smac97

Yes. I am not. Free speech in Norway is enshrined in Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution, which explicitly prohibits prior censorship and guarantees the right to express oneself freely on any subject: Section 185 in the Norwegian Penal Code criminalizes hate speech: Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution seems substantially gutted by Section 185 in the Norwegian Penal Code. All the more reason for we here in the U.S. to work against encroachments onto Free Speech such as this. I have been attempting to substantially moderate my communications in the last several months. Your comments above pertain to statements I posted in 2022. From the article: I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. The article appears to have the State compelling private parties to say, or not say, words dictated by the State. The letter appears to be authentic. See also here: And here: The "Catholic Benefits Association" is an "anti-transgender group"? Seems like a pretty legitimate lawsuit. Or the issue may be more about the State compelling/coercing speech. Perhaps they are motivated by non-ulterior motives. Nuns are typically not in that line of work for the money. Thanks, -Smac

More recently: Catholic nuns face legal harassment for not using preferred pronouns December 2022: "A few months back I posted a few comments on recent legal developments in various jurisdictions pertaining to compulsory "pronoun" usage. I commented at length as to matters of compelled speech, orwellian re-definitions, and so on. ... I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, to the government using the force of law to punish people who say things the government does not want them to say, or to punish people who do not want to say things the government seeks to compel/coerce them to say (such as 'preferred pronouns'). Meanwhile, Analytics seemed to broadly deny that governments are starting to pass laws, or enforce existing ones, which seek to punish 'pronoun' usage..." June 2026: "The text {of the letter from from the state’s health department} stipulates that long-term care facilities must use patients’ preferred pronouns, even when they’re not present." January 2026: Washington University pressuring students to ‘deny biology,’ conform to radical gender ideology, AFL says May 2026: Federal Court Orders School District to Protect Students’ Free Speech Rights, Orders Free Speech Training for Employees June 2026: University of California sued for mandating students use chosen pronouns It appears the pronoun thing is still going on. Thanks, -Smac

Interesting: Summary of Transcript: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

I agree. That you put on it additional meanings, that it is “being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced” about how women and men should is inappropriate, imo. In legal parlance, judges are asked to make "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law." Here, the "findings of fact" are that some women openly profess and declare that, in their opinion, ,"all men are potential rapists." Several participants on this thread and others have repeatedly affirmed and ratified and endorsed this statement. Nobody disputes what the statement is. Judges also make "conclusions of law," which is to determine whether the established "facts" amount to a legal claim or defense. Here, the "conclusion" I have presented is that the statement "all men are potential rapists" is "facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced." Is it your position that characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists" and/or "possible rapists" is not "ugly"? That is it not "provocative"? That it is not "prejudiced"? Thanks, -Smac

Since you aren’t open to considering a different interpretation than the emotional one you have put in it, Well, no. I had in mind the "Plain Language" doctrine from my training as an attorney. See, e.g., here: See, I think "All men are potential rapists" is clear and unambiguous. I also see you and others tacitly acknowledging this by trying to impute into it some sort of nuance about what it really means or the message/meaning it is intended to express. Indeed, this effort seems far more steeped in emotion than in a straightforward clinical assessment of the statement. I acknowledge that the statement, being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced, can give rise to a response that has an emotional component. However, that does not negate or override the predominant clinical evaluation. "All men are potential rapists" is "plain and direct." Extensive commentary intended to supply nuance and "interpretation" about how men "should" perceive this sentiment signals a departure from plain and ordinary language. Some women declare "all men are potential rapists." That statement is clear and unambiguous in terms of how some women view "all men." I accept it as such. Thanks, -Smac

Are you directing this at me? Where have I "insisted" this? Thanks, -Smac

Respectfully, no. I am saying "All men are potential rapists" is not nuanced or ambiguous. It is direct and plain. Because you are ignoring the real life experience of women being told for eons to ignore or suppress their negative and natural responses towards men, uncomfortable warnings in favour of being kind, accepting, even flattering rather than cautious and neutral. Perhaps we should conclude our discussion. I am not ignoring this. I reject the notion that it is reasonable to point to "the real life experience of women" as a justification for a categorial and prejudiced denigration of all men everywhere. You think I am not listening you you, and I think you are not listening to me. I have said nothing about this. And again, the topic is not about whether women should be "courteous and smiling," but whether the framing of "all men" as "potential rapists" is a fair and reasoned and healthy and appropriate and effective thing to do relative to furthering women's safety, or whether it is ugly, unchristian, demoralizing, alienating, unnecessary, unhealthy, and injurious to both men and women and their overall interactions. Again, from Amulek: "If you want to communicate that 'women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous,' then why not just say that?" Why continue to defend a statement that foments resentment and alienation? And "start{ing} at a distance" necessarily includes declarations to the world that all men everywhere are "potential rapists"? That sure seems like a non sequitur to me. Thanks, -Smac

And how many times do I need to repeat why… Do you not believe there is strong programming, both biological and cultural for women to be passive and submissive to men? Do you not believe women have been telling their daughters for eons to be cautious around men? Do you not see how the first could negate the second if it’s not taught in a way that really gets imprinted? Thank you for your response, though I don't feel it is very responsive to my inquiry. It has more of a non sequitur feeling to it. I’m not trying to dismiss the very real concerns about safety or the history of cautionary advice passed down to daughters. Those warnings exist for good reason. What I’m questioning is the specific framing of “all men are potential rapists.” I completely agree that women (and men) should be wise, discerning, and cautious — especially in certain situations. But I don’t see how saying “all men are potential rapists” is necessary to communicate that message. It seems to go beyond prudent caution into a blanket characterization of every man as inherently dangerous until proven otherwise. I do believe biology and culture influence behavior. I also believe women have valid reasons for caution in many contexts. At the same time, I worry that broad statements like this can unintentionally reinforce fear and suspicion toward all men (including good ones) rather than encouraging wise, situational discernment. I’m not asking you to stop repeating your point — I’m asking why this particular strong wording is the best or only way to imprint the message of caution. Couldn’t we say something like “some men are dangerous and women can’t always tell which ones they are” without assigning potential guilt to every single man by default? Thanks, -Smac

I'm not. The "nuance" seems to be coming from those who feel that the statement needs explanation/clarification about what it really/actually is "intended" to mean. I am just reading it according to its plain language. I see the defensive driving analogy, and I agree that it’s wise to be situationally aware and prepared for danger. No one should be reckless. The difference I’m struggling with is this: In defensive driving, we say “some drivers can be dangerous” or “be prepared because anyone could make a mistake.” We don’t say “all drivers are potential reckless killers” as a default mindset. The latter is, in my view, different — it casts every single driver (or every single man) in a presumptively negative light before any evidence about that individual person appears. When the statement is “all men are potential rapists,” it seems to move beyond prudent caution into a broad characterization of an entire group as inherently risky. That’s the part that feels like it crosses into prejudice (pre-judging) rather than just wise preparedness. I don’t think pointing that out means I’m saying women shouldn’t be cautious or prepared — I’m saying the framing matters because it shapes how we view and treat millions of individual men who have done nothing wrong, and because the framing is divisive, alienating, risks stoking undue anxiety and hypervigilance, etc. I previously posted this on June 1: Thanks, -Smac

I have previously voiced some thoughts here, here, here, here, here, and so on. You have not interacted with much or any of this, and have instead resorted to unfortunate personalized digs. That's a bummer, as I think such comments impede discussion. From the first link: I think men can do the following: 1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children. 2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children. 3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children. 4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm . 5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect. 6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures. 7. Encourage "situational awareness." 8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women). These are the measures that immediately come to mind. However, none of these is predicated on me being male (except, I suppose, for the last one). {EDIT: And none of these is predicated on characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists."} Women can also do these things. And none of these involve blanket characterizations of all men as "potential rapists." Terrorism is a serious issue that should involve much discussion and action, but we don't need broad slanders like "All Muslims are potential/possible terrorists" to be part of such efforts. Teachers engaging in sexual misconduct with minor students is a serious issue that should involve much discussion and action, but we don't need broad slanders like "All women are potential/possible sexual predators" to be part of such efforts. Online scamming is a serious issue, but we don't need need broad slanders like "All Indians and Nigerians are potential/possible scammers." Thanks, -Smac

"All men are potential rapists" is a "plain language" sort of thing. It's not ambiguous or vague or nuanced. As Amulek noted: It is interesting to me that the targets of this ugly sentiment are being derided for even mildly and respectfully voicing concerns and reservations about it, are having their masculinity questioned if they choose to voice their thoughts (see Manol's various posts), and are even being told what to think about it and how they "should" respond to it. Thanks, -Smac

I can't/won't speak for Danzo, but I don't see myself as a "potential rapist." Others on this thread, however, do. "It" being the characterization by some on this board that "all men are potential rapists"? If a person announced to her neighbors that "all men are potential child molesters," do you think that might have a reasonably foreseeable impact on her male friends and neighbors re: interacting with her children? That upon being put on notice that they are viewed by this woman in this way, they would act to make her more comfortable, or to assuage her concerns, or to protect themselves and their good names and reputations by moderating or eliminating interactions with her children? I already had some rules in place that mitigate such matters. I never let children sleep over at our house, and I never let my kids sleep over anywhere else. In Church, I scrupulously maintain the "Two Deep" rule when asked to, for example, watch kids during a Relief Society activity. I never touch another person's child apart from fist bumps and high fives. And so on. I have modified/limited my interactions with women as well, both for their sake (sorta, since some apparently view "all men" as "potential rapists" ) and for mine. I'm already there. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I see "potential" as the component making the statement inherently premature. If I said that "Bluebell is a potential puppy torturer" or "James is a potential child molester," without a scintilla of evidence that you or James have engaged in any such behavior or have any predilection / inclination toward torturing puppies or molesting children, then I think it would be "premature" and prejudiced to characterize you and James in this way. Same goes if I said "Bluebell is a possible puppy torturer" or "James is a possible child molester." These statements are technically true, but they remain prejudiced. I think there are better ways to protect puppies than to preemptively declare Bluebell a "potential" or "possible" puppy torturer. I think there are better ways to protect children from harm than by preemptively declaring all men as "potential" or "possible" child molesters. I think there are better ways to protect women from violence than by preemptively declaring all men as "potential" or "possible" rapists. Thanks, -Smac

Perhaps our conversation has run its course. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. I think some men do feel that "all men are potential rapists" is inherently prejudiced and unfair and irrational. If someone said "All black men are potential rapists," and if you were black, would you "feel attacked"? I guess I still don't see the nexus between "err{ing} on the side of caution" (which aligns with common sense safety measures and situational awareness, which I have repeatedly and strongly endorsed) and announcing to all men everywhere that they are "potential rapists." I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I want to be careful not to mischaracterize what you’re saying, so let me respond thoughtfully. "Offender for a word" comes from Isaiah 29:21: When you said that my concern about the phrase “all men are potential rapists” is turning women into “offenders for a word,” I looked up the phrase from Isaiah 29:21. In context, it refers to people who lay traps for others by twisting their words or punishing them for innocent speech — essentially making someone an “offender” over a mere word or technicality rather than a real wrong. I don’t believe I’m doing that here. I’m not trying to “catch” you or women in a verbal trap. I’m genuinely concerned that the statement “all men are potential rapists” casts all men in a negative light by default — treating an entire group as inherently suspect based on the actions of some. That feels like a broad generalization that prejudges individuals. My point isn’t to police language or make women the offenders; it’s to point out what appears to be an internal tension in the position. I agree that we should protect women and be vigilant against real harm. At the same time, I worry that statements like this can unintentionally foster suspicion toward good men who have done nothing wrong. I’m trying to hold both concerns — protecting the vulnerable and treating individuals fairly — without letting one cancel out the other. I’d value hearing how you see it. Am I misunderstanding the intent behind the phrase, or how it fits with not judging men prematurely? And, ipso facto, a "potential rapist" in the eyes of some. The point under discussion, then, is whether "all men are potential rapists" is fair and reasonable and appropriate, or whether it is prejudiced and ugly and alienating and demoralizing and unfair. Oddly, though, much (most?) of such violence is enacted by persons known to the victim. Again, I have strongly endorsed common sense safety measures, situational awareness, passage and enforcement of laws, etc. The issue here is not, in my mind, about merely "tak{ing} offense." I think the adverse effects of "all men are potential rapists" are more substantial than that. That's an interesting perspective. Thanks, -Smac

I did read it. I still don't understand. You state: "Both of us are asking judgement to not be made prematurely." How is "All men are potential rapists" not inherently premature? It is a declaration of literal prejudice (that is, an opinion or adverse judgment formed before having actual knowledge or experience, leading to the modern definition of bias or unfair preconception). I agree with the idea that we should not judge individual men as unsafe based only on statistical probability or worst-case possibilities. That makes a lot of sense to me — people deserve to be evaluated on their own character and actions, not pre-judged by group statistics. Premature negative judgments about people feel unfair and damaging. Consequently, I’m genuinely confused by the tension with the statement “all men are potential rapists” as compared to "Both of us are asking judgement to not be made prematurely." To me, that feels like it is a broad, premature negative judgment applied to every man simply because he is a man. It seems to treat maleness itself as inherently suspicious or risky until proven otherwise. Help me understand how those two ideas fit together for you. I’m really trying to avoid argument, and instead seek understanding about your point of view. I would like to hear how you navigate that tension (or, if you feel there is no tension, how you reach that conclusion). Thanks for being willing to talk about hard things. Thanks, -Smac

I have repeatedly A) strongly endorsed common sense safety measures and situational awareness, and B) expressed concerns about the characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists." I don't think the former requires the latter denigration, and in fact the latter can do some real damage. I would like to better understand how "All men are potential rapists" avoids being inherently "premature." No, that is not my assumption. So women should not treat men as "potential rapists," but they can and should tell them that they think of all men in this way? Could you clarify how this works? I would really like to understand it. That would seem to align with generalized notions of common sense safety measures and situational awareness. I think such measures can be had without telling men that they are viewed "potential rapists," as that is prejudiced and demoralizing and alienating and damaging to both the men and, potentially, to those who profess such sentiments. "All men are potential rapists" is not an example of "seeing people as bad"? Telling men that they are all seen as "potential rapists" is an expression of "respect and courtesy"? I think that can be done through common sense safety measures and situational awareness, and does not require the vilification of all men everywhere as "potential rapists." Okay. I still do not see why "the starting point" needs to include something as patently prejudiced and ugly and and demoralizing and alienating as public declarations that "all men are potential rapists." I anticipate that the foregoing comment will invite a cavalcade of "Hey, stop making this about you"-style acerbities. It seems, though, that I am not alone in feeling that I, being in the category targeted by the prejudiced statements under discussion here, have some right to commentate on public characterizations of me as a "potential rapist." Those statements are, after all, "about" me (and my sons, and my brothers, and my father, and the many other good men of my acquaintance, all of whom are likewise being painted as "potential rapists"). Thanks, -Smac

I think the FAIR article on this topic is about as far as most folks need to go to contextualize and understand the 1944 Ward Teacher's Message. If further inquiry is warranted, folks could search for instances where it has been repeated or endorsed by the leaders of the Church. As it is, that appears to have never happened even once. Again, in my view, the two phrases under discussion represent meaningfully different ideas in Latter-day Saint thought, especially regarding the balance between personal agency, study and revelation, and following prophetic leadership. Again, YMMV. Thanks, -Smac

I think this is the likely outcome in most circumstances. But I have, over the course of years, spoken of maintaining a "rebuttable presumption" about the leaders of the Church, noted here: The generalized statement of "When you are in the Army you are obligated to follow the orders of your superiors" is not incompatible with the foregoing "duty to disobey." Virtually every law or moral principle allows for exceptions in extraordinary or very unusual circumstances. Similarly, the generalized statement of "the prophet will never lead us astray, meaning that we can always trust them" is not incompatible with the foregoing statements from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and others. I have said this, or something like it, many times over the hears (just do a Google search and see for yourself). I am glad you are giving me the opportunity to clear up misconceptions about what I think. The foregoing does not aptly describe my position. "This messaging" being "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"? You are correct in that I have never encountered this statement or any ratification/endorsement of it in my experience in the Church. You seem to be significantly misapprehending me. I have never endorsed "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done," nor have I ever adopted it, "organically" or otherwise. I have, instead, repeatedly spoken to repudiate it. Thanks, -Smac

And yet we have a statement from Pres. Smith in December 1945 stating that the above statement "was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders,'" and that "one or more of them inadvertently permitted" it to be published. Does that factor into your assessment? And Brigham Young said that well before him, and many other GAs have said it since. So it seems odd to point to a single - and repudiated - line from 80+ years ago, which clearly contradicts the great weight of modern prophetic counsel, and characterize it as a normative or authoritative statement about what the Church teaches. This has been quoted a few times now, apparently with the expectation that it be construed as effectively identical to the sentiment expressed in the June 1945 statement. I can see how some might reach that conclusion, but I don't see it that way. For me, the two phrases represent meaningfully different ideas in Latter-day Saint thought, especially regarding the balance between personal agency, study and revelation, and following prophetic leadership. 1. "When the Prophet Speaks, the Thinking Is Done" (1945 Ward Teacher's Message) Origin and Context: This appeared in a monthly Ward Teacher's Message (June 1945). It was not an official First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve statement but a lesson outline for home teaching. Implication: It suggested that once a prophet speaks, members should cease independent thought, inquiry, or personal reasoning. The mind simply accepts and obeys without further processing. Church Response: President George Albert Smith repudiated it later that year. The statement was seen as an overreach that contradicted core doctrines of agency and personal revelation. Why It's Problematic in LDS Theology: It appears to short-circuit the process of "studying it out in your mind" (D&C 9:8), seeking the Holy Ghost, and gaining a testimony. It runs counter to Joseph Smith’s teachings on individual spiritual independence and the idea that "a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge." 2. "When the Prophet Speaks, the Debate Is Over" (Elaine Cannon / President N. Eldon Tanner, 1978–1979) Origin: Elaine Cannon (then Young Women General President) used a version in a 1978 talk. President N. Eldon Tanner reinforced similar language in 1979. Implication: Once the prophet has spoken on a matter within his stewardship, the time for public debate, contention, or campaigning against the counsel has ended for faithful members. It emphasizes unity, order, and sustaining leaders after they have prayerfully decided. Nuance: This does not prohibit personal pondering, study, prayer, or seeking confirmation. It addresses disputation and opposition once a prophetic voice has been given. Members are still encouraged to gain their own witness, but they are counseled to align their public stance and actions with prophetic direction. I asked Grok to sum up the key distinctions between these two statements: Key Distinctions Aspect "Thinking Is Done" (1945) "Debate Is Over" (1978–79) Scope of Mental Activity Shuts down thought, study, and questioning Allows thought, study, and personal revelation Focus Internal cognitive process External debate, contention, and opposition Official Status Repudiated by President George Albert Smith Consistent with repeated counsel on unity Alignment with Agency Appears to undermine agency and revelation Preserves agency while promoting order and faith Practical Effect "Stop thinking" "Stop publicly fighting / campaigning against it" Theological Fit Significant departure Reflection of stewardship, keys, and unity / From my perspective, Latter-day Saint doctrine consistently teaches: Study, Ponder and Pray (D&C 9:7–8; Moroni 10:3–5; President Nelson’s repeated invitations). Personal Revelation is expected and available to every member. Sustaining Prophets includes giving "earnest heed" to their words (D&C 21:1; 108:1) and trusting their stewardship, especially after one has sought confirmation. Unity and order in the Church are vital ("be one" — D&C 38:27), but blind obedience without thought is never the ideal. The 1945 statement was an outlier that was corrected. The later phrasing better reflects the tension between individual spiritual autonomy and collective faith in living prophets — a balance that leaders like President Kimball, President Benson, President Nelson, and others have repeatedly affirmed: ponder, pray, and then follow. And even then, we retain the right - even the obligation - to set aside counsel in particular instances. Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson: And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve: So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren. To give them the benefit of the doubt. To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit. Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption. That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations." That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works." That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works." We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility. So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it. To think about it. To study it. To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy. To weight it against the Standard Works. And most of all, to pray about it. "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" has never been part of my calculus, nor have I ever heard it advanced by local or general authorities in the Church. YMMV. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. For my part, I generally think of "Church leaders" as General Authorities. What this or that bishop has to say is not "general." Moreover, even if I include local leadership, I have never encountered "the thinking has been done" as a concept in the Church. I guess we all have different experiences. I acknowledge those claimed by others. Thanks, -Smac

Correct. I have corrected the error. Thanks, -Smac

I am not pushing an idea so much as I am attempting to better understand yours. Again, your statement was: "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'" Apart from the June 1945 Ward Teachers Message, what other "church sources" can you identify as repeating this concept? Which "church leaders" said this? When? Where? Not at all. I am asking for references as to where this "idea has been repeated" by "Church leaders." "{T}his idea" being "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." Pres. Tanner's message, from nearly a half century ago, said in part: “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over” Am I correct in understand that you are treating this statement as functionally equivalent to "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"? Do you see "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" as being effectively synonymous with “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over”? Also, you referenced "Church leaders." Do you have any other citations for "Church leaders" who said "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"? "This message" being "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"? Do you feel this message is troubling? If so, could you clarify your perspective. I would like to better understand it. So we have the June 1945 statement in a Church pamphlet that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." In my view, this statement was not from the General Authorities of the Church, was published during the waning days of the most momentous war in the history of the world (when, I think, the GAs may have been distracted from more studiously editing the Church's publications), was repudiated weeks later, has never been repeated or endorsed in the 80+ years since its publication, is amply contradicted by the vast cumulative weight of prior and subsequent prophetic and scriptural counsel, is - using Elder Andersen's wording - "incongruent with our doctrine," and is only invoked by critics of the Church, not its adherents and defenders. I think you and I may disagree about whether this 1945 statement has been "repeated or endorsed in the 80+ years since its publication." You appear to be conflating it with statements such as Sis. Cannon's November 1978 Ensign article ("When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over"). Pres. Tanner's August 1979 Ensign article (referencing Sis. Cannon's statement with an elision: "When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over”). Elder Romney's April 1942 statement: "{T}hose who profess to accept the gospel and who at the same time criticize and refuse to follow the counsel of the leaders, are assuming an indefensible position. Such a spirit leads to apostasy." Pres. Faust's October 2005 statement: "The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen." Elder Benson's October 1966 statement: "Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray." Elder McConkie's 1963 statement: "I am called of God. My authority is above that of the kings of the earth. By revelation I have been selected as a personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is my Master and he has chosen me to represent him. To stand in his place, to say and do what he himself would say and do if he personally were ministering to the very people to whom he has sent me. My voice is his voice, and my acts are his acts; my words are his words and my doctrine is his doctrine. My commission is to do what he wants done. To say what he wants said. To be a living modern witness in word and deed of the divinity of his great and marvelous latter-day work." You seem to view items 3-6 as effectively synonymous with items 1-2, and all of them as effectively synonymous with the June 1845 Ward Teacher's Message. Is this a correct summary of your position? If so, I respectfully disagree with that characterization of these various statements. I see significant distinctions between Church leaders declaring "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" (which, as far as i can tell, has never happened) and the other statements you have provided above, as well as large numbers of other scriptural and prophetic statements encouraging the Latter-day Saints to seek out light and knowledge via study and prayer and personal revelation. No need. I am familiar with, and agree with and endorse, this statement. From one of my previously-linked posts: I can affirm that repudiate the June 1945 Ward Teacher's Message (as Pres. Smith later in 1945). I do not accept or agree with the "concept that the prophet is always right." I think that statement is not an accurate characterization of Latter-day Saint doctrine and belief. I am not sure what you are asking here. Are there some Latter-day Saints who endorse the sentiment that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done"? Perhaps. I have never heard any such sentiment from observant Latter-day Saints, and the only time I have heard the above-statement repeated is by critics. I think Daniel Peterson's rejoinder from years ago is fairly apt (from a previously-linked post) : DCP's comment is a bit dated (it references "more than a half a century ago," and we are now 81 years from the June 1945 Ward Teacher's Message). However, the point remains worth some consideration. I would like to better understand what you mean by "this." I acknowledge and understand that the June 1945 statement ("When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done") is "a big deal." I think critics dredge it up precisely to make it so. What I do not really understand is the apparent conflation of the June 1945 statement with other statements from leaders of the Church which, in my view, vary substantially and fundamentally from the June 1945 statement. I also do not understand your statement that "Church leaders" (notably plural) "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'" I just don't think that is an accurate or fair statement about or characterization of the Church. I have asked for examples of "Church leaders" saying "'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done,'" and so far you have not provided even a single instance (unless, of course, you dispute Pres. Smith's 1945 statement that the statement "was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders,'" and that instead "one or more of them inadvertently permitted" the statement to be published (during the waning days of World War II, the most destructive conflict in the history of the world)). At present, I am surmising that you do not actually have any such citations, and that you are instead justifying the June 1945 statement which you are attributing to "Church leaders" by conflating it with other statements such as those enumerated above. Am i correct on this point? Well, I suppose that could happen, hence my various inquiries. No. I was hoping to better understand your perspective. What "conclusion" are you referencing here? I don't think I have "dismissed" any conclusions. Disagreed with some, yes. I have asked, and addressed, that issue. I would be happy to share my thoughts about it if you are interested. I don't know about that. I think think words matter, and so does intent. And I don't think the "intent" of Church leaders has ever been to endorse the statement/sentiment that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." Again, from one of my prior posts: As noted above, the June 1945 Ward Teachers' Message which you reference was not “prepared” by a Church leader, but was rather "inadvertently permitted" to be published in the waning days of World War II, mere weeks after the surrender of Germany and while the was was still raging in Japan. So I think context and proportion matter quite a bit. I think the June 1945 message typifies what Elder Andersen was talking about back in 2012. I appreciate the acknowledgment. That is meaningful. However, I don't think a "scalpel" is necessary. I have studied the scriptures and modern prophetic counsel for many years, and I just do not see any sort of thematic element congruent with "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." I'm not sure what "both statements" you are referencing here. I think a serious student of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ will have a pretty hard time justifying a thematic element within it that is congruent with "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." We simply have too much scriptural/prophetic counsel to seek and obtain light and knowledge through study and prayer and personal revelation. Again, Brigham Young really nailed it here: I see the foregoing as fundamentally incompatible with the long-repudiated statement in the June 1945 Ward Teacher's Message that "{W}hen the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." I do not think I have expressed such an assumption, and I reject it. As I said previously: "In the end, we each of us must do what we think is right." I think there are a variety of reasons, some more justifiable and reasonable than others. If you want further explanation, please I think there is quite a mixed bag. Some study and pray a lot, some little or not at all. Some allow this or that issues and ideological commitments, and whether or not the Church's doctrines and/or policies are congruent with said issues / commitments, to become a litmus test for remaining in the Church. Some just drift away, having lost or mislaid incentives to remain. I am giving some credence to sociological research on these matters. Thanks, -Smac

MS Press Release: Longtime “Mormon Stories” Podcaster Responds to LDS Church Lawsuit. Raises First Amendment and Trademark Questions (Press Release) The link goes to the "Answer and Counterclaim." The "Answer" part includes admissions and denials (admitting some of the allegations in the Complaint, denying others), and also "Affirmative Defenses" (defenses that must be specified or else they are waived). The tenth one is interesting: "Fraud on the Trademark Office." The Counterclaims are for 1) Declaratory Judgment (No Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114)), 2) Declaratory Judgment (No Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125)), 3) Declaratory Judgment (No Common Law Trademark Infringement)), 4) Declaratory Judgment (no Copyright Infringement)), 5) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 3,239,919 for MORMON," 6) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 3,715,744 for MORMON.ORG," 7) "Cancellation of Reg. Nos. 2,883,572; 8,018,073; 7,840,811; 7,840,809; 7,840,810; and 7,822,271 for BOOK OF MORMON marks"), 8 ) "Alternative Cancellation of Reg. No. 7,840,811 for BOOK OF MORMON STORIES," 9) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 5,020,309 for MORMON CHANNEL," 10) "Cancellation of Reg. No. 5,020,314 for MORMON MESSAGES," 11) "Cancellation of Reg. Nos. 2,766,231 & 2,913,694 for MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR." Complex legalese. "Presumably." Interesting. Thanks, -Smac

I think for the purposes of this conversation, I know what California is saying. I don’t need every little word to be perfect to understand his message. I understand what he’s communicating. Sure. I understand his perspective. I am trying to better understand the statements he is attributing to the Church. I have all sorts of thoughts about matters for which we have limited or no revealed light and knowledge. I think the Church is fine with me having those speculations and inferences. I think the calculus changes when I specifically and publicly contradict or speak against the scriptures and/or the leaders of the Church about clearly-delineated matters of substantive and important doctrines, with the intention of persuading others to listen to me rather than those who have stewardship over the Church. For example, I feel free to publicly speculate about, say, progression between kingdoms of glory. I am not declaring anything. I am not attempting to exceed the bounds of my stewardship. I am not setting myself as an voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the leaders of the Church. I am not attempting to change other people's behaviors. And so on. On the other hand, I do not feel free to make public pronouncements about, say, the ambit of the Law of Chastity (such as its prohibition against fornication), particularly if I am attempting to declare doctrine, exceed the bounds of my stewardship, set myself up as an alternative/superior voice of authority, change other people's behaviors, and so on. Thanks, -Smac