All Activity

More details, this time from the New York Times: Men Accused in Cornell Sex Assault Suit Give Varying Accounts of Night Some excerpts: I am curious as to whether @SeekingUnderstanding will express similarly acute outrage at Jane Doe, as she is now alleged to have committed sexual misconduct against one of the young men. If the allegation alone is sufficient... "Appearing intoxicated" seems like a very subjective thing. Some inebriated persons exhibit typical traits (slurred speech, lack of balance, etc.), but some people can look and act in ways giving no real indication of being drunk. "{L}et the process work." A good idea, that. Otherwise, Jane Doe is, by some folks' reckoning, to be condemned because someone has alleged that she engaged in sexual misconduct. Very troubling stuff, this. Yeesh. I am very grateful I grew up in the Church and had specific instruction and constraints given to me (the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom), which I accepted and applied. Three beers and three vodka-and-Hawaiian Punch mixed drinks = "had not drunk that much" The Greek System seems to have a lot to answer for. Here is another potential accusation against Jane Doe of sexual misconduct: "Mr. Lopes said that she initiated their sexual contact and did not ask for his consent." Another allegation against Jane Doe: "Mr. Lee also said that Jane Doe initiated sexual activity without asking." “We were just checking out to see if everything was OK, and it was.” "And if she wasn’t, I’d like to think that I would have helped out and did something about it." I'm curious as to how much credence will be given to these statements. And yet in her civil suit she accuses Kretzschmar of rape (not sure about Norris). What a terrible environment. Thanks, -Smac

I am talking about the typical candy counter American style we grew up with. Not speciality stores. The same companies in Canada use higher quality ingredients, though not as good quality European. The ‘how to’ to produce them is “American”, using a set of recipes that promote more sugar and cheap fat I’ve less more expensive chocolate and cocoa butter and high fat cream. Glad to see more dark chocolate in recent years, btw. For those who haven’t experienced the difference , here’s a site trying to be unbiased between German and American. Problem with saying one isn’t better than the other is the reason why American has less cacao and more other ingredients like sugar and flavorings and cheaper fats and that is it is cheaper than going with the real chocolate. Cheap ingredients do not produce a quality product even if someone’s taste buds get programmed to like chew better. There is something about the flat, tasteless McDonald’s hamburger my heart thinks I crave It’s because I didn’t like school much, each day was an oppression, but there were a few bright spots One was McDonald’s hamburger days. It codes comfort for me now even as it sits unhappy in my stomach. https://www.gourmetboutique.net/blogs/tasting-room/17250043-european-vs-american-chocolate-whats-the-difference Here’s a chat comparison which turns out follows my personal experience (google is making it harder to find less airy, more substance articles…urg). American chocolate candy: American candy chocolate, particularly mainstream milk chocolate, tends to be sweeter and more focused on sugar and milk than on a strong cocoa flavor. Some products also have a softer or waxier texture. Hershey’s is a distinctive example, with a slightly tangy flavor associated with the way its milk ingredients are processed. Canadian chocolate: Canadian chocolate is generally somewhat less sweet and creamier than typical American candy. Chocolate flavor tends to be more noticeable, although Canadian products vary considerably by brand. Some Canadian chocolate is quite similar to American chocolate, while others have a more European-style formulation. German chocolate: German chocolate tends to emphasize cocoa, cocoa butter, and milk flavors rather than sweetness alone. It is often smooth and creamy, with a clean melt and a more pronounced chocolate flavor. Dark chocolate in particular is often less sweet and more cocoa-forward. Comparison: In broad terms, you could think of the three as American = sweeter and more confectionery; Canadian = somewhat less sweet and creamier; German = more cocoa-forward and traditionally chocolate-focused. These are general tendencies, though—individual brands can differ substantially, and premium American chocolate can be very similar to European chocolate.

Wow I'm happy to listen to what you have to say. I can't do much with an unadorned "Wow." Thanks, -Smac

YES. That is exactly what missionaries do. I'm skeptical of that, frankly. We all attempt to persuade people to our point of view. You do that all the time on this board. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. The concern arises when there is secrecy and subversion involved. The missionaries don't do that at all, let alone "exactly." When missionaries go online and start talking to youth who are not members of the church do they 1. Do it with the intent of converting them away from their faith and hoping they will join the LDS church? Yes. But that was not my question: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to 'leave their current church?'" I just don't believe that mission presidents and MTC folks teach such a thing. "Receive" what? Again, the portion of your remarks I found implausible: Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" You: "YES." I just don't believe that. A high school student talking to missionaries isn't quite the same as your affirmation of "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" I just find that very unlikely. Yes. Isn't that a significant point? You are accusing the Church of attempting to subvert parents, but the Church requires parental consent for a minor to be baptized. How is that subversive? And I suspect he was not baptized while a minor. In other words, the Church did not subvert his parents. Yes. And? What does this have to do with your accusation that the Church subverts parents? And parental consent is required for baptism. I did no such thing. And again, you are accusing the Church of subverting parents. I don't think that is happening. I don't think that is happening. I think the Church has required parental consent for minors to be baptized for quite a while. Subverting parents is a bad thing, and that is the accusation I found problematic. Thanks, -Smac

Wow

They are deity, as that is the name the Bible gives them. They are real, they do have power and authority from God to govern the laws and religious affairs of other nations, and in that sense they are deities - of that nation - and only within that nation. They seem to have a tendency to fall from grace and fall from their heavenly position a lot, which shows there is at least someone with more power over them to dislodge them. You might call them angels but the Bible refers to them as gods, but not the one true God, the Father. They are lords too, but not our Lord, Jesus. In Israel there is Yahweh, and there is no other god in Israel governing Israel at his side. It seems simple and straightforward to me and nearly every Near Eastern scholar I know agrees. Doesn't make it true, but it's far from just my bias or uninformed opinion. No, it's merely not doctrine until it is canonized as the truth. Like how Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box to see. It's is not true or false until we actually get certified confirmation from God one way or the other. We can think contrary thoughts all we want. If they truly thought it was the truth, they could always canonize it.

When missionaries go online and start talking to youth who are not members of the church do they 1. Do it with the intent of converting them away from their faith and hoping they will join the LDS church? 2. Do they ask parental permission and receive it before chatting with these youth? My dorm room mate dated in high school a girl (my sisters best friend). She let him know that she could only marry. someone who is a member of the church. So they met with the missionaries at her house. He wasn't told anything about getting parental permission prior to receiving the discussions. After receiving the discussions, he wanted to be baptized, which because he was a minor he was THEN required parental permission. When they found out that he had been meeting with the missionaries, they were livid and forbade him from getting baptized. So he attended BYU which didn't require permission from the parents to attend. When he finally turned 18, against the wishes of his parents, he was baptized. Every member a missionary was a mantra that was drilled into every member when I was growing up. We were encouraged to talk to all of our family and friends to try and get them to have the discussions. NEVER ONCE were we asked if the parents gave permission prior to taking the lessons. You castigated the young man for talking to his siblings about his faith experiences in the church in an effort to persuade them to his point of view. If you can't see the blind spot that you have when you can't recognize similarities, then you have definitely drunk the Koolaid. It's the same exact thing being done. Swaying someone away from their faith to follow your own beliefs without, in many cases, any parental permission. If you want more examples of missionaries trying to persuade youth away from their religious beliefs without parental permission before doing so, I have 2 years of experiences that I can share.

You win I guess

I think the main issue with this is the contradiction. The trademark deal with bad Mormon the church says that phrase will confuse people. Jordan gets in front of a camera and says no one would be confused by “bad Mormon.” maybe the church lied in its filing about what it actually believes and was just trying to shut down a very public figure? Even though no one would be confused. Wouldn’t be the first time church leaders lied and had others carry their water for them… as directed

I wish news agencies actually provided the lawsuit files. They aren't private. Here's the link to the supplement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.75.0_1.pdf I wondered the same thing. But I also wonder if an argument during an actual trademark application is treated differently than a lawsuit for infringement. I do think the most that comes out of this is an order for the church to rewrite its complaint to not request the trademark on the word "mormon" to not be included. But there is still the light rays and the other images.

So exaltation is not being a Deity. Who is God in these verses? Deuteronomy 4:35 — "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him." Deuteronomy 6:4 — "The LORD our God is one LORD." Isaiah 43:10 — "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 44:6 — "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5 — "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me." Isaiah 45:22 — "I am God, and there is none else." So it's a false teaching until it is canonized as the truth?

I was talking about what we have and why the idea doesn't work. My hypothetical of a manuscript in a palmyra house is similar to your hypothetical set of plates that didn't disappear. People would now be able to ignore the supernatural and thus non-member scholars would feel comfortable discussing it. But the current state requires supernatural acceptance which precludes serious study, not because the Book of Mormon is obviously fake but because any study must accept the supernatural.

This is interesting. I watched Jordan’s interview and caught his comment re bad Mormon. I thought it was a dumb thing to say. This can’t help the church’s case i imagine: https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/new-filing-mormon-stories-lawsuit-rhoslc-lds-church/amp/

Well, no. I've provided an assessment of evidence that has been publicly disclosed, and then applied broad principles and rules of evidence. My guesses, such as why the prosecutor may have not brought charges 2 years ago, and why these charges face some evidentiary hurdles, have been quite broad. I can appreciate that, but I'm not a part of it. I'm not here to socialize (as in "to spend time with other people for fun"). I'm here to discuss topics pertinent to the Church. When the topic of "social engagement" is about legal issues, the rules by which such issues are going to be resolved ought to be part of the discussion. This is particularly so when we have participants throwing rhetorical Molotov Cocktails for failing to act like we are in some sort of Struggle Session in which we all must be vitriolic and performative, or else we'll be denounced in terrible ways. I'm providing educations guesses and commentary, that's all. I'd like to do so without digressions into ad hominem and other logical fallacies. I guess we see this board in different ways. For me, it's a discussion board. I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects. I'm not here for "fun." I'm also not here to talk into an Echo Chamber. A few years back I had a good friend in my neighborhood whose FB posts started to pop up whenever I logged on (which was sporadic). At the time I assumed she was "sharing" her posts with me (I don't know how FB's algorithms work in terms of showing me content), so I started to read her posts. As it turns out, she was talking about some topics in which I was interested, so I began to add comments to some of her posts. Later, she started posting items that were political in nature. I responded, again thinking that she was sharing/sending these posts to me. I asked her questions mostly, but I did disagree with some of her more strident comments (I did so respectfully and mildly). After 2-3 such interactions, she sent me a private stating that when she posted "political" stuff on FB, she does so with the expectation that her friends will either agree with her or remain silent, and she asked that I not post further comments responding to her posts. I apologized and stopped. I did not know that this was her expectation, but I respected it. This board is not like that (for me, anyway). The news item here is about a young woman making allegations of rape. My comments here have been to discuss those allegations, which discussion should - in my view - be sober and reasoned. To me, sexual assault of any sort is terrible and evil. That's the starting point, even axiomatic and tautological, so there really ought not be a need for us to participate in some sort of Struggle Session in which we rend our cloths and publicly proclaim outrage about sexual assault. We're not in China during the Cultural Revolution. We're not in North Korea either, with its Saenghwal Chonghwa nonsense. I think it is wrong to publicly accuse another person of horrendous things without cause, as @SeekingUnderstanding has done in this thread over and over. I have said nothing to condone or excuse any form of sexual abuse, but he is publicly accusing me of "defending the rapists" and "defending ... rape culture." This is a small message board, and overwrought libels from @SeekingUnderstanding are nothing new. But I think his vitriol is impeding what ought to be a serious and measures discussion of a difficult topic. Thanks, -Smac

I disagree with this in principle. For example, if we dialed up the strength of the evidence (e.g. the alleged plates weren't taken away by an alleged angel, and the plates objectively looked like an authentic Mayan codex, and the translation of the Mayan characters turned out to be the Book of Mormon), nobody would deny that the BoM is an authentic Mayan codex that was translated correctly. Maybe this would imply it was translated by the gift and power of God, or maybe it would imply that Joseph Smith had some sort of gift that allowed him to translate such things as a savant, or maybe it would imply that somebody who knew Mayan was in on it in the conspiracy. Ultimately, science is based on methodological empiricism. If the empirical evidence points to the gift-and-power-of-God hypothesis, then so be it. The reality is that the evidence across all of science points to naturalism.

YES. I'm skeptical of that, frankly. We all attempt to persuade people to our point of view. You do that all the time on this board. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. The concern arises when there is secrecy and subversion involved. The missionaries don't do that at all, let alone "exactly." YES. Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" You: "YES." I don't believe you. What does that have to do with you as a missionary receiving specific instruction to "subvert" parents of minor children? What does that have to do with you as a missionary receiving specific instruction to "subvert" parents of minor children? It's news to me. And I think it's patently false, or else a gross mischaracterization. Mission presidents and others in positions of authority over Latter-day Saint missionaries told those missionaries to "encourag{e} newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" Yeah, not buying that at all. I have never heard of missionaries receiving instruction to subvert the efforts of parents to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction. Parent permission or notifying parents of non members was never a part of these recruitment type activities. Well, I guess I'll need to ask around as to RMs' experiences of yesteryear. Missionaries in Taiwan ('93 to '95) met with teenagers here and there, but never against the wishes of their parents. And baptism required parental consent. My understanding is that mission leadership guidelines encourage involving parents or families and being transparent about gospel instruction given to underage youth whenever possible. Meanwhile, you are here claiming that missionaries receive instruction to subvert the efforts of parents to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction. I find that claim incredible (as in lacking credibility). I just don't believe it. I think you are playing dumb. The missionary program has always been designed to lead people including they youth away from their current church. Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" You: "YES." I don't believe you. Then you belong to the wrong church because this effort to lead people including youth away from their current churches is still front and centter in the missionary program including using social media with no effort to first ask parents if it is ok that missionaries contact their youth. Utter bilge. The Church does not teach its missionaries to subvert parents. Thanks, -Smac

Since I can't give you an upvote on your post, I am reposting it here. You basically have it correct. Mormons believe that the church that Jesus established was taken from the earth, the heavens were sealed, there were no saving ordinances performed with proper authority. While there were people who identified as Christian, they were in no way members of Christ's church. Mormons are taught that other creeds that teach about Christ were corrupt and an abomination to God. They believe through Joseph Smith, that the true church was reestablished. From Joseph Smiths history You're being gaslighted.

There is a fundamental difference here that precludes understanding. My opinion is that Smac speaks from a position of proving that his point of view will be court passable. The large majority here, in contrast, are here to primarily socialize. The rules of social engagement are vastly different than the rules of court engagement. Smac wins at legal observances. The rest win at being safe friendships and engaging in social ineractions in ways that foster vulnerabilities and intimacy. No one is wrong unless you think you’re even playing the same sport. 🧨

Jana Riess published an article referencing this news release by the church newsroom on the same day as Pew released their survey results. The press release doesn't officially mention Pew in the text, though the filename of the cover picture is "pew statement." https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/measuring-what-matters-people-behind-numbers

That makes sense. Thanks.

Yo, chill out. I was merely pointing out that I did not know when and precisely why Mormons began using "sacrament" exclusively for communion.

YES. That is exactly what missionaries do. YES. We were told to ask new member to give us a referral or invite their family members over for a discussion so they too could become members. The youth were also encouraged to invite their friends to church activities. Sometimes we as missionaries would help set up those activities and attend the events as a way to introduce the gospel to their friends. I don't think this is news to any active member of the church. It wasn't just on my mission that youth were encouraged to bring their friends to church activities, it has always been a part of how the church operates, at least out of the Utah bubble. Are you seriously telling me you have never heard of this kind of behavior????? The exact same thing of trying to lead people including youth away from their current church and get them baptized into the LDS church. Parent permission or notifying parents of non members was never a part of these recruitment type activities. I think you are playing dumb. The missionary program has always been designed to lead people including they youth away from their current church. Then you belong to the wrong church because this effort to lead people including youth away from their current churches is still front and centter in the missionary program including using social media with no effort to first ask parents if it is ok that missionaries contact their youth.

English isn't arguing with me. You are. This isn't Army of Darkness with the final word of the incantation "Klaatu Barad Nikto" being pronounced incorrectly and then all hell breaks out.

Belgium has a good reputation for chocolate.

Since you are bringing it up, you are saying you have worked with rape victims as an attorney. Yes. I also had several experiences in working with victims of sexual abuse while serving as my ward's bishop. No. The victim of a crime is typically not "represented" in criminal proceedings. None of the instances of which I speak involved the victim filing a civil suit, so I did not represent them in that capacity either. I did "represent" one victim in relation to criminal proceedings, but only in communications with the prosecutor (who declined to press charges, despite substantial forensic and circumstantial evidence). I have a friend who had been publicly accused (on social media) of rape. However, both he and the accuser did not live in Utah, so I could not represent him. I did, however, help him in his preparation and efforts to find an attorney in his state, and I also worked with him on assessing the remedy (the accuser withdrew her accusation and agreed to not publicly accuse him again). The allegations are playing out in a legal arena, so it makes sense to assess them in a legal lens. For example, you seem to be presupposing the guilt of the individuals, even after discussion of evidence that seems to militate toward exculpating those individuals. You are also using highly charged and inflammatory language, even to the point where you publicly and repeatedly accuse me of "defending the rapists" and "defending ... rape culture." And you said these things despite my unequivocal condemnation of sexual abuse of any kind. This sort of vitriolic rhetoric does not advance the discussion, and even diminishes the seriousness with which this topic should be treated. I agree. I have been discussing the evidence publicized to date. I think it creates plenty of room for reasonable doubt as to the rape allegations. And not just reasonable doubt, but substantial doubt. I'm not even sure Jane Doe could get a civil claim - which is based on the "preponderance of evidence" standards - across the finish line. Her own statements have, I think, damaged her credibility. You seem to presuppose that she was raped. And your presupposition appears to be based entirely on two things: the accuser is a woman, and the accuser has said she was raped. Again, if Jane Doe had publicly - and falsely - accused you of sexual assault, I think you would object to the sort of rush to judgment against you as you have demonstrated to the young men described in the news items. Yes, if only we could talk about the rape of our daughters, sisters, wives, friends and family with dispassion. That's the ideal we should all strive for. More histrionics. I am in favor of "reasoned and circumspect discussion" about "serious" topics. I am surprised you respond to this with snide sarcasm. I have done nothing of the sort. Here is what I have said: "A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law." "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general." "To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity." "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something." "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling." "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}." Your hostility is overriding your capacity to have a reasoned discussion, and to accurately characterize others' statements. I hope you can set that aside. Again: The text messages are revolting, but must they be read as an announcement of sexual assault? Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure. They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity. However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised? Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?" I have done nothing of the sort. Again: Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society today. That's not to say "rape culture" has never existed. The antebellum South had rape culture relative to black women. South Africa faces a severe, institutionalized crisis of sexual violence and pervasive rape culture, characterized by deeply rooted patriarchal norms, extreme gender-based violence, and systemic failures in justice and policing. Botswana, Lesotho, and Eswatini repeatedly sit at or above South Africa in UNODC-style recorded rape rates (often 75–95 per 100,000). The pattern is regional, not unique to one state: high violence, weak deterrence, and similar entitlement norms. Papua New Guinea. Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Afghanistan. Historically, we have seen sexual assault as part of wartime atrocities, slavery, and so on. Again, I don't think this sentiment ("normalizing" sexual assault) is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society. Again, I think we need to have sober and reasoned and decorous discussions about difficult topics such as this. Your endless ad hominems and appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies are impeding this. I hope you can set these tendencies aside. This is just the latest version of "what was she wearing" so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. "She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped." Again: "A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law." "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general." "To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity." "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something." "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling." "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}." I can question the legitimacy of imputing "rape culture" onto American society in 2026 and condemn Hookup Culture and condemn sexual assault in every respect. Again, under other circumstances I might take exception to being publicly libeled as you do here. But your endless vitriol just makes you seem like an unreasonable and hysterical and unserious person. You are outraged that sexual assault happens. So am I, but we don't need to endlessly advertise our personal emotions. Nor do we need to tear others down for not matching the decibel level of your public expressions of your own outrage. At this point, your ad hominems are starting to look like virtue-signaling. Anyone who does not match your public vitriol is a rape apologist? That's absurd. It is, or should be, beneath you. Who cares? People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it. I respectfully disagree. When we as a society cheapen the sexual act, we increase the likelihood that some of us will not treat it with the gravity it deserves. Hookup culture can feed the conditions people call rape culture mainly by blurring consent and rewarding pressure, not by explicitly declaring rape acceptable. In a script where sex is expected after a party, a match, or going home together, refusal is easier to treat as a negotiable obstacle than as a stop. Alcohol is built into that script (and drugs, and both are prevalent in the Greek System). Intoxication weakens the ability to consent, muddies memory, and gives offenders a ready excuse (“she was into it”). Campus and survey research consistently finds that a large share of sexual assaults happen in exactly these settings: acquaintances, parties, heavy drinking, and little or no verbal agreement. Status incentives make it worse. Where casual sex is treated as proof of desirability, especially for young men, some learn to push past hesitation, isolate a partner, or keep going after a soft no. That is entitlement in practice: sex is framed as something owed once the interaction has reached a certain stage. Ambiguous non-verbal cues then get read in the pursuer’s favor, and regretted or pressured sex is later minimized as a misunderstanding. The link is partial. High-rape societies have existed without dating apps or campus parties, and most hookups are not assaults. The contribution is, nevertheless, specific: norms that make sex the default, alcohol the lubricant, and a clear no socially costly create more encounters in which coercion is easy to commit and easy to deny. Thanks, -Smac