bluebell

It’s a very visually beautiful movie. If you like animals, then it’s incredibly stressful. And it’s the kind of movie where you can’t stop thinking about it because you’re trying to figure out how it all makes sense.

My kids and I watch the weirdest animated movie I’ve ever seen. It’s called Flow. It came out in the last few months and has won a few awards. We streamed it for free so it must’ve been either on Netflix or Amazon prime. There are no people in the movie and there is no talking. It’s only animals and the animals make regular animal sounds to each other. The main character is a black cat who is caught in a catastrophic flood and has to survive in a sailboat with a capybara, lemur, secretary bird and Labrador retriever. They also get an assist sometimes from a whale/dinosaur thing. About 3/4 of the way through the movie, the secretary bird gets sucked up into some weird ball of light situation, goes into the sky, we never see him again. The final scene is the group of animals all stand next to the dying whale after the water all receded and it’s laying in a heap in the middle of the forest. There are no explanations for ANYTHING.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/06/15/fairview-texas-temple-campaign-reduce-steeple-height-hubbard/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=dn-social&utm_campaign=facebookpage&utm_content=deseretnews&fbclid=IwY2xjawSfBdpleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFuMmFtNmFvWUZtaklvVjZ2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgKaPZPqky7kPmBcFadbg3RREFXbgY43ZSRLCcR4vS6x0OMg5M4G2q-y6WNI_aem_2g-tnOIAIC_7Rgy1gdT_Yw That kind of seems like a threat.

That's how I read his comments as well. That he was attempting to make fun of white people but really messed it all up.

The date has been put up before, and this thread and in other threads. At this point, there’s really no reason to put up more data. You won’t engage with it anyway. You’ll just put up exceptions to the data and only want to talk about those. That tends to be your MO. I don’t want to circle that drain again. And of course, women can say whatever they want. But if the tables were turned I don’t think any woman who objected would have a leg to stand on.

If the data supported it and all the men that felt that way had actual real life experience that warranted it, then absolutely. In such a case, women should be a part of the conversation *in order to support men and advocate for changes to keep men safer*.

You could ask men who don’t struggle with this issue (like Nehor or SeekingUnderstanding, among others) how they are able to deal with the quandary. Most of us know men who are very capable of doing it so there are probably plenty you could go to for advice.

As someone who has family members with mental health struggles like bipolar, I agree it’s complicated.

I really do appreciate the effort, and women need more advocates in their lives. There is real mental harm when worrying about a threat is irrational. If the threat is rational (based on logic and personal experience), then harm is mitigated by being aware and concerned about it. When you went to the 'this isn't good for your mental health' angle, you implied (probably not on purpose) that women are behaving irrationally. That is why your post was taken as it was.

I’m glad he apologized. There wasn’t much else he could do since you can’t unspread butter, as they say.

To me it’s like telling someone who’s been stung by a bee and almost died not to worry about bees or carrying an epi-pen because the anxiety isn’t healthy for their mental health.

Rain said everything so perfectly that I don’t have much to add. But I did want to ask, have you been following this thread? It’s a sincere question and I’m not trying to be snarky. Because the reason that we worry about this kind of stuff is because we’ve actually had it happen to us or people that we know in real life. This is not an abstract problem. We worry about our safety because of actual real life experiences. Multiple experiences. Women have shared these experiences on this thread. Do you know what it sounds like when a man tells a woman that it’s not healthy for her to worry about her safety around men, when he’s saying that to a woman who has herself been assaulted by a male stranger in broad daylight? Or a woman who has a close family member who was raped by a personal friend that she knew for years?

No excuse. That should be illegal.

I know this topic has run its course but this quote popped up on my facebook feed and I really wanted to document it on the board. "Today I heard a man explain to his friend why "not all men" is wrong. He said the first thing you learn in gun safety is to treat every single gun as if it's loaded, even if you think it's probably not, for everyone's safety. And that is how women have learned to treat men."

I think part of the disconnect you and I are having is that we are using to different definitions of "Christian". You are using a theological definition while I am using the dictionary definition. I don't find the theological definition useful, for the same reasons that MiserereNobis (and C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity) outlined. It can never actually be applied, and a word that you can never use is a useless word in my opinion. If you want to use a theological definition I don't have any problem with it, and support you applying it however you want. But I don't need to know whether or not someone is a good Christian, or a saved Christian, or a whatever else Christian before using it. I don't need to evaluation the substance of the claim, I just need to know whether or not the claim exists. I wasn't just talking about Missouri. The persecution in Missouri lasted about 6 years while the persecution of the saints in general lasted 60+ years. I completely agree with you in that much violence is done in the name of religion that actually has nothing to do with religion. Though religion may be someone's outward justification for their acts, it's rarely the actual reason. It's just the reason that sounds best when they say it outloud.

I don't interpret those verses in 127 the same as you. That was definitely the view of the creeds, especially expressed in this section which was written by JS while he was in hiding fearing for his life, pursued by people who professed to be 'Christian' and used upholding the creeds as their justification/excuse for all the evils they committed. And for sure the use of the label 'Christian' was different back then. I don't even know that latter-day saints in JS's day thought of themselves as Christian, as it seemed to be mostly applied only to protestants and not even to Catholics in that day. But Joseph seemed to look very charitably on other Christians. (Below are some quotes that I got from one of Dan Peterson's articles) Those who knew or heard JS speak who weren't latter-day saints also seemed to believe he had a charitable view of them. Joseph even had other Christian ministers speak to the saints from time to time, and so did BY in salt lake city. This speech is probably one of JS's most famous, on God's views of people of different religions, or who do not accept the gospel as the LDS church teaches it: Here's what Dan Peterson says at the end of the article, after he shares quotes from JS: For sure, we have had seasons or members in the church where we were more judgemental against others who disagreed with us than we are now. We have our 'worst' just like every other group does. And we have our 'best' like every other group does as well. Generally speaking though, despite our theological differences and some of the hard feelings that came out of decades of persecution and harm, we have not made it difficult for non-latter-day saints to be included in the Christian category.

Prayers! That is unacceptable!

A Christian is someone who is a sincere believer in Jesus Christ. For latter-day saints, there is only one religious test used to determine whether or not someone is a Christian: Do they believe in Christ and do they consider themselves one.

And yet, we still consider them Christian, right? We don’t believe someone has to profess correct creeds to be a sincere follower of Christ.

No it hasn't.

It’s on my watch list.

I will never understand the mindset of forcing or bribing a kid to go on a mission. I served one, my husband served (after converting when he was 16), and my oldest son has served. Missions are absolutely worth it when you serve for the right purposes and it's your decision to go. But I can't see the worth in being there against your will or grudgingly. My second oldest son has not served and it has never been an issue for his dad or I.

I just wanted to add that I don't doubt your experience or that there are wards and/or families where this kind of thing would be judged harshly. I'm also guessing that when you were growing up things were a lot different than they are now in most places. I don't doubt that at times in the past, it never would have been celebrated if a kid choose to enlist rather than serve a mission. I grew up in the 80s and 90s (born in the late 70s) but it sounds like you grew up in the 60s and 70s? I would guess that the peak McConkie era in the church was a hard time to have doubts, make mistakes, or choose a different road. I don't want my posts to make it seem like there has never been a problem with families shunning those who didn't serve, for whatever reason. Your feelings around the experiences with your family especially are valid.

One ward was in Utah. The others were in different states.

It’s a beautiful area, we vacation there often. Lots of popular off road trails. Good luck in your venture!