Calm

My impression is the typical view if there are issues that prevent full accountability, it’s probably joyous reunion. Anyone under the mental or emotional age of accountability (usually 8 chronologically doctrinally speaking, but it’s recognized some kids may reach it earlier, some later, some never and it’s not always able to be known in mortality what makes someone accountable and what doesn’t) is seen as admitted to the Celestial Kingdom when the time comes, so would be Paradise bound. So it’s more of a question of who is there to greet him. And I don’t know if other members think those who are t yet in Paradise couldn’t join the welcoming party, but I certainly expect any loved ones and probably others who were just interested in watching your son’s life from afar and total strangers just wanting to welcome everyone out of love would be there. Learning doesn’t stop in Paradise according to Joseph Smith, so I don’t see a need to stay in Spirit Prison if it’s essentially the same level of acceptance of the Gospel as here. There is generally in my experience (though I haven’t talked to many about it, so if there are those who disagree, I am interested) the assumption that if anyone has been in heaven for very long and they were sincere seekers of God, they have likely accepted the fullness of the Gospel and accepted the gift of Christ’s atonement. It’s pretty much if they wake up in the next life and see it for themselves, why wouldn’t they accept the truth? And then it’s however long it takes to absorb the necessities, which isn’t long in this life (never been a missionary, but have heard of relatively quick baptisms even done the right way) and seems would be even shorter in the next. For those who were not interested in faith, I don’t know if members typically think it will take longer. I think only those who chose wickedness, the truly unrepentant or those with addictions (for some reason I haven’t figured out the logic on) are ever seen as being stuck on the hellish side of spirit prison. Oops…left out that probably a majority of Saints (may be wrong here) believe one can’t be in Paradise unless one died in a state of unaccountability or they have received a proxy baptism. Which implies to me if true either God does not hold those who didn’t have a chance to hear the gospel in mortality accountable (those without the law are not accountable to the law) or the vast majority of humanity are still in Spirit Prison. Since I am one of those who believe paradise, prison/school, hell, and the kingdoms post resurrection are states of ‘mind’ and not locations (though maybe those are the same thing in the next life), even if someone is still waiting for a baptism to be performed on their behalf, they can still be in the greater community in my belief—so welcoming your son no matter where they are in terms of progression—just as those taking Continuing Ed or trade classes or college or post grade courses or on the job training can all end up on the same pews on Sunday. I don’t see any reason why there would be more boundaries for community there than here. Seems like there would be less because the ability to play mind games, discriminate, and all those other tragic walls we build would not be available.

While fun and helpful, why is that the goal? Why not understand them in the way God wants us to understand them now? Since cultures and needs have changed, why would the original meaning be automatically the best to know?

I think a lot depended on how your family prepared you to deal with what you heard at Church. In my experience the way people describe their experiences at church often lines up with how they describe their experiences with their parents, which makes sense as parents contribute a great deal to our earliest worldview and filters. Not saying it’s identical, but rather strong influences. When I was 7 and younger, my parents were likely (memory and childhood perspective being what it is, not going to insist my view at that age was accurate, lol) what is viewed as all in active LDS. When first married, they pretty much ran a little branch that had one other active priesthood holder, a deacon iirc. I remember my dad being the scoutmaster in our San Bruno ward (suburb of San Francisco, lots of Samoans in our ward, I remember fun church parties) as well as gospel doctrine teacher at various times, Mom was den mother and taught the young women. It feels like we lived at church as that seems like most of my memories outside of school and home. After my youngest brother was born when I was 9 (we were in a Chicago suburb by that time and church was an hour drive or so it seemed instead of hop in the car and hop out, we were the only LDS in our schools up to high school I believe), Mom had her health tank and with 5 kids, two under the age of 3, she started examining why she was doing things before she did them to remove the unnecessary busy work. And she talked about her choices to us kids. And that included a lot of pulling back from Church activity and pushing back on leaders who didn’t understand her POV. “Foolish traditions” stands out to me, any tradition in our home had to be for a good and highly meaningful purpose, no walking through life on auto pilot (Dad had been a pilot in the AF, so perhaps that is where I picked that slogan up). There were also the discussions of faith and healing and a pretty constant exploration of why the latter didn’t always occur in the presence of the former and as she wasn’t able to attend church as much, her personal study of the scriptures became a constant feature of her life. We had the usual church books on the shelves up to and including the Journal of Discourses (impossible to read, imo, with its rotten text, probably the only books in the house I didn’t spend much time reading, my bad), but also Jung and Swedenborg, Freud, Joseph Campbell, National Geographic, Time-Life Science series….anything that presented Mom with new ways of viewing scripture and life (her choices were quite eclectic when we got better off and not always wise, but she listened to criticism and adjusted her views when it made sense to her). Analyzing church doctrine and history (Mom was a massive fan of Joseph Smith) was about finding the truth, not explaining mistakes away, so the idea that is what modern apologetics is doing just seems wrong to me even though I recognize there are some apologists with that attitude. There are more it seems to me that are like me with a very strong curiosity drive that’s been attached to all things church related or even obsessed with religion or anything touching on spirituality as well as a desire to talk about what they pick up and what they can do with it. I don’t know how much my dad read (Dad liked closed doors and privacy, didn’t go in for chit chat, but loved dissecting people’s thoughts), not sure whether he was more educated by Mom’s sharing or read it himself, but he was also someone who refused to let his time be wasted and since he took over much of what Mom used to do in the home (without complaining or acting like it wasn’t his job, so that was another moment of disorientation when I found out there were actually men who refused to do women’s work when it was needed and made their wives’ lives hell because of that, it wasn’t just a thing to laugh at on sitcoms or restricted to the poor and uneducated), his involvement with Church started including refusals of callings when he didn’t see it as a good use of his time. He pretty much just ignored any attempts at persuasion or dominance (if the latter attempts ever occurred, Dad was….impressive in his poise and look, he would have made a great gangster, one of the well dressed, good looking, but scary kind). He either ignored or laughed about any attempts to guilt him into giving in or appeals to his higher nature. So even as a kid, I would say a year or three after my baptism I had picked up the attitude we were to test what our leaders required of us by osmosis if not by direct instruction. So on the occasions I heard stuff like ‘the thinking is done’, it either didn’t register or got rewritten in my head on its way to my memory banks because I don’t remember hearing that kind of stuff much and treated it as unusual and uneducated when I did….yes, in many ways I was a snob as a kid. I was pretty dismissive of it because I knew better (I was very proud of my parents’ knowledge and experience in the Church, they shared stories but of fond memories, not bragging that they were remarkable because the General Authorities always stayed at her home when visiting the ‘mission field’ or because he was the first Eagle Scout of their branch since it was Grandma who cared deeply and we heard that story because Dad was amused by how much she cared given he was always so oblivious to the status stuff; he also was forced to learn to play the accordion). When I was 13 we ended up back in California less than a 5 minute walk from Church and we were expected to attend everything even if Mom couldn’t and Dad missed stuff because of work. Being painfully shy, I did not enjoy the social side and resisted when I could. There were a couple very devout traditional families as the core of our ward as well as a few more like mine, very active overall, but not teaching the Church should consume your life, so I know I got exposed to what I view as the Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R McKonkie mindset, but I never saw that as a dominant view. It shocked me when I got to BYU and learned that geology professors had a hard time from members who considered they were apostates and ran into incidents of the modesty police (one of my grandmothers had a fit I would sit with my knees apart when wearing pants, too bad for her as I always been a sprawler, the pews at church have been my lifelong nemesis; the other grandmother had a fit I had bangs and didn’t style my hair as it was as short as I could manage without standing out being terminally shy, but it was never presented as a moral or church thing). It never occurred to me before that there were so many educated members who didn’t believe in evolution (I don’t remember how I reconciled Bible stories with the science as both were treated as truth in their context in my family, I think I did Religion in Church and Science where it made sense to do science and just figured it would be revealed some day how it fit together because, you know, we were promised continuing revelation and like my mom, I felt like we were getting it from everywhere). My parents were practical when it came to politics and voted for both parties or rather neither as they voted for the person or the issue and it was a family amusement at how my greatgrandmother who lived in Utah was a rabid democrat, so it also shocked me how conservative Utah was. Looking back, my extended family in Utah (both parents were born there) didn’t talk politics around me at least or I ignored it and I apparently grew up in less typical wards or I just assumed the quiet members were more like my family than they were…or perhaps both. Anyway, all that to say my gut reaction when I read comments like this is to feel bad for you guys, it feels you were cheated of some pretty fantastic opportunities to explore the world by someone telling you to construct some unnecessary mental walls.

I wish she used footnotes so I could know where she got her distorted ideas of chemistry from. While she has some details right (possibly when she is just repeating a description), her analysis is riddled with errors. The best course is to question everything. ILike this…they do have tests that can tell which is which and usually what the original looked like. Whoever told her this lied, passed on a lie unintentionally, or fundamentally misunderstood what they were looking at.

I don’t understand why she thinks the diamond companies need this elaborate hoax on how natural diamonds occur in order to inflate costs and drive up the appeal of diamonds and just as “background truth”. Diamonds were treasured long before the science was known. And they were rare before more modern methods of mining were used. And you don’t need a scientific theory to market something as desirable….give them sex, status, or safety. The “a diamond is forever” marketing campaign linked diamonds to eternal love, making them more emotionally appealing and less likely to be resold, not to geological formation. She says so herself, but then she latches on the allegedly fraudulent theory as if an essential part of the ad campaign. It’s disjointed. I feel like I both wasted the last couple of hours, but was also fascinated by it. I really don’t comprehend the conspiracy minded. It makes life so complicated (I don’t deny all conspiracies, De Beers did sit on a massive stockpile for decades, just the really convoluted ones). Think of trying to explain GPS without satellites.

She spends a huge amount of time constructing her theory, but doesn’t spend 5 seconds doublechecking her own claims that something is wrong. She can’t understand how adding an additional chemical to another chemical can pull out some of its parts, specifically sulfuric acid pulling out nitrates, so she just dismisses it rather than seeing if she can find something that explains it. I found this video in the time it took to type out “sulfuric acid pulling out nitrates” and hitting return:

You can burn hydrogen gas in the presence of oxygen to create water.

I just scanned her iodine article. She definitely doesn’t understand chemistry.…or biology. So it makes sense she doesn’t understand physics, climate science, etc. Her claim that water can’t be created or destroyed…has she never heard of electrolysis? What does she think running an electrical current through water does? Evaporates it into water vapor? And evil scientists have hidden oxygen and hydrogen to pull out at the end and say ‘duh duh!’ I am not even sure she understands what elements are. Either she was asleep during high school chemistry class or never took it. And this is the opening paragraph of her article 1: Yeah, she doesn’t understand basic chemistry or physics…. What elements and compounds even are. It appears she prefers woo (I need a non derogatory word that functions as well as “woo” here, pseudoscience just doesn’t seem to have the proper nuance). Where the heck is she getting this? I don’t think she even knows the logic and assumptions if this is her portrayal.

Last part: Diamonds are not the standard for elemental carbon; they are a crystalline form among several allotropes. Their properties do not determine the behavior of carbon isotopes, the reliability of radiocarbon dating, or the validity of climate models. Carbon’s stability, isotopic behavior, and chemical properties are measured independently of diamonds and are well-understood in both laboratory and natural systems. Radiocarbon dating remains robust because its assumptions are empirically tested and calibrated. Variability in C-14 production, biological carbon handling, or potential contamination is accounted for using chemical pretreatments, calibration curves, and independent chronological records. The method does not collapse under scrutiny; it continues to provide reliable ages across a wide range of archaeological and geological samples. Climate models do not assume carbon behaves identically everywhere. Atmospheric CO₂, carbon fluxes, and oceanic exchange are measured continuously, and models incorporate spatial and temporal variability. Diamond formation, laboratory growth, or internal zoning has no bearing on the physical accuracy of climate projections or carbon-based measurements. Bottom line: The final claims rely on misrepresented connections between unrelated phenomena. Diamonds, radiocarbon dating, and climate modeling are scientifically independent, and none of them fail due to variation in diamond formation. Presenting them as a collapsing framework is rhetorical, not factual. ———- since that might be too long, I let Chat summarize…. 1. Diamonds and Carbon Purity The article repeatedly claims that diamonds are evidence of “pure carbon” and that their variability undermines carbon science. While it is true that diamonds can show internal growth zones, inclusions, and variable properties such as hardness or thermal conductivity, these features do not contradict elemental carbon. Diamonds are only one allotrope of carbon, and their variations are well-understood as a result of impurities, structural defects, and the dynamic conditions of mantle formation. Laboratory-grown diamonds mimic these extreme conditions artificially, but this does not imply that natural diamonds cannot form under similar high-pressure and high-temperature conditions over geologic timescales. Inclusions such as fluids, olivine grains, or metallic droplets are also expected under natural mantle conditions. They reflect local chemical heterogeneity, variable redox conditions, and episodic growth. Geologists have studied these inclusions extensively, and they provide valuable information about the deep Earth, rather than evidence of deception or failure. The assertion that natural diamond formation has “never been observed” ignores the fact that indirect measurements, thermodynamic modeling, and isotopic analysis provide robust evidence for their deep-mantle origin. 2. Carbon-14 and Radiocarbon Dating The article critiques carbon dating by emphasizing that C-14 atoms are not directly observed, that the method relies on assumptions, and that biological and environmental variability undermine accuracy. While it is true that carbon dating is model-based, the criticisms misrepresent how science validates and calibrates the method. Isotopic behavior: C-14 decay is directly measurable and reproducible in laboratories. Mass spectrometry and radiation counting provide reliable indirect measurements of C-14 relative to C-12. Indirect detection is standard in atomic and nuclear physics and does not imply uncertainty or circular reasoning. Calibration and atmospheric variation: While atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratios fluctuate due to solar activity, geomagnetic effects, fossil-fuel emissions, and other factors, these variations are well-understood and corrected using calibration curves (e.g., IntCal), derived from tree rings, corals, and other independently dated samples. Biological variability and contamination: Different tissues and species incorporate carbon differently, and contamination can occur. Laboratories account for these factors by chemically isolating stable components, such as bone collagen or charcoal, and by quantifying uncertainty. These procedures make carbon dating robust and reliable. Cross-validation: Radiocarbon dating is tested against independent chronological records, including dendrochronology, ice cores, and historically dated artifacts. This ensures that calibration is empirically grounded, not circular or arbitrary. Contrary to the claim that carbon dating is “not a clock,” it is a quantitative method based on predictable nuclear decay, validated across multiple independent lines of evidence. While model-based, its assumptions are continually tested and refined, and it consistently produces accurate dates for archaeological and geological samples. 3. Climate Models and Carbon as a Global Variable The article asserts that climate models and carbon-based systems collapse if diamonds or carbon dating are questioned. This is factually incorrect. Climate models account for variability in atmospheric CO₂, carbon fluxes, and oceanic exchange. Observational data from satellites, ice cores, and atmospheric monitoring validate the models’ input parameters. Diamond formation and laboratory synthesis have no bearing on the global carbon cycle or the predictive power of climate models. Carbon is measured, not assumed, and its chemical and isotopic behavior is well-understood in natural systems. 4. Summary of Logical and Scientific Errors The article relies on several recurrent logical fallacies and misrepresentations: Non sequitur / keystone collapse: Variations in diamond structure are presented as if they invalidate all carbon science. In reality, diamonds are illustrative, not foundational. Argument from ignorance: Claims that mantle formation has “never been observed” are presented as evidence of failure, ignoring extensive indirect observations and modeling. Misrepresentation of assumptions: Radiocarbon dating’s assumptions are framed as arbitrary, while in reality they are tested, calibrated, and validated against independent chronological records. Conflation of variability with failure: Natural variability in diamond properties, C-14 ratios, and biological carbon uptake is presented as catastrophic, ignoring that science quantifies and corrects for these variations. 5. Conclusion Diamonds’ internal variations, inclusions, or differences from laboratory-grown crystals do not undermine the chemical or isotopic stability of carbon. Radiocarbon dating is a reliable, empirically validated tool that accounts for natural variability, contamination, and calibration requirements. Climate models operate independently of diamonds and rely on measured carbon cycles, not assumptions about gemstone purity. Claims that carbon science “collapses” due to these factors are rhetorical, not scientific. The criticisms presented in the article misrepresent both the evidence and the methodology, conflating natural complexity with fundamental failure.

Part 4: Carbon dating is often described as a calculation rather than a direct measurement, but this does not make it unreliable. While it depends on the decay of carbon-14 relative to carbon-12, the half-life of C-14 is directly measured in laboratories and consistently verified. The process by which carbon-14 enters the carbon cycle, through atmospheric formation and incorporation into plants and animals, is well understood and forms the basis of a reliable dating method. The article exaggerates variability in atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratios. While these ratios have fluctuated over time due to solar activity, geomagnetic changes, and fossil-fuel emissions, scientists account for these variations using calibration curves derived from tree rings, corals, and other known-age samples. These corrections ensure that radiocarbon dating remains accurate for both recent and ancient samples. Finally, carbon movement through living systems is well-characterized. While some biological and environmental factors can affect local ratios, these are minor, measurable, and correctable. Carbon dating, when applied correctly, provides robust and scientifically validated estimates of age. The presentation of these well-understood processes as speculative or assumption-driven misrepresents decades of empirical verification. Part 5 It is true that carbon-14 atoms are not directly observed with the naked eye, but this does not undermine radiocarbon dating. Both mass spectrometry and radiation counting methods rely on well-established, repeatable physical principles. In mass spectrometry, ionized carbon atoms behave predictably in electromagnetic fields according to their mass; in radiation counting, beta decay events are directly measurable. These methods provide reliable data about the presence of C-14, even if individual atoms are inferred. The article’s claim that reference materials create a circular system is misleading. Standards used to calibrate instruments are based on independently verified samples and isotopic measurements. Cross-checks against dendrochronology, historical artifacts, and other known-age materials confirm that radiocarbon measurements accurately reflect age in natural settings. Background radiation, contamination, and chemical bonding effects are explicitly considered and corrected for in established protocols. Finally, the notion that the isotope model is “defective” or untested in natural environments misrepresents decades of empirical validation. Radiocarbon dating is robust because its assumptions are continuously tested against real-world samples. Indirect measurement, standardization, and calibration are normal, reliable practices in physics and chemistry, not evidence of deception or failure. part 6 While radiocarbon dating relies on a model and assumptions, these are empirically validated and carefully tested. The C-14/C-12 ratio is not arbitrarily assigned; it is derived from direct measurements of atmospheric carbon and calibrated against tree rings, corals, and other independent chronological records. Fluctuations due to solar activity, geomagnetic changes, or human emissions are accounted for using well-established calibration curves. The claim that biological variation or contamination invalidates carbon dating is misleading. Laboratories isolate chemically stable components, such as collagen in bones, to minimize variability and contamination. Protocols are designed to remove exogenous carbon, and residual uncertainties are quantified. Radiocarbon dating is robust precisely because these factors are studied and corrected for. Finally, the suggestion that carbon does not exist in living matter or that carbon dating is not a valid “clock” misrepresents the science. Carbon is a measurable element in organic and inorganic matter, and C-14 decay occurs at a predictable, quantifiable rate. While carbon dating is model-based, like all scientific measurements, it is validated through independent cross-checks, not circular assumption. The method produces reliable ages for archaeological, geological, and environmental samples when applied according to standard protocols. Bottom line: This section misrepresents uncertainty and calibration as fundamental failure. Radiocarbon dating is not a mere story or cosmetic number; it is a scientifically validated, quantitative tool supported by extensive empirical evidence.

Part 2: Natural diamonds do exhibit variability in hardness, thermal conductivity, fluorescence, and other properties. This is expected due to impurities, crystal orientation, and structural defects. Variation does not indicate that carbon is unstable or that diamond contradicts textbook chemistry. Diamonds remain composed primarily of elemental carbon, and their differing properties reflect natural geological processes rather than a flaw in the element itself. The presence of inclusions such as fluids, olivine, or metallic iron is also well-understood in mineralogy. High-pressure and high-temperature conditions in the mantle can trap fluids and minerals, and local heterogeneities in redox or chemistry produce inclusions that seem “incompatible” at first glance. These inclusions do not invalidate mantle formation models; they provide insight into the dynamic and complex environment where diamonds crystallize. Finally, the claim that formation conditions have “never been observed or explained” misrepresents scientific methodology. While direct observation deep in the mantle is impossible, laboratory experiments, phase diagrams, isotopic measurements, and inclusion studies have produced a coherent, testable model for natural diamond formation. Presenting variability and inclusions as evidence of a global deception is a logical fallacy; it conflates natural complexity with impossibility. Bottom line: Diamonds’ variable properties and inclusions are consistent with natural formation under extreme mantle conditions. They do not undermine carbon as an element, the reliability of radiocarbon dating, or carbon-based scientific models. part 3 The article claims that internal growth zones and abrupt chemical shifts in diamonds “cannot be explained” by mantle formation. While diamonds do exhibit zoning and variations in inclusions, this is expected during natural growth over millions of years under changing pressure, temperature, and chemical environments. Existing mantle models account for these variations, and they do not invalidate the geologic origin of diamonds. The suggestion that radiation trails inside diamonds show they are “far younger than billions of years” is misleading. Fission tracks and radiation damage can be partially reset by geologic events such as heat or deformation. These phenomena are well-studied and do not contradict isotopic dating of diamond inclusions, which reliably indicates formation deep in the Earth over geologic timescales. Claims of a cover-up are unsupported. The article emphasizes laboratory diamond growth (HPHT and CVD) as proof that natural diamond formation is impossible. While it is true that lab-grown diamonds require seed crystals and tightly controlled conditions, this does not imply that natural diamonds cannot form. Mantle diamonds crystallize under extreme pressure and temperature over millions of years, and lab techniques are designed to replicate these conditions artificially, not to dictate them. Finally, the claim that misunderstanding diamonds would “collapse” carbon science is false. Radiocarbon dating, climate modeling, and carbon-cycle science do not depend on diamond formation. Diamonds are illustrative examples of carbon, not a keystone for all carbon-based research. Using diamond anomalies to suggest the collapse of all carbon science is a non sequitur and a rhetorical tactic, not a scientific argument. Bottom line: This section mixes accurate descriptions of diamond structure and lab growth with false causal claims, misrepresented evidence, and conspiracy framing. The geological evidence for natural diamond formation is robust, and nothing in lab synthesis or zoning patterns undermines carbon-based scientific methods.

Since ChatGPT is the nearest ‘authority’, I appealed to it. It’s been awhile (maybe years, possibly a decade or more when I last encountered criticism of carbon dating and therefore looked into it and there was some stuff in the quotes that seemed problematic to me, but brain is not on and details aren’t pulling up memory, so I don’t think the explanation I studied found a permanent home in my brain. I broke up the whole rant and fed it to ChatGPT and said to identify false claims and analyze…I skipped the whole manufactured scarcity claim because I have known since Junior High iirc that the diamond market is heavily controlled for profit, etc…I think due to a mystery or two I read (murdered diamond merchants or diamond smugglers is a common plot). part 1 rebuttal The article’s claim that carbon is “unstable and unreliable” is false. Carbon exists in multiple isotopes and forms, but the stability of C-12 and the predictable radioactive decay of C-14 are well-established through direct measurement. The existence of diamonds, whether lab-grown or natural, does not determine the reliability of carbon as an element or the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. Carbon dating depends on nuclear physics and measured decay rates, not the structure or purity of diamond crystals. The suggestion that diamonds are proof of “pure carbon” and therefore central to all carbon science is incorrect. Diamonds are only one allotrope of carbon and have long been studied for their lattice structure and mineral inclusions. Carbon’s properties, isotopic ratios, and behavior in chemical and biological systems are validated through independent experiments, spectroscopy, and nuclear measurements. Diamonds are illustrative examples, not foundational evidence. The argument that natural diamond formation is unobserved and therefore mythical relies on a fallacy of ignorance. High-pressure and high-temperature conditions can be recreated in laboratories, and geological evidence from inclusions, mantle mineralogy, and isotopic signatures supports deep-earth formation. Scientific models frequently infer unobservable processes based on measurable outcomes; direct observation is not required for validation. Finally, the article’s claim that debunking diamonds would collapse climate science, carbon dating, and carbon credits is a false keystone assumption. These fields do not rely on diamonds for their validity. Climate models use atmospheric chemistry, radiative physics, and observational data; radiocarbon dating relies on isotope decay; and carbon accounting tracks emissions and sequestration. The reasoning conflates unrelated domains and presents a modular, well-verified system as if it depends entirely on one illustrative example. Bottom line: The article misrepresents scientific understanding, conflates separate concepts, and uses rhetorical framing to create doubt. Its claims about carbon instability and the “diamond myth” are scientifically unfounded and irrelevant to the accuracy of carbon-based methods.

I wish.

I really want to hear it from the angel’s POV.

That’s assuming he cared about getting revelation “just right” and didn’t see it as always a work in progress, able to be adapted when circumstances merited it.

I think that would depend on if you promoted it vs answered a question someone asked you as well as how you perceive the role of prophet and sustain the leaders. We have never been required to believe in the infallibility of even modern scripture or of prophets.

That’s a lot more than just publicly announcing she doesn’t believe he did it. She is trying to convert others and even the Church to her way of thinking. And depending on what she says about Brigham Young and other prophets and apostles who practiced plural marriage and who claimed Joseph taught it, that could be significant apostasy. The Priesthood Ban…I can see how that could be combining what Joseph taught was revealed and some personal opinions and arriving at a choice of limiting the temple and then others later on after it had been long established thinking it was all revelation and not extrapolation from revelation plus the philosophies of men, especially with Coltrin and Smoot’s? false testimony about Joseph not allowing black men to be ordained. I don’t see how it could be an error by Brigham Young and several top leaders claiming Joseph not only taught it, but was sealed to multiple women, had physical relations with some of them, etc. Maybe dates and places wrong can be expected without lying as a simple memory problem, but the rest qualifies as outright fabrication imo. So I wouldn’t call her faithful to this Church in the sense of sustaining the prophets and supporting the community within it, though she probably thinks she is doing much better than I am in this. She may be very faithful to her own personal view of what Jesus taught, his Gospel…which if close enough to Jesus’ actual teachings, focused on his Atonement and Resurrection and his commandment to love God and love and care for each other, I feel that is the more important part of helping her live a godly life though I also see it as unfortunate she created a boundary between herself and the Church.

There has been a big problem in professional sports for decades iirc for women who have biological variations such as higher testosterone. At least one lost a title iirc. Others have been barred from participating. Some were pressured to take drugs to become more ‘feminine’.

Fibro is doing a major number on my ability to stay focused. I would suspect I had ADHD except I remember too well when things were different. But who knows, the latest medication has led to a massive improvement in mood and getting me off the roller coaster, so maybe it will stabilize the other parts of my brain eventually. If so, I don’t mind being 80 when I get my Ph. D, but probably won’t do it in Math or Physics like I was thinking. Too many classes I would have to take just to get to where I could take upper classes again. Psychology seems like it is doable though. (Physics was my dream, Math my Gift, Psychology my focus)

Both. Have you not met someone who sees themselves as both a great authority and a great teacher who gets students really engaged with the material? You should hang out with professors more. Some of them are quite arrogant and territorial (though my experience is the easygoing and/or earnest, more concerned about students and coworkers’ feelings professors are more common).

Depends on the reason, needs to be because of mental limitations, ability to understand being accountable, right and wrong, etc. My 35ish daughter has always lived with us, I do her insurance, make her appointments, have my phone number on all her documents, etc, but because she suffers from severe anxiety, especially of the social type. She has been baptized.

You mean by announcing temples there? It will contribute, imo, to building a greater sense of community as it will be a memorable experience shared by many in the community and talked about when gathering together.

No, because it’s more about perception, so appearance and assumptions are enough. You don’t actually have to demonstrate, if I understand correctly, that a person belongs to a particular race or religion and likely nationality for them to receive legal protection. You just need to reasonably demonstrate the person discriminating against them is motivated to act because that person believes they are a certain group that has been legally defined to be consistently mistreated because of race/religion/nationality. A lawyer can correct me if I am wrong here, I have never gone deep into the legal aspects of race. Very superficial knowledge. (I added a paragraph at the top of the previous post mentioning this after I quickly double-checked it, but I still could be wrong). And let me just say every time I dip into the law, I am grateful I have never been required to immerse more than a toe. Not a profession I would choose even if I love nitpicking details.

Even if there is difficulty in proving race, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a very solid construct with very real detrimental effects on certain individuals and communities over time. The courts do not define race biologically, but by social perception. They don’t define religion scientifically either, yet it is also a protected class. Plus it’s perception that matters as discrimination can occur in a legal sense even if the offender is wrong about their target’s race (or religion I believe). There was speculation that was very widespread imo that once the DNA puzzle was solved that there would be obvious markers that would determine race. But this wasn’t accurate. Instead they found there was significantly more variation within a population than there was between them; there aren’t clear boundaries in genetic variation (variety of skin tones, even sex lacks clear boundaries as seen in intersex individuals); there are no genes that belong to only one race; genes affecting appearance are small in number, yet have a large impact so that individuals who look similar may be very different genetically while those who are genetically similar may have a couple different appearance genes and end up looking very different (for example the twins I posted an image of above, their DNA would be likely quite close). Race is primarily based on appearance and therefore has a limited correlation to overall biology, but because humans tend to rate appearance as very important and make assumptions about people based on appearance, race was seen as a provable biological fact. Think of race as similar to judging two books as the same category based solely on their cover and yet the content may be very different. Race was also originally seen as scientifically established because of the way biology was originally categorized (primarily by appearance, also geography), helped along by the need to justify seeing certain populations as inferior to justify slavery, etc. https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Building-the-myth-of-Black-inferiority

This is very understandable. Strong, solid faith in God and his Grace and Love does not suppress our emotions, though it may help us stabilize them. I will most certainly add you and your wife to my prayers.