MarginOfError

Let me reframe a bit and state that when I say "kids*," I'm generally referring to teenagers. I might be more direct with younger kids. But certainly as they age, they should have more talking time. Why should they? Because there's a very real risk that a teenager will choose to hide their feelings from you if you don't. Instead, they may just tell you what they think you want to hear until they get to a place in life where you have less influence over them. And then they go off and do what they want anyway. Talking with them is much more likely to build the kind of trust that keeps communication open and maintains your role as a persuasive influence in their life**. * working in a scouting program with both boys and girls, I've taken to saying "kids." In church settings, "youth" is probably more appropriate. ** Not saying that every discussion will always end in perfect agreement. But I don't think they have to. You just want them to keep to conversational door open.

I fully agree that we need to be talking with kids about it. But the key is talking with them about it. Not talking at them about it. A major part of that is listening to them. Honestly, I don't get the sense from what you are saying that you are particularly interested in the listening. It feels like you'd rather tell them how it is. Asking a gender queer what they think it means to be male or female will get a lot of different responses. You might be surprised how many of those responses have to do with social norms and stereotypes that they don't want to be bound to. You can talk about dangers and corruptions and ideologies all you want--if they don't believe that you care about and understand them, they won't listen. Instead, they'll very likely bottle up their feelings until they're outside of your influence. I bolded it because it is so dismissive. "I don't understand, and I don't agree. Therefore it is insane." Again, you can't make any meaningful impact in this realm without first building a personal connection. "Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth. Some people experience feelings of incongruence between their biological sex and their gender identity." (Handbook 38.6.23) By substitution, the Family Proclamation is equivalently read "Biological sex at birth is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." So, yes, males have a penis and females have a vagina. But that is their biological sex, and not their gender identity. It's worth considering that Identity, as a concept, is an interface for social interaction. It's entirely possible to have a penis and want to wear skirts. So what does any one person's gender identity mean to them? If we dismiss it all at "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina," then you'll never know, because they won't trust you enough to share with you their most personal feelings. Taking a paraphrase, just as "woke-ism" is proposed as a false god by scottyg, I'm willing to propose hard line exclusionary stances as a false god. It's clear when you read the materials I linked to that the Church wants gay and transgender members to be welcomed, embraced, and included. There is space in the middle, and in my observation, it isn't being used very much. This is the heart of the problem. Read the whole sentence again. "But validating their thoughts and feelings, and letting them have a leading role in the definition of their identity isn't such a bad thing. In fact, for many of them, it opens a huge level of trust and communication with spiritual leaders that can help them develop their spirituality." But nope, never mind. The Folk Prophet is a better judge of when a person's feelings are valid and when they are not? Just ask him how you should feel and identify--that will make everything all better. Here's a better idea: “One thing that is always important is to recognize the feelings of a person, that they are real. That they are authentic. That we don’t deny that someone feels a certain way. We take the reality where it is, and we go from there. And we want people to feel that they have a home here." (D. Todd Christopherson)

If, as is being suggested by the Church in the links I provided, we are going to accept and welcome transgender and gay members into our congregations, you will not be able to protect children from it. They will encounter it, and we need to engage this issue, not try to cut it off. "It is always important to acknowledge the reality of another person’s feelings. We shouldn’t deny that someone feels a certain way. We take the reality where it is, and we go from there." (found in both the gay and transgender topics). This isn't a disease. And quite frankly, the Church has plenty of statements out indicating the gay and transgender members can retain membership, hold callings, and pursue their spiritual development beside every other member of our congregations. Being gay or transgender is not, de facto, off the path. This confuses biological sex with gender identity. The General Handbook identifies biological sex and gender identity as two distinct concepts. (38.6.23). It is not killing our children in any meaningful spiritual sense. The kids are perfectly capable of developing spiritual capacity while also expressing and/or exploring these identities. This cuts both ways, frankly. For instance, there are people in my ward who are upset that a young man who came out as gay earlier this year is still allowed to bless the sacrament and attend the temple. "But he came out! PUBLICLY! There are consequences!" Alas, that is not what the Church expects, requires, or teaches. None of this is to say that youth should be allowed to run hog-wild after every new idea. But validating their thoughts and feelings, and letting them have a leading role in the definition of their identity isn't such a bad thing. In fact, for many of them, it opens a huge level of trust and communication with spiritual leaders that can help them develop their spirituality. "People can make their own choices about how to identify. There are active, temple recommend–holding Church members who comply with the law of chastity and identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. There are active Church members who experience same-sex attraction and never choose to identify themselves using a label. Our primary identity will always be as a child of God." (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng) And that identity is the identity we need to see--and act toward--first.

see also:

That's an interesting line of thinking. I'll have to think on that one. It seems in my head I've made the mistake of considering abortion to be concerned of the parties of the mother and the fetus. I've never considered the fetus to be the third party. One the one hand, historically, my understanding is that it was uncommon for people to consider fetuses a "person" at the time Roe was decided. But that doesn't necessarily carry over to the present. Afterall, the Fourteenth amendment was necessary specifically because of the once prevailing notion that those with black skin weren't "persons." Social progressivism, and all. So I guess this opens up the "personhood" argument again. I've never liked the idea of granting personhood at conception. There's so much instability and weirdness in the early weeks of pregnancy. That isn't to say that I don't consider early pregnancy fetuses of value, but I do still see potential for conflicts between parental interests and the unborn. But once again, I'm in the mindset of the fetus not being the third party. I'm rambling...give me a few days.

This is not an interpretation of Roe that I'm familiar with. My understanding was that it was decided on the grounds of the 14th amendment (which, curiously, overturned the Dred Scott ruling)

Agreed. Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make. That isn't entirely accurate. Roe v. Wade did impose restrictions on that right, afterall. In fact, I'd say that it made a reasonable effort to balance the conflict between the right of the woman to bodily autonomy and the rights of the fetus. But regardless, even Roe recognized it as an alienable right. And the pro-choice movement at large seems to be content with that placement of alieneability. (making up new forms of alienable is kind of fun)

Fair enough. Let me rephrase the question then: Under the same logic, to which conservative groups should we be assigning the blame for the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

Could you elaborate on what exactly I've misquoted?

I won't sugar coat things: I think a lot of the statements being made here are inconsistent with what the Church is teaching and encouraging with regards to sexual orientation and gender identity. Some key highlights: Sexual orientation and gender identity are different issues: "However, same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria are very different....From a psychological and ministerial perspective, the two are different." (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng) Gay and transgender/gender queer individuals are welcome and wanted in the Church: "I now speak directly to Church members who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. We want you to know we love you. You are welcome. We want you to be part of our congregations. You have great talents and abilities to offer God’s kingdom on earth, and we recognize the many valuable contributions you make." (Whitney L. Clayton, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/individuals?lang=eng) At the same time, I will acknowledge the existence of individuals in the Church who wish to perpetuate teachings inconsistent with Christ's and the Church's teachings. I see this from "liberal" members in their desire to redefine the Law of Chastity, but I'm also seeing it "conservative" members who want to purge gay and transgender members from their congregations. Neither are appropriate. From time to time, we all need to sit down and reevaluate if the things we believe are things that the Lord is teachings us, or if they are things we are trying to the the Lord. I don't know that I have the mental or emotional energy to dive really deep into this with y'all (this is a topic that's currently creating tension within my ward, and that's taking up a lot of my emotional space). But I will ask you all to take a step back, breathe, and then get to know more about the families that are going through this. Try to understand what their kids' view points and motivations are. And most importantly, listen to them. Don't say anything. Just listen. Consider, especially, that the Church's positioning on these issues has shifted dramatically. Two years ago, entering a same sex marriage was a condition that required excommunication. Now, it's a condition that "may require a membership council" but does not necessitate revocation of membership. Regarding gender transitions, the Church is open to allowing transgender members to attend classes or use restrooms according to their chosen identity (on a case-by-case basis, See General Handbook 38.6.23). Please, don't flee your wards. You might think you're helping or saving your children. But you're hurting the body of Christ. We can do better. Edit: It wouldn't hurt any of us to review these resources right now, probably multiple times. There's a lot to take in. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay?lang=eng

So if I'm understanding you correctly, I can blame all of those anti-abortion vigilante assassinations on "conservative groups?" Fixed it. There's no "but" to any of this. Any political vigilante assassin, regardless of political affiliations or motivations, suffers from the delusion that they have the right to judge which lives are worth sparing and which are worth exterminating. I think it's fair to explore the motivations of vigilantes that have committed violence in the interest of understanding how they got to where they were (presumably in order to explore ways to prevent such actions from occurring in the future). Speculating on the motivations of a hypothetical vigilante is a cheap shot against people you disagree with.

You mean kind of like the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

No, I don't think this is anti-religious. But I would agree that it is rewarding the irresponsible. I think we would disagree on who are the irresponsible parties. I have major concerns with student loan forgiveness, because the origin of the massive loans is tuition and living costs at universities spiraling out of control. And they're spiraling out of control because universities are cutting and reducing programs, expanding administration, and building out higher cost living facilities for students. All those costs get passed down to the students. These costs are not readily manageable, and thus more loans are taken out. Then when costs keep going up, student loan programs offer more funding, and the schools start competing to get that money. In short, higher education institutions are not competing for students, anymore; they are competing to get the students' loan money. And every time they make decisions (increasing tuition, cost of living, etc), the institutions get rewarded with more loan money. Offering loan forgiveness without reforming the loan program would just further reward crappy behavior on the part of the institutions. Now, I don't want to take away from the fact that people have walked themselves into these problems by insisting on going to overpriced "popular" schools, or pursuing full on degrees at large universities that could have been completed just as well at smaller, less expensive schools. Or for insisting that they not work while studying, or any combination of a lot of factors. So I've never been a fan of complete loan forgiveness (in fact, I'm vehemently against full forgiveness). But I'm not opposed to offering some form of relief if there are substantive changes to the loan program itself (and no, I don't really have any thoughts on where to start).

It wasn't necessarily his phone that was hacked. The phone that was compromised was a mutual contact. Then a phone number stored in that phone was randomly selected to put in the "from" field of the meta data.

In a different strain, I received a message this week from an unfamiliar number. It was a group message of 20 sequential numbers. 8310, 8311, 8312, etc. I am sad to say that my phone proceeded to blow up with requests to be removed from the group. "Who dis?" etc. Report them all as spam and let the tech nerds filter out the problem. They can see the meta data and reporting as spam is fairly unlikely to negatively impact any one using their phone legitimately

Is it possible to send a text from a landline? No. Is it possible to use a landline to call a service that will transcribe a message into a text? Yes, but I doubt that is what happened here. Is it possible to send a text from a computer or computer-like device and make it look like it's sending from a landline? Yes, and in fact it is trivial to do. The "from" line you see displayed on your phone is read from metadata in the message. It can be edited to look like anything. What likely happened is a device owned by someone you know was compromised. A phisher sent a blast out to any number available and chose a number at random to use in the "from" field. DO NOT RESPOND TO THAT THREAD. What the phisher is looking for is evidence of an active phone number. A list of "proven active" phone numbers is more valuable than a random list of numbers. This particular phishing attempt tried to use a familiar photo, which has the potential to ensnare those that dont want to ignore a friend. The pornographic image is intended to provoke outrage, hoping you will reply asking them not to send such content. Ignore and delete the messages, or report them as spam. Contact the relative through a different medium to ask if they are ok and recommend they change passwords immediately.

You're not alone. My default position in life is doubt. I can describe myself as skeptically religious and religiously skeptical. I can also say that I'm about 20 years into my personal faith crisis. Years 5-10 were probably the hardest. It's gotten easier, but there are still days when I feel like it would be easier to throw in the towel and walk away. It's okay to feel that way. I would recommend you resist the urge to act quickly. Doubts can take months and years to fully understand and resolve. And now, 20 years in, the number of things that get said at church that I doubt far outnumber the things that I believe. But the things that I do believe are worth sticking around for. Anyway, probably not the advice you were looking for. But doubting isn't a sign that you need to be fixed. Quite the contrary--if you care enough to doubt, you care enough to learn. Turn that around and use it to explore and grow.

I'll take a stab at this one and I'll be blunt about it. The two most contributing factors are 1) Georgians have more in common (culturally/ethnically) with Middle Eastern peoples than they do with European peoples, and 2) Georgia is on the wrong side of the Black Sea. (Chechnya even more so on both counts). It isn't a comfortable truth, but I don't really doubt these are the primary contributors. The other thing working very well for Ukraine has been the fact that their government has entertainers placed throughout a lot of key parts of the government (I can't locate the article I had read about this, but it was a longer piece in one of the more prestigious news organizations (not cable news)) . Zelensky actually took some heat for this given his anti-corruption platform, but he put a handful of his entertainment industry friends throughout the government. They weren't necessarily running major parts of government, but they were pretty well connected to the goings on. As a consequence, the government got a lot better at telling a story. This isn't your traditional government, and it's been plagued by a lot of inefficienies and failures, but it comes across as genuine and scrappy, and that wins hearts. The last major contributor, and this probably has more weight than I'm giving it, is that most geopolitical strategy experts didn't really expect a full on invasion of Ukraine. There was expectation that Luhansk and Donbass would get swallowed up, but strategically, it doesn't make sense to try to take all of Ukraine. The fact that Putin did so anyway indicates a less rational threat than was expected--a mad man with nukes. I've talked about this before, so I won't rehash, but this dimension is a pretty scary thing to be looking at.

I get where you're coming from. I'm not actually as naive as I come across. Being actively involved in the destruction of chemical weapons, I can assure you that our compliance with the chemical weapons treaty doesn't mean we don't have chemical weapons; it only means we don't have stockpiles. (Off the top of my head, I don't recall what the formal definition of stockpile is). But we will definitely have some weapons, and we will definitely have chemical agents. The treaties allow retention and development in the interests of staying ahead/abreast of developments elsewhere. As for compliance, I would anticipate a nuclear disarmament treaty to follow the same model as the Chemical Weapons treaty. We are regularly inspected by OPCW, with inspectors coming from all sorts of places (some of them hostile and very motivated to find us out of compliance). It's been a good system. All the more reason to get rid of them. Ultimately, my objection to nuclear weapons is the same as my objection the chemical weapons. They are not intended to destroy military targets; they are intended to kill civilians. In that regard, 4,000 is about 4,000 too many. for a lot of reasons, I understand that full disarmament is unlikely in my lifetime. But reducing stockpiles to something that doesn't guarantee the extinction of the species would be a good start.

I agree with unilateral disarmament being a death trap. We've done a good job of banning and eliminating chemical weapons (if memory serves, only three countries refused to sign the chemical weapons treaty; North Korea, Iraq, and Syria). We would need to go through a similar, world wide treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. It's a pipe dream right now, but a worthy goal. In the meantime, I'd be content if the U.S./NATO, Russia, China, and India maybe reduced their stockpiles to just the number of weapons we need to destroy the world once, rather than knock it out of orbit. I would find that very interesting indeed.

I would consider this unlikely. No matter what Russian governmental authorities feel about it, the Russian Orthodox church will still fight tooth and nail against it. I will say this, though: when this is all done and over, please seek out business from (reputable) Russian sources. Russian people aren't all that different from Ukrainians. All of the good and glorious things we are seeing from Ukrainians that we keep praising, the Russians share all of those traits. They are going to suffer enormously from this. They are collateral casualties in an economic war to end a military conflict. I hope we are as generous to the Russian populace after this as we are to the Ukrainian populace.

I can't speak with any authority, but I would guess the countries bordering Ukraine are actually more resistant to direct confrontation than you might think. All indications I'm getting from this are that none of this makes any sense. Russia can't reasonably expect to maintain the territories they've captured so far; the occupying force they would need to take and hold these parts of Ukraine is estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of 500,000 troops. This is not the work of a rational actor. Which means you have a mad man with a personal vendetta and no clear successor sitting on top of a nuclear arsenal. Given the increase in soviet era tactics (amp up the annihilation and try to break the people), I have genuine fears that we're going to see a tactical nuke go off in Kyiv if Putin can't take it. The big fear on NATOs end is that a direct intervention accelerates Putin's anger. Poland doesn't want tactical nukes going off in Lviv, Rivne, Lutsk, or Ivano-Frankivsk. The sickening and heart breaking thing about this is that the best possible outcome is for the Russians to topple Putin on their own*. The massive and rapid increase in sanctions works toward that goal. Regrettably, we have to infuriate them and turn them against their government. Unfortunately, there are no sanctions we can impose that will do this quickly. The wealthy and middle class in Russia are certainly feeling the affect of sanctions pretty quickly, but the lower class (which is quite large) won't feel the pinch for weeks. What we are witnessing right now is the nightmare scenario of autocracy in the nuclear age. And, to make a political statement, it speaks to the dire need to eliminate nuclear weapons for the world wide arsenals. * And lets be honest--when it comes to toppling brutal dictators, the Russians are the pros.

More seriously: define "work." I think it's fair to assert that "work" does not have to be "employment."

Capitalism called. They would like to hire you as a lobbyist.

This feels like a trap.