All Activity

Not who you were talking to and not complaing, but this has been the oddest thing to me. I have not understood why temple reccomend holders need something more (1.) than their reccomends. You don't have a separate meeting to declare your WoW status or one to declare your chastity status etc. All those things are declared in the temple interview. I understand for people who don't have a reccomend. As for #2, that can now be done at home, much more easily, on the computer, for those that have that access.

I wish it was the one picture with multiple pieces verses the multiple pictures. I can see cars, motorcycles etc on the one picture. I cannot always tell what I am looking for on that tiny little picture on the multis on my phone. I just end up pushing on them hoping that is a tiny traffic light among all that other stuff.

I want to go to your ward….

But I live in Mexico. Where are the mules, cows, and coyotes?

I think you should drop the Rainbow Monkey as evidence of LGBT+ or Drag Queen. It is as likely to be cisgender as lgbt and it’s not technically drag, I believe. Might be, I am not a drag professional. It’s definitely not stylized female though. Could just use it as a generic ‘let’s keep the risqué adult stuff’ out of Children’s Story Hour. Nowhere in your links did I see the Monkey costume documented rather than just claimed as associated with either Drag Queen hour or LGBT+ history month celebrations. One (spiked iirc) mentioned another event that was, Monkey was in July, not June or February (cheated, used chat so could be wrong). The Drag Queen examples were another event How can they be used as evidence for Monkey? Given the other costumes of the group’s carnival flavor, I don’t think just because it’s Rainbow that means it’s LGBT. They all read much more harlequin/clown to me. A number of costumes actually have a harlequin pattern to them. I love me an intense harlequin design. Quite beautiful imo (the harlequin fabric, I find the monkey even without the genital accessories on the tacky side). Stylized overmasculinized, costumes including animals (especially lions, apes, and bulls) seem like a not uncommon carnival theme from what I can tell never having delved deeply into the subject for good reason. “Rainbow” fits the full color scheme of the Mandinga carnival troupe. Such colour schemes can be seen on obviously nonLGBT or Drag carnival costumes. Carnival is all about intense colours. Caribbean (they mention this as well) decor is often rainbow colors. Now as to that specific costume’s sexual nature…oh yeah, I would have been shocked and disgusted if I saw it, it’s an abuse of a rainbow. But that’s lots of carnival costumes I am guessing based on what I have seen unintentionally over the years The costume, whatever the color scheme, was totally inappropriate imo even if the guy was covered top to bottom (feet or butt) from the picture I saw. No actual skin exposure, just a costume with an oversized fake butt and penis included, not unusual of hyper masculinized carnival costumes from the few times I have looked at them…btw, I have no intention of ever attending or watching a carnival parade. It has never appealed to me even when I liked parades and the idea of being in a crowd (the idea was always better than the reality, so I figured out I actually don’t like crowds). The various numerous exquisite costumes do not justify the graphic or tacky ones, imo. Bottomline for me….I want to see documentation, not just claims it’s LGBT. It seems to be one of those claims with enough people repeating it, that everyone assumes it is a fact. Hypermasculine is not automatically LGBT. Neither is Rainbow (seriously, every time I write this I am hearing ‘taste the rainbow’ and seeing a skittle shower). Lots of cisgendered behaviour falls in the category as well. According to Chat btw, the name was coined by journalists (especially someone called Janice Turner), Mandinga only referred to it as the monkey costume. There were apparently two other animal costumes, one was a frog. The series was apparently called Monkey Business. There’s a pdf I may try to find. I took a screenshot off a site primarily full of ads, so no link. The costume isn’t identical as far as I can tell, but similar. It shows the costume was based in the carnival genre though, imo.

Maybe it's similar to someone who is a "reformed alcoholic"?

But on the bright side I'm getting really good and identifying cars, busses, motorcycles, crosswalks, and bridges. It has helped me to become a better driver.

Honestly? I can’t begin to imagine.

just checked lds tools. Where do you unsubscribe at ? We r listed as EQ and rs members. he has gotten worse. He forgot the signup genius link so now he has to take three hundred phone calls…. Or just mine if I make it cuz it was an individual email. It’s not really a complaint… it’s more of a “yea that figures “

Also isn’t reformed fundamentalist a bit of a contradiction in terms?

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way? See here: And this: Here: What I Saw at Drag Queen Story Hour d This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do. I think many kids are going to be confused at this sort of thing. I think it is confusing. In other words you want to police the choices of other parents. We don't let children into certain venues and events, even with parental consent. We as a society have made that decision, not just me. Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that? Again: The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. Perhaps DQSH has fewer sexually explicit things going on that we've seen in some drag shows and Pride parades/events. But that would be the "not as bad as" fallacy. Thanks, -Smac

Interesting. The company looks more Cis gendered than anything else. Lots of grey hair too. Agree it’s an over sexualuzed version of a monkey. Carnival for seniors anyone? https://mandingaarts.co.uk/about-us/

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way? Or did you just assume they were connected. This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do. So someone crossdressing is pornography. Again, turning drag queens and transgender people into pornography. You deny doing it and then keep doing it. That performance was done by a carnival troupe and not a drag queen organization or transgender group. It is disturbing how you assume the two must be connected. Again, crossdressing is the equivalent of a striptease. Again, turning people into porn. The term grooming and sexualization are being stretched beyond belief here. Child beauty paegents sexualize children. Children attending an event does not sexualize the child. You are using propagandist scare terms in an unexamined way. And you want to criminalize it? Drag queens reading children’s stories are not anything like a burlesque drag show. Also again, it is not confusing to children. In other words you want to police the choices of other parents. You are quite the busybody about other people’s choices. No, it is really not. Children get the concepts of queerness and transgender people pretty easily. It is the adults that are confused. I really suspect this is people who feel confused and have a problem with queer people projecting their insecurities onto children. Hence the assumption that evil adults are corrupting children when children don’t find queer people disgusting and unnatural. Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that?

Well, yeh! That is what I have been trying to say on this forum since 2017! Ha! It is most likely a truth, because our Fundamentalist friends make it a point to seek out and approach members of the LDS Church wherever they can be found! Pageants and Temple Square are such places!

Or you (or your wife) unsubscribed, or changed the privacy settings in your LDS Account, or simply stopped falling within whatever recipient groups people were using to send those messages. LCR doesn't require every ward email to be sent to "all members." You can select various groups of recipients, including groups based on organizations and callings. So if the emails you used to receive were Relief Society emails, quorum emails, activity announcements sent to particular groups, etc., it's entirely possible for your pattern of receiving ward email to change without somebody making a "calculated decision" to stop communicating with you. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of what actually happened in your case, obviously. Maybe someone really did deliberately exclude you. But you're treating your inference as an established fact when there are much more mundane possibilities. And Tithing Declaration is different from ordinary communications because the Church says all members are invited to meet with the bishop to declare their status. As such, I don't find it particularly suspicious that someone who hasn't been receiving other generic emails would nevertheless receive an invitation to Tithing Declaration. You're conflating "people can make donations while they are there" with "that's what the meeting is for." Tithing Declaration goes from 9/1 - 12/15 now, so what ledger do you suppose people are supposed to be settling up in September, October, or November? The Handbook states that the purpose of the meeting is to (1) declare your own status, and (2) make sure your contribution records are accurate. You are free to declare yourself as a full, partial, or non-tithe payer. In all the times I've served as a Ward Clerk, I've never once had the Bishop walk out of a Tithing Declaration (previously, Tithing Settlement meeting) and ask me to prepare an invoice for the family. You can believe the meeting exerts social or religious pressure to pay tithing - I think there's an element of that involved as well - but that's quite different from claiming its purpose is to get people in the room so the Church can collect money from them. I already did: because it's Tithing Declaration, and Bishops are instructed to invite all members to attend. I'm not surprised that you received an invitation to attend an annual, Church-wide process that you are supposed to be invited to - even if you didn't personally receive an invitation last year. Maybe the Bishop / Executive Secretary has gotten better at sending out invites; maybe he felt inspired to reach out to everyone this year individually, rather than just announcing it over the pulpit during Sacrament Meetings; maybe he's following direction from the Stake President who emphasized it in their most recent leadership training meetings. It could literally be any number of things other than "they want money." Look, I'm sorry if you feel your Ward has ignored you for the last 2.5 years, and it's sad that the first personal contact you've received recently has been an administrative invitation to Tithing Declaration. If that were your only complaint, I would be fine with that. But you don't leave it there - instead, you keep changing it into 'after 2.5 years they finally contacted me because they want money,' and I just don't think that's what's going on.

Thanks, I have posted the link to the site. I understand most of what the author is saying, but it is an astonishing cornucopia of terms and concepts. Someone did a lot of work on this. It is a shame it is almost impossible to decipher.

Nope. So not the library readings you specifically mentioned? Then why did you mention them at all? In other words I don’t believe you.

If you can’t tear down and deconstruct your own beliefs with as much fervor as you deconstruct those of others then what are people even doing with their lives? 😉

Most of the Evangelicals I have encountered have been fundamentalists then. I might have horrible luck.

I don’t know if it still stands, but someone online offered his services free to Dehlin when this first showed up.

True. Attention seekers and people trying to make a statement often underestimate the price they will pay in an attempt to get that attention or make that statement, especially if they desire to do so at trial. Discovery and motion practice are both very costly and can take many months or even years to complete. Litigants who prolong litigation for the purpose of claiming they are fighting the good fight and soliciting donations so they can continue to do so often underestimate the cost of litigation and overestimate donations. Mr. Dehlin enjoys the benefits of defending a case where the plaintiff isn’t likely to engage in “death by litigation” tactics. I trust the Church does what is necessary to vigorously pursue its claims in Court with defendants that refuse to enter into reasonable settlements but does not bludgeon defendants with endless discovery and motion practice of questionable relevance.

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem. Part of having conversations is explaining our respective positions. @Analytics has presented what I see as a denial of something fairly obvious. Again, I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." @Analytics never articulated a distinction, and has now withdrawn from the discussion. @california boy has now withdrawn. And my point remains unrebutted. There's no obligation to rebut it, of course. Here's how I deal with @Analytics reasoning, such as it is: I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" (which I see as the practical outcome of his preferred policy position) and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" (which is his own statement of his preferred policy). But it looks like the discussion may be winding down. That's okay. This is a good opportunity for us to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." No need to conclude with zingers or putdowns. We can share our respective thoughts, compare and contrast them, evaluate them in light of reasoning and evidence, and then choose how to proceed. I think women's spaces were originally created to benefit women and girls in terms of safety and privacy (and, re: women's sports, fairness). I think such spaces have always been based on biological sex, not subjective self-identifications (with some potential limited, case-by-case exceptions for persons with actual DSDs). Discussion of people with DSDs in this context is, in my view, almost purely pretextual. We all know that we are not speaking of that tiny percentage of persons whose biological sex remains intractably epistemically uncertain. Virtually the entirety of this discussion is about men going into women's spaces, and justifications/rationalizations therefore. In a contest between the interests of women/girls and men who subjectively "identify" in ways incongruent with reality, I think the interests of the former should prevail. That some men have dressed up to look like women and entered into women's bathrooms does not mean that they should. I think subjective "self-identity" is an unworkable and unenforceable policy in terms of maintaining sex-segregated spaces. It has the net effect of eradicating those spaces. I think the Kansas statute is quite defensible, and I hope it withstands constitutional challenges. I think these efforts, the deliberate and public instances of men making incursions into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc., together with the deliberate and public instances of exposing small children to highly sexualized live adult performances, are not healthy or appropriate developments for our society. Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if drag queen sexualized story hours are actually any more common than non drag queen ones. It’s not like there have never been lines crossed by cis gendered books at the library before (anything to do with sex education for example has likely been involved in a controversy).

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

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