webbles

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/reviving-abandoned-application says that an abandoned application is no longer alive. So I guess that is what it means to be dead.

Go to https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results and enter "Mormon" in the search bar and you'll see every trademark application (either successful or unsuccessful) with that word in it. I don't see "exmormon". Edited to add: I'd put a link to the search results if I could but the site doesn't have links like that.

The previous set of categories didn't mark faiths as "Christian". I can't find a page that lists them in text, but I found https://www.scribd.com/document/346253841/Faith-and-Belief-Codes-of-the-DOD which is an image of a memorandum with the updated list as of 2017. This new list now prepends "Christian" in front of a bunch of denominations but also contains other denominations. This is the new list: Agnostic (AN) Baha'i faith (BH) Buddhism (BU) Christian - Assemblies of God (AG) Christian - Baptist (BA) Christian - Brethren (BR) Christian - Catholic (CA) Christian - Church of Christ (CC) Christian - Church of God (CG) Christian - Church of the Nazarene (CN) Christian - Episcopal/Anglican (EA) Christian - Evangelical (EV) Christian - Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) Christian - Lutheran (LU) Christian - Methodist (ME) Christian - Non Denominational (ND) Christian - Orthodox (OX) Christian - Other (CO) Christian - Pentecostal (PE) Christian - Presbyterian (PR) Christian - Quaker (QU) Christian - Reformed (RE) Christian - Scientist (SC) Christian - Seventh Day Adventist (SA) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (CJ) Hindu (HI) Islam (Muslim) (IS) Judaism (Jewish) (JU) No Religion (NR) Other Religions (OR) Sikh (SI)

I would think it is more elaborate than that. Something like Eastern Orthodox's Panikhida - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_service_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church.

We don't really believe in glossolalia. It has happened in the early church but we generally say that "speaking in tongues" is for talking in a known foreign language. So, Benjamin Johnson's story fits great where he was able to speak in an existing language that he previously couldn't speak. Another, quasi-famous one (because of the movie) is Elder Groberg's account of learning Tongan really fast by reading the scriptures in both English and Tongan. I would say there is a pretty strong belief that many missionaries are given the gift of tongues so they can rapidly learn the foreign languages. Here's a recent (2024) article in the Liahona talking about how someone had the gift of tongues (he was able to learn English quickly) - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/12/afw-eng-local-pages/local-news-002?lang=eng

I think https://mormonfundamentalism.com/polygamous-groups/the-lebarons/ is a decent run down. That is from Brian Hales. Neither Benjamin Johnson nor his grandson (Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr.) ever stated publicly or in any writing that we have access to that they had any special power or privileges. It was the sons of Alma that first mention it.

If you are talking about who you personally know, then yeah, that makes sense. I only know of one person from my personal life who was excommunicated and it was because of an egregious sin. But if you are talking about if there has been excommunications somewhere in the world outside of the LDS church in the last 77 years, then it has definitely happened and even shows up in the news. For instance https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/archbishop-vigan-found-guilty-schism-excommunicated-vatican talks about an excommunication in 2024. I probably hear and read more about Catholic excommunications than I do about LDS excommunications.

I apparently am close to all positions. Ostler and Givens are both 85%, Roberts is 82%, Joseph Smith is 76%, Progressive Mormons is 70%, and McConkie is 62%. I have a few that have a 100% score and I'm pretty certain that I used the given choices for those questions. I bet if I had written something, even if it was close to the given choice, it would probably have been a lower percentage. The women's priesthood one is interesting because it puts "Temple priesthood" at 50%. So if you answer that women have the priesthood through the temple, then you start at 50% and move up or down from there.

Excommunication is pretty old idea and Catholic and Orthodox both do it. I don't think they do it that much in modern times but it definitely happened quite a few times through out history (as an example, Martin Luther was excommunicated). Quite a lot of other larger Christian organizations do a form of excommunication - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

I think this is the main difference. You seem to think that calling "all men are potential rapists" is not "reasonable caution". Why? Why isn't it reasonable? Because listening to the women here, it sounds like that is a very reasonable thing to do. Because they could be with a man who is very nice to them and then he changes instantly and now the woman is in real trouble. That is usually how most of the stories goes. The guy is a nice guy until he isn't. So, as a woman, when you know that the man you are interacting with could go from nice to angry really, really fast, and you have very little defense against it, that means "reasonable caution" is warranted in pretty much every situation when interacting with men.

I've been thinking about this and I really don't know how to answer it. When my sons reached puberty, their rough housing changed and I had to talk to them about how they can easily hurt their younger brothers now. A 10 year old rough housing with an 8 year old is a lot different from a 14 year old rough housing with a 12 year old. Same age difference but one is now 6 inches taller and 10s of pounds heavier with more muscle mass. Not their fault, but they now had to be aware of what they could do to their younger brother and had to limit themselves. I think a similar type of teaching needs to be given in regards to women. They will just be naturally stronger and so any interaction they have with a woman has that subtext in it.

Well, considering that a high percentage of women have had bad interactions with men, I think that is a good indication that there is a "general issue". Just because US women don't have Afghan style interactions with men doesn't mean that their interactions should be discounted. Being groped while standing on the bus is a much less crime than being raped or sold into sexual slavery, but it is still a horrible thing to have happen and it seems to occur pretty frequently in the US. You don't even need a lot of men to be the gropers. One man can easily grope 100s of women. How do you draw a line when you don't even know where the line should be? How do you tell that man A is going to be nice to and man B is not going to be nice to you. They both could be upstanding members of your community. They both could have a wife and children. They could have 100% identical outgoing features. But that one day the woman is alone in a room with man B, he gropes her. If man A and man B look the same, what line can you draw? I get that it would be nice to have a line, but there is no visible sign on a man that he will be a predator. I would say we need to teach men to be more aware of how they impact women. I remember going to an EFY session. The speaker had a young man come up on stage. The speaker put a microphone on the boy's chest so we could all hear his heart beat. Then the speaker asked a young women to come up on the stage and walk towards the boy. His heartbeat went up noticeably. The speaker used that as an example of why women need to be aware of how they impact men. I think we should have similar discussions with men. They need to be aware that women are worried about their safety around men. And men should act accordingly. We (men) should take responsibility that the natural fact of our larger body frames causes women to be guarded. And I don't think this generalization ("men are potential predators") is anything like "all Black men are dangerous" or "all Muslims are threats". Bringing that up is a red-herring to me. Because if I'm in a room with a 350lb person who is 7' and can bench press 400lbs, I'm going to react with caution. That person can easily overpower me. Men are naturally stronger than women. Black men aren't naturally dangerous. Muslims aren't naturally threats.

Why does there need to be a "generalized circumstance"? If an individual woman has bad interactions with those that are larger than her, why isn't it ok for her to have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"? And what would be wrong with her telling her friends to also have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?

I don't think the women here are saying that we need to go and tell young men that "You are, each and every one of you, a potential child molester and sexual predator, until and unless you affirmatively demonstrate that you are not". That's not what I read from their statements. Umm, I do. I treat everyone I deal with as a potential threat, whether that is sexual threat or some other threat. I don't know why I do that because I've never gone through what many women have gone through but I want to be safe. So anyone I interact with, I have to attempt to validate whether or not I'm safe around them. I feel like you and the others are actually agreeing just in an odd way. You said that "I think the healthier mindset is: Be situationally aware, not categorically distrustful." From what I've read from the other women, they seem to agree with that. The difference is that they see every situation as something they have to be aware. There is rarely a safe situation. Standing in line in a convenience store in the middle of the day seems like a safe place, yet it wasn't. So women are being situationally aware, it is just that most situations require distrust. I don't think the women are saying "Every man is a potential rapist" but that "Every person who can physically harm me is a potential rapist". And for the vast majority of women, most men can physically harm them. There are very few women who can physically out-class a man. It isn't "the person has an x-chromosome" that is the potential rapist but "the person who is taller and has more muscle mass" is the the potential rapist. I'm guessing the women would agree that a smaller woman around a much larger woman would also need to be situationally aware. Similar to a smaller man being around a much larger man. Having an x-chromosome does make a person larger and stronger but it isn't specifically the x-chromosome that is the problem, but the larger and stronger part. I also think that is why trying to bring up race or religion doesn't make sense. Neither of those have any impact on strength or size. That's what I'm seeing from this conversation. The point of difference isn't the statement "all men are rapists" but what are the situations when you can stop being distrustful.

Yes, it has been proposed. @the narrator has brought it up several times in this forum. I don't know how old of an idea it is but he might know.