All Activity

I am certainly with you there. Since I was a child, raised until about 14 years of age in a pretty literal Fundamentalism, I have wondered about the eternal destiny of folks who never have, don't , used to, but don't now name the name of Christ as the means for their eternal destiny. Probably most of them never even thought about an eternal destiny. I am working this afternoon on my book on truth. I just published and had the big conference last Saturday on a biography I finished on a revolutionary war general who had a big impact on the Saints here. With that behind me, I can now concentrate on other topics that mean more to me. Oh, and about the biography. I finished the last chapter, the one about his legacy with a photo that was given to me of him holding an LDS baby girl in his arms the day or so before he was killed. I doubt that the photo has ever been published. With your family connect to the colonies, you may know who Nelle Spilsbury Hatch was. She wrote about Salazar's last few days on earth, spent in Colonia Juarez with the Saints. About Salazar in those last days, she said, "He was a changed man!" That is good enough for me. I do not know if that is good enough for Judgment Day, but it does no good to perseverate on that. So that was the last line in the book, "He was a changed man!" I certaintly think that is a worthy epitaph. Back to my book on Truth, today I found a quote from the Hindu Upanishads. It says, "The face of Truth is covered with a golden vessel. Uncover it, O Sun, that I who am devoted to the truth may behold it." I really like that. It speaks, as did almost all ancients of truth as a hidden attribute that needed uncovering, revealing, unhiding." That is what Christ did, he revealed the truth (aletheia) about God's plan. He was the Son, not the Sun, but he did what the old Hindu wiseman requested. He is continuing to do that in our lives today. I am seeking more truth, more clarification about the truth, but not to supplant my faith with it. I am so sorry to hear of your dad's passing. I did not know that. You have a wonderful heritage and lineage. I wish all your family the very best. Blessings.

I honestly don’t know what you think I’m saying that "are empirically and obviously true, and which [I] nevertheless deny.” I’m squarely on the side of empirical reality. Let’s level set. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is a private, nonprofit, non-governmental scientific institution chartered by Congress to provide independent, objective advice to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. It is not an advocacy organization. Its consensus reports are prepared by expert committees and undergo independent peer review. Two years ago, they published a “consensus study report” that touches on some things we’ve been discussing. The Statement of Task of this report begins with: "An ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will review the latest published research and medical guidelines addressing the current status of sex-specific medical diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for individuals who are transgender or who are undergoing gender affirming procedures. Based on the available evidence, the committee’s report will strive to: 1. Describe the current clinical conceptions of sex and gender accepted by the medical community, including: a. How sex and gender are medically defined ..." They offer the following definitions: Sex : The biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people. (Alternatively Biological sex) Gender: A multidimensional construct that links language with social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior that are supposedly associated with sex traits. Male: A term identifying individuals who are typically capable of producing sperm for fertilizing ova. Males typically have XY chromosomes. Not everyone who is male has all the traits (e.g., chromosomes, hormone prevalence, external and internal anatomy) that are typically defined as male. (Alternatively Male sex, Man, Boy) Female: A term identifying individuals who typically have ovaries and produce eggs. Females typically have XX chromosomes. Not everyone who is female has all the traits (e.g., chromosomes, hormone prevalence, external and internal anatomy) that are typically defined as female. (Alternatively Female sex, Woman, Girl) Sex recorded at birth: The sex recorded on the original birth certificate (based on appearance of external genitals observed at birth by physical exam). (Alternatively Sex assigned at birth, Sex designated at birth, Birth sex, Assigned female at birth, Assigned male at birth) Sex of rearing: The sex assigned to a child at birth, most often based on the appearance of the child’s external genital anatomy. Traditionally, sex of rearing is assigned as “male” or “female,” although in some geographic regions, there is the option of “X.” Assigned sex of rearing becomes the sex recorded on birth certificates and medical records. When a child is born with atypical genitalia, there may be a delay in assigning sex of rearing until the child’s condition or diagnosis is better understood. Through a shared decision-making process between a multidisciplinary care team and the child’s parents/guardians/caregivers, the goal is to select a sex of rearing that has the greatest likelihood of matching gender identity in adulthood.(Alternatively Sex assignment at birth, Gender of rearing, Assigned sex of rearing, Assigned gender of rearing) Gender marker: Designation of “male” (M) “female” (F) or other (X) on a document, including on the original birth certificate. Depending on the document, this marker may represent an individual’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity and a designation of “X,” where present on records, may be defined in different ways. (Alternatively Sex marker) Gender identity: Used by individuals to label themselves and their internal sense of themselves. One’s gender identity can be the same as or different from one’s sex recorded at birth. (Alternatively Affirmed gender, Gender) Gender expression: One’s mannerisms and appearance—including through behavior, clothing, body characteristics, or voice—that are, in a given culture, associated with masculinity or femininity. Gender attribution: The process through which others assign a gender to a person, with or without knowledge of that person’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity. Do you take issue with these definitions, or do you think this ad hoc committee of the National Academy largely succeeded in conveying how these terms are medically defined?

Great reply @quietcanon, and I appreciate your taking my questions seriously. You have addressed all of my concerns. Very best to you.

Prepareforchange dot net Veteranstoday LiveLeak Robert Sepehr half of the internet is gone and controlled. A miracle that I, a European can still contact someone from another power block.

Yes that is me and I also have interviews and a ModDB presence and am on Wattpad. There is only one OrangeNero afaik on the internet.

I am a fan of... oh well why the heck not: Benjamin Fullford who you can find on... well his website seems to be compromised... Thou I knew Trump would win the first time when he early on appeared on an interview of Alex Jones Infowars (though he is controlled media I believe). Seen Corona coming when I played CoD Advanced Warfare, Genetic bombs man... Mirrorbacteria is the next big thing if I fail to stop it. Candance Owens is a curious human and I respect that curiosity but I do not follow her out of lack for her confusion. Frankly Ghaddafi at the UN was the boldest. I am my own thing and believe in the WWG1WGA movement thou it is overrun by right wingers because christians and left wingers are not showing up... Joseph Smith... please forgive me but that horny ****** just wanted to have sex with as many wifes as possible including already maried ones and children. Also I have no doubt that you will do a full 180degrees turn on all your reforms once you have enough power to influence the state. But your daughters will have a firm word with you when that day comes!

I think you may be right. But then came all sorts of loud and brassy activist groups and social media personalities who have gone out of their way to publicize what they are expecting to see in terms of male access to women's bathrooms (and vice versa). For example, GLAAD has all sorts of verbiage objecting to A) "bathroom bans" (that is, maintaining sex-segregated spaces by biological sex rather), B) "restrict{ions}" on "bathroom access" (that is, restricting men from entering into women's bathrooms), C) "forc{ing}" men (who subjectively "identify" as women) to "use bathrooms and locker rooms that {} match their gender identity" (that is, having men use men's bathrooms), and so on. I think it is disputably going on in some instances. I think this sounds like a straw man fallacy. As if legislating sex-segregated spaces in response to extensive efforts by (mostly) men to enter into women's spaces must either A) be equivalent to "societal order ... breaking down," or B) be not given any attention at all. There's that Straw Man again ("societal order breaking down"). Also the No True Scotsman fallacy. You have asked for examples justifying legislation to regulate sex-segregated spaces. Such examples are legion for anyone with an Internet connection. Per this article, a U.N. study found that "more than 600 biologically female athletes have lost at least 890 medals to transgender competitors." "Trans" inmates (males, as I really doubt there are any "trans women" in male facilities) who have been in women's prisons are being transferred to "jails according to their biological sex, And on and on and on. Straw man and ad hominem. Well, now you know. Straw man. I haven't curated much of anything. I think the Kansas legislature acted reasonably in enacting legislation that ensures that sex-segregated spaces are maintained as such, particularly for women and girls who expect them to be as such. Evidence of men going into women's spaces? Yes. Lots and lots and lots. And the rationale for each cross-pollinate the others. If a "trans woman" is legally entitled to play in women's sports, then ipso facto he should also be legally entitled to enter into women's changing rooms and bathrooms. And the reverse as well. And since folks like you categorically refuse to articulate any limiting principle, sex-segregated spaces are obliterated because "trans" identity can be claimed by anyone at any time for any reason or no reason whatsoever. I'm a lawyer and am not persuaded by proponents of public policy who refuse to address the real-world ramifications of their proposals. So you are "not persuaded by anecdotes" but are nevertheless asking for "some personal anecdotes." I have never been to a sexualized live adult performance in which children have been invited to attend/participate, but I don't think that is a necessary prerequisite for someone to support legislation that prohibits live adult performances from permitting children to attend. I have never been to a Pride parade, but I don't think that is a necessary prerequisite to object to those parades which involve highly sexualized behaviors in public, particularly when children are being exposed to those behaviors, or they are even particularly sought out for the exhibition of those performances. I have never known someone who has engaged in a incestuous relationship. I don't think that is a necessary prerequisite for supporting laws which prohibit sexual behavior relative to consanguinity. I don't know any women who are in prison. I don't think that is a necessary prerequisite for a U.S. citizen to voice an objection to self-selected men gaining entry into women's prisons. And so on. Thanks, -Smac

The Title Page states its purpose is "to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." However, the book also characterizes it as being "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites," and that it was written "to the Lamanites ... and also to Jew and Gentile" (in other words, the entire world)." It also states that the record was "of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord," to eventually "come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof ... by the gift of God." The book therefore characterizes itself as an ancient record that was written, hidden, and much later "{came} forth" and translated, all "by the gift and power of God." Though secondary to the book's status as a "testament" of Jesus Christ, what the book claims for itself necessarily implicates Joseph Smith being a prophet. Yes, opinions vary in a variety of ways. While I think we need some substantial wiggle room as to the particulars, some of these varied opinions seem to be necessarily at odds with the text. "Inspired Fiction" being the most prominent example. I would be interested in learning more about this. What "greater claims" do you have in mind. I am sorry to hear that. I suppose I meant it in juxtaposed to fictitious accounts of man's dealings with Jesus Christ. We don't believe Joseph fabricated the text, but that the text was written long ago and translated by him. It is an abridgment of records of percipient witnesses to important and miraculous events. I'm not sure. My dad passed in January 2025, but my oldest brother may know. I'll check with him. Thank you, -Smac

To tie into the topic(s) on Jeff Strong's work, I've added a category to this statement, and I don't think I have significantly changed the meaning. As I explore the tensions between active, orthodox LDS and disaffiliated LDS, one common theme I encounter is the question of whether LDS who disaffiliate and do not return to activity in the church can be saved and exalted in the next life. I encounter many of the staunchest active LDS who say that they cannot. Pres. Nelson, in Apr. 2019 GC, mentioned an acquaintance of his who had long been married to an active LDS woman, taken the missionary discussions, and such, but had never joined the church. Pres. Nelson expressed skepticism (while acknowledging that he couldn't offer final judgement) that proxy ordinances for this man would be efficacious. I see many LDS who prefer to embrace the doubt and skepticism. I'm not sure about this language of "violence" for this concept. If it applies, I would suggest that there is something "violent" about expressing skepticism or doubt (or more) about an individual's or a group's hope for salvation and exaltation.

For some time now I've been self-identifying as both a Mormon and a Christian Universalist.

And may God bless them for doing so. I just wish (and this is a me thing) that the missionaries had better training in missiology in cross-cultural situations, like we have where I live. I have been here twenty years. I am unaware of one convert to the LDS Church from the missionaries' work here in our village. The spiritual need is great; the spiritual thirst is virtually absent. The missionaries need better training in bridging that gap. Just my opinion as I wish them well in their work. I don't question their sincerity or passion. I question their lack of training in how to do the task to which they are called.

Not really. My concerns about the certainty of LDS beliefs are not at all related to eschatology. My concerns are related to how the certainty of LDS beliefs impacts my relationships with dear friends in the grocery store, the rodeo grounds. and the hospital (where my wife and son) spent months collectively last year and this year. When doctrine negatively impacts relationships and ranks friends as "in or out" in a way that changes with different applications of authority, that concerns me. I hope that makes sense. Best to you, and thanks so very much for allowing me to post here, even though I am more out than in.

I admit (or stipulate) to the fact that I don't understand what the claims of the Book of Mormon are for itself beyond being another testament of Jesus Christ. In trying to understand, I buy and read everything I can find on the subject. It appears that my varied LDS friends have very varied understandings of what its claims are (from the text itself). I have just finished Tom Murphy's new book on the integration of Iroquois myths (Settling Scriptures) into the text of the Book of Mormon. My father pastored a church in Niagara Falls, where he (we) went to the Tuscarora reservation on Sunday afternoons, where he preached. If my memory serves me correctly (I was a child then), he was adopted into the Tuscarora nation in some manner. So, I have more than a casual interest in the subject. I also spent time each summer near Lake Simcoe, where Benjamin F Johnson says he heard many stories from the natives on an island in the lake. Benjamin F Johnson is an important person in the history of the Mexican colonies. I see his descendants virtually every day. So he interests me. As a historian, that interests me. I also am interested in the claims of the Bible for itself and the interpretations of varied literature styles contained therein. I am finishing up William Davis' book, "Visions in a Seer Stone." He approaches the origin of the Book of Mormon from the perspective of a 19th century preacher's methodology. Fascinating information. I like both books in that after having digested them, I am uncertain as to the relationship of the authors with the LDS Church. That is a real positive for me. Neither writes from the perspective of a critic or a zealot. They are academics writing from their expertise. I like that. I am beginning to think that many LDS folks make greater claims for the Book of Mormon than it does for itself. That often happens with adherents and scriptures. Just my own personal perspective is that the D&C is a much more important book for doctrinal polity. The General Handbook is more significant for orthopraxy on a day-to-day basis. It is an interpretation of the General Handbook that led us to be unable to continue worshiping, fellowshipping, and ministering in the CJ ward. That interpretation created soul wounds, so it was powerful. I am intrigued by your use of the term "authentic testament." I am intrigued because I am uncertain (of course) as to your meaning in the use of that phrase. I suppose it is like the word "intrinsic" - it can have several meanings. I would love for you (if you care to) to explain what you mean by "authentic." Oh, and I wonder if your family ever got the date fixed on the tombstone in Dublán? Take care and best wishes.

I think what’s really happening is that since these edge cases were so extremely rare, most people lived their whole lives never having to confront the issue. Now there are a few social influencers trying to get famous by publishing outrageous content, and an entire industry engineered to feed addictive rage in their viewership. That is indisputably going on. The outstanding question is whether the societal order is really breaking down. I’ve been asking for is some evidence that it is, and evidence that laws like that of Kansas will do more good than harm. It’s obvious to me that creating laws that REQUIRE “people who look like men” to use the women’s restroom undermines the very thing it is trying to prevent--uncomfortable confrontations in bathrooms with people who look like they don’t belong there. Rather than being given statistics about the societal order breaking down or even personal anecdotes, I’m just repeatedly told "Lily Tino is a man going into DisneyWorld bathrooms” over and over again. I can understand how somebody might feel that the societal order is breaking down if they are obsessed with videos featuring Lily Tino, Lia Thomas, and drag queens. I never heard of Lily Tino until Smac brought it up here. The reason those videos are shocking is because they are outrageous outliers that are so far afield from what we all see in our normal lives. The shock value is evidence that the societal code is doing fine, not that we are doomed. Maybe that is the biggest difference between Smac and me. Smac thinks the anecdotes of outrageous behavior he curates are impressive evidence. That is why he posts his lists over and over and over. In contrast, I’m a statistician and am not persuaded by anecdotes. Show me statistically significant evidence. Is there any? Or even give me some personal anecdotes. How often do you or the people around you bump into “people who look like men” in women restrooms?

Is this you? https://m.fanfiction.net/u/16874415/OrangeNero

I'm fairly certain you are not sharing true information. Joseph Smith wasn't a Jew, nor was Moroni. It seems you make it a habit to shoehorn anti-Jewish rhetoric into topics where it makes no sense. I think The Jehovah Witnesses' ideas are outdated. Jehovah is not the correct name of God, therefore how important must it be to call Him by that name, and not by Lord, if both are not his name? I say it's not, but they invested too much into that name in their branding to change now. Jehovah/JHVH is more accurately Yahweh/YHWH. Jehovah's Witnesses and Messianic Jews promote Sacred Name Theology, where you must say the correct sacred name, and shouldn't say Lord. The Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) supports Ineffable Name Theology. The Holy Ghost inspired Luke to translate the commandment with the Hebrew YHWH into Greek as G2962 κύριος (kurios) - Lord. The Holy Ghost seems uninterested about how Greeks pronounce His Hebrew name. After the Temple fell in 70 AD, Spoken Hebrew eventually became a dead language; no one today truly knows the correct way to say it. It's an educated guess, so building theology around a guess is a bit strange. Furthermore, contrary to their outdated beliefs, Yahweh is not God the Father, El Elyon, the Most High God, is the Father of Yahweh/Jesus, the Son of God/El. Jesus is never called the Son of the Lord (Kurios/Yahweh/Jehovah), rather he is called the Lord and Son of the Most High God. There are rich, evil ethno-Jewish, individuals influencing things with their money. Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and George Soros are not guided by any religious framework, they are secular or non-practicing people with merely a Jewish heritage. But each are driven by their own unique causes. Thus, in our 2 party system, there are rich conservative megadonors, such as the Koch family, Richard Uihlein, or Timothy Mellon, which exposes the opposite of a Jewish conspiracy. It's actually the evidence they are not all aligned. There is no Jewish pyramid in the North Pole that I'm aware of to be concerned with it. The North Pole is an ocean covered by shifting sea ice with no landmass. The South Pole sits on an ice sheet over 9,000 feet thick. The "pyramids at the poles" idea stems from viral internet conspiracy theories, often fueled by satellite images showing nunataks (natural, pyramid-shaped mountain peaks carved by glacial erosion) in Antarctica's Ellsworth Mountains. But did he make "billions" as profit? No. The property was totally destroyed, leaving Silverstein with billions in financial obligations to rebuild while continuing to pay rent to the Port Authority. The insurance payout $4.55 billion went toward the multi-billion-dollar cost of rebuilding the complex. Silverstein spent years in court cases, lost vast equity, and ended up surrendering control of One World Trade Center back to the Port Authority due to construction costs. People have been claiming the end of days for millennia, usually by pointing out the mild escalation of events. I'm certain it could get much worse, so as always, there is no telling the day or the hour. Modern genetic and anthropological research places the origin of Western Steppe ancestry north of the Caucasus in the Pontic-Caspian steppe rather than inside ancient Persia. Your theory combines unrelated historical facts, geographical regions, and linguistic terms in an incorrect way. Linguistically and historically, Aryan applies strictly to the Indo-Iranian subgroup (peoples of ancient Persia and northern India), Ayrans are not the ancestors of European populations. Indo-European language speakers expanded out of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (north of the Black and Caspian Seas). One branch moved west into Europe, while a separate Indo-Iranian branch moved south and east into Persia and India, not from Persia into Europe. Oh, so you don't condemn all Jews. That's good, I guess. Bytheway, are you a fan of Candas Owens?

I am the one who questioned Joseph Smith heavily... One of my arguments was that "just because a jew tricked you with a stone in a hat does not mean that the same trick must still work today". You can call me Stephan or the english Steven is fine when you speak to me by voice. I also write books as OrangeNero. Good books.

As for symbolic violence, Jesus clearing the temple of the money lenders/changers. The early Christians, Acts of the Apostles, spreading the word of Christ openly and publicly. And Christians, various doctrines openly spreading the word of Christ through the ages. Every 3 to 6 months, Jehovah's witnesses visit the area I live. And also when interest is shown, and by arrangement, LDS missionaries visiting people. Genuine people Evangelising the faith by people in a peaceful manner.

Hi Calm If I remember correctly, that Dario, I think mentioned of a connection with the Netherlands.

Neither am I. Nor should any LDS be. Is there a reason you mention this in the context of a discussion about the certainty of certain LDS beliefs? Just curious.

What name do you go by, is it Stephan?

I think I mixed up this ‘Dario’ with Dario M. Both are European and I wasn’t reading close enough to get the country and other details as I popped in during a short break between phone errands. I did a search on members and we have 3 Dario’s listed, the other one was a DarioJelks and one Darion (member of the Church though). Stephan Dario, how common is Dario? This ‘Dario’ is German and the other was living in the Netherlands and Portugal when he was posting in the board. I can’t remember if the Netherlands was his birthplace or not.

You know your missionaries are still children. And they are poor as F. because they too have to pay your church tax. Now I just met the boys, and they were all marvelous. But they did not yet fully read the bibles. They were not ready and a child should have a good childhood UNTIL 21. It is the foundation of the harsh cruel adult live. It was a joy to play some Forza Horizon 3 and some Microsoft Flight Simulator and some CoD with them. Finally some relief and joy for them.