Calm

20% is not a few to me, I was thinking you meant at most a half dozen people who put any effort into their callings and more. Don't forget there are a lot of members who do care a great deal, but can’t. Many were powerhouses for the Church in the past, but health and age or other life situations (having to work on Sundays because now a single parent or caregiver) prevent them from attending. I don’t think it’s fair or respectful to use activity as a sign of “caring”.

I have no opinion on this at the moment. Matthew 28 is apparently viewed as original as it is consistent across the extant versions. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …” (Matt 28:19) The question to me is would the ones baptizing for the dead be following the same pattern and purpose as those baptizing for the living and if so, what would that be if not to be made a part of the Christian community as well as a ritual cleansing/sign of repentance? Do you have anything in mind beyond it was not equivalent?

lol, I was feeling the same way, but it was both a Sunday and the end of the holidays so I figured everyone was busy.

Are you assuming the group Peter (or whoever it is) is talking about is not Christian? Or did you just mean the Christian group he was talking to and identifying with at that moment? If you see the baptizing group as nonChristian, could you explain why, please?

Seriously? Lots of boys get their breasts removed because they don’t want to look feminine and lots of women get some (lots for me, actually requested more be chopped off, but doctor decided otherwise for some reason…could have been for the very good reason of making reconstruction safer and not just easier, if so I don’t fault him) of their healthy breasts removed because they want smaller breasts. Besides some uncomfortable pulling on scar tissue and clothes fitting much better, functioning of life doesn’t change at all while this woman getting her spinal cord severed makes her much more dependent on others, limited in mobility, future medical issues much more likely, etc. That you consider them equivalent significantly changes my view of your reasoning. The impact of one is much more severe than the other. While many get breast reductions because of back pain and posture issues, many are like me and also got it done for aesthetic reasons while others have no problems, but simply prefer a better proportion body. Apparently women are getting smaller augmentation typically now for a more balanced look, which is smart imo. https://www.eliteplasticsurgeryaz.com/blog/breast-augmentation-trends-in-2025-what-phoenix-patients-should-know/ When I was in the hospital for the above, there was a woman in my room who had a radical mastectomy done who was in her early 20s even though she was perfectly healthy with no sign of breast cancer. Her sister, however, had just been diagnosed with breast cancer and her mother and several aunts and iirc her grandmother had died of said cancer. 10% of mastectomies involve removing a healthy breast when cancer is found in the other. I couldn’t find absolute numbers for mastectomies in healthy women, just that the rate is going up quite a bit. Iirc, at least the vast majority of breast removal in teens were for cis males. I and others have referenced that stat before. Removal of healthy breasts (the only current issue is having too much, potentially there is often a high risk of cancer for many who do choose, but that might never happen) is not an extreme procedure. One could even call it commonplace, imo. The doctor didn’t quibble one bit when I requested it even though I was not abnormally top heavy, just well endowed and annoyed with them, and that was over 30 years ago (while partial, it had pretty much the same medical impact as a full as far as I am aware, just more nerves cut and tissue and skin removed in a full version, the only real difference would have been positive imo, easier on my back and even better fitting clothes lol to get all removed). I am not as familiar with removal of healthy genitals as I am with breast reduction/removal, but since a person can fully function in society without requiring prosthetics or mobility aids or caregivers if a penis is removed and women have ovaries and uteruses removed all the time and often the long term effects are great (they have been for me, life is so much better, I only regret I waited so long), I see comparisons to spinal severance or limb removal as ridiculous to be frank. Obviously a lot of women may need hormonal therapy, but that can happen anyway even without any surgery, so not seeing it as extreme in the least. I do believe long term medical effects need to be considered with any surgery (wish my doctor had been clearer about potential for scar tissue so I would have been more proactive) and that is the reason I believe bottom surgery, which has significantly more medical impact than top surgery, should not be undergone until older, preferably over 25. I have a major problem allowing cisboys who are younger than 18 getting top surgery because they don’t want to appear feminine while refusing to allow trans boys to get the identical surgery for the same reason…because they don’t want to appear feminine, though I would hope in both cases counseling is extensive beforehand if surgery is an option because the cutting of nerves and the scar tissue discomfort is not trivial in my very personal experIence, even if not particularly life altering. Also, getting limbs removed and spines severed as part of your argument….how is using those extreme and highly unusual procedures (if there is no physical reason to cut) not attempting emotional manipulation and inappropriate comparisons (logical error in my view)? Again, there are some points in your arguments I agree with even if I find this aspect highly problematic. I think your arguments would be much stronger over all if you got rid of this not just weak, but quite bad argument imo.

It was to me personally. Do you need a quote or is a reconstruction enough? I may be able to find a reference to it as I think I have mentioned this refusal at other times because it mystified me, but finding the specific time will be difficult as it was quite awhile ago so simply searching on your name and “hypothetical” probably won’t work (added: it didn’t)

Where is the suggestion in what is written that those who were practicing baptism of the dead doubted? Peter doesn’t ask why are ‘some of you’ being baptized for the dead, is he? (I don’t know Greek, so I suppose it might be interpreted that way.). He is talking to one group about another group’s practices that demonstrate a belief in resurrection. And since he is using that last group as evidence, it seems to me that in other ways the group would be seen as pretty mainstream for that culture (otherwise, why appeal to them as some sort of authority?). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 15&version=NIV

Yet you claimed “many (most)”? Do you have one actual documented example even? If not, aren’t you arguing using a hypothetical claim as if it’s actually factual? It may actually be a nonissue (I came across several trans athletes who did not see it as appropriate to compete professionally until after medically transitioned, so this could be a line that very few might argue against) not just dismissed as one. You have also stated in the past you won’t argue against hypotheticals iirc, so it seems appropriate not to use a hypothetical to support your own arguments unless you have solid documentation that something has occurred I want to make clear there are points in your arguments I very much agree with, for example I don’t believe hormone therapy is enough in many sports to overcome the biological advantage, safety being my primary concern here. I just think you have some weak arguments you should dump.

What is his identification though? Does he really believe himself to be that animal or is it a symbolic, emotional, or subcultural identification? I don’t think using him as an example works unless you know for sure he has the same category of identification that occurs with transgender individuals.

California boy has explained many times he has family members (both as immediate family members and extended family) who are Saints and who have attitudes influenced by the Church that affect their interaction with him.

I still don’t get how you won’t accept extreme cases for arguments from others in some cases, but then frequently appeal to them yourself. (Serious observation and not a challenge as I do want to understand your reasoning).

It’s getting to the point where it is relatively easy if you have the money to noninvasively test different types of muscle mass, skeletal mass, bone density, and hormone levels. Divisions could be set up based on these. It is not workable yet for schools, but probably would be now for any profit producing professional team in quite a few relevant categories, though possibly there are still highly significant ones are not that accessible and won’t be for awhile. Not saying that it should be that way, just that such an argument of hormone testing is not enough (I agree) and thorough testing is invasive and costly isn’t going to be valid much longer, I am speculating. I am not aware of all the necessary testing though, so I could be wrong, but I am thinking enough factors will be able to be quickly and noninvasively tested as well as others more thorough testing such as detailed MRIs could be occasional tests to set up divisions around basic physical strength and speed, etc. Then create a program that amalgamates such measures and creates enough divisions based first on safety and then on competitive edges. Would be a hassle setting it up, but think of weight divisions in boxing. Dexa scans currently show bone density, Inbody scans show skeletal muscle mass, body fat percentage, visceral fat level, and water distribution, various tests (some taking just a few minutes of breathing into a tube) for metabolism and oxygen use and these are just the ones I know from general health testing. Given the interest in sports and the importance on maximizing financial and time investment, we will be getting easier, more effective testing of more and more relevant factors over time. And given the increasing abilities of AI, determining reasonable, less arbitrary divisions will be possible as well.

Where has this actually happened outside of possibly high school where the individual may not have had access yet to medical transitioning? (CFR please). The only ones I remember hearing of were ones who were trying to make the point allowing this was ridiculous. Not saying that this hadn’t happened, just thinking that claiming “many (most)” isn’t accurate.

I don’t have a problem with inspired reinterpretation of scripture as I see that as Nephi’s likening…making scripture more relevant to our times rather than insisting to view it in the same way over time. It would be nice if there was more recognition when this goes on in explaining the text and not just in adapting it for personal use rather than assuming there’s only one way to read scripture. With the Church’s opening up to using different translations of the Bible and greater use of scholarship, I think we will get there eventually.

Reel is sloppy, likely deceptive. He still hasn’t corrected Bathsheba Smith’s husband on his website, (George, not Hyrum and doesn’t even have enough respect to spell her name correctly) and let’s an accusation of lying stand that has been disproven on a thread he was participating on here (all one had to do is watch the video of Pres Holland rotating the Book of Mormon to see the wear patterns on the book are consistent with Elder Holland’s claims as the spine and the corners wore differently as is common on books in my experience), things that have been pointed out to him multiple times here when he’s shown up over the past 7 years.

This is good to hear.

I don’t know the wards you have been in or what you mean by few, but there have been many in all the wards I have been in that cared and did their best to contribute.

This guy isn’t an atheist though, is he? Seems like it’s just another version of we aren’t the right kind of Christian in his view, so he doesn’t want to share the label and heretic isn’t enough, he wants to deny us any sense of spirituality.

I don’t feel the need to match up to someone else’s specialized definition of God, just because he doesn’t like our view of God. I am not going to accept his label and see no need for any LDS to do so.

Pretty sure it’s one of those unwritten rules that has been passed around a lot, including from some higher ups according to reports. I have been hearing this rule since I was a kid, but don’t remember ever seeing it in writing and iirc, we have had discussions on here before about it. If it’s not in writing, but passed around in training by word of mouth, seems more like a tradition than an official policy. Since leadership/SLC doesn’t use anything to verify amount of income one gets and as far as I know there is no way for them to reject tithing if it’s submitted online, seems like the only way it would get noticed is if your bishop heard somehow you won the lottery or whatever and then they took it upon themselves to counsel you about it. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57283-lottery-winnings/ https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75917-if-i-won-the-lottery-would-the-church-accept-tithing-on-that/

Level of impact does vary though as well as type. That needs to be taken into consideration when making laws, especially those with far reaching and likely unintended consequences.

I have gotten some as well. Not interested in last days stuff, so guess it’s just the LDS link.

If you ever worry too much about this, just remember they have me to compare you to and therefore you have a very good chance of appearing relatively reasonable in your amount of verbiage. 😛

They did come back the next day for the second post, but I am more prone to your interpretation now it’s been a week since then, plus of course this one line below. Still maybe they just got busy with the holidays.

It’s more “literalist modern” reading because 200 or 500 years ago they would not be the same “literal” interpretations.