All Activity

My sister and her husband bought their first home in Kearns, and sadly it doesn't have have a safe feel there with all the gangs. My sister and husband have since moved to California in a peaceful area.

I don't think I have. I think Analytics' position requires him to talk out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he disputes the need for any limiting principles, but then he denies not wanting to impose any limiting principles. When asked to articulate limiting principles, all he can come up with is "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." That is no principle at all. It doesn't limit anything. It does not allow any enforcement mechanism. As I see it, "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" is de facto "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all." Analytics denies this, but won't explain why. I have been listening to people who disagree with me. Where I have not understood their position, I have asked for clarification. At other times I have pointed out flaws and gaps in reasoning and fallacies. That's not an unwillingness to understand. It's just disagreement. For example, when @Analytics categorically refuses to articulate any coherent limiting principles, that needs to be addressed. When the practical result of his preferred policy will be the eradication of sex-segregated spaces, he refuses to acknowledge or address that. When he persistently injects fallacies and distractions from the topic so as to discuss me instead of the topics at hand, that needs to be addressed. What some "transgenders actually look like," sure. But that's not really pertinent to our discussion, since my preferred public policy is to administer sex-segregated spaces by biological sex, not by "self-identity" or what people "look like." No woman has ever, in the history of the world, ever "transitioned into a man," nor has any man ever "transitioned into" a woman. Instead, what we often see see is biological males who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women. A man putting on a dress and makeup does not make him a woman. His subjective self-identity doesn't make him a woman. We can and should treat such persons with respect, but respect ought not include going along with falsehoods and delusions. Okay. "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." I am there. I hope you are too. Thanks, -Smac

You can posts links to Wikipedia here. Documentation is encouraged But I'm sure you can see why we are confused, and don't grasp the subtle differences that you are aware of.

I posted this in a prior thread on April 19: On April 19, his website shows this at the bottom: "© 2005-2026 Open Stories Foundation. All rights reserved. Mormon Stories is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." It probably says something similar, if not the same thing, today (but I haven't checked). But if you look up the website in the Wayback Machine, there is no disclaimer as recent as the January 31 2026 capture, and it only says this at the bottom of the webpage: "© Copyright 2005 - 2026 | Mormon Stories. All rights reserved." He added that change to the website as a result of the mediation process before he refused some of the other requests.

I'm sorry your husband had to go through that. It seems the bullies get away with so much and the good guys are treated so badly sometimes. Before I got married I worked at the University of Utah's credit union and I had a lot of experience with banking before getting that job. But my boss who happened to be female, didn't like LDS, at least it seemed so because she was awful to this returned male missionary and he was an awesome and personable teller with the customers, well she fired him. Little did I know at the time that I was next on the chopping block and I got fired right after, they said because I wasn't cross selling. My first job and only one that I've been fired.

If any of you would like to make your head spin, please go to the Reformed fundamentalism wikipedia site. It may win the prize for the biggest mish-mash of terms I have ever read. It even talks about mainstream fundamentalism and a whole host of other terminology. It speaks about your example of Reformed Baptists, who tend to be more fundamentalist than evangelical. (notice small f and e). Anyway, I don't know if the rules allow me to post the link to this Wikipedia site, but it is really entertaining and confusing to a fault. I have enjoyed reading it. I hope you all enjoy it too.

Might be more about the attention, also a pride thing, than the money.

This hadn’t occurred to me as I ignore that kind of stuff usually. Here is what Chat suggested as possible because a new upload/reloading does reset ar zero. Looks like there is a valid reason to fight it, though it was his choice to mimic it. I wonder if he offered to do it in future videos. Seems like that would be admitting it is needed and give foundation for the Church to insist, but surely it could be phrased as ‘in the spirit of cooperation even though the current disclaimer is sufficient, we will be adding a written and spoken disclaimer, etc etc.

That’s possible but in the past, none of the emails were personalized just said something like “dear ward family.” From the same guy that sent this one. And it wasn’t all official with a scheduling link and all. One of the comments was if you guys would like to come in please let me know and I’ll schedule you with the bishop or something like that. Doesn’t read like any canned settlement email I ever got. it reads more like “yea the bishop and I know yall don’t want to come in but just throwing it out there in case. “

Mr. Dehlin could have all the work done to produce and insert clear and prominent disclaimers in all of his publications and webcasts for a small fraction of what he will spend to defend, and most likely ultimately lose, a lawsuit that the complaint makes clear (thanks Weebles) he brought upon himself by refusing to make disclosures that would not include anything that is contrary to his stated intentions. With experience gained from representing a wide variety of clients, I can state with certainty that pride is often an expensive vice.

I actually ordered a sleeveless top from Quince, first time in maybe 42 years to buy a sleeveless shirt, haha. Got it in the mail today, tried it on and too bad the arm holes were larger than I thought they'd be. Or oversized, because surprisingly the sleeveless garments have a generous arm hole to hide the garment with tops. So it's the way the Quince shirt was made. My husband has tried to get garments that are sleeveless but you're right there is a strange phenomenon occurring out there and they're sold out. My husband sometimes has shirts with sleeves that don't hide his garment sleeve, so that's why he wanted to try the sleeveless. But I wonder how these look under white church shirts, if they look like those wife beater undershirts, hopefully everybody understands that term, who are reading this. I did buy the sleeveless shirt on a whim, not too sure I can bring myself to actually wear one for sure. I was able to buy sleeveless garments online, but bought them too small, they're tight! And first time this has happened, I tried sticking my leg in a new pair of garment bottoms and stuck my leg in and it was sewn wrong across the would be opening a couple of inches and couldn't put my foot in. I snipped it and I made it work. But it left a really small hole so it works.

If the "personalization" is just adding your first name, that technology has existed for decades now. Pretty much as soon as spam was invented, that technology existed. I would not consider that to be a personal email but just another mass email. The same thing is possible with texting as well. So if you see a text that just has your name as the only personalization and the rest of the text looks like it is a spam, that's probably what was used. This sounds very much like he pushed a button on the screen and it sent out a mass email to all members.

The episodes have no disclaimers in them. Nothing in the end either. So, he would have to put in quite a bit of work to insert the disclaimer as it is currently not there. And I don't know if that impacts result sorting. Does an edit to a video cause it to be considered a new video and loose all of its likes?

I actually can't see it either. It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things. Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason. And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons. The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing. Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination. How is that not a "laissez faire" approach? If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom. Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point? Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.

I've pretty much given up on you understanding this issue for what it really is. Drag queens do more than give performances in adult venues. It is not automatically sexualizing and grooming. It is about being ok with being different and not trying to fit into a little box that so many people like yourself try to force on anyone who is different than you. But I doubt me saying that will change your attacks even sightly.

Yes. Whether or not one believes that "drag" is inherently sexual, there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual: Library Apologizes For Hosting ‘Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey’ Kids Event Even when Drag Queen Story Hours are not overtly sexualized, they remain difficult to defend as healthy for small children. Young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Presenting them with adult performers in exaggerated, often hyper-feminine or boundary-blurring costumes and personas introduces confusion at an age when clarity is more useful than ambiguity. There is also the deeper question of purpose: why is this particular form of adult performance art being directed at toddlers and preschoolers in the first place? Reading books to children is good. Using the occasion to stage an adult entertainment style that plays with gender and sexuality—even theatrically—is a different matter. Children do not need that layer of complexity, and it is reasonable to question whether it serves their development or adult ideological preferences. See above. I didn’t say it was “grooming” in the typically criminal sense of preparing a child for sexual abuse (the "Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" sure seemed to be going there). That’s a serious charge, and it’s not the claim I’m making. The concern is different. Drag, as a performance style, is rooted in adult nightlife and often involves exaggerated, sexualized, or boundary-blurring presentations of gender. When that same aesthetic is brought into a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers, it introduces adult themes and adult performance conventions into a setting meant for very young children. Parental presence doesn’t automatically make the content age-appropriate any more than it would if the performer were doing a burlesque-lite routine or a striptease while reading Goodnight Moon. Young children are still learning basic categories—male/female, adult/child, public/private. Staging an adult entertainment form that plays with those categories can confuse them. You can oppose that as developmentally inappropriate without accusing anyone of being a predator. The disagreement is about what belongs in front of small children, not about whether every participant has criminal intent. You are attributing a position to me that I have not taken. I have not said I am fine with adults taking children to nudist resorts. I’m not. The issue with Drag Queen Story Hours is not that every participant is a predator. It is that an adult performance style rooted in nightlife, exaggerated gender presentation, and often sexualized aesthetics is being staged for very young children. That is age-inappropriate. Again, young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Introducing them to that particular form of adult entertainment—even when a book is being read—adds confusion and adult themes that do not belong in a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers. Parental presence does not automatically make something appropriate. The same would be true of other adult performance styles. The question is whether this belongs in front of small children in the first place, not whether it meets the legal definition of grooming. You can oppose it as developmentally unsuitable without needing to prove criminal intent. Again, you are repeating a claim I haven’t made. I have not said nudist resorts are fine for children. I’m not okay with that either. The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. The objection is straightforward: drag is an adult performance style that plays with gender and often draws on sexualized aesthetics. Staging it for toddlers and preschoolers in a library story hour introduces adult themes and boundary-blurring presentations to children who are still learning basic categories about sex and social roles. That is age-inappropriate. You can disagree with that judgment. But asking what is “really driving” the concern is an attempt to change the subject rather than address whether the activity belongs in front of small children in the first place. Thanks, -Smac

I had no reason to be confrontational or angry or whatever with anyone in my ward. It is 100% a problem with the church itself. No reason for me to be an *** on the way out the door and no reason to set boundaries unless someone was gonna start one of theirs bs we love and miss you campaigns. Missionaries did stop by a couple times but they always did that. It has been about a year since we have had them knocking. I just had to laugh yesterday when my wife got the personalized tithing settlement invite. Radio silence for over two years then this lol.

Given the number of people in my experience who don’t know the difference to begin with (contacting FAIR to complain about it, mentioning it here over the years), the disclaimer needs to be front and center, not just at the bottom of a page many don’t scroll down to see or at the end of a video that many won’t finish or visible only if one clicks “read more”. It needs to be both written and spoken in the beginning of each episode as many will just listen. I watch videos and podcasts all the time (when I do watch them) without reading any info on them and given I am someone who often reads the fine print at least once before signing, I bet there are lots of people who don’t read the extras, possibly a majority. Especially if one is required to click to expand the caption to see it, which iirc one does (I checked it last time this came up). If Dehlin is serious that he isn’t trying to mimic the Church, why wouldn’t he be willing to put a disclaimer that is most easily spotted? Does it cost him any different than putting it at the end unless people are actually confused? (Serious question, maybe there is something that is nonchurch related that is affected). He can do it once and get it edited in for each episode. Not a lot of work and it can’t be more expensive to add the clip to the beginning as the end, surely?

I think this is where the original discussions broke down. The Church asked for a disclaimer to be read at the beginning of every clip. Probably because if you just come across the video through youtube, instagram, etc, there is no disclaimer visible. Dehlin disagreed with that. This is what the Church wrote in the original complaint: Someone used the wayback machine and noticed that the disclaimer on the bottom of the pages was a recent change, so the initial mediation between the two groups did cause a disclaimer to be added, but it the Church doesn't think that is a good enough disclaimer.

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem. Sometimes life isn't kind enough to give us bright black and white boundaries without nuance. We just have to deal with it the best we can.

With your peachy disposition, this is very surprising ;). Our experience was the opposite. We left abruptly (from the outside at least). We communicated boundaries pretty firmly to close friends and ward leaders, but had several people reach out regardless (including a signed Book of Mormon!). Friendly but firm no's were required and now we don't get approached about church from anyone, though the missionaries top by a couple times a year (I doubt this frequency is above any non-members where we live in Kaysville, UT).

You have totally misrepresented Analytics position After 18 pages of discussion, it is pretty clear that you don't really want to understand what the problems are with this kind of unnecessary law other than gin up the right wing public. Even showing you photos of what transgenders actually look like and why forcing someone who has transitioned to a man would cause way more upset and uncertainty. I think 18 pages of you constantly going back to square one is enough for me as well.

I suppose if I never looked at my junk folder that would be a possibility, but since i do routinely review ( at least weekly)and purge both junk/spam id know very soon after a church email was sent to me as I would see it. Also, before we stopped going the two or three massages a week from the ward didn’t have any trouble finding my regular in box so yes…. They stopped sending us any correspondence. Except for one exception- tithing settlement. That’s no accident. when did they stop collecting tithing from people at tithing settlement? For the cash and check writers. Tithing settlement is designed to guilt people into paying. Lots of people don’t pay a full tithe, but if they still show up to settlement there’s a chance they will settle up. Ok.. tell me why he wants to see me now and has completely ignored me for 2.5 yrs.

Anybody else see the irony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arguing that a case involving Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. should control the Church's defense of its copyrights? You heard it here first, folks! You can't make this stuff up! "Thank you, Jackie D.'s!!!"

You keep going back to library Drag Queens. Can you explain how a child listening to a drag queen reading a story in a library with their parents there is in your mind grooming children? I honestly don't get why this is such an issue for you. How do you consider this grooming, but have no problem with adults taking their children to a nudist resort is perfectly ok with you. What the heck are drag queens in libraries doing to sexualize and groom children? If it is not hyperbole articles written by the right wing press, then what actually is driving your soapbox campaign?