All Activity

I’m a 77 year old male who’s in excellent health and in prime athletic physical condition (for example, my resting heart rate is presently 36 beats per minute). I achieved this present state of good health and high level fitness by means of a rigorous 6 day per week program of weight resistance training and aerobic exercise. Quite honestly, I don’t enjoy my workouts but the benefits derived therefrom far outweigh any of the discomfort, ‘muscle burn’ and heavy breathing. In all honesty, I feel as I did in my mid-30’s As we age, one of the biggest health problems we humans face is the process of muscle atrophy and deterioration called sarcopenia. In order to stave off the debilitating scourge of sarcopenia I need to be sure I’m getting sufficient protein in my diet. That’s why I drink the following protein shake concoction every day: 1 raw organic egg, 1/2 cup of quality whole milk plain Greek Yogurt, 1 container scoop of high quality protein powder, a handful of frozen blueberries, 1 container scoop of Black Forest brand high flavonoid cocoa powder, 1 heaping teaspoon of Navitas brand raw cacao powder, 2 teaspoons of freeze dried pomegranate powder and 10 ounces of purified water. And don’t hesitate to throw in whatever else suits your fancy. A final note: The only way to truly arrest the onslaught of incapacitating sarcopenia is to do at least a moderate amount of weight resistance training. Walking isn’t enough. Even if you can only manage to regularly do some squats, pushups and sit-ups, these 3 calisthenic movements will do you a world of good. Personally I started out very slowly, and now, in addition to all the other exercises I do, I can easily do 100 pushups, 100 deep knee bend squats and 100 bent leg sit-ups a day in 5 sets of 20 for each movement. Like I say, it’s no fun but it’s so much more than worth it! In fact my doctor recently told me I’ve succeeded in turning back my biological clock 20 years! Good luck and best wishes.

So if a person doesn’t have a legal name, that individual doesn’t have an actual name? If my parents home birthed and didn’t register me with the state would I have an actual name? Just a fabricated one to use your language?

Oh good. Let’s start judging all Mormon bishops by those who have raped women and groomed teenagers to have sex with them you do rather there are far more bishops who have groomed teenagers and rsprd women than transgenders doing drag shows and reading in libraries

I had a longer reply, but I'd like to understand this a little better. What makes a person's name fabricated vs actual? I was speaking in the legal sense. If someone legally changes their name from "John" to "Mary," then that becomes his legal ("actual") name. Otherwise, the name has just been made up by the individual. In a legal sense? Neither. In a sociological sense? Neither, since it is never used in society. In a religious sense? I'm not sure. See here: Thanks, -Smac

My wife admired her. I'm not sure what "live our life on our own terms" means. It sounds . . . untethered. For my part, I have found that my living by my "own terms" only really works insofar as I make those terms congruent with the Lord's will. I think those in the trans community who are sexualizing/grooming children ought not be doing those things. Same goes for anyone else who sexualizes/grooms children. I have provided ample instances of events which I think amount to the sexualization and grooming of children, and of endorsement and justification of those events/behaviors. Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' Dallas Club Investigated After Drag Show for Kids DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Graphic “Pride” Parades Attacking the Innocence of Children Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade Pride Month Jumps the Shark Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance San Francisco Pride Parade features public nudity around kids, 'Fetish Zone' with urine SF Cop Says Nudity Around Kids is OK at Pride Parade Why drag queen performances are not appropriate for children Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Some excerpts from the above links: I think much/most of the foregoing events constitute the sexualization/grooming of children. "Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ." For me, my pursuit of happiness works best when I follow the foregoing counsel. The pursuit of happiness based on untethered, do-whatever-you-want sorts of things does not work for me. In the end, we each must do what we think is right. There was much to admire in her life. I belief God wants us to live our lives on His terms. I feel I am better off having accepted the moral framework of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than having fabricated one for myself. Nonetheless, he has given us agency. Thanks, -Smac

I had a longer reply, but I'd like to understand this a little better. What makes a person's name fabricated vs actual? Is a temple name fabricated or actual?

Not quite. First, your scenario is not about the State punishing speech, not compelling it. Second, that the legalities play out as they do does not mean I endorse "deadnaming." Third, abstaining from "deadnaming" should, I think, be a matter of personal choice, and not a matter for compulsion or punishment by the State. Fourth, the courts have allowed some constraints student student during school hours on school property. That's a fairly narrow circumstance relative to "Speech" overall and in other circumstances. Fifth, I do see some distinctions, both ethically and legally, between preferred pronouns/deadnaming and your scenario. A person can have a legitimate and good faith and non-harassing basis for declining to use preferred pronouns, or for declining to use a person's fabricated name rather than their actual one. Preferred pronouns and using someone's fabricated name (instead of the "dead" name) are, if required, compelled speech, whereas using someone's temple name is not. The Tinker test would, I think, put targeted religious harassment within the category of speech which a school can regulate, but I am less persuaded that the test would put preferred pronouns or "dead names" there. Sixth, your hypothetical scenario is fairly contrived. I doubt it has ever happened in the real world. Seventh, I have strong sentiments about the State compelling the use of "preferred pronouns." It is Orwellian. It is anathema to Free Speech to coerce U.S. citizens into speaking words they do not want to speak, particularly when they disagree with those words. "Deadnaming" is slightly different, as if a person legally changes his name, then I think there is less justification to use his/her former name. But even then, I object to the State compelling use of the new name or punishing use of the old one (subject to narrow exceptions, such as for student speech during school hours on school property). Eighth, if I were to refrain from using preferred pronouns, it would not be to "mock" anyone, but rather to decline to go along with a falsehood or delusion, and to protest against compelled speech. Ninth, if there were some effort by the State to compel you to refer to Joseph Smith as "the Lord's prophet," or if it were to punish you for speaking critically of him, I think you would object to that. Tenth, I think efforts by some in the trans community to use the power of the State to compel and/or punish speech is one of the faster ways for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. Thanks, -Smac

My husband had the same attitude. Family first over callings. Now that our kids are grown and gone, he is very committed and devoted to his calling in the young men’s. He’s made a huge difference and a lot of their lives. Many of them if not, most of them are autistic and it is a very challenging class, but he has made a tremendous difference in their lives. It’s been good for me to be exposed to something other than what I was raised with, where church took the priority over family in every way.

Same can be said of parents in long term high demand callings in the church. My father was either in a bishopric, a stake presidency or the actual stake president literally from the time I was born till well after I graduated high school. due to the endless meetings and endless Sundays I literally do not know tha man as he was never around. I am very sure I have sat with him in church less than ten times in my entire life. not his fault- just being obedient. I have had my own opportunities long ago for a few high demand callings. I just said no and told them yea I pretty much had an absentee father who regarded every church meeting as more important than his kids. I will not subject my kids to that. I was in the military and deployed all the time. I still spent (no exaggeration) at least 100x more time with my kids than my father spent with us. It wasn’t even close.

How far back in history with much revelation in between you allow yourself to go to require yourself and others to follow the dictates of leadership, which is often taken out of context of cultural realities? Do you stop at 1970? Because there is PLENTY of directives over miriads of topics that has since been overruled by current leadership. where is your faith in present leadership?

Not my judgment, but those in these teachings: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages married couples to have children. It is against birth control ... We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children". "Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by" (May 1971 Ensign).

After taking early retirement (late 50's) at the end of last year. This was as a result of health and physical issues. I have trying to remain fit and active since the start of this year. Daily, I walk a 1 to 2 mile walk at pace, also, adapted my eating habits, to a more healthy standard. My next area of improvement, will be what I drink. I am hoping for suggestions, to healthy drinks to have. If anyone of the board has any suggestions with regards to healthy drinks, I will be very welcoming of this

Thank you

Rant all you want… in fact write a huge wall of text here about how racist you think I am. Explain in detail how racist you think it is. We alllll want to hear all about it. maybe next time there are two murders at lds funerals and the perps are of a different nationality then whomever that is will get the attention. Make sure if and when it does happen you call that out as racist as well. Until then, I’m thinking the police focus will be on a few Tongans. If that is racist to you then take it up with the cops. fake outrage

Both of those things are ideally received by the Laying on of Hands rather than just a prayer.

A black person murders another black person: "What is the deal with the blacks?" "What is the deal with the Mexicans?" "What is the deal with the Chinese?" How come no one ever says "What is the deal with the whites?"

deleted

Yea nehor already accused me of that nice try. Tell me who the police should investigate and or provide security for/ from? Probably the people who are killing each other. In this and the previous incident. Apparently Tongans.

Racist a bit??

I did ask claude to see if it could find an increase in abuse/harassment since 2013 and it said it did increase but since it is based off of what is reported, it wasn't sure since it could just be an increase in news reporting vs an actual increase in incidents. But I do think some restrictions need to be in place. I don't like the "reasonable people will act reasonable" approach.

Prayers for the spirit and authority to come upon me, and strengthen me, come spirit come.

Ok so it’s fine for schools to punish speech acquired and used for the purposes of humiliation. Unless an individual acquires, uses and mocks a trans person with their dead name. Then it’s bad government compelled speech. Is that fair to say?

Today we morn the loss of Dolly Parton. When others labeled her a whore, her own grandfather criticizing her looks to parents of her school friends, who thought she was “a bad influence,” as she wrote in her book. They said “you look more like a hooker than you do a singer.” Yet she lived her life and created the public image that SHE wanted to live and not worry about what others thought of her. She also reached out to children and gave more than 200 million books out to any child requesting them. Many probably forget the rage against Dolly Parton's persona that she deliberately chose to create. From a news article about her life. We all only have one life. There is no dress rehersal. Of all days, and of all the messages Dolly Parton gave in her life the greatest legacy she gave us is to be fearless and live our one life on our own terms and not let others keep you in the box they feel they must stay in. I get that there are some who only want to demonize those that are transgender and are willing to comb through the entire news events to find evidence to encourage others to make them out to be immoral, sexualized, grooming others etc. But a happy life lived is the greatest answer to that criticism. Dolly Parton lived her life in Drag. God bless Dolly Parton. God bless those that struggle to live their lives on their own terms despite the pushback they receive from others.

I don't think that is correct. Many, perhaps even most First Amendment lawsuits do not involve someone being criminally prosecuted. Public universities are part of "the State." This is not a matter of personal opinion or hysteria, but of legal reality. I encourage you to give this matter some further consideration and study. First Amendment cases routinely center on "government prosecution" that falls short of criminal charges. Again, the First Amendment limits government. A public university is an arm of the state. When it disciplines a student or fires a professor for refusing to say required words, that is government action. Barnette was a school board, not a criminal court. Meriwether was campus discipline. Olentangy was a public school district. Treating “only an arrest counts” as the rule would wipe out most of student-speech and public-employee law. Private colleges are different. Conflating BYU with, say, Ohio State would be legally improper. Conflating a state university with “not the government” is the actual error. As for the rest, there are real cases pending in various courts, with actual disputes, not fabricated or "imaginary" ones: students and teachers disciplined over pronouns, Title IX sports suits now at the Supreme Court, and bathroom/locker policies that courts are actively splitting over. You can think those policies are wise and still admit they are government rules backed by real penalties. If the claim is “no one is being jailed for deadnaming,” that is mostly true and worth saying. If the claim is “therefore nothing the state does here raises a speech issue,” that does not follow. The live dispute is compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in public schools, not whether the sheriff should make an arrest. Thanks, -Smac

Public schools, being funded by the State, are extensions of it. As for "respectfully addressing people," I assume you refer here to using preferred pronouns, instead of biologically/linguistically accurate pronouns. See the above Bloomberg summary. I'm not sure what you mean by "power of violence." The State can compel or punish speech via means other than violence. Your distinction here - the State arresting people for their speech versus the State punishing people in some other way for their speech ("disciplined at a university"), that is a difference of degree, not kind. Both involve the State punishing speech, just in different ways. The First Amendment limits the power of government, not only the criminal code. A public university is the government, a part of it. When it suspends you, fails you, fires a professor, or withholds a diploma unless you say particular words, that is state compulsion. West Virginia v. Barnette was about a school pledge, not handcuffs. Janus v. AFSCME was about a union fee. Meriwether v. Hartop was campus discipline: None of those cases asked whether anyone had been booked into jail. “Violence” is a narrower idea than “state power.” The state has many tools short of a nightstick: grades, housing, employment, professional licensure, remaining enrolled. Those tools are why public schools and public employers have always been First Amendment defendants. Two distinctions still matter: Public vs. private. A private college can generally enforce a speech code without a First Amendment problem. A state university cannot treat “say these pronouns or face discipline” as a mere house rule. Harassment vs. compelled affirmation. A school may punish targeted ridicule. That is not the same as requiring every student or employee to use designated pronouns as a condition of staying. So if the worry is only “no one is being arrested,” the constitutional concern is already in play at a public university. The question is whether the institution is stopping abuse or conscripting speech. Those are different things, and only the first is an easy First Amendment win for the school. Thanks, -Smac