All Activity

It is really quite simple when one drops the requirement to just have faith. Why would. or what kind of god like being, would ask us to "obey" morally repugnant commands in order to test us, or sift the so called "wheat/tares? Humans can asses and determine morals and ethics on their own. without the need of some imagines god being. Using critical thinking skills it is understandable to conclude that such things are, base ethically sound standards, something that should be rejected.

Why do you think they are "very smug" about retention rates? And what does the church say and share about it's retention rates?

Implying that God's commandments have only to do with morals. It stands to reason that such prohibitions were for health reasons and that the people, for the most part, were unable to comprehend the idea of micro-organisms in blood that could cause food-borne illnesses. We encountered similar in places like Afghanistan, where a lot of the locals did not go to the bathroom in an area that was separate from where they ate. You tell them to not crap where they eat and to wash their hands, they see their health improve, and they thank you for it (some do at least). You don't need to go into microbiology other than "Hey there's bad stuff in your feces and you don't want that in your food", "Hey there's bad stuff in this meat, so either don't eat it at all or make sure it's cooked very thoroughly". Slavery doesn't go "unaddressed". It was considered as reparations for war or as a penalty for crime. That can be easily determined through comprehension of the written texts as well as understanding the context of the time in which these texts were written (if you believe that Moses wrote the original Torah) or the time of which the texts illustrate (if you don't). So slavery among the Hebrews wasn't initially chattel slavery, but as a form of restitution. Again, this is the issue with presentism. You can't ignore that Mosaic Law was for a primitive people, so modern thoughts on certain moral topics are not applicable. This is especially true when context has to be ignored in order to justify any outrage.

And yet you can't discount the idea that you can be the issue. Doctors aren't always to blame for the conditions of their patients.

While that may be true as a general rule, Russia had passed anti-proselytizing laws back in 2016 as part of the Yarovaya laws attempting to combat what was seen as terrorism. Like most European nations, Russia doesn't really have freedom of religion, so this was bound to happen sooner or later regardless of the war in Ukraine.

We can look to the Old Testament and see that polygamy wasn't considered as wrong by default. Nathan quite literally tells David that God gave him Saul's wives. The verses in Exodus regarding the fair treatment of multiple wives wouldn't exist if polygamy was wrong by default. It would simply have been considered another form of adultery and those engaging in it would have suffered the same punishment.

It's an "intelligible claim about a real thing" just as delusions of grandeur are. We aren't especially receptive to other identity disorders, so why should we be with the gender issues? This is supplemented by the idea that there are those who merely claim to be transtrender in order to reap the social benefits. Ultimately it's an argument built on a false premise.

I never said that you were presuming such. While we do believe that the spirit and the physical body are distinct, that doesn't require that the the notion of "wrong body" be true. One can claim it as a possibility like I pointed out earlier, but something being possible is not equivalent to something being actual. Strictly speaking, God "allows" such things like he allows anything else. His interference would violate our agency. He's not a sky wizard or wish-granting genie. A person can choose to accept that they have a problem, or they can choose to not accept that they have a problem. Acting as if transgenders are some kind of special population makes little sense given that other identity issues are rightly treated as the psychiatric problems that they are. Nevermind the lack of evidence of transgenders being "born that way" as opposed to conditioned. See how self-identified transgender people are also 3-6 times more likely than the general population to be autistic. There's also the transtrender issue, where the person doesn't actually suffer a genuine gender-related psych problem, but is instead taking advantage of the general "listen and believe" attitude propagated and demanded by certain segments of society.

In some ways, I think this is part of what Strong's work is doing -- creating a space for the church to ask itself this. I'm not sure everyone is agreed on the answer. In one podcast, Strong talked about a pair of questions in the survey. Who do you think the church is for? A) everyone, B) all in orthodox types, C) sincere seekers if God. First time, the question asked them what they think church culture would say, and they overwhelmingly responded B. The second time, they were asked their personal opinion, and they overwhelmingly responded A. What does the church want the result to be? I think there's a lot of room for discussion.

It was early Christian doctrine too, that men can become Gods, not just LDS doctrine. Christian doctrine has changed since then. God is the "God of gods and Lord of lords", as the Bible says.

Oh, it absolutely was a forced marriage solution. She didn't really make the choice, it was done by her parents. But it isn't polygamy related. Parent arranged marriages where the child (either daughter or son) didn't agree was definitely a thing in those days. I'd love to see these other stories. Do you know where I can find them? I don't think the website does a good job with arguing those three points. I actually agree with the first point and I think the website isn't really strong in their argument. The way it is written, it is all over the place and doesn't really use the data it has. It references some data that is not very strong or incorrect. So, even though I agree with it, I wouldn't use that website as a source to learn. I disagree about the other 2 points. Now this could be because I do believe that God actually did command polygamy (and yes, I've prayed about it and studied it extensively). So I don't find the website's arguments very convincing.

It is the same issue imo as whether one believes the inner voice is the Light of Christ or the ‘natural man’ when it comes to beliefs that contradict church teachings, scriptures, etc. How can you tell?

They are stable and widely shared. I hope you will clarify what you are saying here. As I see it, the categories ("man" and "woman") were stable and widely shared for a very long time. What has changed is that a concerted effort has been made, in a relatively short period, to redefine “woman” from an adult human female to a person of either sex who subjectively "identifies" as one. That redefinition and lack of stability, and differing, rather than "shared," understanding are precisely why we are having this conversation. When the meaning of the category itself becomes contested, the informal social-contract approach loses the common ground it needs to function. People can no longer rely on a shared understanding of who belongs in the category; they are instead asked to accept a subjective claim that may contradict physical reality. The stability you assert is what existed before the redefinition project began. The current dispute is evidence that the prior consensus has been disrupted, not proof that it remains intact. I think what we are seeing is not "confusion," but rather disagreement. Nobody is "confused" about whether Lia Thomas is biologically male. The issue is whether he should compete against women because he "identifies" as a woman. That's disagreement. Saw this on Facebook, both apparently of the above person at different points in her life: "{F}or purposes of selecting which restroom to use," I think the person on the left would use the woman's bathroom. The dispute, then, is about whether this woman, having taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as the person on the right (the numerically same person as the one on the left), actually is a man because of those measures and identity. Aydian Dowling, who identifies as "trans man," is biologically female. She has taken steps to present as male—masculinized appearance, mastectomy, facial hair, etc.—and identifies as a man. You seem to think that because she has adopted sociological indicia of being a male, a man, she therefore actually became a man. I think your position requires A) denial of reality and B) radically redefining basic words (e.g., "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman"). My position requires neither. Some assert that her subjective self-identification makes her a man for purposes of sex-separated spaces. Others maintain that sex remains the relevant criterion. Those are competing definitions, not a failure to understand the same definition. In my view, the prior, widely shared understanding was that “woman” refers to an adult human female. The current dispute exists because that definition has been contested and, in some settings, replaced by one based on self-identification or appearance. Calling the resulting conflict “confusion” obscures what is actually happening, namely, a substantive disagreement over which definition should govern. I do not think a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one, or by any other means, nor can a woman become a man by "identifying" as one, even if she goes so far as to undergo an elective mastectomy and other medical procedures, and otherwise wear cloths and adopt affectations intended to help her approximate the outward appearance of a man. Those statements are true as far as they go, but they do not answer the question of whether sex is a rational basis for separation. Yes, genetic differences create competitive advantages within sexes. Yes, public restrooms and locker rooms can involve discomfort. Yes, prisons and shelters can be unsafe. The existence of residual unfairness or discomfort does not mean that removing a major, predictable source of it is irrelevant. Sex-based categories in sports exist because the average male performance advantage is large, well-documented, and not erased by self-identification. Sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and prison units exist because of persistent differences in strength, patterns of sexual offense, and the reasonable expectation of privacy from the opposite sex. These are not arbitrary preferences. They are responses to material realities that affect safety, fairness, and dignity at scale. Pointing out that perfect safety or perfect fairness is unattainable does not justify eliminating one of the primary mechanisms used to approximate them. The fact that some problems remain after sex separation is not evidence that sex separation accomplishes nothing. Two separate issues are being combined here. The first is what government records should say. Recording biological sex on a driver’s license is a matter of accurate identification. It does not, by itself, dictate every social interaction or every facility rule. Many jurisdictions have long recorded sex without micromanaging every bathroom decision in daily life. The second is the policy for sex-separated spaces. A consistent sex-based rule means that males (however they identify or present) do not use women’s facilities, and females (however they identify or present) do not use men’s facilities. I acknowledge that rule will sometimes produce awkward situations for people whose appearance does not match their sex. That is a real cost. But then, the alternative rule (access according to self-identification) also produces costs: loss of privacy, safety concerns, and competitive unfairness for the group the spaces were created to protect. The question is not whether any rule is cost-free. Rather, I think the we should examine which set of costs is more coherent with the purpose of the spaces. Sex-based separation exists because of average physical differences and patterns of risk that track sex, not appearance or identity. Maintaining that basis may well be uncomfortable for a small number of people whose present themselves in ways which diverge from their sex. But then, setting aside that distinction may be uncomfortable for others. Replacing it with self-identification shifts the burden onto the much larger group for whom the spaces were designed, and removes any stable limiting principle. And it also obliterates the purpose for which sex-specific spaces have existed. I do not claim the sex-based approach creates zero friction. I propose it is still better aligned with the reasons the categories exist than a policy that treats sex as irrelevant once an identity claim is made. Thanks, -Smac

This is exactly the point I made in the post that blipblap replied to. I’ve yet to see the “limiting principle” as to why God allows all manner of horrors on earth but draws the line at spirit / physical body gender / sex alignment.

I totally agree. Mormons believe spirits have a gender that existed before the physical body. They believe this spirit-gender is a very important attribute of who they are on the inside. And they believe you can learn important truths by listening to the spirit. This means that to a Mormon, "I feel like on the inside I'm really a woman" is an intelligible claim about a real thing, and that the mechanism used to come to this belief is a reliable truth-finding mechanism. Wouldn't that mean Mormons should be especially receptive to the idea that when somebody says they feel like a woman on the inside, they really are?

I don't disagree with you on this point, but I'm quite happy to let leagues figure such things out how they see best. Depending upon the sport, league, and individual, there are situations when the particular individual is pretty average. Should leages be legally required to exclude trans athletes, even if they aren't breaking the curve? I don't know, but if you aren't a stakeholder, it really isn't something to worry about. When I was about 10 I was on a flag football team, and one of the better players on the team was a girl. In terms of size and athleticism, she was above-average compared to the boys in the league, and overall she fit right in. The coaches in that league let her play with the boys, and I think that is the right decision. I certainly don't want the U.S. Congress making laws about whether she should be allowed to play in our league. They aren't stakeholders in it.

I don't understand why a girl being married off to get her out of the house would be less of a case of forced marriage than if her parents had no such ulterior motives. Even if you are wanting to argue that the marriage wasn't necessarily immediately consummated, it is still a forced marriage situation. If she tried to run away on the way back instead of the way there, then that detail should be changed on the website, though it would lead me to question whether the girls had been informed of what their trip to Salt Lake City was for. There are other stories of women not having full & informed consent before a sealing ordinance was performed. But regardless of whether Augusta was Brigham's first or second plural wife, or what the name of the man Augusta wanted to remarry was, or which of Jules Remy's accounts are most accurate, the stated assertion of Monogamy as Divine Design is to show that: polygamy is not a good practice for women, families, or for societies there is not sufficient doctrinal or theological foundation that God commanded, inspired, or guided early Mormons in their polygamy practice there is not sufficient doctrinal or theological foundation that polygamy would ever be commanded by God for any 'higher unknown reason that we just don't understand." I agree that making details as perfectly articulated as possible is good in order to lend greater credibility to an argument, but I think the writer of the website does a good job of arguing the above points. I consider historical details (which are often extremely complicated and difficult to shorten into easily readable text) to be of lesser importance (not of no importance, but lesser) than the understanding that polygamy was wrong, not of God, and never will be of God. The last section of both websites reads, "Also seek confirmation of the truth from the Lord in prayer, as "by the voice of the Spirit ye may know the truth of all things," and as Joseph Smith read, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." I would think that to focus on the minor points and neglect going to the Lord in prayer to ask if He never commanded polygamy, never would command it, and that it is harmful to us, would be rather missing the point. I hope that along with all of the examination of particulars, those who read the websites would foremost ask God himself if the premise of them is correct.

I’m sorry, but you’ll need to read back to understand the context that you’re replying to.

They are stable and widely shared. To the extent they are not, who is causing the confusion? For example, you are the person who insists for purposes of selecting which restroom to use that Aydian Dowling (pictured below) is a woman. Sporting events can be unfair for many reasons, including others having genetic advantages. In public restrooms sometimes you see, hear, and smell things that make you feel uncomfortable or even unsafe. If you change at the gym, you are going to see things in the locker room that will make you feel uncomfortable. You might be seen naked by people you wouldn't choose to be seen naked by. If you are incarcerated in prison, you aren't necessarily going to be safe. If you go to a shelter, there might be people there who don't make you feel safe, either. Those are all real issues. But only on exceedingly rare occasions is the person guilty of causing the harm or discomfort transgender. You don't seem interested in talking about fixing these problems in the 99.999% of the time transgender people aren't to blame, and only care about these problems in the 0.001% of the time when transgender people can be blamed. That's weird. What is also weird is your proposed solution: requiring people like Aydian Dowling (photograph above) to have an "F" on their drivers license and legally requiring them to use the women's restroom and the women's locker room. Can you see how your favored solution to this could cause some of the problems you claim you are trying to avoid? What is your basis for thinking that the laws you support are doing more good than harm?

That's a good question. Something I occasionally see when people ask how they should act is people asking, "What do you want the result to be?" I think that is important to ask here.

I agree that all churches have their historical issues and mistakes. That's one main reason I haven't left the LDS church for another. It would just be trading in one set of doctrinal and historical issues for another. As a lifelong LDS, LDSism is my native "language" of religion. At some point, if there isn't going to be a church that is inerrant, what is church for? Why participate in a church at all? I recall a conversation in this forum where someone asked the value of participating in the church if it isn't uniquely church, and I responded asking if it is necessary for the church to be uniquely true to have value? Is it enough for a church to simply be good? To be found useful for a place to commune with God and other believers? As I contemplate my future relationship with the church, I find that a main question I encountere is the one I've mentioned -- the question of belonging and fellowship. As long as I feel something a little more than tolerated, I figure I can stay.

It seems like this distinction is a central tenet of the concept of "trans"ness. "'Sex' is what's between your legs, 'gender' is what's between your ears" and all that? I would like to better understand this. I'm not sure "distinct entity" is apt. See, e.g., here: This sounds accurate, except it might be more accurate in this context to speak of the "spirit body" and "physical body." Yes. Not sure what "matching the spiritual" means, but I surmise you are headed toward "a woman's spirit may be placed in a man's body." Hard to give a definitive answer to this. Well, that becomes a matter of faith, and thus takes the discussion outside the ambit of public policy discussions about "what is a woman." Thanks, -Smac

This is a good rule, imo. Unfortunately laws can backfire when it comes to protection and equal rights and access, so they need to be cautious with them. One of the prime examples are less female coaches now than before the law tried to ensure female sports in schools got equal financial support. Once the coaches for female sports got paid decently, men moved in to compete for the jobs and cultural bias that men are better at sports and the fact that male coaches tend to have stronger resumes because of the greater attention male sports got and gets ensured men were more likely to get the coaching jobs even for female sports. So more female athletes, but fewer of them can turn their passion into a career of coaching. https://appliedsportpsych.org/blog/2022/08/the-50th-anniversary-of-title-ix-comes-with-a-catch-fewer-women-coaches/

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. When you say “it depends” and that inclusion is acceptable so long as it “doesn’t defeat the purpose of having the category,” who decides whether the purpose has been defeated, and by what measure? In a women’s prison, is the purpose defeated only after a certain number of male-bodied people are housed there, or after a single assault, or after female inmates report that they no longer feel safe, or after they express a desire for privacy from biological males? In elite women’s sports, are there any other legitimate "purposes" in addition to competitive advantages (of biological males)? Safety? Privacy? In a domestic-violence shelter, is the purpose defeated when women stop using the shelter, or only when a formal incident is documented? What is the purpose of a women’s bathroom or locker room? Is it solely about toilets and sinks, or does it also include privacy, dignity, and the expectation of not undressing or performing intimate functions in the presence of biological males? Under the “doesn’t defeat the purpose” test, how would we know when that purpose has been defeated? Does it require a documented incident of voyeurism, assault, or exposure? Or is the loss of perceived safety and privacy by female users enough? Should the women who feel uncomfortable, or unsafe, or who want privacy from biological males, be required to provide evidence of harm before the boundary can be enforced? If so, what form of evidence is sufficient? Once access to a facility is opened on the basis of self-identification, how is the line drawn for the next person who identifies as a woman? Is there a limiting point, or does each case simply get evaluated after the fact for whether harm occurred? If the test is whether inclusion defeats the purpose, that seems to require us to wait for measurable harm before drawing a boundary. Is that the rule you are proposing—that sex-based categories must remain open until harm is first demonstrated? Also, once the purpose is judged to have been defeated in a particular case, what happens? Does the male-bodied person who was included get removed, or does the category itself get redefined going forward? I’m asking because “it depends” and “as long as it doesn’t defeat the purpose” sound flexible, but they appear to shift the burden onto the very people the category was created to protect - women - because it seems to require that they prove harm after the fact rather than allowing the category to rest on the ordinary, predictable differences that justified sex-based rules in the first place. How do you see that working without effectively eroding the category? Very interesting stuff. Thank you for weighing in. Thanks, -Smac

It isn't that "We claim truth, prophets, revelation, etc.", it's that we bluntly and openly claim it. Every denomination within Christianity claims truth bluntly and openly. However, they also claim prophets and revelation, but that requires a little working out to get to because they simultaneously deny those two things. You can look to the popes and ecumenical councils of the Catholic church and see that, while they don't claim the titles of "prophet, seer, and revelator", they behave in much the same way. They determine what is dogma, which is definitionally a core truth that has been divinely revealed. That is revelation in all but name. Protestant churches get slightly trickier as they do not have a magisterial clergy, at least according to them. However, the inherent problems in the concept of sola scriptura shows otherwise. If the Bible is complete, inerrant, infallible, self-interpreting, and the ultimate authority, why are there different interpretations at all? Some would try to claim that some interpretations are of the devil, but all that does is lead to the question being asked again. Why are pastors in Protestant churches even necessary if the Bible is supposed to be the ultimate, infallible authority? How is any individual Protestant supposed to determine what is true? The reality is that at least some of their pastors use this as cover for making their own interpretations authoritatively, as they feel they were "called by God" to be a pastor in the first place. What is a person who is called by God to authoritatively receive, interpret, and convey the will of God to the people? A prophet.