QUORUM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
quorum noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and
Quorum legal definition of quorum
How to Determine a Quorum: 6 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow
Quorum | Definition of Quorum at Dictionary.com
Quorum definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
QUORUM | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Quorum - definition of quorum by The Free Dictionary
Robert's Rules for Defining a Quorum - dummies
what is definition of quorum
what is definition of quorum - win
2020 Year in Review -- As If You Wanted to Look Back At This One
Wow, is it time for the Year in Review already? It seems like only a couple decades have passed since January 1, 2020 -- a year some experts are now saying lasted a full double dog year, 14 human years, or about three stake conferences in length. Although TSCC's shenanigans were overshadowed this year by outrageously insane behavior from every corner, TSCC nevertheless made its own valuable contributions to the insanity pile -- the icing on the cake, if you will, or perhaps more accurately, the dry heave on top of the stomach-emptying vomit. But now, as 2020 comes to a close, let us sit back, reflect on the past year, and wonder what the hell was everyone smoking? Yet somehow, despite everything getting turned upside down this year, 2020 still began with . . . January Foreshadowing the year to come, 2020 attacks right from the start and scorches Australia with massive wildfires. Also foreshadowing the year to come, TBMs offer to help by skipping a couple of meals and donating the value of those meals to the church, which then used the donated money to pay the cable bill for Brother Richards in your ward. The logic behind this series of transactions is still somehow one of the least confusing aspects of the year to come. Despite the Book of Mormon literally saying the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin, TSCC claims it was an "error" in the Come Follow Me manual that described the Lamanites' dark skin as a curse. Clarifying the clarification, Pres. Newsroom stressed that it wasn't the dark skin that was the curse, the curse was having to still defend the racist passages in the Book of Mormon in 20 freaking 20. Finally in January, controversy erupts at BYU over, of all things, ballroom dancing, when BYU announced it would prohibit same sex couples from competing in the US Nationals Amateur Dancesport Championships it was hosting, despite national organization guidelines which allowed same sex couples to compete. Several prominent dancers announced they would boycott the BYU-hosted competition, but BYU stuck to its principles despite this withering pressure from super-intimidating ballroom dancers. Ha ha! But seriously though -- BYU predictably caved and allowed same sex couples to dance in the competition. Pres. Newsroom later defended BYU's changing stance, claiming the university had not sold its values for a mess of pottage but had done so for the glory of ballroom dance, which was a different matter altogether. February Two years after Ballard emphatically declared that church leaders weren't hiding anything, church leaders admit in a Wall Street Journal article that they've been hiding 100 billion dollars out of fear members would stop paying tithing if they knew about it. Following the example of shining role model, Enron, TSCC used more than a dozen shell companies to hide their investment portfolio from members. Shocked by this brazen deception, TBMs vigorously protest by continuing to pay a full tithe, keeping their mouths shut, and pretending this is all fine. In an unusual move, BYU deletes the section prohibiting homosexual behavior from its honor code, leaving the impression that comparable hetero behaviors such as dating and kissing would now be permitted for homosexual students, with BYU's own Honor Code office privately telling students homosexual couples would now be held to the same morality standards as unmarried heterosexual couples. After a photo of two female students kissing outside the honor code office goes viral, BYU spokesperson Carrie Jenkins backpedaled and claimed there had been a "miscommunication", but refuses to say what the school's policy is. After much confusion, the matter is finally cleared up when Mormon church president Nelson issues a statement demanding the media stop referring to him as "Mormon church president Nelson" and insists the media instead refer to him as "brilliantly gifted heart surgeon Nelson". A man wielding a knife is shot and killed by police after caught trespassing inside the MTC in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Afterward, police claimed the man was clearly suffering from mental illness, noting that he willingly entered a location known to be crawling with Mormon missionaries. March In March, absolutely nothing happened, so we can move on to April -- unless you consider the beginning of the apocalypse, the end of the world as we know it, and the imminent return of Jesus to be worth mentioning. But first, in March: in the midst of continued confusion over the BYU honor code change, Ballard offers hope to the LGBT community when he delivers a BYU devotional speech condemning marginalizing anyone based on sexual orientation, calling it "evil and horrifying". Gay BYU students barely have time to applaud Ballard's speech when, the very next day, BYU -- which aspires to the level of evil and horrifying -- marginalizes LGBT students by issuing a formal letter stating that no, they are still not allowed any form of romantic expression because such behaviors still violate the "principles", if not the actual language, of the honor code. Clarifying the matter further, BYU spokesperson Carrie Jenkins said LGBT students should have known all along the honor code changes were meant for the Big 12 Conference and not for them. TSCC gets pummeled from all sides in March, with God hitting Salt Lake City with a 5.7 earthquake that breaks the angel Moroni statue on top of the temple, and Covid forcing TSCC to cancel church services, close its temples, recall missionaries from overseas missions, close the MTCs, and cancel all BYU sports, just as the basketball team looked to have its best showing in the NCAA tournament in years. Summing up the disastrous month, Pres. Newsroom said TSCC hasn't taken a beating that bad since the last BYU-Utah football game. April In a historic first, TSCC cancels the live audience for general conference. The precaution was necessary, Pres. Newsroom said, to prevent panicky Mormons from stealing all the toilet paper in the Conference Center. Recalling that last October Nelson promised a conference unlike any other, TBMs feverishly share wild rumors in the run-up to April conference, ranging from Jesus Christ personally appearing at conference to the prophet solemnly ordering members to pack up and move to Missouri. Realizing the conference had been a deep disappointment compared to expectations, Nelson tried to spin the narrative by insisting the conference had achieved a historic first: for the first time ever, not a single live audience member had fallen asleep during a session. In the midst of a global pandemic, economic collapse, apocalyptic rumors, and widespread unemployment, TSCC demonstrates how keenly they are in touch with members' needs when they . . . rollout a new church logo. Dubbed "Snow Globe Jesus", the new logo design barely won out over top contenders Bobblehead Jesus and 70s Playgirl Centerfold Jesus. Having failed in their first fasting attempt to eradicate Coronavirus, Nelson announces a second, more powerful fast to be held on Good Friday, for an extra spiritual power-up. Cases in Utah -- which averaged 100 positive cases per day prior to the fast -- promptly doubled, then tripled, then increased 5x, then increased 10x, then increased 20x, then increased 30x . . . Alarmed at the exponential increase in cases, Utah lawmakers hurriedly pass legislation preventing Mormons from conducting a third fast. May TSCC -- long accused of being a money-seeking corporation masquerading as a religion --releases plans for the Tooele Utah temple, including a master planned community of high-priced homes surrounding the temple which will be developed, and profited by, TSCC. When asked about the comparison to Jesus driving the money changers at the temple, Pres. Newsroom happily cited the prepositional loophole of "at" vs. "around" to justify TSCC's money changing behavior. When informed that the same Hebrew preposition means "at, in, by, or near" in English and therefore the church is technically still in violation of Jesus's injunction, Pres. Newsroom claimed his religious freedom was under attack from linguistics. In the midst of a global pandemic, economic collapse, apocalyptic rumors, and widespread unemployment, TSCC again demonstrates how keenly they are in touch with members' needs when they . . . proudly release updated standards for the artwork permitted in church foyers. Although Caucasian Jesus predictably won the coveted approval, Pres. Newsroom let it be known there was stiff competition from top contenders Catholic Sacred Heart Jesus and Fat Buddha. In what many observers regarded as a somewhat controversial move, two BYU students, Jeff and Steve, are disciplined by the honor code office for failing to say "no homo" after engaging in a handshake that lingered a bit too long. June In the midst of a global pandemic, economic collapse, apocalyptic rumors, and widespread unemployment, TSCC again demonstrates how keenly they are in touch with members' needs when Rebrand Rusty makes a fashion update to that most recognizable symbol of Mormonism, the missionary in the white shirt. Although missionaries may now wear blue shirts, over-zealous elders quorum presidents everywhere want you to know you will still be looked down upon if you wear a blue shirt to quorum meeting. Three months after Ballard condemned persecution of the LGBT community as "evil and horrifying", TSCC files an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case, arguing in favor of the right to fire LGBT employees simply for being LGBT and not for any job violation. When asked whether the church was now "evil and horrifying" or whether Ballard had been wrong in his devotional address, Pres. Newsroom wondered aloud how difficult it would be to find another job in this weak economy. In the face (ha ha!) of rising anti-mask sentiment, a coalition of Utah religious leaders sign a joint statement urging Utahns to wear face masks. TSCC is represented in the coalition by a counselor in the Utah area presidency, who ranks on the Mormon authority meter somewhere around the assistant secretary of the Beehive class. In a fiery online speech, Bednar complains about the loss of religious freedom during the pandemic, claiming that governments had forced TSCC to shut down. When pointed out to him that other churches adapted by conducting online services, and that Alma 32:10 specifically says that meeting in a church is not required, Bednar doubled-down on his complaint, insisting that his religious freedom to sit on the stand and be adored by the congregation each week had most definitely been infringed. July In an all-out attack on exmos, the July Ensign boldly claims that truth will never be found on exmormon sites. Exmos quickly compiled a list of truths hidden by TSCC that were revealed on exmo sites, such as the $100 billion Ensign Peak investment, general authority pay, the seer stone translation method, the LGBT policy of exclusion, the multiple versions of the first vision, and church tithing money being invested in City Creek. When confronted by this list, the Ensign published a follow-up article claiming its religious freedom to lie about its religion was under attack. Looking to send a stronger signal on the mask mandate, the full Utah area presidency now issues an official statement to members, urging them to wear masks in public. This upgraded authoritative mandate now ranks on the Mormon power meter somewhere around a ward PEC meeting with half the attendees asleep. Finally in July, Utah County Mormons make national news when, in the midst of the pandemic, they crowd into a packed Utah County Commission meeting, purposefully not wearing masks, to demand that area schools reopen without requiring students to wear masks, because -- given the size of their excessively large families -- the least the school district could do is help them trim the number back a bit. August In the midst of a global pandemic, economic collapse, apocalyptic rumors, and widespread unemployment, TSCC again demonstrates how keenly they are in touch with members' needs when Rebrand Rusty renames the church magazines. The Ensign will be rebranded as The Liahona and The New Era will now be called For the Strength of Youth, because "New Era" simply wasn't weird enough. TSCC also dropped the old fashioned term "garments", now calling its special underwear For The Strength of Your Loins. Colleges across the country begin to reopen, but with modified sports schedules, leaving independent football school BYU scrambling to fill its schedule at the last minute. Announcing its modified schedule, BYU noted that the 200,000 U.S. Covid deaths, while tragic, were a small price to pay to guarantee that BYU would not lose to Utah in football again this year. And August wraps up with the First Presidency issuing a letter forbidding bishops and stake presidents from testifying in court cases, because the last people TSCC wants on the stand are leaders who have pledged to be honest in all their dealings. September Always striving to use the full name of the church and emphasize the name of Jesus Christ, Rebrand Rusty renames LDS Business College to Ensign College, after the itself recently rebranded Ensign magazine, with neither rebranding using the full name of the church or of Jesus Christ. This series of name changes is still, somehow, one of the least confusing aspects of 2020. With the Covid epidemic worsening by the day, TBMs plead with God in fervent prayer to please let them die of Covid before they have to eat the 40 year old buckets of wheat in the basement. October Feeling like 2020 hasn't kicked enough people while they are down, Christofferson attacks a vulnerable group in his general conference talk by insulting single women who choose to have their baby rather than have an abortion, calling their children "bitter fruit." When asked about his choice of words, Christofferson defended himself, saying that he couldn't very well call them "bastards" over the conference center pulpit, now could he? Two years after gaslighting church youth about polygamy at a Face 2 Face broadcast in Nauvoo, Master Gaslighter Cook uses his general conference address to gaslight the entire church over slavery and Native American relations. Boldly claiming the church was always against slavery and had great relations with the Native Americans, Cook spun a beautiful but demonstrably false narrative. It was somewhat surprising then, when independent fact checkers awarded Cook's talk the exact same credibility level as the other conference addresses. The Book of Mormon becomes the surprise publishing hit of the Fall, with copies flying off the shelves, after Mormon Senator Mike Lee compares serial adulterer, porn-star banging, own-daughter-lusting Donald Trump to Book of Mormon fictional character Captain Moroni. Publishing experts scrambled to proclaim the Book of Mormon the next big hit in the popular billionaire porn genre, adding that a powerful, shirtless military captain in the early Americas breathed new life into the somewhat tired genre. Negative reviews soon killed book sales, however, with reviewers slamming Captain Moroni as "even more vanilla than my parents", with one reviewer tartly noting that even if all the "coming to passes" were replaced with "coming with lasses", the book would still be boring beyond belief. November With a contested US election, rumors and accusations flying on all sides, and the Constitution hanging by a thread, Mormon Senator Mitt Romney fulfills the long-awaited "White Horse" prophecy by saving the Constitution and the election by acknowledging that Trump lost the election and there is no legal path to overturn it. TBMs rejoice in the prophecy's fulfillment and delight in their role at preserving the US Constitution in such a critical moment. Ha ha! No. TBMs start a petition calling for Romney's impeachment, continue to call for overthrowing the election result, and demand that God himself reissue the white horse prophecy, with the "right" side winning this time. For his part, God answered the prayers of the right-wing petitioners in exactly the same way he answered Joseph Smith's prayer in 1820. With the Covid epidemic worsening by the day, Nelson addresses the full church and kind of, sort of hints that members should maybe follow medical advice and wear masks. TBMs, who only last March were waxing poetic about God calling a doctor -- a doctor! -- to be president of the church during a pandemic, promptly ignore Nelson's counsel and turn to the real experts: some anonymous guy on Youtube and Aunt Phyllis on Facebook. In what many observers regarded as a somewhat controversial move, BYU roommates Emma and Madison are disciplined by the honor code office for sitting too close together on the couch while watching a romcom on Netflix. December December opens with the traditional First Presidency Christmas devotional, but with the unusual sight this year of the first presidency seated in a socially distant arrangement. Noting the seating change, Nelson likened the social distancing to the Savior himself, who -- as in all things -- had led by example by socially distancing himself from the church for 200 years now. In a final effort stressing the importance of masks, Elder Renlund -- himself a Covid survivor -- releases a video unambiguously instructing members to wear masks, calling it a sign of Christlike love. TBMs, many of whom opposed mask-wearing, thoughtfully ponder this clear counsel from one of God's chosen mouthpieces and reflect how to bring their lives in harmony with . . . Ha ha! No. TBMs excoriate Renlund for being too political and grumble that if everyone wears a mask, they might have to start going back to church soon, and no one wants that. Fairmormon -- already sufficiently embarrassing thanks to its own tortured apologetics -- sinks to a new level of shame by releasing clownish videos attacking the CES letter on a Youtube show called This Is The Show, or TITS for short. As if that weren't juvenile enough, show host Kwaku El, in a fit of bravado, threatens to kill John Dehlin -- which even stiff-necked exmos know violates at least one of the commandments. Fairmormon's behavior is so appalling that even Tapir Dan Peterson, former Fairmormon shill and staunch defender, distances himself from the group and resigns from its board. Fairmormon's antics -- disturbing as they are -- somehow still provide a comforting assurance that even in 2020, when everything is upside down, some things still remain the same: the best weapon against the church isn't the CES letter, it's a passionate Mormon believer with a microphone. And now, fellow exmos, as 2020 -- finally! -- comes to a close, let us gather our families together in the fallout bunkers where we are hiding, and wish each other a better and brighter 2021. It can't get any worse, can it? No, really -- can it? Happy New Year, exmos.
First of all, This is a serious DD, not some Dogecoin shitpost. I know Airswap (AST) isn’t a real moonshot because it has a $30M marketcap. But just hear me out, it has a lot of potential, which I will explain in this long post! It will probably start of a bit confusing, but it will all make sense in the end. TL;DR at the bottom for you lazy retards. But I do recommend you read the whole post. AirSwap is a decentralized exchange (DEX) which was created by Fluidity. It was originally made for large companies to trade OTC and without an orderbook to avoid frontrunning. In May 2020, Fluidity (the team behind AirSwap) was acquired by ConsenSys[1]. This is a BIG deal. ConsenSys was founded in 2014 by Joseph Lubin. Joseph is also a co-founder of Ethereum. The company has now more than 500 employees. ConsenSys is also the company behind MetaMask, which is the most popular Ethereum wallet and Web3 browser. In August 2020, ConsenSys acquired Quorum from JPMorgan Chase & Co. Which is an enterprise blockchain platform developed by JPMorgan Chase. Additionally, JPMorgan has made an undisclosed strategic investment in ConsenSys[2]. As you see, ConsenSys is a BIG deal. Now back to AirSwap. In October 2020, Airswap launched ‘Airswap Improvement Proposals’ (AIPs). Community members can now propose what they want to change. The community can then vote with their AST tokens. There have been around ten votes so far, but AIP 7 is by far the most interesting one. It was unanimously accepted by the community, which says enough if you ask me. It proposes that you can stake your AST and get rewarded with transaction fees and governance. Coming 9th of February. Also in October 2020, ConsenSys introduced MetaMask Swaps. Which brings the feature to swap tokens directly within MetaMask. MetaMask checks the price of tokens with multiple decentralized exchanges, and gives you the best deal. Here’s the catch, MetaMask asks a 0.875% fee. AirSwap helped MetaMask with creating the contract behind MetaMask Swaps. The funny thing is, Airswap gets more than $2M of volume each day through MetaMask Swaps. And MetaMask Swaps isn’t even available on their mobile app as of yet! AIP 7 proposes that there will be a pool for stakeholders to receive transaction fees. A co-founder of AirSwap, Don Mosites, said in Discord that the transaction fee from MetaMask will be split. Will it be split evenly or not? Let’s do the math! When AirSwap gets 0.25% (they will probably get more). This will go 100% to the stakeholders pool. This means: $2M * 365 days * 0.25% = $1.83M each year will be deposited to the pool. When looking at the earlier AIPs, we saw around 10M AST who voted. Keep in mind that this number will probably be lower. Because AIP 7 proposed that you can only unstake 10% each 7 days. Voting for AIP’s does not require staking as of yet. But let’s go with 10M AST for now. 1.83M / 10M = $0.183. That means for every AST staked, you get $0.183 annually. AST currently trades around $0.22. This is 83% APY! Anybody would easily pay at least $0.60 for these returns. And that’s almost worst case scenario! It will be much higher if:
Less stakeholders than 10M AST.
MetaMask splits the fees with AirSwap or gives them a higher percentage.
Volume gets higher on MetaMask Swaps, meaning more transaction fees.
All of the above is not to unimaginable. The time to unstake takes a few weeks because you can only unstake 10% each 7 days. If I would have to guess, I think the amount staked will be much lower than 10M AST. MetaMask and AirSwap are owned by the same company, ConsenSys. So it won’t be strange if they split the transaction fees evenly amongst the two parties, or hell give AirSwap even more. The volume traded on MetaMask Swaps will no doubt be higher the coming months. Imagine if they release it on their mobile app, I’m sure it will skyrocket. Lastly, AirSwap is already being traded on Binance. No more sketchy exchanges! You can buy this straight from Binance! Join the subreddit at AirSwap and definitely join the Discord to talk with fellow ASTronauts about the token! Please DYOR, I’m just here to have an open discussion. And of course not financial advice. I just really like the stock token TL;DR: AirSwap has some great fundamentals. With upcoming staking, it will be inevitable for the price to make a huge jump. Otherwise you would have a huge APY! If this got your interest, please read my post, it will cost you 5 minutes max. Your wife’s boyfriend will thank you for it.
First of all, This is a serious DD, not some Dogecoin shitpost. I know Airswap (AST) isn’t a real moonshot because it has a $30M marketcap. But just hear me out, it has a lot of potential, which I will explain in this long post! It will probably start of a bit confusing, but it will all make sense in the end. TL;DR at the bottom for you lazy retards. But I do recommend you read the whole post. AirSwap is a decentralized exchange (DEX) which was created by Fluidity. It was originally made for large companies to trade OTC and without an orderbook to avoid frontrunning. In May 2020, Fluidity (the team behind AirSwap) was acquired by ConsenSys[1]. This is a BIG deal. ConsenSys was founded in 2014 by Joseph Lubin. Joseph is also a co-founder of Ethereum. The company has now more than 500 employees. ConsenSys is also the company behind MetaMask, which is the most popular Ethereum wallet and Web3 browser. In August 2020, ConsenSys acquired Quorum from JPMorgan Chase & Co. Which is an enterprise blockchain platform developed by JPMorgan Chase. Additionally, JPMorgan has made an undisclosed strategic investment in ConsenSys[2]. As you see, ConsenSys is a BIG deal. Now back to AirSwap. In October 2020, Airswap launched ‘Airswap Improvement Proposals’ (AIPs). Community members can now propose what they want to change. The community can then vote with their AST tokens. There have been around ten votes so far, but AIP 7 is by far the most interesting one. It was unanimously accepted by the community, which says enough if you ask me. It proposes that you can stake your AST and get rewarded with transaction fees and governance. Coming 9th of February. Also in October 2020, ConsenSys introduced MetaMask Swaps. Which brings the feature to swap tokens directly within MetaMask. MetaMask checks the price of tokens with multiple decentralized exchanges, and gives you the best deal. Here’s the catch, MetaMask asks a 0.875% fee. AirSwap helped MetaMask with creating the contract behind MetaMask Swaps. The funny thing is, Airswap gets more than $2M of volume each day through MetaMask Swaps. And MetaMask Swaps isn’t even available on their mobile app as of yet! AIP 7 proposes that there will be a pool for stakeholders to receive transaction fees. A co-founder of AirSwap, Don Mosites, said in Discord that the transaction fee from MetaMask will be split. Will it be split evenly or not? Let’s do the math! When AirSwap gets 0.25% (they will probably get more). This will go 100% to the stakeholders pool. This means: $2M * 365 days * 0.25% = $1.83M each year will be deposited to the pool. When looking at the earlier AIPs, we saw around 10M AST who voted. Keep in mind that this number will probably be lower. Because AIP 7 proposed that you can only unstake 10% each 7 days. Voting for AIP’s does not require staking as of yet. But let’s go with 10M AST for now. 1.83M / 10M = $0.183. That means for every AST staked, you get $0.183 annually. AST currently trades around $0.22. This is 83% APY! Anybody would easily pay at least $0.60 for these returns. And that’s almost worst case scenario! It will be much higher if:
Less stakeholders than 10M AST.
MetaMask splits the fees with AirSwap or gives them a higher percentage.
Volume gets higher on MetaMask Swaps, meaning more transaction fees.
All of the above is not to unimaginable. The time to unstake takes a few weeks because you can only unstake 10% each 7 days. If I would have to guess, I think the amount staked will be much lower than 10M AST. MetaMask and AirSwap are owned by the same company, ConsenSys. So it won’t be strange if they split the transaction fees evenly amongst the two parties, or hell give AirSwap even more. The volume traded on MetaMask Swaps will no doubt be higher the coming months. Imagine if they release it on their mobile app, I’m sure it will skyrocket. Lastly, AirSwap is already being traded on Binance. No more sketchy exchanges! You can buy this straight from Binance! Join the subreddit at AirSwap and definitely join the Discord to talk with fellow ASTronauts about the token! Please DYOR, I’m just here to have an open discussion. And of course not financial advice. I just really like the stock token TL;DR: AirSwap has some great fundamentals. With upcoming staking, it will be inevitable for the price to make a huge jump. Otherwise you would have a huge APY! If this got your interest, please read my post, it will cost you 5 minutes max. Your wife’s boyfriend will thank you for it.
Questions to ask a TBM that they cannot answer, none of which attack faith in religious texts. The truth must be used. Running from the church and/or TBM's foggy b.s. gives it all legitimacy.
Where is the authority for the twelve to create a super body above them to rule over them? Since the twelve entirely lack authority to create a separate and higher "first presidency," what if they do anyway and how such such a body have legitimacy? How can the twelve be subservient to something THEY created? Didn't Jesus tell his apostles to serve, and not to rank each other or rule over each other? Isn't the twelve supposed to be the top deliberative body, according to Jesus? Wouldn't having 15 constitute "going beyond the mark?" Wouldn't having a separate "first presidency" ruling over the quorum of the twelve, by definition mean they are not "one?" Are you aware that Isaiah and Malachi and Jesus rebuked corrupt religious leaders most of the time, and that Zenos' parable in the book of Mormon is mostly a rebuke of wicked church leaders? Are you aware that Nelson and Oaks are eternal polygamists? Why doesn't the church teach the principle related to eternal polygamy? What is the religious basis/use for multiple wives in eternity and why doesn't the church teach/explain it? Why is the church in open conflict and contradiction with many teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (arguably the co-prophet of the restoration)? Why is the church so eager to bury the polygamy issue? Why do church "essays" on polygamy attempt to bury the issue as "so difficult" and "in the past" and imply that God revoked some command? Are the temple ordinances inspired? Then why so many changes? Why were local church activities essentially starved to death through lack of funding, before covid? Why does the church have a secretive court system where an accused person is essentially guilty until proven innocent, where the accused is afforded no rights, and where one man is judge, jury, and executioner, and the appeals process is fraudulent? When and where did Jesus or any scriptural prophets ever tell poor people to pay tithing? Jesus' focus on the poor is incredibly profound. Did Alma tell the poor Zoramites that they would be less poor if they paid tithing (no, he didn't). How do you justify guilting the poor to pay tithing while the church giving large sums of money to general authorities and mission presidents? It baffles me why exmos spend all this time on ces letter material, tapirs, book of Abraham etc, when the church has a dozen jugular veins exposed that are already leaking. Just what is above, is enough to END anyone's "testimony" of the corporate "church." Take down the corporation with the truth TDCWT.
November 15, 2020 Dear president, First congratulations on your ‘retirement’. Personally, I appreciate all you did for me and my family during a very difficult time. I can’t imagine how challenging serving as the stake president must be. I think all Stake Presidents in the least should write a memoir. I enjoyed watching conference but want to, if I may, share my thoughts on three groups of people profiled in the conference or made mention: doubters, critics, and church scholars. Before I begin, I want to say I understand how this kind of unsolicited comment can be seen as divisive, negative, or even worse, a personal attack. It is not. My intent is to give a perspective that I hope is useful and shine a light on what I think is unintended outcomes of directives intended to inspire hope, faith, and trust in leadership. I believe your words in particular have great influence in this community and because I have lived here my entire life, I feel that influence but perhaps this time, not as intended. To articulate my ambition more succinctly, let me share with you a quote by Rumi, a 13th century Sunni poet. It’s the same message I struggled to convey in my interview with you going on four years ago now: “Out beyond the fields of right doing and wrongdoing there is a field. I will meet you there.” My hope is that you help me see both sides of the coin more clearly thus, if you are at all interested, it would be very useful (should you read this) if you inserted comments throughout this writing or better yet, give me a call that we might meet in a safe place somewhere in the field beyond right and wrong we might both find clarity. I respectfully acknowledge that in my view, nothing that was said was out of harmony with previous narratives presented by top leadership (First presidency and quorum of the 12) from the pulpit at conference and other high-level venues. When this discourse filters down to the local level, however, the messaging can be antithetic to moving the needle toward acceptance, understanding, and even nurture of individuals like me – the ones who ‘jumped’ out of the boat (although some were pushed (excommunication/disfellowshipped) because they publicly reached out to help others while others like me unintentionally fell). I also recognize you have no control of what others at the conference say so I’ll try to speak more specifically to what I think your messaging was because I don’t recall who specifically said what. I also want to state that my comments are an amalgam of hard evidence and personal hypotheses pooled together built upon the fact-finding, tried and true methods of science which I will expand on below. I’m not writing a thesis here (although it’s nearly as long!) so citation is scarce, moreover this is my personal heart-felt plea that envelope the only truth-seeking discipline I have come to trust. What I would like to bring to the table is based on the notion that members with questions like me are often typecast as having been deceived by talented individuals using persuasive language and slickly edited presentations that obfuscate, distort, confuse, and invent ‘truth’ (not your words but mine yet I think on point with the messaging - I didn’t keep notes so can’t quote you or others in the conference with any precision). In other words, we are victims of our inherent weakness to the sensational, artful presentation and convincing rhetoric of those intent on damaging the church (I might be expanding the definition here beyond what you intended but relevant to current views of many members). Although I believe this view is unintentional, the messaging of the conference reinforced a negative perception already embraced by the membership proper of both the critic and the doubter. From my perspective and with respect, it’s an oversimplification to assume the critics and members who doubt fall so easily to methods of persuasion. For more clarity and as we humans tend to want to categorize everything, let me arbitrary divide the critics and doubters into four broad categories. I only do so for the purpose of defining points of discussion around the varying degrees of diversity in the critics/doubters camp. The group as a whole could have been broken down further eventually stopping at profiles of individuals for I believe that everyone’s journey (which is based on a collective of individual experiences, beliefs, ambitions, feelings, etc.) is unique including those who go through faith transitions. In other words, all members from full faith to those who have had their records removed fall on a continuum rather than are binary (in the boat or out, righteous or evil, defending or attacking). There are times that these individuals vacillate between groups albeit group 4 is fairly homogeneous in their ambition. Of course, I could just as easily break the church down into groups but I don’t want to let the discourse become oversaturated with categories and lose sight of the messaging I want to convey which I see as a conversation instead of a collective of labeled lists and groups. For example, there are those in the church who believe testifying to the doubters will quiet their doubts. Members who do this loosely fit in a category. I want my comments to be more fluid as I describe the church and its members, thus words like many, some, partially, in general, etc. are in reference to arbitrary categories and sufficient to maintain the flow of the discussion. I hope that categorizing is simply a convenient communication tool to explore and expand the narrative I heard at conference. The four arbitrary groups are as follows:
Haters: Those who are bent on destroying or at least staining the good name of the church. It’s usually a personal vendetta in response to feelings of betrayal and rejection often following church discipline, laziness, or sinfulness (couched in the church definition of sinfulness).
Doubters: These are regular members (who were the target of your remarks) who could not find answers to key doctrinal questions that they know exist but are unavailable to explore under the church umbrella, so they turn to outside sources. It’s quite natural for these individuals to lean toward the scientific method as their faith model for discovering church truth claims falters when the hidden historical and corporate truths come to light. Some of these members naturally and eventually slide into groups 3 and 4. This WAS me.
Mentors: These are members (from the uneducated to academics) who reach out to those with questions and doubts who, like them, were left wanting because of the evasive (and sometimes very odd) answers provided by the church (i.e., the catalyst theory for the book of Abraham) in the face of hard evidence that the revelation was a fraud. Mentors methods are not always honourable or evidence based as expressions of pain sometimes creep into their discourse. This IS me and remnants of that pain may even be reflected in this letter as I revisit the trauma of transition. Because that pain is identifiable, mentors by this definition are dismissed by the church as their thesis is clouded by an emotional bias. Most of these were excommunicated for apostasy as they gave public voice to truths the church does not want the general membership or public to know. They also show a measure of empathy to the doubters not available in the church where it seems the church wants to silence rather than work with faith transitioning members which is a direct attack on freedom of expression. Mentors are the bulk of podcasters, you-tubers, and authors who I think you might be referring to but profiled more accurately as 1 above. Mentors include people like John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Gina Colvin, Sam Young, Kattie and Allan Mount, Lindsey Hansen-Park, and countless others.
Scholars: This list includes historians, as well as other scholars, and intellectuals in the scientific community with no dog in the fight but who’s academic research interests include Mormonism. This includes exmormons who have moved on with no interest in the church except for the scholarly exploration of the church as a cultural entity - especially focusing on its history (which I find fascinating, inspiring, and yes, even uplifting). Many of these participate as members of group 3, but most have published works including articles, letters, papers, and books, which, at the highest level, have been vetted through the peer review process. Some of these are active members sympathetic to those that question. This list includes, B.H. Roberts, Leonard Arrington PhD, Faun Brody, Michael Quinn PhD, Richard Bushman PhD, Grant Palmer, Dan Vogel, David Bokovoy PhD, John Dehlin PhD, Bryce Blankenagel, and many others.
Too often critics and doubters are dismissed for their rhetoric and personal assumptions made about them. I want to be clear that it is not the character or personal details, or the language of their expression of these individuals that matter. It is the content they expose that matters for it reveals truths that peel back the current church facade to reveal the foundational structure which I believe is important for it is the very rich and interesting foundation that has shaped the essence of our personal and collective identity. From my perspective, members of groups 2, 3, and 4 may slide into personal reasons including expressions of betrayal, anger, vengeance, retribution, sarcasm, and even hatred. Most psychologists would agree these are all expressions of fear. These emotional responses can lead to personal vendetta-like expression as they deal with the difficult spectrum of emotions that follow tragic loss but this is far from their primary ambition or focus, which I believe is not to harm the church, but help (emphasis on help) others see themselves and their beliefs more clearly. I know these emotional responses and have expressed the same even in writing which I find comfort and healing as I throw a few cathartic rocks from time to time at the thousand foot thick walls of the impenetrable fortress of Mormanity. Generally speaking, the doubting members (group 2) mine the stories of others, seek out tools for mental health, and often scientifically search the data themselves, to find answers not available in the church. In this case, group 2 is supported by group 1 (rarely), 3, and 4. Although group 2 often reach out locally first they quickly discover faithful family, ward members, and local leadership are reluctant to explore answers to their questions because what the membership, in general, believe is questions and doubts are personal attacks. Open respectful discourse is often dismissed because of it. There is no field beyond right and wrong. Expressions of doubt could even be viewed as expressions of the enemy at the gate in the impending war against evil. Such posturing makes it impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion. The critics profiled at conference seem to fit comfortably into group 1. From my point of view, how group 1 are influencing doubting members is insignificant in the broader academically rich pool of very diverse researchers (groups 3 and 4) legitimately seeking and finding answers to the questions that are underfed with a variety conjectures presented to replace evidence by church apologists and ‘scholars’. Most of groups 3 and 4 are rigorous in their research for they are well aware that the profile presented in conference (group 1) is a small representation of the actual research empire that is drawing members away. Unfortunately, those few who are trying to destroy the church (group 1) give the church a platform to disparage and deny the growing body of data being vetted by legitimate researchers who are ultimately shaking the church truth tree to its very roots. I have empathy for those going through this process and know the agony they suffer personally as I struggled through the stages of grief for as they, I needed healing during my faith transitions. The church response is devastating with its practice of silencing (by the church via church discipline) and unintentional abandonment (by the church and active family) – both alienating practices. Certainly, there are those in the church (group 2 primarily) who recognize that the church tools (prayer, scripture study, attendance at meetings, temple, and tithing), falter against the easy-to-access empirical evidence mostly supplied by the church and posted on the internet, i.e. Joseph Smith papers, archived conference talks, the essays, and the list goes on and on. Recognizing this raises certain legitimate questions like, ‘As a member of this church, why didn’t I know of this?’ ‘Who isn’t telling us what?’, ‘What does this mean?’ ‘Have I been intentionally been lied to?’ ‘Why won’t the brethren address this headon?’ ‘Is my testimony actually secure if the church truth claims are not what they claim?’ ‘What does this say about my beloved church?’ Finding insufficient answers in the church and legitimate, well researched evidence outside the church (from doubters and critics) leads to doubts. Doubts lead to challenging the narrative of the church (which, of course, is where I’m at). This is defined as apostasy by the church which is not. It’s holding leadership to the highest level of accountability. It’s a battle against sanitized curriculum, omission of uncomfortable historical and institutional facts., and ignoring damaging doctrine that only change when there is a political, moral obligation to do so (the shift on polygamy as the church sought statehood in Utah, shifting race policy as pressure is placed on the church by the civil rights movement and BYU increasingly under threat by several universities who refused to participate in athletic programs because of the priesthood ban, recent changes to the temple ceremony that are less disparaging to women coincidental to the rise of the me too movement and internal pressures applied by dynamic women like Kate Kelly, etc.). In today’s world there is no place for church leadership to be the end-all be-all when it’s so easy to fact-check, cross-check, and triple check declarations of doctrine and policy against the infinite volume of affidavits, letters, declarations, statements, recorded revelations and prophecies, etc.. Contradictions are many - even on the very core doctrines of the church, and even in statements made the very elect who hold the keys and wear the mantle of infallibility. The list is long of intelligent, honest, and transparent scholars that have dug deep, studied the data, cross-referenced irrefutable information coming from multiple sources including and primarily the archived materials procured or produced by the church. Gathering that empirical data is critical to scholarly work - even when it challenges the very hypothesis being explored. What was characterized last Sunday as persuasive, talented, deceitful critics, I mostly find individuals with a robust integrity and desire to discover, explore, and measure all truth with as much transparency and efficacy as possible. Of course, I’m profiling group 3 and 4 while you profiled group 1. First, I look to professional people (group 4) for their surgical precision at vetting all data. This demands integrity, courage, and an honest, open invitation to be buffeted by their peers with the potential of being proven wrong. It also demands looking inward at biases, personal experience, institutional influence, and replication to build the foundational truth of any solid thesis. The best scholars among them provide references that can easily be scrutinized unlike church ‘scholars’ who typically provide only resources that support their argument often citing themselves, colleagues, or other archived materials that the church has made public while knowing there is a mountain of data they have to avoid, some of which is still locked away out of sight in the church archives. The churches approach to scholarship is to sanitize the content with partial truths, with important details omitted, and/or with the evolution of key doctrines kept secret. Why keep the evolution of key doctrines secret? Because recognizing a key doctrine follows a course of evolution opens the possibility that this is the work of men building a congruous empire, not God, for God would likely get it right, right out of the gate. Most frustrating of all is the churches crumbling methodology of keeping it all hidden from the general membership of the church - the hidden history, hidden institutional policy, and of course, the attempt to hide from its members the voice of the doubters and critics which was reinforced in this stake conference. It might be useful to categorize truth so I’ll break the church truth down into 3 broad categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly - something a recent podcaster did although my angle is somewhat different. The church focus, of course, is the ‘good’ truths which they claim are divinely inspired. In this arena, the ‘bad and ugly’ truths are hidden, white-washed and over time, ignored, then forgotten. The critics camp considers the ‘bad’ and ‘ugly’ and is bent on untangling the hidden truths and exploring how the deception impacts our lives. I maintain that ALL truths - the good, the bad, and the ugly; are OUR truths no matter where we fall on the faith spectrum. It is also follows a process where members like me are satisfied the ‘bad and ugly’ are representative of the more accurate church narrative and the ‘good’ is an increasingly sanitized evolutionary fabrication. It means the church still produces ‘good’ (exceptionally good, in my view) people, but can only accomplish it by repressing important truths with its members who innocently are living under a belief in a total and unquestioning trust in its leadership. If the bad and ugly truths about the church need to be locked away, what does that say about the churches level of honesty and transparency? What does it say about leaderships trust in its members intellectual, emotional, and even spiritual capacity to determine for themselves the value and application of the hidden content of the church? Every piece of factual historical and institutional content in its least is part of who we all are that belong to this church - especially those of us who can trace our roots back to the origins of the restoration with all it’s global virtues (good), work ethics (good), focus on families (good), as well as embellishments like countless stories from the pulpit (bad - Paul H. Dunn, and currently Elder Holland and Elder Oaks), and even destructive practices like racism, LGBTQ policy, and polygamy (ugly). I really don’t think we can or should escape our past or excuse the actions of past leadership without knowing the good, bad, and ugly things they did. This ideation of hiding the truth to protect us from our past in my view is concealing an important feature of our individual identities (the historical truths that shaped our lives and lives of our forebears). I can’t think of a context where this would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the void cast by the public availability of the underbelly of the church is expensive. As stated by Marlin K. Jensen in an address to a group of students who had some rather difficult questions for the church historian: “Maybe since Kirtland, we’ve never had a period of - I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having now,” (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131) What is the churches response to this apostasy? Enter the church essays, for one, which are not scholarly works, but ‘persuasive’ well written articles unfortunately with omissions iced with very nuanced scholarly language and singular purpose to keep the reader in the boat. It also glosses over the bad and ugly. Take the race and the priesthood essay. Pull up the wikipedia page on race and the priesthood (black people and the mormon priesthood) and have a side by side read with the essay. Just the reference list alone (church essay 26 references vs wikipedia 142 references) speaks to the level of scholarship of these two writings. Wikipedia can be a questionable source for accurate information yet even here is found irrefutable truth in statements easily fact-checked made by past church authorities, including prophets, the first presidency, and apostles that are embarrassingly omitted in the church essay. That’s how easy it is to access the churches dishonesty. Here’s a great example of that easy access relevant to this conversation: Even deep into the twentieth century, Apostle Hugh B. Brown wrote, “We should be scientific – that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in.” [5] Brown continued with, “I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.” (Apostle Hugh B. Brown, A Final Testimony, from an Abundant Life (autobiography of Hugh B. Brown, 1999 From: https://www.mormonstories.org/truth-claims/mormon-culture/truth-seeking/)
First of all, This is a serious DD, not some Dogecoin shitpost. I know Airswap (AST) isn’t a real moonshot because it has a $30M marketcap. But just hear me out, it has a lot of potential, which I will explain in this long post! It will probably start of a bit confusing, but it will all make sense in the end. TL;DR at the bottom for you lazy retards. But I do recommend you read the whole post. AirSwap is a decentralized exchange (DEX) which was created by Fluidity. It was originally made for large companies to trade OTC and without an orderbook to avoid frontrunning. In May 2020, Fluidity (the team behind AirSwap) was acquired by ConsenSys[1]. This is a BIG deal. ConsenSys was founded in 2014 by Joseph Lubin. Joseph is also a co-founder of Ethereum. The company has now more than 500 employees. ConsenSys is also the company behind MetaMask, which is the most popular Ethereum wallet and Web3 browser. In August 2020, ConsenSys acquired Quorum from JPMorgan Chase & Co. Which is an enterprise blockchain platform developed by JPMorgan Chase. Additionally, JPMorgan has made an undisclosed strategic investment in ConsenSys[2]. As you see, ConsenSys is a BIG deal. Now back to AirSwap. In October 2020, Airswap launched ‘Airswap Improvement Proposals’ (AIPs). Community members can now propose what they want to change. The community can then vote with their AST tokens. There have been around ten votes so far, but AIP 7 is by far the most interesting one. It was unanimously accepted by the community, which says enough if you ask me. It proposes that you can stake your AST and get rewarded with transaction fees and governance. Coming 9th of February. Also in October 2020, ConsenSys introduced MetaMask Swaps. Which brings the feature to swap tokens directly within MetaMask. MetaMask checks the price of tokens with multiple decentralized exchanges, and gives you the best deal. Here’s the catch, MetaMask asks a 0.875% fee. AirSwap helped MetaMask with creating the contract behind MetaMask Swaps. The funny thing is, Airswap gets more than $2M of volume each day through MetaMask Swaps. And MetaMask Swaps isn’t even available on their mobile app as of yet! AIP 7 proposes that there will be a pool for stakeholders to receive transaction fees. A co-founder of AirSwap, Don Mosites, said in Discord that the transaction fee from MetaMask will be split. Will it be split evenly or not? Let’s do the math! When AirSwap gets 0.25% (they will probably get more). This will go 100% to the stakeholders pool. This means: $2M * 365 days * 0.25% = $1.83M each year will be deposited to the pool. When looking at the earlier AIPs, we saw around 10M AST who voted. Keep in mind that this number will probably be lower. Because AIP 7 proposed that you can only unstake 10% each 7 days. Voting for AIP’s does not require staking as of yet. But let’s go with 10M AST for now. 1.83M / 10M = $0.183. That means for every AST staked, you get $0.183 annually. AST currently trades around $0.22. This is 83% APY! Anybody would easily pay at least $0.60 for these returns. And that’s almost worst case scenario! It will be much higher if:
Less stakeholders than 10M AST.
MetaMask splits the fees with AirSwap or gives them a higher percentage.
Volume gets higher on MetaMask Swaps, meaning more transaction fees.
All of the above is not to unimaginable. The time to unstake takes a few weeks because you can only unstake 10% each 7 days. If I would have to guess, I think the amount staked will be much lower than 10M AST. MetaMask and AirSwap are owned by the same company, ConsenSys. So it won’t be strange if they split the transaction fees evenly amongst the two parties, or hell give AirSwap even more. The volume traded on MetaMask Swaps will no doubt be higher the coming months. Imagine if they release it on their mobile app, I’m sure it will skyrocket. Lastly, AirSwap is already being traded on Binance. No more sketchy exchanges! You can buy this straight from Binance! Join the subreddit at AirSwap and definitely join the Discord to talk with fellow ASTronauts about the token! Please DYOR, I’m just here to have an open discussion. And of course not financial advice. I just really like the stock token TL;DR: AirSwap has some great fundamentals. With upcoming staking, it will be inevitable for the price to make a huge jump. Otherwise you would have a huge APY! If this got your interest, please read my post, it will cost you 5 minutes max. Your wife’s boyfriend will thank you for it.
LONG POST - 20 days before my shelf broke, I went for a walk "with God" through the woods...
I didn't expect a lot, but I hoped to feel peace because I had been in a lot of turmoil (you know--a faith crisis) and didn't know where I stood with my faith in the Church. During the walk, I had the idea to go through the temple questions and answer them as honestly as possible. The temple is so important to being a member of TCOJCOLDS, so answering those could tell me where I stood. Reading back on my answers now, I am so glad my shelf broke shortly after. I was clearly trying so so hard to stay in something that inside I knew was so so wrong. So glad I can now proudly say that I am not worthy to enter a temple and do not want to be. Here are my answers (everything in parentheses is an aside to you, not in my original answer): Temple questions: 1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost? I have faith in God and Jesus Christ, though weak, I haven't felt the Holy Ghost in a while, to my knowledge, and am not sure how to know if I am feeling it. It seems a lot of people 'feel' the Holy Ghost but use it for hate, or realized later it was something else. My relationships with God & Jesus Christ are non-existent right now, but I want to believe. 2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer? Yes. This one is not so complicated and the testimony I want to keep. 3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ? I think so? Joseph Smith's restoration has brought Christ's Gospel to so many people and doctrine of the LDS Church generally seems of God. Do I believe Christ will come again? I think so. Do I believe The Book of Mormon is true? Yes to an extent. Jury is still out on its literalness. I do not revere Joseph Smith. He brought about God's work, but any moment of his life that wasn't directed by God, I don't care about. 4. Do you sustain the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church? Yes but I don't think bishops need to be told or give instruction on masturbation. And when the prophet/apostles are not giving direct revelation from God--most GC talks--I take anything they say besides "have faith in Christ & love as He did" with a grain of salt. Which is okay. 5. The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41). Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity? I am still figuring out what moral cleanliness is for me. Society/The Patriarchy has made a lot of natural, healthy human behavior shameful with disastrous consequences. I.E. religious sexual shame/repression has the same negative brain health repercussions as sexual abuse. Literally. I believe God wants me to be moral. I want to do what God wants because I want to show Him I love Him. I do not believe that God doesn't want His sons and daughters masturbating. Ethical porn and erotic literature seem okay within the bounds of marriage and I am trying to figure out if they are immoral outside of marriage. ‘Sex is sacred' but at what cost? Tbh, this question is really hard for me. Why is sex before marriage bad? It seems like waiting until marriage can be just as bad for some people. I know relationships--healthy and vulnerable--are important to God. Stigmatizing sex has had only negative effects on relationships, families, and communities. As far as I can tell from experts. I am not an expert. The idea of modesty is ridiculous and based on toxic, problematic concepts. Like girls being responsible for boys’/men's sexuality, rape culture, objectification. I would be okay believing sex should wait until marriage if sex is openly talked about, kids can grow up learning and loving their bodies in a healthy way with no shame, and are allowed to masturbate, etc. AND trust God that He has a plan and waiting is more on principle of obedience and not because sex outside of marriage is wrong or dirty. Also, kids, especially girls, having to talk to random adult males about their sexuality is wrong. Morally wrong--I feel confident saying that. Yes I do keep the law of chastity. “Porn kills love” is also toxic and wrong. 6. Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others? Yes. Though I would feel more sure of my answer if the question was about following the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is too big so hopefully the details in the other questions cover everything. 7. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I support gay marriage and accept all LGBTQ+ ppl as who they say they are and as children of God who deserve the same rights as you and me. Women don't belong in the home any more than men do. I support masturbation. I don't think polygamy was from God, I think Joseph Smith was a sexual predator. I have a hard time with that thought. 8. Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? I haven't really taken the sacrament since March. I attend virtual meetings. I try to read my scriptures & pray on Sundays. I definitely spend more time thinking about God and Jesus. I listen to a Come Follow Me Podcast (Beyond the Block anybody? They are doing amazing things for those still in the Church but not fully accepted by the Church--aka LGBTQ members and women. I might have left sooner if it weren't for them interpreting the BoM more tastefully lol). So, yes. 9. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? Yes. 10. Are you a full-tithe payer? Yes, though I don't pay the 10% to the church. (DH left the Church months earlier and convinced me that we should pay our tithing to a cause we care deeply about. We chose The Women Empowerment Fund through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation after reading The Moment of Lift) 11. Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom? Up to this point in my life, yes. I plan on having a small amount of alcohol in the future for celebrations. I think I would be fine with green tea. And a little coffee once in a while, but I have no interest in it. I kind of want to try smoking marijuana. But I don't know if that would be disobedient to God. Still against drugs and other smoking. After this ramble, I admit I have no idea where God stands on this, only me, so I'll have to figure that out. I do eat meat sparingly. I am still against hard alcohol--or maybe I just have no current interest? It seems morally easy to say those are bad, but what about in a controlled setting with my spouse? What would be immoral? If all of the Word of Wisdom comes down to obedience, which for most of my life I believed it did, then that concept is a lot harder for me to be okay with. I want to make God happy, but I am not close enough to the Spirit to feel assured that that would make Him happy. Obedience is no longer enough of a reason for me to know if something is moral or not. (BIG breakthrough for me!!) 12. Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? No. 13. Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment? For now. All my concerns with the law of chastity have been brought up. I can stay behind the law of consecration, law of sacrifice, maybe law of obedience (concerns brought up previously), and the law of the gospel. I don't remember what the law of the gospel is unless it’s just following the teachings of Christ. (This was my half-assed attempt at remembering what I agreed to inside the temple) 14. Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance? No. 15. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances? Wow, I never thought this question would be so hard. I really don't know. Figuring this out is my next goal. Also need to figure out if I WANT to be worthy to enter the temple.
Our ward is trying really hard to get some of my family back into the church, and I think it might be working
Some backstory. I (18m) have my parents and two younger brothers. My brother S (16) has been out of the church the longest, nearly 5ish years. I left when I was 16. Then my mom, who’d been teetering on the edge for a while, read the CES letter and also left shortly after I did. My youngest brother D (15) left just recently (about a year), but I don’t really know what his reasons were. My Dad still believes. Recently, the young men’s quorum has been making a big effort to try and get some of us back in the church. They have been stopping by to chat (DESPITE A PANDEMIC), leaving gifts, sending messages, and trying to be friends. They’re definitely love bombing us. My mom and I have read the CES letter and are vehemently against and out of the church. S has been out long enough and far enough removed that I don’t worry about him ever rejoining. D however, I’m worried about. He’s always been my Dads number two, and D has said one thing that has kept him from leaving for a long time was hurting my dad. He’s also been the main target of a lot of the love bombing. It’s been constant, almost. D has recently said that he wants to start going back to mutual because he likes the ‘friendship’ and community. I’m really scared for him. He isn’t as removed as the rest of us, and I’m sure that it wouldn’t be hard for them to rope him back in as my dad would also be very supportive of it. So here is where I need help. I have to talk to him, and I want to go through the CES letter with him as well. But how do I do it the right way? I have no idea how his beliefs have changed the last couple of months so it’s very possible he’s started to believe, but just doesn’t want to say it to upset the rest of us. He knows I hate the church, but due to how things are in the family right now I’m the only one who can have this conversation without causing major rifts, and I don’t want to do it in a way that will hurt our relationship or only cause him to move further in. Do you guys have some wisdom you can impart?
So Dash Core Group never actually named what they did.
Mathematicians spend a lot of time understanding the names of things. Often we have to make up new terms to discuss new topics, or to consider old topics in new ways. Mathematicians also need every definition to be precise. There's the idea of ChainLocks, but I can't use that in academic circles because it's not well defined. Is a ChainLock a BLS signature? What is the protocol that enables ChainLocks? The academic progression is
Now, don't get me wrong ChainLocks is a great term. To me it strikes me as more of a marketing term though, and the popular use of the term I don't feel is well defined. Even if I came up with a precise definition I would then be confused switching between popular and academic content. Finally, I have a great name. DCG consensus. Dash Core Group uses a BLS signature to achieve a DCG consensus. I am really excited about this because I could then refer to DCG(5000,400,240) consensus as the consensus behind a ChainLock and a DCG(5000,50,24) consensus as the consensus behind an instant send lock. first number is the number of masternodes on the list. second number is the number of nodes in a quorum. third number is the number of nodes required for a signature. I'm writing this up to kind of get my thoughts straight. I had to review their documentation to fact check what I write. After reviewing their documentation again, I conclude that instant send is MUCH more secure than I thought. I thought it was secure before, but I did not completely understand the changes that were made. Maybe I'll put a calculation section on DIP 0010.
As per sub rules, no politics. Hoping this post can get past by focusing on the particular Mormon angle of Romney and the white horse prophecy. Understand if mods delete it though. First, a definition I lifted from wiki
In 1928, the LDS apostle) Melvin J. Ballard remarked that "the prophet Joseph Smith said the time will come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands... the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would be held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread. This Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what [the Mormons], through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. That also is our mission."
This is a more communal version of the prophecy than I remember. The saints, in general, will be the ones holding the country together. During Romney's 2012 presidential bid some of my friends and family thought the white horse prophecy would be fulfilled with his election. I wonder how the prophecy functions within Mormonism now. How many Mormons think the prophecy is important? How do they envision it will be fulfilled? I bring this up because of the supreme court vacancy. One can reasonably argue this is one of those moments where a Mormon could protect the constitution. Are there places where Mormons are viewing the supreme court pick through this lens? I wouldn't even know where to look.
What is Natural Man, and is he really God’s enemy?
Trying to keep this brief as I can, because I know how people tend to skip over walls of text. Proceeding on the assumption that the phrase “man” is generally understood to mean “mankind” or “humanity”, and not “men” as a gender. How are we to understand this question in the framework of the teachings of the Church of Christ? Numerous Sunday School and Elders’ Quorum meetings over my years have belied a sentiment I think many hold in the Church that humans are not innately good. I think the root of this stems from an incorrect understanding of Mosiah 3:19. I also think this assumption is a really bad one—that is, the belief that man is not innately good. Asserting that we are innately or mostly bad can cause undue guilt, duress, depression, anxiety, and cause us to question our standing with God despite our best efforts to do good around us. At a most basic level, I think the question of whether we are innately good can be answered by exploring the Definition of the scriptural term “natural man”. Here are a couple: 1) “Natural Man” = The state of man when he is born 2) “Natural Man” = Something else—something we become as we live our lives and sin As Benjamin stated, the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been since the fall of Adam. Ok, well what about before the fall? Was he not an enemy then, and if so, why not? If “natural man” existed before the fall, and he was not an enemy of God before the fall, then natural man is only God’s enemy when there is sin in the world. Otherwise, natural man is Good, and an ally. Our theology does posit that we start out life good and innocent—we need to emphasize this fact alongside assertions that man’s natural state is to be a tyrant, selfish, devilish, etc. We only become that way by hardening our hearts against God, losing humility, succumbing to selfish desires. With that foundation, now I think we can safely approach the assertion that “Natural man is an enemy to God.” Instead of the bogus idea that man is “naturally” an enemy to God (as some faiths do claim—doctrines of original sin, necessity of child baptism, etc), consider that the term “natural man” is just a synonym of “carnal man” or “selfish man”. And by “enemy” this doesn’t mean we fight against God, it just means we aren’t fully aligned with him. Satan (the same guy who creates “natural man” in this definition) would have us believe that we can never measure up to God’s standards. He will make us believe that God is angry at us. It just isn’t true! We need Jesus Christ’s grace, yes, but God measures what is in our hearts, not our shortcomings and inability to live up to seemingly impossible standards others put up around us. Just wanted everyone out there to know—every one of God’s children is of infinite worth to him. You are valuable, and you have great contributions you can make to others! We want and need you with us. Our disagreements in the Church today are ultimately only things we conjecture about. What matters most is where your heart is, and clinging to the True Vine (Jesus Christ), we can build the kingdom together despite our differences of opinion.
With Season 3 well on the way (hopefully some time next year, but due to the virus and whatnot, we’ll see), what are your guys’ expectations? What things do you wanna see, whether it’s from the comics or something the show has created entirely itself?
Obviously we’ll be seeing Dorothy come face-to-face with the Candlemaker. That’s gonna be an epic battle.
I hope we get to see more of Cliff with his daughter because he missed the wedding in order to help the team. I’m hoping she understands and forgives him, but there will definitely be some explaining to do.
We’ve got Cyborg and Roni’s relationship at a standstill after their disagreement with her decision to kill the VP of Quorum. She still has some uma jelly it appears, unless I’m mistaken. That’ll be interesting to see what the show wants to do with her; whether they continue her on the path from the comics (before she was gender-swapped) or if they wanna take it in a new direction.
Larry just finished having his issues with his family. Although it was closure for him to finally be able to get everything out and in the open, it of course didn’t go the way he wanted. But he did it anyway and now he’s hopefully able to move on with the Negative Spirit. Their relationship with one another is definitely a thing that needs to get stronger.
Rita is still stuck trying to find herself. She has only ever been an actress and played someone else every time, but never truly been Rita Farr. Hopefully she can come to terms with herself and her abilities and put the past and her mother and all of that junk away for good. She doesn’t need that in her life now.
And Jane... Poor ol’ Jane. Daddy hasn’t officially left yet and now he’s infiltrated the Underground and is posing as someone else entirely. And they all fell for it. We need her back and the pieces reassembled. The team needs her. (Plus, she’s pretty much my favorite of them all.)
We’ve got Beard Hunter still stuck in The Painting That Ate Paris (although I don’t think they’ve referred to it as such) and he mentioned Mr. Nobody (aka Alan Tudyk) being busy elsewhere (as in the animated Harley Quinn series). Would love to see these two back.
Danny the Tire and the Dannyzens are elsewhere and we must have them back. It’s always a fun time with Danny, Maura Lee Karupt, and Flex Mentallo.
And where in the hell is Animal-Vegetable-Mineral Man?! C’mon writers! I know you’re saving the best for last, but he has to shine at some point!
So what do you guys wanna see? Maybe they’ll keep introducing more of Morrison’s work? Maybe more of Way’s work and introduce Casey Brinke? Who knows. Let’s discuss!
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's late. Please don't mob me. I mean-- Hello, everyone! Syndicality here, not quite the Deputy Speaker, but I don't care I'm going to make this post anyway. As we all know, three weeks ago the Parliamendment passed the referendum, and we are now in the midst of the six-week trial period. The first Parliament was elected, and it served a three-week term. As we wait for the currently-disputed results of the 2nd Parliamentary Election to get sorted out, let's take a moment to review what actually happened during the first three weeks. Without further ado, let's get into it! September 30, 2020 - The election of the Prime Minister. Under the new system, the Prime Minister is the head of government and the person that legally has the most power. The Prime Minister is voted on by Parliament in a simple majority vote. We had two candidates for this election, being Jont (known as TrueOfficialMe on Reddit) of the Progressives, and BTernaryTau of the Better Future Party. Anyone who has been on the Discord server in recent days will know that the latter candidate, Tau, ended up winning and being inaugurated as the first Prime Minister. If you are new, American, or know very little about the Parliamentary system we have, you may be wondering how this happened. Allow me to explain. There were 11 seats in the first Parliament. Of those seats, four were occupied by Progressives, three by the Better Future Party (BFP), three by the Communist Party of Collectivists (CPC), and one by an independent. Since no party held a majority of seats, negotiations had to be made between the various MPs to agree on a certain Prime Minister. In this case, the CPC and BFP were able to agree on a Prime Minister, being Tau, in exchange for certain policies and a favorable Cabinet for the party not holding the office of Prime Minister. The CPC also got the office of Deputy Prime Minister, although the existence of that office is frankly up for debate as it doesn't have a role on the Discord server. Either way, the coalition was formed and the BFP-CPC agreement became the Government. There were six MPs in the coalition, enough to confirm Tau as Prime Minister. So yeah, Tau was confirmed as Prime Minister, with a vote of 6-5-0. There were no absent MPs. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j2nlcw/1st_prime_minister_elections/ - Appointment of Aceh (known as ThatOneNarcissist on Reddit) as Speaker. The constitutionality of this appointment was...unknown. But since the law mandating it hasn't yet been struck down, the appointment went ahead. For the record, the Speaker of the Parliament has basically the same function as the Speaker of the Senate. Aceh was confirmed as Speaker, with a vote of 9-0-2. There were no absent MPs. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j2zel5/i_hereby_appoint_aceh_as_speake October 1, 2020 - Appointment of Imade as Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary is like a Parliament supervisor, performing oversight tasks, like conducting investigations and proposing impeachments. When there is no Prime Minister (and by extension no Cabinet), the Cabinet Secretary keeps things going at the bare minimum. Also, the Cabinet Secretary, together with the President, can call a snap election if everyone in Parliament just hates each other and can't agree on anything. Imade was confirmed as Cabinet Secretary*,* with a vote of 9-0-0. There were two absent MPs. Imade was also confirmed in referendum, with a roughly 83% majority. Only a simple majority in referendum is needed to confirm a Cabinet Secretary. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j3mo51/parliament_vote_1_appointment/ October 2, 2020 - One bill, one constitutional amendment. The first is the Small Fixes Amendment, which, as the name implied, aimed to fix some small things with the Parliamendment. This included a resolution that was passed in the last Senate but was subsequently stamped out upon the enactment of the Parliamendment. Kinda funny. This bill passed, with a vote of 10-0-0. The second is the Supreme Court Independence, Power, and Predominance Amendment. This one quite obviously would give more power to the Supreme Court, including the power to hear reference cases. Reference cases are like judicial reviews, but before the action in question were to happen, instead of afterwards. The amendment also laid out some guidelines for Supreme Court procedure. This amendment also passed, and also with a vote of 10-0-0. The amendment was confirmed in referendum as well, with a roughly 91% majority. There was one absent MP. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j48muw/parliament_vote_2_bills/ October 4, 2020 - One Bill. Notice the capital B in "Bill"? Yeah, apparently somebody thought it would be a funny idea to sponsor a literal picture. Of a guy named Bill. Named Bill Burr, to be exact. We also spent a ridiculous amount of time on this. First it was sponsored, then people made amendments, then we had to vote on the amendments, and then we finally voted on the picture itself. With one amendment applied, from the Prime Minister herself, transposing the image (i.e. literally just flipping the image around). I don't get it. And then the darn thing passed, with a vote of 5-4-1. I don't understand. There was one absent MP. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j5coss/parliament_vote_1_bill_bur October 6, 2020 - One bill. The Courtroom Procedures Act (which I'll be calling the CPA) is a replacement to the Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act of 2020 (known as TAPTA to most or TAPPA if you're one specific Supreme Court Justice). The most notable aspect of the CPA is that it allows for Google Doc trials. Previously, Google Docs were only used in the Supreme Court, but the CPA brings the fun (and the extra convenience, I reckon) to lower courts as well. Instead of a case being argued out at a scheduled time in a courtroom on the Discord server, it could instead be argued out within everyone's favorite word processor. Fun! This bill passed, with a vote of 8-0-0. There were three absent MPs. And one of them was me. Yeah, not afraid to put it out there. I missed this one. I have no idea how. But I missed it. Bit of an "oops" on my part. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j5z6jg/parliament_vote_courtroom_procedures_act/ - One resolution. This resolution would repeal the Supreme Court Procedures Act (SCPA). Now you might be wondering, "What are you idiots doing repealing such an important act?" Well, within the Supreme Court Independence, Power, and Predominance Amendment that we had passed a few days earlier, there were some guidelines in there laying out Supreme Court procedure. As in, literally what the SCPA does but now non-binding to give the Supreme Court flexibility. And we all forgot to repeal the SCPA to make room for this. Oops! Anyway, this resolution passed, with a vote of 7-0-0. There were four absent MPs. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j6dxhs/parliament_vote_1_resolution/ October 7, 2020 - One bill. The Finance Regulation Act is a replacement for two other economic acts: the 1st Fiscal Interests and Regulations Act (FIRA) and the Economic Accounts Act. The first of these acts defined corporations and how they work, and the second, as the name would imply, defined how economic accounts would work with Tau Bot (that's our economy bot here). This act merges the two and provides some better legislation on non-profits. This bill passed, with a vote of 8-2-0. There was one absent MP. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j71k7q/parliament_vote_finance_regulation_act/ October 10, 2020 - Two resolutions, one bill. The first resolution is...well, it's something. The Prime Minister sponsored a resolution to condemn the Speaker, who she appointed, for complaining about MPs not sponsoring enough stuff. Don't ask me why, but it happened. And, because of course it did, this resolution passed, with a vote of 6-3-0. The second resolution repealed a section of the Criminal Code:
§3. Misuse of permissions may not occur if an act has been committed without any social harm or consequences.
This was done under the belief that it was redundant as it was covered in a more general case in the Courtroom Procedures Act. During the voting process, we were all told by a Supreme Court Justice that "hey guys wait don't do this", because turns out it wasn't a redundancy and the section really acted as a sort of statutory defense. Uh oh! Unfortunately, most of us didn't get the memo, and this resolution also passed, with a vote of 4-3-1. The bill was expected to be the first proper party-line bill aside from the Prime Minister election. It would create a Ministry of Research meant to, well, research proper policy for use in /SimDemocracy. An amendment to this bill was proposed that shortened the bill down a lot, was subject to much debate, and ultimately failed. The bill itself, however, passed, with a vote of 6-3-0. It wasn't really on party lines because two opposition members ayed it. There was one absent MP. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j8umzj/parliament_vote_2_resolutions/ October 11, 2020 - Two (actually one) constitutional amendment(s), and one resolution. The first amendment was the Anonymised Data Amendment, which I won't talk about right now, as the Speaker forgot that somebody had proposed an amendment to it. Oops! The second amendment was the Amendment Ease and People's Power Restoration Amendment, which, despite the terribly long name, would make a very simple change. For constitutional amendments, instead of requiring a 2/3 majority in the legislature before going to referendum, only a simple majority is required. The 2/3 majority requirement in referendums would not change. This amendment passed, with a vote of 9-0-0. The amendment passed in referendum as well, with a roughly 71% majority. The resolution was to add Carl-bot#1536 to the Discord server. This came out of a need for a better bot for recording deleted/edited messages. However, we also found out we'd get our starboard back. This amendment also passed, with a vote of 9-0-0. There was one absent MP. Also, one of the MPs only provided reasoning and didn't actually say "aye" or "nay", so I'm counting their votes as absent as well. That makes, technically, two absent MPs. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/j9g69n/parliament_vote_2_constitutional_amendments_1_bot/ October 12, 2020 - One resolution. Fun fact: on this particular day, while there was only one piece of proper legislation that needed to be voted on, there were many amendments to be voted on as part of the amendment stages for other pieces of legislation. Anyway, the resolution renamed the self-explanatory crime of Unlawful Detainment to the less self-explanatory "Police Brutality". That's it. This resolution passed, with a vote of 5-0-0. Yeah, not even half of the MPs actually showed up for this, including the Speaker, who put the vote up in the first place. Clearly they didn't have the same views on the matter as one MP who did vote on it. He is quoted as saying that "[he does] not want to be the guy who nayed a bill against police brutality". There were six absent MPs. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/ja2psw/parliament_vote_1_resolution/ October 13, 2020 - Oh boy. There's...a lot to go through here. Let's look at everything one-by-one. First up, the Circlejerk and Tonsil Smogging Amendment. Another long, weird name for an amendment, which happened to be written by the same guy who wrote that other amendment with a really long name earlier. Maybe this is a general trend of theirs. Anyway, what this amendment actually changes is, once again, very little. It's primarily a general reformatting and updating of the Commendations Act. However, it also would get rid of thewaiting time in between handing out National Commendations. Previously, National Commendations could only be handed out once a month (or once every three months for National Commendations with Distinction). With this amendment, that wait time no longer exists. Someone could get an NCwD on any given day, and another person could get an NCwD the next. It doesn't matter, as long as the President and Parliament approve (for the latter, with a simple majority without distinction, but a 2/3 majority with it). Anyway, this amendment passed, with a vote of 10-0-0. Next is a resolution to remove MEE6#4876 from the Discord server. I'm actually not sure why this was proposed or sponsored. In fact, the MP that sponsored it ended up abstaining from the vote anyway, so that's helpful. This resolution failed, with a vote of 1-6-3. Third in the list is a resolution to amend a section of the Actually Good Restraining Order Act (AGOA). It would amend Article 4 §1 of the Act to the following:
§1. A restraining order can only be re-filed under new evidence of harassment.
This resolution cut out the first two sentences of the original section, which set minimum and maximum lengths on restraining orders. If I remember correctly, this resolution was proposed in order to deal with a contradiction between this section and the Civil Code. One of the remedies for Civil Harassment is a restraining order with a maximum length of three years. In the AGOA, the maximum length of a restraining order was set to be one month. Anyway, this resolution passed, with a vote of 10-0-0. Although, people ayed it for different reasons. While a few MPs knew about the inconsistency with the Civil Code, several MPs incorrectly thought that the new evidence requirement for the re-filing of restraining orders wasn't previously there. It was, actually, as the original section said the following:
§1. A restraining order must last at least a day, and can last no longer than a month. A restraining order can only be re-filed under new evidence of harassment.
So yeah. Make of that what you will. Fourth in the list is the Labor Rights Expansion Amendment, which was another policy agreed upon by the governing coalition. There's a lot to go through, but in a nutshell, it, well, would expand labor rights. This amendment also was amended during the amendment stages (hah) based off of some suggestions given to the original author by a then-Supreme Court Justice. This amendment passed, with a vote of 6-4-0. It was mostly along party lines, but one opposition member ayed it. Number five is the Anonymised Data Amendment. This was the amendment that was supposed to be voted on two days prior but wasn't due to a mistake on the Speaker's behalf. It would modify the Constitutional right to data protection by rescinding that right for data that is not identifiable to any particular person, i.e. anonymised. For example, someone posts, say, a picture of someone else's driver's license in the general chat, with the consent of that "someone else", of course. If the person depicted on the driver's license withdraws consent to the posting of said driver's license, and the person who posted it in the first place refuses to take it down, that would be a violation of the right to data protection for the person who possesses that driver's license. If, however, all personally-identifiable information, like the name, address, and picture of the person who possesses that driver's license were to be heavily blurred, crossed out, covered, or otherwise censored, then the owner of the driver's license cannot withdraw consent. They cannot force the person who posted the picture to take it down if all personal data is censored. At least, this is how I understand it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, this amendment passed, with a vote of 10-0-0. It passed in referendum as well, with an 88% majority. Finally, the sixth(!) and last piece of legislation in the list: the Anti-Slur Amendment. This amendment attempts to create a concrete definition for at least one act that could be considered hate speech, being the use of slurs. It would criminalize the use of "derogatory or insulting terms applied to a group of people classed by a protected characteristic". It's a simple premise, although there was some debate over the questions of "which words would be banned" and "how does this affect free speech". This amendment passed, with a vote of 5-2-3. There was one absent MP. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/japeqe/parliament_vote_a_lot/ Wow, that was a lot to go through. On to the next vote! October 14, 2020 - Two resolutions, three appointments. This was another day with many amendments to vote on. That will be covered later. The first resolution attempts to redefine NSFW content to be "content that is sexually arousing, or that is excessively violent or grotesque". Not only is "sexually arousing" a somewhat awkward phrase to use in legislation (at least, in my opinion), it's also possible that, um, how should I put this...well, that there could be a lot of content deemed "sexually arousing" depending on the person you ask. Yeah, I told you it was awkward. This resolution failed, with a vote of 3-3-3. Wow. (Under the old system, ties in Senate votes were broken by the Vice President. However, this is a Parliament, not a Senate, and the Vice President no longer exists. And since the Prime Minister, the Speaker, and their respective deputies all vote on legislation under normal conditions, no one can act as a tiebreaker unless we drag the mostly-ceremonial President further into politics. And we don't want to do that. Thus, tied votes must fail.) The second resolution would add requirements for the filing of civil lawsuits. This is presumably to clear up any confusion that may be caused by the lack of certain information in civil lawsuit announcement posts, as well as to aid the courts in figuring out whether the suit is worth hearing. Previously, in such posts, only the Defendant and the things they were being accused of (the tort(s)) were to be named. With this resolution, other information would need to be added, like the reasoning for the suit, and the sorts of remedies sought by the Plaintiff (what the Plaintiff wants for their troubles). This resolution passed, with a vote of 9-0-0. Although one MP seemed to have thought this section was already in there, and nayed initially. As the final tally reflects, they have since changed their vote. The first appointment was for TheMainCharacter_ to the position of Supreme Court Justice. Two SCJs resigned on the same day, leaving the sole remaining Justice to promptly declare themselves Chief Justice, as well as "the entire supreme court". There's nothing fishy going on here, I promise. Anyway, there were vacancies to fill, and fill them we did. TheMainCharacter_ was confirmed as Supreme Court Justice, with a vote of 9-0-0. The second appointment was for LordDeadlyOwl, otherwise known as Owl, also to the position of Supreme Court Justice. You know the story, I'm not going to repeat it. Owl was also confirmed as Supreme Court Justice, also with a vote of 9-0-0. The third appointment was for Kangawolf (known as jonathan_still_is on Reddit) to the position of Judge. Yes, this is that Wolf. As in, Wolfgate Wolf. I'm not going to explain what Wolfgate is here, because (1) I don't feel like it, and (2) anyone could just join the Discord and ask someone. That's right, those of you reading this that aren't on the Discord server are going to have to join in order to learn what's going on. You can't escape it now. Anyway, this vote was obviously the most contentious as a result. Wolf was confirmed as a Judge, with a vote of 4-1-4. Several MPs, including myself, didn't really want to go either way on this one. Which is fair, I believe, given the circumstances. But since only one MP actually nayed this appointment, Wolf was confirmed. There were two absent MPs. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/jbdmgo/parliament_vote/ October 15, 2020 - One bill, and the budget. The bill was the Wealth Redistribution Initiative Act. I wrote this bill, and this was perhaps the most controversial of the bills passed by the governing coalition, but I will try to just explain what the bill does. The bill's functions can best be divided into three main areas: UBI (called WRI here to sound "unique"), tax cycle extension, and tax raises. The bill aimed to introduce a version of UBI to /SimDemocracy to achieve, well, the title: wealth redistribution. It's pretty much by appointment only, as in you have to apply for it, because to me it seemed like the easiest way to deal with the issue of inactive accounts. The bill also extended the tax cycle from two weeks to three weeks, coinciding with Parliamentary terms, because I felt that having the tax cycle be two weeks long while both Presidential terms and Parliamentary terms are three weeks long was too complicated. This leads directly into the third function of the bill, which is raising taxes in order to compensate for UBI and the extended tax cycle. As I said before, this bill was controversial. One need only look at the number of amendments proposed. One halved the amount of UBI (or WRI) money received. Another lowered it to zero. Yet another (by the same person) brought back the old tax rates. The last just changed the entire bill to "E". All of these amendments were struck down. This bill passed with a vote of 6-5-0, and for the first time, we have a proper party-line vote. Good job, everyone! Also, did I say this bill was controversial? One need only look at the number of vomiting emojis received on the message on the Discord server announcing the bill's passing. Granted, that could also be credited to the other thing that was voted on, the budget. The budget was also the subject of much debate. In particular, the debate was over the subjects of ministry and minister pay. Notably, minister pay got slashed a lot, and as a result a few ministers went on strike (or in the case of the Ministry of Expansion, tried to go on strike). Not going to go much further into it than that, because (1) I don't want to have to explain all of the changes, and (2) because it's getting late for me. If you want to see the budget (or any other piece of legislation) for yourself, go check the links I provided. Anyway, the budget passed, with a vote of 6-4-1. There were no absent MPs. This was only the second vote in the entire term to have every MP show up. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/jc0njc/parliament_vote_bill_and_a_budget/ October 16, 2020 - One resolution, one constitutional amendment. The resolution would amend Article 9 §2 of the Ministries of State Act to be in line with the Wealth Redistribution Initiative Act which extended the tax cycle to three weeks. Previously, the section stipulated that a tax cycle was two weeks long. This was no longer true, and so the section needed to be updated. This resolution passed, with a vote of 8-0-0. One MP had noted in their vote that the resolution "[removed] a timeframe for getting a budget out". This didn't actually happen. There was no timeframe to remove to begin with. All the resolution did was change "14", meaning 14 days, in the original section to 21 days in the replacement. The constitutional amendment is the STAR Tiebreaking and Quorum Constitutional Amendment, something which was passed a month ago but somehow got removed from the Constitution upon the passing of the Parliamendment. Once again, clearing up old business. This amendment would define tiebreaking procedure for Presidential elections, which use the STAR voting method. It also would move the section defining voting in Presidential elections from the appendix to the actual part of the Constitution where the President is discussed. This amendment passed, with a vote of 8-0-0. The referendum for this amendment is currently ongoing. There were three absent MPs. https://www.reddit.com/SimDemocracy/comments/jcmn0j/parliament_vote_2_things/ There we go, that's everything. Notice that as the weeks went on, and as the Speaker complained, the more stuff got sponsored. Most of everything voted on seemed to have been sponsored in the final week. Kind of interesting. As usual, I hope this post helps give a greater insight on what's going on in the legislative (and technically executive too but mostly legislative) branch of our government. Hopefully this helps not only new people, but also people who don't want to spend time scrolling through the #parliament-floor channel on the Discord server. And of course, if you aren't on the Discord server, you 100% should join. It's like a good 95% of the experience here. - Syndicality P.S. I really hope this comes out formatted correctly.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM AUGUST 11, 2020 PA MMJ ADVISORY BOARD MEETING (from PA MMJ Advisory Board member Luke Shultz)
The following are highlights from today’s Medical Marijuana (MMJ) Advisory Board meeting. They are based on notes taken by my wife and from what I remember about the discussions. It is far from a complete transcript or account of the meeting. Due to the pandemic, the meeting was held remotely for the first time via Zoom. The May 12, 2020 meeting was canceled. Secretary of Health Dr. Rachael Levine was unavailable so the meeting was run by Physician General Designee & Executive Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health (DoH) Sarah Boateng. The meeting was called to order shortly after 10am with enough members in attendance to constitute a quorum. Also in attendance were Office of MMJ Director John Collins and several staff members. The meeting minutes from the February 13, 2020 meeting were approved. Berks County District Attorney John Adams is back on the Board representing the Pa District Attorneys Association. Per the Pa MMJ law (Act 16), the DoH is required to issue a written report every two years, beginning May 17, 2018, to the Governor, the Pa Attorney General and several leaders of the General Assembly. In accordance with Act 16, this report includes: (1) An assessment of the use of medical marijuana as a result of the enactment of Act 16; (2) An assessment of the benefits and risks to patients using medical marijuana under Act 16, including adverse events; and (3) Recommendations for amendments to Act 16 for reasons of patient safety or to aid the general welfare of the citizens of this Commonwealth. The recommendations included in the report were reviewed and discussed. But before I cover that I’d like to mention that the report (which can be found on the DoH website) noted that since the last report, the Department has received 26 reports of adverse events from medical marijuana products dispensed from permitted dispensaries. None of these adverse events resulted in a product recall, as all were related to patient-specific issues. Patients and caregivers should understand that if you have what you believe to be an “adverse event” from using a Pa dispensed mmj product, please, at the very least, report it to the medical professional at the dispensary where you purchased the product. They can help guide you with further action and, if necessary, report the event to the Office of MMJ. If there is truly a serious problem with a product, a product recall may need to be issued and you could be helping other patients avoid a similar experience. The first recommendation of the report had to do with the “Sunset Clause”. This is a clause in Act 16 that basically says that if the federal government takes cannabis out of Schedule 1 status, our Pa dispensaries cannot operate, and thus our program basically implodes. The recommendation is to remove this clause. There were some comments in support of this recommendation to remove that clause. To fully understand why this and other clauses and verbiage were included in the bill that ultimately became Act 16, you have to ask the authors of the bill – members of the Pa General Assembly in 2016. The second recommendation was to “Re-empower the Board with all duties initially provided to them in issuing the final report under 35 P.S. §§ 10231.1201(j) and 10231.1202, and permit the Board to issue annual reports in order to make changes such as adding or reducing the number of groweprocessor or dispensary permits.” Back-story: it’s the opinion of the DoH that after the Advisory Board submitted the “final report” in May, 2018 (which recommended adding flower, add four additional serious medical conditions and other changes to the program), that they, the Board, no longer possessed the power to officially make recommendations to the Secretary of Health for changes to the mmj program, except that recommendations to change, reduce, or add serious medical conditions could still be made. Loss of this power has greatly restricted the Board’s ability to make changes and improvements to the program. The recommendation is to restore this power to the Board so it can respond to the needs of the patients, caregivers, industry and other stakeholders as the program matures. In my opinion this is the most important recommendation in the report in that without this change, the Board cannot nearly live up to what I believe is the original intent of why the Board was created. The next recommendation was to change the definition of caregiver to include an entity by changing “individual” to “person,” which will allow long term care facilities, nursing homes, etc. to be approved as caregivers. This change could be critical to allowing for mmj therapy to be effectively utilized in institutional settings. Currently, institutions could allow for individual staff members to be certified caregivers, but it gets challenging to have proper scheduling and coverage of those caregiver for their patients at all times, or when those staff members leave the employment of that institution, etc. This change in definition could allow for the institution itself to hold the caregiver certification. The next recommendation reads: “Revise the first sentence of 35 P.S. § 10231.502(b) to read “A caregiver not previously approved as a caregiver under this section shall submit fingerprints for the purpose of obtaining criminal history record checks, and the Pennsylvania State Police or its authorized agent shall submit the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of verifying the identity of the applicant and obtaining a current record of any criminal arrests and convictions.” This would modify the background check requirement for the caregiver renewal process, allowing for expedited access for those caregivers previously approved within the Program. The Department will require state background checks under 35 P.S. § 10231.502(a)(3) for caregiver renewals.” This recommendation would change the process so that a caregiver would only have to be fingerprinted when initially applying for their caregiver certification (or if they were otherwise fingerprinted for the program) – not for every subsequent renewal. The next two recommendations would: 1) allow the Department to receive background checks in electronic form, expediting the caregiver approval process to allow for faster patient access for those requiring the assistance of a caregiver and 2) allow the Department to receive background checks in electronic form, expediting the affiliation process for medical marijuana organization principals, financial backers, operators, and employees. There was discussion by Board members on the caregiver related recommendations and how it would be administered and impact the program, etc, with overall support for the improvements. Finally, four of the statutory provisions that were temporarily suspended by Governor Wolf with the Proclamation of Disaster Emergency of March 6, 2020 (due to the COVID-19 emergency) were recommended by the DoH to be made permanent. They are (in layman’s verbiage): 1) Allowing for out-of-the-building (“curbside”) transactions at dispensaries 2) Removal of the five patient limit per caregiver 3) Allow for remote (“telehealth”) patient certifications 4) Allow for the patient’s certification authorization to dispense a 90-day supply These four changes to the program, which have worked well, will go away when the Proclamation of Disaster Emergency ends. But they don’t have to. All of these recommendations – the four temporary emergency changes, as well as the others above can all be included as a permanent part of the program if the Pa Legislature deems it so. The Dept of Health, in this Official Report, has made it clear that they wish to see these changes. Unfortunately, that will probably not be enough to get the Legislature to write and introduce an amendment to Act 16 to make it so. Your Pa Senator and Representative need to hear from you about these recommendations and how you feel about them. This cannot be overstated: call, write and or meet with your representatives and make sure they know about the recommendations included in the Dept of Health’s Official Report, dated May 15, 2020 and that they need to introduce or support legislation to amend Act 16 to add them to the law. Next up Office of MMJ Director John Collins gave an update on the mmj program. He presented a lot of information but I believe I got it all (or most of it). The program continues to grow at a robust rate. The overall mmj market doubled since his last report to the Board on February 13th to $1.3B. Sales by groweprocessors to dispensaries was $528M. Sales from dispensaries to patients was $800M. This is from the start of the program. Currently, it works out to weekly dispensary sales of $19.4M and $1B annually. From the Official Report of May 15: there have been 12,606,458 products sold during 4,432,579 dispensing events since the start of the program. Currently per week: 70-73K patients making 120K visits to dispensaries with 370K products being sold at 89 dispensaries. 400K I.D. cards were issued since the start of the program (keep in mind some have not been renewed). 390 patients and caregivers have registered, with 230K active patient certifications currently. Just under 2K physicians have registered to be certifying practitioners. Of those, around 1,400 have taken the training and been approved to certify patients. Also of those, only 18 practitioners specializing in pediatrics have been approved to certify patients. 22 groweprocessors are considered “operational”, meaning they are approved to grow plants and process mmj products. Of those, 19 have shipped products with 2 more to soon start shipping. Most of the phase one growers (there were 12 permits issued) have completed expansion or are in the process of expanding their operations. There are no limits placed on them by the DoH concerning how large their operations can be. The top three serious medical conditions for which patients are certified continue to be, in order, pain, anxiety and PTSD. “Chapter 20” research component of Act 16: all permits have been issued for the 8 Academic Clinical Research Centers and their associated 8 Clinical Registrants. 3 are operational and approved to start doing research. Penn State Hershey has already published a study under this program (WE ARE). They developed a cannabinoid-pharmaceutical drug interaction tool which is now in use and can be accessed by medical professionals to evaluate possible complications for patients utilizing, or considering, cannabis therapy. This tool will be updated as more info becomes available. Director Collins reminded patients & caregivers that to minimize law enforcement interactions or problems when transporting mmj to carry your products in their original containers, have your I.D. card with you and have your cash receipt for those products. He also said that if you have a favorite strain or product or can no longer locate a certain product, contact the groweprocessor to let them know what you’re looking for or to make other suggestions on their products. This comment was precipitated by a discussion on “trial sizes” of products (samples are not permitted, but growers can offer small sized or trial-sized product offerings). Finally, he also mentioned the value of using third party services, like “Pa Strain Finder” to locate products in our program. Board member Molly Robertson brought up the issue of a patient who received the products they ordered but contained another patients name on it. That issue, and others like it, is not acceptable and should be reported to the dispensary and the Office of MMJ. There were no applications to change, reduce or add serious medical conditions. Reminder that applications need to be submitted 15 days prior to the next scheduled Advisory Board meeting. The next Board meeting is scheduled for November 10th from 10am to 12pm. It was originally scheduled to be held in the Keystone Building Meeting Center, Forest Room, Suite 114 East, 400 North St., Harrisburg, PA, but I’m thinking it will probably end up being another Zoom meeting. Feel free to share this post. Luke Shultz Patient Advocate Pa MMJ Advisory Board
Scientific Study: Feminsm Makes You More Man Hating. STUDY: Self-identified feminists are much more likely than other women to "sacrifice" men in a hypothetical "Moral Choice Dilemma Task" over women. Plus other studies proving gynocentrism is real and misandry among feminists is real
Science is in from the ministry of the bleeding obvious. Feminism makes you a misandrist. See below: https://twitter.com/manumiss1on/status/1004331266794237952 (has the study and diagrams of the studies e.g. more likely to kill, more likely to electrocute etc.) That aside, We all know that female teachers heavily favour girls in marking and discipline, while male teachers mark girls exactly the same as external examiners. https://www.reddit.com/UnpopularFacts/comments/ght5dj/teachers_mark_girls_higher_for_identical_work_to/ Watch a real life example of Candace Owens talking to a feminist. The feminist initialy claims she doesnt hate men, within 2 minutes of cross examination that is revealed false lol https://youtu.be/AsJPKLfMrI0 Scientific evidence on Gamma Bias (we are seeing tonnes of it currently in COVID coverage, women are wonderful etc. man bad) https://malepsychology.org.uk/2018/12/04/why-are-there-so-many-disagreements-about-gender-issues-its-usually-down-to-gamma-bias/ The scientific evidence for #gynocentrism is overwhelming. "When faced with either pushing a male or female bystander [to save 5 others], participants overwhelmingly choose to sacrifice a male bystander." The participant’s gender has no significant effect. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117 If offered money to electrocute an innocent subject, both sexes electrocuted male subjects much more than female. Here is a write up of the research: "We’re more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests" "Society perceives harming women as more morally unacceptable” https://web.archive.org/web/2016120417 https://www.reddit.com/MRRef/comments/e2tjgj/study_both_men_and_women_especially_are_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x https://www.reddit.com/MRRef/comments/e2tda3/study_men_are_more_generous_to_women_in_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x https://www.reddit.com/MRRef/comments/e2tf8b/study_men_receive_less_costly_altruism_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x General femnists hostility towards mens issues/ feminist misandry: There was a proposal at Simon Fraser University (near Vancouver) to open up a men's centre on campus to address issues like suicide, drug/alcohol addiction, and negative stereotypes. The women's centre, which already existed, opposed this. They argued that a men's centre is not needed because the men's centre is already "everywhere else" (even though those issues aren't being addressed "everywhere else"). The alternative they proposed was a "male allies project" to "bring self-identified men together to talk about masculinity and its harmful effects" [1]. A student at Durham University in England, affected by the suicide of a close male friend, tried to open up the Durham University Male Human Rights Society: "[i]t’s incredible how much stigma there is against male weakness. Men’s issues are deemed unimportant, so I decided to start a society". The idea was rejected by the Societies Committee as it was deemed "controversial". He was told he could only have a men's group as a branch of the Feminist Society group on campus. This was ironic since he point them to the feminist societies own literature which states it would be extremely unreasonable for them to discuss issues about men[9]. Author Warren Farrell went to give a talk on the boys' crisis (boys dropping out of school and committing suicide at higher rates) at the University of Toronto, but he was opposed by protesters who "barricaded the doors, harassed attendees, pulled fire alarms, chanted curses at speakers and more". Opposition included leaders in the student union [2] [3]. Three students (one man and two women) at Ryerson University (also in Toronto) decided to start a club dedicated to men's issues. They were blocked by the Ryerson Students' Union, which associated the men's issues club with supposed "anti-women's rights groups" and called the idea that it's even possible to be sexist against men an "oppressive concept" [4]. The student union also passed a motion saying that it rejects "Groups, meetings events or initiatives [that] negate the need to centre women’s voices in the struggle for gender equity" (while ironically saying that women's issues "have historically and continue to today to be silenced") [5]. Janice Fiamengo, a professor at the University of Ottawa, was giving a public lecture on men's issues. She was interrupted by a group of students shouting, blasting horns, and pulling the fire alarm [6]. At Oberlin College in Ohio, various students had invited equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers (known for her individualist/libertarian perspective on gender) to give a talk on men's issues. Activists hung up posters identifying those who invited her (by their full names) as "supporters of rape culture" [7] [8]. At Saint Paul University (part of the University of Ottawa) on September 24th, 2015, journalist Cathy Young gave a talk on gender politics on university campuses, GamerGate, the tendency to neglect men's issues in society, and the focus on the victimization of women (in the areas of sexual violence and cyberbullying). She was met by masked protesters who called her "rape apologist scum" and interrupted the event by pulling the fire alarm [10]. In 2015, the University of York in the U.K. announced its intention to observe International Men's Day, noting that they are "also aware of some of the specific issues faced by men", including under-representation of (and bias against) men in various areas of the university (such as academic staff appointments, professional support services, and support staff in academic departments) [11]. This inspired a torrent of criticism, including an open letter to the university claiming that a day to celebrate men's issues "does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities". The university responded by going back on its plans to observe International Men's Day and affirming that "the main focus of gender equality work should continue to be on the inequalities faced by women". In contrast, the University of York's observation of International Women's Day a few months earlier was a week long affair with more than 100 events [12]. Source: From the excellent Mens rights guide: https://www.reddit.com/rbomi/wiki/main#wiki_2._hostility_to_acknowledging.2Faddressing_men.27s_issues Some of these femintis in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha2E5aQ7yb8 A long list of feminists blocking mens rights: http://archive.is/AWSEN Dont foget Karens Straughans excellent post in reposnse to a feminists saying these are not true feminists: Karen Straughan:
So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists". You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls." You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist. You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape. You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male. You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate. You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there. You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender. You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands. You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history." You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them. And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
No...You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
Mormons and Voluntary Organization: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
By my estimate, throughout my life before leaving Mormonism, I spent somewhere around 15,000 hours on activities directly related to the religion. That translates to something around two hours of time daily on religious activity. Granted, this includes a two-year mission, but the estimate still only includes the time directly spent working during that time, not eating or sleeping. Take that out of the equation, and you're still left with around an hour a day through the rest of my life. For something around 3% of that time, 500 hours of religious courses I got the dubious honor of attending in lieu of a regular elective high school course, I was around someone who was being paid for their work. Every other moment, it was volunteers all the way down. That's my normal, the water I swam in. It occurs to me, though, that the intricacies of Mormon organizational structure might not be quite so legible to people who didn't swim through them for their entire life. It's fascinating stuff, though, or at least it's been clattering around my mind enough that I need to inflict it on someone else. Either way, it's yours to enjoy now.
I.
Think of a famous Mormon. Yeah, Mitt Romney will do just fine. Well done if you picked out some random like Clayton Christensen or Stephen Covey instead, though. I'll get to them too as I roll through a list of Mormon leadership roles. No women, I'm afraid: Mormon women, as a song an army of six-year-olds sang to me once reminds us, are to care and nurture, not to preside1, except over women and children. Explaining their role will have to wait. 1 (This isn't the time and place for this discussion, but some Mormon children's songs are something else. Take this one. Instructed young, indeed. Brainwashed, my fellow exmos would grumble, not really inaccurately. Catchy tune, though.) The fascinating thing about being a visible, high-achieving, capable Mormon man is that you're really just playing Russian Roulette with your free time. No matter what you're doing or how busy you are, there's always a good chance that one day you'll pick up the phone and be saddled with an extra twenty to thirty hours of unpaid labor a week for half a decade or so. Going back to Romney, his experience is about typical for a successful Mormon businessman. Most notably, he spent five years as a bishop and another eight as a stake president. A bishop is something akin to a pastor: leader of a local church group (ward) of some 100-500 people. He doesn't preach directly much more than anyone else, but he organizes weekly church meetings, assigns local members to a dizzying array of positions and responsibilities, and regularly counsels members who are struggling or interviews the ones who are due for their intermittent checkups. Still paying your 10%? Still not smoking, drinking, or sexing? Still believe in all this? That sort of thing. Stake presidents are the middle managers of Mormonism, keeping tabs on a dozen or so wards, assigning new bishops and similar positions, making a bunch of sometimes-inspirational speeches, and handling problems that escalate beyond the level of bishops. Neither position requires advance training. Well, a correction: Almost no unpaid positions in Mormonism require or provide advance training. They're just loaded up onto busy professionals with full-time work and usually a squad of kids2, who can sink or swim at their leisure from there. In Romney's case, it meant managing Bain Capital during worktime and a bunch of Mormons during his personal time. And so, you know, he just shrugged and did it. Why not, right? 2 (Think you can get out of marrying by snagging a leadership position like in Catholicism? Not a chance. Pretty much every position at the level of bishop or above is only open to married men.) Clayton Christensen, while teaching at Harvard and presenting his case for disruptive innovation, got thrown into more-or-less the next level of Mormon leadership as an 'Area Seventy', in charge of administrative work and preaching over a large region, like Asia or Utah. In his case, it was northeast North America. He also spent a few years as a bishop, of course. That's still a bit less demanding than one of Stephen Covey's roles, though. Before sliding into the public eye as a self-help writer, he was assigned as a mission president. In other words, he was asked to move to Ireland to spend three years babysitting some 150 young missionaries, inspiring, instructing, directing them around, and generally keeping the whole project from falling apart. I'm not sure the standard at the time he went, but at least recently, mission presidents do get a four-day seminar before being sent out to keep things running. Finally, we get to global leadership, the general authorities of the church, and the first full-time, compensated positions. With a few exceptions, these have historically been too wrapped up in their Mormon-specific roles to be particularly visible to the world at large. You've got the seventies, who do the same thing as the area seventies discussed above but on a global scale. There are currently around 105 of them, as you'd expect from the name. At the very top, you've got the quorum of the twelve apostles, a group comprised of fifteen men if you include the first presidency and the president (or prophet) of the church. Probably the most historically relevant apostle from a non-Mormon angle was Ezra Taft Benson, who served as Eisenhower's secretary of agriculture while leading the church. If you're looking for some light reading on obscure Mormon political drama (and who isn't!), I recommend this treatise describing the quiet wrestling match over the apostolic narrative throughout his tenure thanks to his increasingly extreme right-wing views and eagerness to use his platform to raise political topics in church meetings. He even almost made it onto a presidential ticket, first with Strom Thurmond and then with George Wallace, but the prophet at the time nixed it. Anyway, most of the seventies and all the apostles hold their positions full-time until the day they die, traveling around the world, holding mandatory biannual ten-hour meetings (General Conference) for all church members, speaking for God, and so forth. When one president dies, the longest-serving apostle takes his place. For their trouble, they get an annual stipend of around $120000 each and the reverent awe of Mormons everywhere. The great majority of the global leaders are men, with the exception of the Relief Society presidency (leaders of the women's organization) and the Primary presidency (in charge of kids 0-12). In 2013, a woman prayed in General Conference for the first time, so that's something. To summarize: The prophet and apostles appoint new apostles and seventies, the general seventies and apostles appoint area seventies and mission presidents, the area seventies appoint stake presidents, the stake presidents appoint bishops, and the bishops appoint every local member to all the roles needed to keep everything running. Nobody can volunteer for any position, and while technically they can say no if asked, it's considered bad form. Nobody gets paid except the mostly very old men who are in charge of the whole affair. Aside from restrictions like being a man and having a wife, there aren't many limits on who can be appointed to which position when. Often someone will spend a while as a bishop or something, then be placed into a quietly useful minor role somewhere in the ward. In practice, getting noticed tends to breed more getting noticed, and someone successful at one level will drift upwards for a while and then rotate through assorted high-level administrative roles.
II.
Most of all that is quite distant from your everyday member, of course. You see your bishop weekly, your stake president a couple times a year, and watch the general authorities on TV while forlornly playing bingo and trying not to fall asleep too obviously. What does life look like if you're not a member of Mormon royalty? Much the same, really. There's always stuff to do. You're assigned to a ward strictly geographically. No choice in the matter. You're with whoever you're around. Sometimes, the boundaries will be redrawn, and people you saw every week for years disappear from your life without ever physically moving. Growing up, I knew almost everyone in my ward, and almost nobody outside of it. During my time in the church, I spent time as a councillor in the various Mormon youth groups, a pianist and organist, (briefly) a teacher, an assistant clerk (in charge of the ever-thrilling task of keeping membership records up to date and processing some payments), and of course a full-time missionary. Missionairies do a little of almost everything in the church and have their own involved internal leadership structure, with more experienced missionairies getting put in as 'district leaders', 'zone leaders', and the universally adored Assistants to the President. Back in my day, church meetings were three hours long, which have since been shortened to two hours for active members and zero hours for me. The first hour or so involves a few group songs, a bunch of the youth passing sacrament (communion) around, and speeches (always 'talks' in Mormon parlance) prepared by whichever lay members were unlucky enough to get a call from the bishop that week, usually starting with the dictionary definition of whatever they were supposed to talk about and an anecdote about how they hardly had time to prepare after getting a call from the bishop that week. The second hour (and third, he mutters) sees everyone divide up into small groups and alternates between a lesson on whichever of the Old Testament, New Testament, Mormon Testament Book of Mormon, and modern scripture is being covered that year and sex-divided meetings where they talk about whatever. Oh, and it's the exact same format everywhere in the world, but sometimes meetings get out of sync by a week or so. It was always funny to go on vacation and sit there slowly realizing you'd studiously avoided hearing the same lesson a week before. Don't think Mormons get out of it with just the Sunday meetings, either. Teenage boys and girls meet in sex-segregated groups one evening a week for whatever activities or instruction their leadership has come up with. Sometimes you get lucky and go on cool campouts or run around in the woods throwing flour bombs at each other. Other times, you get what's basically a fourth hour of church. Every Monday night, meanwhile, families are expected to meet together and have a church-focused activity night. Again, hit or miss depending on how much initiative everyone's feeling. Daily family scripture study and prayer is standard, and feeling guilty because you can never quite get in the habit of individual scripture study or prayer is its accompanying long-time tradition. Nope, still not the end. I already mentioned religion classes for high school students. Utah students (that is, me) get them carved into their school days, and typically have a 'seminary building' just off school property so they can go study while maintaining official separation of church and state. Every other poor sap gets to wake up early every day to yawn through a bunch of church instruction before school. Thankfully, it's since been changed, but back in my day Mormons also had "home (or visiting, if you're a woman) teaching", where they were assigned a few local families to visit, chat with, and share a short spiritual message with. Much of the time, this just meant feeling guilty because you didn't actually get it done. Members are also in charge of building upkeep and cleaning on a rotating schedule. They get very, very good at setting up chairs and coming up with excuses to avoid Saturday morning church cleaning. Finally, on no set schedule beyond "as often as possible", they're encouraged to go to the temple to perform tasks like the much-malignedbaptism for the dead, or watching the same video again and again on behalf of those same dead people. ...It's complicated. There's more. There's always more. I didn't even cover things like helping out the missionaries, ward activities, or reaching out to your less-active brothers and sisters to bring them back into the fold. But that's the overview of what you can expect the structure of life for an average Mormon to look like. Everyone has an assignment (sorry, 'calling'), or is supposed to have one. Everyone has a bunch of extra-assignment tasks. There is always, always something more a good, obedient Mormon can do in the church.
III.
Right, so now I've dragged you through more detail on the bureaucracy of Mormonism than you were ever planning to know. Congratulations. But why am I bothering to lay it all out like this? What am I hoping to prove? Well, I'm not aiming specifically either to praise or condemn it in broad strokes. A lot of it is weird from an outside view, and a lot feels dated, to say the least. Plenty of important and true criticisms can be levied. What I'll say is that this was my childhood. It had a lot of good, a lot of bad, and a lot that was simply mundane. It felt perfectly normal at the time, for better or worse, and now that I'm out I'm mostly just fascinated that the whole thing exists and functions just about as well as any other organization. And I think other people should be, too. There are a few things to highlight here:
1. The active, training-oriented structure.
A great deal of time in Mormonism is spent listening to untrained and often unskilled volunteers deliver messages straight from a manual. That's the downside. The upside is that, even though there's only a limited formal training structure, members are constantly put in positions to practice and perhaps even improve at various group-focused skills. I miss opportunities to give speeches, honestly. It was a lot of fun to practice public speaking in a low-threat venue of a few hundred people. Everything, more or less, is like that. It all ends up building on itself one way or another. Kids get sent out on missions, maybe convert a few people, maybe stay converted themselves, and return with solid doctrinal understanding, leadership experience, and exposure to thousands of randoms to train their social skills and persuasion on. Leaders get a chance to demonstrate their efficacy and get siphoned wherever they're needed. At every level, Mormons have a startlingly extensive pool of reasonably experienced talent ready to handle whatever the religion needs.
2. The sheer absurdity of it all.
I'm not talking about the origin story or anything like that here. I'm talking about the extent to which people are willing to spend their spare time and energy on all this stuff. I met a professional athlete during my mission. Know what he was doing at church? Helping out with the youth program he'd been assigned to. Another time, my bishop was a construction worker. Since the whole thing exists as a parallel structure only loosely connected to the rest of life, you just get tossed in with a group of randoms and make do with whatever you have. Sometimes it works great, other times it feels like it's constantly being held together by shoestrings and if you blink the whole thing will fly apart, but everywhere you go, it all comes together into something functional.
3. Some uses and limitations.
One of the features of a structure like this is that, when something needs to get done in the community, disaster response or helping a member in rough times, you know exactly who can get things done, how to organize, where to find a bunch of sometimes-eager, sometimes-grudging voluntolds to take care of things. When you already have a group used to coming together all the time for any reason or no reason at all, things that actively require that sort of community become a lot smoother. The extensive repetition of the same messages and constant contact with the same people is the structure culture is built of. Everyone gets enmeshed in it, everyone finds a role and a responsibility, Of course, the church also has a tendency to be inward-focused, getting members to spend so much time working on church-related things that their time for outward-directed, non-church activities is sharply reduced. Not only that, by nature of its religious mission and origins, a lot of the activities tend to be a bit quixotic, where even as members feel or convince themselves of benefits and positive impacts, from a secular perspective they're mostly just spinning their wheels. Temple activities like baptism for the dead are an obvious example here. So much time and energy, spent on basically nothing from a secular standpoint. That it works is remarkable. That it even excels in some areas, more remarkable still. But I'm convinced it's far from optimal. There's so much more that could be done.
IV.
Can another organization emulate this sort of structure exactly? Should it? In particular, is it possible to encourage that sheer level of commitment without the infinite carrot and stick of commands from an omnipotent deity? Should that level of commitment be encouraged? I don't know that I can really answer yes to all, or any, of those questions. Stepping out of Mormonism into the rest of US culture, though, it feels like two different but quietly parallel worlds. I think people underestimate just how different things are for Mormons. It's night and day. And right now, while we avoid many of the problems that creep into the structure of Mormonism, my own feeling is that we develop an opposite and parallel set of problems: too little organization, too little structure, too few people willing to call for involved activities outside of settings where we're buying and selling our time. In a world full of Mormons, I'd say—hey, might be worth loosening up a little. In the world we have? There are worse things to notice than the Mormons. The structure of Mormonism isn't a panacea for the world's problems, but I'm convinced that there are lessons to draw from it nonetheless. Thanks for reading. Until next time.
Definition of 'quorum'. A quorum is the minimum number of people that a committee needs in order to carry out its business officially. When a meeting has a quorum, there are at least that number of people present.enough deputies to make a quorum. COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Definition of quorum. 1 : a select group. 2 : the number (such as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business. 3 : a Mormon body comprising those in the same grade of priesthood. According to Robert’s Rules, a quorum is the minimum number of voting members who must be present at a properly called meeting in order to conduct business in the name of the group. Switch to new thesaurus. Noun. 1. quorum - a gathering of the minimal number of members of an organization to conduct business. assemblage, gathering - a group of persons together in one place. organization, organisation - a group of people who work together. Definition of quorum noun in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more. A quorum is the minimum number of people who must be present to pass a law, make a judgment, or conduct business. Quorum requirements typically are found in a court, legislative assembly, or corporation (where those attending might be directors or stockholders). In some cases, the law requires more people than a simple majority to form a quorum. quorum meaning: 1. the smallest number of people needed to be present at a meeting before it can officially begin…. Learn more. quorum definition: 1. the smallest number of people needed to be present at a meeting before it can officially begin…. Learn more. quorum. [ ( kwawr-uhm) ] The minimum number of members of a committee or legislative body who must be present before business can officially or legally be conducted. In the United States Congress, for example, either house must have a majority (218 in the House of Representatives, 51 in the Senate) to have a quorum. This process will help you determine the by-law for quorum. For example, you may find that three people show up to any given meeting, even if you have an eight-person board. In this case, you may overrule your majority quorum in favor of a three-person quorum.
Quorum and Voting in IRB Meetings - Duration: ... Company Law: INTRODUCTION OR CONCEPT OF COMPANY LEGAL DEFINITION Part 1 in HINDI - Duration: 15:58. Eduattack Recommended for you. This quorum sensing lecture explains about what is quorum sensing of baceteria? and what is the importance of quorum sensing as a molecular cross talk betwee... In a binding way, members of a group pledge to contribute to action A if a total contribution level is reached (often a monetary threshold, or a quorum of N members making the same pledge). BLACKBALLING meaning - BLACKBALLING definition - BLACKBALLING explanation. SUBSCRIBE to our Google Earth flights channel - https: ... except to prove a quorum. Whilst in many such cases even a ... http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is QUORUM CALL? What does QUORUM CALL mean? QUORUM CALL meaning - QUORUM CALL definition - QUORUM CALL explanati... Hindi Telegu Urdu Tagalog French Spanish Arabic Kurdish Turkish America American Britain British Vocabulary SDictionary Meaning of the Words TOEFL IELTS Engl... Parliamentarian explains what a quorum is. Parliamentarian discusses the rules associated with a quorum. Short video revealing and explaining preparation of a bacteria culture, observation on the microscope over a long period of time, with creation of time lapse...
