longview

This is deflection and evasion. I have no opposition to face lifts and nose jobs. They are NOT radical and NOT dangerous and NOT irrational. Are you putting words into my mouth? You know better. Circular reasoning. The arguments against BIID and GD bodily mutilations are basic. The damage is indisputable and horrific. The loss of functions is IRREVERSIBLE. Most if not all will come to have agonizing regrets. There is NO help for accommodating BIID delusions. There is NO help for accommodating GD bodily mutilations. The professionals that engage in woke "affirmations" should be prosecuted for causing harm and for violating the hippocratic oath. Every step of the way! Completely? No, you are simply evading the obvious concerning BIID and GD bodily mutilations. You were soft pedalling the severity of GD bodily mutilations by arguing that BIID is horrific BUT GD mutilations is "not as bad" . . . I have read actual stories of a number of people who were glad to have waited. One said she was a rambunctious tom boy in her youth but was able to grow out of that phase later in life. She said she probably would have fallen for the woke propaganda had she been exposed to it during her high school years. Reasonable considerations BUT NOT on the same level as BIID and GD mutilations. @smac97 is an orderly thinker able to lay out an impressive array of points, considerations, pros and cons, issues, etc. But instead of simply acknowledging the basics concerning BIID and GD mutilations, you accuse him of being manipulative and emotional. I see NO evidence of either but real concerns for those that are in serious need of careful counsel. You chose to go into a "head butting" contest, going off into all kinds of tangents. Then forcing a huge debate about irrelevant tangents when the focus should remain on the basics.

You are grasping at straws. BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder) and GD (gender dysphoria) are BOTH indications of serious mental delusions and disturbances. Both use elective surgical mutilations that will NOT assuage the mental illness of those individuals and will NOT bring comfort to them. Both are optional though seriously deranged lifestyle choices that will utterly degrade the quality of life for those individuals. BIID will result in: dependency on wheelchairs, rail/lift system for moving to/from bed and bathroom and etc costly service of family or acquaintances or professionals reduced options for a vibrant and vigorous quality of life GD will result in: surgical mutilation of sexual organs will terminate the ability to have children unwarranted elective removal of female breasts will eliminate the capacity for nursing infants chemical and hormonal alterations leaving serious and damaging effects on their bodies It is NOT a false equivalence to say that BOTH are unwarranted and dangerous lifestyle choices that will seriously derail an abundant and healthy life. It is NOT emotional manipulation to say that a dispassionate observance of the damaging effects require caution, prudence, patience, more careful study, wisdom, etc. It is NOT a weak argument to acknowledge that many transgenders have publically come out to say that they grievously regret their appalling decision to undertake those procedures. It is VERY appropriate to make a comparison between BIID and GD. Both are IRREVERSIBLE and profoundly unwise. God is deeply saddened to see those choices being made by the gullible and the deceived. Sounds like soft pedalling, deflection and evasion. There is NO need to avoid considering the dire consequences of bad choices, whether it is GD, BIID, or other unwarranted lifestyle alterations. Important lessons can (and should) be made in observation of radical "detours" of life, especially when patience is called for.

You may be on to something! So I decided to ask two questions of chatGPT: Slightly more formal Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as one of its premises, making the argument logically invalid. Plain-language explanation It’s when someone says something is true because it’s true, without offering independent evidence. Common structure Claim: X is true. Reason: Because X is true. → No new justification is given. Example “This policy is fair because it’s the right thing to do.” Here, “fair” and “the right thing to do” mean essentially the same thing, so nothing is actually proven. Related terms (useful synonyms) Begging the question Logical fallacy Tautological reasoning If you want, I can help you tailor the description for an essay, debate, or casual explanation. what is it called when the main point is not being directly addressed or some kind of evasion? That’s generally called a red herring, but there are a few closely related terms depending on how the evasion happens. Here’s a clear breakdown so you can pick the best fit: Most common term Red herring An argument that distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant point. <<<------- is this applicable? Example: “Why worry about climate change when there are people out of work?” → The new issue doesn’t address the original question. When someone avoids answering a direct question Evasion or dodging the question (informal but accurate) Ignoring the question / Non-response Failing to address the core claim at all. When the response changes the subject slightly Changing the subject Shifting focus to a related but different issue. Formal logical fallacies (useful in writing or debate) Missing the point (ignoratio elenchi) The argument proves something, but not the thing that was actually at issue. Whataboutism (common in politics) Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue or hypocrisy elsewhere. Quick guide Distraction with irrelevant info → Red herring Answer avoids the core claim → Evasion / dodging the question Proves something else instead → Missing the point Deflects by comparison → Whataboutism So I am thinking maybe you are making various premises in order to avoid the main point? Maybe I call it circular because you like to squish around (or dance around) the main point? You are a MUCH better communicator than I am. I could NOT hold a candle to you. I think everybody would agree that your are the most eminent member of the board! ❤️

Respectfully, I reject the premise. I find penectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria to be "extreme and highly unusual" as well, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, or even bothered to try. Calm frequently uses circular reasoning as a way to soft pedal the controversy or to show "broadmindedness" as a way to comfort certain "victim classes". Okay. I would first like to see it addressed substantively, rather than summarily and conclusorily dismissed as "ridiculous," emotionally manipulative, "inappropriate," etc. Circular reasoning is NOT substantive but appears to be more evasive.

Is it your understanding that Joseph started learning about biblical plural marriage in the early 1830's and was deeply reticent about the first commandments. It was 10 years of delays and putting off until God began putting more pressure on him in the early 1840's? I have heard it said that it was plural marriage that saved the church and made it stronger before the trek to the Rocky Mountains.

Christmas gifting is part of the Joy of the Season. We will NOT "render to Caesar" this jubilee season tradition. So don't even TRY to bring in accounting techniques. Do NOT even think it. Besides, in the LDS Church, kids do not pay tithing until they get baptized and formally become members of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Simple is better, right?

No need to complicate things. Everybody is gifting each other. Wipes the slate clean.

You are severely lacking in focus. Please re-read the entirety of my December 26 post you took the snippet from. Read it step by step. Take notes if you have to. Here. I'll help you: intelligences never having a beginning. always self aware. spirit children invited into the First Estate. mortal flesh and blood body for experiencing good and evil in fallen world, the Second Estate. probationary time for reconciliation and judgements in spirit paradise or prison. resurrection into one of three degrees of glory. if in TOP degree of the Celestial Kingdom, be assigned to a kingdom for starting a new Plan of Happiness, the next Eternal Round. only in this new kingdom can there be Eternal Increase thus becoming FULLY God. Heavenly Father went thru ALL of those steps just as the Gospel teaches. There are plenty of evidences in the Bible supporting this kind of progression. That should set you up. If not, then I will bow out. Adieu.

When the pros and the antis confirm each other, then the gauge goes upward. In the old days, they were illegal which is why back alley abortions were the most common option. In recent time with abortions increasingly permitted in liberal enclaves, people started voicing concerns. I don't know how many are done at each stage of the pregnancy but abortions is rarely if ever justified. The pros demand the convenience at EVERY stage. The pros DEMAND it. They explicitly refer to and label partial-birth abortions as THEIR right to control their bodies as they see fit. They call the lump of cells (the fetus) as an alien invader to be disposed of at their discretion. Because the devil shudders violently at hearing truth. You are NOT telling the whole story. There are many instances of white parents adopting minority children. I have read newspaper articles of government entities denying adoptions because they said it would be "cultural misappropriation of ethnicity". You are NOT telling the whole story. I asked chatGPT: 🏢 Major National Networks & Organizations Here are some of the key national organizations that operate or support pregnancy assistance centers (many focused on assisting expectant mothers, especially those considering alternatives to abortion): 1. Heartbeat International One of the largest and oldest networks of pregnancy help organizations. Supports and affiliates with thousands of pregnancy help centers globally. Provides 24/7 support via Option Line and offers referrals and resources for pregnant people. Heartbeat International+1 2. Care Net A major national network of pregnancy centers with over 1,000 affiliated locations. Offers counseling, material support, pregnancy decision coaching, and referrals. Care Net Also operates a Pregnancy Decision Line for immediate help. 3. Birthright International An international pregnancy help organization with free, confidential support services. Offers referrals for medical care, legal aid, employment resources, and more. Birthright 4. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) Provides legal support, training, and resources to hundreds of pregnancy help centers. Works with many centers to offer ultrasounds and medical services (with training and support). Wikipedia 5. American Pregnancy Association A nonprofit that provides information and support resources related to pregnancy. Offers educational materials and guidance, though it functions differently from brick-and-mortar help centers. Wikipedia 📍 Examples of Local Pregnancy Assistance Centers These are actual center names drawn from directories and listings of pregnancy help locations (many affiliated with national networks): Osceola Pregnancy Center – Offers free pregnancy tests and referrals (FL). Osceola Pregnancy Center Heartbeat of Miami Pregnancy Help Medical Clinic (FL). Heartbeat International Essential Pregnancy Center (Palm Bay, FL). Heartbeat International Community Pregnancy Clinics Inc. (Naples, FL). Heartbeat International Cecil County Pregnancy Center (Elkton, MD). Heartbeat International Lighthouse Pregnancy Center (Hackensack, NJ). Heartbeat International Willow Network / Care Net Pregnancy Centers (New Hartford, NY). Heartbeat International Life Line Pregnancy Help Center (Elkin, NC). Heartbeat International 🧠 Terminology & Context These centers are commonly known by various names, including: Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC), Pregnancy Help Center (PHC), Pregnancy Care Center (PCC), Pregnancy Support Center, or simply Pregnancy Center. Heartbeat International They are distinct from licensed medical facilities and often operate as nonprofits. The scope of services ranges from basic material support and counseling to limited medical services (e.g., ultrasounds) depending on the center.

I would say a few from the pro-aborts but mostly the antis I don't believe your hogwash. There is great likelihood of the procedure being done over the years in secret. I am inclined to think they never were legal. But likely done over decades regardless of the law. I agree. I like to listen to conservative radio such as Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher and a few others. I frequently hear advertisements for donations to provide free sonograms, in-clinic care, counseling, adoption services, etc. They are all over the country. There is a HUGE waiting list for adoption. Which is a crying shame. Millions of babies butchered needlessly. Not when the LEFT run cover for them.

I suppose you are right there are no clear policy published by any established organizations that I could find. Some probably are undercover about their support for the procedure. But what frequently occurs is "noise from the streets" that I have read (mostly opinion pieces and commentaries) over several decades. It is evident legacy media and social media platforms are tamping down those extreme views that do occasionally pop out. Do you deny that sometimes abortionists used partial birth procedures? No matter if there were laws against the practice in the states?

I am wondering if the Lord will continue with calling apostles from outside the USA. In order to make the church more international.

Nice job of soft-pedalling concerns about partial-birth abortions (and frequent "noise" about potential killing of "inconvenient" children post natal) by diverting into a whole series of "what abouts".

You think that doctors are unable to medicate the infant or even put into an induced coma? Please stop with the drama!

Mary Anne Warren (philosopher): discussed criteria of personhood and the moral status of fetuses, and she also wrote on infanticide as a theoretical topic. "The Moral Difference Between Infanticide and Abortion: A Response to Robert Card". Bioethics, Vol. 14, pp. 352–359 (October 2000)

The main focus for God the Father is to provide a Plan of Happiness for intelligences to be invited into the First Estate and begin their journey to become like Him. God the Father has had many Eternal Rounds (as least one) but Jesus has none because he was a spirit child like we all were in the First Estate. Jesus and any of us that desire to be FULLY like God the Father has to be able to "procreate" in order to bring spirit children into the First Estate (of the next Eternal Round). If any are NOT interested in reaching the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom are also NOT willing to be worthy and qualified to bring about eternal increase. This Eternal Round that we are currently living in does not allow any of us to procreate spirit children because: 1- we must first be exalted; 2- the work of the current Eternal Round must reach completion; 3- those qualified for the highest degree must be given a kingdom to order to begin the Next Eternal Round. Thus NONE of us (including Jesus) will be FULLY God until we obtain a kingdom in the Next Eternal Round for the purpose of bringing in candidates for the new implementation of the Plan of Happiness. Now repeat the above. Never ending. Forever and ever. Increasing joy and increasing love. Eternal Rounds on top of Eternal Rounds. Ever increasing dominions.

You love to engage in circular reasoning, don't jah? Trying to throw in murky morality does NOT absolve elective murder. Not the legal option but the crime of elective murder. I aborted him. You just had to bring up the time travel paradox. Aborting yourself would leave a gaping void in MDDB.

You mean the SNAP cuts? Didn’t think it was that high. Way off base. This is most likely referring to the crime of abortion. Especially those done for convenience. Some are even advocating for post-natal killing of children (up to age of eight). 😢

Where's the wife? Is she dressed in all white?

OR it is NOT possible to make a "complete" explanation. So many layers, so many unknowns. Some knowledge is withheld by God until the next world.

The Bible teaches that Jesus plainly and adamantly declares that He is FULLY subservient to God the Father. He unequivocally states that He came to Earth to do the will of His Father, NOT His (Jesus') own will. Members of the Godhead are not some kind of abstract entities of mysterious form. Instead, the three are personable and distinct beings that are loving and interacting with others just like humans deal with friends and family. God the Father presides over Jehovah (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (an actual spirit child of the Father just like all the rest of us). Although Jesus has ALL authority given Him by God the Father, Jesus in my opinion will NOT be FULLY God in the same way as the Father. Not until after the Millennium where Jesus will be given a Kingdom of His own to work with His Bride(s) and "beget" spirit children in a new epoch, a new Eternal Round for the next Plan of Happiness.

It was very urgent, significantly so, according to Joseph Smith. I asked chatGPT: in lds history, did an angel with a sword stand over joseph smith asserting that he must practice plural marriage? Yes. Multiple independent historical sources within early Latter-day Saint history attest that Joseph Smith reported being commanded by an angel—described as bearing a drawn sword—to institute and practice plural marriage, under threat of divine judgment if he refused. While the precise wording varies among accounts, the core claim is consistent across time, witnesses, and provenance. Below is a careful, source-based explanation. Core Claim Joseph Smith taught privately that an angel of God appeared to him with a drawn sword and commanded him to practice plural marriage, warning that failure to obey would result in his destruction. This claim is not late folklore; it appears in firsthand and secondhand accounts from individuals closely connected to Joseph Smith, including his plural wives, close associates, and later Church leaders who learned of it directly from participants. Primary and Near-Primary Sources 1. Eliza R. Snow (plural wife of Joseph Smith) Eliza Snow stated that Joseph Smith told her that the commandment came by angelic visitation and was enforced by threat. Later summaries of her testimony report: Joseph Smith “received the revelation from God, and that an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and commanded him to obey.” Snow was not recounting hearsay decades removed; she was personally involved in the early practice and regarded plural marriage as divinely mandated despite personal cost. 2. Heber C. Kimball (Apostle, First Presidency) Kimball taught publicly that Joseph Smith struggled deeply with the commandment and only proceeded after repeated angelic warnings. Paraphrase from Kimball’s teaching: Joseph Smith delayed obeying the commandment until an angel appeared with a drawn sword and threatened him with destruction if he did not proceed. Kimball framed this not as indulgence, but as reluctant obedience. 3. Brigham Young Brigham Young consistently testified that plural marriage was introduced by Joseph Smith under extraordinary divine compulsion, not personal desire. Young stated that Joseph: Found the principle abhorrent at first Attempted to avoid it Finally complied only after angelic enforcement Young explicitly referenced the drawn sword motif in multiple sermons. 4. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (plural wife) Lightner gave a detailed autobiographical account stating that Joseph told her: An angel appeared to him The angel held a drawn sword He was commanded to enter plural marriage or face destruction Her account is among the most detailed and consistent first-person recollections. 5. William Clayton (Joseph Smith’s secretary) Clayton recorded in his journals that Joseph told him: He was commanded by an angel The commandment was not optional Severe consequences were attached to refusal Clayton was present when the 1843 revelation (now Doctrine and Covenants 132) was dictated. Canonical LDS Context Doctrine and Covenants 132 While D&C 132 does not explicitly mention an angel with a sword, it repeatedly emphasizes: Divine command Severe consequences for disobedience The principle being restored through Joseph Smith specifically The angelic enforcement narrative functions as historical context, not canonized text. Scholarly and Institutional Consensus Importantly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not deny this claim. Modern Church historians and official publications acknowledge that: Joseph Smith taught that plural marriage was commanded by God He resisted the commandment Angelic visitation was part of his explanation for proceeding The Church refrains from dramatizing the image but does not reject its historicity. Important Clarifications The angel is never named in surviving accounts. The language “with a sword” appears consistently, sometimes phrased as “drawn sword.” The experience is described as coercive, not persuasive. No contemporary, hostile source invented the story; it comes from insiders defending the practice. Summary Judgment Yes. According to multiple independent LDS historical sources, Joseph Smith taught that an angel with a drawn sword commanded him to practice plural marriage and threatened him with destruction if he did not comply. This claim: Is early Is consistent Comes from participants and witnesses Is acknowledged (though not emphasized) by modern LDS scholarship

Doesn't C14 have greater mass than C12? I queried chatGPT: how are carbon 14 formed as compared with carbon 12? do C14 have greater mass than C12? are there other isotopes of carbon? do diamonds have the expected ratio of C14 with C12? would there be greater variances in the ratio thru various epochs of geological processes? Below is a structured, technically precise response to each of your questions, using standard nuclear physics and geochemistry terminology. 1. How is carbon-14 formed compared with carbon-12? Carbon-12 (¹²C) Origin: Carbon-12 is a primary (primordial) isotope. Formation mechanism: It is produced in stars through stellar nucleosynthesis, specifically the triple-alpha process, in which three helium-4 nuclei (alpha particles) combine. Stability: ¹²C is stable and does not undergo radioactive decay. Abundance: ~98.9% of all natural carbon. Carbon-14 (¹⁴C) Origin: Carbon-14 is a cosmogenic radionuclide. Formation mechanism: It is produced continuously in Earth’s upper atmosphere when cosmic rays generate fast neutrons that collide with nitrogen-14: 14N+n→14C+p^{14}\text{N} + n \rightarrow ^{14}\text{C} + p14N+n→14C+p The resulting ¹⁴C oxidizes to CO₂ and enters the biosphere via the carbon cycle. Stability: ¹⁴C is radioactive, with a half-life of ~5,730 years. 2. Does carbon-14 have greater mass than carbon-12? Yes. Carbon-12 has: 6 protons + 6 neutrons Carbon-14 has: 6 protons + 8 neutrons The additional two neutrons give ¹⁴C greater mass while preserving the same chemical behavior (since chemical properties depend on electrons, not neutrons). 3. Are there other isotopes of carbon? Yes. Naturally occurring isotopes: Isotope Stability Approx. abundance ¹²C Stable ~98.9% ¹³C Stable ~1.1% ¹⁴C Radioactive ~1 part per trillion Artificial (short-lived) isotopes: ⁸C through ²²C have been synthesized in laboratories. All except ¹²C and ¹³C are unstable. These have no geological or biological relevance due to extremely short half-lives. 4. Do diamonds have the expected ratio of C¹⁴ to C¹²? No—diamonds contain essentially no measurable carbon-14. Reasons: Geological age Natural diamonds form deep in the mantle and are typically millions to billions of years old. After ~10 half-lives (~57,000 years), ¹⁴C is effectively gone. Isolation from the carbon cycle Diamonds crystallize in environments isolated from atmospheric carbon. They do not exchange carbon after formation. Empirical confirmation Radiocarbon dating of natural diamonds consistently yields “radiocarbon dead” results. This absence of ¹⁴C is one of the strongest confirmations of both diamond antiquity and radiocarbon decay behavior. 5. Would the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio vary through different geological epochs? Yes—the atmospheric C¹⁴/C¹² ratio has varied measurably over time, though within constrained bounds. Primary drivers of variation: Cosmic ray flux Influenced by solar activity and Earth’s magnetic field strength. Geomagnetic field intensity Weaker field → higher cosmic ray penetration → more ¹⁴C production. Carbon cycle dynamics Changes in ocean circulation, biosphere size, and CO₂ reservoirs. Human activity (recent) Fossil fuel burning (“Suess effect”) dilutes atmospheric ¹⁴C. Nuclear weapons testing (1950s–60s) temporarily doubled atmospheric ¹⁴C. Magnitude of variation: Typically on the order of a few percent, not orders of magnitude. These variations are well documented in: Tree rings (dendrochronology) Ice cores Marine sediments Implication: Radiocarbon dating requires calibration curves, which correct for historical fluctuations in the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio. Summary Table Question Answer How is C¹² formed? Stellar nucleosynthesis (triple-alpha) How is C¹⁴ formed? Cosmic ray interaction with atmospheric nitrogen Is C¹⁴ heavier than C¹²? Yes (2 extra neutrons) Other carbon isotopes? Yes: ¹³C (stable), many artificial radioactive ones Do diamonds contain C¹⁴? Essentially none Does C¹⁴/C¹² vary over time? Yes, modestly, due to cosmic and geophysical factors

What an excellent way to stoke the fervor of the local populace at stake conference or Christmas devotional or special events.

2 Nephi 28:20 “For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.”