All Activity

I’ve spent enough time with people telling me, as a latter-day saint, what I actually believe that it’s a red flag to me when a Latter Day Saint does it to someone else. We have to be really careful not to create a double standard in these kinds of conversations, where it’s ok if we do something to someone else that we would never tolerate them doing to us. There are obviously some independent denominations out there that do believe they are the only right ones. There have certainly been times in the past (and in places even now) when persecution between denominations was intense. Some of that had more to do with cultural heritage rather than doctrinal disputes. It’s messy But most (I was very careful in my work choice there) do not view church and Christianity through that lens. A Presbyterian may think that a Methodist is wrong in some of their beliefs, but, generally speaking, they don’t have a problem considering them to be Christian. I’m curious why it’s so important to you that they do? It’s seems like a weird hill to die on.

From its founding in 1861 until February of 2026, Kansas had exactly the laissez faire policy that I propose. I've looked for evidence that it wasn't working. I came up empty. I asked you to provide evidence that it wasn't working. You couldn't provide anything, either. Here is my reasoning, with candor. My "policy preference would not result in the obliteration of sex-segregated bathrooms" because my policy preferences worked perfectly fine from 1861 until 2026. With candor, why do you think sex-segregated bathrooms survived in Kansas until February of 2026 without laws that said who can and cannot use various restrooms?

Same on the women’s garment issue. My choices are either triple extra small or triple extra large. I don’t live in Utah so going to an actual distribution center there isn’t an option (though for some reason it does seem like they have them available since I see many many people online getting them) and the distribution center closest to me hasn’t had any either for a while. It’s very frustrating. .

Does a TBM wear them while swimming, bathing, contact sports, or intense physical exercise? No. Yet, when asked, "Do you wear them?", in an interview, answering "Yes" is an honest assessment of following a rule within its reasonable bounds. The church leaves decisions about when to remove it to individual conscience, prayer, and common sense rather than cultural trends, nor having leaders act as daily wardrobe auditors.

Lol he has not devoted his entire career to serving God and his people. Do you even look these people up before making assumptions about them? He is still "working" as the CEO of Whiting right now while serving as a Seventy. His entire career was not devoted to the church. Although he did serve as a mission president two times while he was CEO of whiting, does anyone really believe he would be taking any kind of cut in compensation from a mormon owned firm when he can have a conference call once a week just to stay abreast of things? While he is the CEO of said corp? The board of directors would have to approve his absence and Im betting he didnt realize one cent of a cut in pay for being absent. if it was exxon mobil sure...whiting...heck no. This guy just so happens to have a career in a mormon owned company that allows him to be paid and hang out in church meetings all week (like that is a good time, but it takes a special kind of Masochist to tolerate that garbage and actually say yes to more of it). The Modest stipend likely doesnt even cover their vacations. Even if he didnt have a job at all... he def wouldnt need the money. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/steven-d-shumway?lang=eng "Elder Shumway received a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from Brigham Young University in 1996. He worked for Exxon Chemical Company in Houston Texas from 1996 to 1998. Since 1998 he has been president and CEO of Whiting Brothers Investment Companies." https://www.whitingbrothersinvestments.com/current-leadership "Steven D. Shumway is president and CEO of Whiting Brothers investment Co. and a managing partner of its affiliated companies. Steven received a bachelors degree in chemical engineering from Brigham Young University and began his professional career working for Exxon Chemical Company at an olefins plant in Houston Texas. Steven and his wife Heidi returned to Arizona to work with Whiting Brothers in 1998. They are active in their community and church. Steven's best hours are spent with his wife and four children working together and enjoying outdoor activities in the beautiful White Mountains of Arizona. " This guy definitely needs a "Modest stipend."

That or keep one's covenants. Yes, lying is bad.

Do like a lot of TBM women here in Gilbert AZ and likely Utah do... Wear workout clothes all day and be comfortable....and keep your recommend. Its what all the cool kids do. Of course that would involve working out on a rare occasion and staying in the workout getup for the rest of the day. We would not want to lie to our Bishop about wearing the temple garment day and night throughout your life.

It doesn't begin with a false supposition at all. What you accept or reject is irrelevant when looking at the problems inherent with your doctrine. God not having a material mind has nothing at all to do with the fact that, if he created all things, those things would still be products of God. You can use the term "mind", "thoughts", "ideas", "plan", etc. here interchangeably as they'd all functionally mean the same thing. If I decide to build a house, what do I need to do first? Make a plan for it, yes? Are you claiming that God created all things without any kind of planning or forethought? That it was all just instinct/reflex/randomness? What does us not being able to make matter with a word have to do with this? Why would thoughts and word not having physical properties (words kinda do, the sound used to vocalize them as well as the material to visualize them i.e. ink) matter? Presuppositions can only be granted if they have a basis. Mere "rejection" isn't a basis and doesn't make the idea immune to deconstruction. Why would I need to grant any presuppositions at all? I don't grant Reformed churches their presuppositions that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and the ultimate authority on doctrine because it is based on bad logic, so why should I do any different for you?

I feel for you. Having recently realized I'm an autistic person, I hate tight fitting clothing (touch sensitivity), yet I do like many layers of cloths (pressure seeking). I don't suppose you are open to tailoring it?

Clearly not given that we are treated under the same laws as other persecuted groups. Seems like I do know what I'm talking about here as you can't seem to elaborate on why I don't. Yes, it has zero to do with Ukraine. This arrest was made based on laws passed in 2016. Yes Russia is engaging in the same basic behavior as other European nations, they're just going about it differently. At this point, you might as well be engaging in Holocaust denial.

I would not-so-quietly state that it does represent the truth. Again, you're acting as if actions mean nothing. Were that not the case, there would've been no pogroms against "heretics" or "infidels". Were that not the case, there would either be no individual denominations at all, or they would be far, far fewer in number. Why do you think the various schisms happened? Why do you think the Reformation happened (also an interesting question to ask Reformed believers when discussing the topic of the Great Apostasy). Varying interpretation has little to do with the concept of "the one true church". I don't recall anyone claiming that no such thing existed in the LDS church or any other. Whether it's "quite a bit more complicated" or not doesn't seem to detract from the fact that he was lured in under false pretenses and subsequently murdered as an official act for being a dissenter. An apology hundreds of years afterwards doesn't negate that fact. Do note that I'm not attempting to hold any modern people accountable, but the act itself can't be ignored when discussing history. The documents at Cambridge only summarize themselves. Whether they give a full, accurate accounting of his beliefs remains to be seen. Even then, what would that matter? The fact that any were destroyed at all as an act sanctioned by the Catholic church is the problem.

A claim doesn't have to be made. All you have to do is look at how they behave. You aren't open about your history precisely because you spent hundreds of years torturing and murdering dissenters and anyone deemed infidel while burning their material. Material that is objectively part of your history. Hilarious that you ask that and then the very next line you respond to is you stating how you think it's a shame. Where is presentism an issue here, precisely? How does invoking presentism make a difference? I'm going to assume you're referring to my commentary on how using presentism when discussing the marriage of "underage" women, so imagine being so desperate for a point that you have to conflate a long-standing practice across the entire planet built out of a need for the survival of the species to a statist "church" making laws in order to justify killing their political rivals. At this point, you might as well be doing the "Everything Hitler did was legal" meme unironically. Also, what about the Danites? Are you going to try to claim that they were officially supported by the LDS church? Can you show evidence that any of their activities were officially sanctioned by the LDS church, particularly the more infamous ones like Mountain Meadows? Even if they were, you'd still have to hand-wave away the orders of magnitude of difference between them and the historical Catholic church. Meanwhile, your church quite literally has it's own official army and has co-opted those of entire nations more than once. Trying to act like they're anywhere near the same is peak disingenuousness.

Another distinction without a difference. They can't all be "true" and yet all be different.

They most certainly do believe such, regardless of whether they say it out loud or not. If they did not believe such, there would be no separate denominations. There would be no such thing as "heresy", for none would believe themselves to have the authority to declare anything as such.

Still can’t get garments unless I want 3XL. Husband finally was able to order his regular shirts - came yesterday but the sleeves hang extra low beyond regular tshirt length!!! What in the world! Frankly I’m tired of this.

Still can’t get garments unless I want 3XL. Husband finally was able to order his regular shirts - came yesterday but the sleeves hang extra low beyond regular tshirt length!!! What in the world! Frankly I’m tired of this.

Why would that matter when that isn't the topic? The Catholic church officially denies continued public revelation prior to the Second Coming of Christ according to the Second Vatican Council. Despite this declaration, they've treated many things as such. See the Fatima visions, see the determination of canon, etc.

Canon =/= dogma.

You agreeing isn't really required. As for understanding, it seems like you're the one with comprehension issues. The Nicaean conception of the Trinity does not teach that Jesus is merely "the perfect image of the Father". No such language is found in either the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; So you either believe in multiple Gods, or "God" is more along the lines of LDS belief as a station, office, etc. See the concept of kingship monotheism. If there are scriptures where God explicitly states that he is not a man, you should be able to provide them. Telling me to look them up is you running away from trying to back up your assertions. Even then, that claim goes against a foundational doctrine of your belief i.e. the hypostatic union. "Change" does not require a diminishment of divinity, that's just you trying to run away from a contradiction inherent in your theology. Why would the Son being "the perfect image of the Father" matter in this context? The very concept of "God the Son" requires that God change. You believe that "God the Father" does not have a physical body, correct? Ergo, upon assuming said physical body and becoming "God the Son", that is objectively a change. Nevermind the other times God "changed", see when Moses pled with God to not destroy the Hebrews (Exodus 32:11-14). One might also reasonably claim that the lengthening of Hezekiah's life (2 Kings 20) is an instance as well. The concept that "The Son of Man IS created" again contradicts the Nicene Creed, as it does not distinguish between the two. You had to retcon that at Chalcedon in 451, more than a century after Nicaea. He is either created or he isn't and the Creed clearly states "not made". Otherwise, you're essentially claiming to believe in partialism, which is a heresy in your church. The fact remains that all churches descending from Nicaea have to jump through hoops to try to claim to be "monotheistic". You even said it yourself, "the Son is the perfect image of the Father". Last I checked, sons can take after their fathers to varying degrees. Even the very concept of "Father" and "Son" demonstrates separation in being.

How is this prosecutable? With purely reactive and after-the-fact measures. No preventive mechanism at all. There is no limiting principle here. Per @Analytics' preference, anyone can go into any women's bathroom, and do so entirely legally. This includes not just the men who "pass" as women, but also the bad actors. Both law enforcement and any persons in the bathroom have no recourse to prevent misconduct, but can instead only react after it has happened. In contrast, a sex-segregated bathroom policy does have preventive measures, and effective ones (not totally effective, but no measure is). If there is a limiting principle whereby some men can legally enter into women's bathrooms and others cannot, I would like to see it. We've had a lot of pages of discussion, with nothing so far. Reactively. Wait until after women and girls are victimized by an opportunistic bad actor who but for Analytics' policy would have broken the law the minute he entered into the bathroom, and could therefore have been summarily and immediately excluded from it on that basis. We can trust a law that has prophylactic effect, such as categorically excluding men from women's bathrooms. Again, if there is a limiting principle whereby some men can legally enter into women's bathrooms and others cannot, I would like to see it. Thanks, -Smac

Let's look at a recent, real-world example. Three months ago, Kris Ripper was pulled over in Johnson County Kansas for not turning on her headlights when it started to rain. The officer told her her drivers license was invalid because it contained false information: the officer explained that Kris was observably, obviously a woman, but that her DL said she was Male. That was false information, making the drivers license invalid and making her guilty of driving without a valid license. She explained to the officer the private information that she would rather keep hidden: despite how she looked to everyone around her, her birth certificate said "Male" on it. One would think this private information is irrelevant to cashing a check, voting, or receiving a traffic citation. But the law requires that she disclose it whenever she needs to present ID. After Kris Ripper explained to the officer the law and what was on her birth certificate and why her license said she was a male, the cop still didn't believe she was a male, and cited her for driving with an invalid license. https://www.kwch.com/2026/07/01/transgender-kansan-speaks-out-after-facing-charge-amid-license-law-confusion/ Thank you! That is exactly my point. That is why the description on your driver license is supposed to describe what you look like. I had my KS license renewed a few weeks ago. They took a new photo as they do every five years, because people's appearance changes over time. They asked me if my weight had changed, because that changes too. Over the long haul, people's height changes and when it does, that information is updated. That's the point: in order to facilitate an officer to confirm the person presenting the license is the same person who was issued it, it should match what the person looks like. The new Kansas law that you say you support goes against this time-honored purpose. Rather than describing the individual with the license, it now reflects something on an old vital record, even if that record is objectively wrong (e.g. Emily Quinn), and even if that results in an inaccurate description of the appearance of the holder (e.g. Kris Reaper). Two points. First, the Kansas law you support does not make any allowances for any exceptions, full stop. That is why I think it is a bad law. I agree that historically our society has made exceptions for this kind of thing, but right-wing Christians want a black-and-white world without exceptions, thus are radically changing the laws to take away the ability of exceptions of any kind to be handled as exceptions. Second, I don't understand your position. Emily Quinn, is objectively a biological male. You are now telling me that in some situations such as "his", we can perhaps put objectively false information on a driver license? Are you also going to tell me that we should sometimes let objectively biological males such as Emily Quinn use the female restroom? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of having sex-distinct restrooms? You've been emphasizing forever that sex is strictly binary, and that an extremely clear and sharp line must be drawn right there, no exceptions. But now you are agreeing with the liberals that there are exceptions? If this were the Church, the First Presidency would reserve the authority to make exceptions. But in the real world, who would you grant with the authority to allow males to have female driver licenses and go into female spaces? And if you are willing to allow Emily Quinn, who is objectively a male, to use the female restroom, would you be willing to consider allowing Marquise Vilsón (below) to use the men's room, or do you think "she" must be required to use the female restroom because "she" is objectively a woman? You seem to be conceding that for purposes of choosing restrooms or identifying yourself on a driver license there are exceptions to the correlation between those things and the male/female biological binary. If you really are conceding that there are exceptions, where and how do you draw the line? p.s. In today's news, I presume that you're happy that Kansas has a "Compliance Crew" to make sure that men don't go into women's restrooms: https://kansaspublicradio.org/statehouse-news/2026-08-20/transgender-men-in-kansas-compliance-crew-use-womens-bathrooms-to-protest-state-law

Correct, bishops do not get a dime. It can be hard to follow for non-members, but we are talking about full-time General Authorities who have to quit their jobs to serve. And to keep them from going bankrupt, they get a living allowance to pay for food, travel and lodging... and taxes... and his immediate family... and insurance... a car and sometimes a driver, and maybe certain Church-related expenses, etc. depending on the particular General Authority and circumstances. $170k sounds like a lot, but perhaps most of it disappears into ordinary expenses of Eyring.

My thoughts are that there are plenty of blindspots to go around. As an Evangelical I am not unprepared; nor do I ignore our differences. I choose rather to engage in hotcakes with bacon well done. They bring more people together than all the apologetics in the world. As an Evangelical I don't deny the LDS the fullness of their relationship with Christ. I might simply suggest that in denying the fullness of my participation in the Holy Spirit you have the blind spot which is generated by your apologista and doctrine. You may not even get to know me prior to assuring me that I cannot possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non- LDS Christian. As some LDS have told me "It's nothing personal!" Ha, talk about a blind spot! Best wishes to you anyway!

I’m curious why this is different than other difficult to prove cases like stalking, harassment, and many cases of rape including marital rape. Cases where there exists a great deal of plausible deniability?

“The local congregational leader for Latter-day Saints is the bishop (or branch president, for smaller congregations). A bishop holds the priesthood and is ordained to the office of bishop by a more senior Church leader. He earns his own living and receives no pay of any kind for his service in the Church” (Church Newsroom, Lay Priesthood).