All Activity

Not sure to what "nope" here is referring. I have never suggested any such thing, and unequivocally denounce and deny and reject it. Under the Tinker test, likely so. I have never said anything like this. I have never said that my political and religious beliefs justify mistreatment of anyone. I dispute that "discrimination" = using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (generally). I dispute that "discrimination" = using a person's legal name. I have regularly spoken against any mistreatment of anyone in the LGBT community. All of us are entitled to basic and presumptive notions of civility and kindness. My perspective on this issue is borne of reasoned analysis. Not bigotry or hate or fear. I think efforts by some in the trans community to use the power of the State to compel and/or punish speech is one of the faster ways for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. I also think that ongoing and pervasive efforts by some in the trans community to use indiscriminate and unreasoned accusations of "bigotry" to silence other viewpoints is likewise a good way for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. It comes across as desperate and emotional. In the absence of reasoning and evidence, go with hyperbolic ad hominem. Nonetheless, I have appreciated your input here. Irrational and unjust accusations aside, you have been willing to have some substantive discussion about a very difficult topic. While we have not changed each other's minds, perhaps we have helped each other further explore our respective positions in ways we would otherwise not have explored. Thanks, -Smac

Nope. So far, we've demonstrated that you think targeted sex based harassment against a student Is ok for a school to act on. Targeted religious harassment against a student is something that its ok for a school to act on. Targeted racial harassment against a student is ok for a school to act on. But targeted trans-gender harassment against a student is not ok for a school to act on because it goes against your strongly held political and religious beliefs. That is textbook bigotry in my book. edited for clarity

Agreed-glad they got them

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will. These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. So curtail the bullies speech, correct? Disrupt the bullies course schedule? Would it be ok to compel them to use the appropriate name and pronouns if they choose to address your daughter?

Define what true deities are, and try by presupposing multiple real gods did exist, what the attributes of true deities are. Unless, your diffinition is there can only be one, then you are shifting the meaning of biblical gods to God. We could discuss that. Is Baal not a genuine supernatural entity that actually exists, that people call and worship as a deity or not? If you now grant that Baal refers to an actually existing supernatural being, but deny that this being is a god, even as the Bible says he is, then you've moved the goalpost from Are gods of Deuteronomy and Psalms are mere idols? to Are existing gods truly gods?

This is getting weird. Legal analysis sometimes requires scrutiny of things that persons new to it find discomfiting. Nevertheless, what "misgender" means has, I think, some substantial legal import in this context. I think it's been pretty clear that I do not subscribe to recent trends in trans ideology. So when I reference my daughter, I think you can safely assume she is a girl, a biological female. And Patricia is unequivocally female. She does not have a DSD. She acknowledges that she is a girl (she does not "identify" as a boy). Am I on track here? Got it. These hypothetical students are doing this not because there is a plausible basis for viewing Patricia as a boy, and not because Patricia is claiming to be a boy, but rather simply to tease/bully here. Am I on track here? And these students have no legitimate basis for stating that "a male has just exited the women's bathroom" because Patricia is biologically female. Am I on track here as well? So we're back to "misgender." By "misgender your daughter" you mean they are using biologically/linguistically incorrect pronouns (he/him) to reference Patricia, correct? By "misgender your daughter" you do not mean they are using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (she/her) to reference Patricia, correct? That would be very troubling. The Patricia hypothetical is ugly, and a school should be allowed to stop it. I think it is not the same case as a student demanding biologically false pronouns. Patricia is a girl. “Patrick,” plus hallway announcements that “a male just left the women’s bathroom,” is not a disagreement about metaphysics. It is a targeted campaign to humiliate one identified student with a false name and a false sex. That is ordinary sex-based harassment. Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting, and getting her real help. None of that requires a campus speech code about “gender identity.” And it really does not require the school - an extension of the State - to compel students to speak words they do not want to speak. In contrast, a boy who "identifies" as a girl is asking classmates to treat a male as if were a female. That is an ideological request. Refusing that request is a statement about sex. It is not inventing a mock name for a girl and hunting her at the bathroom door. One is ridicule of a known person with facts inverted to wound her. The other is declining to affirm a contested and biologically incoherent claim. Lumping them together is how “don’t torment Patricia” becomes “you must say she/her about a male.” So, what a public school should be allowed to do in Patricia’s case: Stop repeated, directed ridicule of a particular student. Tinker already covers speech that materially disrupts school or invades another student’s rights. A pack following one girl and announcing her as a man in the hall is that. Keep sex-separated spaces. The cruelty in the hypo depends on the students lying about her sex. The fix need not be “gender identity” rules, but can rather be enforcing that girls’ facilities are for girls and that classmates may not run a public ritual of humiliation. Address the self-harm as a safety and clinical problem with her parents. This does not require the school to adopt one side of the sex/gender debate as official truth. The foregoing approach does not encroach on the First Amendment, and would likely be just as effective, if not more so, than an approach which does encroach on the First Amendment. What the school should not be allowed to do, in either case: Treat every use of sex-based language as “bullying” because someone is distressed. Compel other students to use words they believe are false. Collapse “don’t single out Patricia for a false name” into “you must use preferred pronouns.” If the only tool you have is “'misgendering' is harassment,” you cannot tell these situations apart. If you can tell them apart, you do not need that tool. Protect Patricia from a targeted lie about her. Do not conscript the rest of the school into a pronoun rule that would have the school - the State - punish a student for saying a boy is a boy. Thanks, -Smac

This presupposes that Student A has, or should have, a legal obligation to "avoid using any undesired name" ("undesired" by Student B). Can Student A also be punished for calling Student B "Andy" instead of "Andrew" if Student B dislikes the former? Looks like we're both on board with a "case-by-case" approach. We may differ as to how many of those cases will pass the Tinker test. I am not suggesting otherwise. Rather, I am evaluating what schools can do about it while remaining within constitutional parameters. Wife beating did not involve potential and/or actual infringements on First Amendment protections. What we are discussing here does involve that. Thanks, -Smac

Feel free to ask me privately if you want to discuss specific details and it feels awkward here (especially if there are foods that cause issues for you). I am not an expert, but I know where to find some of them. And given my low energy level, picked up lots of tricks for making it easier.

Not sure this is what you are looking for: https://gregkofford.com/products/exploring-mormon-thought-1?

This is getting weird. I have no access to your hypothetical daughter's gametes (which I believe is how you define both sex and gender) nor do I want it. Let me try again. Let's pretend you have a daughter named Patricia. Patricia has always struggled with body issues because she doesn't feel as attractive as her sister or mother. At school there are a few individuals that claim to believe that Patricia is actually a boy. These students refuse to use your daughter's name. Instead they call her Patrick. When Patricia exits the women's bathroom and these individuals are nearby, they loudly point out that a male has just exited the women's bathroom and "What is the world coming to when we allow men into women's spaces". These bullies (my term, but feel free to disagree) loudly misgender your daughter in class and in the hallways. These students never overtly threaten your daughter. Your daughters grades are dropping. You found out she is cutting classes she shares with these students. She's starting to cut herself and express suicidal thoughts. What if anything *should* the public school be allowed to do to address this situation.

I think a lot of adults are oblivious to how much “teasing” is actually bullying and is cruel, even if unintentional. And if it’s persistent, I have major doubts about it not being intentionally cruel because there are ways to avoid using any undesired name if one wants to. Along with being oblivious to what can be bullying, many adults are oblivious to how much that can affect the quality of life for our kids. My daughter had a very smart, very cruel young lady in her elementary classes who was very good at tormenting while not breaking any obvious rules. I don’t believe high schools and younger should be restricted to set in stone rules and instead should operate more on a case by case basis so these kinds of tyrants don’t have free rein to play their power games. My daughter was never a threat, but I was definitely worried she would be a target because she was best friends with the popular girl that the queen bee wanted to own. Thankfully my daughter’s friend protected her. I had tutored her after school when they first immigrated, they would play a lot, so my daughter was her first and enduring Canadian friend (even if she was technically American having spent her first month in the US). I also had a good relationship with her. She was wonderful herself, but also dominated by the tyrant to a great extent because their families were close having immigrated at the same time and were involved in the same communities outside of school. It made it impossible for her to threaten to distance herself from the tyrant in order to dampen the power games, which was pretty much the only thing that worked. Just because ‘teasing’ kids by kids has been happening for ages doesn’t mean it’s healthy or not a big deal. Wife beating happened for ages, we finally grew up enough to realize it wasn’t a man’s right or duty to ‘discipline’ his wife. Once we put in enough effort to really determine how much kids are affected by such treatment when young, we will be horrified at the damage that was allowed. And thinking it’s better that they get exposed to cruelty in their youth so they will toughen up and be ready for the real world doesn’t understand that the more confident kids are the ones that feel secure and relaxed, not the ones that act tough because that’s how they protect themselves.

Many thanks for the advice, very welcome. Over the last week or two, I have managed to get a fibre based breakfast. I can now get to work on the main meal(s) of the day. Once I get in to a routine, and I am a person who likes routine. I should be able to get along with a better diet.

Elder Stevenson said, "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". It's "I'm", not "we're". Again, is it your position that Elder Stevenson was not speaking in in a representative capacity for the Church when addressing the NAACP? I previously addressed the distinction people sometimes draw between “regret” and “apology.” From the Essay: What are your thoughts about this? "It" being suppositional explanations for the policy? I guess we differ a bit about what "astray" means in this context. You have said: False teaching leads people in the wrong path, to worship a false God. For example, Joseph Smith teaching that God is not God from all eternity. This is not the God faithful Jews or the majority of Christians worship. Take another example the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He is Michael the Archangel, not God. This is a false Christ. They are being led down the wrong path. Another example: LDS Christians believe the Godhead is three Gods. Evangelical Christians believe in one God, eternally existent as three personages. You believe the later teaching leads believers astray. I have said: I still am not sure what you mean by "astray." I'm not sure conclusions of this sort will ever "necessarily" follow. Gardner's assessment, like anyone else's is not empirically falsifiable, after all. And I don't think Gardner positions his assessment as "necessarily" correct. So I'm not sure that's a "flaw," as it may just be epistemic humility. Gardner: Scripture Central: I am curious as to your thoughts about the above ideas. And what is your perspective on this "caution position?" Might this also indicate errors in interpretation of The Book of Mormon? Could you explain more about this "original revelation" (the one "institut{ing} the ban")? If it was not recorded, how do you know there was one? Is it possible Brigham Young instituted the ban without "{a} revelation from God"? It was, after all, presented not at the Church's General Conference, but in a legislative session. That is sort of odd. How do you reconcile attributing the ban to Joseph Smith, and Joseph's purported attribution of the ban to God, with his ordination of Elijah Abel? Might it be that the ban was not revelatory, but that the removal of it was? In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve believed a false teaching by Satan and they were led astray. Satan does deceive us sometimes. And the Lord allows it to happen. But here you seem to be equating "astray" with committing a sin. I'm not sure that's accurate. Thank you for sharing this. It looks like we may disagree a bit about what "lead people astray" means in the context of the comment appended to OD-1. Your assessment is much broader than mine. Wrong is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are pulling people towards Michael the Archangel, their version of Jesus. That is a false Christ. Or it is an incorrect belief about Christ. Sounds clear to me. And yet here we are, both of us intelligent and fairly well-informed as to the Restored Gospel, but with fairly divergent conceptualizations of what Pres. Woodruff had in mind. See above ("Leading people astray means using influence..."). Another quote from Joseph Smith: Thoughts? I appreciate you sharing your perspective here. Thanks, -Smac

Nutrition wise, it’s always best to eat fruit whole. I can’t remember any fruit that is better to eat cooked like there are some veggies that are easier to absorb nutrients from. If you can tolerate milk and don’t like yogurt, you can always add some quality cacao to it (I think our favorite is Guittard) for a treat. I also like hot Golden Milk (turmeric and some other spices, doesn’t need sweetener for me). If you like yogurt, try kefir. It has even more variety of bugs in it than store bought yogurt so great at helping to build a healthy gut some come with a lot of sugar, but you can always use your blender to add your own fruit flavor. If you can’t handle milk, kefir and yogurt are good substitutes for many as the bugs digest a lot of the lactose for you (same with sourdough bread, though that varies…I use a tarter version and that seems to prevent the sugars in wheat from exploding my gut). Water is best. If the quality of water you are getting from the tap ain’t great, invest in a filter. I would search online for the best in your area. Even a Brita type can make a difference. I had a really hard time drinking lots of water, it would slosh in my stomach and give me headaches. Adding a bit of salt helps balance the electrolytes for me and I add a bit of sugar as well as that helps the sodium get absorbed. Apparently I am very sensitive to changing electrolyte levels and more than a cup of water in an hour makes my head woozy, etc I can guzzle it down just fine with the addition. I started out using electrolytes capsules, but the cost goes up so much and the amount of anything but sodium isn’t worth the cost, I can get supplements cheaper if I actually need those. The homemade stuff works just as well, if not better as it mixes better. Adding a small amount of fruit juice (how much depends on your calories for the day) if you dislike the straight salt/sugar mix is good. I also use powdered raspberry, my daughter uses mango. You can also throw in frozen fruit to keep it cool as well as add flavor. If you are interested in the nutrition side of things, but don’t know where to start, my dietician recommends using Chat to come up with recipes and meal plans if you need help, especially if you are picky about food (I am not, but my body really is and I feel soooo much better with staying within the lines on this). My experience is always double check the math, especially when it’s dealing with teaspoons and tablespoons. Sometimes it increases when it’s supposed to be decreasing or the reverse. You want chat to calculate the macros (protein, carb, fats…maybe fiber, can’t remember what category that falls into) as well as keep an eye on the micronutrients. There are some free or not too expensive decent food tracking apps as well that would even be better if you don’t mind using them. Let me know if you are interested, I can point you to the ones recommended for me, but you can also use AI to find one that fits what you want best And when cooking something the first time it is very important to follow a recipe as described. Once you know what it is supposed to taste like, then one can fool around with it changing spices, cooking process (bake rather sauté) etc. There are lots of good videos out there. It can be a fun hobby to get involved in. Even if you don’t want to invest much time or money, looking into meal prep techniques and how to use different variations with meal planning is well worth the time investment. I would keep stuff simple as you start using apps and tracking nutrients and calories. Maybe even figure out 3 days of meal plans and repeat them until the tracking becomes natural. That way there is not as much calculation. Another thing is to pick your favorite breakfast and have that daily (assuming it’s pretty well balanced, I use overnight oats with fruit and protein powder to hit the protein, fiber and rainbow for that meal) and maybe even the same lunch or a very simple to calculate lunch (few items or maybe even a healthy prepackaged meal) and then put creativity into your main meal.

Yes, any repeated attacks on LDS congregations committed by a specific demographic need to have security provided to protect from that specific demographic.

I would very much appreciate some recommendations for sources that explain in some detail the LDS concept of God the Father as an exalted man. My guess is that it would be inclusive of describing His spirit nature and perhaps soul. If that is a distinction that is made. It would be helpful if it also includes the Father's literal relationship (physical and spiritual) with Christ. I have several books on the "Mormon" Jesus, but I don't believe I have any specifically about the Father from a modern LDS scholar. Thanks.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask. But I am rather curious about the official LDS Church position on interpretation of its three unique scriptures. I was taught in college and seminary that the Bible contains at least five different types of literature, each requiring a unique manner and method of interpretation. The one thing that they all have in common is their inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the process of the Bible's creation. To be properly understood, however, each type of literature in the Bible requires a correct description as the type of literature it was intended to be. I don't think I have ever read an interpretative guide for the Book of Mormon officially sanctioned by the LDS Church. In part I ask because over the past few months I have been reading several well-written books on the manner and method of the creation of the content of the Book of Mormon. However, neither book really deals with how the reader is to interpret a given passage based in part on the type of literature (poetic, prophetic, parable, etc.) that it represents. Thanks. I hope this question does not take the thread off track too much.

Really? Yep. The alternative is to eviscerate the Free Speech rights of students. What I meant is do you think it’s that difficult to predict when a student is going to be upset by being persistently teased in a way they have requested not to be? By "high bar" was referring to the Tinker test. The State - the public school - ought not to be allowed to punish speech unless it can "reasonably ... forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." As I noted: Students have been unkind to other students for time out of mind. So let's look at the article about the UC issue: What are your thoughts about this? The school policy presupposes that "misgendering" means using biologically correct personal pronouns, and that this is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that using a person's legal name is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that students are not allowed to object to a male entering a woman's bathroom, or vice versa, and that voicing that objection is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that Student A has a special and privileged legal right and authority to tell Student B which words he can and cannot use, and that Student B's failure/refusal to submit to Student A's instruction "is harassment." For me, the issue appears to be that the UC system may be using "harassment" as a pretext to impose and enforce on students one particular ideological perspective and punish them if they have and express a different perspective. If so, then that amounts to "viewpoint discrimination": Repeated or intentional use of biological-sex pronouns or a prior name is defined by the school as gender-based harassment that can create a "hostile environment." Students who believe sex is immutable therefore face discipline (or self-censor) for stating that view or declining to use preferred pronouns, while speech that affirms gender identity is not similarly restricted. The mandatory SHAPE training presents only the “misgendering = harassment” scenario and gives students no option to treat the speech as protected. That combination—punishing one viewpoint, compelling the contrary one, and training students that only one answer is acceptable—looks like a classic First Amendment claim of viewpoint discrimination by a public university. Bullying that targets a specific kid to isolate or torment them is a real problem, and schools can generally implement policies to curb it. That said, it seems like persistent, targeted cruelty is not the same thing as a student declining to use words that contradict what they believe is true. “Substantial disruption” is a legal standard, not an individual student's feeling. Under Tinker, student speech can be limited when it materially disrupts class or invades another student’s rights, not when someone is distressed by hearing a contested view. If distress from disagreement were enough, the school could ban any speech a classmate finds insulting: religious claims, political claims, or statements about sex. That is how a harassment rule becomes a viewpoint rule. Deadnaming after a request can be unkind, but I am skeptical that it is automatically “obviously intentional bullying” just because the speaker will not affirm a new identity. A student who believes sex is binary may be stating a fact or a conviction, not inventing an insult. The same logic would treat a student who insists on preferred pronouns after being asked not to as a bully—yet the policy only runs one direction. “Just don’t talk to them” is not a real classroom option. Students share groups, roll call, and assignments. A rule that says “use the new name or stay silent, but never use the old one” still picks a side. Last names or nicknames can be courtesy both ways; they are not a duty to adopt one student’s theory of identity. The hard part is holding two things at once: protect kids from targeted harassment, and do not let the school decide which view of sex and names is the only one allowed to be spoken. Thanks, -Smac

Elder Stevenson said, "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". It's "I'm", not "we're". The church's essay does not contain an explicit apology—it does not say, for example, "we apologize" or "the Church apologizes". Does the essay explicitly admit that the restriction itself was a mistake or error? No. Does it acknowledge that explanations taught by past leaders were wrong? Effectively yes, although it uses the language of disavowing rather than explicitly saying, "those leaders made errors". There's another version here. It also doesn't mention the word "apology", "error", "regret", or "wrong". A more honest assessment is found spoken by Dallin H. Oaks in another church seminary manual (lesson 26, Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, 2015). "Some people put reasons to the one we're talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong". It doesn't mention the word "apology", "error", or "regret". The identity of the "some people" is left purposely ambiguous. But at least he calls it spectacularly wrong. It's a subtle admission that church leaders and Presidents of the church can lead and have led people astray. God permits it. Brant makes a valid point that "Nephite" and "Lamanite" were not always purely biological labels. People could join another group and be "numbered among" them, so group identity could involve religion, politics, and allegiance, not just ancestry. This weakens a simplistic idea that Nephites and Lamanites were always two completely separate racial groups. However, he seems to take that point too far. The fact that people could change groups does not prove that there were no physical differences associated with the groups. A person could join the Nephites or Lamanites politically or religiously without that automatically changing every physical characteristic associated with their ancestry. Likewise, Gardner correctly shows that words like dark, white, filthy, and loathsome can sometimes be symbolic or spiritual. But he then applies this symbolic interpretation to passages that specifically mention literal skin: • 2 Nephi 5:21 — God caused "a skin of blackness" to come upon the Lamanites. • Alma 3:6 — "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" according to a mark. • 3 Nephi 2:15 — after conversion, "their skin became white like unto the Nephites". So the main flaw is that Gardner moves from "group identity was flexible" and "color language can be symbolic" to "therefore references to skin are probably symbolic as well". Those conclusions do not necessarily follow. Historically, the dominant teaching among early LDS leaders was quite different from Brant Gardner's interpretation. They taught the passages to mean that the Lamanites experienced an actual, visible change in complexion or skin color. Orson Pratt stated this especially clearly in 1840. Speaking of the Lamanites, he said that before their rebellion they were "white and exceedingly fair, like the Nephites" but that God "cursed them in their complexions, and they were changed to a dark colour". That is plainly a literal complexion/skin-color interpretation, not merely an insider/outsider character identity. Brigham Young likewise connected the Lamanites' "mark" with their being a physically "dark" people and taught that eventually "they will become a white and delightsome people". So he also taught the change as involving actual physical appearance. Gardner is correct that the Book of Mormon itself says people could join the Nephites or Lamanites. Alma 3, for example, says that someone could be "called" a Lamanite or a Nephite based partly on which traditions and beliefs they followed. But the early LDS interpretation generally did not conclude from this that skin references were merely symbolic. Instead, they seem to have understood both ideas to be true simultaneously: 1. "Nephite" and "Lamanite" could function as group, religious, or political identities. 2. There was also a literal physical mark associated with the Lamanite lineage. In fact, Alma 3 itself presents both concepts side by side. It says that the Lamanites' "skins … were dark" according to the mark, but it also says that those who adopted Lamanite traditions could be "called under that head" and receive a mark. So the historical LDS view was not "Because people could switch groups, the skin language must be symbolic". Rather, early leaders taught the Book of Mormon as describing fluid group identities alongside a real physical mark or difference in complexion. Then we have chapters 15 and 16 in "The Way to Perfection" which teaches about Cain and his descendants. For comparison, the church's topic "Race and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" takes a more cautious position: it says "the nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood," rather than affirming the older leaders' specific complexion-based interpretation. Removing the reference of dark skin being a sign of the curse from the Book of Mormon would indicate errors in the supposed translation work (the Book of Mormon). He also modified and added things to the Bible which he felt were wrong, missing, or ambiguous. So I believe the LDS Church will not remove the three references mentioned earlier in my analysis of what Brant Gardner wrote. The Jehovah's Witnesses organization is overwhelming good too. But they teach a false Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that Heavenly Father is not an exalted man. They are not worshipping the true God. A revelation from God was needed to institute the ban, so a subsequent revelation was needed to remove the ban. But the original revelation was not recorded, as far as I know, in a "Thus saith the Lord" way. In the October 1967 General Conference, Ezra Taft Benson taught, "The arm of flesh may not approve nor understand why God has not bestowed the priesthood on women or the seed of Cain ... The Prophet Joseph Smith understood this principle when he said, "the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come". This teaching clearly shows the ban was caused by God and that it would only be revoked by as great a power as caused it to come (meaning by God, not by earthly men). Or the ban and it's removal were both man-made (the commandments of men). In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve believed a false teaching by Satan and they were led astray. Being led astray can involve several things: • Believing something false - accepting teachings or claims that contradict the religion's understanding of truth. • Following the wrong influence - allowing a person, leader, culture, temptation, or ideology to pull you away from your faith. • Acting contrary to God's commands - not merely believing incorrectly, but choosing a way of life considered sinful or spiritually harmful. • Losing spiritual direction - gradually becoming less devoted to God, prayer, worship, or the values of one's faith. • Being deceived - in many religious traditions, being led astray can involve deception that initially looks convincing or appealing. Teaching that a being became a God (before or after getting married on the world he grew up on) and then becoming the heavenly father of those on our Earth is a serious matter. Teaching that Jesus was the first spirit child of two beings who became Gods and then became a God himself before obtaining a mortal body on our Earth is a serious matter. It's the difference between a false god and the true God. Wrong is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are pulling people towards Michael the Archangel, their version of Jesus. That is a false Christ. See above. Sounds clear to me. What does it mean to you? Maybe he had 5 things in mind and he left his hearers to decide which of the 5 was right and which were wrong. It's like someone saying, "Well, I don't think Joseph Smith had in his mind that God was not God from all eternity when he said God was not God from all eternity. He had something else in mind and that something else is more palatable to me because I can understand it more or I can believe it more. To do otherwise would have me admitting that he's a false prophet leading me toward another god". A similar principle follows. The Joseph Smith Papers gives the passage from Thomas Bullock's contemporary notes of Joseph Smith's discourse on April 8, 1844, in Nauvoo. The full relevant section reads: "...it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine— the Sp[irit] is will[in]g. but the flesh is weak— it God made Aaron to be their mouthpiece & made me to be their K[ing]. & their God— & if you dont like it you must lump it— I have given instr[ucti]on to [Elder George J. Adams] in some principles— if he makes a mistake I will tell it". What is happening immediately before this? Smith had been announcing what he described as a "great grand & glorious revelation". He was explaining a change concerning the gathering of the Saints and the location and role of Zion. He said that the whole of North and South America constituted the promised land and that Nauvoo would have a particular role in performing ordinances for the dead. He then says: "it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine" and immediately follows that by comparing his relationship to the Saints with God's relationship to Aaron: "if God made Aaron to be their mouthpiece & made me to be their K[ing] & their God" followed by: "if you dont like it you must lump it". The important thing is that "lump it" isn't standing alone as a general statement about disagreeing with church leaders. It occurs in a discussion of Joseph's claimed divine authority. The apparent argument is roughly: 1. God made Aaron Moses' spokesman/mouthpiece. 2. Likewise, God had made Joseph Smith the Saints' "King" and "God" in the particular sense Smith was using those terms. 3. Therefore, Smith had authority to teach and correct them. 4. If someone disliked what he was teaching, they had to "lump it"—i.e., put up with it / accept it rather than reject it merely because they disliked it. That interpretation is strengthened by the sentence immediately preceding it: "it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine".

Not gods in the sense of true deities.

Thanks for that. Never been to sure about the drinks side if things.

Just be careful with fruit juice as it can pack a lot of calories. Plus sometimes they stake out stuff that is good for you like the skins.

Many thanks for this Calm. Fruit and vegetables are on my list of 'must eat foods'. I am managing to move away from the more fat based foods that I have eaten over the years. Also started drinking fruit juice as a point to move forward from. The local supermarket, is starting to get more correct foods in.

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/eat-the-rainbow-for-good-health/

What I meant is do you think it’s that difficult to predict when a student is going to be upset by being persistently teased in a way they have requested not to be? The purpose of school is primarily for children to learn. A child who feels bullied has a harder time learning. That to me is a substantial disruption of school activity. I have seen one kid move schools to get away from bullying. It was easy to see the result once I knew what was going on. I could have told the result as soon as I knew the plan of the brat who decided she was going to destroy her just because she could. Unfortunately by the time I learned about it and could inform someone, the damage was done. Kids do not bounce back resiliently just because we like to think they do. A teacher hearing someone being deadnamed persistently in spite of being requested not to, that’s obviously intentional…not that hard to predict the result on the person asking it not to be done. Not that hard to predict the result of any kid being called something they believe is intended to be insulting, which deadnaming would be. Even if you don’t want to use the new name, you can always see if it’s okay to call someone by their last name instead or find out a nickname they don’t mind. Using last names are not unusual among kids. The child who is insisting on persistently using the name is obviously bullying because if it was just religious objection to transitioning on principle, they could simply choose not to talk to the other child.