smac97

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

This just now from MS: Setting the Record Straight: Clarifying the True Scope of The LDS Church’s Trademark Rights (Q&A) So the mediation failed, and yet the lawsuit was "unexpected?" I'm not sure how this works, as my familiarity with trademark law is limited. However, this assessment from Grok sounds more or less correct: Thoughts? Not sure how the Church can "improperly" retain "trademark registrations." Again, from Grok: As I see it, the Church is not claiming ownership of the word “Mormon” in all contexts. It is enforcing registered trademarks for specific commercial uses (websites, media, branding) where confusion or dilution is likely. This is standard trademark law, not a broad First Amendment violation. Courts routinely allow religious organizations to protect their marks (e.g., “Scientology,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses”). This is interesting, as it seems to contradict the Church's statement: MS: "We added a disclaimer using the exact language The Church requested on every page of the Mormon Stories website and in the description of the podcast on every podcast platform." The Church: "{T}he Church proposed a simple solution: a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a common and straightforward way to help audiences understand the source of content. That step was not adopted." Thoughts? "Explicitly abandoned" is a pretty bold claim. As for "selectively enforcing copyrights," copyright holders have the discretion to do that, I think. I will be interested to see if this comes down to an argument over "fair use." I think this does not quite sound correct. 1. “The Church’s actual trademarks do not give it ownership in any way to the word ‘Mormon’”: Partially true, but misleading. The Church does not own the generic word “Mormon” for all purposes (e.g., descriptive use, self-identification, news reporting). However, it does own strong trademark rights in “Mormon” for specific commercial contexts (websites, podcasts, media, branding) where there is likelihood of confusion with the Church. This is standard trademark law — secondary meaning + registration. 2. “...the color blue...”: Mostly correct. Color alone is hard to trademark unless it has acquired distinctiveness. That said, the Church has not claimed ownership of blue in general. Changing the logo color was a concession, not a legal requirement. 3. “...or the use of ‘rays;’”: Correct. Light rays are common design elements. The Church likely cannot own “rays” generically. 4. “...push back at the effort to improperly control language and branding that The Church does not have a right to control via intellectual property rights.”: This is, I think, the weakest part. I don't think the Church is seeking to improperly control language. It is enforcing registered trademarks against what it views as confusing commercial use. This is a core function of trademark law. Courts routinely uphold similar enforcement by religious organizations. The First Amendment protects descriptive/nominative fair use, but it does not give unlimited rights to use someone else’s registered mark in a confusing way. So the above statement conflates A) Generic/descriptive use (protected) and B) Commercial branding that causes confusion (protectable by the Church). As I understand it, the Church has legitimate trademark rights and is using them in a standard way. Mormon Stories is pushing back on principle, which is their right, but the legal merits may end up favoring the Church on the core branding/name issues. I suspect that ongoing consumer confusion was the culprit. And who knows? Perhaps Pres. Nelson, Monson and Hinckley were less willing to resort to litigation as compared to Pres. Oaks (who has a legal background). Not sure about that. See, e.g., here: Church of Jesus Christ files trademark complaint against podcaster for alleged imitation of brands Salon: Mormons will regret suing an ex-member So there was confusion, but it was temporary? Exhibit 2 to the Complaint (Link) shows that MS used quite a few copyrighted images (24 pages worth). Exhibit 4 (Link) sure seems to show that MS was working hard to mimic the Church's vibe. As for the Complaint itself (Link) : “'The Church’s simple statement about ‘public questions and ongoing confusion’ does not resonate with any actual fact on the ground,' explains Dehlin." I wonder how he reconciles this statement with paragraph 54 of the Complaint. Or, perhaps, its interest is in protecting its copyright/trademark rights, and in addressing consumer confusion that Mr. Dehlin appears to have intentionally sought out. "{E}xpressly abandoned." Not quite sure how to square this with "Exhibit 1" to the Complaint: Hard to figure out what set of facts Mr. Dehlin is working from here. Same as above. And who is quoting whom here? Again, see paragraph 54 of the Complaint. I dunno. Take a look at the Complaint and its exhibits. Seems like the Church has presented a prima facie case for "confusion" by extensive use of copyrighted images and distinctive color and design schemes, etc. Also, it looks like just today MS filed a Motion to Dismiss (Link). No time to analyze in detail, but my preliminary assessment is that the Motion will mostly or entirely fail. Thanks, -Smac

Do you see any material difference between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"? I am genuinely interested in hearing your perspective on this issue. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. I would like to see some documentation/evidence that "it was taught" outside of a single Ward Teacher's Message published in June 1945, and repudiated weeks later. By "this kind of thinking" you are referencing "the thinking has been done"? You seem to conflate this with "the debate is over." Am I correct on that point? If so, do you see any difference between the two sentiments? Between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"? For my part, the former seems to excuse - or even prohibit - individual members from "thinking" about the doctrines of the Restored Gospel, and to instead just reflexively and unthinkingly accept whatever the Presiding High Priest says. In contrast, the latter seems to refer to prioritizing prophetic counsel over personal preferences ("Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do.") about well-settled matters of morality ("God has made his position very clear in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women," etc.). My experience in the Church has, it seems, been markedly different from yours. I have never been told to not think, or that the thinking "has been done." Quite the contrary, my experience in the Church has always been about individual members seeking out, through prayer and study and such, the validity of the truth claims of the Church, and to keep the commandments. In my view, neither those truth claims nor the commandments contemplate that the "thinking has been done." Okay. So 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? I believe the Prophet does receive direct revelation to guide the Church. I have not denied that. I am, instead, seeking to identify what you refer to as "church sources" in which "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'" I have previously presented evidence that the 1945 Ward Teachers Message was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders," which which was instead "inadvertently permitted" to be published" in a pamphlet during the waning days of the most destructive war in the history of world. You have said that your claim was "{not} made up out of thin air," and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. So who are these "church leaders" who have said/repeated that "{w}hen the prophet speaks, the thinking is done?" What are these "sources" you are referencing? I do believe they received direct revelation. Please see my previous post, where I lay out my perspective on sustaining the leaders of the Church. Broadly, yes, I have an obligation to follow their counsel. Broadly, but not interminably. See my prior post (quoting "Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided..."). Yes. And unfortunately, some take that sensible precept to an unjustified extreme and impute notions of infallibility onto the leaders of the Church. Such notions have been repeatedly rejected by the very leaders upon whom they are imputed. This statement by James E. Faust, General Conference, October 2005 “The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen.” This statement by Ezra Taft Benson, Conference talk October 1966 “Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.” There are a slew of other general authorities repeating this same thinking. Let me know if you want more, but I suspect as much as you study these kinds of issues, you are well aware of this repeated pronouncements. I am. I think I construe and apply them in ways differently from the ways you do. In the end, we each of us must do what we think is right. Here's my take: The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively. 2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity): I've posted this a few times now: So we have: Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience"). This seems about right. Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up. Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity. 3. My Attempt at a Framework: Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) : So there you are. I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior. 4. Defining Terms and Parameters: I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony. Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) : Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc. As Joseph Smith put it: And, of course, there is D&C 76: So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom? Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?" 5. Additional Resources: I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony." I hope this clarifies things. We human beings are really good at rationalizing misbehavior. Here is one of the more egregious examples I have come across in the Church: Then-Elder Carrington apparently managed to persuade himself that he had found "a different answer than the prophet of God" as pertaining to the Law of Chastity. But really. He kept his behavior hidden. He lied about it. And he sinned grievously over and over. And he still managed to argue that he had not technically violated the Law of Chastity. This sort of thing, in my view, strengthens my resolve to make sure all four of of the legs in Michael Ash's analogy are strong and sturdy: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. This is particularly important when the Law of Chastity is in view, as it seems to be one of the more-likely-to-be-rationalized-away-as-wrong-or-inapplicable commandments. That would depend on the circumstance. By way of example: Some years ago I served as my ward's bishop, during which time I formulated an idea of having the young women in our ward provider welcoming/ushering services during Sacrament Meeting. I felt pretty good about it, and approached my stake president to see if he had any concern about it. He said no. We had a discussion about it, as I had understood that there was no scriptural prohibition against it, nor was it addressed in the Handbook, nor had the concept been addressed by the Brethren (at least, as far as I could see). The stake president said he felt that "ushering" was a priesthood function (apparently per D&C 84:111 and/or D&C 107:68, though I'm not sure he had these passages specifically in mind). So, where the "four legs" in harmony? Not exactly. The scriptures were (mostly) silent on the issue, and I could not find any specific prophetic counsel on the topic. What I could see, however, was clear instruction in both scripture and modern prophetic counsel in matters of stewardship and authority. Consequently, I deferred to the stake president and did not implement the proposal. Fast-forward several years, and the Church amended its policies in August 2024 to direct that "Young Women class presidents now organize the youth to welcome visitors and members to sacrament meeting (see 11.3.4.2 and 29.2.1.3)." So was I right or wrong in my course of action? Should I have disregarded my SP's instruction and implemented the policy anyway, given that the Church eventually came around to it? In my view, no. "{S}ee that all these things are done in wisdom and order." (Mosiah 4:27.) Again, that depends on the circumstances. I think then-Elder Oaks' 1987 article, Criticism, does a very good job of providing guardrails for this sort of thing. Okay. That has not been my experience at all. Hence my request for sources which substantiate the claim that "Church leaders have even gone so far as to say 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.'" I think you have overlaid some presuppositions and interpretations onto some statements here and there which are perhaps not universally shared or obvious. I surmise that the "answers" here pertain to the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage. Gender identity is similarly a topic about which people can have strongly-held sentiments which nevertheless diverge from the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church. Have I ever encountered a situation where the legs of the stool are at odds with each other? Where "Scripture, Prophets" are incompatible with "Personal Revelation" and/or "Reason"? Overwhelmingly, no. There are a few niche concepts/ideas with which I struggle, but nothing that would create some sort of moral dilemma in which I must choose one (my personal sense of right and wrong) over the other (obeying scriptural/prophetic counsel). It seems like the bulk of such dilemmas, when they arise, pertain to A) the Law of Chastity, B) matters outside the individual's stewardship, C) personal sociopolitical preferences being prioritized and characterized as "The Spirit," or D) some combination of A-C. As to "big ticket" items, such as addressing matters of sexuality and gender, I think we in the Church are endowed with lots of counsel, both in scripture and modern prophetic counsel. I think our efforts at utilizing reason and seeking personal revelation should be in conjunction with these resources, not sought in contravention of ("versus") them. Each of us is, of course, "free to choose" (2 Nephi 2:27). In the end, we each must do what we think is right. I am working hard to not "dismiss" such sentiments. I may ultimately disagree on some things, but I don't think we ought to summarily dismiss each others' perspectives. Thanks, -Smac

Could you provide some references to where Church leaders have said this? This teaching has been around as early as 1945 when the church used to print a message that was to be delivered by the home teachers to the members for June 1945. The message was centered around sustaining church leaders. The last paragraph reads. I am familiar with the origins of this quote. I commented on it at some length back in 2019 here. Included in my comment was this information: Pres. Smith responded to this inquiry in December 1945: The key bit: "The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed." I am curious if you are familiar with this information, particularly that the letter "was not 'prepared' by 'one of our leaders,'" and that the message had been "inadvertently permitted" into the Ward Teacher's Message, and that "the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church, that "{e}ven to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church," and that this "ideal" is that "every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts," and that every person is given "the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every {them} to choose or to reject His teachings." FAIR has had all this information on its website for some years now. In fact, that article is the first Google search result for that phrase: Having spent my entire life in the Church, I have never heard this idea announced or endorsed. In fact, the only times I have heard about it are from critics of the Church. Again, from my 2019 post (which in turn was quoting a 2016 post) : Fast forward to 2026, and we are being told that "Church leaders" (notably plural) "have even gone so far as to" repeatedly teach this snippet from a 1945 Ward Teacher's Message. I just don't think that is an accurate or fair statement about or characterization of the Church. I assume you are referring to this talk by Sis. Cannon: If We Want to Go Up, We Have to Get On I assume you are speaking of this excerpt (emphasis added) : Do you see "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" as being effectively synonymous with "When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over"? I did a search on the Church website for "thinking has been done": The one result, a 2023 worldwide devotional address by Elder Holland, does not include this phrase. I also did a search for "the debate is over." All results are for an August 1979 First Presidency Message by Pres. Tanner, in which he quotes Sis. Cannon and then proceeds to comment on "debate" in the Church (emphases added) : Pres. Tanner, as with Sis. Cannon, did not say "the thinking has been done," and instead said that "the debate is over" as to "moral issues ... in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women ... alcohol and tobacco ... dealers in pornography ... child pornography ... children {} being neglected and abused ... {fathers being} more concerned with their financial success than with the welfare of their wives and children." Nearly 50 years later, Pres. Tanner's comments seem quite relevant. I note that one comment has become somewhat dated ("Some children are being neglected and abused because their mothers are seeking worldly pleasures and careers outside the home"), but then, the financial circumstances of the world have changed. For example, this chart shows that the "Home Price / Medium Household Income Ratio" was 4.12 in August 1978 (when Pres. Tanner published his message), and today it stands at 7.12. Hence the current counsel in place since 1995 (emphasis added) : In all this, I have no recollection of or experience with the notion that "the thinking has been done." Not only is that phrase entirely absent from the Church's website, so too is the concept. The closest phrase I could think of would be "blind faith." But that concept is likewise not congruent with our doctrines. I strongly endorse the notion that discipleship is predicated principally on faith. But we have things which inform that faith. We have evidence. The Church does not advocate "blind" faith. To the contrary, the Church strongly encourages Church members to study the Gospel: “And thou shalt teach [the scriptures] diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deut. 6:7) “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39) “Jesus answered [the Sadducees] and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29) “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 109:7) “Today we are troubled by evil-designing persons who [endeavor] … to destroy the testimonies of members of the Church, and many … are in danger because of lack of understanding and because they have not sought the guidance of the Spirit. … It is a commandment from the Lord that members … be diligent … and study … the fundamental truths of the gospel. … Every baptized person [can] have an abiding testimony. … but [it] … will grow dim and eventually disappear [without] … study, obedience, and diligent seeking to know and understand the truth” – Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (1963) (quoted in 1993 by Elder Richard G. Scott) “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” – L. Tom Perry (2003) These were all quite easy to find. In contrast, I cannot substantiate the "thinking has been done" concept. I am reminded of Elder Andersen's 2012 General Conference address: 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. From my 2019 comment: I am curious, then, as to your thoughts about the 1945 Ward Teacher's Message in relation to Elder Andersen's 2012 comment. Would you agree or disagree that "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" may qualify as "a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine"? Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement has not been "taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve"? Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement qualifies as being more or less "hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk"? Would you agree or disagree that the 1945 statement has not been "taught frequently and by many"? Could you elaborate on this? How do you get from "the thinking has been done" to "he won't lead you astray"? I would like to better understand your reliance on this quote. First, you are framing this statement as being "what church leaders say are the words of God by Bruce R McConkie in June of 2012." Which "church leaders" said this in 2012? Second, my understanding is that Bruce R. McConkie wrote this in 1963 when he was serving as a mission president in Australia (see, e.g., here). He was in the First Council of Seventy at the time. Is it your position that mission presidents (and/or members of the Seventy) have authority to declare "the words of God" to the Church? Third, it has been my understanding that the above quote was not intended to be a statement by Pres. McConkie about himself or his calling as a General Authority, but was instead intended to reflect the importance of individual missionaries. The "I am called of God" and such are all intended to characterize each missionary's authority and the importance of their message. How does this relate to the 1945 Ward Teacher's message? Thank you for sharing this article. I am fairly familiar with the concept of following the prophet, but I do not see how it relates to the 1945 Ward Teacher's message. I see some significant differences between "the thinking has been done" (which, I think, is antithetical to discipleship) and following prophetic counsel (which is quite congruent with discipleship). As to the latter resulting in not going astray, I have commented on this a number of times. See, e.g., here: Well, not really. First, you seem to be equating "lead us astray" with infallibility. With the Brethren never making any mistake to any degree, ever. Second, the governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. The general requirement for unanimity. The Standard Works. The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric. Third, we should attune ourselves to the checks and balances that are built in to the Restored Gospel: See also here: Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided. As I have previously 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. Fifth, we have been given prophets and apostles for the express purpose of following them: The problem is when we rely on them too much, and/or when our reliance on them is predicated on tacit expectations of infallibility. Brigham Young really nailed it here: These sentiments have come to mind in the past when I have raised my hand to sustain new leadership in the Church. When Pres. Monson passed away, I was saddened for a time. He was a good man, even a great one. He will be missed. However, a bit later I raised my arm and sustained Pres. Nelson. Prophets and apostles are good and decent men. But in the end, they are servants. In a way, I am happy to see them pass on to the next phase of their journey, as I fully expect for the Atonement to apply to them, to wash away their sins and weaknesses, leaving them for what they really tried to be. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..." My job is not to sustain them unless they have weaknesses. My job is to sustain them despite their weaknesses. And meanwhile, I should look to see that my own house is in order. I think I'm in the Church, come what may. I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church). I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray"). However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray. I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted. I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God." I think that's right. I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us. I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray." The Church is not perfect. But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good. I love it a lot. See also here, here, here, here, here. If by "such teachings" you mean "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done," then no, I have no recollection of that concept being taught. Alternatively, if by "such teachings" you mean to study and examine and - generally - follow prophetic counsel, to obtain my own testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, to keep the commandments, to acknowledge prophetic authority and stewardship (and limit myself from exceeding my own stewardship), to make decisions on moral issues and avoid being moved from them by the voices of the World, to foster intelligent - rather than "blind" - obedience in myself, to adhere to Elder Andersen's counsel about discerning "doctrine" and differentiating it from "a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent" with it, to contextualize and understand what going "astray" means, to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption (which in turn leads to the possibility of setting aside a statement when that presumption is properly rebutted), to sustain the leaders of the Church despite their weaknesses (and not only if they lack any weaknesses), to make decisions regarding Daniel 2 and such, then yes, I remember all of these things. I see the 1945 Ward Teacher's message as a likely well-intentioned (at the time), but clearly misguided, statement. It 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 sense that you conflate "the thinking has been done" with other broader concepts pertaining to following prophetic counsel. I don't think such a conflation is warranted. Thanks, -Smac

Could you provide some references to where Church leaders have said this? Thanks, -Smac

It's a public record, so it cab accessed and downloaded, but someone with an account in that state needs to do it.

I doubt it.

I think we need to let this one go. We'll never really know for sure either way. I'd like to see the evidence before rendering a decision. Thanks, -Smac

Wow. Just saw an update on this case, and it's . . . troubling: Williamsburg judge dismisses sexual assault charges against former Mormon bishop So this appears to be the same accused, same accuser. This is the troubling part: "[A] 47-page motion and 226 pages of exhibits." A motion apparently detailing allegations of shifting stories, fraud (against, inter alia, the Church) , obstruction, collusion, altered evidence, "repressed memories," and so on. A motion filed after the prosecutor had concluded "that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden should these matters proceed to trial." A motion that was apparently sufficient to persuade the judge to dismiss the case permanently ("with prejudice") rather than allow it to be refiled in the future "if the prosecution’s case could be strengthened at a later date." I sure would be interested in reading that motion. There is no mention of the prosecution disputing it. And yet it won't receive the same amount of attention. I wonder if Floodlit will update its entry about Dr. Goodrich. I just submitted the link to the above story. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think we ought to dictate such things to each other. I think that door swings both ways. There has been plenty of commentary in this thread denigrating men for objecting to being characterized as "potential rapists." Perhaps women who subscribe to this unfortunate sentiment ought not criticize and condemn and ridicule men for their thoughts responsive to that sentiment. It is men, after all, who are the targets of it. This sort of sounds like you supposing "how {men} think" and/or how "we should think." That is quite unfortunate behavior. I fully acknowledge how unpleasant and gross that made you fee. I think I can acknowledge that and, at the same time, note that I did not do this thing, nor have I ever behaved in this way, nor would I condone or wink at it, and that I find characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists" because of stuff like this is reasonable and fair. Disrespectful behavior toward women is an ugly thing. We need to avoid and condemn it and take whatever mitigating steps we can as individuals and as a society. Prejudice is also an ugly thing. I think we need to avoid it also. Thanks, -Smac

So treating women as some kind of incomprehensible ‘other’ that you can’t connect with was your strategy? No. Substantially revising/limiting interactions with women in casual conversations with women in social environments. Ironically, for sort of the same reasons as have been asserted against men. Some women, feeling they cannot readily differentiate between the "bad" men from the "good" ones, presumptively view "all men as potential rapists." One potential response to this unfortunate prejudice is to sort of reciprocate. If a man - one of the good ones - cannot readily differentiate between women who view him as a "potential rapist" and those who do not, he presumptively views all women not known to him to harbor this prejudice, and so on that basis limits his interaction with them so as to mitigate the risk of misunderstandings, false accusations, and so on. Meanwhile, all the women with whom this man does not interact likewise benefit because, well, there's far less risk of the man raping them if he preemptively declines to interact with them in any meaningful way. It's not that the "all men are potential rapists" subscribers are "incomprehensible," but rather that they are both prejudices and dangerous, and hence best if avoided altogether. Nor is it that I "can't connect with" them, but rather that I simply choose not to as a safety and mitigation strategy, both for my sake and theirs. That's certainly a possibility. Prejudice is, after all, an inherently irrational sentiment. Then there's also potential misunderstandings. And also the objective of making women feel safe by removing myself as any sort of (potential) danger to them. See, e.g., here: I was never a risk to this young woman, but it was understandable that she could not confirm that in the moment, so to avoid any misunderstanding, I altered my behavior and my interaction with her. Not because she was "incomprehensible," but because I wanted her to feel safe (and, to some extent, for my own protection). Yes, that. Also, having my wife around increases the possibility of interacting with women in a social environment, as in her absence I have effectively no such interactions. Well, no. See the above anecdote. I have no such problem. I do worry for young men, though. From a previously-linked article: "All men are potential rapists" is not only facially prejudicial, it's also alienating and demoralizing. I have plenty of friends and family. Other men, particularly young man, may not be so lucky. And I think it is reasonable for them to be nervous or scared about the "All Men Are Potential Rapists" thing. Indeed, it seems odd to see people both advocate for this unfortunate sentiment and then turn around and ridicule people who take it seriously. Thanks, -Smac

I'm not really inclined to listen to podcasts. I'm generally only willing to do that if they are posted on YouTube, as I can then copy and past the automated transcript into Grok and ask it to sum up the content. I'm interested in this issue, but not enough to spent 75 minutes listening to the mayor of Fairview why the agreed-upon resolution is not an agreed-upon resolution. See, e.g., here: North Texas mayor revives debate over LDS temple steeple height I wonder how "voluntary" this change will be given that the mayor is apparently attempting to foment public pressure against the Church. And yet in April 2025 the City Council approved the current plan, including the steeple height, and which plan already included substantial concessions by the Church. So do the normative processes for municipal decisions apply to the Church? Or not? If the mayor subjectively dislikes the outcome of the democratic process, does he get to unilaterally disregard that process? I assume this is the "bullying" being referenced. Litigation is how civil society resolves disputes such as these. Also, I would be interested in documentation showing that the members of the City Council, which I think voted 5-2 in favor of the mediated deal, are claiming to have been "bullied" by "the threat of litigation," or if this is just the mayor's characterization/gloss. Hubbard says at this time, any change to the steeple would be entirely voluntary. He's hoping to meet with church leaders in the near future. I think the publicity campaign against the Church sort of taints the notion that "any change ... would be entirely voluntary." See also here: Legal options exhausted, new town leaders launch fresh campaign against Fairview Texas Temple steeple Well, it sure looks like it was. A public campaign against the Church for an "entirely voluntary" change to the previously-resolved dispute. Huh. I am curious about how often Mayor Hubbard resorts to adverse publicity campaigns when he does not get his way via the normative election/voting process. Mayor Hubbard may need to do a bit more legwork here. "Love and respect," plus a public pressure campaign against the Church. If Mayor Hubbard were proceeding privately, I would lend more credence to his characterizations. Actually, "relitigate the past" is exactly what Mayor Hubbard is doing. Again, if these were private communications, I would see them in a different light. As it is, "Do what we want 'cuz otherwise we'll publicly say you are not being a 'good neighbor'" and other public statements along these lines start to sound a bit coercive. "Fallout." I wonder what she means by that. Hm. Thanks, -Smac

A former member of this board (and a classmate of mine) represented FAIR in this lawsuit, and he did a great job. Thanks, -Smac

Is this some type of game for you? No. It's a serious topic. I am treating it with all seriousness. Theoretically, yes. I have repeatedly endorsed concepts associated with situational awareness. I think that is a separate issue from characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists." Have the women reserved the tub, or is it open for any guest to use? How big is it? Is the tub in open public view, or in a secluded or closed-off space? How are these men behaving? Are they drunk? Leering? Behaving improperly in some way? Or are they just minding their own business? I'm less sure about this. Is the hot tub open to the public? I live in Provo, which has a Recreation Center, which has a large hot tub open to anyone over 14 years old. If a group of women are in the tub and two men also get in (it's quite large), then - without more - is that a justification to view those men as "potential rapists"? It seems . . . not. Of course, "situational awareness" varies by circumstance. The hot tub I'm describing is in full view from all sides. The lifeguard is about 20 feet away. Plenty of people are walking past all the time. What is the likelihood of those men attempting to commit rape in those circumstances? See above. I don't know what a "battle board" is. Situational awareness is certainly warranted. Should the girl put herself in an isolated circumstance? I think not. See above. I think we ought to be able to have serious discussions about difficult topics. The above comments appear to be an ad hominem. I know a young woman who was groped while on a college campus by a young man who apparently was somewhat autistic. She reported the matter, but nothing was done. This angered her greatly. Fast forward a few years, and she apparently has adopted a posture towards men that is more or less akin to the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment. She does not date, turns down offers, and speaks with contempt (after the fact) about young men who approach her. For me, this illustrates one of the potentialities associated with broad prejudices. Another example: While in college I dated a woman who had served her mission in a European country. On several occasions she expressed her open contempt, even hatred, for all Arab men because she had been accosted by some Arab men while serving as a missionary. She hated all Arab men - everywhere in the world - because she attributed the behaviors of some of them to all of them. I do not understand the reasoning used to justify/rationalize prejudice against a category (all adult males are "potential rapists") from people who would, I think, otherwise shrink from and condemn prejudice against some very large subset of that category (all adult Arab males are "potential rapists," or all Black males are "potential rapists," or all Hispanic males are "potential rapists," and so on). I am sorry you feel that way. I have not spoken to anyone with disrespect or contempt. I am trying to have a civil discussion, that's all. It's a difficult topic, to be sure. I think I am not the only person who is troubled by the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment. And it's not just because of how it affects me, but also how it affects those who subscribe to it, and how it affects society in general. See, e.g., here: I am grateful that I was raised in the Church, which taught me to honor and respect women and girls. I am also grateful for my father and older brothers, who demonstrated such honor and respect in their words and behavior. Here: Here: Here: I think any number of young men are going to be scared about or troubled/demoralized by this sentiment. Thanks, -Smac

If the data supported it What data supports the declaration that "all men are potential rapists"? How do data measure/assess potentiality in this way? And can those datasets also measure potentiality about women being "potential" sexual predators? Might some women object to being characterized as "potential sexual predators" by dint of their sex? Is that allowed to be part of the conversation? The date has been put up before, and this thread and in other threads. Could you provide a link to a specific post with this data? Candidly, I'm not recalling the presentation of "data" supporting the statement that "all men are potential rapists." I think I will. I'd like to see the data first, and then evaluate whether it I understand. Thanks, -Smac

I hope we hold these two ideas in tension at the same time, as well. For the devout, 1 is pretty straightforward. I find many devout LDS who seem unable to hold onto number 2 -- especially when we are talking about someone who has left the church. Could you elaborate on your perspective relative to item 2? By way of example, I know of a young man who was raised in the Church, and then stepped away from it and did a bit of "riotous living." Drugs and alcohol. Petty crime. And he got a girl pregnant. She has substantial substance abuse/addiction issues, mental health issues, is unemployed and effectively unemployable. She has no family except one grandmother who lives out of state. He also has substance abuse issues. He works, but does not make much money. They have gotten together and split up a few times now. She stopped the drugs and alcohol while pregnant and nursing, but she has been excited to wean the baby so she can get back to using those substances. I know the young man and his family quite well (mostly Latter-day Saints). They are all interested in his well being and that of his son and on-and-off girlfriend. They are all handling things pretty well. I think they believe Heavenly Father "is merciful, and He works with each of His children individually, according to their own needs and timing," and according to their willingness. That said, do you think they are obligated to endorse and ratify what this young man did in setting aside the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom? Is that what item 2 entails? Does viewing the young man's behavior as wrong or sinful amount to rejecting item 2? Or can they view it that way and still affirm item 2? Wow. That's way out of line. I don't think the Latter-day Saints should be viewing anyone as "irredeemable." Does that perspective mitigate, in your view, our obligation to repent in this life? Actually, I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints take a lot of comfort in our brand of universalism. But is it possible that this concept can be misconstrued as an excuse to disobey the commandments, not repent, etc.? Thanks, -Smac

You see this as a difference between polite and not polite? I don't know what this means. I have never endorsed or winked at or rationalized any sort of misconduct toward women. Here I am, listening to you, with no differentiation based on sex. Is it possible that you are equating not listening to you with not agreeing with you? To paraphrase a passage from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre: “I like to serve {women} and to obey {them} in all that is right.” I find all sorts of problems with the declaration that "all men are potential rapists." I think it's wrong and unhealthy, and even counterproductive and caustice. I think I can express that disagreement to women, in the same ways I express disagreement with men. Thanks, -Smac

If the data supported it What data supports the declaration that "all men are potential rapists"? How do data measure/assess potentiality in this way? And can those datasets also measure potentiality about women being "potential" sexual predators? Might some women object to being characterized as "potential sexual predators" by dint of their sex? Is that allowed to be part of the conversation? Thanks, -Smac

I am listening. I think we have a disagreement. I'm glad to hear that. Could you explain how you reached that conclusion? Could you also explain when "All men are potential rapists" applies to a particular man, and when it does not? That is eminently reasonable. Why not just say that? It doesn't upset me at all. I agree that situational awareness is a good idea. I can affirm that without needing to characterize half of humanity as "potential rapists." I do "get it," I just don't agree with it. I am all for situational awareness, but not for slandering all men everywhere as "potential rapists." Thanks, -Smac