All Activity

Maybe listen to your "enemies" for once before shooting them in the head. Or lets take Charlie Hebdo. How convenient. Inside the car of the perpetraitors they found a passport. But ofc. How convenient. Just as convenient as the complete annihilation of the jews in the war in america 60BC or so... ow sorry did that one hurt your precious feelings?

He is sitting in Den Haag instead due to this:

Here in Switzerland many people believe and tell around that Israel let the October massacre happen on purpose to justify their war and plans for greater israel. Also here you have him in the flesh:

The Israeli pager strike real crafty, never underestimate the craftiness of ze Jew.

Kurds still waiting for Kurdistan probably wondering if they at least get some free netflix instead???

The Manchurian Candidate or The Philadelphia Project are great movies. Go watch them. Oh and Men who stare at goats.

MH370 in Diego Garcia LOLOLOL

Or Nato coup in Turkey, and then Turkey falsified Radar data to make it look like russian plane invaded for 3 seconds their airspace to justify shooting it down LOLOLOL

Also how can a plane fly into the Pentagon?! And penetrate so many rings???????? Made out of paper?!?! And it hits the section that investigates Israel oh ofc.

Nagasaki was the MOST christian citx of Japan! And one church survived thanks to a miracle, the builder had a vision prior to building it on where to locate it. Also the target was the bell tower of the christian church. The Japanese knew and let the bomber through, they already had surrendered. Also Pearl Harbor was an inside job only the old useless warships were struck.

It was a Rod of God, a Satellite firing Iron Rods with hyper velocity. Few days later there was a massive fire at a US Base in Japan. The Beirut one was first a missile by soe warship and then the final one some tactical nuke missile from Israeli F-18. I have seen the images. The Italian Nuclear research center on some island nearby reported the nuclear fallout until they censored it.

Here is your future all financed by AIPAC:

And where was AMERICA when ISIS raped woman and children and took town after town??? Even in Iraq which you conquered and "swore" to protect? Where was the AC130 or Predator drone when they marched over open sand??? Remember the Michael Bay movie 13 Hours????? That is how much you are worth to Hillary Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!!! And her Mossad overlords!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus christ everyone knows half of ISIS came from guantanamo bay and did the bidding of Israel because they profited the most and their plans to take land from ALL neighbors is openly available as is how they speak about us all the goyim. They are openly fighting over if we should be bombed because we are animals or bombed even harder because we are worse than animals to them! It was in our newspaper, mainstream media, 20min.ch the most read swiss newspaper! With direct quotes! I already said that I am NOT anti Jewish but ANTI Zionist and I have declared WAR on Zion and will DESTROY Zionism and de-zionise the world! Or I will go down trying so are you with me or are you against me because Zion only thinks in absolutes. You can also just idly stand by and wait for Mirrorbacteria to kill us all. Either way you better make your peace with your deity, be it god or whatever.

If by Zionism, you mean simply a homeland for Jews, who here besides you is defying it? I am not going to engage with anything else that is conspiracy theories, but didn’t want you to think this was a forum that agreed with your claims against the Jews just because most of us are too polite to engage…plus there is the rule of no politics. You will likely get banned as I believe you were the first time you came here if you are the poster I think you are (I think your account was blocked as I can’t find the post I remember to check). If you want to stick to talking about Catholicism, Christianity, or your criticism of our LDS Christian beliefs and history in a respectful way, you are welcomed to post, but disrespect and worse gets one banned thankfully.

There is no indication he was making an apology for the entire church. I understand that this is an area of emphasis for you. But my question was not whether he "was making an apology for the entire church," but rather whether he was speaking in a representative capacity for the Church when addressing the NAACP. If your position was "No, he was not speaking for the Church," then I would like to better understand your perspective. If Elder Stevenson was not speaking to the NAACP in a representative capacity, are you suggesting that he was speaking in his individual and personal capacity, entirely outside his priesthood office and responsibilities? I think the disavowal is what we have. Reasonable minds can disagree about collective guilt, the utility of public "apologies," and the like. Well, I think some, perhaps many or most, were. I think the early leaders of the Church were not always fastidious in their differentiation between doctrine and opinion/conjecture. In any event, the Church now says that they were theories, and false ones to be repudiated at that. Well, we could consider Joseph Fielding Smith's 1907 statement (though he was church historian at the time) : And then there's John Widtsoe's 1944 statements: The "in some way, unknown to us" language may be pertinent to your inquiry. The August 17, 1949 letter is troubling to me. I think Edward Kimball may have a point: We also have Pres. McKay's private statement to Sterling McMurrin in 1954: And here (same link) : That's what I have so far. Thank you for laying the verses out that carefully. I think we are trying to do the same thing: stay with what the book actually says, and not load it with a theory the text never states. On your three comparisons, I think I agree with the negative claim. The Book of Mormon does not narrate God handing the Lamanites a special garment, painting them, or tattooing them. Genesis does not say Cain put on a coat, painted himself, or was tattooed, and it does not say a mark of that kind passed to a wife’s children. If someone offers garments, paint, or tattoos as the meaning of the Lamanite mark, they are filling a gap. The book never uses those words for what God does in 2 Nephi 5 or Alma 3. Where I would slow down is treating that gap as if it settled the other readings. Alma 3 is doing two different things at once, and you already noticed the seam. The Amlicites “marked themselves” with red on the forehead, “after the manner of the Lamanites” (Alma 3:4, 13). That is voluntary, local, and described as paint or a sign they applied. In the same chapter the narrator also says the Lamanites had a mark “set upon them” because of the fathers’ transgression, so they would not be mixed up with the Nephites, and that whoever mixed with them brought the same mark on their own seed (Alma 3:6–10). That second description is not written as a forehead ritual. It is written as something that follows lineage and covenant standing. The book never bothers to tell us the physics. That is frustrating, but it is the text. What are your thoughts about this? 3 Nephi 2:14–16 is the other passage that will not sit quietly inside a “they painted themselves” reading. Converted Lamanites are numbered with the Nephites, “the curse was taken from them,” and “their skin became white like unto the Nephites.” If the only mark in the book were red paint on the forehead, that sentence is an odd way to say they washed it off. I do not say that forces a modern racial reading. I do say the narrator is talking about more than costume, or else he chose a very strange vocabulary for costume. Cain is not a clean template for this. His mark in Genesis is protection from vengeance. The Book of Mormon’s language is about separation, covenant, and later the lifting of a “curse” when people come to Christ. Mixing those two stories is, I think, an artifact of older and less accurate assessments. My own working stance, which I think is also the most careful one the Church now takes, is narrower than Scripture Central’s suggestions and narrower than a 19th-century racial sermon: The book speaks of a curse and a mark and, in a few verses, of skin. It does not give us a mechanism. Garments, paint, and tattoos are guesses, and reasonably good ones. A biological race theory is also a guess, and also reasonable, and the Church has disavowed the old “dark skin means less favored in the premortal life” folklore. What the book does insist on is that the dividing line is not supposed to be permanent: when people repent, they are received, the curse is spoken of as lifted, and the old hostility is condemned. So I can take your three points as sound warnings against over-reading. I would only ask that we apply the same restraint in the other direction: the text is not a treatise on paint, and 3 Nephi 2 is still sitting there. I am glad to stay in the verses with you rather than in a theory about the verses. To some extent, I think you are correct. One cannot misinterpret what those verses (2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, and 3 Nephi 2:15) meant in the Book of Mormon. That's the way Joseph Smith supposedly translated by the power of God. The Book of Mormon, possibly even a portion in the Pearl of Great Price, led to the doctrine which would form policy in the LDS Church for centuries. Saints Volume 3, chapter 16 also adds: "David, I am as sympathetic as you are," President Grant had responded, "but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the Church". Beginning in the early 1900s, Church leaders taught that any Saint known to have Black African ancestry, however small, would be restricted". The church leaders used their position and influence to inadvertently lead the members astray. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Dallin H. Oaks referred to it as "spectacularly wrong". "Lead members astray" = "lead them away from Jesus Christ." I can't agree with that assessment. As Edward Kimball put it: "The {1949} statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a 'direct commandment' from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came 'from the days of [the Church’s] organization.'" But again, I respectfully disagree that this amounts to "leading their members astray." It's possible there is no available written record of this supposed revelation. Is it also possible that there was no such revelation? More later. Thanks, -Smac

Man why don't you focus on what unites us instead of what divides us? I did not come here to have pety fights with you. From my understanding it is well known and broadly understood that Joseph Smith had plenty of wifes including already maried ones and young ones that ca be considered children. If you disagree then so be it. Frankly I do not care anymore as long as you defy Zionism you can do as you please to some degree.

I concur. I was generally both unaware about and largely indifferent to trans folks until quite a few of them went out of their way to court publicity. Dylan Mulvaney and his Female Minstrelsy and Sexist Caricature schtick has perhaps been the most visible. But then came Lia Thomas. And Lily Tino. And then came the Drag Queen Story Hours. And drag shows for children. And then, I think the worst part: medical interventions on children. Tavistock Clinic. WPATH corruption. HHS corruption. Schools "transing" kids (sometimes without parental awareness or consent). And on and on. Some of this has come to light because people noticed, but I think the bulk of public attention has arisen because notoriety has been actively sought. I'm not sure there's much middle ground to be had. There are too many absolutist demands on the trans side. Too many reflexive attacks on Chesterton's Fence. I think DQSH and drag shows for children are pretty bad. As for "overblown," I dunno. I think Andrew Sullivan nailed it last year: "{A}n unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it." Seems like we've needed to make it a spoken golden rule. I think many women and girls fell this way. I also think there is a not-very-subtle pressure for women and girls to be silent, step aside, let men into women's spaces, and act as if the Emperor's New Clothes are beautiful. I too would like to see statistics done. The Skrmetti decision really does seem to take the wind out of Roger's "Hey, this trans thing is being blown up to be a lot more than it really is" sails. Hugely controversial medical interventions on children are a very important topic, and not because Republicans think so. Look at Europe's 180-turn on such treatments. The Tavistok Clinic. The Cass Report. Republicans don't guide any of this. Men in women's prisons has been a controversy for quite a while, both in the U.S. and the U.K. and elsewhere. I think schools interfering with the rights of parents or deliberately withholding information on their child is a very consequential issue. There are also less consequential, but still important and associated, topics, such as men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms and sports. In the end, I think Sullivan was right. The unspoken Golden Rule, to "leave kids out of it," has long been breached and disregarded. It was the "let's put all sorts of emphasis on trans ideology and children" move (particularly the sexualized/grooming stuff and the questionable medical procedures) that I think has alienated many who otherwise would be more supportive of, or at least indifferent to, trans issues. Thanks, -Smac

The Bible uses the word "god(s)" in several different senses, and this is important because simply finding the word god does not mean the Bible is saying that the being is a true deity equal to Yahweh. The key Hebrew word is אֱלֹהִים (elohim), and the Greek equivalent is θεός (theos). Elohim can refer to Yahweh, pagan gods, heavenly/divine beings, and even human judges or authorities (Bible Hub). https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm I would divide the Bible's use of "gods" into approximately five categories: 1] Yahweh/Jehovah, the true God (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 45:5; John 17:3). 2] Heavenly/divine beings (Psalm 8:5; Psalm 82; Psalm 97:7; Job 1:6) - real spiritual beings, but not deities. 3] Human judges/rulers (Exodus 7:1; 21:6; 22:8–9; Psalm 82). Not deities, but human beings exercising authority. I would put Psalm 82 into category #3. 4] Satan/demonic powers (2 Corinthians 4:4; Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20) - real spiritual beings, but not deities. 5] Pagan gods/idols (Exodus 20:3; Psalm 96:5; Jeremiah 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Galatians 4:8). Not deities. For example, Psalm 82:6: "Ye are gods" does not necessarily mean "You are individual gods who possess the same kind of deity as Yahweh." Likewise: 1 Corinthians 8:5: "there be gods many" does not contradict: 1 Corinthians 8:4: "there is none other God but one." And: Galatians 4:8: "them which by nature are no gods" shows that Scripture can use the word "gods" for beings/objects that are not actually divine by nature. Note: Exodus 7:1 says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet". The point is that Moses is placed in the position of God's authoritative representative before Pharaoh, while Aaron functions as his prophet/spokesman. But Moses is not a deity. Satan is not a deity either in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

There is no indication he was making an apology for the entire church. He used the individual "I" instead of the corporate "we". I am not aware of any apology from him or a church apostle prior to this NAACP event. I don't find it either in Official Declaration 2. If you know of at least one, then let me know. As I mentioned before, these [why certain races were barred from the priesthood and/or the curse of Cain] were not advanced as theories. If you could provide some words from pre-1960 leaders which depict them as theories, speculations, or opinions, then let me know. In the case of Cain, the mark was for his protection (Genesis 4:15). It was not a curse put upon him by God. And this mark was not put on his descendants. The Bible never connects Cain's mark with Ham, Canaan, or black Africans. As Dallin H. Oaks said, "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" being the reasons for the ban. Aaron made an honest mistake in constructing the golden calf for the people to worship. His action led the people astray. Regarding Gardner's comment, the Book of Mormon does not indicate the black skin came upon the Lamanites because they marked their forehead or other parts of their body. See 2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, and 3 Nephi 2:15. Regarding the comments by Scripture Central. 1] Dark Skins as Garments – the Book of Mormon does not depict God clothing them with special garments. Scripture shows Adam and Eve were clothed with coats of skin when God replaced their fig leaf aprons after the Fall. But neither God nor Cain clothed himself with a special garment for protection after he killed Abel. 2] Dark Skins as Body Paint – the Book of Mormon does not depict God using body paint to mark the Lamanites. Alma 3:4 is one clear example in the Book of Mormon where people deliberately mark/paint their bodies ("The Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites"). The point is repeated in 3:13 ("they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads"). The Amlicites voluntarily put a red mark on their foreheads, apparently imitating the Lamanites and distinguishing themselves from the Nephites. There's an important distinction between them and the Lamanites. - the Amlicites explicitly marked themselves with red on their foreheads. - the Book of Mormon describes a mark associated with their skin, but it does not explicitly say that they painted their skin red in the same way the Amlicites did. Another interesting passage: 3 Nephi 2:15. Some Lamanites' skin became white after their conversion ("the curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites"). We do not see Cain painting his body or that this body paint was inherited by his wife's children. 3] Dark Skins as Tattoos – the Book of Mormon does not depict God tattooing the Lamanites all over their body or a portion of it. While the Bible speaks about a visible mark on Cain, it does not depict this as tattoos all over his body. Scripture does not reveal Cain's descendants inheriting a mark of protection or similarly for other people who intermarried his descendants. The LDS Church is trying to distance itself from past doctrines of black skin being a sign of the curse upon certain people. According to the church's essay: President Brigham Young and subsequent Church Presidents taught that the priesthood and temple restriction would one day end. Several affirmed that lifting the restriction would require a revelation from God.7 [7] See Saints 3:245–46; Edward L. Kimball, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood," BYU Studies, vol. 47, no. 2 (2008), 22, 31–32, 35. Another article adds more: "In the case of Marie Graves, the First Presidency did not ask the congregation to integrate, for fear that challenging racial codes like those in the South put both Black and white Saints at risk. Nor did Church leaders encourage active proselytizing among Black communities, since the Church restricted priesthood ordination and temple blessings from people of African descent". The LDS Church, like other churches, fell prey to cultural stigmas. One cannot misinterpret what those verses (2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, and 3 Nephi 2:15) meant in the Book of Mormon. That's the way Joseph Smith supposedly translated by the power of God. The Book of Mormon, possibly even a portion in the Pearl of Great Price, led to the doctrine which would form policy in the LDS Church for centuries. Saints Volume 3, chapter 16 also adds: "David, I am as sympathetic as you are," President Grant had responded, "but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the Church". Beginning in the early 1900s, Church leaders taught that any Saint known to have Black African ancestry, however small, would be restricted". The church leaders used their position and influence to inadvertently lead the members astray. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Dallin H. Oaks referred to it as "spectacularly wrong". If there wasn't a revelation from God to institute the ban, then LDS leaders were creating a commandment of man; thus leading their members astray with supposed theories. But Ezra Taft said it [the priesthood ban] originated with God, but didn't use that specific phrase. See his speech in the October 1967 General Conference. "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". It would only be revoked by as great a power as caused it to come (meaning by God, not by earthly men). LDS leaders sincerely believed they were being directed by God and used their influence and position to withhold the priesthood. They were spectacularly wrong and ended up leading their members astray for almost two hundred years. It's possible there is no available written record of this supposed revelation. I can't recall if I attributed the ban, using that word, to Joseph Smith. Can you send me the link to the thread? According to the church topic "Priesthood and Temple Restriction": "During the first two decades of the Church's existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Able, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime". Maybe you can count "a few" on one hand. But we find something to the contrary in an earlier publication. This is how it's recorded in The Way to Perfection. The doctrine was taught by Joseph Smith. "Piecing together the evidence as we discover it in holy writ and in tradition, we are brought to the conclusion that Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam's posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been "despised among all people. This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say: "President George Q. Cannon ‘remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring. Joseph Smith has left very little on record in his own words outside of the Pearl of Great Price. During the course of a discussion in Nauvoo in 1842, on the question as to whether the negroes or the Indians have received the greater ill-treatment from the whites, the Prophet Joseph said: "The Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain." ' (D. H. C. 4:501.) But we all ‘know it is due to his teachings that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood". The current LDS Church attempts to disavow reasons for the priesthood ban and calls those reasons "theories" instead of the way it was taught back then – as "doctrine". I can understand why LDS leaders are trying to bury some of its church history. Fortunately some of those older historical books are still available. Then there's this historical document: "The following year Elijah and Mary Ann migrated to Salt Lake City along with their children Moroni, Enoch, and Anna. That same year, Abel petitioned Young to receive the temple endowment and be sealed to his wife and children. While Young officially kept Abel's priesthood status intact, he denied the petition—marking perhaps the first documented instance of a person of color being denied this particular privilege. More broadly, this refusal was one of the first times that a person of color was denied participation in practices central to the Mormon faith. After Young's death in 1877, Abel again petitioned to be allowed to participate in the temple endowment and sealing ordinances. Once again, however, the church refused him". See above. Early LDS leaders viewed it as a directive from God. "Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance" (Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, Unit 32: Day 2, Official Declaration 2). I think the issue of Declaration #2 was primarily one of timing. It states, "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice". https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng We know this is not true when you read older church publications. President Kimball said, "As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords". Notice what inspired him? It was the growth of the church among many nations. And he specifically fails to mention those of African-descent. I said previously that it was one of timing. Was this the right time to override the ban? It seems so based on what he said next: "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood". That's another admission that previous LDS presidents and prophets taught their time was not the time to remove the priesthood ban. Hugh B. Brown, who served in the First Presidency under McKay, tried to get the ban removed in the 1960s. "According to Brown's later-published memoirs, he came close to getting approval from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to remove the restriction in the late 1960s. The attempt ultimately failed. Contemporary reporting on the memoirs describes it as an "aborted attempt" to lift the ban nearly a decade before 1978. The decision-making procedure, Brown explained, generally worked like this: (An idea) is submitted to the First Presidency and Twelve, thrashed out, discussed and rediscussed until it seems right. Then, kneeling together in a circle in the temple, they seek divine guidance and the president says, ‘I feel to say this is the will of the Lord.' That becomes a revelation. It is usually not thought necessary to publish or proclaim it as such, but this is the way it happens" (LA Times: Debates by Mormon Leaders Preceded ‘Revelations'). The sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden is taught in several LDS Church publications. Here are just a few: [1] Chapter 45 of the seminary manual (Religion 211–212 - New Testament Student Manual). "Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men". [2] October 1979 General Conference talk by President Marion G. Romney, recorded in the November Ensign article "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ". "It [the gospel plan] anticipated the need for a Savior to win the victory over death, atone for the sin of Adam, which brought death, and provide the means whereby men, through repentance, may receive forgiveness for personal sins and be readmitted into the presence of God". Satan led Adam and Eve astray. Regarding the JW teaching of Jesus being Michael the Archangel – it is both an incorrect teaching and incorrect belief. By "good", I assume you mean "good" from a moral perspective. There are many "good" Hindu and Muslim leaders who err in doctrines and lead their followers astray. For example, having the Quran deny the actual crucifixion of Christ seems like an honest mistake, but it has serious consequences because it's contrary to biblical teachings. Personally, I suspect Satan inspired that teaching and it has been propagated by Muslims down throughout the centuries. But if it was actually recited by Muhammad without satanic influence and he viewed it as the truth, then one could refer to this as an honest mistake. He was actually doing a good thing by showing that all the Christians were deceived by Allah; who made it appear as if Christ was hanging on the cross. Their explanation is that it may have been Judas Iscariot. When you really think about the implications from a Muslim perspective, Allah's deception led to the rise of Christianity. As you stated above – "Leading people astray means using influence". Islamic mullahs and imams do have influence in the lives of Muslims. Hindus have their pujaris and acharyas, Buddism has its monks, and the Jehovah's Witnesses have their Governing Body. In case you don't know, the Governing Body is the group of senior leaders that provides overall spiritual direction and organizational oversight for Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. They have significant influence on what is taught to organizational members. JW missionaries can be excommunicated for teaching people contrary to the Governing Body. I suspect this is the same case for LDS missionaries or members who don't sustain the leadership and what they teach and preach contrary to what the leadership says. A person can be sincere but also be sincerely wrong at the same time. Like those "sincere" Israelites who were "sincerely" worshipping the gold calf. And many people in our day are sincerely worshipping a being they believe is an exalted man, but he's really a God made in their image.

I agree that it is indisputably going on but I also think it is happening on both sides. It seemed to have started on the transgender side and now has kind of blown up. One side will do something that triggers the other side and back and forth. The Kansas law that you've been talking about is the just the most recent in the ping-pong situation. Maybe some day we'll be able to get some middle ground, but right now, both sides really don't want to give up any ground. I've never heard of Lily Tino either. And I don't really follow the drag queens thing (I think it is overblown way too much). But every now and then, a news article crosses my screen that discusses transgenderism (most recently because of the supreme court cases). I like to dive deep into what is happening and will try to read a wide variety of things. I do see that people are bothered by 'male looking people' in bathrooms and are bothered that they can't seem to do anything about it. I don't think anyone has ever done statistics on it, which is sad. But it is also probably going to be similar to women's assault statistics, where most things are just never reported. I've been told that women are socialized to not create a scene so if someone invades their space, I would expect most to just get out and go on with their lives. That makes it really hard to quantify it. Should we take the few lawsuits that have occurred to mean that is the only times it happened? Or to mean that there's a lot more going on and women are just being silent about it? This societal change is only a little more than 10 years old. I don't think you need to be obsessed with videos featuring those people to feel the order is breaking down. I don't, yet I still feel like things are changing. I can see it when just reading supreme court arguments.

Perhaps I have been mistaken. I had understood that you subscribed to most or all of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology. Here's the list I presented previously: My perception of you is that you have affirmed, or would affirm if asked, most or all of the foregoing claims. For example, you have frequently characterized biological men as "women." You have expressed shock that anyone might disagree with this claim, and that such disagreement is "bigotry." In my view, the notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one is a per se departure from "empirical reality." I think the same must be said for your rejection of the sexual binary. It is a per se departure from "empirical reality." And your perspective on "assigned at birth" (though your recent comments have clouded my understanding of your perspective on this one). I agree with both of these, except that I think "gender" has sometimes been popularly used as a coterminous synonym for "sex." I think that should be addressed in the definition as a sort of caveat or clarification. It seems like many "trans" advocates equivocate between "sex" and "gender," treating them as synonyms in some circumstances, and as differentiated from each other in others. Are you on board with this definition of "gender?" That it is a "construct" and not a synonym for "sex?" I agree with both of these. Do you? My sense is that much of "trans" advocacy is built on re-defining these terms and their synonyms ("male" and "man," "female" and "woman") to include something along the lines of "and also anyone who identifies as a woman." At least two dictionaries, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster, have incorporated this re-definition into their entries. Here, though, there is no "gender identity" component to "female" (as there is according to Merriam-Webster). Do you endorse that omission? I think this is much better than "assigned at birth," as those phrases have sometimes been used - deliberately, I think - to make biological sex seem like something that is arbitrarily chosen by the doctor, rather than observed. The definition acknowledges, but neither ratifies nor rejects, "the option of 'X.'" Generally, this sounds right. Psychologist John Money famously recommended raising a biologically male infant named Bruce (or "David") Reimer as a girl after a botched circumcision destroyed his penis in 1965. Johns Hopkins University. Money believed that gender identity was entirely learned and shaped by social conditioning rather than biology ("nurture over nature"). He advised the parents to surgically alter the child into a girl, rename "her" Brenda, and raise "her" without revealing "her" biological sex. Though rare, some parents have elected to raise their son as a girl/daughter, or vice versa. "{T}his marker may represent an individual’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity and a designation of 'X.'" No endorsement or rejection of using "M" or "F" or "X" as a designation of "gender identity" (and not sex). I assume these folks are simply reporting how this term is being used, without commenting on its incoherence. These seem good. That link is Chapter 2 of the same 2024 SSA report, “Clinical Conceptions of Sex and Gender,” around the glossary table (pp. 43–45). It is a word list for disability files, not a proof that a man is a woman, or ratification of that concept by the committee. “Not all components align” is the DSD / hormone-treatment hedge. It is true that a CAIS XY person or a post-surgical male will not show every typical male trait. It is not true that sex therefore becomes a menu. Misalignment of some traits is how you describe a disorder or a medical intervention. It is not how you get a third sex or a female male. The committee operationalizes sex as “sex recorded at birth.” That is a paperwork term. It lets the rest of the chapter talk about identity without saying “male” or “female.” Once sex is a line on a form, “updating” the form looks like updating the fact. The fact is still the reproductive anatomy the form was trying to record. If those definitions were along the lines of “trans women are women,” I think the table would define woman as anyone who identifies as one. It does not. It defines sex as reproductive biology and then, separately, an identity that can diverge from that biology. Divergence is only intelligible if the two things are not the same. I think the committee's comment here is worthwhile: I take some small exception to the committee's definition of "Transgender and gender diverse" as being "Umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from what is typically associated with their sex recorded at birth." I think the better definition would have been: "Umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from what is typically associated with their biological sex." Thanks, -Smac

There isn't much evidence he had sex with anyone but his wife Emma. You believe everything you are told?

I am certainly with you there. Since I was a child, raised until about 14 years of age in a pretty literal Fundamentalism, I have wondered about the eternal destiny of folks who never have, don't , used to, but don't now name the name of Christ as the means for their eternal destiny. Probably most of them never even thought about an eternal destiny. I am working this afternoon on my book on truth. I just published and had the big conference last Saturday on a biography I finished on a revolutionary war general who had a big impact on the Saints here. With that behind me, I can now concentrate on other topics that mean more to me. Oh, and about the biography. I finished the last chapter, the one about his legacy with a photo that was given to me of him holding an LDS baby girl in his arms the day or so before he was killed. I doubt that the photo has ever been published. With your family connect to the colonies, you may know who Nelle Spilsbury Hatch was. She wrote about Salazar's last few days on earth, spent in Colonia Juarez with the Saints. About Salazar in those last days, she said, "He was a changed man!" That is good enough for me. I do not know if that is good enough for Judgment Day, but it does no good to perseverate on that. So that was the last line in the book, "He was a changed man!" I certaintly think that is a worthy epitaph. Back to my book on Truth, today I found a quote from the Hindu Upanishads. It says, "The face of Truth is covered with a golden vessel. Uncover it, O Sun, that I who am devoted to the truth may behold it." I really like that. It speaks, as did almost all ancients of truth as a hidden attribute that needed uncovering, revealing, unhiding." That is what Christ did, he revealed the truth (aletheia) about God's plan. He was the Son, not the Sun, but he did what the old Hindu wiseman requested. He is continuing to do that in our lives today. I am seeking more truth, more clarification about the truth, but not to supplant my faith with it. I am so sorry to hear of your dad's passing. I did not know that. You have a wonderful heritage and lineage. I wish all your family the very best. Blessings.