The Nehor

He had 33 children. He also insisted that a long-running adulterous affair by one of his sons occurred in an “unguarded moment”. I have some concerns about his hierarchy of sins.

Yes, this is clearly a “both sides” problem. /s

Two, and it is usually an electronic signature or sign-off. A sign off requires at least one member of the bishopric and a clerk can provide the other (or it can be another member of the bishopric). Two counselors can sign off but that is not the norm. The norm in my experience is the Bishop and one clerk (or a counselor). No one can sign off on a reimbursement or welfare assistance payment if they or their immediate family is the recipient. While not required it is usually best practice to avoid having the Bishop getting reimbursements for activities and the like if reasonably possible. Note that in all cases the Bishop does have to sign off as well eventually. Two others can send a payment but the Bishop has to acknowledge it. It is usually best to have the Bishop provide one of the sign offs to avoid the extra step. If two people sign off they are supposed to have the Bishop’s permission in advance. This is allowed so the Bishop can give verbal approval over the phone or via email if they aren’t available. So two counselors can do it but that is usually rare and the payment will go forward but the Bishop has to sign off after the fact. If a payment is going to Bishop or family the Bishop can’t be one of the two original signers. The Bishop still signs off on it as well. Then the Stake President (or one of his counselors) has to sign off on it. The Stake President should be giving approval for each individual payment if the recipient is the Bishop (or his close family). A blanket “three months” could be approved verbally but the Stake should still be signing off on each one. This doesn’t pass the smell test. My guess is that someone in the local unit was putting a different recipient down to avoid overview, probably the Bishop. Then the Bishop was telling the other person signing off that they had Stake approval without getting it and if the Bishop put in the payment they could finagle it so it wouldn’t show up on the Stake’s radar. Then in the audit the whole thing was easily caught.

LOL

This would have been processed online. The Stake Presidency would have to sign off on it if the Bishop’s name (or his wife or child or parent or sibling) was the welfare recipient. There is very little paperwork now. You take photos of receipts and upload them. That the stake knew nothing about what was going on makes me think they weren’t putting the Bishop’s name on this.

Yeah, I can see it going both ways. It depends on the kids involved. And when she had her eighth child her life became absolute bliss and she found happiness. - Chance of success 0.1254%

I think you’ll find that transgender people are the ones that are making women feel unsafe and creeped on. Cishet men aren’t doing anything wrong and if they are it is because of the male loneliness epidemic which is the fault of women. Seriously, I am a full blown pervert but you can do much more taboo stuff with consent from all involved and have a lot more fun. That is so juvenile it is almost just pathetic. It would be if it wasn’t so predatory. I mean, it is still pathetic but also predatory.

What convenient packaging. Sure must make the kids feel individually special as they run through the conveyer belt. Are the kids extremely happy? By that presumably you mean households that can survive off of the income of one parent making mid six figures or more a year. Yeah, they can do what they want for the most part. Since children are no carbon copies of their parents I have my doubts that this is some kind of demographic ‘winning’ strategy.

They can do the preliminary approvals but it then gets kicked to the Stake President. The Stake President should be approving each of those payments and working with the Bishop for them. If this story is real I suspect that there is more going on. It could be that they don’t use electronic signatures where this congregation is (possible but that is rare) or they might have just written out paper checks which is also very rare and would look INCREDIBLY shady or they used a dummy name in the welfare recipient field so that it didn’t get kicked to the Stake Presidency. The Stake President also doesn’t call for audits. They just happen.

The woman taken in adultery would be treated more leniently. If it were just an administrative error the Stake President could have retroactively approved the payment. I suspect that the Stake President would not have signed off on those additional payments. This is not just an administrative error. If it were it would already have been resolved. I also question how much you got from this if you cannot pay it back. How many months did you stay on this unauthorized welfare plan? Stake Presidents are usually all over situations where a Bishop or one of their family is receiving money. I find it hard to believe that not telling the Stake President you were still receiving assistance for months was somehow an innocent mistake. The Stake is following policy. In cases of embezzlement of Church funds you cannot come back into full fellowship until all of the money is repaid. They can’t extend the mercy you want while following church policy. I get that you were in a tight spot but this probably could have been avoided by keeping the Stake President involved. I would start saving and get that money to pay it off.

Agreed. Also agreed So which side of the political spectrum is attempting to and currently is rebuilding education so it is more compatible with their views? You can want that as much as you want but it is irrelevant when the concrete steps you want taken will lead to cruelty, a lack of safety, and children having to fear being found out. Also the people you support are bullies so I don’t think you value decency that much. You support a guy who is childish and a bully and has openly shared that he likes the feeling of power he gets when he gets to perv on women in changing rooms. Hence it is hard to take you seriously on a lot of supposed things you want when you are clearly okay with them as long as they are on your side of the supposed “culture war”. If you can’t function in a pluralistic society…….. Disagreeing with our religion is not neutral. To a scared queer kid this is not an “adult-level controversy’. And we come full circle from “parents have the right to choose” and add in “unless their choice for their own children offends me personally”. There are people trying to get children to come to these events without parental supervision. CFR No, it is accurate. You just don’t like the ramifications of your position. Yet your choices (political and personal) lead to the amplification of bullying. You post facile justifications for marginalizing people who are already being bullied. You are pro-bullying. You just don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions. How dare information I dislike be freely available? Yet you insist you are for pluralism. Uh-huh…….. Again ideology is more important to you than the actual children involved. Again. Sexualization? A term you endlessly throw around but refuse to define. You want it to apply to a children’s book about a baby penguin having two dads, accurate information about sexuality, and hardcore pornography. That way you can pivot on what it means and pretend you are being consistent when you are not. Every event that is not explicitly queer in some way is “coded” as a “straight” event. And the pointless and stupid equivocation continues. On one hand you are talking about sexual Mardi Gras content and then say that non-graphic books about an animal with two moms is morally equivalent. Also there is no widespread effort to push actual sexual content on children which is why you have to equivocate and hold on to the idea that “A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo” is somehow graphic content. It is rooted in bigotry. Christian Nationalism doesn’t care that much. Queer people are just a wedge issue to rally the useful idiots in the ranks to back authoritarians and it works. You fall for it every time. Also cute how you get vague and say that somehow the good marriage is great because it unifies and causes procreation. Despite that you imagine a hetero marriage where the two participants despise each other and are both infertile as superior to a happy gay couple raising children together in love. It is not “reasoned disagreement”. You didn’t reason your way into this situation and you aren’t going to reason your way out of it. You have religious dogma and are defending it. Let’s not pretend reason is involved. You didn’t reach this conclusion from first principles. You reflexively defend the dogma. Any flimsy apologetic evidence will work. They aren’t doing any such thing. And no, you are not interested in protecting pluralism, at least not on this issue. You might like a very limited pluralism but it wouldn’t include me or many others. You want the force of government to be used to isolate vulnerable children and to exclude and marginalize adults. If you truly believed in pluralism you would seek to convert people to your cause the way queer people usually do in the culture you live in. Instead you confess the weakness and moral bankruptcy of the position by appealing to government force and pretend you are somehow making things ‘equal’ by having public institutions share your views but not any you disagree with.

In a preindustrial society the average woman had to have around 6-8 noticable pregnancies to maintain population size. On average two pregnancies don’t make it. About half of the children don’t make it to adulthood so after that you probably have three children. Enough to sustain population, cover for women who can’t or don’t have children or who die in childbirth (before meeting their ‘quota’), and to provide some growth. Advances in medicine toppled this whole structure. Add in that children are no longer free farming labor so children become an economic disadvantage to parents and of course decisions change. Also women (and men) in subsistence societies often practiced birth control for the health of the mother, to avoid exceeding a family size that their land will support, and to avoid complicating inheritances where having too many children means none of them have enough to live on. Elder Cannon lived in a nation with plenty of arable land that could be gotten relatively easily compared to most places on Earth, some of the advantages of the Industrial Revolution, and is generalizing these circumstances to the whole world. According to Malthus Elder Cannon’s approach would eventually lead to disaster. Thankfully humans aren’t idiots and most of them adjust their childbearing practices in a way that benefits their own family no matter what Elder Cannon (and many others) say.

This does not seem to be neutral. It explicitly tells therapists to de-emphasize the harm of going against monogamous commitments and to view non-monogamy (even in the secret context being discussed) as equally valid. Compare that to how therapists likely handle cutting, bulimia, or anorexia. Those are not “affirmed” as equally valid coping mechanisms. They’re recognized as harmful and addressed with the goal of reducing them. Can you help me identify why the different standard arises when the behavior involves betraying a partner’s trust? I suspect non-religious people (and many secular therapists) also worry about this. Healthy relationships require honesty, consent, and accountability. When professional guidelines tilt toward affirming secrecy or blurring boundaries around infidelity, it can undermine trust, attachment, and emotional safety — outcomes that have real, measurable harm. So I think the issue isn't really about religion, but rather about whether therapy prioritizes client autonomy above all, even when that autonomy harms others, or whether it maintains ethical guardrails around destructive relational behaviors. I also wonder if there are quasi-religious ideological underpinnings for some of these guidelines. I think the article is not misrepresenting the document — it’s quoting it directly. Here’s the actual wording from BACP’s GSRD guidance (Section 4.4 on “Secret non-monogamies”): The guidelines explicitly discuss secret non-monogamy and then instructs therapists to view non-monogamy as “equally valid” to monogamy while downplaying the importance of boundaries. Even if some poly/ethical non-monogamy communities condemn cheating (which many do), professional therapy guidelines shouldn’t blur the line between consensual arrangements and betrayal. Fidelity and trust are foundational to most marriages, and therapists should be able to name harm when secrecy and deception are involved — without being told to treat it as just another “valid” way of relating. This is not, I think, a "political" issue. Plenty of secular relationship experts, attachment researchers, and everyday people (religious or not) recognize that secret affairs usually cause deep relational damage. The concern is whether therapy guidance should prioritize “affirmation” over acknowledging that harm. I agree that therapists should not harangue clients or impose personal moral judgments. The role is to help people understand their behavior and its consequences, not preach. The problem with the BACP guidance is that it goes beyond neutrality. It explicitly tells therapists to adopt a GSRD affirmative approach, under which non-monogamy (even when discussed in the “secret non-monogamies” section) is framed as “equally valid” to monogamy, with “blurred boundaries” between them. That’s not just “don’t judge.” It’s an instruction to de-emphasize the normativity of monogamy and the harm of secrecy. A truly neutral therapist could say: “Secret affairs often destroy trust and cause significant pain to the betrayed partner — let’s explore what’s driving this and what you want for your relationship.” An affirmative approach risks minimizing that harm in order to validate the behavior as just another valid way of relating. This is not the same as helping the client examine self-defeating patterns. It can enable them by softening the ethical reality of betrayal. Helping people improve does not require unending moral neutrality on issues like deception in committed relationships. Good therapy can acknowledge harm while remaining compassionate and client-led. I don't think that analogy works. A defense attorney’s job is to zealously advocate for their client’s legal interests within the adversarial court system. Their role is not to act as a moral counselor or relationship repair expert. In contrast, a therapist’s job is to promote psychological health, emotional well-being, and healthier functioning, including in relationships. When a client is engaging in secret infidelity, a good therapist should be able to help them examine the consequences (broken trust, attachment damage, guilt, impact on children, etc.) without being instructed to treat non-monogamy as “equally valid” to monogamy and the boundaries as “blurred anyway” (direct language from the BACP guidance). No one is asking therapists to “berate” clients. The concern is whether professional guidelines should push an affirmative stance that downplays the harm of betrayal in favor of validating the behavior as just another valid relational choice. Therapists are not defense attorneys. Their ethical duty includes addressing self-defeating and relationally destructive patterns, not softening them under the banner of affirmation. The article is a bit more histrionic than I'd like, but we can and should discuss professional therapy guideline that explicitly tells counsellors to treat non-monogamy (including in the context of secret non-monogamies) as “equally valid” to monogamy and that “the boundaries between them are blurred anyway.” When a major therapy organization (BACP) frames secret infidelity through an “affirmative lens” and downplays the importance of fidelity and trust in relationships, that’s worth discussing, including in a religious setting. Many people — religious and non-religious — recognize that betrayal in marriage causes real, measurable harm. Therapy should help people address that, not soften it under the banner of diversity affirmation. If the roles were reversed and a guideline encouraged therapists to affirm cutting or anorexia as “equally valid coping mechanisms,” most people would rightly push back. Why is relational betrayal treated differently? Thanks, -Smac You missed where it talked about how “secret non-monogamy” is not necessarily deceptive. I think that kind of unspoken agreement to not be monogamous is very unhealthy but the therapist acting as a defender of monogamy is not the answer. You talk about how a defense attorney isn’t supposed to be a moral counselor or a relationship repair expert. The therapist isn’t a moral counselor either. I think you are thinking of this as more like a bishop’s interview. Treating cutting and anorexia isn’t done by just sharing how wrong it is. What this is primarily about is not treating the unfamiliar as shocking or somehow inherently and always wrong. It is a common problem queer people face. Most people prefer to find a queer counselor so they don’t have to explain everything and/or deal with someone who thinks being queer is wrong and trying to correct or dismissing concerns. This is also addressed in the document. It can work the same way with minorities who want to work out their responses to racism. If their therapist believes racism isn’t an ongoing problem the therapist is worthless for that problem. This is also addressed in that document. The demagogue whose article you posted is deliberately missing the whole point of the document and trying to craft it into a weapon to demonize therapists and their professional organizations. They honestly could use some therapy to figure out what is wrong with them.

Also cheating on a spouse or romantic/sexual partner is not a good path for maximizing pleasure in any case so it is not a good route even if you did subscribe to hedonism.

Looking at the actual source documents the quotes are divorced from context. This is stupid rhetoric from people whining about how therapists aren’t enforcing religious laws correctly or something. I also question the competence of the writer who is SHOCKED that the therapist isn’t exhorting their client to faithfulness. So are they stupid enough to think that is how therapy works or do they know that very well and just (correctly) hope their readers are that ignorant? No, it is not salient at all. In the same way you aren’t supposed to try to change someone’s sexuality you aren’t supposed to dictate sexual practice to anyone. It is consistent. Acting like this is hypocrisy is just projection. If only therapists operated according to religious dogma………. Speaking generally even the ethical non-monogamy and polyamorous communities are harsh on cheaters. The section that this person is misrepresenting in their right-wing screed is about monogamish or “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationships where cheating is normalized. The counsel is not to let any personal repugnance interfere with your job as a therapist. Therapists have a specific job to do and it isn’t to harangue people for not living up to their marital or relationship agreements. Ideally the therapist can help them examine their own life and figure out on their own that a lot of their behaviors are self-defeating. Just telling the patient that their behavior is wrong doesn’t help them improve. You might as well act hysterical about defense attorneys not calling out and berating their clients for their bad behavior. I am guessing you wouldn’t do that. Congrats on finding more outrage porn. Do you really have to share it?

Exclusion from that part of the process was said as intended. It was not presented as an equal joint enterprise. While a wife (or wives) were necessary for exaltation it was not presented as any kind of equality. We have since tried to finesse our theology towards equality with mixed results.

Lorenzo Snow was quite clear that only the boys would be doing this part of the work. “‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” So what is all this Woke nonsense about women somehow being equal?

Putting it in teaching manuals is a pretty strong endorsement of this being a regular teaching and having heard it a lot convinced me it was doctrinal. It came up in seminary and institute. I think you could argue that it is no longer being taught as doctrine as I haven’t heard it in some time.

Or it never happened at all. The writer gives a reason to kill the Amalekites and it is that the Amalekites were mean to the people of Israel way back in history so God decided that the children of those people needed to die. This makes sense in a tribal culture. Yep, the god in Revelation is clearly into torture porn. I am not sure if that is the defense you think it is. There was a reason a lot of the early Church leaders were uncomfortable with the Book of Revelation. It came across as unhinged even back then. Now it is just an obvious revenge fantasy. I don’t think this is the defense of God you think it is.

You need a divining rod, a Urim and Thummim, a necromancer with a heart of gold, and two rubber bands. Then contact the angels that dance on Pinhead for further instructions.

Starlink satellites don’t have to do anything close to the processing of a data center and the radiator to get rid of the heat is relatively trivial. This is not the case with a data center. Putting stuff in space doesn’t make it easier or cheaper to cool.

There are a lot of problems. Space is cold (sort of) but because there is no air stuff in space cools slowly. Incredibly slowly. One of the big problems with spacecraft and satellites that generate heat is radiating that heat away from the object. You would need a lot of radiator panels or some other form of heat dissipation and that stuff is heavy for a normal spacecraft. For a data center you have to up that weight by several orders of magnitude. You also have to harden the whole thing against radiation way beyond what would be required on Earth which increases the launch weight even more. Data centers are also regularly upgraded in terms of hardware and this would be very expensive. Also if something breaks you have to launch a mission to fix it which is, again, very expensive. The big bright side is that with solar panels you could run one 24/7 with no gaps due to the ease with which you can collect solar energy ad stay on the sun’s side of the planet. It is not the environmentalists keeping this from happening though there are worries about damage to the planet from that many launches into orbit. Astronomers also know that that many satellites will mess with earth based telescopes and make astronomy much more difficult. But it is the corporate bean counters who won’t fund this. We would need to see a huge reduction in the cost of moving each kilogram into orbit before this is at all commercially viable. He did but this is not a feasible or sane plan. I suspect this was just a run of the mill stock manipulation tactic before that recent IPO with no real plan to actually do it. Musk is a grandstander that loves to over-promise and under-deliver. It is kind of his brand. A million satellites is also a potential Kessler effect nightmare. And all this for Grok? Why?

I just checked it on the website and in Gospel Library. Lorenzo snow Student manual. Sub-heading is “They Shall Organize Worlds and Rule Over Them”

In other words you want your religious views privileged in education while still somehow having a pluralistic society. In other words you want queer kids isolated from support of any kind or even the acknowledgement that others like them exist in the public sphere. That is often incredibly damaging. Doubting this. Nope. However I think your idea of “images of sex” involves stuff that is not actually about sex but just people showing more skin than you are personally comfortable with. The explicit Pride parades are (in the United States) limited to a few parades. San Francisco and a few in the Pacific Northwest are the ones I know of. Most have none. And a drag queen story hour is not a sexually explicit event unless they are reading erotica or something which is not the norm. Of course this is just what you were doing above and inherently sexualizing the bodies and even just the existence of queer people. From the National Women’s Law Center: “Project 2025’s authors also paint supportive schools as full-on harbingers of moral collapse, infested with the “toxic normalization of transgenderism.” Their efforts to rid schools of this so-called toxicity are downright horrifying. Project 2025 calls for outlawing pornography—and equates that with materials that acknowledge the existence of LGBTQI+ people. Pornography, they say, is “manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children.” It’s hard to escape the implications of what this means: If affirming LGBTQI+ people = pornography and pornography must be banned, that sounds an awful lot like criminalizing respect for our existence. They take it one step further: They say that people who make this material available should be imprisoned, and teachers and libraries who share it should be forced to register as sex offenders.” “Let’s be clear: Criminalizing people like teachers and librarians is not about protecting kids. It’s about vilifying LGBTQI+ youth and turning them into bogeymen in a manufactured culture war. It’s about isolating them by threatening anyone who supports them.” Yep, isolating queer minors and turning us into pornography. This is where you got the ideology. It didn’t come from scripture. It came from Christian Nationalism. It is an attempt to undo part of the First Amendment and privilege religious views. And LDS are not part of the chosen if Christian Nationalism ends up working. I doubt it will but if it does and solidifies power LDS people will quickly discover they were only useful idiots. Getting rid of pluralism is a terrible idea when you are a minority of any kind. Then why aren’t you posting long diatribes against taking kids to Mardi Gras so I don’t believe for a second that you consider hetero and homo displays as equivalent.

I am not worried if the Catholics launch a crusade. https://going-medieval.com/2025/07/09/on-crusades-or-how-not-to-identify-with-losers/