All Activity

I feel for you. Having recently realized I'm an autistic person, I hate tight fitting clothing (touch sensitivity), yet I do like many layers of cloths (pressure seeking). I don't suppose you are open to tailoring it?

Clearly not given that we are treated under the same laws as other persecuted groups. Seems like I do know what I'm talking about here as you can't seem to elaborate on why I don't. Yes, it has zero to do with Ukraine. This arrest was made based on laws passed in 2016. Yes Russia is engaging in the same basic behavior as other European nations, they're just going about it differently. At this point, you might as well be engaging in Holocaust denial.

I would not-so-quietly state that it does represent the truth. Again, you're acting as if actions mean nothing. Were that not the case, there would've been no pogroms against "heretics" or "infidels". Were that not the case, there would either be no individual denominations at all, or they would be far, far fewer in number. Why do you think the various schisms happened? Why do you think the Reformation happened (also an interesting question to ask Reformed believers when discussing the topic of the Great Apostasy). Varying interpretation has little to do with the concept of "the one true church". I don't recall anyone claiming that no such thing existed in the LDS church or any other. Whether it's "quite a bit more complicated" or not doesn't seem to detract from the fact that he was lured in under false pretenses and subsequently murdered as an official act for being a dissenter. An apology hundreds of years afterwards doesn't negate that fact. Do note that I'm not attempting to hold any modern people accountable, but the act itself can't be ignored when discussing history. The documents at Cambridge only summarize themselves. Whether they give a full, accurate accounting of his beliefs remains to be seen. Even then, what would that matter? The fact that any were destroyed at all as an act sanctioned by the Catholic church is the problem.

A claim doesn't have to be made. All you have to do is look at how they behave. You aren't open about your history precisely because you spent hundreds of years torturing and murdering dissenters and anyone deemed infidel while burning their material. Material that is objectively part of your history. Hilarious that you ask that and then the very next line you respond to is you stating how you think it's a shame. Where is presentism an issue here, precisely? How does invoking presentism make a difference? I'm going to assume you're referring to my commentary on how using presentism when discussing the marriage of "underage" women, so imagine being so desperate for a point that you have to conflate a long-standing practice across the entire planet built out of a need for the survival of the species to a statist "church" making laws in order to justify killing their political rivals. At this point, you might as well be doing the "Everything Hitler did was legal" meme unironically. Also, what about the Danites? Are you going to try to claim that they were officially supported by the LDS church? Can you show evidence that any of their activities were officially sanctioned by the LDS church, particularly the more infamous ones like Mountain Meadows? Even if they were, you'd still have to hand-wave away the orders of magnitude of difference between them and the historical Catholic church. Meanwhile, your church quite literally has it's own official army and has co-opted those of entire nations more than once. Trying to act like they're anywhere near the same is peak disingenuousness.

Another distinction without a difference. They can't all be "true" and yet all be different.

They most certainly do believe such, regardless of whether they say it out loud or not. If they did not believe such, there would be no separate denominations. There would be no such thing as "heresy", for none would believe themselves to have the authority to declare anything as such.

Still can’t get garments unless I want 3XL. Husband finally was able to order his regular shirts - came yesterday but the sleeves hang extra low beyond regular tshirt length!!! What in the world! Frankly I’m tired of this.

Still can’t get garments unless I want 3XL. Husband finally was able to order his regular shirts - came yesterday but the sleeves hang extra low beyond regular tshirt length!!! What in the world! Frankly I’m tired of this.

Why would that matter when that isn't the topic? The Catholic church officially denies continued public revelation prior to the Second Coming of Christ according to the Second Vatican Council. Despite this declaration, they've treated many things as such. See the Fatima visions, see the determination of canon, etc.

Canon =/= dogma.

You agreeing isn't really required. As for understanding, it seems like you're the one with comprehension issues. The Nicaean conception of the Trinity does not teach that Jesus is merely "the perfect image of the Father". No such language is found in either the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; So you either believe in multiple Gods, or "God" is more along the lines of LDS belief as a station, office, etc. See the concept of kingship monotheism. If there are scriptures where God explicitly states that he is not a man, you should be able to provide them. Telling me to look them up is you running away from trying to back up your assertions. Even then, that claim goes against a foundational doctrine of your belief i.e. the hypostatic union. "Change" does not require a diminishment of divinity, that's just you trying to run away from a contradiction inherent in your theology. Why would the Son being "the perfect image of the Father" matter in this context? The very concept of "God the Son" requires that God change. You believe that "God the Father" does not have a physical body, correct? Ergo, upon assuming said physical body and becoming "God the Son", that is objectively a change. Nevermind the other times God "changed", see when Moses pled with God to not destroy the Hebrews (Exodus 32:11-14). One might also reasonably claim that the lengthening of Hezekiah's life (2 Kings 20) is an instance as well. The concept that "The Son of Man IS created" again contradicts the Nicene Creed, as it does not distinguish between the two. You had to retcon that at Chalcedon in 451, more than a century after Nicaea. He is either created or he isn't and the Creed clearly states "not made". Otherwise, you're essentially claiming to believe in partialism, which is a heresy in your church. The fact remains that all churches descending from Nicaea have to jump through hoops to try to claim to be "monotheistic". You even said it yourself, "the Son is the perfect image of the Father". Last I checked, sons can take after their fathers to varying degrees. Even the very concept of "Father" and "Son" demonstrates separation in being.

How is this prosecutable? With purely reactive and after-the-fact measures. No preventive mechanism at all. There is no limiting principle here. Per @Analytics' preference, anyone can go into any women's bathroom, and do so entirely legally. This includes not just the men who "pass" as women, but also the bad actors. Both law enforcement and any persons in the bathroom have no recourse to prevent misconduct, but can instead only react after it has happened. In contrast, a sex-segregated bathroom policy does have preventive measures, and effective ones (not totally effective, but no measure is). If there is a limiting principle whereby some men can legally enter into women's bathrooms and others cannot, I would like to see it. We've had a lot of pages of discussion, with nothing so far. Reactively. Wait until women and girls are victimized by an opportunistic bad actor who but for Analytics' policy would have broken the law the minute he entered into the bathroom, and could therefore have been summarily and immediately excluded from it on that basis. We can trust a law that has prophylactic effect, such as categorically excluding men from women's bathrooms. Again, if there is a limiting principle whereby some men can legally enter into women's bathrooms and others cannot, I would like to see it. Thanks, -Smac

Let's look at a recent, real-world example. Three months ago, Kris Ripper was pulled over in Johnson County Kansas for not turning on her headlights when it started to rain. The officer told her her drivers license was invalid because it contained false information: the officer explained that Kris was observably, obviously a woman, but that her DL said she was Male. That was false information, making the drivers license invalid and making her guilty of driving without a valid license. She explained to the officer the private information that she would rather keep hidden: despite how she looked to everyone around her, her birth certificate said "Male" on it. One would think this private information is irrelevant to cashing a check, voting, or receiving a traffic citation. But the law requires that she disclose it whenever she needs to present ID. After Kris Ripper explained to the officer the law and what was on her birth certificate and why her license said she was a male, the cop still didn't believe she was a male, and cited her for driving with an invalid license. https://www.kwch.com/2026/07/01/transgender-kansan-speaks-out-after-facing-charge-amid-license-law-confusion/ Thank you! That is exactly my point. That is why the description on your driver license is supposed to describe what you look like. I had my KS license renewed a few weeks ago. They took a new photo as they do every five years, because people's appearance changes over time. They asked me if my weight had changed, because that changes too. Over the long haul, people's height changes and when it does, that information is updated. That's the point: in order to facilitate an officer to confirm the person presenting the license is the same person who was issued it, it should match what the person looks like. The new Kansas law that you say you support goes against this time-honored purpose. Rather than describing the individual with the license, it now reflects something on an old vital record, even if that record is objectively wrong (e.g. Emily Quinn), and even if that results in an inaccurate description of the appearance of the holder (e.g. Kris Reaper). Two points. First, the Kansas law you support does not make any allowances for any exceptions, full stop. That is why I think it is a bad law. I agree that historically our society has made exceptions for this kind of thing, but right-wing Christians want a black-and-white world without exceptions, thus are radically changing the laws to take away the ability of exceptions of any kind to be handled as exceptions. Second, I don't understand your position. Emily Quinn, is objectively a biological male. You are now telling me that in some situations such as "his", we can perhaps put objectively false information on a driver license? Are you also going to tell me that we should sometimes let objectively biological males such as Emily Quinn use the female restroom? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of having sex-distinct restrooms? You've been emphasizing forever that sex is strictly binary, and that an extremely clear and sharp line must be drawn right there, no exceptions. But now you are agreeing with the liberals that there are exceptions? If this were the Church, the First Presidency would reserve the authority to make exceptions. But in the real world, who would you grant with the authority to allow males to have female driver licenses and go into female spaces? And if you are willing to allow Emily Quinn, who is objectively a male, to use the female restroom, would you be willing to consider allowing Marquise Vilsón (below) to use the men's room, or do you think "she" must be required to use the female restroom because "she" is objectively a woman? You seem to be conceding that for purposes of choosing restrooms or identifying yourself on a driver license there are exceptions to the correlation between those things and the male/female biological binary. If you really are conceding that there are exceptions, where and how do you draw the line? p.s. In today's news, I presume that you're happy that Kansas has a "Compliance Crew" to make sure that men don't go into women's restrooms: https://kansaspublicradio.org/statehouse-news/2026-08-20/transgender-men-in-kansas-compliance-crew-use-womens-bathrooms-to-protest-state-law

Correct, bishops do not get a dime. It can be hard to follow for non-members, but we are talking about full-time General Authorities who have to quit their jobs to serve. And to keep them from going bankrupt, they get a living allowance to pay for food, travel and lodging... and taxes... and his immediate family... and insurance... a car and sometimes a driver, and maybe certain Church-related expenses, etc. depending on the particular General Authority and circumstances. $170k sounds like a lot, but perhaps most of it disappears into ordinary expenses of Eyring.

My thoughts are that there are plenty of blindspots to go around. As an Evangelical I am not unprepared; nor do I ignore our differences. I choose rather to engage in hotcakes with bacon well done. They bring more people together than all the apologetics in the world. As an Evangelical I don't deny the LDS the fullness of their relationship with Christ. I might simply suggest that in denying the fullness of my participation in the Holy Spirit you have the blind spot which is generated by your apologista and doctrine. You may not even get to know me prior to assuring me that I cannot possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non- LDS Christian. As some LDS have told me "It's nothing personal!" Ha, talk about a blind spot! Best wishes to you anyway!

I’m curious why this is different than other difficult to prove cases like stalking, harassment, and many cases of rape including marital rape. Cases where there exists a great deal of plausible deniability?

“The local congregational leader for Latter-day Saints is the bishop (or branch president, for smaller congregations). A bishop holds the priesthood and is ordained to the office of bishop by a more senior Church leader. He earns his own living and receives no pay of any kind for his service in the Church” (Church Newsroom, Lay Priesthood).

Many years ago some evangelicals wrote a provocative article: "Losing Battle & Not Knowing It" https://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/losing-battle-not-knowing-it-carl-mosser-paul-owens-1997/ The basic thesis was that LDS apologetics and scholarship was dismantling many evangelical arguments against Mormonism. This Ward Radio episode reviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VpPzGH2Wg the state of things 29 years later. Gemini generated summary: An fun example of just that thing was when Jacob Hansen met with several evangelicals and showed they simply couldn't understand his argument with rejoinders, "You just don't believe the Bible!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQuRx_7mf0k You can find many other examples of diminishing returns of LDS contrary arguments: the decreasing number of anachronisms, archeology, apocryphal texts, etc. Thoughts?

How is this prosecutable? You said that we would still be able to prosecute exhibitionism, voyerism, etc. That's my issue. How do we protect victims? If we could trust everyone to be reasonable, we wouldn't need criminal laws. But we can't trust everyone to be reasonable.

In effect, you are obliterating sex-segregated facilities. Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all. That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate. I do not understand your point. Your position is that anyone can go into any bathroom ("people have the right to choose which restroom to use"). Ipso facto, no segregation by sex. "{P}eople have the right to choose which restroom to use" = "{N}o segregation by sex." Several months ago I attended a hearing at which the attorneys were arguing about the enforceability of a settlement agreement. In Utah, an unsigned settlement agreement can be enforceable where there is clear evidence the parties assented to it. In this case, the settlement agreement called for a large initial payment of $20K starting in a given month, followed by monthly payments of $1,000. The defendant (the niece of the plaintiff) did not dispute that she had seen the agreement and that she had made the $20K payment followed by 8 monthly payments of $1,000, and then she stopped. With this in mind, I watched the following exchange between the judge and the defendant's attorney (more or less) : Judge: So counsel, we have a settlement agreement that calls for an initial payment of $20,000, followed by monthly payments of $1,000. And your client does not dispute that she made a payment of $20,000, followed by eight monthly payments of $1,000. Is that correct? Attorney: Yes. Judge: But your client is saying that she did not sign the settlement agreement, so it's not enforceable, even though case law in Utah is very clear that unsigned settlement agreements are enforceable where there is a course of conduct indicating acceptance of the agreement? Attorney: That's correct. The agreement is unenforceable because although she gave that money to the plaintiff, she did not do so based on the settlement agreement. Judge: Then why did she make those payments? Attorney: They weren't "payments." She gave her aunt the money out of the goodness of her heart because they are family. Judge: Counsel, she gave money to hear aunt "out of the goodness of her heart," and those payments, or whatever you are calling them, just happened to be in amounts and timing which perfectly match the terms of the settlement agreement? That is your argument? Attorney: Yes. Judge: Counsel, are you sure you want to advance that argument? Attorney: Yes. Judge: How do you account for the match between the agreements payment requirements and your client's conduct? Attorney: It's just a coincidence, your honor. The settlement agreement is unenforceable. Judge: Okay. Anything else? Attorney: No. Judge: I'm ready to rule... As you can imagine, I won the case. I spoke with the attorney at some length after the hearing. He was pretty sheepish, and acknowledged that he fully anticipated losing, but that he had to make that argument because it was the only one available to him. Except that's not the only thing he could have done. What he could and should have done was comply with Rule 3-3.3 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct ("Candor toward the tribunal"). From a "Comment" on that rule: Of course, this rule has no real application to an informal discussion on a message board. But "candor" was that that lawyer was really missing. He was focused on presenting hic client's case "with persuasive force," to the effective exclusion of his corollary obligation to be candid with the judge. Here, you are advocating a particular policy regarding sex-segregated bathrooms, and that policy, in your own words, is that "people have the right to choose which restroom to use." The practical effect and consequence of this policy will be the obliteration of sex-segregated bathrooms (and, apparently, all other sex-segregated spaces as well). You are denying this practical reality, but until and unless you elaborate on how it does not result in obliteration, I am reminded of the above attorney. He did his client no favors by doggedly sticking to an argument that was facially absurd and other-than-candid. What the attorney could and should have done is been candid with the judge. Yes, it would have injured his client's case, but I think he injured it worse by advancing a specious argument and refusing to be candid about it. This sort of thing aggravates judges a lot. A lot. The courts are, after all, supposed to be a venue in which the parties, using rules of procedure and evidence, survey and determine the facts of the case and then ascertain how the law applies to those facts. Demonstrating "candor toward the tribunal" means that his client would lose, but at least the loss would have been honest. By advancing a specious argument, the loss came not only to the detriment of the attorney (whose reputation, at least with that judge, took a beating that day), and also the client (the judge did not do any sort of "split the baby" thing in his ruling, as is often the case, and rather gave my client everything she had asked for, including substantial interest amounts that were a maybe-yes-maybe-no sort of thing). I am open to hearing what you have to say about your perspective. I hope you will lay out your reasoning, with candor, as to why your policy preference would not result in the obliteration of sex-segregated bathrooms (as opposed to a "biological sex"-based policy, which preserves them). Thanks, -Smac

That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate.

In agreement with you. Pre CGI, I feel there was more effort, and thought, put into the making of specific scenes, for the want of better wording, created an illusion.

Same. I have always loved that scene where you see Clark thinking about revealing himself to Lois and how, in just a matter of moments, you see him visibly transform from character to character right before your eyes. No CGI. No cut shots. Just one camera, capturing a genuine actor practicing his craft. 😚👌

Very much so.

That’s a fair question, and it helps separate two different issues. Bathroom and changing-room policies are about access to sex-separated spaces. In those settings, the practical problem is overwhelmingly created by males who retain male physical advantages or male patterns of behavior, not by the tiny number of people who “pass” so completely that no one can tell. Edge cases do not justify rewriting the rule that the spaces are organized by sex. The rule exists to protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of the female sex class as a whole; it is not contingent on every single male being visually obvious. An identity document serves a different purpose. It is a durable record of stable identifying characteristics for use by government agencies, law enforcement, medical providers, and others who need reliable information when appearance is ambiguous, when the person is unconscious, when records must be matched across time, or when visual inspection is impossible or insufficient. The fact that most people are visually congruent with their sex does not make the recorded fact useless. Height, date of birth, and eye color are also listed even though they are usually obvious; we still record them because documents are meant to be consistent and independent of momentary appearance. In short: Sex-separated spaces are organized by sex because sex itself is the relevant category for privacy and safety. The existence of people who pass does not erase that category. Sex is recorded on IDs because identity documents need stable, non-appearance-based data. The fact that the marker is most useful in ambiguous cases does not mean it is only justified by those cases. The two contexts answer different questions. One is about who may enter a space reserved for one sex. The other is about what facts an identity document should reliably contain. Treating them as the same argument confuses the purpose of the rule with the purpose of the record. Thanks, -Smac