Leaderboard

IMO, there's a difference here: Sanderson is not just including LGBTQ+ characters (and their words and actions) in ways that reflect the world around him. He is also, in the real world, promoting things that are contrary to what the Church teaches. (This is the greater concern than what's in his stories.) Creating the thing from your imagination is very different from swiping someone's credit card, or setting someone's alcoholic drink on the table. It may be that one has to experience the creation of characters and stories to understand this, but trust me, the difference huge. His characters and their actions are alive inside his head. They are infinitely more real than the person on the other side of the counter or seated at the table (because he knows the characters, whereas the cashier and the waiter(ess) don't know the customer). And he experiences far more of their thoughts, feelings, words, and actions than the reader ever sees on the page.

Cool, I got it now, thanks. I guess it depends on what you mean by "promotes". There's no such thing as good fiction without sin or bad things happening. Having main characters struggle with defects and fallen nature and whatnot, is one of the secret ingredients in the sauce. So when does it reach the level of "promoting"? Two examples: Orson Scott Card once wrote a work of fiction involving the Saints at some point in the future. He touched on the Lamanites having risen again as a powerful people, interpreted as various Native American tribes banding together and becoming militant and expanding their borders and carving their own nation out of parts of the US. Lake Bonneville had also returned, and the Salt Lake valley was now a lake, and you could still see the angel Moroni on the temple poking up above the water. I wouldn't say he was promoting NA rebellion or the destruction of the SLC temple. Because although those things are happening, his story at it's core is that the truth claims of the church are true and prophecies were being fulfilled, just in ways people didn't expect. I have no problem with OSC here. The Hazbin Hotel series tells the story of the daughter of Lucifer, and her attempts to redeem the souls in hell. But she is thwarted at every turn by the angels of heaven, who like things the way they are now where they use hell as a hunting ground where they can sate their thirst for violence. I would say this show promotes a bizzarro mirror-image picture of Christianity where good is evil and evil is good. If the show's creators claimed to be faithful believing Christians who take the Bible literally, I'd think they were hypocritical sell-outs. I know nothing about Sanderson or his books. If people are mad because he's got gay characters doing gay things, I'd have to read the book before I could say whether he's promoting activity or not. Question for all of you: If, say, the main character is gay, and it's just a description of part of him like his hair color, would you call foul and say he's promoting LGBT stuff? Another way to ask the question: Do you call foul at the prospect of a gay person simply existing in fiction? Would you demand the character be tormented, or an antagonist, or the book have a central theme of LGBT stuff is wrong before you could accept this character without calling foul?

I've had a LOT of damage to my house in the past 10 years I've lived here. Rain, wind, vegetation, mold, pipes bursting from freeze... For nearly every single case, they found some reason to deny coverage or raise the deductible to beyond the repair cost. Two damage claims generated a deductible that was over $20k because of "special conditions"). This was for two different companies. I had one claim that they said they would pay. But instead of a $2000 deductible for a $20k job (which is what they quoted me before I hired the contractor) they said that I had to pay $18.5k+ and they would cover the rest. They gave no reason for the switch. They actually dared me to sue them. It is a useless mechanism that is only designed to allow insurance companies to bleed me dry. It never has done any good. It never will do any good. In the meantime, several people who have paid off their houses decided to drop their policy and simply invest it into a "house repair fund." They found that the fund has grown even after they had to take funds out to pay for repairs. And they don't have to jump through hoops or worry about deductibles, etc. My BIL who is an insurance agent says that all companies are pinching their pennies and denying claims because the industry is about to die. Way too many claims from way too many sources. They simply can't cover them. No, it will be very difficult to convince me that insurance will do any good at all.

Despite our modern societal fascination with all things sexual, and especially with all things sexually deviant, in polite society (a society I would one day like to be a part of) people don't talk about private matters publically, including (or especially) private sexual matters. So if an author introduces a homosexual character, there needs to be a solid reason for that. Homosexuality is not brown hair or a slight stutter. And if the person's sexuality is somehow central to the story, then yes, I want the representation of good and healthy sexual characteristics to be maintained. I do not want evil called or portrayed as good, or good called/portrayed as evil. The act of homosexual sex relations is an abomination and a perversion. This societally unpopular view is undeniably true—undeniable if you're a believing and faithful Latter-day Saint who has a more than merely passing acquaintance with the doctrines of the Restored Church of Christ. The "perversion" part is obvious enough; sex is fundamentally the Godly ability to create human life, and thus among the most sacred things wse have. Homosexual relations do not and cannot create human life. That is not to say (as some have) that all sexual relations must necessarily have the goal of procreation; accepting this, as some do, would mean that women over the age of about 40 (and, sadly, their husbands) must never engage in sexual relations. But clearly, having sex with animals or little children or members of one's same sex is utterly at odds with the divine purpose of creation, the purpose for which sex was introduced by God. Any such sexual activity is a mockery* of sex and is, again by definition, a perversion of the divine purposes of sexual relations. *Please remember than "mockery" is, in general, the unauthorized and false reproduction of something. Mockery is often done for the purposes of belittling or making fun, which is how we generally use the term. But a mockingbird is not making fun of other birds, and a law school's mock trial is not intended to belittle the idea of a trial. In both cases, it is a recognition that the thing discussed is not "the real thing", but something intended to represent it, but in a false context. A mockingbird is not a bluejay or a crow; a parrot is not a cursing sailor; a mock trial doesn't actually put anyone in prison. Same-sex individuals using each other for sexual purposes is a false usage of the act of procreation, and is thus, by definition, mockery. The "abomination" part is a moral judgment, one that is backed up in all scripture and in all prophetic teachings. This does not mean we condemn homosexuals, any more than making a moral judgment against any other sin means we necessarily condemn those who sin in that way. But we must stand by our moral standards. It's one thing to say, "These are my moral standards, and I will stand by them whether or not you agree, but I concede that you have every right to question or even reject those standards;" it is entirely another (and very evil) thing to say, "These are my moral standards, but if you don't agree, I will reject my own standards and call into question things I have heretofore accepted, because I don't want to be perceived as icky or mean by those who reject my moral standards." All of this to say: If an author is making a character's homosexuality an integral part of the story, then that homosexuality, like any other negative or carnal or wicked characteristic, should be portrayed as such. When an author introduces a homosexual character whose sexuality has nothing at all to do with the plot, then that author is gratuitously seeking to be perceived as "inclusive", and I see no reason to patronize that dishonest author. When an author introduces a homosexual character whose sexual proclivities are portrayed as desirable or heroic, then that author has rejected the very basis of human sexual morality, and I see many reasons to reject that immoral author. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a lot of (or any) good reasons for a moral author to introduce a homosexual character whose sexuality has no impact on the storyline or whose sexuality is to be portrayed as intrinsically good or at least morally neutral.

Insurance companies are one of the strengths of a capitalist structure. State Farm pulling out of Cali turned out to be an excellent predictor. People should have listened. You know what else is an excellent predictor of your community's safety? How much cops like living and working in your area.

I agree, but whenever government tries to do it, voters (mostly Republican) ask how it's being paid for. Oh, I don't think many on my side think the government shouldn't have a hand in disaster response/cleanup. I think the right gets mostly ticked off at federal government overreach. Each state should work it's own programs, and the FedGov should stay out of things. Nonsense. Do you think local, county, state, and federal disaster response resources aren't already available and already paid for? A quick googling: If the GOP is full of people twitching in revulsion when they see a FEMA truck, then the Dems are full of ignorant people being led by emotion. They see fires on the TV and immediately jump to "we need to radically redesign how we do things and tax the rich to fix it!"

When an author through his writings promotes activity that is considered as morally objectionable to his faith community for the sake of accommodating the tastes of his broader audience (as the OP suggests), is this similar to someone working in or profiting from certain aspects of the gaming/hospitality industry, for example, in Las Vegas: gambling, "adult-oriented" entertainment, providing alcohol, cigarettes, recreational marijuana, low-proof beer etc. in hotels/motels for the sake of meeting a demand? is it similar to playing or watching professional sports on Sundays? It does not matter whether someone does these things to make a living or profit or not (allowing for those who enjoy these activities as an avocation or as a mans to promote their social cause).

My intent was to say that I am coming at this question of Sanderson's LGBTQ+ views and actions from the perspective of a faithful member, not from the perspective of politics.

This is your question? Could you clarify and restate it? I've tried 3 times and simply can't understand what you're asking.

I do not know how the rest of you feel but listening to the news (whatever channel or political favor) – it sure does not seem that anybody knows anything worthwhile or accurate to say. Sometimes I think that insurance companies seem to know the most about what is going on and act accordingly. State Farm is the largest home insurer in the nation and pulled out of doing business in California last July. They still have some homes insured because the paid term (year) has not expired. Other insurers have pulled out as well claiming that the risk is too high for allowed premiums regulated through the California insurance commission. I understand that Florida has a similar insurance problem - Perhaps @LDSGator can give us some insights concerning Florida. I understand that many do not like insurance companies and think that insurance make too much profit. However, companies like State Farm are Mutuals and profits are regulated similar (but not so much) to utilities. Mutuals must provide risk information – open to the public. The Traveler

Poor kitty! Am I the only person who not only finds this not funny, but who thinks that whoever set it up should be made to share a bed with Mr. Pinchy and all his brothers and sisters?

I had recently shared some revelation I had for the family. My eldest son took this to heart. He asked (essentially) "How is it done?" But he was angry. He mentioned that he receives revelation, but it is so strained that he can't really make anything of it. He has no idea what the next step is or what the few blips of revelation even mean. It's almost like the Lord is teasing him with revelation. And he is tired of it. How is he to proceed? I rememered when I was his age, I went through the same thing. So, I fully understood. He asked,"So what changed?" That was a good question. I told him that I'd think about that for a while. Eventually, I distilled it into four steps: 1. I was studying very hard about interpersonal communications, language, psychology, sociology. I needed to understand how human beings worked, especially their thoughts. I wanted to become human. 2. I married the most amazing woman in the world. Over the years, she has shaped me more than I've shaped her. And I cannot attribute any of my growth without giving due credit to her influence on me. 3. I have gone through two tests of Abraham. By that, I mean two trials in my life that nearly destroyed me. No, it was not just my depression kicking in. It was something that could have destroyed any conscientious man no matter his emotional make up. 4. I've aged, worked, learned, grown, and built a relationship with my Father in Heaven. I began realizing there was a secret sprinkled in there. I wonder if this was literal, or if it was pointing to something a little more subtle. I've recently heard a lot of videos on various accounts of Joseph using a seer stone vs the U&T. There are too many people talking over each other without asking the specific questions that are required to settle the matter. But the idea that a seer stone is available for every person on earth is a game changer. I wondered why Joseph didn't do a whole lot spiritually between the First Vision and the visitation of Moroni. There didn't seem to be any additional revelation, no movement toward establishing a church/organization, no other divine manifestations that we know of. This really got me to look closely at the timeline in the early days. Does anyone else find it interesting that Joseph married Emma at around the same time as he received the plates? This became an important part of some of my thought processes lately. I came upon an interesting thought experiment. Read the following: This was just an exercise in paradigm shifting. But upon reading that last line, I had to think about how much my wife has influenced me for the better. She is a daughter of Zion who has agreed to be my Eternal Companion. She acts as a lens for me to focus through. She herself often doesn't realize what she's saying. But when she says certain things to me, I change my paradigm and find inspiration flowing so fast, I have difficulty making sense of it all until I sit and sort it out for a while. The old saying came to my mind,"Behind every successful man is a strong woman." There is some sort of magic when I speak with my wife about problems I'm trying to figure out. She doesn't actually solve the problem. But she tends to say the right things to get me to "see" things in a different light where I can figure it out. And when it comes to revelation, I find it flows so much faster and clearer after I've taken counsel from my wife first.

It does not manner what is going on anywhere else – the critical point concerns what is the circumstance where we are standing. This discussion somewhat proves my very point. There are many excuses and diversions. Truth is simple or difficult all in what we want to make of it. The Traveler

Now I'm wondering what company you found to arrange this. The only two with which I have experience don't seem to offer these sorts of things - or if they do, they hide it very well - which is my whole complaint against the insurance industries across the board - they rely on fear and confusion. I'm seriously considering doing what @Carborendum proposes as I doubt I will ever need my homeowner's insurance - pretty sure the world will end before I do.

These are the ones you avoid in real life - whatever else is true, they won't make good friends - or, if they're young enough, they need to spend more time with a crab attached to their face so they learn empathy. (If they don't quickly learn empathy, leave them behind.)

The question was rhetorical, but I think you guessed that! Most people on YouTube agreed with me, but a few did seem to find it funny. It might have been funny in a cartoon, but not with a real animal.

My father was an insurance agent. I was taught well. I have earthquake insurance on my home. The costs for insurance can vary depending on where in the Salt Lake Valley one lives – also the lost risk purchased. I personally only cover for catastrophic losses with the most deductible allowed. I do not purchase replacement reimbursement coverage. I purchase a specific amount for a total loss. I also maintain salvage rights. I have my reasons for what I purchase and realize that very few understand or desire minimum risk-based insurance coverage. As a side note, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is self-insured for their structures. Something else very few realize is that purchasing for loss due to war or civil uprising is not offered anywhere. Pending on one’s policy - loss because of civil protests is a fringe coverage that insurance companies can deny depending on circumstance. This kind of upsets me a bit because this is not clearly understood. I am of the mind that a property owner in a free country should have the right to protect their property with lethal force. I also think more of our society would agree with me if they understood how their state government can affect their insurance coverage. The Traveler

I also find it not funny. "See, it's funny because the cat is screaming in pain! Isn't that funny?" Hmph. That said, Karen the Emu videos are hilarious. Endless vids of Karen trying to kill/bite/flog the lady who rescued her. The lady posting her latest bruises, occasionally results of a trip to the urgent care. That's funny because while the cat had no choice, the lady who rescued Karen is constantly choosing to put herself in the position.

There are some really lovely animal videos. I used to like watching the ones with the cat and the otter playing together. I don't know if they're still online.

So impressive. This is what our government should be doing.

Indeed. But in the tongues spoken through the ages by human beings, division and unity are opposing ideas (unless you're talking Catholic theology). If you divide something into one piece, you haven't divided it.

I’d also argue that if you can’t handle reading about lifestyles that aren’t your own or reading about members of “your clan” that have personal issues/problems, reading novels and watching television might not be for you either.

I don't object to details that add color and realism to the story. Mentioning in passing that So-and-so is gay, because it comes up in a believable way but otherwise has no bearing on the story, seems perfectly reasonable to me. Making that character then act within the story in a believable way is also reasonable. I suppose I'm contradicting myself to some degree; maybe I'm feeling out what exactly I do think on the topic. Maybe it's this: I don't object to the existence of e.g. homosexual characters in a fictional environment. I don't object to such characters being portrayed positively or even heroically; Alan Turing was obviously a positive and even heroic real-life character whose homosexuality was intrinsic to his personal story. I suppose what I object to is not the humanization and even lionization of someone who happens to be homosexual, but the lionization and normalization of homosexuality itself, as if there is something beautiful and precious and desirable about homosexual relations. That seems very obviously to be calling evil good and good evil. If a good biopic is ever made of Michael Jackson, I hope it's filled with pathos, with acknowledgement of the immense talent of the man, and with the conclusion that it is the tragic story of a good man being destroyed by exploitation from his very childhood. I hope it's filled with sympathy and understanding. But I certainly hope that any sexual relations or even sexual innuendo regarding children is not excused or portrayed as positive in any way. Even when we love and admire and sympathize with people like Michael Jackson, good is good and evil is evil, and we should not be mixing those up.

Thnk what you will of Gene Simmons, but this book title is just brilliant.

I've actually read Gene's circa 2001 autobiography "KISS and Make-Up". In it, he claims that he, Paul, Peter, and IIRC Ace were brainstorming names while at a stoplight one day, and KISS was something they regarded as mutually acceptable; it was short enough to be easily remembered, but distinctive enough that it stood out. As it is, Gene went to Hebrew school after he and his mother arrived in New York City, and so he admitted in the book that he would frequently quote the Bible right back at people who accused him of Satanism back in the 1970s to see what their reaction was. The whole glam rock vibe? Gene claimed that he and Paul were bored with seeing bands that just stood around or sat around playing & didn't do anything to justify the cost of seeing them live. They figured that if they were going to make it worth it for people to buy their tickets they were going to put on an absolute spectacle.

1. Vivziepop is *not* a good example of anything other than possibly having undiagnosed mental health issues if what I've heard from various people who are familiar with her and her creations are anything to go by. 2. A better example would actually be the original "Diamonds Are Forever" novel as written by Ian Fleming all the way back in 1956. When Bond is meeting with Felix Leitner, Felix implies - using terminology of the day - that Wint and Kidd, a pair of hired goons working for the Spang Brothers, are a homosexual couple. At first this seems like a bizarre bit to throw in, but then near the end of the book Bond has to neutralize them on a crowded ocean liner without arousing suspicion and so stages their deaths to look like a murder-suicide after a heated dispute - the kind angry lovers might have - got out of hand & a gun was drawn. Fleming was, surprisingly, far *more* progressive in his handling of the two characters than the 1971 movie would be, with the movie depicting them in a very stereotypical fashion for the era.

“Promote” would be to use the fictional narrative to advance a moral ideology in the real world. Motives might be (as pointed out in the thread): to cater to popular demand, appease readers’ expectations and loyalties, a platform for the author’s views, and oppose another party’s views. Readers will decide on the motives. This thread focuses on doing that vis-à-vis popular and Church standards. This might include “gay characters doing gay things” which is a matter of literary license and taste, and it might include subtle or straight-up advocacy, which is a matter of clout. As to your question for all: I think the hiccups that have been expressed are about the latter.

I think there are a few important points to consider here. It's hard to draw a hard line though. But one thing that comes to mind is... making a living can be interpreted as getting what you need to live...or as just making money. The first is necessary. The second, beyond the first, is not. Brandon Sanderson is no longer making a living. He has a living. He could live for the rest of his life never making another cent. He's not making a living any longer. I never understood why, back in the day (they've discontinued it), Marriott hotels provided "adult" movies in all their hotels. I think they only discontinued it because of the internet and they weren't making money on it any longer -- though that's cynicism. So a business started and owned by a "faithful" Latter-day Saint pedaled porn to increase the bottom line. Shameful. Even when making a living, there are clearly things that faithful followers of Christ should not be doing to make a living. But there are many things that are more questionable, and some that are obviously fine. By compare and contrast to the Marriott point above, my grandpa and grandma decided to open a video store back in the 80s. I remember the conflict they had over whether they'd carry R-rated movies or not. Ultimately, after pondering, praying, weighing, and considering, they decided to.

When I was a kid, we went to Disneyland. I remember the traffic, the endless lanes full of cars going nowhere, my dad swearing. It was wrong and needed to be fixed. Fast forward 3 decades, and my work flies me into CA. I saw the same traffic, even more endless lanes full of cars going nowhere. I didn't swear, I allocated enough time. Still wrong, still needs to be fixed. Metro Cali places are full of people unable or unwilling to fix their own problems. They desired to emphasize diversity and equitable representation in their fire departments, over other priorities like "ability to handle several big fires with high winds". And that's what they got. Straight out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The death toll stands at what, 16 now? I suppose many things had to work well in order to keep it that low. Colorado's most expensive fire cost 2 lives, but a fraction of the acreage and impacted homes. But yeah, allocating billions across a decade for reservoirs that are still in the red-tape step of the process? Representative government at it's finest. You get what you want.

It is, and let’s keep some common sense here. People need jobs. If you want to be a waiter but refuse to serve someone alcoholic beverages, you need to find another job. And that might not be easy.

https://video.byui.edu/media/Clayton+M.+Christensen+"Decisions+For+Which+I've+Been+Grateful"/0_tdb0a80p I found Clayton Christensen’s wrestle inspiring.

Jesus rejected the hypocrites and sought out the repentant.

Have him read Enos. Particularly Enos 1:7 And I said: Lord, how is it done? I think that it is one of the best questions ever asked. And about the woman and man quote. We had a friend of the family (Sister in the local ward), that was becoming woke and tried to explain to us that because Eve was created after Adam she was His crowning achievement of perfection. I gently reminded her that the woman wasn’t his final achievement. It was the family. I have benefited greatly from the insight and patient support of my wife. I have also been greatly honed by the interaction with my children.

For the record.

Fixed it for meself.

Not on the sun. Ha! Gotcha! I'm so clever.

Not, not the only person. Lilochipie is funny (and funnier still, IMO, with all the "excuse me sir" stuff overlaid):

Wow, the French get 6 extra chapters of Enos!? Guess I need to learn French...

FTR, I hate the Stones, but you can't deny their pervasive influence.

Not always. But sometimes, you can get what you need. The count is now at 24 (last I saw). And it turns out that they now believe that an illegal alien started one of the fires with a blowtorch. They have him in custody. But they didn't want to formally arrest him or call him a suspect or else Trump's ICE will come and get him. I sure hope they return to sanity and put him behind bars...SMH

Apropos of nothing important, I find myself stubbornly refusing to conform to the practice of using a chapter number for scriptural books that contain only a single chapter. In their publication of the standard works, the Church has introduced a standard of always using a chapter number, even for books such as Enos (or Jarom, Omni, Words of Mormon, and Fourth Nephi) that contain only one chapter*. I can see technical, database-ish reasons for doing this. But we do not e.g. enforce grammar rules that exist only to make our data sorts easier. I see no compelling reason not to simply say or write "Enos 7", and to instead insert the entirely superfluous chapter to make "Enos 1:7". If the Church's own style guide makes that demand, then I will follow it as long as I am writing material in behalf of the Church. Otherwise, it's Enos 7 pour moi. *Please note that this arguably creates a contradiction in terms. A "chapter", by definition, is a division of a given book. If the entire book is "one chapter", then the so-called chapter isn't actually dividing anything.

The sword is attempting modesty by covering his blood channels.

This thread cannot be complete without a sword bathed in heaven:

Ah, the beauty and the treachery of words, which after all exist only in the mind. Even the sonic patterns we create with our vocal cords and mouths, the ink arrangements on pages, and the pixel patterns you are currently reading are simply metasymbols, representations of the thought patterns we call words. And words, of course, are merely representations of the external ideas we discuss, our meager attempts to model an external, independently existing reality that we can never actually touch, but only dance around using our wordy thoughts in a struggle to understand and contemplate what's really out there in existence. We are a part of that existence, yet we can access it only t hrough our imperfect senses, and we can understand it only using the biochemical signals within and between our neurons. It's amazing, frightening, and confounding, yet we struggle through. Because what else are we do to? As Magritte says, | <- ceci n'est pas une pipe. (It's only a pixel pattern representing a pipe.)