All Activity

Right. Anyone can go into any bathroom. No segregation by sex. Obliteration.

That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate.

In agreement with you. Pre CGI, I feel there was more effort, and thought, put into the making of specific scenes, for the want of better wording, created an illusion.

Same. I have always loved that scene where you see Clark thinking about revealing himself to Lois and how, in just a matter of moments, you see him visibly transform from character to character right before your eyes. No CGI. No cut shots. Just one camera, capturing a genuine actor practicing his craft. 😚👌

Very much so.

That’s a fair question, and it helps separate two different issues. Bathroom and changing-room policies are about access to sex-separated spaces. In those settings, the practical problem is overwhelmingly created by males who retain male physical advantages or male patterns of behavior, not by the tiny number of people who “pass” so completely that no one can tell. Edge cases do not justify rewriting the rule that the spaces are organized by sex. The rule exists to protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of the female sex class as a whole; it is not contingent on every single male being visually obvious. An identity document serves a different purpose. It is a durable record of stable identifying characteristics for use by government agencies, law enforcement, medical providers, and others who need reliable information when appearance is ambiguous, when the person is unconscious, when records must be matched across time, or when visual inspection is impossible or insufficient. The fact that most people are visually congruent with their sex does not make the recorded fact useless. Height, date of birth, and eye color are also listed even though they are usually obvious; we still record them because documents are meant to be consistent and independent of momentary appearance. In short: Sex-separated spaces are organized by sex because sex itself is the relevant category for privacy and safety. The existence of people who pass does not erase that category. Sex is recorded on IDs because identity documents need stable, non-appearance-based data. The fact that the marker is most useful in ambiguous cases does not mean it is only justified by those cases. The two contexts answer different questions. One is about who may enter a space reserved for one sex. The other is about what facts an identity document should reliably contain. Treating them as the same argument confuses the purpose of the rule with the purpose of the record. Thanks, -Smac

Somethings had been wiggling in my brain for sometime on this and I think I may have pinpointed what it is. You keep saying in response to pictures where the person has not only fully transitioned (except perhaps for bottom surgery, with clothes on, one can’t determine that) but truly looks like the opposite of their biological sex…the cases where I believe they should be allowed to use the restrooms of their appearance, not their biology to avoid biological women feeling unsafe because an apparent male had invaded women’s only spaces, that edge cases should not decide law. But why would we need to indicate biological sex on IDs except for those edge cases? Those are the cases where the IDs provide information one’s eyes do not. Serious question, not a gotcha as I am trying to understand the reasoning.

"This type of information" = biological sex? No, whether or not the person has transitioned I'm not quite following you. The driver's license says nothing about "whether or not the person has transitioned." It just lists the person's biological sex. As would putting biological sex on the ID of a person who clearly looks like the opposite of that sex. At the very least hormonal treatment. The comparison still doesn’t hold. A person on long-term hormones may look more like the opposite sex, but the license is not a fashion statement or a real-time appearance certificate. It is an identity document that records stable, material facts. We already accept that a license photo may not perfectly match a person’s current hairstyle, weight, facial hair, or clothing. The photo is a snapshot; the data fields (name, date of birth, sex, height, etc.) are meant to be consistent identifiers that do not shift with presentation or medical treatment. Hormonal treatment does not change the underlying sex recorded at birth, any more than a beard, mastectomy, or heavy makeup does. If the argument is that the marker should be updated whenever appearance changes, then the document stops functioning as a reliable record and becomes a reflection of current self-presentation. That is a different kind of document. The opioid analogy remains useful here: we do not put “currently appears sedated” or “looks like someone who might be on opioids” on a license. We record facts that are useful for identification and that do not require constant subjective updating. Biological sex is one of those facts. Appearance is not. Thanks, -Smac

No, whether or not the person has transitioned As would putting biological sex on the ID of a person who clearly looks like the opposite of that sex. At the very least hormonal treatment.

And if all Elder Shumway was doing was taking credit for all the work the general membership was doing you might have a point, but he wasn’t. He was sharing his own past experiences as a member who served without financial support (last I heard activities planner is not a paid calling), he was honoring those who now served and then he shared reasons why we do this. His past experiences and ability to reflect on those was not invalidated because now he gets a living allowance. Giving recognition to volunteers is important. I think it’s a good thing when leadership doesn’t act like such work should be a given no matter what and instead show appreciation for it. I have always found it unfortunate when appreciation of our own turns into condemnation of the ways others serve God. Choosing to devote one’s whole career to serving God and his people is a major sacrifice, imo, for the vast majority of those who feel called to the ministry. That sacrifice should be recognized even if one believes there are difficulties a professional clergy can create. It’s not as if there aren’t major difficulties by having amateurs and more or less an honor system being the backbone of our teaching and missionary service. Both have pros and cons.

This is a new argument from you, which appears to be made up out of whole cloth, apparently so that you can fit it under a rubric of heightened constitutional scrutiny. I am pretty sure it’s not in terms of at least links either he or others have posted. Well, I am certainly open to correction on that point. I would be surprised if an attorney tried, with a straight face, and on a legal filing submitted to a court with his name on it, to argue that a driver's license inclusion of the individual's sex is a constitutional violation, even under the rubric of the somewhat unique and heightened "personal autonomy" jurisprudential thought arising from the Kansas State Constitution. Consider, for example, the Corbit decision. The attorneys in that case probably threw in every argument they could file in good faith. Some excerpts: This case originated out of Alabama, but I think the same principles and outcome will apply. I surmise that @Analytics agrees with the foregoing claims. They did not work in the 11th Circuit. I don't think they would work in the 10th Circuit (Kansas is in that one). Will it work when presented to the Kansas Supreme Court? I guess we'll see. Kobach might give some a glimmer of hope, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it (how's that for a mixed metaphor!). This sure sounds like what @Analytics wants to say. How does it hold up in federal appellate court? Not very well: This is not binding precedent on constitutional questions based on the Kansas State Constitution. But I think the Kansas Supreme Court would be hard-pressed to utterly deviate it and come to a contradictory conclusion. Perhaps there is other case law touching on this topic. My search was not exhaustive. Overall, I think this legal argument is not well-developed in the U.S. Why it is undeveloped is open for speculation. My guess is that "the State is constitutionally prohibited from requiring a person's biological sex to appear on his/her driver's license." Honestly, I have a hard time taking this argument seriously in a legal sense. But who knows? Maybe Kansas and the 11th Circuit will end up at different places. Two Kansas state statutes to keep in mind: K.S.A. 77-207 ("Biological sex; application thereof to any state law or rule or regulation; application of intermediate constitutional scrutiny standard of review; important governmental objectives; collection of vital statistics.") Subsection (b) is very likely to be unconstitutional. But can the Kansas Supreme Court override the legislature's statutory definition in subsection (a) of "sex" and "gender" (that is, biological sex at birth)? Not so sure about that. See also K.S.A. 8-243 (Issuance of licenses; contents; signature; photograph, exception; fee; anatomical gift; distinguishable license for deaf and hard of hearing; distinguishable number for registered offenders; veterans; persons needing assistance with cognition.) There it is. The Kansas Legislature has enacted a statute that requires "gender" to be listed on a driver's license, and has elsewhere defined "gender" as coterminous with "biological sex and birth." Will the Kansas Supreme Court override this legislative decision? I am skeptical. The legislature exceeded its authority when purported to tell the Supreme Court how to analyze constitutional questions. That was improper. I think it would likewise be improper for the Supreme Court to tell the legislature that including an individual's biological sex in a driver's license is a constitutional violation. That seems a few bridges too far, even for a leftist court like this one. The number of transgenders who has access to medical treatment wasn’t that high in the past and just because society didn’t care at the time to protect this type of information doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. "This type of information" = biological sex? Why should this be "protect{ed}" (by which you mean "not disclosed in the government's official documents, such as driver's licenses")? I understand the concern about sensitive information and the desire to avoid unnecessary stigma or scrutiny. But I think the opioid example actually helps clarify the distinction rather than erase it. Opioid use is a variable medical treatment. It can change, it can be temporary or long-term, it can affect alertness and reaction time, and it is highly individual. Putting it on a driver’s license would create real practical and privacy problems: it would expose a medical regimen to every officer, employer, or clerk who sees the license, and it would not reliably tell anyone whether the person is currently impaired. That is why we don’t put medication lists on licenses. Biological sex is not a treatment, a diagnosis, or a variable condition in the same way. It is a basic, binary, and stable physical characteristic that is already used for identification, medical triage, forensic evidence, and the design of sex-separated spaces. Unlike a medication list, it does not change with dosage, tolerance, or new prescriptions. Recording it does not disclose a person’s health history, diagnoses, or treatment decisions; it records a material fact about the body that has identification and safety relevance independent of any medical condition. In my view, the two are not parallel. One is a private medical regimen that can affect driving performance in complex ways and carries social stigma. The other is a permanent physical characteristic that societies have long used for identification and for maintaining privacy and safety boundaries. Declining to treat them as equivalent is not a refusal to protect privacy, but rather is a recognition that not every fact about a person belongs in the same category. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Thanks, -Smac

Thinking more of the hassle as in additional work and personnel needed and added inconvenience for others, those types of costs, not just financial. I suspect most prophets wouldn’t want to put a significant additional burden on others to keep him safe just so he was in his own home when there was another, already secured and paid for most likely place for him to stay. And just because the money is there doesn’t mean someone feels okay spending the Church’s money on themselves for a personal reason.

Ok. I understand the difference between the two disciplines. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the higher or better part. Heiser was a professor in the distance program at Liberty. He was a graduate of Bob Jones University. He died of the same cancer that killed both my parents and according to odds, will also take me some day. Many Bob Jones graduates have an uncanny knack of navigating its Fundamentalism, transitioning into Evangelicalism, and appreciating academic scholarship. It is a unique place with a unique history. Ditto for Liberty. I simply don't think he would react well to being thought of as higher or better than his counterparts who are equally Evangelical, with an added (not better or lesser) belief in the need to understand the role of the Holy Spirit in Old Testament transmission and hermeneutics. In today's Evangelicalism, one can be committed to academic scholarship in the study of the transmission and interpretation of the text and an Evangelical . It isn't one or the other. I am not talking about Fundamentalist inerrancy. There is a wideness in today's Evangelical tent that hasn't always existed in the past. He represented that by his engagement with Liberty. Traditional Evangelism has widened. I apprecite that as I admire your posts and engagement in the study of the Old Testament. Best wishes.

Random post on FB came through today. This guy is part of a FB page called “Christian’s vs lds vs atheists.” Check out the last sentence of the post title of post is : differences between Christianity and the church of Jesus Christ … im cutting down the text of the post as it is a bit long…  “so called Christian never tells you their Religious beliefs , ever , we constantly hear negative propaganda mud slinging at the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, …The just aren’t UNIFIED, like The LDS, I’ve even heard Many say they don’t like organized religion, ? Do you think God‘s church is a chaos church? It’s not, it’s very well organized with prophets Apostles Bishops all non payed” APOSTLES AND BISHOPS ALL NON PAID (payed) Wonder where he got that idea.

He did not speak in a representative capacity for the Church when addressing the NAACP? It sure seems like he was doing just that. Could you elaborate on that? This presupposes A) that only the Presiding High Priest can speak on behalf of the Church, B) that the Church should issue "apologies," and C) the Church's "apologies" will only be valid if they use "the particular word 'error.'" I'm not sure any of those presuppositions is warranted. Well, that's an arguable point. Brant Gardner addresses it here: What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by “Skin of Blackness”? Some relevant excerpts: I would be happy to listen to what you have to say regarding Gardner's analysis here. Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand the "doubt" and who is casting it. Latter-day Saints have received a number of exhortations to A) refrain from expecting perfection/infallibility, and B) avoid condemning others (including, I think, prophets and apostles, both past and present). Some examples. The Title Page to the Book of Mormon: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Mormon 9:31 states: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Joseph Smith said, “I never said I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations.” Joseph Smith said: "I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives." From then-Pres. Uchtdorf: "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, 'And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.' This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth." From Elder Andersen: "The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: 'Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.' Joseph Smith said, 'I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations.' The miracle of God’s hand in the history and destiny of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is understood only through the lens of spiritual inquiry." Latter-day Saints who follow this counsel and abstain from notions/expectations of infallibility/perfection from the leaders of the Church will, I think, do just fine in weathering controversies and difficulties. Well, not really. First, you seem to be equating "lead us astray" with infallibility. With the Brethren never making any mistake to any degree, ever. Second, the governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. The general requirement for unanimity. The Standard Works. The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric. Third, we should attune ourselves to the checks and balances that are built in to the Restored Gospel: See also here: Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided. As I have previously noted here: The generalized statement of "When you are in the Army you are obligated to follow the orders of your superiors" is not incompatible with the foregoing "duty to disobey." Virtually every law or moral principle allows for exceptions in extraordinary or very unusual circumstances. Similarly, the generalized statement of "the prophet will never lead us astray, meaning that we can always trust them" is not incompatible with the foregoing statements from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and others. Fifth, we have been given prophets and apostles for the express purpose of following them: The problem is when we rely on them too much, and/or when our reliance on them is predicated on tacit expectations of infallibility. Brigham Young really nailed it here: These sentiments have come to mind in the past when I have raised my hand to sustain new leadership in the Church. When Pres. Nelson passed away, I was saddened for a time. He was a good man, even a great one. He will be missed. However, a bit later I raised my arm and sustained Pres. Oaks. Prophets and apostles are good and decent men. But in the end, they are servants. In a way, I am happy to see them pass on to the next phase of their journey, as I fully expect for the Atonement to apply to them, to wash away their sins and weaknesses, leaving them for what they really tried to be. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..." My job is not to sustain them unless they have weaknesses. My job is to sustain them despite their weaknesses. And meanwhile, I should look to see that my own house is in order. I think I'm in the Church, come what may. I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church). I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray"). However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray. I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted. I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God." I think that's right. I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us. I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray." The Church is not perfect. But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good. I love it a lot. Again, "that verse" was not speaking about humanity in toto, but rather about "the wicked" (v. 2). And not just any old bunch of sinners, but those who, facing the "{just} judgments" of God, will "shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not." The category of unredeemed "wicked" persons referenced here seems to be . . . sons of perdition (see, e.g., here). So could you elaborate What is it that you think merits an apology? Are you suggesting that "the wicked" being referenced - that is, sons of perdition - are not "carnal and devilish"? I understand the distinction people sometimes draw between “regret” and “apology,” and why the word choice matters to them. A few thoughts on why an institution might deliberately use the language of regret rather than a formal institutional apology (such as, for example, when the Illinois House of Representatives drafted a written statement to the Church about the privations and abuses the Saints endured in the 1840s, and in which statement they changed the word "apology" to "regret") : First, a formal apology from an organization often carries an implication of ongoing collective guilt that attaches to every current member. Most people reject that logic in other contexts. We do not expect every living Japanese person to apologize for Pearl Harbor, every German for the Holocaust, every Chinese citizen for the Great Leap Forward, or every American for slavery or the internment of Japanese Americans. Moral responsibility is personal. Expressing deep regret for past wrongs while declining to place perpetual guilt on people who had nothing to do with those decisions is consistent with that principle. Second, institutional apologies can become performative or endless. Once an organization starts issuing formal apologies for historical actions, the demand rarely stops at one statement. Such faultfinding demands, at in some quarters, are less about encouraging amends for misdeeds and more about hectoring and moving the goalposts, over and over. That may be the closest we get to a Perpetual Motion Machine). Critics often treat any subsequent disagreement on other issues as evidence that the apology was insufficient or insincere. Choosing precise language of regret can be a way of acknowledging real pain and error without turning the institution into a permanent defendant in a historical grievance process. Third, the Church has in fact used strong language. Leaders have spoken of past theories and practices as incorrect, disavowed them, and expressed profound regret for the suffering they caused. The 2013 Gospel Topics essay on race and the priesthood, for example, is explicit that the explanations once offered were wrong and that the restriction was not of God. See also the Church's 2007 public statement of regret about the Mountain Meadows Massacre: These statements are stronger than many institutions manage when confronting their own histories. Whether one prefers the word “apology” or “regret,” the substance—repudiation of the old justifications and sorrow for the harm—is present. Fourth, an exclusive focus on the precise verb can obscure the larger record. The same institution has spent decades teaching against racism, expanding missionary and leadership opportunities across every nation and people, and emphasizing the equal worth of every soul. Evaluating that longer trajectory matters at least as much as the choice between two English words. None of this denies that real harm occurred or that people who experienced it are entitled to have that harm recognized. It simply suggests that “regret” is not necessarily an evasion; it can be a deliberate choice about how responsibility, continuity, and language interact. People of good faith can still prefer different wording, but the distinction is not automatically evidence of bad faith. False teaching leads people in the wrong path, to worship a false God. For example, Joseph Smith teaching that God is not God from all eternity. This is not the God faithful Jews or the majority of Christians worship. Thank you for clarifying. You are pointing to Joseph Smith’s teaching (in the King Follett discourse) that God became God, and that humans can follow a similar path. You’re right that this differs from the classical theism held by most Jews and the majority of Christians, who affirm that God is eternal, uncreated, and without beginning. A few observations: Disagreement is not automatically “leading people astray” in the sense of deception. If every departure from post-biblical creedal formulations counts as leading people to a false God, then the early Christian debates over the nature of the Godhead, the later split between East and West, the Reformation, and countless other theological developments would all fall under the same charge. Latter-day Saints understand themselves to be restoring truths that were lost or obscured, not inventing a different object of worship. We worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the Father of Jesus Christ. The disagreement is about the nature and history of that God, not about substituting a different being. “God from all eternity” is itself a philosophical development. The absolute timelessness and pure actuality of God (actus purus) as later articulated in classical theism is heavily shaped by Greek philosophical categories. Biblical language is often more dynamic—God “becomes,” “relents,” “remembers,” and enters into time with His people. Latter-day Saint theology leans into that biblical dynamism and rejects some of the later philosophical overlays. One can view that as a recovery rather than a corruption. The practical fruit matters. The charge that this teaching leads people to “worship a false God” needs to be tested against what Latter-day Saints actually do and teach: faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, repentance, baptism in His name, receiving the Holy Ghost, and enduring in covenant relationship with the Father and the Son. If the accusation is that we are directed toward a different being, the lived religion doesn’t match that claim. You’re free to believe the classical view is correct and the Latter-day Saint view is wrong. That is a fair and reasonable theological disagreement. But equating a different understanding of God’s nature with “leading people astray to worship a false God” assumes that only one post-biblical philosophical formulation can possibly refer to the true God. That seems to me too narrow a standard. I’m happy to keep discussing the doctrine itself if you’d like to go further into the King Follett material or the relevant biblical texts. I think it would help if you explained and demonstrated, rather than merely asserted that a revelation was not needed. Could you elaborate? It seems we have different meanings for the same term. What does leading people in the Church astray mean to you? When I speak of someone “leading people in the Church astray,” I do not mean: Making an honest mistake in doctrine or history Holding or teaching an incomplete or imperfect understanding of a gospel topic Getting a policy, a timeline, or a historical detail wrong Expressing a personal opinion that later turns out to be incorrect Struggling with questions or publicly acknowledging difficult issues Human beings, including prophets and apostles, are fallible. Error, incompleteness, and the need for correction are part of the mortal experience. Those things, by themselves, do not constitute leading people astray. What it does mean is something more deliberate and more serious. Leading people astray means using influence, teaching, or example to turn people away from Jesus Christ, away from the covenants of His gospel, and away from the Church He established—persuading them to abandon faith in Christ, reject prophetic authority, break covenants, or leave the path of discipleship. It is the active effort to draw people off the covenant path and toward disbelief, bitterness, or competing systems of belief that separate them from the Savior and His restored Church. In short, it is not the same as being wrong. It is the work of pulling people away from Christ. Well, that's a point that has been debated for a long time. A manual is entirely fallible if it contains no truth. Okay. But you have not claimed that the manual "contains no truth," but rather that it contains an error (which error the Church has caught, corrected, and about which expressed regret). If you are truly saying the Church's manuals contain "no truth" at all, then please elaborate. I would like to hear what you have to say. No LDS teaching manuals are "entirely" fallible. Okay. I'm glad we cleared that up. Thanks. But surely not in equal measure. There are vastly more items in the former category than the latter. Do we agree on that point? We really need to pin down what you mean by "astray." I'm not sure this statement is part of the canonized text of OD1, but I nevertheless accept it as substantively prophetic, revelatory and correct. The "idea" being "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray." I think we need to have some clarity as to what Pres. Woodruff and his predecessors and successors have had in mind on this issue. We still need to clear up what you think "astray" means in the context in which the leaders of the Church have spoken. Consider, for example, this quote from Joseph Smith: I sense that you carry implicit expectations/requirements of infallibility/perfection in prophets and apostles. And when - as they inevitably do - make a mistake, you use this implicit notion to nullify their claims of prophetic/apostolic authority. I just don't think that works. Thanks, -Smac

Like I have often said, holding God and his servants to one's personal standards of what is Ideal and Perfect, by definition makes disappointment and perceived imperfection, and only that, significant and decisive. And that, consequentially moves the only God worth noticing from the heavens to the Mirror. Asking whether Joseph Smith's inspiration was Real, by nature of the question involves a very different, method, problem field, and standard of solution than asking whether it lives up to my personal desires and subjective expectations. On this topic, I have often considered some implications of this comment, in the first chapter of The Older Testament, Barker citing Steiner's Death of Tragedy: I personally have enjoyed the transformation of my personal vision and understanding, fostered by a great many insights from a great many scholars, that have changed my views on a great many topics relative to the Book of Mormon, including racist stereotypes. Alma's words are "enlightenment", "expansion", "enlargement" and as well as "delicious" and promising. I have noticed that most mis-readings of the Book of Mormon on race (among other things) come from reading it against nineteenth century popular culture, rather than against the various cultural environments that it claims for itself. Jerusalem 600 BCE and Mesoamerica. Close reading in the claimed context has transformed the book, which makes it more a revelation another, very different world, than an expression of pop culture. Would I have been better off, as a growing human being, if all my leaders and teachers over the years had been correct on all matters from the start, placing me in a position in which these experiences of enlarged understanding would be denied to me? Not only would I have nothing transformative to learn, but also, nothing to contribute. All Hail the Big Book of What to Think. I would, like the unhappy inhabitants of Jack Williamson's "humanoid" stories, have nothing to do but sit "with folded hands." Should I protest that the seed planted in 1829 has sprouted roots and shoots and branches and leaves and fruit that have transformed the form of the initial seed, and were demonstrably not there at the start of the experiment, but demonstrably retain the genetic instructions inherent in the seed? The word "sustain" as applied to Latter-day Saint leaders and bureaucrats quite crucially, and deliberately I think, includes meanings, of "suffer," "allow" and "endure." I could cite the Perry Scheme again, which is all about how a person processes information and how they deal with imperfection and uncertainty and authority, while developing faith commitments and identity. And I can appreciate the difference in followings developed by William Blake, a visionary Romantic Poet, who did have some notable social connections but who for a long time, despite his profound genius, had his works mostly forgotten and ignored, and Joseph Smith, whose writings had a profound effect on not just a few books in some libraries, and some scholars at a few Universities, but created a notable growing society. The imperfect soil in which it was planted, human and cultural, did allow it to thrive long enough find its proper context, and improved readings and therefore, transcend its culture. I am personally impressed with how God managed such a thing, with the human resources at hand. I think of D&C 3, one of the oldest documents in church history from 1828, when Joseph Smith had nothing going for him but utter failure, declaring this: What has happened since, is, I think, remarkable. Rather than being disappointed in a God who could manage that, using imperfect humans and frustrating human societies, I stand all amazed. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

They are the Sons of El who were allotted the nations as the lot of their inheritance from their Father, El Elyon, the Chief God of all the Semitic nations, El Baniyu (the Begetter), or as we would call him, God the Father. Deuteronomy 32:8 "When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance … he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance." What is "the number of the Sons of God"? The Sons of God divided the people of Babel into 70 nations in the days of Peleg. Genesis 11:7-8 "And the Yahweh said, ... look... let us go down and confuse their language there... So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" The number of nations created after Babel are the 70 listed in Genesis 10, because that is the "number" of divine beings. The Bible repeatedly identifies specific gods by name, and each associated with specific peoples. Moab has "Chemosh your god" (Judges 11:24) The biblical scribe doesn't explain who Chemosh is. He assumes his audience knows. Ammon "Milcom the detestable god of the Ammonites." (1 Kings 11:5) The Bible speaks naturally about Chemosh, Milcom, Dagon, Baal, Ra, Marduk, and the "sons of God" without any need to pretend that these were merely fictional characters. To get more identities we can try diving into Ugaritic/Ancient Canaanite El/Baal material. Other foreign gods are in Haazinu (Deut 32:17). "They shall sacrifice to demons, gods which they did not know". Then they are named in 23-24 "They shall be) wasted with Hunger, fought by Reshef, and Qeteb (and?) Meriri." Resheph is a known name of a Canaanite god, who is known in the Bible as a demon shooting arrows of disease (Hab 3:5, Job 5:7). The others appear again in the Bible (Hosea 13:14, possibly also Job 3:5). I can take this further. Like how Gad and Asher were named after Canaanite deities, or Jesus acknowledging Baal exists.

Ancient Near Eastern scholars are specialists focused on context, what the words meant to the ancient audience who original wrote and heard them, using surrounding cultures, archaeology, and historical languages as a decipher key. Theologians focus on application, how that text fits into a broader or modern religious doctrine or system of faith. The ANE scholars are going to be better at interpreting Psalm 82 because it uses imagery common across the ancient Near East, like the divine council. Near Eastern scholars analyze the language of psalm using surrounding Ugaritic and Akkadian texts from that exact era. This helps untangle what phrases like "bene elohim" meant in the Bronze and Iron Age Near East, rather than filtering those words through centuries of later doctrine and imposing later theological assumption onto it.

Also all the passages saying God is better than all the other gods become silly and pointless if the other deities aren’t assumed to exist. The kind of God stands alone and is greater than all else is also a common trope in polytheistic praise texts. You will hear the same things said of Greek and Egyptian gods.

I blame God for this one. If you want to not feed into racist stereotypes you need to give your prophet a more explicit and explanatory translation instead of using language that suggests modern racist tropes.

They were quite fun.

I am pretty sure it’s not in terms of at least links either he or others have posted. I have recently read an article or two (can’t remember if one article contain multiple stories or each article had one) where the individual describe where every case now they share the experience of others seeing their ID now and recognizing they are transgender and has transitioned, etc. I don’t believe I went looking for articles on this on my own lately, so it would have been here I got them. The number of transgenders who has access to medical treatment wasn’t that high in the past and just because society didn’t care at the time to protect this type of information doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. There is more reason to have my opioid use marked on my license as that could affect driving and issues with incarceration if I didn’t have access to my medication. I still don’t want that info to be on my license as I get enough looks from doctors and other medical professionals when they learn that I take them. If doctors have had a problem with seeing me like a drug addict (thankfully none of my long term ones treat me that way…they probably would not be long term if they did, then I really don’t want anyone else who has no clue on why or how I take them (20years at same prescribed or lower dose, tried every other med recommended and a few just suggested as possible for my disorder that my doctors offered me). I am sharing the above as an example of why I don’t believe sensitive and/or controversial medical information should be required on a license if the more relevant medical info like blood type and drug that affect driving use isn’t.

Excellent point, imo. Especially with the real world example of the confusion it caused. Smac, do you have any actual examples, not just hypotheticals where having the sex on a driver’s license helped clarify anything other than someone’s biological sex? I remember some general hypotheticals you posted, but can’t remember specific real world examples. If you have posted them, no need to repost as extremely long posts actually make it harder for me to remember details. I would prefer just a link to your post that has that info. The medical info is the only one I can think of that might be helpful due to the person being unconscious and unable to supply info themselves. I asked Chat if a biological sex marker on an id could prevent confusion for first responders in an emergency. Blood type seems more relevant to me to have on an ID to save crucial time, so it doesn’t seem like medical necessity is a valid reason lawmakers insisted a biological sex marker be on an ID or they would be including blood type as well.

I recently got to rewatch the first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve. The third and fourth films in that specific series was shown on consecutive nights on TV. The first two are those I prefer to watch, and still enjoy them as much now as when I first went to see them at the cinema when I was a youngster.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day I've got a teenage boy, so yeah, I've seen the latest spider-man flick. There were things I liked about it - things I didn't. Pros: While I personally prefer installments where we get more of Spidey's sarcastic humor, a core part of Spider-Man also tends to run more on the emo (borderline depressed) side of things, so I liked that they were willing to experiment with leaning into that a bit here in this film. It wasn't all just action sequence to action sequence. Also, we got more screen time for Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle / The Punisher; love that for him. Cons: Meaningful pacing / plot issues. Lots of clunky cameos - whether that be Florence Pugh's Black Widow, Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner / Hulk, or Sadie Sink's "mystery" character that the press were all sworn to secrecy over prior to release - they tended to add little to the story and served more as a reminder that, hey, remember that there are more movies coming up soon! Yes, the setup syndrome was strong with this film. And I really didn't like the fact that we basically got an entire movie without the core friend-group being around to do their thing. It just wasn't the vibe (as the kids are wont to say). Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie; it's just not the best version in the series.