All Activity

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!

It's all so heartbreaking what happens with these families. Someone in my family had a baby with a gang member. What we have heard of his father (gang member in a high position) leads me to believe he would also hand his gun to his son. His poor grandma tried to raise him well, but the influence of his dad was just too much. And that affects many of my family even though they have never had contact with the dad. But we have not dealt with anything like happened in this story. I think that may be the double chapel building that I am familiar with so there are a lot of people that go there. Even people who don't know those involved in the shooting will likely be affected just going to church or attending more funerals.

Attempting to mediate here. Your pattern recognition of gang activity within a specific demographic subset, risks generalizing an entire ethnic demographic. What you seem to be proposing is racial profiling of entire congregations or communities to be treated as security threats, all based on the actions of specific criminal groups or individuals. If threat management is the goal, it could focus on known gang dynamics, specific family disputes, or rivalries rather than broad demographic-based security. Applying heavy security solely based on ethnic attendance creates significant legal and social friction without necessarily stopping targeted acts of violence. Like many other gangs, gangs sometimes utilize neutral community venues, such as funerals, weddings, or religious services for targeted retaliation, knowing the targets will be present and off-guard. This is an issue seen across various cultural gang networks. Rather than targeting Tongans, look for specific high-risk events, such as funerals involving individuals with known gang affiliations or recent violent conflicts. Your critique of church leadership assumes potential institutional apathy or a hesitation to act due to public relations concerns. The Church, like many organizations, generally relies on local law enforcement for active security threats rather than maintaining armed private security forces. Local leaders typically coordinate directly with local police. Working directly with local police gang units to identify high-risk events prior to scheduling, allowing for discreet or visible law enforcement presence during services. I believe there are more policy updates coming, like evaluating security guidelines for facility access, off-duty officer hiring for special events, and local leader training for threat de-escalation.

My thoughts. First, mortality tables are a model, and George Box’s warning about models applies: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” When actuaries develop mortality tables, we look at a giant population of people, some of whom we have labeled as “male”, and some of whom we have labeled as “female”. We then look at how many people are alive at various ages, how many people die at each age, and calculate mortality rates. Then we’ll do some smoothing, and a mortality table results. Companies might then adjust industry tables based on their own data under the belief that their own population of insured individuals isn’t homogenous with the industry as a whole. Regarding regulations, there are non-discriminatory laws, but in general U.S. companies are free to ask people their birth sex or their chosen gender, and according to industry surveys, it’s about 50-50 on companies choosing one or the other. There is a study entitled "A long-term follow-up study of mortality in transsexuals receiving treatment with cross-sex hormones” that indicates that such people have a 50% higher mortality rate. Putting that into perspective, a 43-year old female non-smoker has a life expectancy of 44.5 years. Increase her mortality rate by 50%, and her life expectancy drops to 41.0 years. For a life insurance policy, that might mean the premium for the transexual with a 50% higher mortality rate would need a 20% higher premium. So if we assume 1% of an insured block is transgender and is paying a premium that is 20% too low, that would mean that in aggregate, the premium for the entire block is 0.2% too low. However, that is probably overstating it, because the base mortality rate probably already includes 1% transgender people with their higher mortality rate, which would mean the 1% who is getting a 20% discount is offset by the 99% who are paying, on average, 0.2% too much. Can you see how this gets very complicated and is marginal? There is also a study that says the difference of mortality between men and women is 20% biology, and 80% lifestyle. That is why I think most actuaries would agree with what Jonah von der Embse, FSA, CERA, MAAA said in an award-winning essay. He first explained, from a statistical point of view “Gender and sex are far from “binary, objectively determinable” characteristics, and there will never be a clean-cut way to sort them into two buckets.” He concluded that the most fair way to price insurance might be to just use unisex rates, he then said: “If actuaries (and regulators) decide to continue using sex or gender to assess risk, the next step would be to settle on consistent use – should actuaries use sex, gender, or sex assigned at birth? Gender expression would appear to be the most client friendly option, especially for transgender individuals. However, in a ‘male/female’ world, this option would not work for non-binary individuals. Sex assigned at birth is another logical option, but this may be a challenging data point to collect from a privacy standpoint, and it may be hard to justify, for example, the use of male rates for a fully transitioned transgender female.” Again, mortality differences between men and women are 20% biology and 80% lifestyle. Men are about 4 times more likely to be hit by lightening. That isn’t because XY chromosomes have subtle electromagnetic properties that attract lightening. It’s because men are 4 times more likely to be in places where lightening strikes: fishing, boating, swimming, the golf course, the construction site, etc.

Another article https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/08/18/father-of-teen-shot-at-kearns-funeral-arrested-for-investigation-of-murder/ This one describes what the police think happened. What kind of dad hands a gun to his kid to shoot another person?

I know of at least one prophet (we knew his bishop) who lived in his own house for quite a few years. They wanted him to move to the place by Temple Square, but he wanted to live at home. They may have changed in later years. The prophet before him did live there though.

Technically, seminary teachers do, or at least did, get paid. This was quite a few years ago, so things may have changed, but my mom was called in to the bishop, similar to a calling, and asked to apply for the position. She got paid a very small amount, so small it was probably called something else rather than pay. Expense reimbursement was separate from that.

From what I understand it means that they all receive the same amount. I would guess that that is true even for the prophet and apostles (that they receive the same dollar amount as any other GA), but I do think that the prophet at least also receives a place to live next to temple square (and that the 15 get health care too, but that's just my assumption). I've also heard that plane tickets and those kinds of expenses are covered (not reimbursed but paid for outright) but that they fly business and never first class. When traveling they used to stay with the local leaders so rarely a need for a hotel room but I'm sure not sure if that's true anymore or not. Again though, I couldn't say how accurate the information is.

For the record, I do think general authority should be paid. As should seminary teachers. :)

Thanks for this. I wonder what the word "uniform" means? Does it mean the same amount, or for the same specific expenses, which could vary widely across the world? In my mind, uniform might mean a list of things for which they are paid: mortgage payment, rent, utilities, repairs, and ongoing maintenance. Or it could mean $10,000 a month for everyone. In that case, the general authority would have to prove with documents that they spent the money on its intended use (housing expenses) and nothing else. Travel expenses, could not come out of that, for example. They could deduct travel expenses for their ministry but not out of housing allowance. If the Church pays their travel expense (on a church credit card, for example), they would have to follow Church travel policy for travel expenses, whatever that might be. It might be $80 per night maximum or $100 per day for meals. Or only fly coach, or, or, or. I once worked for the Marriott corporation. They had fairly strict travel expense rules. I know that has nothing to do with the Church. So, if a GA has his house paid off, he would not be allowed to have a housing allowance that included any mortgage or rent purposes. I don't know if general authorities collect social security, but they would have to pay into that as does everyone. I don't think age matters, but I really don't know. Furthermore, I am no longer receiving any funds from a ministry allowance. Oh, and as an aside, I remember flying home from a conference in Boise (love the Bacon Restaurant in downtown Boise). I was in line, and two general authorities got in line behind me for the same flight. One, I believe, was Elder Cornish of the First Seventy. So I can testify that general authorities fly Southwest!! I would also suggest that a "living allowance" that doesn't follow the IRS rules for clergypersons, is a salary and taxable income, any way you slice it.

Video from the shooting scene. No blood or anything gory , just chaos. don’t know if fb links work. https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DH5KeWuqu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

That's hard. Would it be appropriate to tell them that you trust them to be safe in the women's restroom but cannot predict how others will respond to them? Then the decision would be theirs. Not sure if that would work or not in a liability situation though. Are there laws in your state that dictate what restroom a person must use?