All Activity

Anybody else see the irony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arguing that a case involving Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. should control the Church's defense of its copyrights? You heard it here first, folks! You can't make this stuff up! "Thank you, Jackie D.'s!!!"

You keep going back to library Drag Queens. Can you explain how a child listening to a drag queen reading a story in a library with their parents there is in your mind grooming children? I honestly don't get why this is such an issue for you. How do you consider this grooming, but have no problem with adults taking their children to a nudist resort is perfectly ok with you. What the heck are drag queens in libraries doing to sexualize and groom children? If it is not hyperbole articles written by the right wing press, then what actually is driving your soapbox campaign?

ha ha ha ha ha ha

I'm an executive secretary myself, and a software developer by trade. I wouldn't put much weight on personalization as evidence of that anymore. Producing individualized emails from a membership list is trivially easy, particularly with the AI tools (freely) available today. Maybe your bishop really did single the two of you out for a personal invitation - I have no idea. But I don't think the fact that the email looked individually composed establishes that.

Or maybe you just didn't receive / see the email last year. These emails are typically sent out through LCR which doesn't always play nice with all email providers. And, even when it does go through, it will sometimes get flagged as spam. Everything that gets sent out via LCR goes directly to my junk folder. I gave up on caring about fixing it some time ago. Then you ought to know better, which is why I think it's in bad form to characterize the invitation as them contacting you because they "want money." If you've been a member for nearly sixty years, then you know perfectly well that Tithing Declaration isn't the bishop calling people in to collect a payment. Fair enough. I'm not sure it changes the underlying point though. Your bishop has a reason, independent of your donation history, to invite the members of his ward to Tithing Declaration. The fact that he or his secretary personally contacted you about it doesn't establish that the purpose was to solicit money from you.

Yea he sent 299 spam mails and one personalized to us. I know what a spammed bcc email looks like and this wasn’t unless the church got some technology that individually addresses the recipients by their first names and can do so with a bcc function. The guy that sent it… we know very well personally so it isnt like he was oblivious. im not annoyed i was contacted, im amused that the only reach out is for money.

Same guys

This is because the Church treats "paying tithing" as part of a member's covenant / religious obligations, rather than simply meaning "someone giving 10% of their income to the Church." So, while nonmembers are free to make contributions to the Church - even contributions that they feel religiously motivated to make, say, to the exact sum of 10% of their income - the Church, administratively, does not call that donation tithing. Advising you to categorize your contributions as Fast Offerings seems like good counsel, since it allows those funds to address the kinds of needs you likely intended them to serve - such as helping members of the local congregation who are in need.

It’s probably not that deep. Probably just a secretary doing his duty. He probably didn’t think twice about trying to get any money out of you (or once for that matter). He probably contacted 300 other people as well and then went home and had a sandwich. I mean, it’s an easy problem to solve. “ hey we were contacted for tithing settlement and we would prefer to be on a no contact list. We will not be coming in for tithing settlement.” Unless you do want to be able to be contacted, so you can test whether you are cared about and who wants your money.

Thanks for this. Clear and prominent are the keys. Undoubtedly, Dehlin’s attorneys know that. One would hope they have advised him of that, have drafted a disclaimer designed to be clear and prominent, and sought Dehlin’s approval to share it with the lawyers representing the Church in an effort to settle the matter (which might have been avoided had a well-crafted disclaimer been used from the start). On the flip side one would hope the Church has shared with Dehlin’s attorneys a draft of a disclaimer the Church deems acceptable, including both the wording of the disclaimer and the usage requirements to ensure it is adequately prominent.

Also, your AI buddy left you with an, um, interesting name on your lectern:

Makes me wonder if there’s either a new bishop or a new executive secretary.

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. You did not "explain." You asserted, without explanation: That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate. 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." And you have not articulated any distinction between the two. Not only that, you have endorsed a laissez faire approach and denounced any legislated solution as "heavy-handed laws." I would be happy to listen to you differentiate, in a legal context, 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." Or not. "Habit Ten" of Collis's book is that we can "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." Not every conversation needs a winner or final resolution. We can be comfortable with ongoing dialogue and incremental progress. While we appear to not have changed each others minds, I have nevertheless valued listening to you explain, to some extent, your position. I hope you have a good day. Thanks, -Smac

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles. I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody." I think it is interesting that you are claiming to adopt a "case-by-case" approach, but you really aren't. You don't want any limiting principle. Everyone can go into women's spaces, no exceptions. I, on the other hand, and willing to evaluate a legitimate "case-by-case" exception to the statutory framework (based on individuals with DSDs). I think I understand why you have spent many pages avoiding consideration of any limiting principle. I think as soon as you do, the jig is up. You want men - whether under the "trans women" or any other rubric ("people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate") - to be able to legally enter into women's spaces. Trans ideology does not allow folks like you to differentiate between different "kinds" of trans women. There is no differentiation because "a woman is someone who identifies as one." So it's all or nothing, and the "all" obliterates sex-segregated spaces, which you have also studiously avoided acknowledging. Some of the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs, perhaps. Otherwise, women's bathrooms were created for women, not men. A very small exception to the rule should not swallow or negate the rule. In contrast, your approach would allow anyone to enter into women's spaces. Where I propose a rule with a narrow and clear contingent exception, what you propose is that there be no rule at all. The “minimum number of rules” principle is fine as a starting point. The disagreement is over what counts as necessary. Sex-based boundaries in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces existed for a long time precisely because of physical differences, privacy, and safety. Those were not novel or “heavy-handed” restrictions. They were the ordinary background rules. What changed is the push to replace sex with self-declared identity as the access criterion. That is not a minor adjustment. It removes the ability to maintain single-sex spaces whenever someone asserts an identity. Calling the defense of the prior rule “creating new heavy-handed laws” reverses what actually happened. It is not a strawman to describe self-ID policies accurately. When the rule becomes “anyone who identifies as a woman may enter,” the practical effect is that men can enter on their say-so. That is the policy that has been adopted or proposed in multiple jurisdictions. Pointing out the consequences of that standard is not inventing an extreme position. On the claim that the issue is mostly manufactured for television: policy changes, school guidelines, prison placements, shelter rules, and sports eligibility decisions have occurred across many places. Some high-profile provocations exist, and media incentives amplify conflict. That does not erase the underlying shift in rules or the cases in which female safety, privacy, or fairness have been affected. The existence of opportunistic coverage does not make the category problem disappear. The core question remains practical: should single-sex spaces be organized by sex or by identity? “Minimal rules” does not automatically answer that in favor of self-ID. It requires showing why the older boundary is no longer justified. That showing has not been made simply by asserting that any defense of sex-based rules is authoritarian or hysterical. Thanks, -Smac

that is the only communication we have received other than the attempt at putting me in a calling. The only communication in a couple years. Last year we were not solicited to tithing settlement. I know what tithing settlement is. I’ve been a member nearly sixty years. Personal email to my wife addressed to both of us. It wasn’t a canned message blasted to all. Both our emails are on lds tools. We don’t get communication about anything else. Previously we would get emails about ward activities, etc on both our accounts. After about six months after we bailed those stopped. That is a calculated decision which is fine.

I don’t know about giving me any space. We just stopped showing up. No fanfare just disappeared. The fact our subdivision is the boundary of our ward and my property along borders with three other ward members just on my side of the street alone people know we have not gone anywhere and are alive. no one has reached out. That said I don’t really care, just surprised as my whole existence in the church we as home teachers and the women in relief society were essentially tasked with borderline harassing people to come back. Since that’s not going on I’m thankful.

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. Clearly, you aren't interested in understanding my point of view. I'm out.

In this case it does. There wouldn't be an issue if the guys on your side didn't fabricate it. The WNBA was working fine on this, 100% of the time, for 30 years and counting. Buildings generally have a ton of stored chemical energy and exist in an oxygen rich environment. The energy of massive fires is always there. They need some activation energy to start burning and once they start, entire cities can burn down. We know all of this both from basic chemistry and from historical experience. The purpose of fire codes is to prevent this runaway process from happening. You seem to think that like a wooden house full of chemical energy that "wants" to burn, the world is brimming with cis-gender men who really, really, want to participate in women's sports. You seem to think that because of this overwhelming desire men have of going into the lady's room, we need heavy-handed laws with extremely sharp lines that are based on biological sex to keep them out. You seem to think there are so many guys who want to do this that they'd completely take over women sports if given half the chance. I'll refrain from speculating about why you think there are so many guys out there that want to play women's sports and hang out in women's locker rooms. However, the truth is there are very few transgender people. Of those, very few are interested in sports. Of those, very few are good enough or strong enough to make a difference in terms of competitiveness or safety. It's a tiny, marginal issue that rarely affects anybody. Not really. The default should be living in a free society with a minimum number of rules. Only create laws when doing so is absolutely necessary. That is a general principle. Nobody is arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody who says the right magic word before entering. That is a strawman. Even you concede that some biological males (e.g. Emily Quinn) may use the lady's room. The question is whether we need the government to create heavy-handed laws with bright, inflexible lines about who may and may not go into this or that bathroom. It's clear that giant swath of Fox's viewers want to be very, very upset about men entering women spaces. It's also clear that not enough men do that in order to keep the topic in the headlines. Thus, they are dispatching their own people into women's spaces and putting the resulting "controversy" on the front page.

From previous post: Julie Tétart entry into the WNBA may be the push that moves @Analytics on to Step 2. From another earlier post: Men in women's bathrooms is not an isolated issue. It is interconnected with men in women's changing rooms, and sports, and prisons. @Analytics wants no limiting principles as to who can enter into women's spaces. None. At all. Anyone can go in legally for any reason or no reason at all. Thanks, -Smac

The site does have a disclaimer but the Church argues the current disclaimer isn't good enough and is potentially misleading as well (people sometimes don't read the full text and just see the Church's name and so assume a connection). This is what is in the Church's response (starting on page 32):

There was a transwoman who just recently expressed a desire to play in the WNBA. It is possible that this is what triggered it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Tétart. She is a player on the French women's division. She expressed the desire on Aug 6. I believe the men that smac is talking about made their announcement on Aug 7.

Does the site include a disclaimer? If the issue is potential confusion, a simple disclaimer such as: BE ADVISED. THIS SITE AND THE RELATED PODCAST ARE NOT SPONSORED BY, AFFILIATED WITH, OR ENDORSED BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF MR. DEHLIN AND HIS GUESTS. I wonder if the Church has indicated it will dismiss its claims if Dehlin makes a clear and prominent disclaimer.

Thank you for replying. I can see the utility of the hierarchy you advocate as a tool for resolving apparent contradictions within the canon, and/or between the canon and subsequent teachings and commentary, at least among parties agreeing to its basic assumptions. For instance, it would be interesting to open-mindedly examine plural marriage through the lense of the hierarchy you advocate, rather than starting out with “the answer” having already been determined in one's mind. Must admit that would be challenging for me! It sounds like you might have in mind limiting the scope of application for the heirarchy you propose to a particular type of discussion, in which case the following reservations don't apply: My first thought when reading your post was, what you're describing is all about the intellect. The hierarchy you advocate decrees how to go about making a reasonable intellectual categorization of scriptures and other teachings. It looks to me like this completely leaves out personal responsibility for connecting with God and receiving guidance. It's like a formula whose infallibility and exclusivity is assumed, such that progression within this paradigm becomes a matter of logical application of the formula. Does God the Holy Spirit have a primary role, or a secondary role, or any role, within this paradigm? Second, it seems to me the hierarchy you advocate decrees that God must communicate according to its criteria in order to be taken seriously. 2 Nephi 29:11 (arguably Class 1?) envisions God speaking through multiple channels in multiple locations: “I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them”. It looks to me like the hierarchy you advocate would not even notice, much less attribute any credibility to, communication from God which does not come exclusively through the channel it approves of. So right now God could be revealing “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” through one or more intermediaries other than Dallin H. Oaks and such would never be taken seriously. Third, applying the thinking the hierarchy advocates to the hierarchy itself, does it have more Class 1 scriptural support than any other competing paradigm? I understand that the hierarchy makes logical sense if we make a few foundational assumptions about the infallibility and exclusivity of what has made its way into the canon, but from within the canon itself, what are the scriptures that support it? And, applying the hierarchy's formula, are those scriptures more persuasive than scriptures which support any other paradigm? Is the priority the pursuit of truth, or the pursuit of correctly understanding the canon, or are the two assumed to be one and the same? As I said, the above reservations might not apply. To give some context to where I'm coming from: My personal belief is that we have the calling and the privilege of being the same manner of men and women as Christ. I think this would be “being filled with the pure love of Christ”. And I think being filled with the pure love of Christ is not primarily an intellectual pursuit; rather, it is something felt, something experienced, something embodied, something we are to deliberately return to again and again and again whenever we notice we've slipped into any lesser state of consciousness. (<- And for the record, that's all something I aspire to, rather than something I claim to do.)

The demand is still extremely high... I assume??? I don't know how they missed gaging how popular the new garments would be. But at this point I don't know if there's a way they could have properly prepared for it. Every once and a while I check at the local DB for garments I'm a little between sizes ATM so I've tried to grab a couple of the smaller pairs as well. There is ALWAYS a consistent flow of people there, hunting for the elusive garments. The only time I get them is if I hit it just right, shortly after they've restocked a little. The sales people there said they never know exactly what they'll get in a shipment. But whatever they get, most of them are sold well before the end of the day. And that's with a limit on how many of the new garments you can buy. You know. If they're there. I have never seen something like it. Ever. Not with any other previous garment change. And I assume their warehouses/manufacturers are limited structurally to meet the needs of previous rushes. You can't exactly make that bigger all the sudden...Still at some point there should be a moment where supply will meet demand and sales normalize. That will just take a while. It's causing a cultural shift along the way. My ward is a little slow on said shifts. But I've been to other wards where a loose tank style dress is quickly becoming the norm, particularly among younger ages. Again, I can't think of a garment that has done that. Personally, it has changed my relationship with my body, somewhat with my husband, and with the garment itself. All in positive ways. And I felt pretty solid in all of those beforehand. I can explain more later. But I'm delaying the day as it is. With luv, BD

oopps just saw the other thread