All Activity

Correct. I had forgotten them. My memory remembers the MP in Moscow as having both college age kids and a three year old, but now I am wondering if I am mixing up his family with the bishop’s. We took the little girl to the zoo with our 5 year old. (Who is now 36, so reasonable my memory is uncertain). There weren’t a lot of animals and the ones there often looked pretty sad as they had been suffering, sometimes starving, heard a few got stolen and sold, some maybe even eaten during the previous turmoil. Anyway, the MP would have had to be rich to have his family with him there.

Perhaps for a different kind of gas since she’s teaching teenagers?

If what I have heard is correct then no - I understand at least some mission presidents get it as well.

Lol. She taught at home, but she did drive across the city once when she wanted to pick up some beer that she heard would be good against snails because she didn't want her seminary students to see her buying it.

Does everyone with a living allowance live in Utah? At least longterm. Iirc, those who lived elsewhere had to move to Utah once called as a General Authority, but I am not sure for those besides Apostles. I could see if having a calling where they lived outside the US temporarily, having an additional stipend if necessary to cover additional expenses relevant to a particular country/countries while still getting the same overall allowance. We could have never lived in Moscow without a stipend from the US government on top of the usual salary, for example, when my husband taught there on a Fulbright grant.

Not quite similar because General Authorities have spent a very significant amount of their service not being paid even a living allowance, so it would be closer to a General who had extensive combat experience themselves but now sent people into combat only using the we. While I don’t see it as a lie or hidden and he certainly was personally familiar with serving without pay, so could speak directly yo that experience with accuracy and intimacy, my nitpicking nerve does think it would be a good idea to mention the living allowance in perhaps a footnote. I would say in the talk itself, but not sure how that wouldn’t create an awkward transition. That offends my aesthetic side, lol.

Security costs would be an issue now, imo.

Gas money….

I think the former (legally defining "sex") is within the province of the legislature. So is the latter, subject to constitutional scrutiny. And yet the statute addresses biological sex, not "chosen gender." Aye, there's the rub. I agree that personal autonomy is a serious constitutional principle, and Hodes gives it real weight in Kansas. The question is not whether autonomy exists, but where its limits are when it collides with other interests the state may legitimately protect. A driver’s license or birth certificate is not intended as an expression of private identity. It is a government document that records biological sex for a range of public purposes—law enforcement, medical emergencies, vital statistics, and access to sex-separated spaces. Requiring those documents to reflect biological sex does not “out” someone in the sense of forcing private disclosure; it declines to make the state itself rewrite an official record to match an individual's subjective "gender identity." I think the same limiting principle applies to sex-segregated bathrooms and similar facilities. These spaces exist because biological sex creates material differences in privacy, safety, and vulnerability. The segregation is based on biological sex, not "gender identity." The state’s decision to maintain them on the basis of sex is not an attempt to control anyone’s internal sense of self or private gender expression. It is a regulation of shared, intimate public spaces where the autonomy and bodily privacy interests of other people are also at stake. If personal autonomy means the state must alter official sex designations on request and must grant access to opposite-sex facilities on the basis of self-identification, it becomes difficult to identify a coherent stopping point or limiting principles. After all, the same logic could be advanced for other recorded facts (date of birth, height, weight, eye color, age) or for access to any sex-separated space whenever someone experiences distress at the mismatch. Courts have generally not treated those other categories as subject to unilateral redefinition. And the more emphatic the "special pleading" becomes (to treat sex as malleable, but not the other objective markers noted here), the more problematic the constitutional challenge becomes. After all, if "personal autonomy" can mean a state-recognized "right" for a man to "identify" as a woman, what is the legal distinction between that and him wanting to "identify" as 6'2 tall (when he is not that height), or 185 pounds (when he is not that weight) or 28 years old (when he is not that age), etc.? The stronger reading of the autonomy right recognized in Hodes—even giving it full weight—is that it protects individuals from compelled medical procedures, forced pregnancy, or direct control over their own bodies and private decisions. It does not require the state to abandon biological sex as a classifying principle in official records or in the design of intimate public facilities. That distinction seems to me a necessary constraint if the principle is to remain workable. Otherwise, "personal autonomy" becomes a blank check for the Kansas Supreme Court to fabricate and dole out newly-minted constitutional "rights" like some sort of black-robed Pez dispenser. I acknowledge that the Kansas Supreme Court may ultimately draw the line differently. What you call "the sensibilities of our State Supreme Court" may make it appear to be one of the more progressive / left-leaning state supreme courts in the country. 6 of the 7 justices were appointed by Democratic governors. So your preferences may well play out. Whether that would amount to judicial activism/overreach is yet to be seen. But again, even "progressive / left-leaning" may eventually realize that "personal autonomy" as to have some constraints and parameters. In any event, the existence of a genuine autonomy interest does not automatically convert every identity claim into a right to rewrite government documents or to redefine the boundaries of sex-separated spaces. I think this needs to be demonstrated rather than asserted. I also think you will have a pretty hard time demonstrating it. The State does not have authority to regulate the contents of its official documents, such as driver's licenses, etc.? Could you elaborate on how that works? Same goes for passing sex-based laws. Constitutional scrutiny will always apply, but that likely cuts against your preferred outcome, since I think the State can present all sorts of important state interests for regulating sex-segregated spaces, as it has in the past many times. A private citizen can compel the State of Kansas to change objective data on driver's license in favor of subjective, because-I-say-so preferences? Could you elaborate on how you get there? Also, could you elaborate on why the State can require designation of objective data points like a person's DOB, but not biological sex? But you do have a problem if "women" = adult human female. Am I correct on that point? I am reminded of this little thing about Abe Lincoln: There are different versions of this puzzler, and each is based on a different type of animal, e.g., a sheep, a calf, a horse, or a pig. But the template for the question and answer remains the same. Abraham Lincoln has usually been given credit for this instructive brainteaser. Similarly: Q. What is a man who is unequivocally biologically male, but subjectively "identifies" as a woman? A. He's a man. A claim by a man to "identify" as a women does not make him one. You’re drawing a distinction I think is worth taking seriously: you accept that the state may maintain sex-separated bathrooms limited to "women," but you object to the state deciding that men who "identify" as women remain men for that purpose. That distinction actually points in the opposite direction from the ID argument. If the state is allowed to maintain women’s bathrooms as women’s bathrooms, then it necessarily needs a workable, non-circular definition of who qualifies. This is where the foundational premise of your position - that "a woman is anyone who 'identifies' as a woman" - bumps into cold, hard reality. The longstanding, administrable definition has been biological sex. Once the state is required to treat self-identified gender as controlling for official purposes, the sex-separated bathroom rule becomes difficult to enforce in any coherent way. The same person the state must record as female on a driver’s license is then the person the state must treat as female for bathroom access. The two issues are linked. On the “outing” concern: a sex designation on a government ID is not primarily a speech or privacy act directed at the public. It is an official record used for identification, law enforcement, medical emergencies, and access rules that still turn on sex. Declining to change that record is not the state “outing” someone; it is the state declining to alter a material fact it has traditionally recorded. People remain free to present themselves however they wish in daily life. The state is simply not obligated to make its own documents the vehicle for that presentation. You say you have no problem with “only women can use the women’s restroom.” The live question is, and has been for years, what the word “women” means when the state draws that line. If it means adult human females, the bathroom policy is coherent and the ID policy follows. If it means anyone who identifies as a woman, then the bathroom policy you say you accept becomes largely unenforceable. That is the tension I don’t think the autonomy argument resolves. I appreciate your input. Thanks, -Smac

Just to be clear as I am assuming you are specifically speaking to webbles here, maybe in general men, while this may be how men view the situation, with women there is also “will they assault me?” often in the thought process. Which is not something to “get over” in my view given it is a real possibility and occurrence for too many (since typically one can’t tell if someone is gay or not from appearance plus violence against women isn’t always sexually driven). You can ignore looks, ignoring assaults isn’t healthy.

In a locker room situation, it is definitely a blurry line. As something that is obviously over the line, a few months ago at the Kansas City Airport, somebody saw the corner of a phone peeking around the bottom of a bathroom stall. They reported it to airport security, and were able to track down the perp, who was a worker at an airport vender. He was charged with felony invasion of privacy. For behavior that is closer to the line, what's the person doing? If somebody goes into the locker room, changes, works out, takes a shower, changes and goes home, give him the benefit of the doubt. If he is hanging out in the locker room more than he needs to, that gets suspicious. Creepy behavior is creepy regardless of their sex or gender. I would suggest that if you are worried about a homosexual glancing at your naked body in the locker room and getting a kick out of it, you have a choice: either get over it or don't use that locker room any more and change at home. Ditto someone who is transgender.

I am assuming clothing and wig are just the usual vibe, nothing exotic about them. First I would ask their preference, talk about likely occurrences as well. I don’t see if they use the men’s restroom they are being as safe or feeling as safe as they should be even if it’s only looks they get and not snide remarks or even verbal abuse in your building. But maybe the vibe in your building is more open. If they are there for therapy, it’s hardly helpful they have to worry about possible harassment at a time it’s better they are opening up. At the very least they are risking getting filmed. This needs to be protected against if possible. So choice of restroom should be their choice with adjustments to avoid potential confrontations. Is there someone in the office able to go with them to the restroom, safety in numbers kind of thing? Whichever one they choose? For me as a woman using the facilities, the dynamic is very much changed if I know a woman is with them. That reads to me this is a sincere person doing what they need to do, not a risk, just life as usual for them…or even if there is a risk, I don’t need to worry about it, stepping in to help or reassure because there is someone else there and at most I can follow their lead (trying to imagine various scenarios, the most likely bad one being another woman being upset and making harsh comments or taking pictures imo, I would want to step in to try and defuse the situation, but it would make me very anxious as it’s an unpredictable situation for me, I am not sure if my help would be wanted to begin with and that anxiety could easily be misread as rejection, which would be unfortunate). The companion can stay outside the restroom if there is no one else is using it if your client would prefer. Could even let anyone entering what’s going on…”my friend, who is transgender, is using the facility for a few minutes; feel free to go in if you are comfortable, but they thought you should have a choice rather than be surprised’ perhaps? Depends on how common this kind of thing is, if unexpected or not. If there is no one available to go in with them, maybe discuss options of approach and see what could work for both of you in order to find something they are comfortable with, but also lowers the possibility of confrontation as that can be detrimental for them as well. And of course, ensure they know clothes need to be fully back in place before leaving the stall. No exposure allowed. Since it’s a restroom and not a locker room, there should be no exposure, so it’s primarily a safety issue, imo. Unless there is additional mental health signals or aggressive moves, a dress signals nonaggressive to me. But best if another woman with them. Who is going to attempt an assault with a witness there? (There are predators who function in teams, but rare and if the vibe is “acquaintances” and not best buddies, probability is so low.) . Locker room, if they aren’t okay with dressing more male for the activity and using the men’s locker room until they more fully transition if they are going to do so (jeans and tshirt is female attire as well), I would push them to use only a woman’s locker room if possible with individual curtain or otherwise closed off stalls or change in the restroom or even a shower if it’s dry enough. On a practical point, I hope they sit down to avoid overspray for the next person. When using a woman’s restroom, use it like a woman would and leave it clean, please.

There are two issues in this same legislation: the legal definition of one’s sex, and sex-segregated bathrooms. The way I see it, there are perhaps 20,000 transgender adults in the state of Kansas, the vast majority of whom act like, dress like, and look like their chosen gender. To me, the idea of personal autonomy extends to your gender expression, and part of that gender expression is the sex that appears on the ID you are required to present every time you interact with law enforcement, want to vote, buy alcohol, enter a club, or cash a check. If you are transgender, the state doesn’t have the right to out you whenever you do these things. Because of that, I think the plaintiffs will have a strong case on having their official sex on government ID match their chosen gender. I have no problem with the state saying only “women" can use the women’s restroom. But I do have a problem with the state insisting that for purposes of mandating which bathroom must be used, this is a woman:

Thomas Kuhn observes that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation." So an essential question that should arise when encountering something one does not expect, is, "What should I expect?" This is exactly the point of Jesus saying that we should remove the beam from our own eye first. "Then shall ye see clearly." I should think that a self-aware critic of the church ought to begin any discussion of supposedly disillusioning statements by Latter-day Saint Authorities or documents by considering up-front the formal declaration of what we should expect, which may indeed be very different from what we want or think should be. Read along and we get this: This set up a rather different set of expectations than would verses that read: And then there is an formal statement as to what constitutes Doctrine: I have yet to see any critic of what they claim are troubling and/or inconsistent Latter-day Saint "Doctrines" ever cite this passage in connection with their lists and complaints because, clearly, it would expose the sandy foundations of the whole endeavor. An argument that "If it's perfect, why isn't there more perfection in it?" calls for a very different problem field and standard of solution than asking whether there is any reasonable evidence that Joseph Smith's inspiration was Real. For a very good recent example, consider Matt Roper's recent update of John Clark's study here, https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/anachronisms-accidental-evidence-in-book-of-mormon-criticisms-introduction In asking for perfection in light of current and usually undefined and acknowledged assumptions, one automatically makes imperfection, and only that, decisive. That limits the problem field and standard of solution to grounds for subjective indignation and grievance. Asking whether Joseph Smith's inspiration was Real calls for a far broader investigation, and very different modes of evaluation than simply finding grounds for self-righteous indignation. Kuhn carefully explains that Paradigm choice is a value-based decision, not a rule based decision. And the most important values are not "Does is agree with what I think or want?" but rather, puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions (where deciding what is "key" may depend a great deal on whether one seeks to open a lock or close a door), comprehensiveness and coherence (breadth, depth, internal and external consistency), simplicity and aesthetics (initially Copernican Theory was less accurate, but more promising that the increasingly messy Ptolemaic astronomy), fruitfulness (where exploring the possibilities from the inside continues to provide unexpected insights, not predicted by outsiders) and future promise. One bit of fruitfulness that has long impressed me is that Alma 32 offers an equivalent set of values and processes for evaluating faith claims. And in 2024 I wrote at length about the supposedly racist views of the Book of Mormon, citing other people who have done so as well. For instance, here: https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/nurture-and-harvest-a-continued-conversation-with-the-annotated-book-of-mormon , especially, 125-148. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Well BlipBlap. I am afraid that I can hardly agree with anything you have been saying. (there IS one thing I almost agree with in the paragraph I quote above, except that you think it is some kind of an argument against my position). The problem is that it seems like you have little understanding of what we believe. Let me respectfully try to explain. 1) Your first clause above is about the belief that God is not a man. Do you think that for 1,700 years we "Niceans" haven't given any thought to what it means for a material creature to be made in God's image? When asked whether it was lawful to render tribute to Caesar, Jesus asked for a coin. Then he asked them whose image was on the coin, and the answer of course, was Caesar. The point I am making is that the coin was made in Caesar's image. Does that mean that Caesar is a coin? Given that there are Scriptures where God says He is not a man, (you can look them up BlipBlap) we think that just as we believe that Caesar is not a coin, we have reason to believe that God is not necessarily human. Catholic Niceans teach that only the Son is the perfect image of the Father. We privileged creatures, made out of matter, are however also made, to a lesser degree than God's only begotten Son, in God's image, imperfectly. Still, what a magnificent dignity has been bestowed upon every human being! It comes with a weighty responsibility though. Unlike the rest of the material creation, we are free. In God's wisdom and love He has made us alone able to exercise freedom of the will. Every other material creature obeys the law of its nature. Every mineral, vegetable, and animal in material creation "obeys" the law of its own given nature, giving glory to its Creator. It is given to man alone to use his reason to discern the physical actions and mental exercises that befit what we are, created children of the Almighty God of heaven and earth. We use God's image in us reasonably to His glory, and our beatification. But we are capable of misuse too. 2) Next, you make an assertion that is easily refuted when you say that when the Son becomes man, it means that God changed. No, He who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, condescended to take on Himself the nature of a servant, and for our sakes became man. That does not mean he stopped being God! The divine nature of the Son was neither enhanced nor diminished when he assumed human form in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He was still the unchanging God! It doesn't seem like you are familiar with the way Catholics, at least, see and understand the marvel of the Incarnation. During Advent, just before Christmas, the Church reminds us of the stupendous and sublime inference of the Incarnation of the Son. We are asked to remember that "He who the worlds could not contain was contained within the womb of His Blessed Mother". Just ponder that! As a man, Jesus lived in His mother's belly like any other human child. But He was still God, no change at all! We like it a lot. It is wonderful. It prefigures the Holy Eucharist when we take God into our own flesh, and He really lives in us body and blood, soul and divinity. (what about His Mother who carries Him for NINE MONTHS?) He Who gives us Himself as our food? It is not so we will assimilate Him, like what happens when we have a piece of toast in the morning. Rather, he assimilates us! He doesn't change. We become more and more and more made in the likeness of His perfect image of the Father, so often as we can lawfully receive Him in Holy Communion! 3) I am running out of time today. I'll try to be quick, on what we somewhat agree about. You say that the way we understand the Incarnation would mean that the Son of God is created. We almost agree.. The Son of Man IS created. The 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, who becomes man, is and always will be God, uncreated. Regarding the manhood of Christ, we affirm the Scripture where it revealed that the Son is "the firstborn among many creatures". (Not chronologically, but in excellence and dignity) And yeah, the body was created when Mary, the New Eve, agreed to be Mother of God: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word." The faith is so beautiful. It is beyond suitable description. One should only laugh, or cry, (or both!) with tears or shouts of joy at the wonderful truths we say we believe. I think next up is the hypostatic union. You mention that later on. But its meaning is important here too, especially with the third clause we have discussed. God bless you BlipBlap. I hope this helps.

No. In my state is protective of lgbtq

Hmm. You went from "intermediate" to "strict" scrutiny in less than a day. I asked Grok: "How do you think the Hodes decision in Kansas may apply to a challenge to the Kansas law regarding sex-segregated bathrooms?" The response: I will be interested to see how far the Kansas Supreme Court is willing to go regarding the constitutional right to "personal autonomy." There must be some constraints on this principle. Thanks, -Smac

Another generational gang banger is the kind of father who does that.

This gets even more interesting as apparently the funeral service was for a guy who had been shot and killed at a gas station a few weeks ago. According to the news he went into the gas station to buy alcohol and the clerk refused to sell to him for some reason. He got upset and came back with a shotgun. There was an armed citizen inside who shot and killed him. Pretty crazy. And now we have people at his own funeral waving guns around and shooting people. Amazing we have these kind of people in our congregations.

Yeah, I can't see gloating being a thing that anyone does in Heaven. And it's not that I'm thinking those looking forward to gloating are going to be disappointed and therefore I'll get to secretly gloat about that! I just don't think we will be seeing through lenses that show us something to be gloated over. Imo we don't even have to wait until we die to see through a lense that shows us love instead of judgment, and kinship instead of separation.

I dont know that we really need to put much guesswork into their salary. According to the memo posted above the "Base" (meaning there may be more) was $116,400 in 2013 and was increased to $120K. That is an approx three percent increase. Do they do that every year? Beats me but if it is increased according to inflation then the paycheck may look a lot closer like ~$171K today. Parsonage is likely increased at a similar rate. Another website (widow's mite) estimates salaries as well.

Agreed- they just need to be careful when they say "WE" have no paid clergy when clearly "WE" do have some paid clergy especially when the person who is actually saying it gets a paycheck from the church every two weeks. This is similar to a commander I worked for in Iraq who never once stepped outside the wire and went on a combat mission. In fact, to my knowledge he had never personally engaged in combat in his entire career. He would routinely brag about how "WE" were kicking AQI butt on a daily basis despite taking hundreds of casualties in the process. He wasn't wrong about "WE" meaning "US" because "WE" were kicking butt. He wasn't involved in it so it would have been much more accurate to say "you guys" or some such thing.

It makes sense that it would be at the prophet’s discretion and that not all would want to move into a new home just because.

No, about the contents of the Kansas State Constitution and the sensibilities of our State Supreme Court. The law didn't come about because a coalition of police officers, district attorneys, psychologists etc. explained that this law was necessary in order to better protect the vulnerable people of our society. It came about because the religious right watches Fox News and related hate-filled "news" sources and decided this was something to be angry about. Rather than having a full open debate on the issue that involved experts weighing in on the implications of the matter, they snuck it into law through a "gut and go" procedure. I totally agree. The Kansas legislature hates the Kansas Supreme Court and is always trying to do things like this to undermine it. That is your opinion. I asked the same question to ChatGPT and it said: My best prediction: strict scrutiny, under the Kansas Constitution. Hodes holds that infringements of the fundamental right of personal autonomy protected by §1 receive strict scrutiny. SB 244 directly dictates which intimate spaces individuals may use based on sex at birth and imposes penalties. If the Court treated it only as sex discrimination, intermediate scrutiny would be the conventional test. But given Hodes, I think the stronger Kansas constitutional analysis is personal autonomy → strict scrutiny. The State’s privacy interest is substantial, but the law’s categorical means-ends fit looks vulnerable. Note that "Hodes" is an abortion case. I didn't do anything to prompt GPT to relate this to abortion. GPT saw the same connection I did. When this goes to trial, the ACLU will show a huge number of real people who are harmed in specific ways because of this law, not the least of which State Representative Abi Boatman, who will explain how the law interferes with her ability to fulfill her responsibilities as a state representative. From the TL/DR article you didn't read, "One time there was a call of the House, a parliamentary procedure used to create a quorum. Boatman didn’t hear the call because she was on a different floor, awaiting her turn in the bathroom. Later, a fellow legislator called her out for having been absent. “I was using the only bathroom this Legislature has said I can use,” she said." In contrast, whoever is defending this law is going to have a hard time explaining why it furthers an important state interest.

FWIW, Most Mennonite bishops are also pastors of a church. They do get paid for their pastoral work and for travel expenses as a bishop (they may cover several states) as in the southeast USA. Moravian bishops don't receive any salary for the positions but get travel expenses paid as well. Every few years there is a worldwide meeting of Moravian bishops. Do the LDS bishops or stake presidents ever get together in a big Bishopric Conference somewhere? I knew many Southern Baptist pastors who were "bi-vocational." They held full-time jobs and pastored a church for very little, if any salary. I was a music and youth pastor in several Baptist churches. I received a small salary and in two cases, lots of vegetables and beef from the local Texas Baptist farmers in the churches. We ate well! I also was the English pastor of a Mandarin Baptist Chuch. My wife and I learned how to make awesome (he says humbly) Chinese food!