All Activity

Asking Grok to summarize “the fundamental tenets of trans ideology” is like asking Walter Martin to summarize the fundamental tenets of Mormonism. That comparison isn’t perfect, though, because I don’t think there even is a uniform list of trans ideological doctrines that you must subscribe to in order to be considered an ally. When I have used the word “woman” that way, I was using it as a gender category rather than as a synonym for adult human biological female. If somebody has a female gender identity and female gender expression, the polite thing to do is socially categorize them as a woman. In my view, when you do this you are fervently refusing to understand their words, their conceptual framework, and the nuances of their point. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” are well-defined terms that represent real-world things, too. On my mission, on a few occasions people I was talking to were adamant that I wasn’t an “elder”. In their view, calling a 19-year old kid an “elder” was a radical “departure from empirical reality,” and they were willing to die on that hill. I disagree with you on this one. George Box said all models are wrong, but some are useful. The sexual binary is a model. In many contexts it is an extremely useful one, but when dealing with the biology of real-world people, it is less universally useful than many people imagine, and certainly isn’t the ultimate truth of what it means to be a human being. Empirical reality is that sex is "the biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people." "Sex assigned at birth" means “sex recorded at birth.” It is in fact a term used by doctors in medical records when dealing with these issues, and was well-defined by the Academies. I don’t think it is my job to gate-keep the definition of words and to agree or disagree with definitions. I generally use the definitions the Academy provided, and try to understand what people are trying to communicate with the words they use. My sense is that much of trans advocacy is built less on redefining biological sex than on the idea that how we relate to other people matters. In ordinary social contexts, the polite and humane thing to do is generally to treat people in a way that aligns with their gender identity and presentation. That does not require pretending biological sex is unreal or different than what it really is. It means recognizing that social categories used in social situations don’t necessarily need to line up with the underlying biology you’d talk about with your doctor in medical situations. I'm not in a position to endorse anything on this. I’m a finance expert, not a doctor. I will note that the purpose of this glossary is to understand medical records, not describe the polite way to engage with others in all social interactions. Just because you think something is incoherent doesn't mean it really is. I’d give the benefit of the doubt to doctors and assume they speak coherently about medical and biological issues. If you think they are using the language incoherently, maybe you are the one with an ideology that is a little off. “Not all components align” is biological reality when we’re talking about real-world human beings. When scientists say “sex is a spectrum,” they do not mean that male and female are meaningless categories. They mean that the biological traits associated with sex: chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genital anatomy, secondary sex characteristics, and gene expression, do not always line up perfectly and often vary continuously in degree. From this coherent, reality-based point of view, sex is bimodal rather than perfectly binary in every biological feature: most people cluster strongly around typical male or female patterns, while some fall between or outside those typical combinations. This can be an insightful way of understanding human biology. As a thought experiment, imagine in a few years Elder Uchtdorf as prophet. Imagine at the same time a faithful member of the Church who deeply, deeply, feels their spirit is a woman and that somehow, their body looks, biologically, like a male. This person isn’t an activist or public agitator. Just a committed Latter-day Saint who feels like a woman trapped in a males body. They finds themself talking to the first presidency about it, and after a blessing and a prayer they receive a revelation: this person’s spirit really is a female spirt. In principle, this could happen, right? Mormons believe in spirits, and that spirits really do have genders. And they also believe genetic defects generally don’t reflect the essence of the body’s spirit. So what if the prophet had a revelation that a specific biological man had a female spirit? Would you object to this person claiming that on the inside, they really are a woman? Would you insist they be treated like a man, despite the prophet’s revelation that their spirit is female?

And you apparently do as well.

Refugees welcome, here are first supply of 72 virgins for muslim martyr

Only for the strong ones among you: https://www.salon.com/2008/04/15/angela_merkel/

Or Merkel condemning all of ze Germans because of a supposed Hetzjagd against refugees. Her proof was a video from Antifa that didn't show that the beginning where the man was attacked by the refugees LOLOLOL then the president of the Verfassungsschutz Hans Georg Massen interviened and was FIRED for doing his job LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I wish Liveleak was still a thing so I could show you the video of the russian assassin in some german town armed with a Katana butchering some child molestor and then the germans, their mothers with the Kinderwagen they didn't run away they got closer out of curiosity and wanted to chat with this russian Rambo who still has a bloody Katana in his hands and is wondering WTF is wrong with ze Germans like have they no fear?????? Just stupid sheep beyond all... gullible!

Finally the right version:

Maybe listen to your "enemies" for once before shooting them in the head. Or lets take Charlie Hebdo. How convenient. Inside the car of the perpetraitors they found a passport. But ofc. How convenient. Just as convenient as the complete annihilation of the jews in the war in america 60BC or so... ow sorry did that one hurt your precious feelings?

He is sitting in Den Haag instead due to this:

Here in Switzerland many people believe and tell around that Israel let the October massacre happen on purpose to justify their war and plans for greater israel. Also here you have him in the flesh:

The Israeli pager strike real crafty, never underestimate the craftiness of ze Jew.

Kurds still waiting for Kurdistan probably wondering if they at least get some free netflix instead???

The Manchurian Candidate or The Philadelphia Project are great movies. Go watch them. Oh and Men who stare at goats.

MH370 in Diego Garcia LOLOLOL

Or Nato coup in Turkey, and then Turkey falsified Radar data to make it look like russian plane invaded for 3 seconds their airspace to justify shooting it down LOLOLOL

Also how can a plane fly into the Pentagon?! And penetrate so many rings???????? Made out of paper?!?! And it hits the section that investigates Israel oh ofc.

Nagasaki was the MOST christian citx of Japan! And one church survived thanks to a miracle, the builder had a vision prior to building it on where to locate it. Also the target was the bell tower of the christian church. The Japanese knew and let the bomber through, they already had surrendered. Also Pearl Harbor was an inside job only the old useless warships were struck.

It was a Rod of God, a Satellite firing Iron Rods with hyper velocity. Few days later there was a massive fire at a US Base in Japan. The Beirut one was first a missile by soe warship and then the final one some tactical nuke missile from Israeli F-18. I have seen the images. The Italian Nuclear research center on some island nearby reported the nuclear fallout until they censored it.

Here is your future all financed by AIPAC:

And where was AMERICA when ISIS raped woman and children and took town after town??? Even in Iraq which you conquered and "swore" to protect? Where was the AC130 or Predator drone when they marched over open sand??? Remember the Michael Bay movie 13 Hours????? That is how much you are worth to Hillary Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!!! And her Mossad overlords!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus christ everyone knows half of ISIS came from guantanamo bay and did the bidding of Israel because they profited the most and their plans to take land from ALL neighbors is openly available as is how they speak about us all the goyim. They are openly fighting over if we should be bombed because we are animals or bombed even harder because we are worse than animals to them! It was in our newspaper, mainstream media, 20min.ch the most read swiss newspaper! With direct quotes! I already said that I am NOT anti Jewish but ANTI Zionist and I have declared WAR on Zion and will DESTROY Zionism and de-zionise the world! Or I will go down trying so are you with me or are you against me because Zion only thinks in absolutes. You can also just idly stand by and wait for Mirrorbacteria to kill us all. Either way you better make your peace with your deity, be it god or whatever.

If by Zionism, you mean simply a homeland for Jews, who here besides you is defying it? I am not going to engage with anything else that is conspiracy theories, but didn’t want you to think this was a forum that agreed with your claims against the Jews just because most of us are too polite to engage…plus there is the rule of no politics. You will likely get banned as I believe you were the first time you came here if you are the poster I think you are (I think your account was blocked as I can’t find the post I remember to check). If you want to stick to talking about Catholicism, Christianity, or your criticism of our LDS Christian beliefs and history in a respectful way, you are welcomed to post, but disrespect and worse gets one banned thankfully.

There is no indication he was making an apology for the entire church. I understand that this is an area of emphasis for you. But my question was not whether he "was making an apology for the entire church," but rather whether he was speaking in a representative capacity for the Church when addressing the NAACP. If your position was "No, he was not speaking for the Church," then I would like to better understand your perspective. If Elder Stevenson was not speaking to the NAACP in a representative capacity, are you suggesting that he was speaking in his individual and personal capacity, entirely outside his priesthood office and responsibilities? I think the disavowal is what we have. Reasonable minds can disagree about collective guilt, the utility of public "apologies," and the like. Well, I think some, perhaps many or most, were. I think the early leaders of the Church were not always fastidious in their differentiation between doctrine and opinion/conjecture. In any event, the Church now says that they were theories, and false ones to be repudiated at that. Well, we could consider Joseph Fielding Smith's 1907 statement (though he was church historian at the time) : And then there's John Widtsoe's 1944 statements: The "in some way, unknown to us" language may be pertinent to your inquiry. The August 17, 1949 letter is troubling to me. I think Edward Kimball may have a point: We also have Pres. McKay's private statement to Sterling McMurrin in 1954: And here (same link) : That's what I have so far. Thank you for laying the verses out that carefully. I think we are trying to do the same thing: stay with what the book actually says, and not load it with a theory the text never states. On your three comparisons, I think I agree with the negative claim. The Book of Mormon does not narrate God handing the Lamanites a special garment, painting them, or tattooing them. Genesis does not say Cain put on a coat, painted himself, or was tattooed, and it does not say a mark of that kind passed to a wife’s children. If someone offers garments, paint, or tattoos as the meaning of the Lamanite mark, they are filling a gap. The book never uses those words for what God does in 2 Nephi 5 or Alma 3. Where I would slow down is treating that gap as if it settled the other readings. Alma 3 is doing two different things at once, and you already noticed the seam. The Amlicites “marked themselves” with red on the forehead, “after the manner of the Lamanites” (Alma 3:4, 13). That is voluntary, local, and described as paint or a sign they applied. In the same chapter the narrator also says the Lamanites had a mark “set upon them” because of the fathers’ transgression, so they would not be mixed up with the Nephites, and that whoever mixed with them brought the same mark on their own seed (Alma 3:6–10). That second description is not written as a forehead ritual. It is written as something that follows lineage and covenant standing. The book never bothers to tell us the physics. That is frustrating, but it is the text. What are your thoughts about this? 3 Nephi 2:14–16 is the other passage that will not sit quietly inside a “they painted themselves” reading. Converted Lamanites are numbered with the Nephites, “the curse was taken from them,” and “their skin became white like unto the Nephites.” If the only mark in the book were red paint on the forehead, that sentence is an odd way to say they washed it off. I do not say that forces a modern racial reading. I do say the narrator is talking about more than costume, or else he chose a very strange vocabulary for costume. Cain is not a clean template for this. His mark in Genesis is protection from vengeance. The Book of Mormon’s language is about separation, covenant, and later the lifting of a “curse” when people come to Christ. Mixing those two stories is, I think, an artifact of older and less accurate assessments. My own working stance, which I think is also the most careful one the Church now takes, is narrower than Scripture Central’s suggestions and narrower than a 19th-century racial sermon: The book speaks of a curse and a mark and, in a few verses, of skin. It does not give us a mechanism. Garments, paint, and tattoos are guesses, and reasonably good ones. A biological race theory is also a guess, and also reasonable, and the Church has disavowed the old “dark skin means less favored in the premortal life” folklore. What the book does insist on is that the dividing line is not supposed to be permanent: when people repent, they are received, the curse is spoken of as lifted, and the old hostility is condemned. So I can take your three points as sound warnings against over-reading. I would only ask that we apply the same restraint in the other direction: the text is not a treatise on paint, and 3 Nephi 2 is still sitting there. I am glad to stay in the verses with you rather than in a theory about the verses. To some extent, I think you are correct. One cannot misinterpret what those verses (2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, and 3 Nephi 2:15) meant in the Book of Mormon. That's the way Joseph Smith supposedly translated by the power of God. The Book of Mormon, possibly even a portion in the Pearl of Great Price, led to the doctrine which would form policy in the LDS Church for centuries. Saints Volume 3, chapter 16 also adds: "David, I am as sympathetic as you are," President Grant had responded, "but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the Church". Beginning in the early 1900s, Church leaders taught that any Saint known to have Black African ancestry, however small, would be restricted". The church leaders used their position and influence to inadvertently lead the members astray. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Dallin H. Oaks referred to it as "spectacularly wrong". "Lead members astray" = "lead them away from Jesus Christ." I can't agree with that assessment. As Edward Kimball put it: "The {1949} statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a 'direct commandment' from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came 'from the days of [the Church’s] organization.'" But again, I respectfully disagree that this amounts to "leading their members astray." It's possible there is no available written record of this supposed revelation. Is it also possible that there was no such revelation? More later. Thanks, -Smac

Man why don't you focus on what unites us instead of what divides us? I did not come here to have pety fights with you. From my understanding it is well known and broadly understood that Joseph Smith had plenty of wifes including already maried ones and young ones that ca be considered children. If you disagree then so be it. Frankly I do not care anymore as long as you defy Zionism you can do as you please to some degree.