smac97

I'd like to please summon @smac97 again here because I don't know legal history, maybe he could provide some legal explanation about this? And by the way Smac, I hate AI and I will never use it so you're time and energy to explain the law really means a lot to me and I appreciate it so much. The way you, Nehor, are describing race makes me wonder why it is a protected class in America. Something that is so difficult to prove and ripe for speculation should not get that kind of iron-clad protection. I wonder if the courts agree with your assessment regarding the difficulty of ascertaining and proving race. Race-based classifications have a long and momentous record of de jure (legal) subjugation—slavery (enshrined until 1865), Jim Crow segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)), redlining, and disenfranchisement. In contrast, "gender identity" is very recent, originating in the 1950s-1960s with John Money and evolving and morphing ever since. The notion that biological males who subjectively "identify" as women are, or should be, a constitutionally-protected class is about five minutes old. As for de jure discrimination, that becomes a tough sell. Is excluding biological males from women's sports, bathrooms, etc. "invidious discrimination"? While transgender individuals face de facto bias (e.g., violence, employment barriers), this does not seem comparable to race's de jure legacy (slavery, segregation). Discrimination is more recent/de facto; no systemic legal exclusion like coverture for women or internment for Japanese Americans. Race is an inherent, unchangeable trait from birth—individuals can't "migrate out" to escape bias, making the group "discrete and insular." This is not so with trans folks, who pretty much always "migrate" into the class, and do so in endless ways and degrees. Some dress in ways typically seen as women's clothing, some don't. Some publicly "identify" as trans, some don't. Some receive hormone treatments, some don't. Some cut off some body parts, some don't. And on and on and on. The group is not "discrete and insular." Racial minorities like African Americans were systematically disenfranchised (e.g., poll taxes, literacy tests until Voting Rights Act of 1965), unable to self-protect via democracy. In contrast, trans folks are, and always have been, fully "franchised." Indeed, "trans" advocates have achieved real gains gains (e.g., Bostock Title VII protections; state laws in 25+ jurisdictions), which demonstrates that this "class" has access to legal remedies, unlike disenfranchised racial minorities historically. Society ties function (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.) to biology, not to subjective, impossible-to-quantify, no-limiting-principles, endlessly-malleable "gender identity" concepts. IIRC, SCOTUS has not added a suspect class since 1973 (Frontiero v. Richardson) or a quasi-suspect since 1983 (Cleburne). Skrmetti signals a strong tendency toward restraint, rejecting expansion amid "scientific uncertainty" on gender identity. And the likelihood of SCOTUS creating such a designation is, I think, diminishing because the ideology pushing it is on a downhill slope, both in terms of sociological popularity and scientific inquiry/evidence. See. e.g., Emerging and accumulating safety signals for the use of estrogen among transgender women (Schwartz, L., Lal, M., Cohn, J. et al., Discov Ment Health 5, 88 (2025)). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-025-00216-3. From the abstract: "Natal males" = "biological males" = (for most people) "males/men." ESCAP = "European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry" "[U]rgent need for safeguarding clinical, scientific, and ethical standards." Yep. Tavistock Clinic. Cass Report. Substantial concerns about compromised ethics at WPATH. All sorts of reasons for this. I have previously commented on this "lack of systematic outcome data" a lot. A lot. See, e.g., here. Again, for emphasis: "Several recent systematic reviews have found the evidence of benefit [from the use of exogenous estrogen (often with anti-androgens) to alter secondary sex characteristics of natal males] to be of low or very low certainty, while some risks, such as infertility, have been long recognized." I've talked about the "risks" quite a bit too: Back to the abstract: "{I}ncreased rates of previously associated adverse outcomes" and "newly identified adverse outcomes." We need to be paying attention to this stuff. Good input. Indeed. The supposed complexities have been fabricated for ideological purposes. Two big reasons for why people with DSDs "keep getting brought up" IMO: First, people point to DSDs to justify the notion that "sex is a spectrum." Second, DSDs can, in some exceedingly few circumstances, make an individual's sex epistemically uncertain. Trans ideologues want to be able to say that this biology-based epistemic uncertainty justifies claims by unequivocally male persons having a "gender" incongruent with their sex. In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex. We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.). We legally segregate based on these. Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes. Moreover, when we say that we are "talking about people who struggle with their gender," we are talking about people with erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity" as a male or female. Moreover, we are also "talking about people who struggle with" other erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity," such as a teenage male homo sapiens who "identifies" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa, a biological male who "identifies" as a female and a dragon/reptile, and Stefonknee Wolscht, an adult biological male who "identifies" as a perennially-six-year-old girl. These three are examples of people who also "struggle," but we as a society seem to treat them differently. That is, while we , can and should treat them with kindness, decency, and respect, we do not actually go along with their empirically-disprovable "identities." This is how we, as a society, "reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens." But we take a very different approach to people who "identify" as trans. I am curious as to why, and whether we should, do this. These "protections" are in the text of the Constitution, and case law interpreting that text. There is no corollary text regarding constitutional rights/protections for "trans" folks. Thanks, -Smac

I don't know. Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) did not provide an explicit, standalone definition of "transgender" as a term. Instead, the opinion integrates it into the analysis of "sex" discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SCOTUS held that firing someone "for being homosexual or transgender" necessarily involves sex-based discrimination, as the adverse action turns on incongruence between the employee's sex assigned at birth and their gender identity or presentation. The opinion assumes a common understanding (e.g., identity/presentation differing from birth sex) but avoids granular details like medical transition or non-binary inclusion, focusing on statutory text over policy. Dunno. It probably would be a quasi-suspect class, and perhaps a suspect class. As it is, though, the First Amendment requires that it be a suspect class. It's hard to address a hypothetical like this. Thanks, -Smac

I agree. The effort to have "trans" identity designated as a quasi-suspect class suffers from a number of, in my view, insuperable defects: First, as you say, there is no way to quantify who is and is not in this class. Empirical confirmation ("scientifically provable") is likely not legally required, but there is no "limiting principle." Anyone can "identify" as "trans" at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and migrate in and out of that "identity" at any time. This amounts to a lack of immutability. Transgender identity is not inherently fixed—individuals can transition, detransition, or identify variably, allowing movement in/out of the class. This contrasts with immutable traits like race or sex (born into, unchangeable). Second, the Supreme Court has not recognized a new quasi-suspect class in decades. Third, the majority opinion in Skrmetti did not directly address this question (whether trans persons can qualify as a "suspect" or "quasi suspect" class), but the concurring opinion by Justice Barrett did. She cites the four-part analysis that SCOTUS uses when asked to address this issue: The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma. They possess an immutable or highly visible trait. They lack political power. The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society. I do not think "trans"-identified persons can qualify as a quasi-suspect class under this analysis. Justice Barrett explains why: She is quite right. This issue is, or should be, addressed and decided by the Legislative Branch, not by the Nine Enrobed Ones (I think this same principle should have precluded the decision in Obergefell). Justice Barrett goes on: I don't see a viable counter-argument to this: Justice Barrett goes on to counter the "quasi suspect class" argument by quoting, ironically, WPATH and the APA (both of which are likely very much in favor of the classification) : I don't see a viable counterargument for this one, either. I think similar legislative concerns arise when it comes to "trans" people generally. Having biological males in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports competitions, prisons, the long-term effects of medical interventions, etc. are "[questions] one about which there is room for debate and for an honest difference of opinion," such that legislatures should address them, and courts should refrain from "second-guessing legislative choices." I think there are some portions of society who steadfastly deny that there is "room for debate" here, such that anyone who even suggests otherwise is per se a bigot, "transphobe," and so on. These sorts of my-way-or-the-highway histrionics, bordering on hysteria, have substantially decreased in efficacy over the past several years. The collective fear has dissipated. More and more people are willing to publicly acknowledge what I think almost all of us have known all along: That the Emperor is naked. A man does not become a woman by "identifying" as one. Justice Barret observes, correctly, that there is ample constitutional leeway for differing policy perspectives on this, which leeway pushes most "trans" issues into the legislative sphere: This is why those lobbying for "trans" rights are frequently so over-the-top and shrill and coercive. They cannot countenance that society and the legislative bodies elected to enact laws pertaining to it have "many valid reasons to make policy in these areas." Justice Barrett goes on to address the "historical discrimination" prong of the "suspect class" analysis: This is, in my view, a very important point. The analysis requires, or should require, de jure, not simply de facto, discrimination. She continues: I think this is quite correct. Moreover, I think it is getting more difficult, not less, to argue that "trans" persons face invidious discrimination in our increasingly pluralistic society. So even as de facto invidious discrimination wanes or waxes (I think the waning was happening quite a bit until the trans ideologues started to include in their efforts the sexualization of children, which has led to some societal resistance to these excesses), the likelihood of demonstrating de jure discrimination decreases. This is very good constitutional analysis, and I commend Justice Barrett for it. "Legislating from the Bench" really needs to be reigned in. Justice Barrett goes on to address the "lack [of] political power" prong of the analysis: Aye, there's the rub. I think advocates of trans ideology do know that they have access to the "vote," but they know that they mostly can't win legislatively. One of the better evidences of this mindset is the scorched earth "either you agree with me or your a bigot!"-style acrimonies, which they must know do far more to alienate and offend rather than persuade the "hearts and minds" of large swaths of the electorate. Hence the turn to lawfare such as Skrmetti and the current case discussed here. Justice Barrett continues: I think Justice Barrett has here put - or proposed - a substantial gloss and refinement on the first prong of quasi-suspect class analysis (historical discrimination). A comment from one justice in a concurring opinion is, of course, not binding. However, I think the point she makes here - that demonstrated "discrimination" must be de jure and not just de facto - will likely be adopted in the current case. Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Jackson and Kagan) makes an effort to argue that trans folks are a quasi suspect class. It makes some pretty solid points, but it leans to heavily on analogies in which differentiated treatment based on biological sex exists. Biological sex is essentially always empirically testable, "trans" identity is not. To her credit, Justice Sotomayor references "sex identified at birth" (not "assigned") (emphasis added). She uses that phrase about 25 times, in fact. By sticking to "identified," Justice Sotomayor emphasizes observational neutrality ("identified" evokes medical/biological documentation (e.g., birth certificates noting observable traits) without the connotation of "assignment" as a social construct or potential error). "Identified" also avoids ideological baggage. "Assigned" has roots in transgender advocacy (e.g., emphasizing fluidity/correctability), which could undermine her equal-protection argument by inviting majority counterattacks on "pretextual" framing. Critics of quasi-suspect status (e.g., Barrett's concurrence) already stress immutability and historical discrimination; "identified" sidesteps debates over whether sex is "assigned" like a gender role, keeping focus on disparate impact. Sotomayor's restraint might reflect strategic lawyering—grounding in statute over activism—or a nod to the Court's conservative tilt. Either way, it's a subtle win for clarity amid polarized discourse. In any event, I commend Justice Sotomayor on this point. In sum, I think Skrmetti is a strong bellwether for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Justice Barrett's dissent in that case laid out the blueprint for constitutional analysis, and I think the majority will substantively adopt her approach in the current case. I'll venture to say that this is actually happening. See, e.g., here and here. The "immutable trait" prong of quasi-suspect class analysis is, interestingly, not applicable to the "suspect" class of "religion," which classification people can migrate into or out of. I think the analysis allows for "religion" to be a mutable trait and still a "suspect" class for a few reasons that are mostly not applicable to, say, trans folks. First, protections for religious affiliation are explicitly rooted in the First Amendment, and those protections get "suspect" classification via constitutional incorporation, and not Carolene's minority rationale. Second, religion is a "suspect" because, like race, religions faced de jure oppression (e.g., anti-Catholic laws, blasphemy statutes). Third, religion is also a "suspect" class because the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses elevate it above quasi-suspect traits. Fourth, religion is also a "suspect" class because even mutable minorities (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish) are "insular" due to majority hostility (the can't "assimilate" without abandoning faith), Fifth, requiring "discrete/insular" for quasi-suspect classification prevents slippery slopes (e.g., obesity, poverty), whereas religion as a "suspect" class is both narrow and tied to the Bill of Rights. Thanks, -Smac

A few thoughts: 1. Here is a link to the Church's brief. 2. The legal question is whether "trans" people can qualify as a "quasi-suspect class." This requires a bit of unpacking: A. When examining the constitutionality of a statute or an act taken by any government actor, SCOTUS looks at whether the persons affected are a "suspect class," that is, "a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination." If a person/group is found to be part of a "suspect class," then the statute/act affecting them can argue that they have been discriminated against under the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Put another way, this classifications opens all sorts of doors to lawsuits and money damages, but only if the courts recognize the classification. (All of this, BTW, has been made up by SCOTUS, so it's not a statute or anything, and is therefore somewhat of a vague concept.) B. There are, so far, three recognized "suspect classes": race, national origin, and religion. Consequently, any government act that treats people differently based on one of these classifications is going to be very heavily scrutinized by SCOTUS under the highest level of analysis, fairly heavily scrutinized under the intermediate level, and nominally scrutinized under the lowest level. These three levels of scrutiny are further described as follows: Strict Scrutiny: The toughest form of legal scrutiny. The challenged law "presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a 'compelling state interest,'" and that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to meet that compelling interest, and that the law is the "least restrictive means" of achieving that interest. Per Wikipedia, only about 30% of laws found to be subject to "Strict Scrutiny" survive that scrutiny. An example of a law surviving Strict Scrutiny is Grutter v. Bollinger (Upheld the University of Michigan Law School's race-based affirmative action program, deeming "student body diversity" (that is, the consideration of race as a factor in admissions) to be a compelling interest and the race-conscious admissions process to be narrowly tailored). Examples of laws not surviving Strict Scrutiny include well-known cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. Intermediate Scrutiny: As you can guess by it's name, this is a lesser, though still potent, form of legal scrutiny. From Wikipedia: "In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest." A recent example of a law surviving Intermediate Scrutiny is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (allowing states to require Internet pornography websites to verify the age of viewers in order to prevent access by minors). Rational Basis: This is the lowest, the "normal," standard of review. From Wikipedia: "Courts applying rational basis review seek to determine whether a law is 'rationally related' to a 'legitimate' government interest, whether real or hypothetical." This one is very difficult to overcome for a person challenging the constitutionality of a statute or government act (and, obviously, pretty easy for the state actor to satisfy). "Strict Scrutiny," then, is a fairly closed set of classifications (race, national origin, and religion), and "Rational Basis" is the default approach to assessing constitutionality. Consequently, a person or group looking to challenge a law will do everything they can to escape the clutches of "Rational Basis" and get themselves designated as a group for which "Intermediate Scrutiny" applies. C. "Intermediate Scrutiny" has a fairly narrow application. It is clear that sex and legitimacy of birth are both classifications that trigger "Intermediate Scrutiny" (that is, laws that discriminate based on these classifications must show the "important government interest" and such as noted in the above summary). These are called "quasi-suspect classes." D. Sexual orientation might be a quasi-suspect class (see here). Two circuit courts (2nd and 9th) have said it is, but that's it. E. With this backdrop in mind, we come back to the issue addressed in the Church's brief, that is, whether "trans" people qualify, in a legal setting, as a "quasi-suspect class." If they do, then laws which differentiate/discriminate based on "transgender status" will face a considerably more difficult constitutional burden (Intermediate Scrutiny) than otherwise (Rational Basis). An excellent, and related, example of this sort of question arose in United States v. Skrmetti: Skrmetti is likely relevant to the question in the two consolidated cases in which the Church's brief was filed (though the brief does not address Skrmetti). Here is Grok's assessment: I think this is likely a correct prediction. F. Here is Grok's summary of the Church's brief (which brief, IMO, was not adequately addressed or described in the news article) : G. Here are some verbatim excerpts from the Church's brief: This is pretty good stuff, but conclusory (to be expected in the introduction, I guess). The brief gets into some particulars later on. A very solid point, this. "A religious organization’s pursuit of a unique religious mission would be molded to avoid government penalties and private litigation rather than to express the organization’s authentic self-definition." Yep. Thee RFRA as "super statute." That's new to me. Anyhoo, the brief is pretty good, and I think "trans" or "gender identity" as a quasi-suspect class will not be recognized. Thanks, -Smac

Pretty big gaps between the "nows" and the "thens," but yes. I haven't been following this stuff much. The dismissal of Celeste Borys's lawsuit was pretty significant. Boy, her attorneys really stepped in it. Zero common sense, nor even any sense which should have come from going to law school and practicing law. The Utah State Bar will not look kindly on their behavior. Thanks, -Smac

Here you go.

Inside the bitter fight between the Mormons and small town America: Church accused of 'bullying' picturesque hamlets into letting them build towering temples I'm sort of having difficulty lending credence to this story. "Ride roughshod over local planning rules" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can." "{D}efending their land" = "Opposing the Church's efforts to apply the law in the same way any other religious group can." I'm not saying these folks are not entitled to advance their interests, but the characterizations here seem a bit . . . overwrought. "{T}he church flexes its legal muscle" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can." Troubling stuff, if true. Very troubling. And wholly incompatible with how Latter-day Saints ought to behave. "If true" being the operative component. I confess some skepticism about this stuff. Hmm. I wonder if accommodations as to lighting at night might help resolve this. Yeah, overwrought. "Megatemples" are probably intended to evoke the notion of "Megachurches," which involve thousands of people all arriving and departing around the same time. A temple would not have such a thing happening. "Demanded." It looks like both sides of the dispute are trying to rally public opinion. Having a hard time taking this at face value. In other words, both sides made concessions. This is, apparently, a bad thing. Uh-huh. I'm curious about this. Thanks, -Smac

6 years after a ‘fake apology’ for the Black priesthood/temple ban, many Latter-day Saints yearn for a real one "They say." And what better way for the Tribune to start talking about "bring{ing} healing to all members" than to include "fake apology" in the title of the article. A "conversation" where the "former church member," Jonathan Streeter, initially defended his ruse, and then - to his credit (?) - apologized for it: Back to the first article: Perhaps so. Or perhaps this call is, like Streeter's noxious stunt above, a pretext for doing something else. I think there are serious flaws in the notion that we can or ought to import into the Church tactics and rhetoric designed to affect political change and influence in secular government (such as America's constitutional republic form). These may have some utility in that sphere, but not in the Church of Jesus Christ. It looks like the Black Menaces folks are attempting to do this at BYU. It would be interesting to see an evaluation of the positive effects of the SBC's apology. Were there any? Or are calls for such public apologies more along the lines of virtue signaling and posturing? Might these calls even be pretextual? Did this happen in the SBC? Did this happen in the SBC? This same "Tamu Smith" was quoted in the Trib back in 2017: Black Mormons applaud as LDS Church condemns white supremacy as ‘morally wrong and sinful’ Sis. Smith said this in 2017. Seven years ago. Back to the first article: As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside. I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go. See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism. Repentance is a deeply personal thing. I reject the notion of collective guilt/sin. "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." (AoF 1:2.) Oddly, the call for "the church" to "repent" also seems to contradict the 2nd Article of Faith. I agree with this, which is part of why I have concluded that the ban was not revelatory. Hmm. I don't understand the attempted syllogism here. Hmm. So Bro. Wilcox's repeated apologies regarding his own statements were, in some quarters, deemed insufficient. Kinda makes you wonder if the Church's apology would be treated the same way. "{T}his issue" being . . . what? This despite all the Church's efforts to explicitly condemn racism. I am curious what she is referencing here. And since Bro. Wilcox's apologies were ineffectual to bring him back into her good graces, I am curious whether an institutional apology would do anything to elevate the Church's stature in her eyes. Hmm. I will give this some thought. Until and unless this or that activist publicly deems such an apology insufficient or ineffectual. Kinda like the above treatment of Bro. Wilcox's apologies. I will give this some though as well. I am curious if such "statements of regret" have had any measurable impact. Like this one. Has this "statement of regret" fostered healing? "The church issued a public apology on behalf of a member..." Because we do not subscribe to the notion of collective guilt. The foregoing article seems to be steeped in "activist" thought. Tamu Smith is apparently a self-described "activist," and she seems to have passed that on to her daughter, and both are publicly utilizing their activism in (against?) the Church. Having referenced (and linked to) then-Bro. Corbitt's talk against activism, and also to then-Elder Oaks' talk about addressing disagreements in the Church, and in the spirit of "start{ing} a conversation" about activism in the Church, I submit the following article: The March of Dimes Syndrome Some excerpts: This seems to be a common - perhaps inevitable - trend in "activism" (which trend may be part of why Bro. Corbitt's 2022 talk is so relevant and resonant). Obviously "March of Dimes Syndrome" is a neologism. Although I have frequently perceived its manifestations in much of today's "activist" stuff, I was not aware of the label. The earliest instance of it I could find was in 2016: A similar label I have previously encountered is "Mission Creep," described here: I think "activism" these days is often quite susceptible to the March of Dimes Syndrome / Mission Creep phenomenon. This includes activism in the Church. Back to the Tierney article: I wonder if activist calls for an apology from the Church are borne of this "March of Dimes Syndrome" mindset. Any progress/success the Church has made/had relative to condemning racism, fostering goodwill, etc. is a threat. In the minds of some activists, they can never declare "mission accomplished." Mission Creep happens. "So activists have moved the goalposts once again." Yep. If the Church were to issue a formal institutional apology, would self-appointed "activists" accept it and move on? Or would they deem it insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more? Yeah, the SPLC has really had a lot of mission creep. I can't help but wonder if some of the activists calling for the Church to issue an apology see Mission Creep not as a bug, but as a feature. That is, these folks want the Church to issue an apology so that they can, in true "Mission Creep" style and form, deem the apology insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more. And the "more" would, in my view, almost certainly - and perhaps almost immediately - take us to demands that the Church "apologize" for the Law of Chastity, for its prohibitions against same-sex behavior, for its past opposition to same-sex marriage, for its current non-recognition (in an ecclesiastical sense) of same-sex marriages, and so on. And I think the calls would not stop at just an apology, but for alteration of the Church's doctrines, so as to ratify same-sex marriages, to allow temple sealings between persons of the same sex, to allow same-sex behavior, etc. Additionally or alternatively, I wonder if this is a pretext for calling for women to be ordained to the priesthood. And perhaps disavowals of claims to prophetic/priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and so on. The Tierney article goes on to explain a third label for this phenomenon (in addition to "March of Dimes Syndrome," mentioned in the article, and "Mission Creep," commented on by me) : "'The more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness.'" Might this be said about the Church since 1978? "First is the negativity effect, or the brain’s innate bias to pay more attention to the negative than the positive." Might this be in play relative to how some folks treat the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? "As the world gets better—as people become richer, better educated, and longer-lived—we find new things to worry about and have more disposable income and free time to spend curing humanity’s woes, real or imagined." Again, are black people in the Church better off now than they were in 1978? If so, why is it that folks of an "activist" bent seem fixated on characterizing the Church in the worst possible ways? Any other thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

From The Daily Beast: Polygamous Mormon Sect Is Actually a Sex Trafficking Cult: Lawsuit Here is a link to the Complaint. It's pretty long. Some of the particulars: 1. Where/When: The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Utah on February 28. 2. Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs, ten women, are filing under their own names. 3. Defendants: The named individual (non-corporate) defendants are: Paul Elden Kingston John Daniel Kingston, Sr. Hyrum Dalton Kingston David Ortell Kingston Jesse Orvil Kingston Jason Ortell Kingston Rachel Orlean Kingston Young John Paul Johnson Jacob Daniel Kingston, Jr. Jacob Ortell Kingston, Sr. Sally Kingston John Daniel Kingston, Jr. Daniel Charles Kingston Patricia Kingston Paul Elden Kingston, Jr. Michelle Afton Michaels Deborah Williams Jolene Andrews April McKay Valarie Martin Kent William Johnson The named corporate defendants (the "Order Businesses") are: Davis County Cooperative Society, Inc. {EDIT TO ADD: this is a non-profit Utah corporation} dba Redwood Grocery & Health Foods and John’s Market Place {EDIT TO ADD: these are both for-profit Utah corporations} Latter Day Church of Christ, dba, ZMPC and LDCC {EDIT TO ADD: this is a non-profit Utah corporation} A-1 Disposal {EDIT TO ADD: "a waste management and recycling solutions center organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 610 West 3410 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119"} Management Business Systems, Inc. Advanced Copy {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit copying and duplicating service organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 4850 South Redwood Road, Taylorsville, Utah 84123"} Ensign Learning Center, Inc. {EDIT TO ADD: "an educational center organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2755 Decker Lake Lane, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119"} Vanguard Academy {EDIT TO ADD: "a charter school organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2650 South Decker Lake Lane, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119"} Advanced Vending {EDIT TO ADD: "a vending management company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 3994 South 300 West, Unit 32, Murray, Utah 84107"} A&W Restaurants {EDIT TO ADD: "a franchise organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 6765 UT-36, Stansbury Park, Utah 84074. The franchise is part of a chain of for-profit A&W Restaurants that serve fast food"} The Food Group, LLC {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit entity organized under the laws of Utah, with a registered address listed as 670 East 3900 South Ste 300 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 and doing business as A&W Taylorsville, A&W Plymouth, and A&W Stansbury"} United Fuel Supply {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit commodity trading company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 7950 West 2400 North, Plymouth, Utah 84330"} Washakie Farm {EDIT TO ADD: "is located in or around the town of Washakie, Utah in Box Elder County. It is a for profit farm owned by the Order"} Order Bank aka the “Office” aka the “Century Office” {EDIT TO ADD: per the Complaint this is "not a real banking organization, but rather a set of offices with the main office located at 53 West Angelo Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah and a larger office at 10 Century Park Way, Salt Lake City, Utah"} Family Stores True Value {EDIT TO ADD: "for-profit hardware store organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 4860 South Redwood Rd, Taylorsville, Utah 84123"} Standard Restaurant Supply {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit restaurant supply company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 3500 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} AAA Communications {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit answering service organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2971 South Richards Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} Washakie Renewable Energy, LLC {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit biofuel company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 3950 South 700 East Ste #100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107"} {EDIT TO ADD: This entity was part of a massive ($512 million) fraud case in 2019 - see here} Fidelity Lending {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit finance and credit company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 10 West Century Parkway, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} Property Compliance, aka Arrow Real Estate {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit real estate company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 635 West 5300 South Ste 202, Murray, Utah 84123"} Attco Trucking aka CTC Trucking {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit freight and transportation company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2750 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104"} {EDIT TO ADD: "Coal Trucking Company which may also be known as CTC Trucking, LLC and/or Coal Valley, LLC is a for-profit entity owned and operated by the Order"} American Digital Systems {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit software company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2971 South Richard Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} Garco Property Management {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit business with a principal place of business at 3994 South 300 West, Millcreek, Utah 84107"} American Wellness & Rehab Clinic {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit family medicine clinic organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 677 West 5300 South, Murray, Utah 84123"} A-Action Express {EDIT TO ADD: "for-profit transportation company that provides school and employee bus services for Order children, organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 624 North 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103"} Mitchell & Associates {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit accounting company that provides Order members tax and accounting services for the benefit of the Order, organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 670 East 3900 South, Suite 301, Salt Lake City, Utah 84117"} A-Fab Engineering {EDIT TO ADD: "F-Fab Engineering is a for-profit engineering company, organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 83 Navajo Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104"} Sierra Wholesale {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit flooring company and a dba of the Order operating within Standard Restaurant Supply, with a principal place of business at 3500 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} 4. The Allegations: The Complaint is very long. The factual allegations alone take up 109 pages. The contents are laid out in some detail, but are summed up in paragraphs 98-101: Very long. Very disturbing. 5. Legal Claims: Here are the causes of action in the Complaint: FIRST Cause of Action: LABOR TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SECOND Cause of Action: SEX TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW THIRD Cause of Action: VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOURTH Cause of Action: VIOLATION OF RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C) FIFTH Cause of Action: VIOLATION OF RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962(D) SIXTH Cause of Action: LABOR TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF UTAH LAW SEVENTH Cause of Action: SEX TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF UTAH LAW EIGHTH Cause of Action: SEXUAL BATTERY AND ABUSE OF CHILDREN NINTH Cause of Action: SEXUAL BATTERY AND RAPE OF ADULT TENTH Cause of Action: NEGLIGENT SEXUAL BATTERY AND ABUSE OF A CHILD ELEVENTH Cause of Action: CONVERSION 6. The Attorneys: The attorneys who filed this Complaint are Roger Hoole (who has previously litigated against the FLDS/UEP folks, and who graduated from BYU Law School in 1987) and Jaclyn Robertson. Interestingly, Hoole and Robertson previously filed what appears to be a very similar lawsuit in September 2022 (of the nine plaintiffs in this 2022 case, four are named as plaintiffs in the 2024 case), but in state court in Utah (not federal), Case No. 220905426, which was dismissed voluntarily in June 2023 by Hoole's/Robertson's clients. None of the defendants in the 2024 suit have filed a response yet, but I suspect the same, or some of the same, attorneys who represented them in the 2022 case will be appearing. Those attorneys are: Paul Cannon, Laura Fuller, Carl Kingston (same address as David, below), David Kingston (same address as Carl, above), Ryan Kingston (same address as is given for "Standard Restaurant Supply," one of the defendants), Andrew Mitchell Very troubling stuff. I hope justice is done for those who have been wronged. Thanks, -Smac

In October 2021 the Church announced the construction of a temple in Cody, Wyoming. This has created some controversy in that city: Here is a rendering of the proposed temple: And the location: A bit more context (the temple site is the black square) : Some neighbors are concerned: See also here: So the stated concerns are: The "architectural integrity" of the neighborhood; Light pollution; Traffic concerns; Intrusion into wildlife area; and Height of temple (which substantially contravenes the city's Master Plan). These are fairly common concerns, and reasonable minds can disagree about them. I also am glad to see that the folks in Cody who oppose the temple are not doing so on any "religious" grounds. That's not to say that everything is coming up roses: Vandalized Yard Signs Mock Those Opposed To Controversial Cody Mormon Temple I am disappointed that some (hopefully a very few) Latter-day Saints are imputing motives of bigotry, particularly given the civility expressed by those opposing the temple. I am also disappointed that the bishop quoted above is doing this, and is doing so in his capacity as a bishop. Pres. Nelson's call for civility in his "Peacemakers Needed" address is relevant here. In any event, news just came out that the Church is filing suit: So the lawsuit is about a very specific - and nonreligious - issue, namely, whether the PZA Board's approval of a site plan requires A) a majority vote of board members present at the board meeting (which happened, since three of the five board members voted in favor of the site plan), or B) a majority vote of the overall members of the board (which did not happen, as there are seven members, and only five attended the meeting in question, and only three of the five voted in favor of the site plan). A few thoughts: 1. This is a question of law ("given what has happened, what does the law say"), not a question of "fact" ("what actually happened"). Questions of law are generally easier to answer than questions of fact. 2. The Cody Municipal Code, Section 10-4-4, requires a party disagreeing the the PZA Board to act very quickly (within days). Specifically, a "Notice of Appeal" must be filed "within ten (10) days after the decision has been entered on the commission's records," and then a lawsuit must be filed "{w}ithin ten (10) days" of filing the Notice of Appeal. The hearing was on June 15, but per the news item above the lawsuit was not filed until July 17, or 32 days later. The only way the Church's lawsuit is timely is if the PZA Board's decision was not "entered on the commission's records" until July 7 or later. 3. Regarding the "majority vote of the board present at the meeting" v. "majority vote of the board altogether, regardless of how many are actually in attendance" issue, the Municipal Code is silent: Based on this, my hasty surmise is that the Church's legal argument is correct, as I suspect five of the seven board members present is sufficient to constitute a quorum, and that a majority vote of those five present are sufficient to accept the site plan. We'll see what happens, I suppose. Thanks, -Smac

We have had numerous discussions about the horrible story of Paul Adams, a man in Arizona - and nominal member of the Church - who abused his children, who was excommunicated for his abuse, and who later committed suicide: April 2020: What a Nightmare! (also discussed here) December 2020: Update on AZ Abuse Case. April 2022: (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case. August 2022: (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case August 2022: AP Story about Abuse October 2022: Lawsuit: Utah firm and lawmaker helped Mormons hide abuse December 2022: (4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case December 2022: AZ appeals court issues ruling on the Bisbee abuse case From yesterday (April 11, 2023) : Arizona court upholds clergy privilege in child abuse case This article is written by Michael Rezendez, the same fellow who wrote the "AP Story" referenced in the above links. And this lawsuit is, I believe, the same one as was discussed on the October 2022 item above ("Lawsuit: Utah firm and lawmaker helped Mormons hide abuse"). The April 7 decision by the Arizona Supreme Court is apparently not yet publicly available, but when it is it will be posted here. Cadigan is essentially required to claim this, because if she were to acknowledge that the Church's actions were within the "legislative intent" of the statute defining the parameters of the privilege, then her lawsuit would have been facially improper. I don't see this statement at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. I think this was an incorrect statement of the law. And though I think I understand why Judge Cardinal made it, I think she should be embarrassed for getting the law as massively wrong as she did. As our Webbles noted here (regarding the December 2022 decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals) : That the Court of Appeals reached a "unanimous decision for both questions" is, IMO, significant. Back to the update: It sure would be nice if the journalist, Mr. Rezendez, would update his narrative to fit the testimony that came out in the trial proceedings. I commented on this back in December 2022: This appears to be a pretty substantial mischaracterization of what happened. See, e.g., here: Back to the update: I think Cadigan is just showboating and pandering with this move. Overall this is a terrible story. I hope the victims get the counseling and other help they need. Thanks, -Smac

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. See, e.g., here, here, here, here. Our Analytics responded. See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. One of the big differences in our respective positions is that 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 (though elsewhere he seemed to approve of such laws - I'll let him address that if he likes). I provided a number of examples of these laws here and here. I cited instances of this happening in California, New York, Virginia, Canada, the UK, and Norway. Here's another one from Norway that just recently came out: The link beneath the tweet above is to this story: “Men Are Men”: Norwegian Artist Facing Criminal Charges, Potential Prison Sentence Over Gender Comments A few thoughts/observations here: First, I think most of the aggression in the Pronoun Wars is coming from the "T" in LGBT. Second, there seems to be some substantial fracturing going on in LGBT coalition, with the "Ts" and the "Ls" becoming increasingly at loggerheads. Third, I find it noteworthy that the "T" agitators are willing to punish "Ls" who do not acquiesce in the Pronoun Wars, and to use the organs of the State to do so. This really seems to be accelerating. "A man who claims to be a lesbian mother." No, that's not a pitch for an SNL skit or a sitcom episode. To paraphrase the saying (which itself is an adaptation of a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest), "resisting compelled speech makes strange bedfellows." I, as an adult male American and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, am wholly supportive of lesbian Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon on this point. "Up to three years in prison." For saying words. For giving voice to ideas the government dislikes. I think this sort of thing is going to increase in frequency and severity unless actively opposed. Credit to Gjevjon for her efforts. A translation of the above police notice to Gjevjon: Yeesh. Alas, "being disavowed" is sometimes the price to be paid for standing by one's convictions. I think the issue becomes substantively more problematic, though, when the government wades in and starts throwing its weight around. "Queer organizations" can, I suppose, do as they like. But when "politicians" start to take sides in such matters, and when they start to pass laws to compel speech or punish what ought to be Free Speech, that becomes problematic. Anyway, back to the first article: I have expressed concern about this phenomenon quite a few times. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important pieces of thought in the history of the world. It preserves, or is intended to preserve, individual liberties from encroachments and threats by the State. I find it interesting that the Latter-day Saints owe so much to this small bit of writing, but we are far from the only ones. I value the common ground I, as a male Latter-day Saint in Utah, share with Gjevjon, Norwegian lesbian filmmaker relative to valuing Free Speech. This includes resisting compelled speech, and it is a concern as central to my interests as a Latter-day Saint in America as to Gjevjon's interests as a lesbian and artiste in Norway. Thanks, -Smac