All Activity

The true cry of conservatives everywhere. Especially if they are designed to target minority communities our religions tell us to hate.

Your acting as if public screening R rated movies doesn't exist. I'm sure you can link me to your advocacy efforts to end this obscene grooming of children.

Your original post on this topic was based on Ron DeSantis's talking points rather than the actual legal issues of the real-world case. You began your analysis by saying, This misconstrues both the legal background of this case and what this particular law actually changes in Florida. It is parroting what Ron DeSantis said about it ("This shouldn’t even be controversial, yet our law protecting kids required us to fend off lawsuits and win a case before a divided appellate court." and quotes Eric Daugherty saying, "HUGE WIN! Children are PROTECTED in Florida...", as if without this law, children were unprotected). Existing laws in Florida include: Fla. Stat. § 847.013 — Exposing minors to harmful shows and exhibitions Fla. Stat. § 800.04(7) — Lewd or lascivious exhibition before a person under sixteen Fla. Stat. § 847.011(4) — Obscene live performances Fla. Stat. § 847.0133 — Showing obscene material to a minor Fla. Stat. § 800.03 — Exposure of sexual organs Fla. Stat. § 847.012 — Harmful material distributed to minors Fla. Stat. § 827.071 — Sexual performances by children and child pornography Fla. Stat. § 796.07 — Places operated for “lewdness” Fla. Stat. § 823.05 — Public nuisances involving lewdness or illegal conduct Fla. Stat. § 877.03 — Disorderly conduct and breach of the peace I think what is illegitimate and imaginary is Ron DeSantis's claim, which you parrotted, that this particular law shouldn't even be controversial, and the implication that his political oponents are against "limiting minors access to sxualized events." I don’t have an absolute rule. I can imagine sufficiently extreme sexual conduct where the state would be justified in overriding parental consent. But that doesn't answer the real questions surrounding the legal controversy around this law. Agreeing that some line may legitimately exist doesn't tell us where the line should be, whether Florida's existing laws already drew it adequately, or whether § 827.11 makes Florida a better place to live and raise a family. Just as I don't think Florida needs redundant laws, I don't think other states need them, either. As an example, Orlando has an old theatre called The Plaza Live, which is owned by a non-profit called The Orlando Philharmonic Foundation. In December of 2022--5 months before the children of Florida were "protected" by SB1438, they had a show called "A Drag Queen Christmas." According to the Miami Herald: The Orlando Philharmonic settled with state regulators and paid a $5,000 fine and agreed to no longer allow parents to take their children to such shows in the future. Let's summarize: 1- An old theatre had a show called A Drag Queen Christmas. 2- There was a sign at the entrance warning of potentially unsuitable content for those under the age of 18 3- A small squad of undercover state agents went there, secretly recording everything 4- According to the state agents, "nothing indecent had happened on stage" 5- Some parents chose to take a grand-total of three minors to see the show, where they were exposed to [gasp!] "a hip thrust or two", and "bare-chested men who wouldn't have been out of place at a Madonna concert." 6- State regulators went after the venue, who ended up settling for a $5,000 fine and a promise by the venue that it would take away parents rights to take their children to such shows in the future. And what is the reaction to all of this from Ron DeSantis and those who parrot him? We need more laws! Whatever one thinks of that performance, this is why I reject the suggestion that, before § 827.11, Florida was helpless to protect children from sexually inappropriate live entertainment. As this case proves, Florida had laws on the books, sent undercover law-enforcement officers to investigate the show, and initiated proceedings that threatened the venue’s licenses, and imposed hefty fines—all before § 827.11 existed. I would say the closest real-world parallel to Fla. Stat. § 827.11 — Exposing children to an adult live performance is Fla. Stat. § 847.013 — Exposing minors to harmful shows and exhibitions. I believe the importance of a topic like this should depend, at least in part, on how much actual harm it causes individuals and society. I seriously doubt that a young teenager suffers significant developmental harm from seeing “a hip thrust or two” or “bare-chested men who wouldn’t have been out of place at a Madonna concert.” And I have seen no evidence that parents taking children to performances like this constitutes a significant social problem. Given the low frequency and low severity of this, I'm quite happy to allow parents to make the judgment call on how to raise their own families. I think a much more important topic is how politicians have become so skilled at manipulating voters by taking unusual, marginal, and often made-up incidents, portraying them as widespread threats to children, and using the resulting fear to distract voters from the issues that are really important, mobilize voters, antagonize them against their neighbors who have different beliefs and cultures, and justify new exercises of state power that take away parents rights. The inability of so many voters to see what's really going on here is the really big issue that terrifies and depresses me.

See below. Yes. I would say "race" as in Native American Indians. Right. One's physical skin color changing. The LDS Church continues to teach in its seminary manuals that a dark skin color was the sign of the curse. 1) "Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord" (Religion 121–122 - Book of Mormon Student Manual, 2018, chapter 8). 2) "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of their skin was only a mark or sign of the curse. To clarify this point, have a student read the following statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. . . . "The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord" (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23) (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012). 3] The color of one's skin will even be a factor on Judgment Day. Have a look at what the LDS Church teaches about Jacob 3:8-9. "O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers". The 2017 Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual says this: "Summarize Alma 3:5–17 by explaining that these verses describe the curse and the mark that had come upon the Lamanites. Remind students that the curse the Lamanites experienced was separation from God because of their rebellion and disobedience. The mark, which at that time distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites, was that "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" (Alma 3:6). You may also want to remind students that it is wrong to revile or look down upon someone because of the color of his or her skin (see Jacob 3:9)". The context is physical skin color. It should be noted that the current version (2024) removed this false teaching. There's more to it than that. See the FAIR article titled, "What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by "Skin of Blackness"? "2 Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, 4–2:897, appears to follow the suggestion that there was a physical change in skin color. Discussing the change of white to pure in 2 Nephi 6:30 for the 1840 edition, he notes: "Of course, the 1840 change of white to pure avoids . . . the need to interpret the remnant of the Nephites as being dark skinned. In other words, the editing change to pure may represent a conscious attempt at avoiding what was perceived as a difficult reading (the Nephites as being dark skinned), which therefore explains why the change from white to pure was made here—and only here—in 2 Nephi 30:6. There has never been any attempt to emend any of the passages that directly comment on the dark skin of the Lamanites." Skousen's argument for the reason for the editorial change is persuasive. It persuades, however, that the reader's understanding of the text related to a change in pigmentation. It does not discuss the point made in this commentary of the text's use of skin as a metaphor rather than as a literal description". Despite the esthetic reword in later Book of Mormon versions, Alma 3:6-8 remains to lend support to the real intent of 2 Nephi 30:6. But they were not taught as theories in the past. And the LDS Church still teaches it in seminary manuals. See above. Sure. The LDS Church is noble to try and disavow these false teachings. Leading people astray is not a good image. For obvious reasons. Fortunately his and teachings by others are still available. Those comments constitute false teaching. Spencer Kimball wasn't the only one. See chapters 15 and 16 of "The Way to Perfection". The teachings therein are not portrayed as opinion, theory, or speculation.

I didn't understand what you're saying. Please clarify.

I write in Notepad and then paste into the forum window. The fonts are not the same.

You forget one key part. "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also". Jesus is not in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms. See the answer for #12 (Frequently Asked Questions😞 "The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ's statement that "in my Father's house are many mansions".

"Be perfect" is in the context of the way he said verses earlier. It is not "become perfect" in the resurrection to become a God.

This is a common apologetic but it is a made up excuse with no data behind it. It makes sense intuitively but it doesn’t explain why dead animals are in places they would have lived on this Earth. Did God make the planet out of preexisting materials and carefully locate all the old fossils where they would be if the earth was older? Why? The flood reasoning is even more silly and creates more problems than it solves. Marcus R. Ross only graduated because he ignored his creationist beliefs in his phd thesis. He knows (or at least knew) how to do real science. He just chooses not to.

Sometimes it's not the years, it's the mileage.

"My first question for you is this: do you believe the inheritors of the telestial kingdom will need to obtain a remission of their sins through Christ prior to receiving their salvation in the telestial kingdom of glory?" That is a reasonable question, and my first gut reaction is no. I'll try not to be too long winded. "Remission of Sins See also Atone, Atonement; Forgive; Jesus Christ; Repent, Repentance Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance. Remission of sins is made possible by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. A person obtains a remission of his sins if he has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeys God’s commandments." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/remission-of-sins?lang=eng According to this, receiving a remission of our sins requires faith, repentance, ordinances, and obedience. Those in the telestial world definitely do not receive a remission because they do not receive the gospel of Christ, or the testimony of Jesus (D&C 76:82). That is the short answer. The longer answer pertains to the terrestrial kingdom. D&C 76:52 and 3 Nephi 27:16-20 make it clear that only those who repent of all their sins, and endure to the end in obeying the commandments will have washed their garments clean in the blood of the Lamb. All others (terrestrial/telestial/Sons of Perdition) fall short of obtaining a remission of their sins, which logically explains why they go to spirit prison to suffer. Those who are not valiant in their testimony of Jesus have some unrepentant sin that prevents them from obtaining celestial glory, and keeps them from coming forth in the morning of the first resurrection. Because they are not celestial heirs, there is at least some sin for which they don't receive a remission, and they must wait until the afternoon of the first resurrection. They must suffer the penalty for their sins because they are not washed clean by the blood of the Lamb like those in the celestial kingdom. Those in the telestial kingdom remain completely unrepentant, destined for the second resurrection, again suffering the penalty of their sins rather than receiving a remission. However, in 3 Nephi 27:17, Jesus says that those who do not endure to the end, they go into the fire from whence they can no more return. 3 Nephi 27:16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. 17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. 18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. 19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. Because of the justice of God, if you do not repent of all our sins and endure to the end, when we stand before him when he judges the world, we will be cast down into the fire from whence we can no more return. In trying to reconcile these words in 3 Nephi 27 with D&C 76, I initially posited that entering into his kingdom and entering into his rest are synonymous with the celestial kingdom, and not the lower two degrees of glory, but the ultimate fate of being cast into the fire and not being able to return from that judgment seems to preclude that reconciliation. I am not sure how your reconcile the words of Jesus in 3 Nephi 27 with D&C 76, but I do not see how those who are not valiant in enduring to the end can be cast into the fire from whence they can no more return, and also inherit a lower level of heaven without meeting the plan of redemption's condition of repentance and being washed clean by the blood of the Lamb.

I happen to think the locket photo is more likely to be Hyrum Smith, and when I looked to see if anyone else had thought so too I found this analysis of it that I thought was really compelling: https://josephsmithjrphoto.blogspot.com/2023/07/hyrum-smiths-identity-through.html?m=1 I know many think the locket photo to be depicting a man too old to be Joseph Smith, as he died at 38 and many people think the locket picture to be of a man in his 40s.

My guess is this is what Meldrum (Iknew he was young earth and hoped he mentioned it somewhere) believes because he dismisses the age scientists give for fossils because fossilization over long periods of time has never been observed directly, in the lab or out of it. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1808&context=msr Also AI (this is an accurate summary according to the ideas I have seen from this very unfortunate model:

This is the one I heard growing up.

I take it you really like her.

I think it's great for members to feel free to wear a cross without judgement among the Latter-Day Saints. And for the sleeveless tops too. The youth or those that work out their biceps can show them off a little more. I of course, would prefer to cover my flabby arms. Thanks for asking.

I've met a few members that believe this. The most common answer is that the earth was formed from material that had been used in previous planets and so the bones from those planets ended up in earth. If you go outside of the church to those who are young-earthers, they have quite a lot of ways to explain it away. A common way is to say that the flood triggered the fossils by burying them and that the process to fossilize is actually much faster than what mainstream scientists say. There's even a paleontologist who is a young-earther - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_R._Ross.

Interesting. I hope the author of the blog post does more investigation. I think the locket picture has much better provenance since it is in the family but this one is interesting as well.

I understand the skepticism about legislative motives. Politicians of every stripe mix principle, politics, and constituency pressure, and it is fair to question whether a particular bill is primarily about child protection or about "signaling." That said, the comparison to R-rated movies watched with parents does not seem to work. An R-rated film is a recorded work that parents can preview, control, and contextualize in private. A live performance in a commercial or public venue is different in setting, immediacy, and the degree of parental control once the child is present. Existing law already treats live adult entertainment, obscenity, and age-restricted venues differently from private viewing of movies for related reasons. A person can criticize the Florida statute as poorly drafted, politically timed, or broader than necessary, but I think he could do that without treating every age-based limit on sexualized live performances as illegitimate religious lawfare. However, the reverse is also true: existing gaps or inconsistencies in how other forms of content are regulated do not automatically prove that any restriction in this area is pretextual. I would be interested in your responses to the questions I posed above: Do you believe there should be any age-based legal limits on the sexual content of live performances that minors can attend, or is your position that parental consent should be the sole and final authority in every case? If Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors statutes already fully solved the problem, why do similar age restrictions exist in many other states and localities for adult entertainment venues, strip clubs, and certain performances? Are those also unnecessary? CB compared this law to forcing children to read the Bible. What is the closest real-world parallel you see: is restricting minors from a sexualized stage performance more like compelled religious exercise, or more like existing limits on minors’ access to pornography, alcohol, or adult businesses? Thank you for your participation. -Smac

I'm sorry, but I don't think that the Florida legislature is acting in good faith. Instead they are threatening lawfare to rein in acts that go against their religious principles. If they were really concerned about lewd conduct and "grooming" why have they done nothing to prevent children from watching rated R movies with their parents?

I don’t really know of too many people that are members of the church who believe that the garden story occurred 6000 years ago. I’m sure they’re out there. I’m just never run into One and got to have a conversation with them. I think mostly they just believe that the fossil record is a hoax somehow. I’ve enjoyed reading the words of Leaders in the church who accepted the fossil record as accurate, and also accepted Adam and Eve as a literal people. Those were the people that I was speaking about in my earlier post to you.

I can't tell whether you want to have a serious conversation about this. I do want to have a serious conversation. Could you explain what part(s) of my comments are causing confusion on this point? Existing laws against obscenity and harmful material to minors are relevant, and it’s fair to ask whether a new statute is necessary or carefully drawn. Legislatures sometimes pass overlapping or politically timed measures; that criticism is not unique to this issue. That said, equating a law that restricts minors’ access to performances meeting a statutory definition of sexual or lewd content with a proposal about litter boxes in schools is a category error. One involves regulating adult-oriented sexualized performances in the presence of children. The other addresses a largely anecdotal or satirical claim that never reflected widespread policy. Treating them as the same kind of “made-up problem” collapses distinct questions into a single partisan narrative. I am willing to examine whether this particular statute is vague, overbroad, or redundant with prior law. I am less persuaded by the claim that any effort to set age-based limits on sexualized live performances must be dismissed as pure identity politics. Consequently, please identify which preexisting Florida statutes which you think already cover the same ground as the above-referenced statute covers. The underlying interest—limiting children’s exposure to certain sexual content in public or commercial settings—is not new, and it is a legitimate governmental objective. Children really are being exposed to highly sexualized content. While reasonable disagreement exists about the means and the drafting of the statute, that is different from saying the entire subject is imaginary. That’s a fair description of the procedural history. The district court and a majority of the original panel found a substantial likelihood of success on the vagueness and overbreadth claims and issued a broad injunction. Five judges on the en banc court agreed with that view in dissent. The en banc majority of eight, however, disagreed. It held that the statute’s use of “lewd,” as construed under existing Florida law, and its age-variable standard did not render the Act facially unconstitutional, and it vacated the injunction. Close divisions among judges are common on difficult First Amendment questions; they do not themselves establish that the losing side’s position is the correct one. The controlling decision at this stage is the en banc majority’s. That is a legitimate policy question, and it is distinct from the constitutional one the en banc court decided. I don't think I have claimed that the statute was the only possible way to address the issue, or that Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors laws were a complete nullity. Legislatures often add overlapping or more specific tools when they conclude existing provisions are hard to apply to live performances, slow to enforce, or uncertain in scope when the event is marketed as entertainment rather than explicit adult material. Whether this particular law was necessary is a judgment call about legislative priorities and drafting. Reasonable people can conclude it was redundant, poorly tailored, or politically motivated. My point has been narrower: the underlying interest in setting some age-based limits on sexualized live performances is not inherently illegitimate, and the en banc court found the statute survived the facial constitutional challenge that was brought. Necessity and constitutionality are related but not identical questions. I am open to arguments that better-drafted or more targeted tools would have been preferable. Those are reasonable criteria for evaluating any statute. I'm not sure the statute in question scores perfectly on all of them. Clearer definitions and tighter tailoring are almost always preferable. Age-variable standards can create practical uncertainty for venues. Parental autonomy deserves due weight and deference (due, but not unlimited). Any law that touches expressive conduct needs safeguards against selective or viewpoint-driven enforcement. The dissent emphasized these concerns, and they are worth taking seriously in application. My position is not that the statute is a model of legislative craftsmanship. Rather, I think the state has a legitimate interest in placing some outer limits on sexualized live performances involving minors. I also think that existing - and constitutionally valid - categories of regulation (obscenity, harmful-to-minors material, age restrictions on adult entertainment) already reflect that interest, and that the en banc court found the facial constitutional challenge unlikely to succeed. One can accept those points while still preferring narrower drafting, stronger definitional clarity, or greater deference to parental decision-making in close cases. So while criticizing the law's language or design is fair, but I think that treating the entire subject as illegitimate or imaginary is a different claim. A few questions for you: Do you believe there should be any age-based legal limits on the sexual content of live performances that minors can attend, or is your position that parental consent should be the sole and final authority in every case? If Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors statutes already fully solved the problem, why do similar age restrictions exist in many other states and localities for adult entertainment venues, strip clubs, and certain performances? Are those also unnecessary? CB compared this law to forcing children to read the Bible. What is the closest real-world parallel you see: is restricting minors from a sexualized stage performance more like compelled religious exercise, or more like existing limits on minors’ access to pornography, alcohol, or adult businesses? This is an important and difficult topic. I appreciate your efforts to treat it seriously. Thanks, -Smac

I can't tell whether you want to have a serious conversation about this. Florida already had lots of laws that protect children from the things you find objectionable. This new law is clearly about identity politics and throwing red meat to voters who get worked up over imagined social issues. This law is in the same broad category as the proposed F.U.R.R.I.E.S Act in Texas that makes it illegal for school kids to use a litter box--it is addressing made-up problems that are used to manipulate voters. Hamburger Mary’s, a venue that hosts both adult-only and family-friendly drag performances, challenged the constitutionality of the Florida law. The district court, two of the three judges on the original appellate panel, and five judges in the later en banc dissent concluded that Hamburger Mary’s had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that enforcement should therefore be enjoined while the case was litigated. Those judges identified serious concerns involving vagueness, an unworkable age-specific standard, overbreadth, a severe chilling effect on protected expression, and broad regulatory discretion that could permit arbitrary or viewpoint-selective enforcement. So here is what I would like to hear from you: Was this law actually necessary? What concrete deficiency in Florida’s existing laws did it fix? And do you think it is well crafted when judged by ordinary standards for sound legislation: a real and identifiable problem, clear definitions, workable age calibration, proportional penalties, appropriate respect for parental autonomy, and safeguards against viewpoint-selective enforcement?

Do you find it troubling at all when the state starts to take over and decide what is appropriate or not appropriate rather than let the parents of their own children decide how they raise their children? I do think parental authority should be the default, and state intervention in family decisions deserves close scrutiny. Neither of these considerations is absolute. We as a society already accept a number of limits that apply even when parents might consent: Minimum age for alcohol Restrictions on tattoos and certain body modifications Child labor laws? Prohibitions on exposing minors to obscenity or pornography Do you agree or disagree with these other instances of the state "tak{ing} over and decid{ing} what is appropriate or not appropriate" for children "rather than let the parents ... decide"? I would assume you agree with them, but I am open to correction. In any event, the debate seems to really be about where the line belongs, not whether any line can exist. I am open to arguments that this particular statute is drawn too broadly or too vaguely. I just do not accept the premise that the state must stay entirely out of the question of what sexualized content is appropriate for children in public or commercial settings. I would be interested in hearing more from you about this topic. That’s a useful test of the principle, so let’s take it seriously. Forcing children to read the Bible (or any religious text), or "anti-Mormon literature," either of which being against their parents’ beliefs, would be a clear establishment of religion and a direct violation of both parental rights and the Free Exercise Clause. The state would be affirmatively compelling a particular religious practice or viewpoint. Restricting minors’ access to sexualized live performances is a different category. It does not compel anyone to adopt a belief, practice a religion, or consume any particular content. It sets a boundary on what commercial or public adult-oriented sexual material may be presented to children. That kind of age-based restriction already exists in many areas (obscenity laws, pornography, alcohol, tobacco, certain performances) without being treated as equivalent to compelled religious instruction. One can consistently support parental primacy on matters of religious upbringing while also supporting some outer limits on the sexual content to which children can be exposed in public or commercial settings. The two are not the same exercise of state power. Respectfully, no, I am not advocating for that. I am not advocating a “takeover” of parenting. I am defending the idea that the state may set some outer limits on the sexual content to which children can be exposed in public or commercial settings—just as it already does with obscenity, pornography, alcohol, and certain performances. Parental judgment remains primary in most areas, but that does not mean it is the only consideration when the question is what adults may present to other people’s children in shared spaces. The law in question is not limited to “drag shows.” It targets all live performances (not just drag shows) that meet a statutory definition involving nudity, sexual conduct, lewdness, etc., when those performances are deemed unsuitable for the age of the child present. Some events marketed as family-friendly have included highly sexualized elements; others have not. Treating every drag performance as identical is no more accurate than treating every restriction as a ban on two moms in a picture book. Could you clarify your perspective? If a drag show does not violate the statute, then the statute would not apply. Do you therefore endorse drag shows which do violate the statute? Drag shows depicting or simulating: Nudity Sexual conduct Sexual excitement Specific sexual activities (as defined under Florida law) Lewd conduct Lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts? Or putting aside specific endorsement, do you think children should be exposed to these behaviors? Or is your perspective more about leaving such matters to parents? If so, what are the parameters you envision? Are parental rights inviolate in your view? If not, what limitations do you think can or should exist? As for quantified “proven harm” from every possible exposure: that is a high bar that we do not require in most other areas of child-protection law. We do not demand a precise body count of damaged children before restricting minors’ access to pornography, strip clubs, or other adult sexual material. The question is whether the state may draw any age-based line around sexualized live performances at all. I think it may. Reasonable minds can disagree about where exactly that line should sit and how clearly a statute must define it. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Thanks, -Smac

Thanks to all that answered my question, but I guess I was not clear in what specifically I was asking. I realize that people can choose to read the story of the Garden of Eden literally or as an allegory. That really wasn't my question. What I wanted to understand better is how people who hold the belief that the Garden of Eden was a truthful account that supposedly occurred about 6,000 years ago as a truthful account on how mankind came in to existence is able to dismiss the fossil records that show humans living milllenials living and dying long before the Garden of Eden takes place.