Calm

And yet sometimes they are. I know myself, my daughter (who cannot now hold a job or even finish high school) and likely thousands of others (was on an email list where we educated ourselves so we could educate our doctors…many who ignored us from reports and my personal experience) who now have severe RLS because doctors refused to listen and gave antidepressants, the worst possible drug, rather than dealing with the actual symptom of sleep deprivation (I found out I, my dad, and at least my grandfather had RLS by myself in 97 iirc after two decades of asking doctors what the hell was going on and getting told I was depressed, which I wasn’t) by searching on the internet even though RLS was described back in the 1600’s and officially defined and named in the 1940’s or 50’s. One of the most common movement disorders (7-10% population of US has it)and yet ignored and virtually unknown by GPs until well into the 2000’s and likely only then because the pharmaceutical companies discovered drugs that appeared to be helpful for it. Unfortunately they made things worse longterm for a large percentage of RLS patients….another case of doctors needing to acknowledge where they made things worse not better even though accurate info on aggravation was just an internet search away, I even printed up the medical info for doctors from the RLS Foundation for my doctor, she refused to look at it throughout the appt and handed it back to me and then dropped me as a patient first excuse she had…I asked for a second opinion. —— Back to the Church issue… I do think the Church erred some when correlation pretty much took a one size fits all, ‘we will do the basic stuff and leave the rest to those interested’ approach. It could be just that my mother was so into personal study and my dad liking to know stuff (he often depended on mom to summarize her study, but I do remember him reading some stuff in my early years….may have read in bed before sleeping, but that may have disappeared when older with the family sleep disorder because he would crash at least by my teen years and anyone who dared disturb him got hellfire and damnation rained upon them, one of the very few things he would lose his temper over…I now understand thoroughly why). My impression is there was more discussion precorrelation…hearing conversations in the hallways and maybe at the dinner table after church. It’s vague, so I might be wrong about it being in the Church culture earlier. After all it’s just two wards and my parents and my dad’s parents I am pulling memories from (my mom’s dad was the most into it, but he died when I was 7 and we only visited their home a few times since they lived in the East and we were West). But the quality of the Church magazines became less educational and more devotional, that’s pretty easily demonstrated. I agree that leaders should not be automatically blamed for people’s lack of knowledge, etc., especially now given the amount of info online. It is not the Church’s mission to educate all its members on history, even its own. I am so grateful it is now investing on research and getting the info out there because individual members and even organizations like FARMS and FAIR can’t do it at the level the Church can with the JSPP and other projects. But when did the Gospel Topics Essays start putting good info on the Church’s website first appear so that people could learn from the a church itself there were issues rather than getting blindsided by antis? It was November 2013. JSPP was online in 2011. Before that you got to buy books, but even that started 2010 I believe. Saints 4 volumes as a wonderful project as well. Too many in my early marriage years assumed they were experts on church history with reading about the Storm family (I am only impressed when the author has decent footnotes and recommended reading lists included…Standing On the Promises is a thumbs up). I am not in the least condemning the Church for making the decision to correlate…it needed to given the speculation and hobbies that was being shared along with the good stuff. Just wish it provided a bit more varied than investigators and basic level materials. Preinternet it was difficult and costly for most members to access accurate information on a number of topics and even if they had access like some Utah members did (one of the best things about moving to Utah was the library section on Mormonism, they also had a great selection of Terry Prachett), why would they look if they were being told they had enough info already to know the truth unless they were curious or into history. The Sunday School manuals (and possibly others but don’t remember) were telling members, including teachers, there was no need to buy additional books to fulfill the goals of the class, the Spirit , scripture and provided materials would be enough. Didn’t say you shouldn’t buy books, etc, just strong reassurance it was not necessary, And in a world with school fees, mortgages or rent, necessities of life, it is nice to know one can depend on the Church to provide anything we actually need. Only it didn’t for some. Recognizing that is not accusing the Church of lying or hiding history. It is recognizing the Church cannot fill everyone’s needs…nor should it. Preinternet it would have been costly to ensure everyone was provided with sufficient material and the Church didn’t have the financial resources like it did now. I think choosing to take off the burden of needing to donate money to get a chapel built and maintained and dumping the number out fundraisers that were always happening to fund activities was a much better early investment than providing historical research for members who mostly weren’t and aren’t that interested. There were wards with libraries of donated books, but there was little in my experience promotion of such once correlation started (I do remember because I loved the Juvenile Instructor my parents got and my Saturday chores included dusting our library so I was very familiar with what books we were adding) and DB and Bookcraft books stopped being sold as fundraisers for Priesthood and other activities (I don’t know if that was church approved, the libraries were I am relatively certain as they were in every older ward building I attended). Plus there was no guidance on what were the useful books and what were personal speculation, etc. People could donate any book and as far as I know they weren’t vetted originally or even when the Church required it. Even though in the instructions for librarians in the late 90s when I was first a librarian, there was the restriction on only having Church Distribution materials plus a dictionary, globe, and stuff like papers, pens, etc, they never were vetted when I was ward librarian, but we weren’t adding books by then. Once I became head librarian I purged most of the not supposed to be there stuff (because I do read the fine print at least once), though not too many members were interested and stuff sat on the giveaway table for weeks. Given how booked the Church and society makes our lives, a lot of people didn’t have the time or mental energy (and still don’t even with the easy access) to find the books with the needed information. Before the internet there was no organized list or whatever telling people where to find the info. No recommendations from the Church on useful websites (FAIR is one of those listed on some topics, btw…have to do my occasional promo here, lol). It would be trial and error too unless you knew someone knowledgeable…and I didn’t when young, though I knew some out there hobbyists I wouldn’t trust now and was too leery of back then. Still too introverted to ask for help when older, though once a few got to know what I was into we started having conversations. City librarians might be helpful, might not (I used to work in a city library and have spent endless hours taking tons of books home with me). One of the most useful BYU English classes I took included how to do research where I learned the sources librarians checked when you asked them questions. That was in the late 70s and while much more useful knowing this stuff (I tracked down a favorite poem I had once read in a book in my high school library, went back to the school that summer with the book’s name and got a copy), still very limited in what one could do with it (I had to go back to my high school because BYU did not have a copy). You would definitely have to use interlibrary loan to get the vast majority of decent material…if it was available in the system your local library was connected to. Helpful if you lived in a university town and had hours or days to spend tracking stuff down. The internet is a wonderful blessing even with all the dangers it has added to our lives.

Seriously as a woman I do not want anyone who could so easily look way too intimidating in a space where we might be alone, especially if I am unclothed. I find the law that requires apparently fully transitioned individuals to use the restrooms of their biological sex insane. I think putting a transwoman in danger by having her use men only restrooms equally insane as forcing me and other women to use the restrooms in the presence of an apparent male (even if they aren’t actually biologically male). That is the same in my view as requiring me to use the men’s room in terms of danger. Why would I be willing to put someone else in that kind of danger when I wouldn’t accept it for myself. More examples of when it comes to law, common sense ain’t that common.

What if stats were to show women are more likely to be attacked by other biological women than trans women? For me perception of safety matters. Even if someone is physically safe, there is emotional safety that should be considered in places where one is most vulnerable making emotional costs especially high I suspect.

It is the same issue imo as whether one believes the inner voice is the Light of Christ or the ‘natural man’ when it comes to beliefs that contradict church teachings, scriptures, etc. How can you tell?

This is a good rule, imo. Unfortunately laws can backfire when it comes to protection and equal rights and access, so they need to be cautious with them. One of the prime examples are less female coaches now than before the law tried to ensure female sports in schools got equal financial support. Once the coaches for female sports got paid decently, men moved in to compete for the jobs and cultural bias that men are better at sports and the fact that male coaches tend to have stronger resumes because of the greater attention male sports got and gets ensured men were more likely to get the coaching jobs even for female sports. So more female athletes, but fewer of them can turn their passion into a career of coaching. https://appliedsportpsych.org/blog/2022/08/the-50th-anniversary-of-title-ix-comes-with-a-catch-fewer-women-coaches/

Can you use it in an example as I am going ‘huh?’

I enjoyed it. Would have loved to see more Emma Thompson as she was fun to watch. I got nit picky (because that’s what I do for fun) with some of the world-building around the sheep, but it’s not like it’s going to be turned into a series of films with multiple storylines, etc.

Many of those who have issues with history were from growing up preinternet. I am 65, grew up in California and Illinois and while my parents and grandparents had quite a few church books on their shelves and I read most of them (Journal of Discourse’s print was too annoying for me), there was a mass of church history I never had access to. My local libraries had few books on our faith, never histories, often antimormon texts. At BYU I got into FARMS and as soon as the Gospel Library came out on CD (we got our first computer, a Macintosh, in 1984 iirc, could have been 85), we got that, but given by then we had a kid and I babysat to earn money for my and my husband’s schooling, I didn’t have much time to spare for reading old church texts and FARMS articles. In 1995 we went to Russia, had a laptop and that became my nighttime reading while I waited to sleep (which gave me several hours a night usually). Even then, most history controversies I never knew about until I joined a message board much like this one in 2001. I was well aware of Joseph’s polygamy, that is one issue I find it difficult to understand how preinternet people missed given the heading in the D&C and mentions in LDS Institute texts from years before I went to BYU in ‘76. My husband grew up in Utah and was well aware of some details of the MMM and other atrocities as he was into the history of Utah, but earlier stuff not so familiar with even though he attended seminary (as did I). Access to information was a very different world preinternet and home computers. That is going to have a massive effect on anyone’s perception. It still shocks me what a different life it is with cellphones. Never being able to get ahold of anyone…and not expecting to once they left the house or work, not being able to know where one loved ones are if its outside of the daily school, work locations, it’s a very different mentality.

How old are you? And have you ever lived outside the Mormon corridor?

Not all of these Churches former members decide to join claim their leaders are currently receiving direct revelation from God. The title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator sets up high expectations, especially if one has been taught a belief that is close to inerrancy for the Prophets. Many from what I read go to more liberal theologically speaking denominations that don’t create such difficulties for their leaders. It would be interesting to find out how many seek out churches that have some form of inerrancy of scripture or leadership in them.

Interesting. I wonder how he got there, revelation or reason or a combination. Added: he does say this not long after that quote: “I never told you I was perfect— 47 but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught—” But he’s ending his talk so it might be a presentation of his authority rather than an identification of everything he just said as revelation, like adding credentials. How Joseph himself typically viewed his teachings/comments is something I really should study more, going through his works over time, but that likely won’t these days (have too little dopamine it seems to be motivated much, I need a wife/mother/assistant to push me to do…)

While it can take effort to pay attention to one’s own writing, still there’s not much cost for most people in learning, I believe, to use “some of” rather than just speaking of a group as a whole, applying a few of the individuals’ attributes to the group as if it’s an inherent attribute. Significant precision when being critical is truly important if one wants to be fair and not unintentionally slander others, imo.

Context matters. Just because in almost every other circumstance saying “I love you” means someone cares in a positive way doesn’t mean we need to take an “I love you” from someone beating us up seriously.

References please. The search function isn’t working for me or rather the links aren’t working and the only thing for “telestial” that is coming appears to be referring to the telestial kingdom or its glory. I know general membership (what would be the technical term for those not General Authorities or Officers since “lay” doesn’t really work since our leadership isn’t trained in seminaries, our male general membership are ordained, and now most adults are called as “ministers”) sometimes use it this way, but don’t remember it being published by the Church this way and if so, seems like it leads to unnecessary confusion, contrary to scripture, of what the kingdom actually is, a wonderful and pure place, not a place full of wickedness or corruption. Not debating its use at this point, just want the info to know what my expectations and understanding of the word should be. If it’s used officially this way, I will just add it to salvation and other words that have gotten confusing due to imprecise use in scripture or by leaders in our faith and try to remember to include context so it’s clear which I am talking about so no one is confused (I will always use it for the kingdom and related, but I don’t expect people to track my definitions, lol). If it’s not used officially to mean the fallen world, then I will probably continue to point out this usage contradicts scripture and might be best to be avoided to avoid confusion as Telestial is already confusing enough to nonmembers as a unique word in LDS vernacular.

There are ways to make it comfortable. I have a pad that wraps around where it hits my neck. Used to get irritations there and was constantly pulling on it. Don’t even notice it anymore. This is just an example, not specifically recommending it. https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Comfortable-Backpack-Shoulder-Automotive/dp/B0C6DTT5MJ/

I will pass this on. They put a lot of work into trying to get this to work well each year. I am sure they will be happy that the result this year showed that effort.

He quotes the Bible that says flesh and blood are corrupt, but then allows flesh to be quickened even though it’s labeled as corrupt. Why not blood? I believe this is a case of him reasoning, not revelation as he is showing the reasoning he did. I think his reasoning is faulty to make that conclusion. Not claiming there is blood, my position is we don’t have enough info for that conclusion. I don’t believe we actually have that much info on our actual eternal physical bodies’ operation. What can be perceived and understood by mortal eyes even in a quickened state may be a very limited view of the reality. Blood is symbolic of life and is used to purify. We drink a symbol of blood as part of our purification/union with God ritual, the Sacrament. How can blood be inherently corrupt to the point it can’t function in a kingdom of glory or even why would blood be seen symbolically as inherently corrupt by God and yet he cleanses us of sin with his blood, possibly symbolically, possibly literally. I understand that blood is also a sign of mortality, which an be seen as a condition due to physical corruption. But the fact that is can symbolize both corruption and what purifies us of corruption indicates to me blood itself is not inherently corrupt.

I do not doubt it. Lots of speculation, some horrible (past Old Testament study guide on creation) has been published in manuals. Thankfully the Church has been correcting that over time. Joseph Fielding Smith unfortunately presented some of his own speculation as doctrine and rejection of such as false doctrine when even that speculation contradicted previous prophets’ positions or at least were extensively published under their direction. So while I recognized it has been taught and likely still is, I see no reason to accept it as truth myself since it is not consistently or logically explained. Nor is my salvation dependent on that detail. https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/ This talk was also given in the Tabernacle, iirc. I can accept Joseph Fielding Smith as prophet and still believe he taught some false doctrine. He established that precedent for me. (See bold in quote)

Google says that’s a liquor. (Added: Chat agrees with you) This is what it gave me старший starshiy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/старший Chat gave a different word last night. I will see if I can find it. added: here’s the appraisal of the claim by Chat: ”The usual Russian LDS translation of Elder is старейшина (stareyshina). The ordinary Russian meaning is essentially “elder,” “senior/respected member,” or “leader of a community.” It comes from the root associated with being old/eldest. Russian dictionaries do not give “wizard” or “magician” as a meaning. There is another Russian word, старец (starets), meaning an old/respected man and, particularly, a religious elder, monk, or spiritual guide. That’s a very important word in Russian Orthodox culture because of the tradition of the starets—a spiritually gifted elder regarded as having unusual wisdom or insight”

It has (added: sort of has if one squints) the connotation of wise spiritual leader according to wiki (I checked after I posted, but forgot to add that). Not surprising it got misinterpreted for them, maybe someone thought wizard meant wise one….or maybe a Russian was teasing them or maybe it was wishful thinking by an elder that wanted something besides religious and national prejudice to explain the evil eye signs and harassment. Just being obviously Americans preaching an American faith (in Russians’ view) was more than enough to explain that behaviour from my own experience.

Back when we lived in Kansas, my husband attended a very tragic funeral of a three year old. Everyone else was strapped in but her. She was dancing and laughing in the backseat seat having a blast and entertaining everyone. Mom was only going ten miles an hour due to slow traffic but a car crossed the line, also not going that fast, and there was a head on (obviously not a full one, more corners hitting iirc). I think the combined speed was only 20, 25 mph. The kid just got jerked in the wrong way and snapped her neck. You can just never really predict when it’s going to get dangerous. Keep those seatbelts on and kids in their car seats.

I am trying to understand why you went here in response to my question of why lewdness in general wouldn’t be sufficient given Smac’s concerns about sexualized live adult shows (a concern I share with him, though I think recorded ones should be ideally treated the same where possible as while live might be more shocking I assume, recorded can be made more appealing since it’s easier to fake stuff, harder to see the reality). The analogy implies I am trying to get people to accept something they normally wouldn’t and shouldn’t accept. But I am at a loss on what you think I was trying to do. The analogy is slow exposure to something lethal means easier to accept it, which can be true for humans I believe even if not with frogs and hot water. It’s part of the reason why I find the one f-word allowed as long as it’s an expletive in a pg 13 movie ridiculous. If the claim is one time use is going to be less likely to be repeated…the time I heard the most repetitions of an expletive from a movie was when Data used profanity just that once in Generations (think that’s the one). The restriction was laughable in its result, has the opposite effect as intended. The expletive gets placed as a punchline typically and therefore quoted. If you can only use it once, make it count. I am quite concerned with a lot of modeling using minors in provocative dress and poses. Though my guess it’s more the adults surrounding the kids that get sexualized so to speak than the kids, while the kids seeing the ads might choose the clothes, it’s the adults seeing that choice as provocative, the kids as sexual (what is sexual in clothing depends on cultural standards and if one hasn’t learned those standards yet, why would you respond to it as sexual? Anyone here find rolling eyes or tiny, bound female feet as a signal of sexuality?) The only thing that occurs to me for why you posted this is when I asked if there was ways to avoid having nonsexualized drag shows targeted perhaps you inferred I meant something…but I only asked that question because Smac said this: To me this means that Smac does not see all drag as inherently lewd and therefore, it’s not “is it drag?” that is the standard that needs to be measured, but “is it lewd?”. So I am not understanding why one needs to specify drag at all if the issue is lewdness. If something is lewd in drag, surely it’s lewd in straight attire as well? I am asking for clarification on why drag needs to be included in a lewdness law from Smac and anyone else legally inclined. I certainly, most definitely agree that there should be rules about lewdness and I wish our culture had stricter social standards for adults. Even if I don’t believe somethings are inherently lewd, if something has been defined as lewd by a culture I don’t think people should be able to accidentally run across it when they don’t choose to do so and that includes children. I also believe our culture is really messed up by making somethings that should be just a common every day activity lewd…like breastfeeding.

I am guilty of killing frogs by slowly raising water temp before, it is true. Don’t have to experiment any more to figure it out how to best do it. Found a real easy solution, plus it’s also the only way that actually works. At water temps above 90°F, put a lid on that pot. Otherwise when it hits 85°F, fast or slow, they will be out of there, if not before. Btw, once they die at 90°F due to extended high temp exposure, it will just be gross and idiotic if you wait till the water boils to test for death. Unless what you are really aiming for is a plate of frog legs (bad choice though apparently as boiling frog legs turn them rubbery, pan frying is better). Our aquarium thermostat broke in the night apparently and I came down to 6 frogs floating on their backs having croaked. Tongues were even hanging out. Otoh, the fish were in ecstasy moving faster than I have ever seen before or since. I learned that day frogs won’t wait passively in the water until it is boiling no matter how slowly the temp rises. They will be long dead before the water starts to bubble. Alas, even without the cover where they would have likely jumped out no matter how slowly the temp rose, their fate still would be death. Had one jump out before we got the cover. Was not a happy camper. Frog in boiling water story is so wrong on so many levels…..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog. Above 100°F means instant thermal shock and death (water boils at 212° F). Actual biology gets in the way of some good stories, doesn’t it? Need to come up,with a better analogy. ——— Back to what you actually mean even if using a faulty metaphor to accuse me…. Gave up trying to persuade people and change their minds long, long ago. Never saw it happen, so why put energy into it? I do invest in sharing accurate information for the fun of it, but people choose for themselves how they want to use it. Trying to understand others’ thoughts, reasonings, motivations, and intentions is all I try to accomplish these days.

I think an issue could be that for some people these days, any drag performance is sexualized (not claiming it is for you)….otherwise why isn’t just the accusation of lewdness enough to control sexualized performances? Are there ways to avoid mild drag shows not to be targeted without their having to spend money to defend themselves (either the performer or the venue)?

People who record while driving….I just don’t get it. Besides the urge to look at the phone instead of the road, even if one is looking at the road, one is actively thinking about something else. And if one has a script one has in mind, that’s can get to neglecting the road. Just casually talking while driving, responding to someone is not as intense of a focus and that can still cause accidents (not saying no one should talk or listen to audiobooks, that’s not going to happen and isn’t necessary and can even help stay alert; just stay aware of how involved you are getting). My not appreciated lifelong headaches were caused by an accident when my grandmother drove off the freeway and hit a ditch when I was 13 because she turned to talk to my siblings in the backseat. I am alive or at least not with a face full of scars because of my seatbelt, but the dashboard was hard enough. And kids apparently didn’t used to get whiplash. I learned early to view cars as lethal weapons. Still get images of what might have been without that seatbelt. Not pretty. What a tragedy.