All Activity

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?

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 akin to nailing jello to a wall. 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 still gets 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.

Even when the trans person looks more masculine than most of the men in the men's bathroom. Well, I've been asking for quite a while that you or @Analytics or anyone else articulate a legally coherent and enforceable limiting principle whereby some men can legally go into women's bathrooms while other men cannot. So is it your position that women who (A) identify as "trans" and (B) look "more masculine than most of the men in the men's bathroom" ought to be able to use the men's bathroom? If so, can I also assume that your position holds for men? Namely, that men who (A) identify as "trans" and (B) look "more {feminine} than most of the {wo}men in the {wo}men's bathroom" ought to be able to use the men's bathroom? Would you agree to a law that allows the above but prohibits, say, men (including those who "identify" as women) who do not look "more {feminine} than most of the {wo}men in the {wo}men's bathroom"? Yet the only people that are affected by not being able to use the restroom they present themselves as are trans. That may not be your intent, but that is exactly the result of your ban. Respectfully, I disagree. I think women and girls are also affected by enforcement of sex-segregated spaces. Same with banning trans people. If a trans person grooms or abuses a minor, that person should be removed, reported and prosecuted. I am glad we agree on that. Where we do not agree, I think, is whether sex-segregated spaces should be maintained for reasons in addition to safety and privacy. I think a lot of women and girls do not want men in their bathrooms at all. And I think many jurisdictions, perhaps most, find this preference to be reasonable and justified. It is exactly the same. Banning people for possible crimes that might be committed apply to both cases. I don't think so. Sex-segregated spaces exist for more reasons than just preventing/mitigating crime. Yes, I think that sex-segregated spaces are, by definition, intended and designed to allow one sex in and exclude the other. Well, perhaps we are making headway. Whereas @Analytics has categorically refused to differentiate access to women's bathrooms based on "trans women" who sufficiently "pass" as women versus those who do not (and vice versa for "trans men"), you seem to be proposing precisely that. So in your view, men who do meet that criterion should be allowed to use women's bathrooms, but men who do not (including, I think, many - perhaps most - who "identify" as "trans women") should be excluded from women's bathrooms. Is that your proposal? I previously asked you to explain "what real trans people actually look like," and you did not respond. In any event, I am intrigued by what appears to be a proposal that differentiates male access to women's bathrooms based on whether the male sufficiently "passes" as a woman. If he does, he can go in; otherwise, he is legally excluded. Am I on track here? Okay. I'm not sure what this means relative to sex-segregated spaces, but I assume you are proposing that "all people must use the bathroom congruent with the sex listed on their driver's license or identity card." Am I correct here? Per this website, 22 states and D.C. allow residents to mark "X" on their driver's license. How would that work in your proposal? Also, per this website: Do these jurisdictions' requirements/prohibitions affect your proposal? I'm not quite sure I follow. You have made several references to "what real trans people actually look like," so I surmise that you intended to use this as a criterion - and apparently the only one - to differentiate between men who can and cannot enter women's bathrooms. Now you are adding - replacing the single one with - several additional criteria, namely, that the men seeking entry into women's bathrooms must (A) "transition" or be in the process (not sure what you mean by "transition" here); (B) do more than just socially transition, but also must medically transition and do so "under physician's care"; (C) receive, as part of their medical transitioning, "hormonal therapy for 12 months or longer." (D) have their doctor fill out a declaration that they are treating their patient who is in transition to their chosen sex ("sex," not gender?); (E) take the doctor's declaration to the DMV and obtain license/ identity card adjusted to now meet the sex (again, "sex," not "gender"?) they present themselves as (as noted above, many jurisdictions either disallow this or make it quite difficult). You don't quite finish the proposal, but I anticipate that you mean that men who complete steps (A) through (E) would then be legally allowed to go into women's bathrooms. But that all other men - including those who "identify" as women, but who have not completed Steps (A) through (E)), will be excluded from women's bathrooms. Is this a correct summary of your proposal? It also differentiates between "trans women," allowing those few who have the desire and means to complete (A) through (E) to go into women's bathrooms, but otherwise excluding any "trans women" who have not completed those steps. Well, that's worth discussing. I hope @Analytics, @SeekingUnderstanding, etc. will weigh in and state whether they agree or disagree with your proposal. Perhaps. While nobody should be "harassed," I think some women and girls will continue to object to men entering into women's spaces, including those who have completed Steps (A)-(E). Your proposal would also seem to drastically reduce the overall number of "trans women" who are legally authorized to use women's bathrooms. I am curious as to how "trans women" excluded in your policy feel about it. Cumulatively, you may well be right. Perhaps so. But again, your proposal seems to, in effect, exclude many - perhaps most - "trans women" from women's bathrooms, and requires those who want access to go through Steps (A)-(E). I feel I have been reasoned in my comments. I will try to do better. Does your solution work "better for everyone"? I'm not even sure the small handful of people in this thread agree with you. I think I have the proposal right: bathroom access would turn on a checklist — some form of “transition,” medical transition under a physician’s care, at least 12 months of hormones, a doctor’s declaration, and a DMV-issued ID listing the opposite sex. Males who complete that list could use women’s facilities; males who only “identify” as women could not. If that’s the idea, it has several problems that are practical, not theological. 1. It is hard to administer in the place that matters. A locker-room attendant, school official, or store employee cannot verify a 12-month hormone protocol or a physician declaration at the door. The only check that actually works in real time is the ID. That means the rule is only as strong as the DMV process — and DMV sex-marker rules already vary widely by state, are often based on self-report or a thin letter, and are not designed as a bathroom-access credential. You would be outsourcing a safety rule to motor-vehicle clerks. 2. “Under physician’s care” and “hormonal therapy for 12 months” are not bright lines. Which physician? Any willing prescriber, including an informed-consent clinic? What dose, what blood levels, what monitoring? What about people who stop hormones, cycle them, or obtain them outside a licensed physician? A rule that depends on medical details will be litigated immediately as vague, discriminatory, or impossible to enforce without medical-record access that businesses do not have. 3. The ID step assumes a fact the law often will not give you. Many jurisdictions will not change the sex marker, or will do so only on terms that do not match your checklist. So the same person would be “allowed” in one state and “excluded” in the next, based on DMV policy rather than any consistent standard about who is in the room. 4. It still lets intact males into female spaces. Twelve months of cross-sex hormones does not remove male genitalia, male bone structure, or male patterns of strength and sexual offense. If the concern is voyeurism, assault, or female privacy, a hormone-and-paperwork screen does not address the underlying sex difference. It only relocates the line from “male” to “male with a letter and an ID.” 5. Large parts of the activist framework will reject the line you are drawing. A rule that distinguishes “trans women who have medically transitioned” from “trans women who have only socially transitioned” (or not "transitioned" in any externally visible/obvious way at all) is, in that framework, itself the offense. The governing claim is that identity alone is determinative. Any gatekeeping requirement — hormones, surgery, a doctor’s form, a waiting period — is treated as “denying womanhood” to people who identify as women but do not, through choice or circumstance, meet such requirements. You should expect the proposal to be attacked from that side as insufficiently affirming, not as a compromise they will help implement. So I don’t think this is a stable middle ground. It is logistically weak where enforcement has to happen, medically fuzzy, geographically inconsistent, and politically unacceptable to the people who insist there can be no distinction among men who identify as women. On the other hand, if the goal is to maintain single-sex spaces, the workable criterion is biological sex. If the goal is something else — a third-space model, or facilities based on anatomy — that should be stated directly rather than routed through a 12-month hormone-and-DMV proxy. Thanks, -Smac

The murder rate with black on black is wildly disproportionate. Is this a race problem? No. Does it have something to do with the glaring absence of fathers from the home? The statistics is overwhelming. What brought this about? Government welfare policies for forcing fathers OUT of the home. Also, government abysmal policies with inner-cities public schools. There are plenty of problems among "white" ethnicities. White trash, appalling lack of gratitude, hedonism, etc. Generally, human nature.

I'm glad you think white people are a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed much more, given the number of examples and how long it's been a problem. Hopefully the church starts providing security where white people attend, given that they've been the source of violence at meetinghouses for far longer than these recent instances with Tongans. Maybe we can add metal detectors to chapels, and search bags and cars of white people trying to gain access to meetinghouses. Make them show ID, and current tithing settlement statement to confirm they aren't typical white people just there to cause trouble. What's the deal with white people, anyway? Hopefully the police can focus on the white people and this white on white violence.