Amulek

I think you're drawing too sharp a distinction between situational awareness and the possibility that someone you trust might make a choice that violates that trust. Not every risk comes with obvious warning signs. Sometimes the person who poses a risk is someone you know, someone who has given you no particular reason to be suspicious, and someone you would ordinarily trust. People make choices, and not all of those choices are predictable from their prior behavior. A person doesn't necessarily have to be a habitual predator, or someone who goes out of his way to victimize women, to make a very different choice when he perceives an opportunity and believes there will be no consequences. That's part of what makes sexual violence difficult to guard against. You can't always identify a specific person or situation in advance and simply avoid it. Sometimes the relevant risk is the possibility that someone will choose to take advantage of circumstances in which he believes he can get away with it. I don't think acknowledging that reality requires us to regard all men as rapists, any more than acknowledging that anyone is capable of theft means we regard everyone as a thief. There's a difference between assigning guilt to an entire group and recognizing that you cannot reliably determine an individual's intentions simply because you know him, like him, or have trusted him in the past. The question isn't whether most men commit sexual violence. Obviously, they don't. The question is whether the fact that most men don't commit it means women should feel obligated to treat the men they encounter as presumptively safe until they have specific reasons to believe otherwise. Those are two very different propositions. Situational awareness is useful, but it has limits. Sometimes the risk isn't apparent until someone makes a choice. And sometimes the very thing that makes a situation feel safe is the trust we've developed in the person who ultimately violates it.

Immediately before the disputed "sweet spot" statement, Dan describes having both supporters and detractors across the religious spectrum. He then explains that he is putting data out there and that people will interpret it in different ways. That context supports a reading in which he sees his role as providing evidence without dictating what conclusions people must draw from it. But smac is not unreasonable to focus on the words "doing something right." Those words express a favorable assessment of his position. The question in my mind, however, is what he (Dan) thinks he's doing right. There are at least two plausible interpretations: - The charitable interpretation: He's doing something right because he is presenting evidence consistently, without tailoring his conclusions to satisfy either religious believers or skeptics. - The critical interpretation: He's doing something right because his work supplies arguments that help people justify either maintaining or abandoning religious faith, and he considers both outcomes desirable. I don't think the quote alone can definitively establish which interpretation he intended. His accompanying explanation about presenting data and allowing people to interpret it supports the first, although it doesn't completely eliminate the second.

We might have been talking past each other. I was referring to chocolate, not chocolates. If we're talking about the typical candy-counter chocolates you find in American stores, then yes, I agree with you. The U.S. market is dominated by Hershey's and Mars Inc., and their products are noticeably different from typical European formulations. That being said, you don't have to go to a specialty store to get your chocolate fix. I regularly see Lindt, Cadbury, and Milka in fairly average grocery stores. Almost everyone carries Ferrero Rocher these days, and I've seen Merci at Target and other mainstream retailers. So the access is there – people just have to be willing to walk past the pile of Hershey's and try something different. Oh, and I'm 100% with you on the dark chocolate front. I plan on ordering one of these and having a piece per day as my personal advent calendar this year.

There's certainly a difference. But most chocolate isn't actually made in America. The best chocolatiers all use chocolate sourced from other parts of the world, so you will still find plenty of delicious options here - so long as you know where to look.

I am no respecter of chocolates. Almost anything will do in a pinch. As for Hershey's, in particular, it's fine for s'mores. And those nuggets they make - the ones with toffee / almonds - are a pretty good substitute when I can't find a Symphony bar for popcorn night (as I require chocolate with popcorn). They have some 'special dark' truffle-like candies that are pretty eatable as well.

I don't see it quite as binary. I'm not sure where Nemo ultimately lands on every theological question, but he has explicitly described what happened as a “trust crisis” rather than a “faith crisis,” and has said he still considers himself Mormon in many ways. Maybe he's going through something of an Oliver Cowdery phase and will eventually return to the fold. At least, that is my hope. In the meantime, however, I don't think it would be contradictory for someone in that situation to grieve the possible loss of an eternal marriage while simultaneously having serious doubts about, or losing trust in, the institution administering that doctrine.

In the article that appears directly below the one you link to, it has the following: So, I think this is just sort of him explaining the impact of having had his membership withdrawn - not that there is a current, live situation where he is not able to participate in something - though he does mention that some family members have been avoiding him. “Certain family members won't talk to me anymore because of what I do, equating it to having a paedophile in the family, ‘we don't want our children around you’. [...] Other members of my family have been very supportive of what I do, others merely tolerant.” I'm not sure what to make about the whole pedophile comment. There are, admittedly, lots of people I don't want my children around, but if someone in his family really made that kind of comment (which I grant as being plausible), that strikes me as being a really mean and spiteful thing to say - even if you strongly disagree with what he's been doing. Oh, and as far as I can tell, all of the comments about him ending up in outer darkness appear to come from the author of the articles (Simon Fearn), not from Nemo himself - though I'm not sure how far he went out of his way to disabuse the author of the notion. Here's the author's take on LDS theology: Excommunication is a serious matter, but it's not a pronouncement that you are destined for outer darkness. If Nemo is as informed about LDS goings on as he claims to be, he certainly ought to know that. And maybe he does, and the author is just writing something provocative to generate clicks for their YouTube documentary. Not sure. Don't care.

My understanding is that all of the subterranean work is complete, and they are ready to start going vertical.

I believe the Church has stated previously, "there is no list of rules to guide every decision we make about technology and media. Instead, we can learn principles to help guide us as we make choices." That being said, the current handbook, Section 38.8.48.2 does mention that, "Interactions with AI cannot substitute for meaningful relationships with God and others." I mean, technically, that doesn't say, "Thou shalt not marry a Roomba," but I don't seriously think that is really a legitimate (theological) concern. Relatedly though, Elder Gong gave a great address here just a few months ago that touches on some of what I perceive are some of the more dangerous issues surrounding AI - especially with youth. Particularly, his comments about the potential for people to become emotionally dependent on AI chatbots, and his observation that: "None of us is as attentive, as willing to please 24/7 as an AI chatbot. And that’s the reason we need human (They) belonging with each other. Real human relationships are not solipsistic – us talking to ourselves. Real relationships are human relationships."

I think there's a lot worth thinking about in what you wrote, especially the warning that any religious community can develop assumptions that become so familiar we stop examining them. I certainly don't think Latter-day Saints are immune to that. Our own scriptures warn us about traditions, pride, and confusing what is familiar with what is true. That being said, it's probably worth noting that just because something functions as “doxa” within a group doesn't necessarily mean the notion is suspect. Something can be deeply embedded in a community and still be true. The fact that we don't continually debate a belief doesn't really tell us whether the belief is true or false – it merely tells us something about how the group relates to it.

Curious. It seems the Church's policy doesn't distinguish between traditional surrogacy and gestational surrogacy. If IVF itself doesn't alter a child's “born in the covenant” status, I'm having a hard time seeing why the result would be different when the embryo is genetically the child of the sealed husband and wife, but another woman provides the gestational environment. I mean, if we replaced the human surrogate with an artificial womb or a vat for the gestational phase, would that child likewise not be considered “born in the covenant”? In other words, is it really the genetics that matter, or the gestation and live birth? If it's the latter, I'd be interested to know what doctrinal principle makes the location of gestation significant enough to change the child's covenant status.

Something like retractable casters would probably be the way to go. I don't see the need to be moving it frequently, but it would be nice to easily accommodate doing so should the need arise. A recessed plate in the floor could also hide the microphone/electrical connections and keep everything nice and clean.

Based solely on the diagram: uncertain. But my suspicion is that they wouldn't place it on an elevated platform because then you would have to deal with additional accessibility concerns.

Height isn't a requirement, but I suspect it will likely need to be at least high enough to try and discourage all the littles from climbing on it.

Sorry. In talking about the changes, I was operating under the assumption that people had seen a mock-up of the proposed layout. I could have been more clear about what I meant. When I said, "[m]oving the sacrament table to the center," I meant moving it to the center of the room, in front of the podium. And when I said "two rows of benches," I should have said two sections of pews (as opposed to the three section layout commonly used in meetinghouses today). Here's an image that might make it more clear. While still different from other Catholic buildings I have attended, I think this kind of layout would seem more familiar to you should you happen to visit an LDS chapel that was organized in this manner. Conceptually, I'm not opposed to using architecture to symbolically communicate whatever we want it to communicate (e.g., the primacy of the sacrament). But, from a Latter-day Saint perspective, I think there's something symbolically meaningful about having the pulpit at the front as well. Currently, I would say that it symbolizes the living Word of God continuing to be proclaimed through his children through revelation, through testimony, through scripture, etc. Just like the table isn't Christ himself, but is supposed to point us toward Christ, so to is the current configuration - only with the emphasis being on Christ's continuing work in the Church.