webbles

I would hope no one is offended if you say "no thank you". And honestly, unless they are good friends with you, I would hope they don't ask. And if they are good friends with you, I would hope they understand your position and wouldn't ask.

If anyone is curious to read the actual brief - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-43/375227/20250919133740714_24-38-24-43acTheChurchOfJesusChristOfLatter-DaySaints.pdf They are talking about whether or not transgenderism should be considered a "quasi-suspect class". Sex is a quasi-suspect class, religion and race are suspect classes. That controls what type of scrutiny should be applied. For suspect classes, strict scrutiny. For quasi-suspect classes, intermediate scrutiny.

The article mentions that Bill Reel was looking at trademarking "Radio Free Mormon" and "Mormon Discussion" and the church sent a letter that they would oppose it: I tracked down the status of "Bad Mormon" and she abandoned the application in January 2024 - https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91281170&pty=OPP&eno=29. And the "Mormon" trademark can be renewed starting May 2026 - https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78977858&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

I'm sorry it looked like I implied that. But luckily, I linked to his full text so you could easily read it. Unlike what Hansen did where he made it look like the interviewee misremembered or made it up. That's my point. You felt like I misquoted or gave a bad impression of Elder Scott but with the link, you could easily verify it. The way Hansen cut the video and with no sourcing, I was extremely suspect that Hansen was ignoring something. So I went off on a search. And then found that the interviewee was correct, that Elder Scott did say something that an impressionable child could have misunderstood. And then I found that Hansen must have known that since he showed Elder Scott from the exact same talk, just later on. And that makes me have a hard time listening to Hansen because I can't trust him. Because I'm constantly having to prove/disprove what he says. And, by the way, I'd be doing the same thing if I had been listening to just the interviewee. But Hansen, since he already did the research, could have showed it and pointed out how Elder Scott did say something that could have been misinterpreted but that wasn't what Elder Scott actually meant.

I'm not sure what that misses. Elder Scott (as Hansen shows and as I quoted) does say that "you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty". The problem is that Hansen doesn't actually discuss that. The way he cuts the videos together, it makes it seem like the interviewee misremembered. I also am frustrated (in general) that video form like this have no sourcing. The fact that the interviewee could make a claim and with no documentation on where that claim is from and then Hansen can respond with a video clip but no documentation on where that video clip came from is frustrating. Sure, I found it, but it would be so much nicer if there were links. I wish we went away from video stuff and back to text. So much easier to deal with.

The interviewee mentions hearing that those abused may be guilty of a sin. Hansen then says "Is that really what the church teaches?" And then he shows a video from Elder Scott which says the opposite. But that feels a bit like a misdirect. Elder Scott, in the exact same talk that Hansen is showing, does say what the interviewee said. The talk is at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng Elder Scott does say: He also says: This bugs me. Instead of pointing out that Elder Scott did say that and also said the later, he makes it seem like no one said that and it was never taught. Yes, if you look at the holistic teachings, the idea that the abused is guilty of something is not correct teaching. But the way Hansen said it, it makes it seem like the interviewee is lying or misremembering, but he isn't.

He is not passionate about having all evidence brought to light, discussed, and exposed. The Celeste Borys case was tossed because of how she gained the evidence, not because of what was in the evidence. If he was really fine with all evidence being seen, he should have not tried to kill that case at this point. Yes, she gained the evidence through extremely unethical means, but it shows that Ballard doesn't want the evidence seen. He is trying to hide the evidence.

5

Yeah, it is pretty cool. I've followed it a bit since I expect several of my sons to go on a service mission if they go at all.

The 2018 letter kind of says that - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/english/service-missionary/Service-Missions-for-Young-Missionaries-Leaders.pdf?lang=eng Also, later on, it does give an indication that a service mission calling could be a surprise: It could be that the girl or the family or even the stake president don't know what triggered her to be assigned to the service mission. Since it isn't an option to choose (news to me since I thought it was an option) and since the stake president can't determine it, none of them might know what was the deciding factor. She could have been just barely over the tipping point, what ever it is.

@Pyreaux could correct me, but I understood his statement "I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation" as saying that the "personal views, speculations and opinions" aren't required for salvation. Not that the subjects aren't required. The book "Doctrines of Salvation" is a compilation of sermons and writings that Joseph Field Smith gave across a wide variety of subjects. There are 3 volumes and his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, compiled it while Joseph Fielding Smith was an apostle (1954-1956). The books cover a wide range of subjects. There are definitely subjects in there that I think most would accept are required for salvation, such as God and Christ. There is even an entire section in the second book called "Salvation".

On my mission, my passport was left at the mission house. I had my visa with me and that was it (and even then, it was rarely refreshed). And I felt like that was a good idea since I was robbed once in my house. I would prefer having my passport somewhere safe. I never tried to leave early without permission, so I don't know if he would have prevented me from leaving. I only know of one missionary that wasn't allowed to go home but he didn't need a passport as he was a citizen of the country and had his regular id with him. And his father was involved and wouldn't let him so it wasn't just the mission president saying no.

I'm a bit frustrated with sltrib's reporting - https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/11/25/wade-christofferson-brother-top/ They mention that he looked up whether not clergy in Ohio are required to report and they say "yes" Except they link to the law about privileges (which includes clergy) and it says that the penitent has the privilege and the clergy may only be compelled to testify if the penitent waived it. They link to the wrong law and should have instead linked to https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2151.421 which is about child abuse reporting and it says that the priests are not mandatory reporters (unless the penitent is another clergy member). So, both Utah and Ohio are similar in this regard.

Looks like there are news reports now. KSL - https://www.ksl.com/article/51410662/ohio-man-arrested-in-utah-on-child-sex-abuse-charges FBI - https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/dublin-man-arrested-utah-federal-child-exploitation-charges

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the only valid way that a human can be born is if the sperm was created through spermatogenesis? And if the sperm is created in any other manner, then the offspring is "trans human"? What if someone mimics spermatogenisis perfectly in a lab (using a germ cell from another human), is that acceptable? And if so, what if someone creates the germ cell from a stem cell (again from another human), is that acceptable? And if someone created the stem cell by taking a female stem cell, pulling out the x chromosomes and modifying it into a y chromosome (by removing things, not by adding anything), is that acceptable?

Yeah, "saying no" is probably not the correct way to say it. But something like a "dishonorable discharge". I don't think missions do that anymore, though. I would hope, though, that if they are planning on serving a shortened mission, they give the mission department a heads up so that the mission can get a replacement after they leave.

sltrib has an article about Ryder Lions and Brock Harris who are both going to BYU and to a mission. It has several quotes from Brock and his dad saying that he will be doing a 1 year mission. It sounds like he will just ask to be released early. https://www.sltrib.com/sports/byu-cougars/2025/11/22/byu-football-recruits-ryder-lyons/ So it does look like they are planning on doing a shortened mission. They are still being called to a full 24 month mission but will ask to leave after only a year. I would hope the Mission President says no to that. Coming home just so you can make a million dollars playing football (or any sport) feels like a bad reason to leave early. I guess the other argument is, is it better that they serve a partial mission vs none at all? The article also talks about how Brock originally didn't think about going on a mission and it wasn't until Ryder told him about his older brother who only served 16 months that he felt like he could fit a mission in.

Apparently the lost 116 pages indicated that Ishmael was of Ephraim. And so all the wives of the sons of Lehi would be from Ephraim and so all their descendants would be from both Ephraim and Manasseh. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Source:Book_of_Mormon_as_Stick_of_Ephraim:Joseph_Fielding_Smith_statement

The original intent was for them to be global. Here is the original announcement: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2024/10/17/first-presidency-redesign-temple-garments-humid-areas/ It says:

The Bible shows Abraham had at least 3 (Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah) and Jacob had 4 (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah). Moses, per the Bible, may or may not have had multiple wives. It names Zipporah and also a Cushite woman in 1 Numbers 12:1. There's debate on whether they are the same woman or 2 different women. If the later, there is debate on whether Zipporah had died by that time or if it was polygamous. And outside of the Bible, Josephus mentioned a story that Moses had married an Ethopian woman before his exile.

Yes. More were sealed to others than Joseph Smith. I think the total was around 200.

He is talking about the "Law of Adoption" which was a specific type of sealing that occurred between 1840s and 1894. A really brief rundown can be read at wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism). Sealings with wives is not the same thing. There were very few women who were sealed through the "Law of Adoption" and I believe all of them were done as a couple, where the husband and wife were adopted by another man. I don't think any single women were adopted. @ZealouslyStriving, I don't think Joseph Smith had many men sealed to him. I believe those type of sealings only occurred after his death and only in temples. And it looks like only one man was sealed to him in the Nauvoo temple by proxy (John Bernhisel from https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/page/280/mode/2up). I don't know if there were any done in the other temples before 1894.

Ballard is suing Anderson? Where do you see that? And by using the Pace memo, that really hurts his image. He should know better than that.

Quick note, this video is mostly discussing three different presentations: The first is William's Schryver's presentation from 2010 dealing with the idea that the Egyptian Alphabet was an attempt to come up with a cipher. That was discussed on this board back then and he was involved. You can read an old posting from him at The second is Tim Barker's presentation in 2020 showing that Fascimile 2 includes characters from the papyrus that are also used to fill in gaps and that Joseph said that no translation was available. You can read his full presentation at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads The third is a clip from an interview with Kerry Muhlestein where he discusses how the meaning of Egyptian images has changed over the 2000 years of its usage. He also talks about how Jewish ideas (such as the name of Abraham) do show up in Egyptian documents. I know this has been discussed here as well, such as

Ah, yeah, they believe that Benjamin had been adopted by Joseph Smith and so received a special "inheritable" authority. And this was then passed down. It is definitely a lot different from Wooley's claims. How accurate would you say https://mormonfundamentalism.com/polygamous-groups/the-lebarons/ is in discussing their early beliefs?