All Activity

I'll be 37 in a month, grew up in the Florida panhandle, and have lived in southern Alabama since 2011. My mom is from the Florida panhandle and my step-dad is from the same small south Alabama town I currently live in. The only connection to Utah I have is that my biological father was from Spanish Fork, but he was stationed in Florida when he was in the Navy (where he met my mom) and was institutionalized from the time I was 4 or so until the time he died in 2003 due to Huntington's disease. I barely knew him or most of that side of the family, as out of the 5 children on that side (him, his two brothers and two sisters), 4/5 died from HD. My paternal grandfather committed suicide when my biological father was 14, so I never knew him either. I only ever had a little contact with my one living paternal uncle (plus his wife and two daughters) and my paternal grandmother due to them living in Texas. So yeah, trying to insinuate me growing up and/or living in a LDS-majority area for many years as coloring my perception on the church isn't going to work. The internet is a wonderful thing though, and as I said, the church publishes a great deal of material that is accessible through it without being gatekept behind making an account, requesting access, etc.

How old are you? And have you ever lived outside the Mormon corridor?

Yet that doesn't do much to the point. Take the Roman Catholic church for example. Their history is still a long one of corruption and violence against not only former members, but those who were never part of their church to begin with. They claimed it was God's will despite denying the existence of direct revelation. The issue of leadership is still one for the more theologically liberal churches, which tend to be some flavor of Reformed Protestant church. Reformed churches appeal to an inerrant, complete scripture as the ultimate authority, but that creates a whole host of problems. If extant scripture is inerrant, how does one explain different interpretations? Some would answer this question by claiming that said scripture is self-interpreting, which ends up not answering the question at all. This goes into something that doesn't seem to want to be touched on, and it's similar to what I encounter in my career (currently a medical technologist, but aspiring medical doctor). People love to blame the institution, but never want to consider that the problem may lie with those the institution serves. Patients can set unreasonable expectations of their doctors and have said expectations spawn primarily or even entirely out of their own conceptions of how they think things should be. Sometimes those conceptions are born out of general human problems (pride, ego, etc.). Sometimes the patient has genuine psych problems that prevent them from fully understanding. Sometimes the patient is just dumb and easily swayed by fiery rhetoric or fancy ceremony. I'd argue that the LDS church is very open about its history, certainly moreso than many others, and that those who use history as their reason were already out in all but name. The material is both publicly available and easily accessible from the church itself on many controversial topics, but those who go looking with preconceived notions often end up perpetually unsatisfied when what they find doesn't match said notions and they never think to ask themselves "Am I the one that's wrong here?".

Not all of these Churches former members decide to join claim their leaders are currently receiving direct revelation from God. The title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator sets up high expectations, especially if one has been taught a belief that is close to inerrancy for the Prophets. Many from what I read go to more liberal theologically speaking denominations that don’t create such difficulties for their leaders. It would be interesting to find out how many seek out churches that have some form of inerrancy of scripture or leadership in them.

My man, do you not know how to read? "then yes, you are most definitely projecting your own problems onto other people" There's your answer.

Church history being an issue always seemed to be an interesting line, especially if those that leave over it go to larger churches who have much bigger problems in their pasts or want to act as if things were "kept from them".

So.. are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies? Buck up and commit to it or not. If not, delete your post.

He was in my ward in college for a bit. Stand up guy. I only wish he made the right decision to just wear a seatbelt and pay attention. May he rest with the Lord.

It was already answered. I wouldn't have bothered to ask if you thought that the two were mutually inclusive if it wasn't to determine yes or no. Since you seemed to affirm your belief that marriage and sexual relations are indeed mutually inclusive, then yes, you are most definitely projecting your own problems onto other people. Might as well just come out as a general misanthrope at this point, seeing as how you basically consider all of Europe to have been inhabited largely by pedophiles for centuries.

You need to answer the question I asked you.

Well liquor IS often referred to as "spirits". Maybe the root words in Russian are of a similar origin given the popularity of alcohol there.

So I'll take that as a yes, you do believe that marriage and sexual relations are mutually inclusive. They wouldn't be considered such by the standards of that time, nevermind that you have yet to produce evidence of any sexual relations. Presentism makes for poor argumentation.

A 57 year old male who marries and has sex with a fifteen year old girl is indeed a pedophile. Even in the 1850s… yes Your turn

The problem is the assertion that "trans" people are merely "born that way" holds no water and that current pro-trans discourse wants to force the general population to simply take them as an otherwise "normal person" i.e. a person that is not otherwise afflicted with a psychiatric problem. Banning any kind of conversion therapy supports this idea and is an attack against the autonomy of those that see their condition as a problem. While one can say that it can be a natural conclusion that one can be born in a physical body that doesn't align with their spiritual gender, that doesn't mean said conclusion is correct or logically valid. The first issue is presuming that gender was ever meant to be separate from biological sex. The second is that, if it was a trial to overcome, how does one go about proving such? The more likely notion is that "being born in the wrong body" isn't the trial, but the feeling itself is the trial. Using the word "allow" is likewise an interesting choice, implying some kind of direct divine imputation of specific trials onto people.

Are you claiming that marriage and sexual relations are mutually inclusive and thus projecting the aforementioned tendencies onto anyone who engaged in legal marriages for their time?

Why does there need to be a limiting principle? That's a fair question, but perhaps it is answered by Enes Kanter Freedom's declaration for joining the WNBA. In the absence of a limiting principle, what would prevent him or any other male from joining? I think the question is not whether every individual must be policed at the door. It is whether the category itself retains any stable meaning. But to answer your question anyway: Sex-separated spaces exist because of average physical differences and because many people—particularly women—have legitimate interests in privacy and safety that are tied to sex, not to appearance or self-description. A rule that reduces the matter entirely to individual comfort and self-identification removes the basis for having the separation in the first place. If the only criterion is how someone feels or how they present, then the boundary becomes whatever any person says it is. That is the practical meaning of having no limiting principle. Most people already navigate these spaces with a degree of common sense and restraint. The difficulty arises when policy formally elevates self-identification over sex. At that point the rule is no longer an informal social accommodation; it becomes an entitlement that others are expected to accept regardless of their own privacy or safety concerns. Trusting individuals to decide “what’s most appropriate” works only so long as everyone shares roughly the same understanding of the underlying categories. I don't think we can really say that anymore, or else we are saying it now to re-assert what has been diminished in recent years. Once that shared understanding is replaced by an unbounded identity claim, the trust model no longer resolves the conflict. Rather, it simply declares one side the winner. We as a society can support reasonable, case-by-case accommodations for people with gender dysphoria without accepting the premise that sex-based boundaries are illegitimate or that any limiting principle is unnecessary. The two positions are not the same. Some domains are low-stakes and can reasonably be left to personal preference—clothing, hairstyles, and forms of address among willing participants. Other domains are not. Bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and sex-separated sports involve shared physical spaces or competitive fairness where sex remains material. In those settings, treating self-identification as decisive does not merely expand individual choice; it revises the terms on which everyone else must participate. So I think a "limiting principle" (or principles) is/are needed precisely because resources and spaces are finite and because the original rationale for separating them by sex does not vanish just because someone asserts a different identity. Without such a principle, the category becomes unbounded: any male who claims a female identity is entitled to the same access or eligibility. That is not a neutral “case-by-case” approach; it is a rule that privileges one set of claims over the privacy, safety, and fairness interests of others. We can be personally indifferent to the WNBA’s internal decisions and yet still recognize that the league’s choice of criterion has consequences for the integrity of women’s sport. The same is true of other sex-separated spaces. And these decisions are not limited to the WNBA. I submit that the existence of rare developmental conditions (DSDs) does not require us to treat sex as irrelevant, nor does it obligate us to accept self-identification as the sole or overriding standard. Though some "complexity" exists, it does not erase the underlying distinction or the reasons the distinction was drawn in the first place. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Thanks, -Smac

Are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies?

"I did not argue it was unusual for teenage girls to get married back in the day." I never argued that you did. The point was that you're conflating "really liked" with something that was not considered unusual. "Do you think the age gaps illustrated below were normal for the times? Look at Lorenzo Snow. There is a forty-two year age difference between himself and his 15 year old bride." What would it matter what I think? What are you defining as "normal? Seeing as how it was considered as acceptable for a large portion of known human history and that these complaints about age gaps are a modern convention, it stands to reason that "normalcy" is on my side. Off the top of my head, we can look at the 12th century Decretum Gratiani (a Catholic canon law book) and see that the age that tends to coincide with the onset of puberty was the legally-defined proper age for marriage. "unless ten percent ish of marriages is common" Why wouldn't it be "common"? Do you commonly encounter less than 10 people per day during your life? Do you live in places that have less than 10 people on the regular? "You assert that the onset of puberty determines adult status." I never asserted such. I asserted that such was a historical commonality. "In the 1880s, it was about 16 years" According to what evidence? I'll go back to the Decretum Gratiani that put forth the proper ages for marriage during the 12 century. Said ages were around 12 for girls and 14 for boys. It even refers to marriages involving those as young as 7. https://web.archive.org/web/20160117042750/http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon Law/marriagelaw.htm "If, being around eleven or twelve, she was almost of age, and was betrothed with her own assent at the will of her parents, was blessed, and was known by the man, she ought not to be separated, especially since her parents claimed that she was of lawful age. "It takes one sick dude to marry a teenage girl back then under the age of 15-16 ish esp when the groom is as old as these guys were. Pretty likely the girl hasn’t matured yet. " Nah, what it shows is that critics tend to project their own pedophilic tendencies onto others. You being unable to control yourself around others doesn't mean that is the norm for the general population. Marriage and sexual relations are not mutually inclusive. Trying to act like it is is being disingenuous.

Again, conflation of a lack of understanding with a rejection of the premise. I want to feed my kids crack because I believe that current law and "societal norms" are too narrow. Agree with me or you do not understand. There's nothing preventing the kids from exploring whatever they want when they become adults, so ultimately this argument is a red herring.

No I got that part, I was just leaning into it a bit. It's a really bad point to try to use against as it can't really be substantiated with hard numbers that aren't pulled out of their behinds.

Interesting. I wonder how he got there, revelation or reason or a combination. Added: he does say this not long after that quote: “I never told you I was perfect— 47 but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught—” But he’s ending his talk so it might be a presentation of his authority rather than an identification of everything he just said as revelation, like adding credentials. How Joseph himself typically viewed his teachings/comments is something I really should study more, going through his works over time, but that likely won’t these days (have too little dopamine it seems to be motivated much, I need a wife/mother/assistant to push me to do…)

While it can take effort to pay attention to one’s own writing, still there’s not much cost for most people in learning, I believe, to use “some of” rather than just speaking of a group as a whole, applying a few of the individuals’ attributes to the group as if it’s an inherent attribute. Significant precision when being critical is truly important if one wants to be fair and not unintentionally slander others, imo.

"For the record, if you can convince me that the Catholic Church is apostate, I would consider the CoJCoLDS as one of the few contenders for the one true church with valid priestly orders." Convincing you of the apostasy isn't required as that isn't the topic. You made the claim that your disagreements were rooted in "orthodox Judaism" and so far failed to produce evidence of such. In this case, "evidence" would be scripture from the Old Testament/Tanakh. Merely showing where the thought was being considered among some Jewish people is not equivalent to it being Judaic doctrine. That would be like me saying that the Catholic church was once pro-abortion as a point of doctrine due to the concept of delayed ensoulment essentially being "It's just a clump of cells" but with fancier words and it being a concept taught by some who are revered in the Catholic church (i.e. Thomas Aquinas).

They are, aren't they! Where do you think I get these "broad brush comments"? I watch a few ex- and anti-Mormon YouTube channels, and on occasion they are definitely thrilled about how the church is dying because members are falling away in droves (they think). And they are very smug and pleased about it. They love it! It's precious validation to them. There are ex-members and there are ex-members. There are members who are kind of ex-members. For the most part they just lead their lives, mostly still members on paper, and don't bother about the church one way or the other. I know a few. Except for your posting here, you seem to be among their ranks. I only just heard of this book. Probably won't read it. But I take it you did read it? When it comes to understanding your situation, for me it is very difficult. From my first contact with my very first Mormon at age 13, I sensed that the Church was true. I'm now 74, and that testimony has grown steadily. Nothing I've ever read or heard has damaged that testimony. To me, the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the CoJCoLDS being His church is now as certain as it can be, I think. So never having been in your position, I cannot fully understand how you feel. At best I can try to empathize how I would feel if it turned out that it all was a farce. And I am sad for you. I wish it were otherwise. My "loyalty" to the Lord, or the Church, or whatever one might want to call it, is not because I think the church is totally without fault, or that there aren't problems in its history, or that there haven't been leaders who fell far short of who they should have been. I make allowances because the church is a human institution, and the only way to make it perfect is to get rid of all the humans. I feel that the Spirit of the Lord has guided me throughout my life, and I have had many experiences that assure me of His reality. I don't always get what I pray for. Despite prayer and blessings my late wife still died from cancer. So did my brother. But they died unafraid, knowing that the Lord Jesus Christ is their Savior. I've run into a few folks online who say that they desperately wanted (or still want) the Church to be true. And they cite things similar to what you've written here. But I probably cannot say anything to you that you haven't already heard that could help you overcome the lack. Unfortunately, the most profound spiritual experiences that I have had, that convince me as to the reality of the things I have learned, are things I cannot vaccinate you with. I wish members of the church would have more compassion for those who have difficulty with faith. I try to have that compassion. But there we go with the human aspect again.

Why does there need to be a limiting principle? If somebody looks like a man, acts like a man, presents themselves to the world as a man, and would make everyone around them feel most comfortable if they used the men's restroom, why is it so freaking important to you that they use the women's restroom if they really "are" a woman? Why are you trying to create laws that say certain female-looking people must be inserted into male-only spaces? How does doing that make the world a better place? Why not just trust people to make their own decisions about what's most appropriate for their individual situations? Likewise, that doesn't mean that in terms of choosing clothes, hair styles, activities, pronouns, and bathrooms the underlying biological binary must be of primary importance, set as an absolute "limiting principle" in all cases. Again, why do we need a limiting principle at all? What's wrong with letting people choose based on what makes the most sense in the given situation? If the WNBA wants to admit transexual people based on a uniform rule or a case-by-case basis, I really don't care. I'm not a stakeholder.