All Activity

Does the site include a disclaimer? If the issue is potential confusion, a simple disclaimer such as: BE ADVISED. THIS SITE AND THE RELATED PODCAST ARE NOT SPONSORED BY, AFFILIATED WITH, OR ENDORSED BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF MR. DEHLIN AND HIS GUESTS. I wonder if the Church has indicated it will dismiss its claims if Dehlin makes a clear and prominent disclaimer.

Thank you for replying. I can see the utility of the hierarchy you advocate as a tool for resolving apparent contradictions within the canon, and/or between the canon and subsequent teachings and commentary, at least among parties agreeing to its basic assumptions. For instance, it would be interesting to open-mindedly examine plural marriage through the lense of the hierarchy you advocate, rather than starting out with “the answer” having already been determined in one's mind. Must admit that would be challenging for me! It sounds like you might have in mind limiting the scope of application for the heirarchy you propose to a particular type of discussion, in which case the following reservations don't apply: My first thought when reading your post was, what you're describing is all about the intellect. The hierarchy you advocate decrees how to go about making a reasonable intellectual categorization of scriptures and other teachings. It looks to me like this completely leaves out personal responsibility for connecting with God and receiving guidance. It's like a formula whose infallibility and exclusivity is assumed, such that progression within this paradigm becomes a matter of logical application of the formula. Does God the Holy Spirit have a primary role, or a secondary role, or any role, within this paradigm? Second, it seems to me the hierarchy you advocate decrees that God must communicate according to its criteria in order to be taken seriously. 2 Nephi 29:11 (arguably Class 1?) envisions God speaking through multiple channels in multiple locations: “I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them”. It looks to me like the hierarchy you advocate would not even notice, much less attribute any credibility to, communication from God which does not come exclusively through the channel it approves of. So right now God could be revealing “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” through one or more intermediaries other than Dallin H. Oaks and such would never be taken seriously. (Imo this is not a mere hypothetical, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.) Third, applying the thinking the hierarchy advocates to the hierarchy itself, does it have more Class 1 scriptural support than any other competing paradigm? I understand that the hierarchy makes logical sense if we make a few foundational assumptions about the infallibility and exclusivity of what has made its way into the canon, but from within the canon itself, what are the scriptures that support it? And, applying the hierarchy's formula, are those scriptures more persuasive than scriptures which support any other paradigm? Is the priority the pursuit of truth, or the pursuit of correctly understanding the canon, or are the two assumed to be one and the same? As I said, the above reservations might not apply. To give some context to where I'm coming from: My personal belief is that we have the calling and the privilege of being the same manner of men and women as Christ. I think this would be “being filled with the pure love of Christ”. And I think being filled with the pure love of Christ is not primarily an intellectual pursuit; rather, it is something felt, something experienced, something embodied, something we are to deliberately return to again and again and again whenever we notice we've slipped into any lesser state of consciousness. Imo.

The demand is still extremely high... I assume??? I don't know how they missed gaging how popular the new garments would be. But at this point I don't know if there's a way they could have properly prepared for it. Every once and a while I check at the local DB for garments I'm a little between sizes ATM so I've tried to grab a couple of the smaller pairs as well. There is ALWAYS a consistent flow of people there, hunting for the elusive garments. The only time I get them is if I hit it just right, shortly after they've restocked a little. The sales people there said they never know exactly what they'll get in a shipment. But whatever they get, most of them are sold well before the end of the day. And that's with a limit on how many of the new garments you can buy. You know. If they're there. I have never seen something like it. Ever. Not with any other previous garment change. And I assume their warehouses/manufacturers are limited structurally to meet the needs of previous rushes. You can't exactly make that bigger all the sudden...Still at some point there should be a moment where supply will meet demand and sales normalize. That will just take a while. It's causing a cultural shift along the way. My ward is a little slow on said shifts. But I've been to other wards where a loose tank style dress is quickly becoming the norm, particularly among younger ages. Again, I can't think of a garment that has done that. Personally, it has changed my relationship with my body, somewhat with my husband, and with the garment itself. All in positive ways. And I felt pretty solid in all of those beforehand. I can explain more later. But I'm delaying the day as it is. With luv, BD

oopps just saw the other thread

That makes sense.

Huh. I look forward to @Analytics' response. Thanks, -Smac

Are demons real, when the Bible refers to the other gods as demons? Or are demons just idols with names? You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Demons are depicted as real, and as gods who have idols.

Are they real gods or just man-made idols with names?

The Church is going to pwn Mormon Stories, and now the ACLU and EFF. Keep digging that hole.

should society stoop to accommodate the "insanity" of woke social engineers?

It does seem like Dehlin was going out of his way to design his website so as to mimic the Church's designs, themes, color palette, motifs, etc. Thanks, -Smac

They are different varieties of the same terrible thing: the sexualization and grooming of children. I have not been speaking of all drag shows, just those that involve children and highly sexualized performances. Thanks, -Smac

You are right that there has never been a transgender woman playing in the WNBA. That fact is not in dispute. But it does not follow that the underlying issue is therefore “fabricated.” The substance is not dependent on one specific league having already admitted a male player. It is about the principle of sex-based categories and what happens when those categories are redefined. Across multiple sports, governing bodies (such as the IOC) have already faced cases in which male-bodied athletes entered female categories and displaced female competitors or altered the competitive landscape. The pattern exists even if the WNBA itself has not yet produced a high-profile example. Treating the absence of a current WNBA case as proof that the entire concern is imaginary is like saying a fire code is unnecessary until a particular building burns down. You also shift the burden in a useful way: if someone wants a sex-based rule, they should explain why the benefits outweigh the costs. That standard cuts both ways. Maintaining female-only categories is not a novel restriction. It is the long-standing default that made women’s sports possible in the first place. Changing that default — so that men can enter on the basis of identity — also requires justification. Instead, it is merely assumed. This is especially when the performance gap between male and female bodies remains large and well-documented. The question is not whether anyone is currently “forcing” the WNBA to admit such athletes. The question is whether the eligibility rules should preserve sex as the relevant category or subordinate it. On the broader point about living in a pluralistic society and extending grace: I agree. People should be treated with dignity. That does not automatically settle how sex-based spaces and competitions are defined. Pluralism can and should include the recognition that sex is binary and materially relevant in some domains. Dismissing every attempt to preserve those distinctions as “speculation” or “manufactured controversy” avoids the actual trade-offs rather than resolving them. The WNBA example may be amplified, and some activists clearly seek test cases. Lawrence v. Texas was apparently based on a contrivance. Amplification does not make the underlying policy question disappear. It is still legitimate to ask whether female categories should remain female, and to expect that question to be answered with evidence about performance, fairness, and safety rather than by declaring the discussion itself illegitimate. Thanks, -Smac

@Analytics is, nearly to the exclusion of discussion of the topic at hand. I would look at evidence. Quite a few in the "trans" community actively court public attention. Dylan Mulvaney. Lia Thomas. Lily Tino. So do some groups (such as those who are grooming children by exposing them to highly sexualized drag show and other live performances). Politicians did not coordinate with Dylan Mulvaney. The massive backlash against Bud Light was not orchestrated in backrooms in Washington D.C. Political operatives did not plant Riley Gaines on the UPenn women's swim team. From a previous post: I think those who endorse the sorts of trans-related controversies, such as men in women's bathrooms, are trying very hard to stay at Step 1 as long as possible. The longer Steps 1 and 2 are drawn out, the easier Steps 3 and 4 are. Frog and boiling water and all that. America has transformed substantially in the last many decades, including as to LGBT issues. I think if there were anything that could reverse acceptance of the Ts, it would be the sexualization and grooming of children mostly, but also the incursion of men, both de facto and de jure into women's sports and other sex-segregated spaces. thanks, -Smac

A huge part of the problem is that that the "substance" is largely built on speculations, slippery slopes, strawmen, outlier anecdotes, and amplified hypotheticals. It doesn't address whether the proposed solutions (e.g. the Kansas bathroom law) cause more good or harm in the real world. I would suggest in general, as a society we should allow people the freedom to live their own lives: treat others the way you'd like to be treated, give people different than you some grace, recognize we live in a pluralistic society, and try to get along. If you think new laws are necessary (e.g. requiring all biological females to use the female restroom), it is incumbent upon you to explain why the cost of that law is worth it and explain why such a law would do more good than harm. The example you brought up to kick off this thread is the WNBA. If there were big scarry men who really wanted to play in the WNBA, and somehow the system was forcing the league to admit them as players, then that would be interesting news. But that has never happened. Not once. But apparently some activists got tired of waiting for this hypothetical to occur naturally and decided to manufacture the test case themselves. Today (August 24) if you go to FoxNews.com, top stories include: The lead story on the entire homepage: Enes Kanter Freedom discussing his confrontation at a WNBA game and his campaign to enter the WNBA. One of Fox’s four “Hot Topics”: “WNBA CONTROVERSY,” second only to the war with Iran. Another prominent story: “Fever coach urges press don’t ‘give it any gas’ as transgender firestorm rages.” The OutKick section promotes that story again, plus another about the Sky coach defending Natasha Cloud after her argument with Freedom. Notice what is missing: an actual transgender WNBA player (there have been ZERO in history). An actual displaced female player. An actual injury caused by the policy. None of the harm the controversy is supposedly about has actually occurred. It's a manufactured controversy built to push your buttons. And this is the specific story that you used to steer the discussion in this direction.

If anyone is interested, when we were faithful nonmember participants in the ward, we were not allowed to tithe. We were, however, allowed to donate to the fast offering. They gave us envelopes to do so.

I’m not sure I’d read that invitation as “the only time they want to talk is when they want money.” Tithing Declaration is opening in September this year, so wards are presumably starting to get appointments organized now. And the purpose of Tithing Declaration is pretty literal: members are invited to declare their tithing status. You don’t have to pay anything at the meeting, and being invited doesn’t mean anyone is specifically asking you for money. When you say this “broke the silence,” was this actually a personal visit from the bishop, or was it just an email/text from the executive secretary asking people to sign up? I mean, was it even specific to you, or was it basically a generic invitation being sent to everyone?

If you want to read all of the filings as they come out, see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73209567/intellectual-reserve-inc-v-open-stories-foundation/. It has the ACLU and EFF amicus briefs. And it has the latest filing from the Church. The current state is that Dehlin has filed a Motion to Dismiss, the ACLU and EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, and the Church just filed their response to it. That is what triggered the latest batch of news. In the Motion to Dismiss, one of Dehlin's arguments is that this case is long after any statue of limitation. The term is "latches" for copyright cases and both of the motions (Dehlin's and the Church's) talk about it. The Church says that it has basically gotten worse. Starting on page 27 of their motion: (there are images that I can't copy from the pdf so I put <image> to indicate where they would go) Both motions are arguing about 2 different Supreme Court cases and which one has priority. Dehlin argues that "Rogers v. Grimaldi" is the controlling case and the Church argues that "Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC". The 1989 Rogers case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi) said that using a trademark word in a title is acceptable and gave a formula (called the Rogers test) to determine if the trademark was being infringed. The 2023 Jack Daniels case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's_Properties,_Inc._v._VIP_Products_LLC) said that the Rogers test does not cover situations where the trademark was used as a trademark by the infringer. I think the Church's argument is stronger because "Mormon Stories" seems to be more than just a title. It is more like the identity. Yes, the company is technically called "Open Stories" but it is mostly marketed as "Mormon Stories". But even if the Church wins here, it just means it goes into the discovery phase. Dehlin could still win at the end.

Maybe the silence from the Church, could have been a well intentioned attempt at giving yourself some space to overcome whatever concerns that may exist. The infrequent attempts to contact you, although in a official capacity, may have been a attempt to test the water. Also, the attempt at gaining a financial donation, may have been in the belief that you are still an active supporter, if not a regular attendee.

So my wife and I have been inactive for two plus years now. To my knowledge the only person who has ever reached out to us in an official capacity was to offer me a calling about a year ago. Of course I said no. Didn’t even ask me at the time why we were not coming to church. I suppose he was afraid to ask?? anyway the silence has been broken, we have been invited to tithing settlement… it’s August and they are already doing this? frankly I’m glad none of our “friends” bug us, but it is kinda wierd the only time they wanna talk or check in is to get some money out of us. that is all

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/08/12/aclu-tells-court-toss-out-lds/

Trib: Not the first time he shot himself in the foot, imo. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/08/20/lds-church-rejects-notion-its-case/ The Trib has the filing embedded. Can read it on Scribd as well apparently.

Not sure I understand this part: The ongoing confusion has been since it started from what I have seen. Maybe they mean something specific by “public questions”?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/getting-it-right-clarifying-trademark-branding-concerns Not sure what his current stance is, but from June: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/28/lds-church-mormon-lawsuit

I am not debating whether it’s a fabricated controversy or not. I am curious how you, smac, would determine if something was fabricated. I think Analytics did a decent job of showing the dominant voice in online media on the subject by far are the conservatives rather than the liberals or transgender communities (granted he chose just a few sources, but quite prominent ones with long reach). Again whether that translates to fabricated controversy, I couldn’t say.