All Activity

Nutrition wise, it’s always best to eat fruit whole. I can’t remember any fruit that is better to eat cooked like there are some veggies that are easier to absorb nutrients from. If you can tolerate milk and don’t like yogurt, you can always add some quality cacao to it (I think our favorite is Guittard) for a treat. I also like hot Golden Milk (turmeric and some other spices, doesn’t need sweetener for me). Water is best. If the quality of water you are getting from the tap ain’t great, invest in a filter. I would search online for the best in your area. Even a Brita type can make a difference. I had a really hard time drinking lots of water, it would slosh in my stomach and give me headaches. Adding a bit of salt helps balance the electrolytes for me and I add a bit of sugar as well as that helps the sodium get absorbed. Apparently I am very sensitive to changing electrolyte levels and more than a cup of water in an hour makes my head woozy, etc I can guzzle it down just fine with the addition. I started out using electrolytes capsules, but the cost goes up so much and the amount of anything but sodium isn’t worth the cost, I can get supplements cheaper if I actually need those. The homemade stuff works just as well, if not better as it mixes better. Adding a small amount of fruit juice (how much depends on your calories for the day) if you dislike the straight salt/sugar mix is good. I also use powdered raspberry, my daughter uses mango. You can also throw in frozen fruit to keep it cool as well as add flavor. If you are interested in the nutrition side of things, but don’t know where to start, my dietician recommends using Chat to come up with recipes and meal plans if you need help, especially if you are picky about food (I am not, but my body really is and I feel soooo much better with staying within the lines on this). My experience is always double check the math, especially when it’s dealing with teaspoons and tablespoons. Sometimes it increases when it’s supposed to be decreasing or the reverse. You want chat to calculate the macros (protein, carb, fats…maybe fiber, can’t remember what category that falls into) as well as keep an eye on the micronutrients. There are some free or not too expensive decent food tracking apps as well that would even be better if you don’t mind using them. Let me know if you are interested, I can point you to the ones recommended for me, but you can also use AI to find one that fits what you want best And when cooking something the first time it is very important to follow a recipe as described. Once you know what it is supposed to taste like, then one can fool around with it changing spices, cooking process (bake rather sauté) etc. There are lots of good videos out there. It can be a fun hobby to get involved in. Even if you don’t want to invest much time or money, looking into meal prep techniques and how to use different variations with meal planning is well worth the time investment. I would keep stuff simple as you start using apps and tracking nutrients and calories. Maybe even figure out 3 days of meal plans and repeat them until the tracking becomes natural. That way there is not as much calculation. Another thing is to pick your favorite breakfast and have that daily (assuming it’s pretty well balanced, I use overnight oats with fruit and protein powder to hit the protein, fiber and rainbow for that meal) and maybe even the same lunch or a very simple to calculate lunch (few items or maybe even a healthy prepackaged meal) and then put creativity into your main meal.

Yes, any repeated attacks on LDS congregations committed by a specific demographic need to have security provided to protect from that specific demographic.

I would very much appreciate some recommendations for sources that explain in some detail the LDS concept of God the Father as an exalted man. My guess is that it would be inclusive of describing His spirit nature and perhaps soul. If that is a distinction that is made. It would be helpful if it also includes the Father's literal relationship (physical and spiritual) with Christ. I have several books on the "Mormon" Jesus, but I don't believe I have any specifically about the Father from a modern LDS scholar. Thanks.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask. But I am rather curious about the official LDS Church position on interpretation of its three unique scriptures. I was taught in college and seminary that the Bible contains at least five different types of literature, each requiring a unique manner and method of interpretation. The one thing that they all have in common is their inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the process of the Bible's creation. To be properly understood, however, each type of literature in the Bible requires a correct description as the type of literature it was intended to be. I don't think I have ever read an interpretative guide for the Book of Mormon officially sanctioned by the LDS Church. In part I ask because over the past few months I have been reading several well-written books on the manner and method of the creation of the content of the Book of Mormon. However, neither book really deals with how the reader is to interpret a given passage based in part on the type of literature (poetic, prophetic, parable, etc.) that it represents. Thanks. I hope this question does not take the thread off track too much.

Really? Yep. The alternative is to eviscerate the Free Speech rights of students. What I meant is do you think it’s that difficult to predict when a student is going to be upset by being persistently teased in a way they have requested not to be? By "high bar" was referring to the Tinker test. The State - the public school - ought not to be allowed to punish speech unless it can "reasonably ... forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." As I noted: Students have been unkind to other students for time out of mind. So let's look at the article about the UC issue: What are your thoughts about this? The school policy presupposes that "misgendering" means using biologically correct personal pronouns, and that this is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that using a person's legal name is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that students are not allowed to object to a male entering a woman's bathroom, or vice versa, and that voicing that objection is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that Student A has a special and privileged legal right and authority to tell Student B which words he can and cannot use, and that Student B's failure/refusal to submit to Student A's instruction "is harassment." For me, the issue appears to be that the UC system may be using "harassment" as a pretext to enforce a particular ideological perspective and punish another. If so, then that amounts to "viewpoint discrimination": Repeated or intentional use of biological-sex pronouns or a prior name is defined by the school as gender-based harassment that can create a "hostile environment." Students who believe sex is immutable therefore face discipline (or self-censor) for stating that view or declining to use preferred pronouns, while speech that affirms gender identity is not similarly restricted. The mandatory SHAPE training presents only the “misgendering = harassment” scenario and gives students no option to treat the speech as protected. That combination—punishing one viewpoint, compelling the contrary one, and training students that only one answer is acceptable—looks like a classic First Amendment claim of viewpoint discrimination by a public university. Bullying that targets a specific kid to isolate or torment them is a real problem, and schools can generally implement policies to curb it. That said, it seems like persistent, targeted cruelty is not the same thing as a student declining to use words that contradict what they believe is true. “Substantial disruption” is a legal standard, not an individual student's feeling. Under Tinker, student speech can be limited when it materially disrupts class or invades another student’s rights, not when someone is distressed by hearing a contested view. If distress from disagreement were enough, the school could ban any speech a classmate finds insulting: religious claims, political claims, or statements about sex. That is how a harassment rule becomes a viewpoint rule. Deadnaming after a request can be unkind, but I am skeptical that it automatically “obviously intentional bullying” just because the speaker will not affirm a new identity. A student who believes sex is binary may be stating a fact or a conviction, not inventing an insult. The same logic would treat a student who insists on preferred pronouns after being asked not to as a bully—yet the policy only runs one direction. “Just don’t talk to them” is not a real classroom option. Students share groups, roll call, and assignments. A rule that says “use the new name or stay silent, but never use the old one” still picks a side. Last names or nicknames can be courtesy both ways; they are not a duty to adopt one student’s theory of identity. The hard part is holding two things at once: protect kids from targeted harassment, and do not let the school decide which view of sex and names is the only one allowed to be spoken. Thanks, -Smac

Elder Stevenson said, "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". It's "I'm", not "we're". The church's essay does not contain an explicit apology—it does not say, for example, "we apologize" or "the Church apologizes". Does the essay explicitly admit that the restriction itself was a mistake or error? No. Does it acknowledge that explanations taught by past leaders were wrong? Effectively yes, although it uses the language of disavowing rather than explicitly saying, "those leaders made errors". There's another version here. It also doesn't mention the word "apology", "error", "regret", or "wrong". A more honest assessment is found spoken by Dallin H. Oaks in another church seminary manual (lesson 26, Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, 2015). "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 doesn't mention the word "apology", "error", or "regret". The identity of the "some people" is left purposely ambiguous. But at least he calls it spectacularly wrong. It's a subtle admission that church leaders and Presidents of the church can lead and have led people astray. God permits it. Brant makes a valid point that "Nephite" and "Lamanite" were not always purely biological labels. People could join another group and be "numbered among" them, so group identity could involve religion, politics, and allegiance, not just ancestry. This weakens a simplistic idea that Nephites and Lamanites were always two completely separate racial groups. However, he seems to take that point too far. The fact that people could change groups does not prove that there were no physical differences associated with the groups. A person could join the Nephites or Lamanites politically or religiously without that automatically changing every physical characteristic associated with their ancestry. Likewise, Gardner correctly shows that words like dark, white, filthy, and loathsome can sometimes be symbolic or spiritual. But he then applies this symbolic interpretation to passages that specifically mention literal skin: • 2 Nephi 5:21 — God caused "a skin of blackness" to come upon the Lamanites. • Alma 3:6 — "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" according to a mark. • 3 Nephi 2:15 — after conversion, "their skin became white like unto the Nephites". So the main flaw is that Gardner moves from "group identity was flexible" and "color language can be symbolic" to "therefore references to skin are probably symbolic as well". Those conclusions do not necessarily follow. Historically, the dominant teaching among early LDS leaders was quite different from Brant Gardner's interpretation. They taught the passages to mean that the Lamanites experienced an actual, visible change in complexion or skin color. Orson Pratt stated this especially clearly in 1840. Speaking of the Lamanites, he said that before their rebellion they were "white and exceedingly fair, like the Nephites" but that God "cursed them in their complexions, and they were changed to a dark colour". That is plainly a literal complexion/skin-color interpretation, not merely an insider/outsider character identity. Brigham Young likewise connected the Lamanites' "mark" with their being a physically "dark" people and taught that eventually "they will become a white and delightsome people". So he also taught the change as involving actual physical appearance. Gardner is correct that the Book of Mormon itself says people could join the Nephites or Lamanites. Alma 3, for example, says that someone could be "called" a Lamanite or a Nephite based partly on which traditions and beliefs they followed. But the early LDS interpretation generally did not conclude from this that skin references were merely symbolic. Instead, they seem to have understood both ideas to be true simultaneously: 1. "Nephite" and "Lamanite" could function as group, religious, or political identities. 2. There was also a literal physical mark associated with the Lamanite lineage. In fact, Alma 3 itself presents both concepts side by side. It says that the Lamanites' "skins … were dark" according to the mark, but it also says that those who adopted Lamanite traditions could be "called under that head" and receive a mark. So the historical LDS view was not "Because people could switch groups, the skin language must be symbolic". Rather, early leaders taught the Book of Mormon as describing fluid group identities alongside a real physical mark or difference in complexion. Then we have chapters 15 and 16 in "The Way to Perfection" which teaches about Cain and his descendants. For comparison, the church's topic "Race and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" takes a more cautious position: it says "the nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood," rather than affirming the older leaders' specific complexion-based interpretation. Removing the reference of dark skin being a sign of the curse from the Book of Mormon would indicate errors in the supposed translation work (the Book of Mormon). He also modified and added things to the Bible which he felt were wrong, missing, or ambiguous. So I believe the LDS Church will not remove the three references mentioned earlier in my analysis of what Brant Gardner wrote. The Jehovah's Witnesses organization is overwhelming good too. But they teach a false Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that Heavenly Father is not an exalted man. They are not worshipping the true God. A revelation from God was needed to institute the ban, so a subsequent revelation was needed to remove the ban. But the original revelation was not recorded, as far as I know, in a "Thus saith the Lord" way. In the October 1967 General Conference, Ezra Taft Benson taught, "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". This teaching clearly shows the ban was caused by God and that it would only be revoked by as great a power as caused it to come (meaning by God, not by earthly men). Or the ban and it's removal were both man-made (the commandments of men). In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve believed a false teaching by Satan and they were led astray. Being led astray can involve several things: • Believing something false - accepting teachings or claims that contradict the religion's understanding of truth. • Following the wrong influence - allowing a person, leader, culture, temptation, or ideology to pull you away from your faith. • Acting contrary to God's commands - not merely believing incorrectly, but choosing a way of life considered sinful or spiritually harmful. • Losing spiritual direction - gradually becoming less devoted to God, prayer, worship, or the values of one's faith. • Being deceived - in many religious traditions, being led astray can involve deception that initially looks convincing or appealing. Teaching that a being became a God (before or after getting married on the world he grew up on) and then becoming the heavenly father of those on our Earth is a serious matter. Teaching that Jesus was the first spirit child of two beings who became Gods and then became a God himself before obtaining a mortal body on our Earth is a serious matter. It's the difference between a false god and the true God. Wrong is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are pulling people towards Michael the Archangel, their version of Jesus. That is a false Christ. See above. Sounds clear to me. What does it mean to you? Maybe he had 5 things in mind and he left his hearers to decide which of the 5 was right and which were wrong. It's like someone saying, "Well, I don't think Joseph Smith had in his mind that God was not God from all eternity when he said God was not God from all eternity. He had something else in mind and that something else is more palatable to me because I can understand it more or I can believe it more. To do otherwise would have me admitting that he's a false prophet leading me toward another god". A similar principle follows. The Joseph Smith Papers gives the passage from Thomas Bullock's contemporary notes of Joseph Smith's discourse on April 8, 1844, in Nauvoo. The full relevant section reads: "...it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine— the Sp[irit] is will[in]g. but the flesh is weak— it God made Aaron to be their mouthpiece & made me to be their K[ing]. & their God— & if you dont like it you must lump it— I have given instr[ucti]on to [Elder George J. Adams] in some principles— if he makes a mistake I will tell it". What is happening immediately before this? Smith had been announcing what he described as a "great grand & glorious revelation". He was explaining a change concerning the gathering of the Saints and the location and role of Zion. He said that the whole of North and South America constituted the promised land and that Nauvoo would have a particular role in performing ordinances for the dead. He then says: "it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine" and immediately follows that by comparing his relationship to the Saints with God's relationship to Aaron: "if God made Aaron to be their mouthpiece & made me to be their K[ing] & their God" followed by: "if you dont like it you must lump it". The important thing is that "lump it" isn't standing alone as a general statement about disagreeing with church leaders. It occurs in a discussion of Joseph's claimed divine authority. The apparent argument is roughly: 1. God made Aaron Moses' spokesman/mouthpiece. 2. Likewise, God had made Joseph Smith the Saints' "King" and "God" in the particular sense Smith was using those terms. 3. Therefore, Smith had authority to teach and correct them. 4. If someone disliked what he was teaching, they had to "lump it"—i.e., put up with it / accept it rather than reject it merely because they disliked it. That interpretation is strengthened by the sentence immediately preceding it: "it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine".

Not gods in the sense of true deities.

Thanks for that. Never been to sure about the drinks side if things.

Just be careful with fruit juice as it can pack a lot of calories. Plus sometimes they stake out stuff that is good for you like the skins.

Many thanks for this Calm. Fruit and vegetables are on my list of 'must eat foods'. I am managing to move away from the more fat based foods that I have eaten over the years. Also started drinking fruit juice as a point to move forward from. The local supermarket, is starting to get more correct foods in.

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/eat-the-rainbow-for-good-health/

What I meant is do you think it’s that difficult to predict when a student is going to be upset by being persistently teased in a way they have requested not to be? The purpose of school is primarily for children to learn. A child who feels bullied has a harder time learning. That to me is a substantial disruption of school activity. I have seen one kid move schools to get away from bullying. It was easy to see the result once I knew what was going on. I could have told the result as soon as I knew the plan of the brat who decided she was going to destroy her just because she could. Unfortunately by the time I learned about it and could inform someone, the damage was done. Kids do not bounce back resiliently just because we like to think they do. A teacher hearing someone being deadnamed persistently in spite of being requested not to, that’s obviously intentional…not that hard to predict the result on the person asking it not to be done. Not that hard to predict the result of any kid being called something they believe is intended to be insulting, which deadnaming would be. Even if you don’t want to use the new name, you can always see if it’s okay to call someone by their last name instead or find out a nickname they don’t mind. Using last names are not unusual among kids. The child who is insisting on persistently using the name is obviously bullying because if it was just religious objection to transitioning on principle, they could simply choose not to talk to the other child.

Many thanks.

Yep. The alternative is to eviscerate the Free Speech rights of students. Thanks, -Smac

Really?

Based on your posting here, you come across as having the opinion that deadnaming and misgendering in college classrooms *should be considered protected speech. Broadly, yes. I think Tinker ought to be narrowly construed. Adults ought to be free to say disagreeable things. Look at the terrible things you so regularly say on this board about my faith and about me personally. You do so via the First Amendment, and are thus protected from adverse State action, right? Ought not other adults, even college students, have that same right? Proposition 1: The First Amendment should hold real and powerful sway against actions by the State. Presumptions should strongly favor Free Speech over State regulation. Proposition 2: The courts have allowed limited State incursions into regulating speech by students in a school setting. Proposition 3: A case-by-case evaluation might yield a situation where "deadnaming and misgendering in {non-}college classrooms" passes the Tinker test, such that public schools can, under Tinker, punish a student for it. Proposition 4: I think Tinker is or should be considerably harder to justify in a college setting. Proposition 5: Courts must take great care to narrowly circumscribing the application of Tinker so that the exception (State regulation of speech) never comes close to swallowing the rule (Free Speech). Proposition 6: I am hard-pressed to find any justification for the State to compel speech relative to "personal pronouns" and "deadnaming." I hope the foregoing clarifies things. We both know you have a very low opinion of me as a human being: "your bigotry is showing" "And if you weren’t blinded by bigotry..." "your blatant bigotry is on full display" "displays your bigotry" "that makes you a bigot" "you are extremely blinded (bigoted)" "I have the right to call you a hateful bigot" "Evil, ignorant or bigoted. You choose." I think this arises because we differ on some important philosophical areas. Bigotry, though, is inherently irrational. If though we will no doubt continue to disagree about some things, I hope this thread is showing that my perspective on this issue is borne of reasoned analysis. Not bigotry or hate or fear. Thanks, -Smac

There can be such an impact, hence the fairly unique and narrow provisions under Tinker. An across-the-board "Hey, what you said hurt my feelings or impacted my mental health" rule would turn students into tyrannical monsters, siccing the State on someone who said something - anything - that someone else might find problematic. Again, the Tinker test: My junior high and high school experiences had a share of physical and verbal altercations. But note that the benchmark the courts use is not "Did Student A's speech in any way injure Student B's mental health." Again, such a rule would be impractical and tyrannical. Rather, the benchmark is "Did Student A's use of biologically/linguistically correct personal pronouns 'materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,' or might it 'reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?'" That is, or ought to be, a pretty high bar to meet. I dealt with it. Physical harassment/bullying is markedly distinct from verbal harassment, as the latter is presumptively protected under the Constitution, but the former is not. A school prohibiting racial and religious epithets will, in many instances, pass muster under the Tinker test. A school prohibiting biologically and linguistically correct personal pronouns may or may not pass muster (I'm leaning toward "not," thought I'd need to do some research). A school compelling the use of biologically and linguistically incorrect personal pronouns would, I think, have a very hard time passing muster under Tinker. Well, I'm asking you. But for me it's a careful balancing act. As it is, or ought to be, for most of us in our private lives. Here, however, we are discussing public policy. I agree. So I think colleges will have a harder time justifying speech restrictions/compulsions under Tinker. The students are almost all adults, after all. Time for them to transition into adulthood rather than expect coddling as they did in their childhood. That sounds nice. But vague absolutes (such as "every student" and "free from" and "discriminatory harassment") will sooner or later need to be tested legally, and the resulting tension with the First Amendment must be addressed. Do I deserve to go through life without you variously denigrating my faith and me personally? Broadly, no (as we've discussed, some exceptions apply, such as State actors). The courts will look at these policies in a more clinical and law-focused way. Compelled speech by the State is going to be a tough proposition, even for the 9th Circuit. That's not as easy as it sounds. Is the use of biologically/linguistically correct pronouns "harassment"? Perhaps in some case-by-case situations, but broadly, I think not. The First Amendment should hold some real sway here. Can the State compel students to use certain words? I think not. I think that the use of biologically/linguistically correct pronouns as "harassment" would need to be demonstrated, not merely assumed. The subjective assessment "the girl" may or may not be reasonable, fair, congruent with the First Amendment, etc. It is school administrators, not "the girl," who would make the determination. And then there's the whole "compelled speech" part of this. By "misgenders the girl" do you mean the individual is using male (he/him) pronouns when talking about her? Or by "misgenders the girl" do you mean the individual is using female (she/her) pronouns when talking about her? Thanks, -Smac

Based on your posting here, you come across as having the opinion that deadnaming and misgendering in college classrooms *should be considered protected speech. That if it was up to you, that’s how you’d right the law. If that’s not your opinion I certainly would like to know.

So when you said you were not offering an opinion as to how the law ought to work? I was offering an opinion. I was presenting a generalized rule. I have elsewhere acknowledged that there exists something of an exception to that general rule, namely, the courts have allowed the State to regulate speech in some relatively limited circumstances (student speech on school property that passes the Tinker test) and in ways that the State is otherwise not allowed (i.e., the State can prohibit the use of racial or religious epithets in a school setting and under the Tinker test, whereas the State cannot prohibit the use of such epithets in most other circumstances). So my opinion ("I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either 'preferred pronouns' or 'deadnaming'") is congruent with First Amendment jurisprudence generally. But as with most principles of law, there are potential exceptions (such as public schools regulating speech under Tinker). I have not fully explored the matter, but while a student using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns might be subject to regulation under Tinker (the more I think on it, the more dubious I am about it), I think the courts would be quite reluctant to allow Tinker to extend in ways that would allow the State to compel speech (such as is referenced in the lawsuit against UC). Thanks, -Smac

Is it really your opinion that the words of peers can't impact one's mental health? I am happy that you have never had to deal with a child being bullied at school. Well, I'm asking you. But for me it's a careful balancing act. At a university you need to have venue's that promote vigorous speech, even speech that others find harmful. On the other hand, especially in the classroom, I think every student deserves a learning environment free from discriminatory harassment. I read through a couple of the policies at universities you cited and found their approach reasonable. Apply the same limiting principles already present around race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc at these same universities. For the sake of argument, I am ceding that by any reasonable measure it constitutes harassment. The girl feels harrassed. The individual in question continually misgenders the girl say in hallways to laughing friends. The individual does it in the classroom as well. What if anything can the school do about this behavior?

So when you said you were not offering an opinion as to how the law ought to work?

Smac, would you see deadnaming as equivalent to refusing to use Latter -day Saint or other acceptable to the guidelines name and instead insisting on using “Mormon” even if a Saint asked them not to? It is technically correct according to standard usage and church use up to not that long ago. Not a challenge, am trying to understand where you place intentional deadnaming in the sense of harassment and bullying.

Sure because religious bigotry = bad and trans-bigotry = protected speech. Got it. I think you are misunderstanding me. I am attempting to explain how the law works, not how you or I think it ought to work. Members of a religion are a constitutionally suspect class, such that harassment on that basis is probably more likely to be regulated by the State in a school setting. So far, "trans" persons have not been treated as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. And given the decision in Skrmetti, I don't think it will be so designated (perhaps not ever, but at least not in the near future). Personally, I think the Tinker test may be resulting in too much State regulation of student speech. There is at least one lawsuit that will probably test how far "misgendering" rules in schools can go: Conservative advocacy group sues UC over misgendering policies and free speech Yeah, this is problematic. It's compelled speech, and I don't think that will ever work under the Tinker test. It's one thing to say "You can't use racist epithets while on campus." That may be defensible under Tinker. But "You must use these words in your speech" is quite another proposition. This is the risk Tinker creates. If "harassment" = using a person's legal name or biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, I think that's a tough sell. And yet, it appears that it may very well "regulate protected speech." This is not good for UC. When "harassment" becomes code for "someone saying something I don't like," constitutional challenges will start to gather. I think that is correct. Even in the 9th Circuit. The policies may also be used to compel and/or punish protected speech. There's the rub. I do have a daughter. Two, actually. That person would be factually wrong. In contrast, let's say an individual at school has decided that, despite being a girl, she wants to "identify" as a boy. Factually, her biological sex has not changed. A girl does not "become" a boy by "identifying" as one. So "she/her" pronouns are both biologically and linguistically accurate. "He/him" are not. Here "misgender" means "using male pronouns when referring to a girl." I actually agree with you here, since such usage really is "misgendering" because the girl's biological sex is female, not male, so using male pronouns really would be "misgendering." Whether that amounts to "harassment," or otherwise actionable under Tinker, is a separate issue. Generally, though, I think "misgender" means "using pronouns that reflect biological sex, rather than 'gender identity.'" In any event, my analysis will not change whether it's my daughter or some other girl. My assessment is based on the law, not emotion. Person A using words "significantly undermines" Person B's "mental health"? How? Does any claim along the lines of "Hey, what you said has caused me mental anguish" work to curtail that other person's speech? If I were to announce that your various denigrations of my faith and me personally have injured my mental health, ought that deprive you of your right to denigrate my faith and me personally? What sort of limiting principle do you have in place? If my daughter struggled with someone else's lawful speech, I would work with her on that. I may also contact the other student's parents and see if we could work something out. I would not seek to use the power of the State to curtail or punish or compel the other student's speech. I would want to see the Tinker test strictly construed. Here it is again: If Student A uses male pronouns when referencing Student B, a girl who "identifies" as a boy, does that "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," or might it "reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?" I think in most cases, no. Perhaps a severe and ongoing case might be justified under Tinker. This presupposes that using male pronouns to refer to a girl is "harassment." How many times? In what setting? Over what period of time? How many other people heard this? Was the girl present or not? And what of "misgendering" in the sense in which that word is normally used? Ironically, "misgendering" typically means "using the biologically and linguistically correct pronouns and nouns" to describe someone. That is, when Student A calls Student B, a boy who "identifies" as a girl, using he/him pronouns. Is it really your position that Person A using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, is committing "harassment" by doing so? If so, could you walk me through your reasoning? I'd like to hear what you have to say. Thanks, -Smac

I’m did a google ai question about stake president workload in 1980s. Interesting response and it is nearly identical to my experience: Serving as an LDS (Mormon) stake president in the 1980s required a heavy time commitment that frequently strained family life, though the church implemented structural changes during that decade to reduce burdens on local leaders. [1, 2] A stake president is an unpaid, local volunteer leader who oversees multiple congregations, known as wards. The Time Demands Endless Meetings: Leaders spent weeknights and entire Sundays in counseling sessions, leadership training, and disciplinary meetings. Full-Time Jobs: Because the position is a lay ministry, presidents had to balance these heavy church duties with a regular 40-hour work week and raising their own children. Personal Sacrifices: Many spouses and children of 1980s leaders recall missing vacations, dinners, and weekend events because the president was attending to church members in crisis. Church Reforms in the Era Recognizing the heavy toll on families, the leadership in Salt Lake City adjusted several programs during this period: Consolidated Sunday Schedule: In 1980, the church introduced the three-hour "block" meeting. This replaced a fragmented schedule that previously required members and leaders to drive to the church building multiple times on Sunday. [1] Fewer Conferences: In 1979, regional stake conferences were reduced from four times a year down to two to save time and travel expenses for families.[1] Differing Perspectives Experiences varied widely from one family to another: [1] Strained Relationships: Some family members felt neglected, noting that the intense church workload took priority over home life. Spiritual Focus: Other families viewed the calling as a shared sacrifice, believing that the service brought spiritual protection and blessings to their home despite the absence. If you are researching a specific region or looking for personal accounts from that era, let me know what additional details or perspectives you would like to explore Phoenix Arizona area In the Phoenix, Arizona metro area (including the historically high-LDS communities of Mesa, Tempe, and Chandler), the strain on 1980s stake presidents was uniquely intensified by an unprecedented population and construction boom. [1, 2] During this decade, Arizona’s LDS population grew by an explosive 40 percent (jumping from roughly 172,000 to 241,000 members). For local stake presidents, this transformed an already demanding volunteer calling into a chaotic, time-consuming second job that directly encroached on family life. [1] Why Phoenix Area Leaders Faced Extravagant Time Demands Constant Boundary Realignment Meetings: As thousands of people moved into the Valley, stakes and wards grew too large and had to be divided continuously (e.g., the creation of the Glendale Arizona North Stake in 1981). Stake presidents spent late weeknights pouring over maps, analyzing demographic numbers, and interviewing dozens of members to staff entirely new congregations. [1, 2, 3] The "Building Boom" Workload: Because new chapels were springing up across the Phoenix grid, stake presidents had to oversee massive local fundraising and construction efforts. Before modern centralization, local leaders bore heavy logistical burdens for real estate acquisition and building dedication. [1] Managing the Influx of Converts: The Southwest was a primary target for missionary growth. Stake presidents had to handle a heavy load of temple recommend interviews, baptism confirmations, and leadership training for brand-new members who were unfamiliar with how the church operated. [1, 2] Geographic Spread: Long before modern freeways connected the entire Valley, driving from a stake center in Phoenix to a ward in a growing suburb meant hours in the car on arterial roads, eating further into family dinners and weekend time. [1] Local Family Dynamics The "Mesa vs. Outlier" Disconnect: In heavily LDS enclaves like Mesa, a stake president's family at least had a dense community support network of neighbors, school teachers, and politicians who shared their faith. In the newer, sprawling boundaries of West Phoenix or Glendale, the families of stake presidents often felt more isolated, navigating the father's near-total absence without a massive LDS neighborhood support structure. [1, 2, 4] The "Widow of the Church" Phenomenon: Wives of Valley stake presidents in this era frequently ran large households entirely on their own, managing scorching Arizona summers, youth sports, and family logistics solo while their husbands were sequestered in air-conditioned stake offices for leadership meetings.

This was in 80s so going forward I do not know how anything has/ has not changed. I do know that three nights during the week he had meetings at the stake center ( HC and church courts etc) fri and or sat was stake and ward temple nights so he and my mother would be gone both nights. Sunday gone all day. Our stake was over 40 miles across back then ( now it’s about five) so he had to travel to the three wards out in the boonies twice a month. We had twelve wards till we split ( that was about five years worth and then we ended up with nine wards) so he really never visited our ward. I was too young while he was in bishopric so I don’t remember that. Once in stake presidency he disappeared. Never had time to go to my ball games, swim meets, scout courts of honor ( except for Eagle) etc. we rarely went hunting or fishing since they HAD to go to temple nights and on sat when he usually was home part of the day we spent all time either at church farm, working in our garden or participating in some wards service project EVERY SINGLE WEEK. Anyway everyone’s experience is different and mine largely drives my contempt for nearly all things church. Funny thing is even that wasn’t enough until it was shown and proven the church has been dishonest with its history, hides stuff, has no real discernment (salamander letter fiasco) and submits fraudulent government paperwork. Those last few things finally pushed me over the edge.