All Activity

I’m gonna double down in fact: What’s the deal with the Tongans??? You see that video of a literal crip hang funeral inside the lds building, speaker wearing balaclava all tatted up , wearing gang colors and drinking a corona beer…. At an lds funeral? . Everyone in there acting like it’s all normal procedure. Turns out it kinda is. The funeral was even decorated up in crip colors. that gang is totally running that ward. 100%. Bishop is a mere figurehead and prob in on the program too. No doubt. so yea this is a Tongan problem. Call it racist all you want, but they own this. Watch the video- you will see https://www.christianwarriortraining.com/p/did-the-crips-take-over-an-lds-church

That it was strongly disapproved of in the past and now per the Church Handbook it is not something anyone but the couple (and possibly God) should have a say in. If you are looking for a statement saying birth control is approved or not prohibited you won’t find a clear one which is my point. Church leaders sneak in these changes without repudiating what was formerly taught which is why you have members who think birth control is prohibited because of quotes they have read when it is not. The illusion of not changing seems to be very important to Church leaders and they don’t like disavowing previous teachings. They do it occasionally with ‘Curse of Cain’ stuff and things like blood atonement but it is rare. They seem to prefer to just hope the old ideas will die out in time.

Ward security specialist (armed) is pretty much a fake calling. There are no official church positions other than assigned out of the COB for General Authorities and special events or circumstances for armed personnel. I'm open to being wrong, but my ward has "security specialists" too and i just looked them up and none of them have that listed as a calling so i believe it to be a made up local thing. Official church policy is all weapons are prohibited in church buildings with the exception for certified current police officers. Anyone who engages in armed security work at the local level at the request of a bishop or stake president would be well advised to get the assignment documented on paper though kirton mckonkie, tape record the appointment (calling) and get it archived. If in that capacity you shoot someone at church(even if they needed to be killed) I 100% guarantee you the church will not indemnify you and the bishop or whatever stake leader will be blamed for going rogue and not following church policy.

I've been out of the loop for a while so your posts are the first time I've heard of anything like this. Imo it's prudent, and of course unfortunate that present circumstances make it prudent. Thirty-something years ago a man began calling our ward repeatedly threatening to show up and kill Mormons. Nobody else took his threats seriously, which was probably logical because nothing like what he was threatening had ever happened. I appointed myself "unofficial greeter", hanging around outside before and after meetings, and keeping an eye on what was happening outside and/or at the entrances as best I could during meetings both on Sundays and during the week. I was in the bishopric so my presence wasn't abnormal, and people just thought I was this cheerful little guy who liked to greet everyone. Nobody ever knew I was carrying, illegally because there was no other option in that jurisdiction at that time. Glad to hear there is now an actual plan in place, at least in some locations, and that actual trained personnel are involved.

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, volume 4, no. 1 contains a few articles that I think related to what you are asking about above. The articles that I think relate to your question above are as follows: PDF The Book of Mormon as Literature Sidney B. Sperry PDF Types of Literature in the Book of Mormon: "The American Gospel" Sidney B. Sperry PDF Types of Literature in the Book of Mormon: Epistles, Psalms, Lamentations Sidney B. Sperry PDF Types of Literature in the Book of Mormon: Historical Narrative, Memoir, Prophetic Discourse, Oratory Sidney B. Sperry PDF Types of Literature in the Book of Mormon: Patriarchal Blessings, Symbolic Prophecy, Prophetic Narrative, Prophetic Dialogue Sidney B. Sperry PDF Types Of Literature in the Book of Mormon: Allegories, Prayers, Songs, Genealogies Sidney B. Sperry Does that help? ETA: I've also found the Book of Mormon Online resource to have some useful information. When you look up specific passages there are various commentaries on the Book of Mormon included. But their "Book of Mormon Analysis" section includes information on Chiastic Features, but it also has a "Coming Soon" section on Literary Structures (it's not released yet).

Probably full. Will delete some this evening

I have his volume 3 of that series, but not volume 1, but based on what I know about his other book I would definitely recommend it.

I sort of struggled with it, since "trans ideology" is amorphous, and trying to define it with any particular precision is difficult. Nonetheless, some principles seem to be fundamental to the movement (such that departure from them is generally condemned as "bigotry," "denying trans existence," etc.). Here is what Grok generated: Items 3, 4, 13, and 14 are why I think CB's hormones-plus-ID rule will get condemned from inside the movement. The ideology’s public rule is not "serious medical transition." It is identity alone. Consequently, endorsing medical gatekeeping for bathrooms is departing from 3 ("Self-identification is sufficient") and 14 ("Any line among 'trans women' is itself bigotry"). In that framework, CB's departure from "orthodoxy" sure seems to be the same kind of offense he and SU have called "bigotry" when I do it. I propose to differentiate and "gatekeep" entry into women's spaces based on biological sex, and such differentiation is "bigotry." CB proposes to differentiate and "gatekeep" entry into women's spaces based on a fairly detailed hormones-plus-ID rule. Is that differentiation "bigotry" too (per trans "orthodoxy")? If not, why not? Thanks, -Smac

I'm glad I stumbled on this thread, as I just shared some personal experience on another -- and this has me perplexed about the two Stakes I informally participate in (my home Ward/Stake, and my parents'). I don't attend church anymore (other than for special family/friend things), but I happily volunteer whenever I get a call to (mostly to help with security at events, but occasionally to help clean the chapel, or a service project for someone). Whenever I volunteer helping with security, I am told who each person is that's armed. As far as I know, they are tasked with concealed carry for regular meetings as well, not just events at the chapel. The Stake and Ward security leads always make sure we all know who is armed in the chapel. Them being armed is something they are asked to do by the head of security (whether at the Stake or at the Ward level). I only know three of them personally, so I don't know about all of their backgrounds (we don't usually have time for casual get-to-know-you chit-chat). One is a detective, one is a motorcycle cop, (both with metro) and one is a constable (for the county). I assumed this was standard practice nowadays at all Wards and Stakes, but apparently either my area has gone rogue, or there are special exceptions granted. As far as I know, there wasn't really anything in the valley as far as a string of threats or anything like that, which precipitated the change. I'm not even sure how long the Stake and Wards have had a security related calling... I just know I started being asked about 10-ish years ago to help (and that's when I became aware of it). ETA: If there is anyone who is tasked with this, who knows if this isn't supposed to be knowledge, please let me know and I'll happily delete this and my other comment (as I started to think about it, there's likely a certain level of "security" in people *not* knowing that there's specialized security).

Got to say I laughed reading this phrase.

I have never encountered that I recall over the years of online and offline encounters someone was an antimormon and Christian who hasn’t called themselves Evangelical, but fundamentalist/Fundamentalist. From what I have heard among LDS, this is typical. My guess is the other Saints, like me, want to distinguish between the Evangelicals who are not constantly challenging our Christianity and those who are while still respecting the rights of those claiming to be Evangelicals. It may not be technically accurate, but I believe most people would understand what we are talking about. Perhaps not though.

Politics is about compromise, especially when balancing competing interests. I have no issues with CB's proposal. Okay. Indeed. But I'm curious why are you able to depart from trans orthodoxy, since the "complaining" in this context almost reflexively and necessarily includes accusations of . . . bigotry. For example, differentiating or ranking transgender women based on their medical transition status, such as whether they have had surgeries, taken hormone replacement therapy (HRT), or transitioned at a certain age, is seen as a form of marginalization often referred to as transmedicalism or gatekeeping. Within the LGBTQ+ community and sociological discourse, creating a hierarchy based on medical intervention is widely recognized as harmful. A summary from Google's AI: I appreciate you sharing your perspective on locker rooms and other places where people are actually undressed. You would restrict those to people who have fully medically transitioned, and you would provide a private alternative. That is a real line. It is also a form of "gatekeeping." That is the piece I want to flag, because it sits uneasily with how this conversation has gone. CB's proposal openly does not treat identity as sufficient. It treats identity plus medical and other steps (physician care, a year of hormones, a doctor’s declaration, a changed ID) as the price of entry. Many advocates will reject that on principle. In that framework, a “trans woman” is a woman because she says so. Requiring hormones, surgery, or paperwork is itself treated as denying her womanhood. You said you don’t particularly care that some people will object. Fair enough. But that objection is not a fringe footnote. It is the mainstream activist claim. You have previously described disagreement with parts of the trans movement as "bigotry." The difficulty is that the rule you are now willing to accept would, by that same standard, put you in the same category. Distinguishing “fully transitioned” males from males who only identify as women is the differentiation I said would draw fire. If drawing that line is bigotry when I do it, it does not become something else when the line is hormones-plus-ID rather than sex. I am not asking you to please everyone. I am asking for a consistent standard. Either: identity alone controls access (per standard trans ideology orthodoxy, such as it is or can be), in which case the proposal fails on its own terms; or some objective criterion (sex, anatomy, medical status) can control access, in which case identity-as-sufficient is situated alongside my proposal (biological sex). It is a difference in degree, not kind. You can defend CB's version of (2). I think (2) is the only workable rule for single-sex spaces. What I resist is using “bigot” for people who hold (2), then endorsing a proposal that is also (2), just drawn at a different place. The accusation does not travel well if it applies only to the line you dislike. If your actual position is “identity is not enough where nudity is involved, and private alternatives should exist,” please say that plainly. That is a policy argument we can discuss. It is not resolved by calling one version of gatekeeping compassionate and the other hateful. Thanks, -Smac

Politics is about compromise, especially when balancing competing interests. I have no issues with CB's proposal. Further (as I said) I have no issue restricting areas where nudity is present to people who have fully transitioned, as long as a different place is offered for people to change privately. I don't particularly care about item 5 as you quoted in your post. You will never please everyone. Some people will complain about everything.

I have noticed something in my readings over the past few months. I find LDS folks using the term "fundamentalist evangelical" more often. I wonder what the source of that is? I don't remember seeing that term at all in years past. I use the term "conservative Evangelical" often because the Evangelical community, on its own a continuum. The other day I think I mentioned in a thread I had also read the term "mainstream fundamentalist." I like the beginnings of what may be an interest in being more careful and more specific about identifying those in the non-LDS Christian community. At the same time I am seeing the term "neo mormon" with greater frequency. Interesting stuff!

Last I heard he was an active and devout member. But he is a philosopher (by inclination, professionally think he is a lawyer) and his arguments are not always mainstream thought as far as I remember (been over 20 years since I read the book). I am reserved about it for that reason, but my memory says he is thorough in his treatment so while his own conclusions may be not traditional, he includes those in his discussion. I would definitely look for reviews to be sure.

I'm not sure. Is Ostler a member in good standing? He is a bit of an independent guy with independent views. Of course, I like that, but I am not sure his writings can be used as harmonizing with the church's perspective on this or that issue.

Oh boy... This video is pretty crazy. Crazier than I thought. The Tongan Crip Gang literally held a Gang Centered Funeral complete with gang colors, gang paraphernalia decorations around the casket and even a masked, color-wearing gangster giving a talk while drinking a Corona beer. The Tongan families have completely lost control if these guys are rolling lke this at church. Also see 12 min mark for this guys prophesy. This guy is a prophet: https://www.christianwarriortraining.com/p/did-the-crips-take-over-an-lds-church

Your OP contained a statement (and sentiment) that was unambiguously racist. That doesn't mean that you are racist. People who aren't racist can say and do things that are racist. People who are anti-racist can and do say racist things. I slip up just like everyone else. It's kind of part of our evolutionary hardwiring as tribal creatures. Once it's pointed out, we then get to decide if we want to abandon the racist thing we did or said, or if we want to defend it and make sure it becomes a part of who we are and no longer just something we did or said. It can be hard getting past that initial self-protective drive, and step back and be able to separate ourselves from our words and actions. The unintended intent of our words doesn't define us, but what we chose to do when we discover how our words are perceived certainly does have weight on who we are. I apologize for derailing a somber thread, about a tragic event, with word-policing. To get more towards the topic. While I don't attend church, I do occasionally get called to come help with security for events (sometimes my home ward, and sometimes my parents' ward). There is a security head for the each Stake, and each ward (that reports to the Stake security lead). While I can only definitively speak about my experience with events, I can all but guarantee that in regular meetings the Bishopric, and the ward security lead know every single member in that ward that has been tasked with concealed carry. I just assumed this had become standard practice, but this has me wondering if it's something that is only in some regions.

From: What's the deal with the Tongans? To: They just so happen to be Tongan. I thought it'd take the satirical mirror longer to do its work. I didn't even have to pivot into asking "What's the deal with the Jews." (That rascally definite article sure carries a lot of snarl in it, doesn't it?)

Very interesting commentary: He hits the nail on the head re church security.. specifically LDS Chapel security Pay attention at ~14min. I guess this guy is a racist too https://www.christianwarriortraining.com/p/lds-tongan-crip-problem-1-dead-2

Could you clarify if you endorse what I'll call CB's "Steps (A)-(E)" proposal? If so, what are your thoughts about the logistical and other challenges to it it which I itemized above? I am particularly interested in the last one: Thanks, -Smac

The history of the "white" people involved in this is it is random, some are not LDS (to include the shooter in Michigan) and there is no pattern other than suspects being white. Kinda hard to do predictive policing and crime prevention when it is that random. No where to focus. Not to mention inthe Michigan one. the police killed the guy so story is over. In Utah we have a much different situation: 1- First shooting early '26 was at a funeral and involved the following factors: **LDS members ** Members of Tongan Crip Gang (TCG) ** Two dead and six injured. Evidence of multiple firearms at scene 2- Second shooting Aug '26 ** At a funeral for a TCG member who was killed during a probable robbery attempt ** TCG members attending funeral ** More people shot and killed at this funeral **Two more TCG members just got arrested a couple days ago for obstruction with this Aug 26 incident. Commonalities: Utah (Salt Lake area), Mormons, TCG members. They just so happen to be Tongan. +++++++++++THE TCG needs to get aggressively investigated and eradicated before it gets more out of control than it is now. If people think that is racist so be it. There are so many intersecting factors (one of which is tongans) that local law enforcement is absolutely whistling past the graveyard. If they are afraid of being tagged as racist... welll the chickens will be coming home to roost. In face they already are and I bet we have not seen the end of this.

Hi Calm Just tried to DM you, but wouldn't send. Couldn't find your email on FAIR.

And would you support exactly the same remedy for to support a trans-gendered student in the same situation? Disciple for disruption and targeting. No contact orders? Certainly. And for students bullied for any other bullied/harassed for any other reason. Normative rules about bullying may well be sufficient. No need to compel or or punish constitutionally protected speech. Thanks, -Smac

For most cases, it should be "ok" for a school to act on, even for trans. But it is NOT ok for schools or government to compel students to use transgender terminology. They have an inalienable right to disagree that men can bear children, nor to allow men in women's private spaces, etc. They have the right to observe biological birth sex. For schools or government to compel such is bigotry all its own. For you to demand such compliance is overly harsh. You really need to watch a lot more of Charlie Kirk's videos. He was very down to earth on so many topics.