bluebell

I sincerely am glad that you live in a world where you are able to wonder if women need to be proactive around men. You've obviously been blessed to be around good men and it sounds like you've never seen women victimized by bad ones and don't have any close women friends or relatives who have. That's a place of privilege that I wish more people were able to operate from because then it would mean the world became a much better place than it currently is. I say that with no sarcasm. Like MustardSeed stated, context matters. Men in groups can be very dangerous. Just ask the women who have been sexually assaulted and raped on crowded trains in places like India. Or college parties here in the US, for another example. You are right in that there are circumstances that justify a heightened vigilance for women and some that don't. Given your previous statement, I don't think you are able to tell the difference though. Said respectfully. She should. Because men who are truly minding their own business and men who are pretending to mind their own business look exactly the same. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/nyregion/random-attacks-new-york-city-women.html https://lanthorn.com/104855/opinion/women-facing-random-acts-of-violence-in-nyc-highlights-discourse-around-danger/ I'm sure you didn't mean to be condescending but you are. My first (unkind) reaction to this statement was to ask myself "who does this man think he is??". With respect, you have no authority or superior knowledge that would allow you to suggest when a woman is justified in viewing someone as a potential threat and when she isn't justified. My struggle is that it sounds like your push back is almost entirely (if not completely) based on how it makes men feel to be viewed as a potential threat. Am I misunderstanding your motives? Because it sounds like you would like women to compromise their safety so that men's feelings don't get hurt. (I realize how snotty that sounds and I'm not saying it in anger. It's really how the 'not all men' argument comes across to me and many many others. Plus, being nice and not hurting a man's feelings has actually gotten women killed before so it's a touchy subject) I'm sorry if that seems unfair. It's not fair but neither is it fair that a 16 year old girl can't stand in line at a convenience store at 3 in the afternoon with other patrons around and not worry about the adult man behind her grabbing her butt. (That's a personal experience, by the way) I love dogs. But all dogs are capable of inflicting harm, and some are capable of inflicting great harm. I had a job after college where I came in contact with over 200 dogs each day (on average). I treated 100% of them as capable of harming me until I knew otherwise. Depending on the context, some I never gave the chance to see and just steered clear. It's acceptable to apply broad judgements to whole categories of things (both human and not) when the risk of not doing so is harm or even death. I agree that most men are not those things. It's too bad you can't tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones until it's too late most of the time. If men don't like the prejudice, they should work harder to stop the bad ones. I'm no longer in a place where I can give grace for a lot of this section and I don't want to have hard feelings towards you so I'm going to bow out of the conversation. There isn't a reason to continue it and I'm going to say things that I regret (though I believe they are 100% true, there is no way to say them that will bring about any positive result in a discussion on this topic with you). Thank you for trying. I mean that sincerely.

The women who are benefitting from these kinds of actions probably largely (if not exclusively in certain contexts) view them as mitigating safety concerns and are grateful you go through the world helping them feel safer. I think that bishop handled that situation very well. I feel for bishops in such situations; it's probably very very hard. I think it might be easier at those times when the man involved is basically a stranger. I can only imagine how hard it is not to be biased when the man involved is a friend or someone the bishop has worked with or counseled.

I don't know why you would be surprised that women have to treat all men as a potential threat until they know better. It just makes sense. Men's violence is the single biggest threat to a woman's safety. Between 85% and 99% of all physical and sexual violence committed against women is committed by men. 9 out of 10 women will be physically harmed by a man she actually knows during her lifetime. 1 in 3 will experience sexual or physical violence at the hand of a man in her lifetime. 1 in 2 (44%!) will experience some form of unwanted sexual contact during their lifetime. With those odds, we'd be really dumb not to be wary around men in vulnerable situations. We'd be idiots to ignore those statistics just because it a man might think it's unfair to be judged based on their gender. Oh well. And why would any man who cares about women want us to ignore those statistics?? I live in the mountain west and in my area between 17% and 45% of mountain streams contain giardia. It's a nasty parasite that will make you very very sick pretty fast. Do you know what percentage of streams experts suggest people drink out of without purifying first? 0%. They teach us to treat all streams as a potential threat, because you can't tell the difference between a clean water source and an infected water source just by looking at it. They teach us this because the potential for harm isn't worth taking the risk, and this is when the chances of not getting it are in our favor. The same thing applies for women in vulnerable situations with a man. The potential for harm is so great that the risk is not worth it. Especially since the chances are not in our favor.

I've tried looking for it but haven't been able to find it. It was a while ago. It has to do with in-group-bias (which of course women are just as likely to do as men) but the study was more focused on sexual crimes and victim blaming. I'll keep looking. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/women-anticipate-potential-threats-better-men-uc-davis-research-suggests https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9985350/ Here's a couple of studies. To clarify, it's not because women are automatically better at threat detection in general. Men are really good at threat detection as well, especially immediate threats. Women tend to be better at anticipated threats because of our past experiences and general vulnerabilities compared to men. We tend to recognize creepy men better than other men because we have personally had to deal with creepy men, while other men haven't, for example. Harris O'Malley sums it up nicely. "Women, on the whole, don’t pose a physical threat to men; while there will always be individual exceptions, the average male is larger, stronger and heavier than the average woman. In practical terms, this means that the average man is fully capable of overpowering the average woman with relative ease… and women are very aware of this fact. Women have to gauge every interaction with men, especially men they don’t know, on whether or not he presents a threat to her. Because women live in a state of near-constant threat awareness, they are far more cued in to the slight clues that hint at potential danger than guys are." We can get it wrong sometimes, for sure. Threat assessment isn't always threat confirmation. We can speak up and men can actually listen and not poo-poo our concerns because they know the guy and he's 'harmless' or 'a nice guy'.... A bishop could seek input and then consider it seriously. A ward in Washington is currently dealing with the fall out of a sexual predator, who managed to molest a kid during sacrament meeting, who a bishop protected and wouldn't listen to the concerns of multiple women in his ward, for example.

I saw a study a couple of years ago that says that men struggle to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes or misconduct because they can relate to the man and think of how they would feel if someone was accusing them of such things and how they would want other men to respond in that situation. They don't relate to the victim at all so they subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective. It's not that they believe the man is guilty and needs to be protected, it's that they tend to automatically believe either in his innocence** or in his repentance and redeemability without life-changing consequences. Which is to say that you are spot on MS! Not only are women better at sensing and predicting danger in general (including dangerous people), we are less likely to overlook creepy behavior to protect the status quo. Yes, women protect perpetrators too sometimes but it's almost always in cases where they are personally involved or related to the person. So if that's not the case, then that lady can probably be trusted. Men in power need to utilize the women around them more in fighting against this kind of evil. **That's important in a court of law but in real life when people need to be protected from the evil designs of others, it's a huge flaw.

We own a Powersports dealership in Wyoming and a lot of the men call each other, brother. Especially the men who have been in the military, but it’s not only them. Some people seem to like it and other people find it annoying. Just like with everything else. 😂

Can you explain how it would make much of the bible untrue? I'm not sure what you mean by that. And does the definition have to solve philosophical conundrums or be currently proveable to be valid?

I'm always logged in and accept cookies but it pretty much makes me whenever I visit after being inactive for a short period of time.

I use in those instances where there is a relevant connection but no closeness or personal relationship. it’s not something that I would say to somebody outside of church or a church function, because the relevant connection to the term doesn’t exist in my mind under that context. I think this topic of discussion is interesting though because it shows how we take our perceptions and so easily apply them to other people. Sometimes to the other person‘s detriment.

That would be so annoying! I probably have to click on the pictures about 2 to 3 times a day, but always just at the beginning when I first get on.

Same

It seems like both of our faiths give us the freedom to believe what we believe about Christ and His gospel. But your faith doesn't actually give you any freedom to declare anything about me (or Calm), and my faith doesn't give me any freedom to declare anything about you, does it? That is just not in our ability to do; we are not that powerful. You can affirm that I'm complete in Christ but that doesn't make it so. It's just your (very kind and loving) opinion of me based on what you believe about Christ. The same is of course true for my beliefs about you and your relationship with Christ. What I believe about that has no bearing on you and your relationship with Him in any way. The only way my beliefs matter at all is if they are actually correct. You don't think they are correct, though, so that's obviously not a worry for you or motivation in these discussions. So all of that leads me to wonder, what is your motivation for these discussions? We've had them quite a few times over the years and they always seem to go the same way so it makes me wonder if we understood what you were looking for in them, maybe it could go differently this time. Is it to get us to see the error in our beliefs? To affirm you don't need baptismal covenants or temple ordinances to become a Joint-heir with Christ? To validate your hurt even though we can't do anything to do change it? (sincerely asking)

Thanks for elaborating. Can I ask, what purpose do you believe ordination serves? Also, when you say that "no ordinance has salvific authority", that sounds like a position of certainty because it is stated as a fact (though I know you are sharing your personal opinion on it, it seems like for you, it's a fact). Can you explain how you don't mean it as a fact so that I can better understand how to interpret your statements better?

So I can understand what you are saying here better, for what purpose do you believe that Christ went to John the Baptist to be baptized?

Yes, that was the part I thought you were talking about. So we are understanding each other there. 😊

I think you could say the same about a few jobs, but I don't think you could for most or any job or side hustle. Making money being anti-something (whether it's a religion or Mary Kay or capitalism or whatever) means the person is tied to other people's perceptions of that 'thing'. It's the same for anyone making money solely for being pro-something too. That's different than working at jiffy lube on the weekends. If the jiffy lube goes under, your skill set isn't tied to jiffy lube, or to people's opinions about jiffy lube. Your skill set retains its monetary value regardless of what is going on with jiffy lube, and you can go do it somewhere else without being connected to jiffy lube in any way. Being opposed to (or for) something isn't really a skill set though. It's an ideology. Unlike most jobs or side hustles, full time ideological podcasters and influencers are completely dependent upon whatever they are opposing and people's opinions about what they are opposing. If the donations stopped (either direct donations or time/view donations that other companies like youtube convert into money), then most full time ideologically based podcasters would probably stop creating content fairly quickly. Lose the donors and the ideology ceases to have monetary value, and therefore the podcaster/influencer ceases to have marketable value as well. There's no taking the skill set somewhere else because it wasn't a skill set that was making them money. Making money solely (and only) off of the popularity of their opinions (either pro or against something) means that fulltime ideological podcasters and influencers are highly highly motivated to cater to their audiences. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it's a big bias, and one that is helpful for viewers and listeners to keep in mind (which is the point that I thought Why Me was trying to make, but I easily could have misunderstood him on that).

It sounds like you are certain that there is no need for ordained priesthood authority, temple ordinances and covenants, or a focus on the importance of doctrinal truth and becoming like Christ. I think it makes perfect sense that you haven't become a member as you don't believe the gospel as the church teaches it. You are a good man and I wish you the best in your spiritual beliefs.

I think that was Peaceful’s article? I can’t see the one Ken linked to (or are they the same one?)

It’s behind a paywall for me.

Remarkably Bright Creatures It's based on a book and is on Netflix. It stars Sally Fields and Bill Pullman's son, Lewis Pullman. (Bill Pullman was the president in Independence Day and the romantic lead in While You Were Sleeping, for context, but his son hasn't done all that much to make him a household name, despite having been an actor for a while). I haven't read the book (and so far online people are saying the movie holds up very well to it), but the movie was really good and very touching. It's narrated by an octopus who was born in the wild but lives in an aquarium, which is cleaned nightly by a woman that the octopus is very fond of (Sally Fields) and who has a tragic past. A young man shows up serendipitously who also has a tragic past and the octopus sets out to help them both heal before he dies (he's very old at this point and knows that his time is short). It sounds fanciful but it's really not. It's weirdly grounded and not a fantasy genre. It has a very heartfelt ending for everyone, even the octopus, which is refreshing. Anyone who wants to cry both sad and happy tears will love it.

Our ward rented out the city's only water park in North Dakota and it wasn't an issue. If the city allows organizations to rent it's facilities for private events then not allow it for a Muslim event seems like a slam dunk for that city getting sued and that group making a lot of money off of the tax payers because of a really dumb Govenor.

Prayers Rod. What a nightmare to have to deal with during an already hard time.

What a beautiful room. It's kind of shocking to see how frail Pres. Oaks and Pres. Eyring are.

I don't think bishops who do this have to be either ill informed or wicked, but I agree with everything else you've said.

This group isn't the smartest. About a year ago there was a city-wide power outage and someone from that group decided that it was because the city turned off the power so that the temple power grid could be hooked up. When the city had to publish a disclaimer explaining what had happened and that it had nothing to do with the temple (which was under construction at the time), people started accusing the city of a cover-up. The city that didn't want the temple with a mayor who openly fought against it. It grew into such a big issue that a state paper headquartered hundreds of miles away actually did a story about it. 6 months ago a Catholic church in a different town had to get special permission to build on their own land to extend the entryway of their church and people went to city council to try to stop it. When the city approved it, it got into the papers and the comments section was all about the corruption of the LDS church! These are not people you can reason with.