california boy

How does fossil records showing humans living millennials and their deaths before the time of Adam make any of this speculation work?

I’m a little unclear. Are you against all gender affirming surgery or just against it for minors?

I am going to quote this summary of John Dehlin's lawyers response because I find it hard to follow exactly what he is saying when it is sliced up so much. Summary of Affirmative Defenses "Laches and Aquiescence". This is a valid defense in trademark cases. Laches is a word that goes back to latin roots. In the law it's been used in English for about 900 years meaning negligence in the performance of a legal duty. If the party holding the trademark waits too long to act then they can't try to enforce the trademark now. A party over time may invest a lot in their brand and it's not then deemed allowed to come in after that long term investment and try to enforce a trademark. The document goes over how Mormon Stories has been in existence since 2005 (more than 20 years) and gives evidence that higher ups in the church knew about it (meetings between John and Apostle Holland for example). 2. Prior Use by Mormon Stories. John started the podcast in 2005. The church didn't get a trademark on Mormon for education until 2007. John has priority of use. 3. Genericness of the word "Mormon". Shouldn't be trademarked. 4. Fair Use of the copyrighted images. The OSF response says that 48 of the 51 images are available for free on the PR page of the church where the church says news media can use them. They claim all the images were used strictly for commentary and criticism which is a defense under fair use. I think there are some very valid points his lawyers bring up especially on abandonment issues and waiting too long to start litigating and not going after other companies/individuals using its trademarks. The musical "Book of Mormon" that premiered over a decade ago is very solid evidence of that. And the church can't claim they didn't know it was going on since it placed ads in the programs. The whole campaign by President Nelson to eliminate the use of the word Mormon I think is also pretty difficult point to defend that the church didn't actively try to abandon the trademark. If a company holds a trademark, the have to actively make an effort to enforce that trademark or they loose it. A good example of that is Venetian Blinds. Originally that name was a trademark name, but the use of the name became a common term for al blinds in that style. When they tried to take back it's usage, it was denied. Xerox had a similar problem and almost lost the trademark. Everyone started saying, just Xerox that or I have a Xerox. Every copy machine was referred to as a Xerox. The company ended up spending millions on advertisements centered around, it isn't a Xerox, it is a copy. Eventually people did change habits and started calling it a copy machine. They retained the trademark. My guess is the ruling will be mixed. Upvote131Downvote50Go to commentsRepost

I am surprised this is an issue. I remember fathers that were not active just holding their child occasionally when a blessing is given. Of course that was over 20 years ago. I personally can't come up with a reason why a mother could not do a similar thing. But hey, I grew up in California and you know ow rouge we can be.

This is exactly what I was trying to point out. When the attitude is that members should pray about what church leaders tell them came from God but if they get a different answer, then it is their fault and to keep praying means that the church's position is the only position a member should have. Not everything has sure answers even if it comes from church leaders. We have learned that over time even church leaders change their minds about what they claimed God previously told them to do. When church leaders can't even seem to determine whether something is a revelation from God or just a consensus of opinion, (Elder Nelsons proclaiming not baptizing children of gay couples was a direct revelation from God) then doesn't what they proclaim become even more fuzzy and the only acceptable answer to their prayers has to align with theirs? If it doesn't align, then they should keep praying until it does. Claims that every decision church leaders make comes from God doesn't seem too hold up over time. If it doesn't all come from God then strict adherence should not be taught or expected in my opinion. A recent example of this is the decades church leaders taught shame about bare shoulders as being immodest and a style that faithful church women should never even consider. I have to say, it was a bit shocking for me to see my daughter in law in a sleeveless tank top the first time. Nothing is ever said about all the guilt trips young women lessons and control put on women for all those decades, them poof, it is all gone. I have to ask, isn't it difficult for women to not resent all of those years of being shamed and controlled for something that evidently was just the opinion of old men that had nothing to do with the divine or morality? I personally would be a bit pissed.

You seem to be pushing the idea that the only time such an idea was expressed by the church was a single home teaching pamphlet. Are you just blowing off the fact that the idea has been repeated? I was not around when the home teaching message came out, but I was around when N. Eldon Tanner repeated this idea in the First Presidents Message in the Ensign. This was discussed in various. church meetings as a result of his message. Many members were troubled by his message. It is not just that, I provided plenty of references of church leaders repeating variations of this idea that the prophet speaks for God and if you disagree, this, as Marion G. Romney said, will lead you to apostasy. I also reference the mantra, "Follow the prophet he will never lead you astray" and the many variations of this theme. I can certainly provide more references to this quote if I thought it would make a difference. You may disagree or have figured out a way to work around this concept that the prophet is always right but is there any way at all that you can see how others might not have read a book, or sliced and diced this into an exact wording or it doesn't count kind of thinking? You seem to want to dismiss this as, in your mind, not a big deal and can't understand how this would be an issue. I think you have major blind spots when it comes to these kinds of things. Are you expecting every other person to have come up with the same conclusions as you have? Is their conclusion to be easily dismissed because it is not the same as yours? I find it interesting that Russel Nelson can testify that the policy concerning baptizing children of gay couples a revelation came from God and then when the policy is discontinued months later, you aren't asking why if it was a revelation from God was it so easily dismissed. Can you at least see that others might not dismiss such a statement easily especially if they had a gay family member or were gay and had children? Might be another area where you are a bit of a blind spot for you. My point in even posting about these issues is because so many members think that those who are leaving the church are doing so with absolutely no justification. They are just making up the problems about the past narrative the church taught. All the sudden, anything that is not currently taught should be just forgotten as if it never happened. Or, like you, members feel there is an explanation, they should just figure out a way to look at what was taught differently or changing the meaning of the intent of that teaching. I think a perfect example of this kind of slicing and dicing is your response to Mustard. "Do you see any material difference between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over? Many would say the words maybe different, but the intent is the same, Some might take a scalpel, like you and see a difference in intent which you may very well believe. But what you do have difficulty with is believing that someone else may consider both statements as a similar statement in meaning. In the end, I think this assumption that everyone should come to the same conclusion as you have is the biggest issue in how you approach these discussions. You seem to have a hard time understanding that other peoples life experiences has lead them to different conclusions. (Example: See numerous post you have posted that go on for pages about women seeing men as potential rapists. How could they possibly be wary of men just because they have been attacked in the past. Yet you won't let go or even acknowledge that their experiences have lead to a different conclusion.) I hope this helps you better understand why so many are leaving the church over past comments and teachings even if to you, their behavior is totally unjustified because you are still a believing member and you have been able to work through these issues, they should too or else they just want an excuse for leaving the church. For many it is one of the hardest decisions they have made. Some loose family connections because they left. Some loose their entire social structure. Some loose their faith in God. Some struggle for years to finally cut the ties. Why do you think so many make the decision to leave the church? Do you think they just haven't read what you have? Or come to the wrong conclusions because you have the right answers?

I am not claiming the quote is doctrine, but it was taught, and I definitely remember members bringing up this kind of thinking in Gospel Doctrine and other classes. And the sources can be identified as coming from church sources. It is not like it was made up out of thin air. Perhaps you could point to me where church leaders expressly said that the prophet doesn't receive direct revelation from God to guide the church? Do you believe they do not receive direct revelation? And if the church leaders do claim to be guided by God in the running of the church and policies set, then don't you believe that you are obligated to follow their doctrine and policies or go against God's will? This is where things get messy in my opinion. I think most people growing up in the church do believe that church leaders and specifically the prophet have been guided directly by God in the statements and actions the church leaders take. A good example of this is when Russel M Nelson made this statement concerning God prohibiting the baptism of children of gay parents. So did the church leaders actually have a revelation from God as claimed by Elder Nelson? Or did he just want the member to think that this policy came from God himself. When the policy was reversed a short time later, did Elder Nelson ever say that he was mistaken? Did the will of God change because the members were not ready to accept the revelation given by God? Or were church leader just plain wrong about withholding baptism of underaged children of gay parents. You might also be interested in this conference talk by Marion G. Romney when members get a different answer that is not in sync with what the prophet and other church leaders claim. From President Romney And then, of course there are a slew of statements made by church leaders assuring the saints that if they follow the prophet, they will never be led astray. This statement by Joseph Smith which I think probably started this idea that what the prophet says comes from God. “I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.” This statement by James E. Faust, General Conference, October 2005 “The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen.” This statement by Ezra Taft Benson, Conference talk October 1966 “Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.” There are a slew of other general authorities repeating this same thinking. Let me know if you want more, but I suspect as much as you study these kinds of issues, you are well aware of this repeated pronouncements. So yeah, the church teaches its members to inquire for themselves what church leaders say. But if you get a different answer than the prophet of God who has received a revelation from God concerning a policy or doctrine, then who has it wrong? Or at least who is made to feel like they have it wrong? And what if you do disagree with what the prophet says? Are you allowed to voice that opposition in church or will you be told to sit down and keep your personal opinions to yourself? So yeah, like I said, this concept that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done is definitely expressed in different ways by many leaders of the church since the beginning and continues today. I hope you can see that my statement and the ones that I quoted were not coming out of left field, but rather from experiencing this concept regularly while I was an active member of the church. It is like one side of the mouth is saying that you should seek your own answers from God and the other side is saying that your answer better be in line with what the prophet says or as Marion G. Romney said, "you are on the road to apostasy". I realize that you may have a different point of view, but I also hope that this helps you understand where these feelings of so many leaving the church are coming from rather than just dismiss the statements of those having difficulty dealing with past and current church leaders statements with what they personally believe to be true.

This teaching has been around as early as 1945 when the church used to print a message that was to be delivered by the home teachers to the members for June 1945. The message was centered around sustaining church leaders. The last paragraph reads. This idea was also taught by Elaine Cannon at a churchwide fireside and reprinted in the Ensign in November, 1978. It was repeated by N. Eldon Tanner in the First Presidents Message that appeared in the Ensign on August 1979 I remember this idea being talked about after N. Eldon Tanner wrote this message from the First Presidency for the Ensign. This concept is reinforced by the idea that one should follow the prophet, he won't lead you astray. It was taught in primary by teaching the children this song, This same concept was taught that what church leaders say are the words of God by Bruce R McConkie in June of 2012 Posted on June 14, 2012 by ldschurchquotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following while serving as a mission president in Australia: You might also be interested in this article about how many times church member have been taught to just follow the prophet, he will never lead you astray. Hope that helps. Do you not remember hearing such teachings from church leaders about their role in leading the church?

You have certainly spent a LOT of time trying to figure out a way to dispel some of the previous messaging by church leaders. And your reading on Amos 3:7 may very well be a better interpretation of the original intent of what Amos wrote. But that is not how the church leaders used that verse. For example, that verse has been a part of the missionary discussions at least since the 70's and is still a part of the missionary discussions and is used even today to convince investigators that prophets and apostles are necessary to receive revelation from God and are the only ones that are authorized to receive revelation concerning church doctrine and policies. Rom From the current missionary discussion manual From the current church's web site He Revealeth How does the Lord communicate with His prophets? There are many ways, including: Inspiration through the Holy Ghost (see 2 Peter 1:21). Visions and dreams (see Numbers 12:6; 1 Nephi 8:2). Visitations by heavenly beings (see Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17; D&C 110:8). His Secret The original Hebrew word used in the Bible for secret literally means “counsel,” so it has to do with the Lord’s plans or intentions. His Servants the Prophets There is clearly an expectation created and taught by church leaders that God speaks to prophets of the church to reveal His will and messages. Church leaders. have even gone so far as to say "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done". So yeah, I am glad you have figured out a way out of this very narrow box of members expectations of the role of a prophet in todays church, but there are clearly a LOT of members who have had very different perspectives that they were taught and continue to be taught that there is an expectation of revelations coming from God and the prophet is His mouthpiece. This expectation has caused a lot of difficulty when the internet has made those teachings of past prophets so easily available some of which are very troubling to them. It is why past teachings is the number one cause of many leaving the church. I don't think you can lay all the blame on them for both being upset and feeling lied to about the church's narrative they were taught.

Wow I am impressed with the thought and studying you have put into this issue. The problem I have with your analogy is that Dravot used the ignorance of the people to perpetuate a false story that he wanted to build upon for his own gain. He was not a god, but he liked being called and treated like a god. That seems problematic to me. I thin D&C 1:6 is a bit fuzzy about expectations. But the church used far more direct scriptural quotes to tie prophets directly to being a mouth piece for God himself. I remember as a missionary, using the church produced discussions that at the time, the church expected missionaries to give verbatim where we had the investigator read from Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets. ( I didn't even have to look up what that verse said from all the times I used that on my mission). Another verse that was commonly used was D & C 1:37-38 “Whether by Mine Own Voice or by the Voice of My Servants, It Is the Same”. Both of those scriptures were used so often in describing what the church claimed that I think most members could quote those verses without looking them up. And those verses paint a very different picture of how members should treat what the latter day prophets said and taught. Can you see why many that have left the church couldn't really buy into the thinking that you are now presenting? You are right. Many early members invested in the Kirtland bank with the idea that Joseph established the bank with the approval from God, which evidently was not the case. But isn't this just another example of blurring the lines of when a prophet claims something came from revelation to something they did without revelation? Isn't the claim of the Book of Abraham is that its translation came from God as it was written by the hand of Abraham himself? Did the Book of Abraham come from God or Joseph Smith. Did Abraham have any part in what is written in the Book of Abraham? When the church speaks of revelation from God, what do you think that even means? I get that you have changed your expectations of what to expect of someone calling himself a prophet of God, but I think the vast majority of people leaving the church don't share your revised expectations because they literally were not taught to have those lower expectations from so much of the doctrine that has been laid out by those claiming to be a prophet. I do like your reasoning that you have laid out here. But I honestly see a huge gap in what I was taught about prophets and priesthood authority and what you are presenting here. Like in your analogy of "The Man Who Would Be King" I feel like the church exploited what people thought a prophet was and what he really was. Maybe I could ask you 2 questions to see how your thinking answers real questions. Do you think women should never be allowed to hold the priesthood because God has ordained that only men hold the priesthood and it is a woman's role to only support that priesthood? Do you think God forbids gay couples from falling in love, marrying and forming family relationships?

These things are more nuanced that simply who owns a trademark. Here is what ChatGPT says: This situation is similar to the word apple. Apple the company holds the name Apple as a trademark but only for certain uses such as electronic products. But someone could use the name apple for say a restaurant. Another example is the name Delta. Many companies use that name as the company name from an airline to a well known faucet company and many others. I think the church has a pretty strong case against Mormon Stories, not because of the use of the name Mormon, but because Mormon Stories have used the symbol and color of the church enough to cause reasonable confusion of whether or not their site is a church sponsored site. That is definitely pushing trademark infringement. Generally when issues have come up with clients, they figure out a way to distinguish what they are doing from the owner of the trademark that is in conflict. In this case, Mormon Stories seemed to double down and by doing so was taunting the church to sue them. My only guess is they did this to gain publicity to increase exposure to their business. It seems to have worked. I am definitely not a trademark legal expert, so this is just my opinion. I think the church will force Mormon Stories to discontinue the use of the Cristus statue image and blue color despite it being kinda a clip art logo use of artwork that is now in the public domain, but be allowed to keep the name Mormon Stories. But it is a risk Delins could also loose that.

Having owned an advertising agency and spent my career designing countless logos, one of the real problems with the church's logo is that it is based on another artists work whose image is now in the public domain. It is equivalent to designing a logo using clip art and then getting upset that others used the same clip art for their logo. The second point that weakens their case significantly is that the church allows the use of the word Mormon to be used on countless other web sites not associated with the church such as this very site. Given the history of the church and it's many offshoots, I doubt very much the church holds any legal authority of the name Mormon. The biggest problem for Mormon Stories might be the use of the same "grave stone" border around the logo. But that is also pretty generic. As far as using orange, that also is pretty weak. Companies can trademark a color, but it has to be more intergraded to their whole brand such as Tiffany blue, but it is very difficult and takes more than just a logo to establish color as a trademark of the organization.. I am not saying that the church does't have a chance of winning, but I am saying it is not a slam dunk that they will win. When I first saw the new logo, I thought it was problematic because of several issues, being so generic was definitely one of my concerns. Mormon Stories seems to be pushing as close as they can to the church's logo and still maintain that they did nothing illegal.

Thanks for your follow up post. It gives me more insight to how you have been able to navigate the significant shifts in how the church presents these significant departure of what was once the foundation of some of its claims. I except completely that science by its very nature is not only open to change but accepts it as a vital force in discovering truth The problem for many is the issues that are leading them away from the church were never presented as best thinking at the time. The problem is these issues were claimed to come from God himself not man’s best guess. Are you claiming that God is figuring this all out and only time will bring the truth from Him or that revelation from God never occurred ? If the truth claims of prophets come from only their own understanding of things in their own time, then how is what prophets teach any more important than any other person? As a side note I resent your judgment of me and others of leaving because of self justification and bitterness. I don’t. I think the church works well for many but for some it is problematic. I also think you are evading the central issue the data shows as the reason so many are leaving the church. What was once claimed came from God himself is now just portrayed as just men of their time and their own understanding.

Totally agree. I wish the same standard of let God sort things out in the next life since we are speculating on matters where there is no revelation also applied to gay marriage which is also without revelation instead of falling to the policy from prejudice. What policy is harsher. Requiring a man to live a life without a second chance if the love of his life has died or requiring a man to never experience love in his entire life Ah it’s great to be heterosexual and have all those setting policy to also be straight. The solution of letting God sort things out in the next life isn’t even on the table Edit: I just came across this article about how consumers react to companies that don’t publicly support the LGBT community. I think it also has relevance on how the church handles the LGBT community. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2026/06/10/gay-transgender-pride-pullback-could-hurt-brands/90466051007/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=deeperdive&utm_campaign=oc Dismissing this issue as something that doesn’t affect how the public views the church as being an insignificant issue may be a huge mistake. Numbers leaving the church also clearly acknowledge it as being a significant issue.

I get that Mormon apologists have figured out ways to explain what was believed to be true in a way that works for many people and I am well aware of their revised look at possible other ways of looking at things to make those statements and stories work for them. And for many members those explanations can work. But for many it just doesn’t line up with what they were taught or how they read things. It can start them on a road to looking more closely at other revisions of what they were taught. It is pretty clear that it is an issue that can’t be easily waved off by an explanation that doesn’t match with what was believed to be true for many years. Changing the narrative of what was once taught is the number one reason why so many have left the church. Assuming that it is because they haven’t heard all of the apologists current answers is a mistake. It is more they don’t find those revisions in meaning believable. I am sure you have seen the lists of problematic issues. It is why I labeled these two issues as a litmus test. How one feels about the explanations of these two questions probably determines how they react to the rest of the list of problematic questions like no death in the world until the fall of Adam. And yes I know apologists have an answer for that as well. Like many of these revised answers, it is not how it was taught to them. i don’t think you are surprised at anything I have written. And I get why you felt like you should respond. But neither statements of you or me will change why this issue is the number one reason people are leaving the church and has very little to do with secularization (6%) The second big reason why people are leaving the church are policies against LGBT, women and other social issues most of which come from a place of prejudice and without any claims of revelations

There has been a lot of shift in what is taught as doctrine since I left the church. I was just curious if Heavenly Mother has survived and how it fits in with the belief that a man can be sealed to multiple women upon the death of a previous wife and how that is handled. Now I am a bit confused. Not a gotcha you question at all. I did read the link you provided and there was no mention of how do those two concepts work? Or are you saying something different. Like a man can be married to multiple women in death, but they don't become Heavenly Mothers?? Does only the first wife become a Heavenly Mother? Is there any doctrine on what happens to the other wives?

Is the teaching about Heavenly Mother something that is actually taught today in the church? If so, is it only one Heavenly Mothers or does the church teach multiple Heavenly Mothers since polygamy is still taught as a principle in the next life. (men being sealed to multiple wives when the first one has died and will claim all of them upon death).

When the Book of Abraham was first published in 1842, it carried the heading written by Joseph Smith: “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” For me, this statement is kind of a litmus test for how you handle the claims of the church. If you have figured out a way around the divine claim by Joseph Smith, then you will probably continue in your beliefs of the other divine claims of Joseph Smith. If it is so apparent to you that the Book of Abraham could not have possibly been written by Abraham's own hand (age of papyrus not even close to his time period) and what Joseph Smith claims is written on those paprius has nothing to do what what he said he translated (common book of the dead content) then you may also start to doubt all the other claims Joseph Smith made which leads many out of the church. As the study states very clearly, secularization has little (6%) to do with why people leave the church. It might be another issue, but the point is the same For me personally, it was reason number 2, social issues is why I left. Doctrine not matching up with truth keeps me from coming back. (Social issues / doctrines (e.g., sexual identity, gender equality, financial transparency — 33%) convinced me that how the church feels about me being gay was irrelevant. Christianity as a whole has similar litmus tests. Was Adam created by God and the first man on earth despite fossil evidence of humans living for hundreds of centuries before and Eve didn't actually bring in death into the world? A claim that was held for centuries and only recently been labeled an allegory. The story of Noah. when there is zero evidence of a flood covering the whole earth. (No evidence of that kind of everything getting wiped out except an ark with a few people and animals) The increased secularization is not caused by people wanting to indulge in their own sins, but by no long believing in the divine claims of Christianity.

I don't have much to say, but I do have a different perspective than you and some others. There have been so many times when I have been in situations with just random people that I don't know. I can sense this wall that women have learned to put up for their own protection because I have literally seen that wall dissolve right away when I tell them that I am gay and especially when I am with my partner, I can literally see this tension and stress women carry disapper almost instantly. It is so visible. The dynamics totally change. The fact that straight men don't even sense this protective barrier tells me they have no idea how women feel. Over time, I think women have learned they can trust gay men in these kinds of social settings to not hit on them or grab them inappropriately. It is one of the reasons why straight women often go to gay clubs. It is the one place where they can hang out with their women friends and for the night, not worry about being hit on. And I hate to tell you that it is not some phrase that is driving women to have these walls of protection they feel they need, it is based on personal experiences in their lives and the statistics that are so alarming. So many women have brought these two things up regularly on this thread, but it is like water on a ducks back. Seems like their personal experience and statistics seem to have no meaning of importance to you. You really think this tension is because of the catch phrase "all men are potential racists?

Hard to say others talking about the church is all about the money. Many of them would say LDS Inc. has similar motives for spreading their brand of the gospel. The church also believes it needs donations to continue its cause. And the Church also repeats over and over again its own points of view. When you see one General Conference you have seen them all. Honestly if you have problems with what one group is doing, you should also have problems with what the other group is doing. The difference being is that you feel what the church does is a noble cause and what critics do is not. But I think they also view their cause as being noble as well and needs the money to operate.

I don't follow Mormon Stories, so not quite sure what you are accusing them of doing. What are the untrue things they advertise that are outlandishly false or misleading. Doesn't the church also go over the same topics over and over again with things they believe? Do you have a problem with the church doing that? Love to better understand why you have a problem with this.

This is how ridiculous things are and have been for some time now. Take a look at this news cast. https://www.mediamatters.org/newsmax/newsmax-host-gender-and-aliens-you-never-have-seen-alien-peeing-standing-movie sorry I haven't ever figured out how to insert a video clip. Here is part of his diatribe definitely referencing th ongoing transgender war propaganda

Here is an article that talks about the myth of a revival. There are a bunch of articles addressing this issue. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/is-the-christian-revival-a-myth-the-truth-over-the-viral-data.html There are also a bunch of articles about the myth that there is a religious revival in the U.S as well. Here is the summary from ChatGPT Recent claims of a U.S. religious revival, particularly among Gen Z, are largely a myth driven by anecdotal stories and misinterpreted data. Sociological data shows a stabilization of religious decline rather than a nationwide resurgence, with church attendance and belief remaining far lower than in previous decades. Nehor is dead on. right. Anyone feel like they are being manipulated?

Society meaning you, since almost 1 million people attend gay pride parade in San Francisco and find no problem with the event. And that doesn't even include the television audience. Perhaps you have an Utah bubble mentality on what you think is inappropriate and society should be outraged to meet your point of view. But that point of view is not necessarily universally agreed upon throughout the world or even this country. Maybe you are relying a bit too much on your echo chamber web sites you cruise if you think everything you mentioned is considered sexualizing children by the rest of society What is ironic is while that Utah outlook seems perfectly fine with polygamy, I don't think the majority of the world shares that same point of view. So maybe you can understand that you really can't assume "society" has a right and a duty to conform to your beliefs.

Well this conversation is going no where. I do not believe in sexualizing children. I also do not think all your examples are sexualizing children. I also believe parents themselves are the first arbitrators of what is or is not appropriate for their children. done.