Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Harry T. Clark

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Harry T. Clark's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • One Year In
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Reacting Well Rare

Recent Badges



  1. First do no harm and I think the jury is out on whether these are actually reversible and whether or not there are long term side effects. I don't think it is a rosy as you portray it. This study talks about possible long term bone density loss. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243894 and this article talks about how little we know about these drugs and the effects and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/145/2/e20191606/68237/Long-term-Puberty-Suppression-for-a-Nonbinary?autologincheck=redirected From what I have read, I would be skeptical of those touting these relatively new treatments. We don't know enough about long term effects. Until we know the science and not just the politics, I think we should be cautious.
  2. No. My argument is that certain decisions like underage drinking, drug use, hormone blocking, etc. are areas where parental discretion should not be allowed. These areas are so detrimental to children that parents should be required to give their children until adulthood to make these decisions for themselves and/or parents should be required to protect their children from certain possible bad decisions. There are basic duties that parents are required to perform on behalf of their children, like feeding them, clothing them, taking them to school. Gender dysphoria and the pain it causes, if it is really going on or if it is just a phase like my son wanting to wear a dress when he was three, does not justify treatments that cannot be undone and will affect the child for the rest of his/her life. Hormone blockers and surgery are hard to undo if not impossible and because children are not capable of making these decisions on their own, parents should not be allowed to impose their views on their children in this area. A few years time to wait isn't asking much.
  3. No state allows marriage at 14 (and my example used 13) - https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html Maybe do a little searching before answering? Kids are unable to make these important life changing decisions and so parents are the force behind the transition surgeries in minors that you admit occur. Here is an article on consent for puberty blockers, a precursor to the transitioning surgery: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2022.2088048 You may not realize that baptism requires permission from the parent or legal guardian: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng Here is the passage:
  4. You don't have kids, right? Is it allowed to have laws that ask children to wait until adulthood to make these decisions? Should someone's daughter get married at 13? What if she identified as a married person and wanted to start that life immediately to some 60 yr old? Wouldn't you prohibit that for kids? What if someone's son wanted to marry at 13? I can anticipate your answer to these questions because they stand for the proposition that society actually prohibits certain things because children are too young to make these decisions. The issue is whether we are forcing something on kids that we shouldn't. Kids aren't ready to make these life lasting decisions. As a parent, I think it is better policy to wait until kids can make their own rational decisions. I don't think you understand this.
  5. Society doesn't let children do a lot of things because they aren't mature enough to know what they want. This should be applicable to those who claim to be transgender. Let it be for now and when you are an adult, if you still want to transition, then by all means do what you wish. But as a child, no, they don't know what they want. One of my sons when he was three liked to put on a cinderella dress that was at the church nursery. However, this was a phase that soon ended. Should I have given him puberty blockers? He seems to be all boy now, only interested in sports. But, what does he really want? Maybe I should take him to a psychologist to tease out what he was expressing at three? Is there an inner girl that was killed by stereotypes foisted on him? Seems ludicrous to me to go down this path when people and children are easily manipulated one way or another. First, do no harm seems to be the better approach. I have another son in high school that probably wants to start having sex. I'm sure he'd like to identify as a sexually active young man and who am I to stop his identity? Should I encourage him to follow his desires? Seems ridiculous to allow permanent changes when children aren't mature enough to even know who they are. But, this is probably a dangerous idea given where society is going.
  6. Here again, the church is free to do what it wishes with the funds we give it. If it only gives back $65 Million per year to outside charitable causes, then so be it. However, just be a little more open about it. Include the members a little bit in the plans. If the plan is that the leaders see trouble ahead and so are in a saving mode, then just let the people know about it. Exaggerating charitable numbers is a mistake.
  7. I guess the Church can do whatever it wants with the funds it receives from the members as per the tithing slip we get. How about a little disclosure, though? I think it is disrespectful to not have a more detailed report on how the funds are used. Having the accountant get up in conference and merely say trust us doesn't pass muster. The members will understand and continue on, and it wouldn't hurt giving a little justification to the members on the fence as to why and where the money is spent or invested.
  8. That is their reasoning. I think it's like Reagan when he admitted he traded arms for hostages back in the day. He said his intentions were to not do it, supposedly, but logic and reason told him that he did, as if he were transported outside of himself looking at what he did and not being able to deny his conduct regardless of his good intentions. The bad side of him did it, a side he really doesn't know very well, except on his bad days of course.
  9. Sure, having a rainy day fund, is good common sense. But that isn't the issue. How much is necessary for said rainy day fund? I believe that is the issue, as well as the steps the church took to hide the rainy day fund size from the members.
  10. If it isn't too much trouble for you, I'd appreciate a link to this statement to which you refer. I'd hate to not be up on each and every statement said.
  11. How does he know how the church feels one way or another? Also, why not just tell the members if that is how the leaders feel? Why use a proxy if that is what they are doing?
  12. It wasn't and so .... victory? It's clear the church created the LLC's for some reason and that the head of EPA, the head mind you, a person who was in the meetings where strategy was discussed, opined as to why it was done ... to prevent creating an excuse for some to not pay tithing. I am sure he wasn't talking out of his backside when he spoke to the WS Journal reporter. Why else would the church take such action if not to obfuscate the amount of money under their control? Maybe realizing the obvious, dealing with it, and moving forward is the best way to deal with this news? Or you can follow Smac and others down the justification path. They, the leaders, are fallible people and made a mistake. It's not the worst mistake ever and not a trivial one either. But it still was a mistake and misleading.
  13. I think it's time to just deal with the facts. There were great lengths taken to keep the finances in the shadows to prevent a drop in tithing. Unfortunately, we were misled.
  14. This whole thing is disappointing. The church got caught hiding its finances from the government and negotiated a fine. It's lawyers were heavily involved in the ultimate language of the document outlining the agreement and so it is clear EP set up the LLC's with the intent to mislead. I hope we get an apology or at least some sort of explanation in April, but, apologies lessen authority and that's a bridge they never cross.
  15. I don't know about anyone else here, but I went through the first time in the 80's when the penalties were still there and it was shocking to say the least. My first impression was that maybe we are what the critics say, that we are a cult. Over time, I realized that we aren't. Even so, evolution is welcomed.
  • Create New...