All Activity

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.

These hyperbolic AI-generates splash images are really getting old. A Grok summary of this episode (from the auto-generated transcript) : "They also say 'soon discovered it wasn’t what they were seeking” undercuts lasting confusion: listeners figure it out quickly." In other words, some folks were confused initially. Not sure how this helps MS. Thanks, -Smac

Confusion is grounds for a Lanham Act lawsuit. But it has to be confusion around a trademark (either registered or unregistered). The Church/Dehlin lawsuit includes both Lanham Act confusion, Lanham Act trademark infringement, and copyright infringement.

Okay. The "intentionally a little bit blurry" comes across - quite strongly, in my view - as evasive and vague, as effectively impossible to apply, as motte-and-bailey. I was in a hearing last week in which the judge was rendering a decision on a motion for summary judgment I had filed. The opposing attorney, David, had filed an opposing memorandum that either dodged many of the points of law I was making or only addressed them vaguely and obliquely. The most acute example was a question about David's first cause of action (I represent the defendant), seeking a judgment that my client, when he foreclosed on the plaintiff's house, violated the law by failing to send a "Notice of Default" to the plaintiff. This is indisputably a requirement of the nonjudicial foreclosure process in Utah, but the obligation to send it rests with the foreclosure trustee (not my client). In fact, my client is statutorily prohibited from doing what the trustee is obligated to do. At the hearing the judge asked David: "About that first cause of action, you aren't claiming that the defendant was the foreclosure trustee, correct?" David didn't talk for about 15 seconds, but then said "No, we're not." The judge then said "And the duty to send a Notice of Default to the property owner is the duty of the trustee, right?" Another pregnant pause, even longer, then David said "That is correct." The judge did not ask the next obvious question: "So the first cause of action necessarily fails, doesn't it? The defendant can't be held liable for not sending a Notice of Default when he had no obligation to do so, right?" The judge did, however, dismiss the first cause of action a few minutes later. David did what you have been refusing to do for months now: answer questions directly and candidly. Of course, he had an obligation to do so, and you do not. I have been asking for weeks and weeks how you would propose to differentiate which men can legally access women's bathrooms and which cannot. I have also been asking for "limiting principles" to your proposal. I have also been asking you to acknowledge that your proposal, in enacted, would result in de facto and/or de jure eradication of sex-segregated spaces. Huh. ChatGPT doesn't seem to actually address the propositions. "Proposition 1: Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither." Do you agree or disagree with Proposition 1? Is gender identity "real, innate and authoritative?" Do you agree or disagree that "[a] person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither?" What do you mean by "sex recorded at birth?" If a person is a man by biological sex, but is a "woman" by "gender identity," is that person a man or a woman? "Proposition 2: Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes). “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan." What does "recognize transgender people socially" mean? Do you agree or disagree that "trans women are women" is a "literal truth?" "Proposition 3: Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid." Do you agree or disagree that a man who "self-identifies" as a woman means he is a woman, regardless of "medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation?" "Proposition 4: Denial of the identity is a denial of the person. Disagreeing with the identity claim is framed as saying the person 'doesn’t exist,' not as disputing a proposition." Do you agree that if Person A denies that Person B, a man who "identifies" as a woman, actually is a woman, Person A is denying the "existence" of Person B? "Proposition 5: Sex is a spectrum, a social construct, or at least not a strict binary relevant to policy. Chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are treated as crude, incomplete, or bigoted ways to classify people." So is sex a "spectrum" or a "binary?" How many sexes are there? "Proposition 6: 'Assigned sex at birth' is the preferred description of sex, implying a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category." Do you agree or disagree that "assigned sex at birth" implies "a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category." Do you think a doctor "assigns" a sex to a newborn or "observes" it? "Proposition 7: Preferred pronouns and names are morally mandatory. Using sex-based pronouns is 'misgendering'; using a prior name is 'deadnaming.' Both are treated as harms comparable to slurs." Do you agree or disagree that using sex-based pronouns is "misgendering?" Do you agree or disagree that using sex-based pronouns is "comparable to slurs?" "Proposition 8: There is no polite way to state the sex distinction. 'Biological male/female,' 'natal sex,' and similar terms are often classified as hate speech or dogwhistles." Do you agree or disagree that using terms like "biological male" or "natal sex" are "hate speech or dogwhistles?" "Proposition 9: Gender dysphoria is validated by affirmation, not primarily explored as a possible misattribution of other distress. 'Watchful waiting' or exploratory therapy is frequently labeled conversion therapy. Do you agree or disagree that "gender dysphoria is validated by affirmation?" "Proposition 10: Medical transition (blockers, hormones, surgery) is healthcare, and withholding it is violence. Access is framed as lifesaving; gatekeeping is framed as cruelty." Do you agree or disagree that withholding medical transition is "violence?" Do you agree or disagree that medical transition is "lifesaving?" Do you agree or disagree that "gatekeeping" medical transition is "cruelty?" "Proposition 11: Minors can have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition. Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry." Do you agree or disagree that "{m}inors {} have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition?" Do you agree or disagree that "{p}arental or clinical caution {regarding pediatric medical transition procedures} is ... abuse or bigotry?" "Proposition 13: Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. Exclusion of males who identify as women is discrimination." Do you agree or disagree that "Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex?" Do you agree or disagree that excluding males "who identify as women" from these spaces "discrimination?" "Proposition 14: Any line among 'trans women' is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is 'transmedicalism' or 'dividing the community.'" Do you agree or disagree that differentiating trans women in any way (medically-transitioned versus non-medically-transitioned, etc.) is "bigotry?" "Proposition 16: Questions are a form of harm. Asking for definitions ('what is a woman?'), evidence, or tradeoffs is treated as bad-faith or as endangering trans people." Do you agree or disagree that "{a}sking for definitions ('what is a woman?')" is "bad-faith?" As "endangering trans people?" "Proposition 17: Opposition is explained as animus. The admissible motives are hatred, disgust, or religion; safety, fairness, child protection, and definitional accuracy are discounted." Hoo, boy. This sure would be nice to see, as you have in my recollection been a non-stop member of the bucket brigade drawing water from the "Bigot!" well. Haven't seen it. "Proposition 19: Conflicts with women’s rights and gay rights are denied or inverted. Sex-based rights are reframed as bigotry; same-sex attraction is pressured toward 'attraction to gender identity.'" Do you agree or disagree that "sex-based rights" are "bigotry?" Thanks, -Smac

What is different about this from the prior monthly teacher training?

If this is accurate, it looks like church lawyers lied in their filing against Mormon Stories:

Maybe I'm being unfair. You at least sometimes come across as being selective in your focus and outrage for these LGBTQ groups. You are only further demonstrating my point. To disagree with you is to be "bigoted." To disagree with you is to be "outraged." Again, you seem incapable of allowing for reasoned and principled disagreement. You are here demonstrating why I don't see you as a reliable narrator. You cannot be trusted to fairly characterize viewpoints which diverge from yours. Here is what I have said, and which you characterize as "really, really hate": Nothing about "hate" here (as in "to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest"). I have strong principled disagreement with coerced and compelled speech, but you can't accommodate that, so you rebrand it as "hate." It is based on principle. Coerced/compelled speech is a terrible idea. I am not selective about this. It just so happens that the only substantive movement I can think of that incorporates coerced/compelled speech into its objectives and means is some parts of the LGBT movement. I see this as a tacit acknowledgment of its vacuity. You and yours can't persuade, so you coerce. It's agree with you or else be branded a "bigot" driven by "hate." It's agree with you and yours or else you will seek to use the coercive power of the State to compel me to say words I do not want to say, or else punish me for not saying them. There is no real effort here to persuade hearts and minds. "Bigot." "Really, really hate." "Morally outraged."' You just can't help yourself. To answer your question: No. The same can be said when I rendered military courtesies to officers I found to be not really deserving of it. A few reasons for this. First, I am in those circumstances effectively required to use titles, honorifics, and formalities. I knew that was part of the gig when I joined the Army, and later when I joined the Bar. Second, these formalities are principally focused on the position and the system in which it functions more than the individual inhabiting it. Band of Brothers got it right: Third, to the extent military service or courtroom formalities by members of the Bar are seen as "compelled," they are very much exceptions to the rule. I think that's a stretch, though. Calling a judge "Your Honor" is legally classified as a regulation of conduct and decorum within a specialized government facility rather than unconstitutional compelled speech. A servicemember being required to address a superior officer as "sir" or "ma'am" is not considered unconstitutional compelled speech because of the legally distinct nature of the U.S. military. While the First Amendment generally prevents the government from forcing citizens to say things they disagree with (like the Pledge of Allegiance), the rules are fundamentally different for active-duty personnel. "Bigot." "Really, really hate." "Morally outraged."' "Awful." You just can't help yourself. I am not sure what you are referencing here. Most employers are private entities, and hence are not bound by the First Amendment, which regulates State behavior relative to speech. You aren't being precise here. The assertion isn't and never was about "a complete list of everything that can exist or act." The assertion is about whether unknown forces or particles can interact with normal matter with enough vigor to have any effect on our everyday lives. And in this context, this doesn't just mean bending spoons. It means subtly nudging an electrical impulse enough to change the probability that a neuron fires. In this context, "spirit matter" (as conceived by Mormonism), "revelation" and other such things are all in the broad category of "new particles or fields". That is a fair correction on wording. The live claim is not "nothing else can exist." It is: nothing unknown can couple to ordinary matter strongly enough to change everyday outcomes, including the probability that a given neuron fires. If a soul or an act of revelation had to be a new field or particle that continuously exchanges energy-momentum with charges and ions the way known forces do, then yes — a nudge at the synapse is exactly the kind of coupling experiments were built to find. I am not saying that coupling was missed. What I am disputing, and have for years, is the requirement that revelation or a soul, if real, must be that kind of extra term in the effective theory. That is the step that turns ‘no fifth force in the neural energy range’ into ‘therefore an infinitesimal prior on God speaking.’ A cause that is not another particle species, or that does not act as a stable, law-like force across the board, is not constrained in the same way by crossing symmetry. You can reject those options. You cannot treat the rejection as if it were just the experimental bound on extra particles. "Bigot." "Really, really hate." "Morally outraged."' "Awful." "Boloney Detection Kit." I accept the particle-physics claim in those pages. If something is another quantum field that lives long enough and couples to ordinary matter strongly enough to change everyday processes — including whether a neuron is a little more or less likely to fire — then yes, we should have produced it. Carroll’s three options for missing particles are the right list for that kind of thing. I am not arguing that a hidden electron-like field was overlooked. The religious claim I am defending is not "there is a fourth option: a long-lived, moderately coupled particle we somehow missed." It is that God, or a soul, or revelation, need not be a term you add to the Core Theory equation the way you add a new force. Carroll is right that if you insist on modeling the soul as something that pushes protons and electrons around inside the existing Lagrangian, you have a serious problem. That ‘if’ is the whole dispute. Treating every influence on a brain as "must be a modification of this equation in a way colliders would have seen" is the physicalist rule. The experiments bound extra couplings. They do not by themselves prove that the only possible cause is an extra coupling. On the kit: I have said from the start that Sagan’s tools are the right tools for candidate scientific mechanisms: ESP papers, medical miracles, sloppy history, fraud. I apply them there. I do not accept that the same protocol, with the same restriction on admissible causes, is a neutral test of whether God can speak. That is not "science for thee but not for me." It is refusing to let a method designed to police extra particles in the everyday domain also serve as the sole judge of a different kind of claim. You can call that selective. I call it not collapsing two hypotheses into one. I can be wrong about God. What I will not grant is that Carroll’s bound on undiscovered particles is the demonstration that I am wrong, or that declining to treat revelation as a missing term in the Core Theory is a refusal to think. Thanks, -Smac