All Activity

Do you really think that Paul's audience understood their Greek poets to be saying that all humans are literally Gods when they wrote, "we are his offspring"? Can you show that the Greek philosophers understood themselves to be "Gods"? I think your definition of "God" is hindered by your modern ontological definition. Jesus is the brother to all of us, the Bible says so (Hebrews 2:16-18) As stated above, I think your definition of "God" is hindered by your modern ontological definition. Have you considered the possibility that there are attributes of being called "God" that can be acquired? You said as much in the other folder. Attributes like perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness? Are humans born with those attributes? And obviously it's more than being a human, since it is our spirits that come from God. Our bodies are from the dust of this earth and are created by our earthly parents. As for what Paul was teaching in Acts 17:28-29, how can your interpretation make any sense given what Paul was teaching his audience? Paul's core argument is this: "if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone" (see Paul and Zeus, A Universalizing Thread in Acts). Paul was teaching them that we are all the same kind of being that God is. You said that Paul just meant we are created beings. How does your interpretation make any sense in that context?

I’m trying to just be chill about this whole thing.

primary is going Rogue and doing their own thing. Not sure when they’re doing it, but I understand they’re only doing it monthly.

"Whether you are a physicalist who believes that there is nothing to us other than the particles of the Core Theory, or someone who thinks that there is some crucial nonphysical component to a human being, everyone admits that the particles are part of who we are. If you want to say there is something else, you have to explain how that something else interacts with the particles." Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 215). (Function). Kindle Edition. You agree with some of this, don't you? Do you agree that particles are at least part of who we are? If you think revelations/spirits interact with your body so that thoughts/impressions/feelings from the spirit somehow make it into your brain so that you can think about them, talk about them, and write about them, then there has to be some mechanism that causes the messages to make it from the immaterial (or "fine and pure" material, or however else you want to think of it), to the physical. If you believe "God" and "spirits" are out there in a different dimension and don't interact with us, then physics has nothing to say about it. But if you claim that they interact with physical reality, then you are claiming that "modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed." In principle anything could push around matter. The problem for your beliefs is that there is no evidence that anything is ever being pushed around in a way inconsistent with the Core Theory. You might quibble and say that there is some evidence--there is some evidence that Jesus walked on water or whatever. But if stuff like that happens, then "modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed." It's conceivable, but only in the same way that its conceivable that the toys come to life whenever we aren't looking. The tool kit is about thinking clearly, overcoming biases, and figuring out what the totality of the evidence implies about the nature of reality. Whether you have some pet beliefs that you want to shield from this level of scrutiny is up to you.

How are they doing it with the primary teachers?

We haven’t heard anything about this in our ward.

And I've been telling you that I don't think we need bathroom laws for the same general reason that we don't need laws about litter boxes in public schools. I've said over and over that if you prove to me there is a need for a law, we can discuss what that law should look like. But I remain unconvinced there is a need. I'm not going to design a law until you demonstrate a law is needed. Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. The general pattern of your "propositions" is to start with a deliberately provocative quote, interpret it in the most hostile way possible, and then replace the nuances with dogmatism. e.g. "Parental caution is abuse or bigotry." I asked ChatGPT to redline your proposed ideologies for accuracy and this is what it came up with. But even with the redlines I question the accuracy, because these are still the issues that you curated and don't necessarily represent what is important to them. I asked GPT 6 Pro to synthesis what transgender organizations actually want and what they actually believe. Here is what it came up with: For my part, I disagree with #14, presuming that the individual is the one choosing for themselves to pursue "conversion practices aimed at curing or suppressing their identities." If somebody wants to take the path for themselves, I think they should have that right. Otherwise, i pretty-much agree with all of this. I realize this is merely what they are advocating for and doesn't represent the underlying "load bearing principles" that drive these things. So, here is my list of the underlying load bearing principles: I generally agree with those, too.

No, but from a non-Christian view, it’s logical that literal offspring of a literal God are literally Gods. That would include Satan, also an offspring of God and brother to Jesus. If God really is an exalted human from another world, then his offspring are also human.

This appears to be permanent

How long will it take to teach teachers to adjust to the 25 minute schedule ?

And youth teachers /RS and Priesthood miss SS.

I believe the 3 year period just affects the type of relief available. Dehlin couldn't be forced to change the name from Mormon Stories as that name existed longer than 3 years. But they could get an injunction to never use the color blue or light rays. And they still could get an injunction to require a verbal disclaimer. So, comments from earlier than 3 years that shows confusion is probably still ok to be used. And any element that existed across the boundary (like the name) is still available to be included in the confusion calculation. And the rebranding could be used as evidence of intentional confusion. I believe Dehlin where he said he didn't intend confusion, but he didn't do the rebrand himself. He had hired some designers to do it and they might have intentionally mimic'ed the church's trade dress. And if that is found during the discovery phase, that would be treated as intentional confusion.

I am confused. Are you saying some teachers will miss teacher training? added: I think I get it. SS teacher training preempts RS for SS teachers once a month.

So you said the rebranding 3 years ago becomes the relevant material. So only comments by Dehlin or others after the rebranding matter? Why wouldn’t elements still present in the rebranding matter since the effect is likely cumulative?

If that is all he said about it, it’s accurate imo that he doesn’t state he thought it was put out by the Church. Doesn’t state he didn’t think that either. Its vague, therefore imo it’s not supportive of confusing with the Church website. Dehlin’s response seems to show he intended confusion even if not his primary motivation for the design, but exactly what type of confusion (church affiliation or faithfulness of the site could both be inferred from what little was said) does not appear to be specified by him either. Will be interesting to see what the judge says. From what you have posted, this specific evidence doesn’t seem very strong to me.

I thought more about this and I think that if the judge ignores this evidence (because of the lie, mischaracterization, etc) it weakens the church's arguments a bit. In their response to the motion to dismiss, they bring up intentional confusion in 2 places. The first is on whether this should be motion should be subject to Rogers. An intentional confusion is automatically not subject to Rogers and that would automatically fail the motion to dismiss. Since this is the church's only evidence at this stage (they say they have more but don't provide any), the judge would have to look at other factors on whether this should be subject to Rogers or not. I do think the church still has a pretty good argument even without intentional confusion. But it removes that automatic win. The second is on laches. This is where the church has a weak point. They waited 20 years to bring this up. Technically, Lanham Act infringement has no time window, but long waits usually are dismissed. But an intentional confusion bypasses that. So it wouldn't matter if it was 20 years or 100 years. Without this intentional confusion, the church's best argument is probably that Mormon Stories changed their branding 3 years ago and that is when they started to trigger confusion. But that means that everything before 3 years ago is no longer part of this lawsuit, including the name Mormon Stories. So the lawsuit would continue, but it would be a smaller lawsuit.

Changed in September, we meet during second hour. Since I teach GD I miss RS. It used to be quarterly, now according to “changes in the Sunday schedule” section of LDS.org, under “common questions, “ it indicates monthly teacher training. I mean you gotta dig to find it but apparently our new SS president did her digging and now here we are. And she stated today she is not gonna let this die. I just wondered if we are the only ones. I suspect it might even be a typo since it’s not updated accordingly in the handbook itself.

Thanks.. I have not read the ms response yet. You are right.. we will see

And this is the subtitles from what the person actually said on the podcast (so you don't have to actually listen to it):

The quote from the church's lawyer is the response to the motion to dismiss. And it says (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdf, page 2): Dehlin's lawyer noticed this and responded in their response to the response (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.73.0.pdf, page 1): And RFM made the video based on this information. So, it is already in the suit and we'll see what the judge thinks. I'm not sure that it will have much of an impact at this point since this is an attempt to show that the confusion was intentional (by quoting Dehlin's "admission") but intention is not a requirement for the likelihood of confusion.

See response to smac. You can listen to the three min clip yourself.

This is from the church’s filing reference the confusion of a listener: “The Church will prove that many have, in fact, been confused by Defendants’ infringement of the Church’s intellectual property. They encounter Mormon Stories and begin to consume its content believing it contains Church-affiliated material, only to discover it is not what they were seeking. And this is intentional. In a 2022 Mormon Stories episode, a guest tells Mr. Dehlin he began listening because he believed Mormon Stories was Church-affiliated. Mr. Dehlin responds: “That was not why I named it that,” but then confesses, “Okay, maybe it was a little bit why I named it that.“ if you listen to the episode ( about 13 min mark on linked video. Runs about three min) you will see he definitely did not say what the church lawyers claimed in the filing.

Please summarize what it claims for those of us who don’t watch videos usually or don’t have the patience to in this case. Added: I don’t know how I missed smac’s post as it appeared to my brain I was at the end of the thread.

The filing to the court itself cites statements that were never made in the ms episode they were discussing. in my non-lawyer mind I don’t think submitting evidence that doesn’t match what the listener ( the one who was confused) actually said is a good idea because it will be found out. If it was a simple mistake then it would naturally lead one to believe perhaps the lawyer is incompetent… or just dishonest. the listener in question never mentioned anything about thinking the ms episode was produced or owned or affiliated with the church. He stated he thought it would be a faithful or faith promoting (don’t recall exact what he said- it’s on the video I linked) and was disappointed it wasn’t a faithful episode. Did you listen to it? If so what do you think about what the listener said vs what the church submitted in its filing? It definitely does not match. Does filing statements with the court that are not true help the church’s case? I don’t see how it can. Certainly doesn’t hurt ms.