite, and Norse mythology, Apollo, Baal, Thor were lower gods subordinate to a higher god, Zeus, El, Odin. By your definition, ancient Canaanites never worshipped "other gods" they just worshipped "other real beings that weren't real deities." That is historically and linguistically unviable. If the Bible places the bene Elim (sons of the gods) in ba-shaḥaq, in heaven; Are you claiming either human figures or demons reside in the heavenly vaults and are ruling the nations?

I felt the list was fairly accurate. And most of the items on the list were readily available from "trans advocacy" groups. From this post: These advocacy groups lay out the ideological presuppositions, and self-identified "allies" go around enforcing them by, inter alia, vilifying people who do not agree with those presuppositions (hasty and unsubstantiated leaps into "Bigot!" accusations are a good example of this). That said, I am quite willing to listen to what you have to say. Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are inaccurately characterized as such? I agree that there is not any particular "uniform list of trans ideological doctrines." The movement is, after all, pretty amorphous. That said, I think most or all of the items in the list I provided would be recognized by most people as widely accepted tenets/axioms amongst trans advocacy groups, trans persons, "allies," and so on. But again, I am quite willing to listen to what you have to say. Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are not widely accepted by these folks? When I have used the word “woman” that way, I was using it as a gender category rather than as a synonym for adult human biological female. You are redefining, in an manner, "woman" by including men within it. Ideologically-driven, ad hoc redefinition of basic terms is, in my view, a departure from "empirical reality." In my view, when you do this you are fervently refusing to understand their words, their conceptual framework, and the nuances of their point. When I do this I am declining to acquiesce to the radical redefinition of "woman" to include men in its meaning. If I fervently believe that I am the son of Elon Musk, I am factually incorrect about that. I may try to twist and turn to redefine terms or otherwise present some sort of "conceptual framework" and "nuances" to justify my belief, but doing so is a departure form "empirical reality." I am not the son of Elon Musk, and no amount of subjective feeling or equivocation or redefinition or nuance can change that. Again, you have frequently characterized biological men as "women." In my view, the notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one is a per se departure from "empirical reality," and no amount of subjective feeling or equivocation or redefinition or nuance, or accusations of "bigotry" can change that. Sure. But to the extent they express the idea that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, such expressions are a departure from "empirical reality." Uncle Teddy in Arsenic & Old Lace is a long-recognized character, but nobody expects the audience to think he actually is Teddy Roosevelt. "Elder" has a variety of definitions, some pertaining to chronological age and others to ecclesiastical titles: Thus, there is no radical, ad hoc redefinition here. But there sure is one when you affirm that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one. That claim is a departure from "empirical reality." I disagree with you on this one. George Box said all models are wrong, but some are useful. The sexual binary is a model. In many contexts it is an extremely useful one, but when dealing with the biology of real-world people, it is less universally useful than many people imagine, and certainly isn’t the ultimate truth of what it means to be a human being. Empirical reality is that sex is "the biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people." I take the Box point seriously, but I think it is being asked to do work it cannot do. “All models are wrong, but some are useful” is a warning about statistical approximations of complex systems. It is not a license to treat every real classification as optional, which is what you appear to be attempting. Sex is not a subjective, convenient story we tell about bodies. In anisogamous species, including humans, there are two gamete types: small (sperm) and large (ova). That is the empirical binary. Organisms are organized around one or the other pathway. “Not all components align for all people” is true of developmental variation, injury, and medical intervention. It does not create a third gamete, a third reproductive class, or a spectrum of sexes. It describes incomplete, atypical, or medically altered expression within the binary. Your denial of the sexual binary, then, is ideological, not rational, and is therefore a per se departure from "empirical reality." The National Academies language you quote works against you, as it still anchors sex in “biological components… largely related to sexual reproduction.” That is the binary. The hedge about alignment is a recognition of disorders of sex development and of trait mismatch, not a finding that sex is non-binary. A person with CAIS is not a third sex; they are an XY individual whose body cannot use androgens. The classification remains male in the reproductive sense even when the phenotype is atypical. So when I say rejection of the sexual binary is a departure from "empirical reality," I mean this: the binary is not a rough average we can set aside when it is socially inconvenient or ideologically mandated. It is the reproductive architecture of the species. Models can be refined. They do not get to deny the existence of the two gamete classes that define the system. If the claim is only that some traits vary and some people need careful clinical description, we agree. If the claim is that sex itself is therefore not binary, that is the step I cannot take. Usefulness and truth are not opposites here. The binary is both. And because I think it is clear that we disagree, I find your denial/rejection of the sexual binary to be a per se departure from "empirical reality." Right. I acknowledge that. I also note, however, that "assigned at birth" has sometimes been misappropriated by some ideologues to characterize biological sex as something chosen, not observed, and is therefore subjective and/or arbitrary. When these idealogues do this, they use “assigned at birth” to recast sex as a label someone applied, not a trait someone observed. A midwife recording “male” or “female” is almost always naming the reproductive class already present. The "assigned at birth" is used to suggest that the midwife's act - an administrative/clerical annotation - is the origin of sex, such that a later "gender identity" incongruent with biological sex can be framed as the real fact and the natal record as merely a guess that can be corrected. In other words the phrase The work the wording does: move sex from biology to paperwork, then treat disagreement with the new paperwork as denying the person rather than disputing a classification. Such misappropriated usage is, in my view, a departure from "empirical reality." I don’t think it is my job to gate-keep the definition of words and to agree or disagree with definitions. But it is your job to endorse a position that necessarily involves a radical redefinition? If so, you are being selective in what you will and will not do in terms of lexical usage. That selectivity is arbitrary and ad hoc and borne of ideological obligation, and is a departure from "empirical reality." You have affirmed, many many times, that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one. You have repeatedly used and ratified a radical, ad hoc, ideologically-driven redefinition of "woman," which I think constitutes a departure of "empirical reality,." I quite disagree. I think redefinition and equivocation are two of the most potent and frequently-used tools in the "trans advocacy" toolbox. "Assigned at birth." "Sex is a spectrum." "Sex is a social construct." "A woman is anyone who 'identifies' as one." "Trans women are women." And so on. These are factually and linguistically incoherent claims, but anyone who disagrees with them at all is denounced as a "bigot." AFAICS, you have endorsed these terms in ways that are necessarily redefinitional, ad hoc, ideological, equivocating, and obfuscatory, and I find such usage to be a departure from "empirical reality." And that sure is a strange phenomenon. Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, call himself a perpetual six-year-old girl? Can a 5'9" white guy "identify" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman? Can Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a dragon? Can Naia Ōkami "identify" as a wolf? The answer to all of these questions is "Subjectively and in their own worldview, yes; otherwise, no. To suggest otherwise would be to depart from 'empirical reality.'" Meanwhile, Is Mr. Wolscht actually a perpetual six-year-old girl? No. Is the 5'9" white guy who "identifies" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman actually a six-foot-tall Chinese woman? No. Is Eva Tiamat Medusa actually a dragon? No. Is Naia Okami actually a wolf? No. Does society in general go along with the incongruent-with-reality "identities" of these people? No. Nevertheless, there are substantial numbers of people in society who somehow manage to affirm and ratify that notion that although a person cannot become something they are not despite "identifying" as it (a dragon, a wolf, etc.), a man can "become" a sex he is not - a "woman" - by "identifying" as one. I have yet to see a coherent explanation for why claims to an "identity" of a dragon or a wolf are not treated as congruent with reality, but claims by a man to an "identity" of a woman is treated as congruent with reality. At this point, the standard rejoinders I see are "Gender/sex and species/age are different" (never explained, just asserted), or equivocation ("gender identity" is separate from "sex," while elsewhere conflating them (such that "woman" can refer to sex or "gender identity" or both)) or "Bigot!" Wolscht and Medusa and Okami are all claiming "identities" which are incongruent with reality and biological fact. You have repeatedly endorsed claims that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, which is also incongruent with reality and biological fact. You attempt to overcome or mitigate that incongruency by resorting to ideological and ad hoc equivocatons and redefinitions. I find that to be a departure from "empirical reality." I find the foregoing to be incompatible with your numerous ratifications elsewhere that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one. I think that claim requires its adherents to treat biological sex as "unreal" and "different that what it really is" (that is, malleable, subjective, changeable, on a spectrum and not a binary, etc.). I find that treatment to be unreasoned and factually inaccurate and arbitrary and ad hoc, and therefore a departure from "empirical reality." Okay. Uncle Teddy from Arsenic & Old Lace was not born to Martha Stewart Bulloch Theodore Roosevelt Sr. on October 27, 1858. Uncle Teddy is not really Teddy Roosevelt, and nobody in society believes that he is. Family members and others humor his delusion, but that's about it. But somehow, some segments of our society have found it workable in their minds to go along with an incongruent-with-reality claim that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one. No other "identity" claim (wolf, dragon, whatever) is treated as it is legitimate and real, but this "gender identity" thing is. I find that notion to be incompatible with "empirical reality." I'm not in a position to endorse anything on this. I’m a finance expert, not a doctor. And Ketanji Brown-Jackson could not define "woman" because she's not a doctor either. In truth, she dodged the question because she did not want to answer it. Evasion and equivocation are, sadly, hallmarks of those who want to defend, or not run afoul of, trans ideology. The ideas being presented here, such as there being a "gender identity" component to "female" (such that a male who "identifies" as a woman is female) is ideological and ad hoc and incompatible with "empirical reality." Just because you think something is incoherent doesn't mean it really is. A dictionary definition which folds "male" into the definition of "female" is facially incoherent and a departure from "empirical reality." I quite agree. People with DSDs exist. But we all know that all the talk about "trans" stuff is not about people with DSDs, but rather about people who are unequivocally male but "identify" as a woman, or vice versa. I can accept most of the first half of this paragraph. Chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitals, and secondary traits do not line up the same way in every body. Some of those traits vary in degree. A few people sit far from the typical male or female cluster. That is real, and it is why medicine needs more than a cartoon. The mistake is treating that variation as if it were the definition of sex. “Spectrum” and “bimodal” describe how traits are distributed. Sex names which reproductive class an organism is organized toward: small gametes (male) or large gametes (female). There is no third gamete and no sliding scale between sperm and ova. The two clusters exist because there are two developmental programs. Variation around the clusters does not turn the programs into a continuum or "spectrum" of sexes. A tall woman is not “more male.” A man with low testosterone is not “partly female.” A person with a DSD is not a third sex; they have a developmental difference within one of the two pathways, or a mix of traits that still does not create a new reproductive class. “Not every feature is perfectly binary” is true. “Therefore sex is not binary” does not follow. So I can use the trait language when we are talking about labs, anatomy, or medical care. I will not use it to retire male and female as the only two sexes. The insightful part is that bodies vary. The overreach and departure from "empirical reality" is concluding that the categories themselves are only a rough sketch. Latter-day Saint beliefs are, in the main, not empirically testable. I am quite willing to believe in things that are real, part of "reality," but not empirically so. I cannot prove that my wife loves me, but I believe that love to be as real as anything in my life can be. I can take the thought experiment in good faith, though it takes some real work. In the most de minimis sense, could the First Presidency receive a revelation that George Patton really had experienced 8 prior incarnations prior to his Patton one (e.g., a soldier with Alexander the Great, a soldier fighting Parthians for Rome, a viking, etc.)? "In principle, this could happen, right?" I suppose so, (AoF 1:9 - “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”), but I find it so implausible and farfetched that I have difficulty taking it seriously. So it is with your theoretical. Nevertheless, let's give it a go. I do not doubt that a faithful member can suffer that distress, or that a prophet can receive revelation about a person’s soul (though frankly, I doubt there has ever been a situation remotely like the theoretical one you describe). But I still think the hypothetical smuggles in a conclusion the Church has not taught. The Family Proclamation says gender is an essential characteristic of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity. The Church has since said that in that sentence gender means biological sex at birth. Counseling materials add that our bodies are patterned after the likeness of our spirits. That is the opposite of “the spirit is one sex and the body is the other, and we just failed to notice.” Feelings of incongruence are acknowledged, but they are not treated as evidence that the spirit is female in a male body. The Church takes no official position on the cause of those feelings. It does take a position on what sex is for ordinances, classes, and covenants: the body. So “in principle, a prophet could reveal a female spirit in a male body” is not a small step from present doctrine. It would be a new claim that spirit-sex and body-sex can come apart in an otherwise typical male. Genetic defects and DSDs are real. They are not the same thing as an intact male body plus an inner conviction. Treating every case of dysphoria as a “defective body hiding a female spirit” is the theory being tested, not a premise we already share. Even if I grant the scene—Elder Uchtdorf, a blessing, a statement that this person’s spirit is female—I would still separate three questions: Did God speak comfort to that person? I am not the judge of their prayer. Is that person a woman in the sense the word has in biology, marriage, and the mortal church? No. The body is male. Priesthood, temple, bathrooms, sports, and “daughter of God” in the embodied sense follow the body. Current handbook practice already does. How should I treat them? With the same duty I owe anyone in pain: kindness, no mockery, no demand that they perform a political script. Kindness is not the same as agreeing that they are a woman. If a future prophet actually received and published such a revelation, members would have to weigh it the way we weigh any claimed addition to the order of the Church: with the First Presidency and Twelve, in harmony with what is already revealed, not as a private interview that rewrites the categories for everyone else. I would not pretend a press release from a message board is that process. So my answer to your last two questions is: I would not deny their inner life or their standing before God. I would still say they are a man, and I would still insist that the sex-based parts of church and civic life follow the body. The hypothetical asks me to treat a revelation about a spirit as if it changed the sex of the body. That is the step I cannot take on the doctrine we actually have. Thanks, -Smac

I’ve seen the same idea shared on the LDS Daily facebook page but couldn’t find anything official to back it up. Im all for changing chapels to make them feel more worshipful and with the ordinance of the sacrament being the focus rather than the speaker. I’m doubtful of this announcement mostly because it seems like it would take decades to get all the chapels done and some areas would get the shaft, endlessly waiting, while others (Utah) would get it quicker. My stake center right now is typical of those built in that era. The chapel has no windows, is different shades of brown and orange, and has burlap-type stuff on the walls. It’s utilitarian and not at all inspirational. I can’t even see the sacrament table from our side of the chapel.

I am well aware, do not worry for I will show mercy to those who are... friendly and compliant.

The gathering of Zion in the Mormon or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is nowhere near the likeness of the Zionists of the current leadership of Israel. Just so you know. The current Israel administration feels very evil, but the LDS/Mormon church is the opposite in my humble opinion. Just wanted to get that out, because in discussing things, Zion will come up assuredly. Just needing to verify because I know that Jews under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu are horrified at the evil he's created for the whole world.

Listening to this YouTube and it's not coming from the church but this guy, hopefully he's more pro LDS than not, and I will be okay with sharing. I just wondered about your thoughts if what he says is true. I think it would be nice to make our chapels really nice, somewhat like temples. But of course, the beautiful temples make one want to go inside them. So maybe a good step? Would nicer churches help people attend, plus the physical focus on Christ. Of course in the hallways and the foyers and RS/PH/Primary rooms have pictures of Christ. I haven't finished the video and am impatient to post. Hope I haven't misled anyone because of misinformation.

"And you apparently do as well." I had a feeling you'd say that. But I expected a bit more... I write this in complete seriousness. You are either with me or with Zion! And I will NOT spare anyone even your 4 year olds if they defy me and allign themselves with Zion instead. And if I have to use my very hands to grab them by the throat and smash their head in until I can paint the wall red then so be it. They show no mercy with me so my mercy with you is a quick and swift warriors death. End of story.

Hi @smac97, After I posted this, I realized it wouldn’t be clear what I was referring to, so I decided to flesh out my point. On a personal level, it irritates me that you went to a source with an obvious political bias on this topic (Grok), asked it to create a straw man version of “trans ideology”, and then use this to bait the people you are talking to and then criticizing them for not embracing the straw man. For my part, I asked ChatGPT to critique what Grok said on this matter, and replace its straw man with a steel man. Here is what GPT says: First, I would not call these the “fundamental tenets of trans ideology.” There is no catechism, governing body, or agreed philosophical system called trans ideology. More importantly, allyship is primarily a position about how transgender people should be treated, not a requirement that one accept a particular metaphysics of sex. If I were trying to steelman the minimum position, I would reduce it to something like this: A minimal trans-ally position Transgender people are describing a real human experience. Some people experience a persistent gender identity that does not correspond to the sex category in which they were born and raised. One need not settle whether this identity is innate, developmental, neurological, psychological, social, or some combination in order to take their experience seriously. Transgender people deserve the same dignity, liberty, and legal protection as everyone else. They should not be harassed, assaulted, fired, denied housing, or otherwise mistreated simply because they are transgender. In ordinary social interactions, people should generally accommodate another person's gender identity. If someone lives and presents socially as a woman, there is usually no reason not to call her a woman, use the name she asks to be called, and use female pronouns. That is ordinary interpersonal courtesy. It does not require believing that chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, or biological history have somehow changed. Sex and gender identity are distinguishable concepts. Biological sex is real. Gender identity and gender expression are also real phenomena. Which one matters depends upon what we are talking about. At a cocktail party, gender identity may be overwhelmingly relevant and chromosomes completely irrelevant. In some medical contexts, biological sex may be critically important. Public-policy questions should be decided individually rather than by slogans. Bathrooms, competitive sports, prisons, shelters, medical records, identification documents, and treatment of minors do not necessarily present the same problem. Being a trans ally does not require believing that gender identity must prevail over sex in every conceivable context. It requires taking the interests of transgender people seriously along with whatever competing interests actually exist. Medical questions are empirical questions. It is entirely consistent with trans allyship to ask about benefits, risks, diagnostic uncertainty, desistance, detransition, comorbidities, age, informed consent, and the quality of evidence supporting particular treatments. Compassion does not require knowing the answer before the research is done. That strikes me as a defensible minimum. Someone could go substantially further—believing, for example, that self-identification should control virtually every legal sex classification—without that stronger proposition becoming a prerequisite for treating transgender people decently. And this is where I think Grok's earlier answer went badly off the rails. Its 20-item list isn't a steelman of trans allyship. It is a hostile reconstruction of the most maximalist things one can associate with trans activism, sprinkled with assertions about activist motives and behavior, and then presented as though those constitute the movement's “fundamental tenets.” Look at what gets smuggled into the supposed creed. A trans ally allegedly must believe that sex is socially constructed; that chromosomes and reproductive anatomy are crude or bigoted classifications; that disagreement denies people's existence; that withholding medical treatment is “violence”; that lived experience outranks data; that asking questions is harmful; that opponents are motivated by animus; that conflicts with women's or gay rights must be denied; and even that xenogender identities must receive exactly the same conceptual treatment as classical transsexualism. Those aren't minimum propositions necessary for trans allyship. Several aren't propositions about transgender identity at all. They are accusations about how certain activists allegedly argue. That distinction matters. For example, compare: Steelman: “It is generally courteous to socially recognize a trans woman as a woman.” with: Strawman: “A person's subjective identity literally overrides biological sex, and anyone who disagrees is denying that person's existence.” Those are not equivalent claims. Or compare: Steelman: “Sex-associated biological traits do not always align perfectly, and scientists can therefore meaningfully discuss variation in sex characteristics.” with: Strawman: “Sex is a social construct and chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are bigoted ways to classify people.” Again, not remotely the same proposition. And compare: Steelman: “Gender-affirming medical treatment can benefit some patients and should be evaluated using the ordinary standards of evidence-based medicine.” with: Strawman: “Medical transition is lifesaving, withholding it is violence, and clinical caution is cruelty.” A person can believe the first and emphatically reject the second. This is why I think Grok deserved considerably more skepticism than it received here. The giveaway isn't merely that individual statements are debatable. It is the construction of the list itself. Nearly every disputed question is phrased in the version least charitable to the trans side. Moderate propositions are replaced with absolutist ones; empirical controversies become alleged articles of faith; and the worst rhetoric one can find among activists is treated as constitutive of the entire worldview. If I asked an AI for “the fundamental tenets of conservative Christianity” and it returned twenty propositions about controlling women, suppressing gay people, rejecting science, imposing religion through government, and treating dissenters as sinners, nobody would mistake that for neutral analysis merely because examples could be found of Christians saying each of those things. The same standard should apply here. One can disagree profoundly with particular trans activists, reject self-ID as a universal legal rule, believe biological sex remains important, demand better evidence for pediatric medicine, and recognize genuine conflicts involving sports or privacy—and still hold the rather modest proposition at the center of trans allyship: Transgender people are real people describing a real experience, and in both our personal interactions and our laws we should try to treat them with dignity, courtesy, and fairness while dealing honestly with biological reality and legitimate competing interests. That is a considerably stronger steelman than Grok's partisan caricature—and, I think, a much more useful starting point for an actual discussion.

I agree! She's one in a million or trillion!

I see where you're going, but it's making me dizzy Stephen. I do believe this will get shut down so I wanted to let you know I feel your frustration with how the world is going. Hoping for a miracle that God will allow us to work this out before the world comes to an end. And it's not God ending it, it's ourselves.

Asking Grok to summarize “the fundamental tenets of trans ideology” is like asking Walter Martin to summarize the fundamental tenets of Mormonism. That comparison isn’t perfect, though, because I don’t think there even is a uniform list of trans ideological doctrines that you must subscribe to in order to be considered an ally. When I have used the word “woman” that way, I was using it as a gender category rather than as a synonym for adult human biological female. If somebody has a female gender identity and female gender expression, the polite thing to do is socially categorize them as a woman. In my view, when you do this you are fervently refusing to understand their words, their conceptual framework, and the nuances of their point. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” are well-defined terms that represent real-world things, too. On my mission, on a few occasions people I was talking to were adamant that I wasn’t an “elder”. In their view, calling a 19-year old kid an “elder” was a radical “departure from empirical reality,” and they were willing to die on that hill. I disagree with you on this one. George Box said all models are wrong, but some are useful. The sexual binary is a model. In many contexts it is an extremely useful one, but when dealing with the biology of real-world people, it is less universally useful than many people imagine, and certainly isn’t the ultimate truth of what it means to be a human being. Empirical reality is that sex is "the biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people." "Sex assigned at birth" means “sex recorded at birth.” It is in fact a term used by doctors in medical records when dealing with these issues, and was well-defined by the Academies. I don’t think it is my job to gate-keep the definition of words and to agree or disagree with definitions. I generally use the definitions the Academy provided, and try to understand what people are trying to communicate with the words they use. My sense is that much of trans advocacy is built less on redefining biological sex than on the idea that how we relate to other people matters. In ordinary social contexts, the polite and humane thing to do is generally to treat people in a way that aligns with their gender identity and presentation. That does not require pretending biological sex is unreal or different than what it really is. It means recognizing that social categories used in social situations don’t necessarily need to line up with the underlying biology you’d talk about with your doctor in medical situations. I'm not in a position to endorse anything on this. I’m a finance expert, not a doctor. I will note that the purpose of this glossary is to understand medical records, not describe the polite way to engage with others in all social interactions. Just because you think something is incoherent doesn't mean it really is. I’d give the benefit of the doubt to doctors and assume they speak coherently about medical and biological issues. If you think they are using the language incoherently, maybe you are the one with an ideology that is a little off. “Not all components align” is biological reality when we’re talking about real-world human beings. When scientists say “sex is a spectrum,” they do not mean that male and female are meaningless categories. They mean that the biological traits associated with sex: chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genital anatomy, secondary sex characteristics, and gene expression, do not always line up perfectly and often vary continuously in degree. From this coherent, reality-based point of view, sex is bimodal rather than perfectly binary in every biological feature: most people cluster strongly around typical male or female patterns, while some fall between or outside those typical combinations. This can be an insightful way of understanding human biology. As a thought experiment, imagine in a few years Elder Uchtdorf as prophet. Imagine at the same time a faithful member of the Church who deeply, deeply, feels their spirit is a woman and that somehow, their body looks, biologically, like a male. This person isn’t an activist or public agitator. Just a committed Latter-day Saint who feels like a woman trapped in a males body. They finds themself talking to the first presidency about it, and after a blessing and a prayer they receive a revelation: this person’s spirit really is a female spirt. In principle, this could happen, right? Mormons believe in spirits, and that spirits really do have genders. And they also believe genetic defects generally don’t reflect the essence of the body’s spirit. So what if the prophet had a revelation that a specific biological man had a female spirit? Would you object to this person claiming that on the inside, they really are a woman? Would you insist they be treated like a man, despite the prophet’s revelation that their spirit is female?

And you apparently do as well.

Refugees welcome, here are first supply of 72 virgins for muslim martyr

Only for the strong ones among you: https://www.salon.com/2008/04/15/angela_merkel/

Or Merkel condemning all of ze Germans because of a supposed Hetzjagd against refugees. Her proof was a video from Antifa that didn't show that the beginning where the man was attacked by the refugees LOLOLOL then the president of the Verfassungsschutz Hans Georg Massen interviened and was FIRED for doing his job LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I wish Liveleak was still a thing so I could show you the video of the russian assassin in some german town armed with a Katana butchering some child molestor and then the germans, their mothers with the Kinderwagen they didn't run away they got closer out of curiosity and wanted to chat with this russian Rambo who still has a bloody Katana in his hands and is wondering WTF is wrong with ze Germans like have they no fear?????? Just stupid sheep beyond all... gullible!