All Activity

Or you could have asked. I culled them from YouTube videos of men in women's bathrooms. I think the pictures demonstrate a few things. First, I think the overwhelming focus on "trans" persons in bathrooms is about men going into women's bathrooms. Far less attention is paid to the reverse situation of women who identify as "trans men" going into men's bathrooms. I have a few thoughts as to the basis for this asymmetry. Second, over a number of posts you have posted numerous photos of women who identify as "trans men," apparently with the presupposition that they are a more important issue than the first item above (and/or to distract from the first item above). I posted pictorial examples of men caught in women's bathrooms because, well, that's the primary area of concern. I'm not sure that your pictures support your position in the way you apparently intended. I think many women and girls oppose men in women's bathrooms, but they are being subjected to it in many places anyway. Some jurisdictions, such as Kansas, are prioritizing the interests of women and girls over the interests of a much, much smaller group of persons (women who "identify" as men). Again: 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. Third, the pictures I posted are comprised of a variety of men caught in women's bathrooms. Some are apparently self-identified "trans women" (including, e.g., Lily Tino) : We can't really say if they are "trans women" because, well, there is no way to objectively differentiate between A) men who "identify" as "trans women" and B) men who may or may not so identify. We've had this "whatever the individual declares about his/her 'gender identity' is correct, and there is to be no questioning of it" rule drilled into the public consciousness for years: The above pictures demonstrate the lack of any functioning and coherent "limiting principles," which in turn may explain why some jurisdictions, such as Kansas, have elected to create a coherent limiting principle: biological sex. Other pictures were less clear about "trans" identity, and perhaps showed instances of bad actors going into women's bathrooms: We really don't know whether any of these men is "trans," do we? After all, all they have to do is say "I identify as a woman" or "I am a trans woman" and they fit within @Analytics preferred laissez faire approach to accessing women's bathrooms. In fact, they would not even need to bother with the "trans" identity, since you reject any limiting principles constraining men from going into women's bathrooms under the color of law. The Kansas legislature, recognizing this, and also recognizing that bad actors could, under color of law, enter into women's bathrooms, and so decided to apply a limiting principle, namely, biological sex. I agree. Here is where I disagree. I think there are plenty of women and girls who find men in women's bathrooms "objectionable" (see, e.g., here and here). I believe so, yes. Any person can use such a claim, or else the "I identify as a woman" one, or else use no claim at all (since, again, you reject any coherent limiting principles) as a basis for entering into women's bathrooms. And there is no way to differentiate legitimate and illegitimate claims because these claims are almost always internal and subjective. I think women and girls are entitled to have safety among their concerns about men going into women's bathrooms. Do you think otherwise? I think there is a lot of disagreement about men going into women's bathrooms. Unfortunately, some of that may spill over into anger, or even "hate" in some quarters. While anger at overtly bad acts is understandable, a society of laws must govern by law. And what counts as "bad acts" is going to vary a bit (I think plenty of folks think that men entering into women's bathrooms is inherently bad/improper). In any event, if a man is caught doing something nefarious, or suspected of doing something nefarious, then he ought to be treated like any other person under the law. Yes. And your preferred approach to this issue is that the Walter Caleros-types of persons living in America have no need to "{sneak} into the girls restroom," since by your reckoning they can do so under the color of law. Respectfully, no, it isn't. Walter and "trans women" would, in your approach, fall into the same category, namely, men who can enter into women's bathrooms under color of law. I have spent many pages talking about "limiting principles," and Walter is a good example of why such principles are needed. in my view, the only coherent and workable limiting principle is biological sex (with, perhaps, some narrowly-drawn exceptions for persons with DSDs). From a previous post: Your comment above ("It seems Smac's fear is that a pervert could play the I'm-really-a-woman-and-I-have-the-right-to-be-here card, but there have been zero examples of that happening. Anywhere. Ever.") appears to put you at Step 1 ("It's not really happening"). I think this is not correct. First, under your approach, there is no need to "play the I'm-really-a-woman-and-I-have-the-right-to-be-here card," since everyone would have access to women's bathrooms. You reject any and all "limiting principles," correct? Second, I think there have been instances of bad actors taking steps to appear as women so as to enter into women's bathrooms for unlawful purposes (and under your "No Limiting Principles" approach, there would be no way for a jurisdiction to keep them out of women's spaces). Judge Rules Loudoun County Teen Sexually Assaulted Female Student in Girls' Bathroom (2021) "{T}he male student forcibly sodomized his ninth-grade daughter in a school bathroom while wearing a skirt." And he was in the girls' bathroom under color of law (the "gender-inclusivity policy"). 6 Men Who Disguised Themselves as Women to Access Bathrooms (from 2016) "{W]earing fake breasts and a wig while loitering in a women’s restroom..." "Hernandez had disguised himself as a woman on two separate occasions to get inside a UC Berkeley locker room." "Both instances involved a man in women’s clothing who used a mirror and camera to take pictures of a mother and her 5-year-old daughter..." "a man used a women’s locker room at a public swimming pool in Washington state to undress in front of young girls who were changing for swim practice. When Seattle Parks and Recreation staff asked him to leave, the man claimed that 'the law has changed and I have a right to be here.'" Transgender woman arrested for voyeurism at Ammon Target (2016) "{A} man, dressed in women’s clothing, had entered a fitting room in the women’s clothing section of the store. Deputies say the suspect was seen taking photos of a woman in a stall next to him while she was changing." Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying Into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say (2015) "A man dressed as a woman was arrested in Virginia on Monday after police say he was caught peeping into restroom stalls three times in the past year." Cross-Dressing Man Secretly Taped Women at Macy’s (2013) "{T}he man was wearing a wig and was dressed as a woman." Sex offender posed as woman, went into women's locker room "A registered sex offender dressed up like a woman, went into a women's locker room at a pool and talked with several children before being chased down." Man Undresses In Front Of Children In Walmart Restroom (2010) "Burnes was wearing a dark woman's suit, black high heals, red nail polish, green eye shadow and women's jewelry. ... a witness also watched Burnes 'show off his white girdle and dark thong underwear' in the women's section of the store." Purdue police investigate report of man taking photographs in women's restroom (2008) "{A} man dressed as a woman was seen taking photographs under the wall of a women's bathroom stall..." Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter (2014 in Canada) "Under the name 'Jessica,' he was able to get into the women’s shelters, where he sexually assaulted several women in 2012..." ‘Transgender’ man may continue using girls’ locker room, says college (2012) "The 45-year-old man, who calls himself Colleen Francis, presents himself as a transgender 'female.' ... On September 26, teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw 'Colleen' Francis exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna." "Joe Wheeler of the Thurston County Prosecutor’s Office said he will not prosecute the matter as indecent exposure." Seems like the above items moves us to Step 2 ("Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal"). These items were not hard to find, BTW. I don't think this matters, as under your regime there are no limiting principles, ergo no such thing as a "legitimate" or "illegitimate" right for males to enter into women's bathrooms. All of them have that right, under color of law. No need to even bother with claiming to be trans or dressing like a woman or entering covertly. You've said this twice now. What is this "category" thing? Under your preferred "no limiting principles / laissez faire" approach, what "categories" of men exist, such that some can enter into women's bathrooms and some cannot? By repeatedly alluding to "categorical" differences, you implicitly acknowledge reliance on some sort of limiting principle. Could you explain what the principle is? So everyone can enter into women's bathrooms under color of law. That is what you propose? Thanks, -Smac

KSL posted this article today about vigil that was held for him by his family: Family, followers honor man who was dedicated to defending his faith online I didn't know where he was from, but this article says he lived in Idaho.

But not to bathrooms. Yes. It seems like it would not be too difficult to go in and get a replacement that provides the individual's biological sex. Government documents such as DLs are not, I think, supposed to be a mode of self-expression of the individual. Rather, it serves some specific and important purposes: Identification accuracy: Sex is a stable, observable biometric characteristic that helps law enforcement, border officials, and others confirm that the person presenting the DL is the person to whom it was issued. Public safety and investigation: Accurate sex data assists in locating missing persons, identifying suspects or victims, and conducting criminal investigations where physical description matters. Sex-specific legal and medical contexts: DLs are sometimes used in settings where sex is relevant—medical emergencies, single-sex facilities, correctional placement, and certain statutory requirements. Administrative consistency: DLs serve as foundational identity documents. Recording sex the same way across records (birth certificate, license, etc.) reduces mismatches and fraud opportunities. Statistical and planning uses: Aggregated, sex-based data from licensing records can support transportation planning, public-health analysis, and other government functions that rely on demographic accuracy. I suspect you care less about the foregoing utilitarian-minded functions of DLs, and would prefer to have DLs reflect the individual's subjective "gender identity" that differs from his/her biological sex and the sexual binary. Some jurisdictions are on board with this approach, and some are not. Thanks, -Smac

They are afraid of the church as an institution because they believe that any American institution is a vehicle for American influence. It isn't really "unfocused" at all given that we are essentially seen as the same thing as any other evangelical group. The assessment of these supposed factions in Russia doesn't really work. A security establishment wouldn't make much money from limited interactions with other nations as most of their money would come from the sale of security services, weapons, etc. to said nations. It isn't about Ukraine at all, it's about another European country trying to maintain its power by oppressing it's population. Russia is just going about it in a different way compared to western Europeans. Their goal is to remove as much foreign influence on cultural pillars as possible so they can maintain control over them, whereas the western European nations want to destroy those cultural pillars through increasing foreign influence so they can then remake them in their own image.

There's also the dependency/addiction factor to consider with GABA analogs, as well as how they interact with other medical procedures. I'd already linked an article regarding high rates of respiratory depression in surgical cases involving patients on GABA analogs, while dopamine agonists can be continued prior to surgery. Seems to me that it's far safer to start at a low dose of a dopamine agonist and taper up if needed versus starting with a GABA analog, especially since we have quite a bit of data for dopamine agonist safety due to Parkinson's.

Faulty understanding is not unique to us, but that doesn't matter to my point. Every church claims to be the one true church. All of their leaders claim to be speaking the word of God. The only difference is that we openly state it, while other churches have to jump through hoops. This goes back to my previous point. We are far more open about our history than most. For example, where am I able to read the works of Arius? The short answer is nowhere. They were burned because they were considered heresy. What happened to Jan Hus? Oh right, he was excommunicated first over the sale of indulgences, and then he was invited to an ecumenical council to explain himself. Upon arriving, he was arrested and promptly murdered. The Catholic church then spent 15 years trying to kill all of his followers. "Christianity" has a long history of murdering heretics and detractors and destroying their works, acts that were all sanctioned by the respective church leadership. What happened to those who left our church over polygamy? They went their own way. Their personal affects weren't seized and destroyed on the orders of any prophet, they weren't hunted down by assassins or church-sanctioned armies.

Sure it does given that he was arrested under the tenants of the same law. The point being that this was going to happen regardless of how the Ukraine war was going.

Thomas Murphy; Unsettling Scripture: Iroquois and the Book of Mormon. Very in-depth study and excellent from a historical research perspective.

ID’s are central to the law. Part of the law immediately and without warning or grace period revoked all driver licenses that didn’t match original birth certificates.

They’re not afraid of the institutional church. They are afraid of losing their grip on power. There is also a lot of friction within Russia. In broad terms you can put the oligarchs into two categories. One is pro-trade with the world and wants this conflict over and the sanctions loosened or lifted so they can go back to making money. The other makes money from the security establishment and wants limited interaction with most other nations and likes a state where conflict might occur because that is their bread and butter. This is why in the current conflict Putin is not making promises or propagandizing about what a post-war with Ukraine Russia is going to look like. He has to feed both groups enough to keep them in line and keep them on board. This kind of broad but mostly unfocused persecution feeds the security establishment types.

Yeah, but that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with this particular case.

Title? Author please?

The fact that people come and go does not diminish the faith that I have that the LDS church is a true church. Notice the indefinite article (did I say that right?). That fact confirms for me that the LDS church is just like every other church in Christianity. It is not the only one, forcing my church to be another. It is simply another as well. The Church of Jesus Christ is indeed the gathering of all believers in the world, regardless of specific affiliation. We are all, and each one of us is, subject to lapses of faith, crises of faith, and failures of how we live our respective faith. That is our great commonality. We are all human; the world-wide Church of Jesus Christ is the collective gathering of imperfect humanity; therefore, the ekklesia itself is imperfect, be in Mormon or Methodist. I just finished reading another brand new book about how Joseph Smith borrowed directly from the Iroquois myths and beliefs in crafting the historic part of the Book of Mormon. I can see that book being destined to win some awards for modern academic LDS literature. What the author has discovered and believes in no way diminishes the Book of Mormon in the sense of its truth, unless you structure truth as strictly truth in a binary sense. I don't. I am not LDS but respect and admire many of my LDS friends. At the same time, I have seen enough warts and imperfections in my LDS friends, as I am sure they have seen in me. The LDS church is a wonderful gathering of believers, but it is far from perfect or the only one, just like every other place where humans gather, including all other churches. It is only when my LDS friends insist they are theeeeeee one and only true one that I feel left out and distant. Just like I do when some of my Orthodox Presbyterian friends or other Fundamentalist friends do the same thing. There is now a new bishop in the ward I attended for six or seven years. It will be interesting to see his perspective on the interpretation of the general handbook related to non-members. Take care all and very best wishes.

I remember when 2 LDS "volunteerss" were arrested in 2019. What is Russia afraid of?

It is easy, I presume, for a person to fault find in something they do not understand, or want to understand. If there is an issue with an institution, whatever that institution maybe. Then the issue itself should be addressed in a calm, reasonable and sensible manner. As with an institution such as the Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, as with my own institution (RCC). A person may pick up a actual issue, or consider to be an issue and run with it. I admit I can not comment on the the things Bluebell as mentioned in her post. It is a good thing when people feel they are able to stay within their Church, and able to overcome issues in a sensible mature way.

Yes, but we don't always understand what we claim, and sometimes it's a faulty understanding that ends up being what hurts our faith. For example, if someone believes that claiming prophets and revelation means that the prophet has 24/7 access to personal visits from Christ, history such as Blacks and Priesthood become a huge stumbling block. That is what I meant when I said that our perceptions and expectations of scripture and our doctrine can make our history really painful. This is especially true when our perceptions and expectations began in childhood and were reinforced by locals leaders and parents. The faith crisis in those circumstances isn't from the doctrine or the history. It's from trying to reconcile perceptions and expectations of the doctrine with a newly discovered history. That's no small thing and I don't fault anyone for finding that a real struggle and not always being able to overcome it.

True, kind of. When the church has been around for as long as it has, starting to disseminate a more accurate history in the late 90s (being generous) isn't really 'a while'. It's the last 30 years (again, if we are generous). It's an awesome thing that I am so grateful for, but it's also fairly recent, all things considered. There are a lot of reasons that even the generous estimates for transparency don't always hold up. For example, before it was closed down for renovations around 2023 the Beehive House tour focused on teaching about FHE, trying to give away copies of the Book of Mormon, and testifying of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The tour guides followed a script that pretended BY had one wife and polygamy wasn't a thing. They even went out of their way to point out "BY's wife's" bedroom. When I asked (a very friendly and not at all contentious) question about how polygamy worked in the house (I was getting my history degree at the time and was legitimately curious) with just the one wife's bedroom, the sister missionaries had no idea what to say and tried hard to move on and sidestep the question. Thankfully my family was the only people on the tour so the sisters weren't embarrassed or anything. Also thankfully, we are a very active family and the sidestepping didn't impact any of our feelings about the church or the gospel it teaches. My opinion of its 'historical' tours took a hit though. I've heard that the tours are going to be historically accurate once it reopens to the public. Hopefully that is true. The reviews for the place are really bad on tripadvisor and yelp because the tour promised was not the tour that was delivered and being more open about the history will go a long way to fix that I think. But, it's still the case that if these changes do happen, they are happening in 2026. Again, that's not 'for a while'. That's recent. I think our leaders understand the need for more transparency now and are very happy to work on getting things right. The correlated materials now prize accuracy over faith-promoting and that's a very good thing. I agree that some critics of the church like to really focus on the church "lying" and refuse to acknowledge the information that did exist or the changes that have been rolled out over the years. Some also tend to not like to discuss how their own family dynamics growing up led to some (or sometimes many) of their issues with the church. But, we don't need to fall into the all bad vs. all good dichotomy. If a critic cannot acknowledge anything good from the church or the gospel then that is their own issue. We don't have to lay the other side of the coin on thick to counter them. We don't have to defend mistakes just because it's a critic pointing them out.

Thanks to the magic of Google image search, we can get the full context on these photos. It isn't surprising that @smac97 chose to take the photos out of context, because, unsurprisingly, the full context doesn't support the point he is trying to make. In May of 2025, Lily Tino went to Disney World to make a series of videos ranking the Disney World's restrooms. That seems quite tacky to me, but social media. The behavior that is objectionable here is that in some of the videos, she captured videos of people in the background inside the restroom. That is what's objectionable here--not whether the person's birth certificate has an F or an M in the box. This is an image of Paul Bixler. "Bixler has had a decades-long, illustrious career in public education, ranging from teacher to administrator to principal. She decided to come out of retirement in 2020 to run for an open school board seat at Liberty Elementary after seeing turnover and turmoil around the pandemic, hoping to help." Paul was a genuine asset to her community, and was embraced by everyone around her. But she became the target of a hate campaign not because of her work for the community, but because right wing politicians and their tools thought she was a useful target. Her story can be read here: 12News: 'This is not a choice. I do not choose to be transgender': West Valley school board member becomes target of harassment This individual claims to be inter-sex. In the first video, she went into a public restroom in a public building, peed, and left. Nicole Gillis, the chair of a right-wing student organization saw this. Rather than calling the cops out of any belief in a possible crime or danger, she took out her phone to record a video of her confrontation with the person as they left. When she left, Nicole shoved a camera in her face and said, "Excuse me, what were you doing in the women's bathroom?" She replies, "I'm sorry?" "What were you doing in the women's bathroom?" "I was peeing." In the second video." she went into the bathroom at McDonald's, with permission from that establishment. She peed, and washed her hands and left. She was the only one in the restroom. There was no allegations of peeping into stalls, exposing, photographing anyone, molesting anyone, or targeting children. While she was peeing, an angry Christian man decided to set up a video camera so he could record the confrontation he was planning when she walked out. As she was leaving, the Christian soldier angrily confronts her in the most judgmental and anti-Christian tone imaginable. The Christian triumphantly tells her, "God will take care of you in the end!" For the sin of peeing in a toilet that this other guy disagrees with. Yea. That sounds like what Jesus would say. The amount of hate this stirs up in people is fascinating, and this is a great example of what's really going on here. If you made a list of problems in the world, an inter-sex individual who identifies as a woman using the toilet in the women's restroom rather than the men's is a tiny issue. At best. It is so clear that the point of this is to distract and manipulate voters. On the left is Dawn Ennis, a successful journalist is who famous for being fired by ABC in 2013 for coming out as Transgender. She was on assignment from Forbes and the Los Angeles Blade to cover a swim meet at the McAuley Aquatic Center at Georgia Tech. On the right is Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, a full-time professional anti-transgender activist. Keen-Minshull flew from England to Atlanta to protest an NCAA swimming event. The only evidence we have that Dawn Ennis has ever used a lady's restroom is the fact that people like Kellie-Jay confront her in public and ask the loaded question, "I want to ask you for the safety of women and girls, do you use women's spaces?" As if which toilet she uses has anything to do with "the safety of women and girls." The photo above is from Kellie-Jay stopping Dawn Ennis in a hallway at a swim event to ask that question and hopefully get a viral video out of it. If you'd like to help Kellie-Jay make more money by harassing transgender people than she already does, you can donate here: https://www.letwomenspeak.org/ You can read the full story of this interaction here: https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/03/20/terfs-challenge-reporters-gender-at-ncaa-womens-championship/ Let's expand the examples of transgender hate to Peru. In the dress on the right is 42-year old Walter Solís Calero. Walter dressed up as a school girl and snuck into the girls restroom at a school for perverted purposes. A girl saw him and screamed. The Assistant principal called the cops and the rest is history. Walter isn't transgender and never claimed to be a woman, nor claimed to have the right to be in the girl's bathroom. He was a male pervert pretending to be a girl so that he could sneak into the restroom for voyeuristic purposes. A heterosexual pervert sneaking into the girls room to see girls is categorically different than a transexual going into the restroom to pee. It seems Smac's fear is that a pervert could play the I'm-really-a-woman-and-I-have-the-right-to-be-here card, but there have been zero examples of that happening. Anywhere. Ever. This is Brandon Awogboro, a convicted Level 2 sex offender. He was caught hiding in a woman's bathroom and spying on a woman in another stall. Brandon never claimed to "be a woman" or otherwise having a legitimate right to be in the restroom. Again, a male, heterosexual pervert hiding in a bathroom stall is categorically different than a transgender individual going to the restroom to pee. This is Anthony Roy Adams. He was drunk and found himself at a WalMart in a town that was different than where he thought he was. In his drunken stupor, he stumbled into the women's restroom, not knowing what he was. While he was arrested "in the women's bathroom", the charge was public drunkenness. Again, Adams never claimed to be a woman or claimed to have some sort of entitlement to be in the women's room. There is no evidence that he was spying, exposing himself, or otherwise assaulting anybody. Again, this is categorically different than a transgender individual needing to pee and making his or her own decision about which public toilet would be most appropriate. This one is genuinely funny. It was posted on Instagram by comedian DeStorm Power on February 23, 2024. Here is what happens. A man takes out his phone and video tapes his daughter walking into a restroom at a park. He says "You make sure nobody's in there!" He pokes his head in and starts videotaping into the women's restroom. He yells out "Hello!" Right on cue, the man in the headphones pictured above walks out from around the corner, smiling. DeStorm says, "See! There's a man in there!" The guy in the headphone dries his hands and walks away smiling while the man recording the video says, "Hey! That's the women's bathroom!" Then, the man with the camera walks all the way into the woman's bathroom, still recording, and pushes open all of the stalls, recording what he finds inside. He says, "You got to go in with your kids, make sure there ain't no man in the damn bathroom!" It boggles my mind that not everybody sees how this was obviously staged and is satire. And I think this is the perfect metaphor for this whole conversation. It isn't serious. Here is my summary of the videos: The one transgender person who did anything actually wrong in the restroom was the first one, who videotaped herself in the restroom and caught other people in the background. That was wrong, but the wrongness was their stupidity trying to be an influencer and had nothing to do with being transgender. Other than that, the transgender people were just going about their lives and were being pretty viciously attacked by judgemental Christians for which toilet they used, without even any accusations of doing anything wrong beyond that. Other than the one exception above, the people who did actual things that were wrong were all heterosexual, cis men who never pretended to be transgender and never asserted any right to be in the lady's room. In context, Smac's own photographs show how this is a non-issue. Nobody is getting away with anything that is threatening or otherwise posing a danger by saying, "I have a right to be here because I say so!" Smac still hasn't provided a single example of a bad actor trying to harm someone under the guise of having a right to be in the restroom. Other than the cis-men Smac tries to associate with transgender people, if there is anything dangerous going on, it is by so-called Christians trying to stir hate against and provoke fights with people they don't approve of. The limiting principle should be this: if you need to go to the bathroom, go in to the one you think is most appropriate, take care of your business, and leave. That is what civilized people have been doing since sex-distinct bathrooms have existed, and there is no evidence that this is no longer working.

Good voices and harmonies. If there are a number of LDS missionaries who can sing as well as this, then I think more recent chart music would be improved, in my opinion that is. ✨👍

Inspired by another post by @theplains, seeing a tangent, I thought perhaps it deserves its own thread. Because this is very important, as its one of the roots of the disagreement. When critics engage Latter-day Saint theology regarding the Council of Gods, Exaltation, or the distinct Beings of the Father and the Son (and sometimes Creation from Material), they frequently point to Isaiah’s Denial Verses, but they are often called by scholars as the Incomparability Statements of Deutero-Isaiah. "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..." (Isaiah 45:5) "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8) In modern Christian theology, these verses are routinely cited as absolute ontological proof of strict monotheism, the idea that literally no other divine beings exist in the universe in any sense. However, above such a theologian are the scholars of the Ancient Near East, we would say most notably the late Dr. Michael Heiser, and also Latter-day Saint scholars, that highlight that modern reading misses the Hebrew rhetorical idiom. Comparative Incomparability of Isaiah about Babylon & Nineveh The key to understanding this idiom is looking at how Isaiah and contemporary prophets like Zephaniah uses the exact same Hebrew phrasing to describe other entities Babylon in Isaiah 47:8 "I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow..." Nineveh in Zephaniah 2:15, "This is the rejoicing city... that said in her heart, I am, and there is none else beside me..." It is a claim that the city is without equal, not that other cities don't exist. When Nineveh or Babylon claim "there is none else," the author obviously does not intend to state that no other cities exist on Earth. It is a hyperbolic idiom of unrivaled preeminence and peerlessness, not spatial or numerical solitude. The only reason we are seeing monotheism is if we strictly view them through a post-Enlightenment ontological lens. Dr. Heiser and almost any Near Eastern scholar demonstrates that Yahweh is an elohim, but so are the beings in His Heavenly Council (angels, bene elohim, holy ones). When Yahweh says, "there is no God beside me," He is not asserting that He is alone in His council in heaven. Doing so creates severe internal contradictions when set against passages like Deuteronomy 32 and the Psalms. Reading Strict Monotheism into Isaiah Collides with Deuteronomy 32 and Psalms 82 If Isaiah’s statements were meant as strict, absolute monotheism, the Old Testament canon becomes fundamentally self-contradictory. Deuteronomy 32:8–9, in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint, "When the Most High [Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance... he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [Bene Elohim]". El Elyon allocates governance of the nations to lower divine beings, and Yahweh receives Israel as His allotted "inheritance" from Elyon. Psalm 82 & Psalm 89 Psalm 82:1 states that Yahweh "judgeth among the gods [elohim]" in the "midst" of the divine council. One cannot be in the midst of one. Psalm 89:6 asks, "Who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty [bene Elim] can be likened unto the Lord?" Though incomparable, the elim are presumed to exist. The elohim of Psalm 82 are not humans Firstly, the inheritance connection to Deuteronomy 32, Deuteronomy 32 is the backdrop of Psalm 82. As the Lord has not yet "inherited" all the nations. "Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." (Psalm 82:8) Human magistrates in Israel were given jurisdiction over matters within the borders of Israel. Israelite judges were never assigned to govern or "inherit" Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, or Philistia. Psalm 82:8 directly mirrors Deuteronomy 32:8–9, where Yahweh originally divided the non-Israelite nations among the bene elohim (sons of God) as an inheritance. In Psalm 82, because those divine rulers governed corruptly, Yahweh is called upon by the Psalmist to strip them of their authority and reclaim their inheritance over all the nations of the earth. Human judges in Israel never held that worldwide territorial mandate in the first place. Secondly, the assembly of elohim are in heaven. Psalm 89:5-7 eliminates any ambiguity. "Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the clouds [ba-shahaq] can be compared to the LORD? Who among the gods is like the LORD, a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?" Psalm 89 rules out the notion that Yahweh’s council of sons of God refers to an assembly of humans because it explicitly places that council "in the clouds." There is no text that suggests that there are a group of human judges in the heavens ruling with Yahweh over the nations. That position is only being offered because of a perceived threat to monotheism. Thirdly, Heiser frequently emphasized the irony of Psalm 82:6–7, "I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High [bene Elyon]. But ye shall die like men..." It makes no sense for humans. If Yahweh is talking to mortal human judges, telling them "You will die like men" is completely redundant. Human judges already die like men, mortality is the natural state. A true condemnation is telling a divine, immortal elohim that they will be stripped of their divine status and condemned to a mortal death is an actual sentence of judgment. Isaiah Venerates El Elyon Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker argues extensively that Isaiah laments the purge of the First Temple, specifically the removal of the Heavenly Mother (Asherah) and the divine council during the reforms. The pre-exilic First Temple religion venerated El Elyon, His Son Yahweh, and Asherah. Isaiah uses the title in the famous taunt song about Lucifer/Hilel, Isaiah uses Elyon precisely in contexts involving the Divine Council, the "mount of the congregation". Ugaritic texts discovered in 1929, older traditions believed the gods gathered on Mount Zaphon, the abode of their cheif God, El, father of Baal-Hadad and 70 sons of El. In ancient Canaan, because Mount Zaphon was to the far north, the proper noun Zaphon literally became the Hebrew word for "North". Isaiah 14:13–14, the rebel boasts, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God [El]: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation [Har Mo'ed], in the reaches [yarketei / mount] of the north [Zaphon]; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High [Elyon]." Isaiah Venerates Asherah Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) from Qumran of Isaiah 7:11 has a one letter difference. Masoretic Text says "Ask a sign for yourself from [me'im] the LORD your God..." The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) says, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Mother of [me'em] the LORD your God..." Instead of Isaiah telling King Ahaz to ask for a sign from the Lord, the verse asks him to request a sign from the Mother of the Lord. If Ahaz is told in 7:11 to ask a sign of the Mother of Yahweh, then when the prophet declares in 7:14, "Behold, The Virgin [ha-'almah] shall conceive," is the Mother of the Lord herself and she will bring forth the Immanuel, meaning a royal Davidic child (Isaiah 8). In royal Near Eastern mythologies such as at Ugarit, their goddess Asherah was the "Virgin" and the "Mother" of the kings. Isaiah's definite article "ha-‘Almah" is not merely "a virgin", it's "THE Virgin". In both Ugarit and pre-exilic Jerusalem, a female figure brings forth the anointed king, and formally titled The Virgin. My Disagreement with Heiser, elohim is a noun applied to many other beings, but not a noun for ordinary beings Heiser's view treats elohim as a realm identifier (anyone living in the spirit realm is an elohim). I have a counter-argument that elohim is an adopted family/lineage title. Through a covenant, like the priesthood, certain beings, whether prophets, high priests, angels, or angelic localized territorial guardians are adopted into the genos (lineage/family) of El. Instead of a natural spatial status, elohim reflects a covenantal promotion. Human prophets like Samuel or Moses (Exodus 7:1) and divine messengers become elohim through the bestowal of Yahweh's authority, name, and often identifiable by priestly garments. 1 Samuel 28:13–14, when the medium of Endor cries out that she sees an elohim ascending from the earth, Saul asks, "What form is he of?" She replies, "An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle [me'il]." The me'il was the explicit garment of priestly and royal authority (Exodus 28:31, 1 Samuel 2:19, 15:27). Samuel always wore a priestly coat since he was a child. Samuel is identified by the medium as an elohim because he wearing mantle of gods, as he retained his priestly identity beyond the veil. He is not an elohim simply because he is a ghost in the underworld; he is an elohim because he is still a priestly son of God and identified by his robe of a god. To truly be adopted by Christ, Born Again, is actually to become a god, because that's what being a true son of God means. Heiser argues that the fallen bene elohim (the territorial powers who rebelled) are sentenced to fall (Psalm 82:6–7). But redeemed humans are adopted as new sons of God through Christ, literally take their vacant seats in the divine council to rule with Jesus (1 Cor 6:3, Rev 2:26–27). LDS theology mirrors this concept of exaltation. Salvation alters a human's dynamic status, elevating them as literal family members rather than remaining lower-tier subjects. The concept of sonship (ben) is defined by nature, image, and inheritance, 2 Peter 1:4 "partakers of the divine nature". To be a true "son" of any entity meant to bear the same fundamental nature and authority of that father who begot you. In ancient Near Eastern covenantal culture, adoption into a divine lineage meant being re-begotten into the nature of the Father. The divine sonship of the kings (Psalm 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14), Yahweh adopts the anointed king, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The act of coronation and divine adoption was expressed as a literal begetting into divine governance. When early Christians spoke of becoming "sons of God", they understood that a true son inherits the rank, domain, and species-identity of the Father. Hence, the early doctrine of Theosis of the Church Fathers is explicitly linked being "Born Again". Believers are adopted into Christ to become "joint-heirs" (Romans 8:17), then whatever Christ inherits by nature, the adopted sons inherit by grace. 1 John 3:2 says, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" The logic of John 10 that Psalm 82 meant real gods is precisely why Jesus invokes it when accused of blasphemy for claiming to be a "Son of God" (John 10:34–36) The Charge "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33) Jesus's Response, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came... Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified... Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:34–36). If the sons of God in Psalm 82 are not real divine beings, Jesus's argument loses its point. Jesus stands in front of them as the direct fulfillment of Psalm 82:8, the true, uncorrupted Son of God has come down from the heavenly realm to judge the other elohim of the nations and adopt redeemed humanity into the divine family. You can believe as you wish. It's just hoped you understand the argument before rejecting it.

I'm sure you think Fauci is a beautiful human being. It was proper for him to fund "gain of function" lab work in Wuhan, red china. </sarcasm> "at all" ? Why the absolutes?

Possibly. Another possibility is the sad fact that gabepentin loses effectiveness for many over time and what might look like augmentation is simply return of symptoms, unlike the dopamine agonists that increase symptoms from the original baseline. There is a difference between a med slowly not working and so upping the dose to try to get the same relief and the drug making symptoms worse so one increases it, compounding the problem. Also note it’s a pediatric case. That rate for adults is much lower than for the dopamine agonists (given in an above study), but I did overstate that there was no augmentation. Good you corrected me. Thank you, Most people revert to pretreatment levels with the dopamine agonists after a few weeks, though it may be more gradual, thankfully. However some won’t completely reverse. Can be hard to tell because the disorder is progressive. I suspect mine had a substantial increase that wasn’t resolved given the dramatic difference between the increase over the 3-4 years I was on them vs the 25 years I have been on the other drug (RLS never increased for ten years based on no change in meds and has decreased some the last ten years). I know I am not the only one with permanent significant effects because of the group I was in, but I am grateful that I am atypical at least in this way. But thanks for bringing this study to my notice. It appears to be new, so may end up with other studies countering the usual explanation. Gabapentin has been used much more extensively in general than the dopamine agonists, so there’s some related data that’s been available through that already. I don’t know the extent of RLS studies on Gabapentin to know if the issue is not enough cases of long term use, I will be rather surprised if it is, but will research it before making any conclusion. Added: sorry for the additional post. There was actually a valid, informative link in this one, I felt it appropriate to respond to since I had already responded to the rest.

No, because they aren't "recommendations of actual doctors". This is ONE doctor that already admits short-term efficacy of dopamine agonists while simultaneously ignoring the negative short and long-term effects of his own proposal. Why are you even bothering bringing up nicotine, alcohol, etc.? Quitting those are already default considerations in pretty much any condition. You can see augmentation issues with GABA analogs. https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/48/Supplement_1/A625/8135982?login=false "Occurrence of symptoms earlier in the day with increasing severity suggested augmentation. " "This case highlights a fairly underreported phenomenon of gabapentin-induced augmentation in pediatric RLS." So it looks like lower rates are more the product of a lack of sufficient data. Again, read my initial statement. The only one trying to bring in long-term problems with dopamine is you. Which is worse? Augmentation due to long-term use of dopamine agonists or the 40% increased risk of suicide associated with long-term GABA analog use? Hard to study long-term effects if your patients are offing themselves before you get a chance.

Again, you are dismissing the experts for your personal theory. Your choice. I will rely on the experts. The rest of your post is ignoring quite a bit of what I said, removing context, etc. Not worth any more effort. Don’t know how you came up with this stuff. Don’t want to know…which surprises me. I always want to know. Everyone observing, if you are seriously interested in RLS, don’t take my comments as doctrine. Just ignore BlipBlap on this subject. (I don’t think I have ever said that before on the board) RLS Foundation is a good first stop with the easiest to remember and type address (I so miss the days of LDS.org) https://www.rls.org also John Hopkins https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology-neurosurgery/specialty-areas/restless-legs-syndrome Mayo or Cleveland Clinic if you want less reading. Sorry for the detail and my too many posts due to my semi obsession with accuracy. I wouldn’t have hopped down this rabbit trail if I knew it would be mud all the way down with a disappointing view at the end.

So you are ignoring the recommendations of actual doctors and researchers based on real life responses to depend on an out dated oversimplification of the process involved? It gets complicated because dopamine both inhibits and excites. Then there are the negative side effects of long term use of dopamine agonists, especially augmentation, but also other effects, like compulsive behaviour, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and sedation, which has led to preferring Gabepentin and pregabalin as first line even if not as targeted. They don’t work for me, but Horizant and Gralise work well for my daughter. Her doctors, specialists in sleep and pain, have never suggested using the dopamine agonists. She started treatment probably 15 years later than I did, but had the same problem with doctors not listening and insisting on using drugs not recommended for those with the disorder (she went from waking up around 10 am to waking up around 2 pm, which defeated the purpose of the medication to help with her severe social anxiety and get her back into school). I warned the doctor, he stated he didn’t treat RLS and we were so desperate for our daughter to have some semblance of a normal life again (diabetes type 1 sent her anxiety through the roof, wasn’t great for RLS either, but besides sleeping later, it wasn’t a huge issue until after the psychiatrist refused to listen and we were too dismissive of our own knowledge and experience). BTW, the current model of RLS isn’t dopamine deficiency. It’s a complicated interaction of altered dopamine regulation, iron-dependent dopamine biology, circadian effects, and interactions among several neural systems. It’s not a straight forward drug in, increased dopamine, less RLS process. First line treatment after establishing it is RLS and removing any drugs that may be triggering it is more likely to be test iron and address and deficiency, but that’s difficult at times if people can’t tolerate iron supplements and don’t qualify for iron infusions, which are quite expensive. Lifestyle recommendations like exercise, reducing or quitting nicotine, alcohol and caffeine, sleep hygiene, and a couple of other things I can’t remember should be suggested as well. If someone is interested in supplements, magnesium has the best documentation. Then if medication is still needed, first choices are three α2δ calcium-channel ligands: Gabapentin, Pregabalin, and Gabapentin enacarbil. Horizant is the last and Gralise is an extended release that delays it for the small intestine. Horizant gave me ten days of pure relief, then stopped working. No vomiting or compulsive behaviour or augmentation thank goodness. So much better than the agonists. But it works great for my daughter. We react very differently to drugs. You don’t get augmentation with the Gabepentin versions, you do for a high percentage of the agonists according to documentation. I am not an exception. The experts working over years with patients knew this and were recommending against the use 20 years ago before I even started on any drugs. It is foolish to use a drug that is likely to make a disorder worse, not better. https://www.neurologyadvisor.com/features/restless-leg-syndrome-aasm-guidelines-update/ Your risk of augmentation increases the longer you are on it. https://pure.johnshopkins.edu/en/publications/a-10-year-longitudinal-assessment-of-dopamine-agonists-and-methad-4/