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/)

Hi gang,
Yesterday I tried to find a reference for someone who was looking for it, but found instead an article that awoke some of the anger experienced when I discovered my beloved church has been lying all along. Although I tend to avoid Mormon literature for that very reason, this time I got captured by the sheer number of fallacies in it. This morning I decided to comment on the worst parts a little, in case someone finds it useful.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/01/i-have-a-question/what-counsel-has-been-given-on-that-claim-to-expose-the-church-and-its-teachings?lang=eng
Ensign - January, 1995 Section: "I Have a Question"

"Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to “expose” the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?"
Today, as in President Young’s day, General Authorities usually do not comment on negative information about the Church. Their responsibility is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their primary work is to “bear testimony of the restoration of the gospel and that Jesus is the Christ” (Church News, 18 Dec. 1983, p. 2). They know, as the Lord revealed to Isaiah, that “no weapon formed against thee shall prosper” (Isa. 54:17).

First, Mormon prophets don't "proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ", but a hodgepodge of dogmas collected from other, older religions and ideologies, mixed with some very weird notions from their own manufacture. The gospel of Jesus Christ is simple and clearly presented in the New Testament. What Mormon leaders proclaim is not what Jesus taught. Second, Mormon prophets don't go out to the world to "proclaim" anything. They literally preach to the choir: their own followers. Other than indoctrination, what purpose does it serve to repeat the same "testimony" to those who already believe?

Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve likened the Church to a great organized caravan following an appointed course. “What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? … The caravan moves on” (Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 85).

Here we have a great example of Mormon apologists conveniently choosing what to show and what to hide. The complete quote is: "What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/11/the-caravan-moves-on?lang=eng)
On one hand, in perfect Mormon fashion, the author of the article deliberately hides the inconvenient part of the original quote. This is the standard Mormon modus operandi: the church has been doing it from its very inception by its very founder, Smith. And on the other hand the author of the original quote, an "apostle" whose words are to be taken as what god himself wants to tell us, says those who fall by the way don't matter to the church.
This quote has always shocked me. The church presents itself as the only vehicle through which each one of us, cherished children of a god who knows us and cares about us individually, can return to his loving presence. Well, the truth tends to comes out through the cracks, doesn't it? Thanks to McConckie we now know none of us matter. The only thing that matters to the church is itself. Its members are meaningless to it.

The restored gospel centers on teachings that save, strengthen, uplift, inspire, and bind individuals and families.

Now that we know McConckie's complete quote, we see that the author of the article is not being honest. By hiding the part where McConkie declares that the individual doesn't matter to the institution, the author now feels confident to say the opposite. Again, this is the standard Mormon approach. They replace the inconvenient parts by replacing them with ellipsis (there are multiple examples in their on scriptures, speeches, books, and articles) and launch themselves to declare exactly the opposite of what they hid.

The Church discourages teachings contrary to such goals. Because of their great concern for the membership, Church leaders have given guidance concerning anti-LDS material and have cautioned against those things designed to destroy belief and cause pain and suffering.

"Because of their great concern for the membership..." The lying continues. We know the well-being of the member is not important to the church. We just read an "apostle of god" say it. Based on vast empirical observation, however, we know there is one aspect in which the church is very interested in its membership. The real reason the Mormon church continues to feign care for the member is because a believing member will pay tithing. The nonbeliever and the inactive member won't. So I think the sense in which we have to understand "their great concern for the membership" is financial.
Another important part of that paragraph is where it mentions "anti-LDS material" and things "designed to destroy belief." There has been hundreds of discussions here on what "anti-Mormon" material is and I won't try to add one more here. After all, each organization has the right to call everything that opposes it (be it correct or not) as "anti." By the same token, I am sure there are things designed to destroy belief; and any institution that relies on belief in order to exist has the right to warn its believers about those things (be them correct or incorrect).
There are, however, things that weren't designed "to destroy belief." In fact, most things exist without having been "designed" by anybody to cause any specific effects. They just are and exist regardless of what meaning humans choose to give them, and can't be rejected without rejecting reality at the same time. What should our attitude be towards those things that are true, when they contradict what the Mormon church asks us to belief? Can a thing that wasn't "designed to destroy belief" be labelled "anti-LDS" only because if factually proves a particular Mormon belief is false? In my opinion, to do so represents crossing the mental line between reality and fantasy.

President Ezra Taft Benson has advised against purchasing material derogatory to the Church; buying this material will only “help sustain their cause” (address to religious educators, 17 Sept. 1976). And Elder Carlos E. Asay of the Seventy has warned against those who attempt to “sow doubts and to disturb the peace of true believers. … Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit” (Ensign, Nov. 1981, pp. 67–68).

This is more of what I was commenting above. "Material derogatory to the Church" is too wide of a blanket.
Science is derogatory to the church. Medicine is derogatory to the church. Biology, Geology, Archaeology are derogatory to the church. But we rely on those to function within society. The same science that has disproved Quakers live on the Moon, and that proved Evolution by Natural Selection is factual, has also produced the technology the Mormon church needs to expand its wealth. The same medicine that disproves "priesthood health blessings", cures Mormon leaders and adds years to their lives. And so on. Should we avoid science, medicine, and the rest? Where would the Mormon church be without them?
But it is worse. The very Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are undeniably derogatory to the church. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are derogatory to the church. Russell Nelson is derogatory to the church with his absurd revelations of "Don't call us Mormons", and "We have a new logo" during the time of the worse pandemic in the last century. The damage each one of these do to the church's claims is substantial and undeniable. Shouldn't the church avoid all that?
The explanation is simple though: Mormon leaders want its members (whose only relevance to the institution is financial) to believe instead of to know. The real enemy for the Mormon church is knowledge in the hands of its followers. What better way to prevent them from knowing than to vilify knowledge and glorify belief? Specifically, belief in Mormon claims, that is. Assay's words are precisely that: the disparaging of doubt (which leads to research, which then leads to knowledge) and the glorification of faith (which, literally, requires ignorance in order to exist).

Such advice must not be interpreted to mean that the Church is against honest scholarship or has anything to fear or hide. Nor does the Church ban literature, but Latter-day Saints should be wise in choosing what to read.

Well, let's see. What does the record show? How does the Mormon church react when honest scholarship discovers one or more of its claims are false? Doesn't it respond with a barrage of apologetics, stern admonitions from every pulpit available, and swift excommunication of those giving knowledge more weight than belief?
Next question: So, the Mormon church has nothing to fear or hide? Why the advice "against purchasing material derogatory to the church" then? Why the systematical and institutional hiding of its own history? Why the quiet disavowing of past prophet's doctrines? Why so much concealment of the historical material in their vaults? Why don't the missionary discussions tell the real history of the church to investigators, but a heavily sanitized artificial version that hides Smith's scams and criminal charges?

The Church encourages gospel scholarship and the search for truth. “Fundamental to our theology is belief in individual freedom of inquiry, thought, and expression. Constructive discussion is a privilege of every Latter-day Saint,” said President Gordon B. Hinckley of the First Presidency (Ensign, Sept. 1985, p. 6).

I will always be astonished at the audacity Mormon leaders exhibit when declaring something with such grandiloquent words while meaning something completely different. First, if the Mormon church encouraged the search for truth it wouldn't advise against "material derogatory to the church", would it? Second, if the Mormon church really believed "in individual freedom of inquiry, thought, and expression," there wouldn't be any need to advise against anti-LDS material, would it?
But the subtle caveat comes veiled in the next part where Hinckley says "Constructive discussion is a privilege of every Latter-day Saint." The real meaning is "the privilege is your only if what you research, think or express supports the church's claims; otherwise, we will cut you out."
See how, using positive words ("constructive", "privilege"), they are actually warning you? It all sounds positive on the surface, and if you are a believer you stop at that level. There is no need to poke deeper because there is not desire to distrust them.
Those of us who have seen what happens when, exercising our freedom of inquiry, thought and expression, ended up reprimanded, suspended, excommunicated and/or rejected by family and friends, know what Hinckley was actually saying.

Latter-day Saints should be sufficiently grounded in their testimonies and knowledge of Church doctrine and history that they can answer questions in a non-contentious and informative way. Elder Marvin J. Ashton of the Quorum of the Twelve has instructed Church members not to retaliate against attacks. “We encourage all our members to refuse to become anti-anti-Mormon,” he said (Ensign, Nov. 1992, p. 63). Paul taught that coming to Christ requires “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

As a good believing Mormon, the article's author fails to consider the scenario where knowledge of church doctrine and history might contradict what the church has been claiming about its doctrine and history. The author is so sure his church is what it says it is, the possibility that it might not be so simply doesn't register.
Most of us here were in that exact place. Most of us were absolutely grounded in our testimonies and our "knowledge" of church doctrine and history. After all, our testimonies and knowledge were based on what the church itself taught us (notice a conflict of interest in here?). And we were more than able to answer questions about our trusted church. Unfortunately, what the church taught us was false. It had been false all along. It turned out our trusted church lied to us, and it has done it for most of our lives.
One can see how shortsighted we were, how shortsighted the article's author still is.

Members should invite those with questions about Church doctrine and practices to read latter-day scriptures and to study the restored gospel, thus tasting the gospel fruit for themselves. Only then will they know “whether it be of God” (John 7:17).3

Here is another example of the constant Mormon conflation between "belief" and "knowledge." Here the author is proposing that those seeking knowledge follow the path to belief instead. I hope by now it is clear those two are mutually exclusive: Belief is only possible when there is lack of knowledge. Once one has acquired knowledge, belief is no longer possible.

When members lack answers, they should learn what Church leaders and reputable scholars have said and written. There is probably no charge against the Church that has not been adequately refuted by someone. When members can’t find answers on their own, they can turn to home and visiting teachers, quorum leaders, bishops, and stake presidents. If necessary, stake presidents can take questions to area presidencies or other authorities.

Here's another example of an ambiguous statement. First it includes "reputable scholars" in the set of allowed sources to resort to. But then, in the same paragraph, it lists the people they should turn to when seeking answers; and scholars are not part of the list.
Additionally, who is a "reputable scholar" in this context? We have already seen from the words of Mormon leaders above that any scholar who publishes "material derogatory to the church" is to be avoided. So, it doesn't matter how reputable, respected and valid a scholar's body of work is in all other areas, if hehis results after researching Mormonism happen to disagree with Mormon claims, the church won't consider hehim reputable. In the eyes of Mormon leaders, "reputable" seems to mean "that agrees with our claims."

Those willing to take time to research anti-LDS claims can find answers. The Church is true and will continue to grow. Those who would reap great eternal rewards and joy must wisely use their time to study, ponder, love, and work so they can anchor their convictions in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and his Church.

And here is the only grand finale believing Mormons can offer: a hollow statement, a personal testimony and big-sounding promises:

The hollow statement: "Those willing to take time to research anti-LDS claims can fin answers." According to the article's author, however, research means avoid "material derogatory to the church" even if it comes from well respected scholars, because they are disreputable if their conclusions are contrary to the church's claims. So, what is he really saying? The answer is clear: he wants us to research only from what the church publishes and declares through its own channels. And, since none of that will provide knowledge, what he is actually asking us is to keep believing. In reality, this is the only path available in order to accept Mormonism as true: a voluntary desire to believe in its claims by rejecting any and all facts against them.
The personal testimony: "The Church is true and will continue to grow." This is, of course, irrelevant to members looking for knowledge. A testimony is only useful to members looking to strengthening beliefs, not knowledge. This simple fact can shed some light on how biased this article really was, and who would find it useful.
The big-sounding promises: "Those who would reap great eternal rewards and joy must wisely use their time to study, ponder, love, and work so they can anchor their convictions in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and his Church." This is how religions keep believers believing and giving them their money: through grandiose promises always to be obtained in the hereafter, the fabled place where everything wonderful will happen although there is no evidence whatsoever that it actually exists. The result is that we end up sacrificing reality for the sake of a fantasy.

For the veteran among us this is nothing new. We know the church's tricks and ploys. But for the new members of /exmormon or visitors who have just discovered troublesome contradictions within church's doctrine and/or history, I hope this will help prepare you for your journey to the truth: The Mormon Church Lies.
This article shows you some of their more common tactics.

Below is the "essay." On my last piece, I got feedback regarding the length of my introduction. For this essay, I tried to shorten it. I copy pasted it below - let me know what you think! And thanks in advance!!!!
----------
I find it hard, if not impossible, to ignore the current protests going on all across America. At first, I found it refreshing and long overdue. But now, it seems contrived and somewhat misguided – if guided at all.
There are countless images and videos of hordes of youth, Mostly White, roaming the streets chanting what are now Corporate sponsored slogans, shutting down and destroying small businesses, and Angrily Confronting Any White Restaurant Diner who dares not renounce their privilege and join them in their months long march against the hard to define and ever elusive concept of “white supremacy.”
With the recent shift from Russian hysteria to a never-ending stream of videos of police shooting black men, I find myself grasping at ways to reconcile what I see in the media with what I believe to be the true source of our problems. Recently, I think I found a version of the truth in the fictional work of Alfred Hitchcock, which, in a weird way, supports the idea that sometimes the best way to reveal the truth is to tell a couple lies.

Are We Spellbound?

Spellbound, Alfred Hitchcock’s 1945 psychological thriller, stands as a great metaphor for America’s current white guilt complex, which, in a twisted way, impedes our Country’ ability to come to grips with the most horrific and tragic parts of our short, ethereal, history as a Republic, and ultimately, from holding those truly responsible to account. In that respect, Spellbound also provides a blueprint for a much overdue truth and reconciliation, which spoiler alert, requires us to take a long hard look – not in the mirror – but at the political leaders and self-described elite who have ruled this Country since even before its inception in 1776.
In Hitchcock’s film, Dr. Murchison the director of Green Acres, an institution for the criminally insane, is forced from his leadership role after a bout of age induced mental exhaustion and is replaced by Dr. Anthony Edwards. Unbeknownst to the audience, Dr. Edwards is in reality, John Ballantyne, a young amnesiac man, who assumes the role of Dr. Edwards after the doctor mysteriously disappeared a week prior. After quickly revealing that Mr. Ballantyne is an imposter, blame for Dr. Edwards disappearance rightfully focuses on Mr. Ballantyne.
Throughout the film, Mr. Ballantyne is haunted by his assumed role in the murder of Dr. Edwards, which manifests itself in an extreme diagnosed guilt complex that forces Mr. Ballantyne to flee his position at Green Acres allowing Dr. Murchison to resume control of the institution. While on the run, Mr. Ballantyne and Green Acres psychologist, Dr. Constance Peterson, go through intense psychoanalytic analysis, leading the audience to believe that the real Dr. Edwards died during a skiing accident.
Towards the very end of the film, Dr. Edwards body is discovered with a bullet wound, shattering any belief that Mr. Ballantyne was innocent after all. In pure Hitchock fashion, however, an 11th hour slip of the tongue by Dr. Murchison leads Dr. Pertersen to suspect Dr. Murchison’s role in the murder, which is finally revealed as an elaborate ruse to maintain control of Green Acres, while simultaneously shifting the blame for Dr. Edwards murder to Mr. Ballantyne, who turns out to be nothing more than unknowing patsy in Dr. Murchison’s Machiavellian scheme.

What About Today?

In today’s America, Our Geriatric Political Leaders, who appear to be Mr. Murchison reincarnate, seem hellbent on maintaining control – unable or unwilling to step aside.
With a complicit media and educational system, those shaping our foreign and domestic policies have been successful in gaslighting their fellow baby boomers and a significant portion of today’s youth by placing blame for all of America’s problems on Mr. Ballantyne, redefined in today’s terms as the abominable, yet elusive, white racist.
Of course, a careful analysis would reveal that today’s racial, economic, and health disparities have little to do with diners, or 17 year-olds, or even racist “Karens.” Rather, most of our problems can be attributed to a rapacious oligarchy – built upon economic and environmental extractions – that has done everything it can to deflect and shut down any voice, which dares to contradict the current narrative of white vs. black.
With no mainstream counter to this narrative, and with the current undeniable disparities that plague our Country, it’s no surprise that society has fully adopted this tube-fed narrative as dogma. And just like Mr. Ballantyne, it’s also not surprising that many white Americans feel a sense of shame and guilt, even for something they had no role in whatsoever.
But white guilt is not necessarily what scares me the most. Rather, what worries me is those individuals who, believing the narrative, feel the opposite of guilt. Trapped in a false belief that they are the murderers or oppressors portrayed in the media, individuals may feel inclined to live out that narrative.
And so, I feel it my duty to bring to light what I feel is the obvious truth – that those in current leadership are not the allies of the people. Through this truth, I hope that we can have a peaceful reconciliation; one leading to a voting out of the old guard. For “voting” is perhaps the best verb that they can expect if society suddenly – and violently – wakes up to the current Dr. Murchison type schemes.

1) Chemistry of Life

Content

Transpiration
- Hydrogen bonds pull water up like string and leave through stoma
- Stomata: leaf pores that allow gas exchange, most are on bottom side of leaf
- Xylem: tube-shaped, nonlining, vascular system, carries water from roots to rest of plant
- Epidermis: outer layer, protects plant
- Phloem: transports food
- Parenchyma: stores food
- Transpiration: evaporation of water from leaves
- Adhesion: polar water molecules adhere to polar surfaces (sides of xylem)
- Cohesion: polar water molecules adhere to each other
- Guard cells: cells surrounding stoma, regulate transpiration through opening and closing stoma
- Turgid vs flaccid guard cells
  - Turgid swell caused by potassium ions, water potential decreases, water enters vacuoles of guard cells
  - Swelling of guard cells open stomata
- High light levels, high levels of water, low temperature, low CO2 causes opening of stomata
- Water potential: transport of water in plant governed by differences in water potential
  - Affected by solute concentration and environmental conditions
- High water potential (high free energy and more water) travels to low water potential
- Hydrophilic = attracts water, hydrophobic = repels water
Water and its Properties
- Polar molecule due to positive hydrogen and negative oxygen regions
- Negative oxygen of one molecule to positive hydrogen of another water molecule forms a hydrogen bond, which are weak individually but strong together
- Important physical properties of water:
  - Cohesion and adhesion: cohesion creates surface tension and they both allow for transpiration
  - High specific heat: enables water to absorb and lose heat slowly
  - High heat of vaporization: allows much of it to remain liquid
  - Nearly universal polar solvent: dissolves a lot of stuff
  - Flotation of ice: insulates, transportation
Biological Macromolecules
- Polymer: long molecule consisting of many similar building blocks linked by covalent bonds
- Monomer: building block of a polymer
- ATP - adenosine triphosphate, energy carrier that uses bonds between phosphates to store energy
  - Similar in structure to a ribonucleotide
- Four Types
  - Carbohydrates
  - Lipids
  - Proteins
  - Nucleic Acids

https://preview.redd.it/xp12oli61w451.png?width=1098&format=png&auto=webp&s=cc897738989258c67bcc760ba040e2cee8f7875c

Functional groups
- Hydroxyl - carbs, alcohols - OH-, O-
- Amino - proteins - NH2, NH3+
- Carboxyl - weak acids - COOH, COO-
- Sulfhydryl - proteins - SH
- Phosphatic - salts, strong acids - PO
Directionality:
- ex: glucose alpha and beta
- ex: DNA and RNA 5’ and 3’ ends
Identification of Macromolecules

https://preview.redd.it/cb3oau2j1w451.png?width=1089&format=png&auto=webp&s=409e26f32c9996a3649bad81d17ed72769955ce9

Calculations

Number of bonds
- # of molecules - 1
- i.e. 20 glucose molecules linked together would have 19 bonds
Molecular formula
- # of molecules * molecular formula - number of bonds * H20 (from hydrolysis)
- i.e. when you bond 5 glucose molecules together you have to subtract 4H2O
pH/pOH
- -log[H+] = pH
- -log[OH-] = pOH
- pH + pOH = 14
Leaf surface area
- i.e. using graph paper to find surface area
Transpiration rate
- Amount of water used / surface area / time

Labs

Transpiration Lab
- Basically you take this potometer which measures the amount of water that gets sucked up by a plant that you have and you expose the plant to different environmental conditions (light, humidity, temperature) and see how fast the water gets transpired
- Random stuff to know:
  - It’s hard to get it to work properly
  - A tight seal of vaseline keeps everything tidy and prevents water from evaporating straight from the tube, also allows for plant to suck properly
  - Water travels from high water potential to low water potential

2) Cell Structure & Function

Content

Cellular Components
- Many membrane-bound organelles evolved from once free prokaryotes via endosymbiosis, such as mitochondria (individual DNA)
- Compartmentalization allows for better SA:V ratio and helps regulate cellular processes
- Cytoplasm: thick solution in each cell containing water, salts, proteins, etc; everything - nucleus
  - Cytoplasmic streaming: moving all the organelles around to give them nutrients, speeds up reactions
- Cytosol: liquid of the cytoplasm (mostly water)
- Plasma Membrane: separates inside of cell from extracellular space, controls what passes through amphipathic area (selectively permeable)
  - Fluid-Mosaic model: phospholipid bilayer + embedded proteins
  - Aquaporin: hole in membrane that allows water through
- Cell Wall: rigid polysaccharide layer outside of plasma membrane in plants/fungi/bacteria
  - Bacteria have peptidoglycan, fungi have chitin, and plants have cellulose and lignin
  - Turgor pressure pushes the membrane against the wall
- Nucleus: contains genetic information
  - Has a double membrane called the nuclear envelope with pores
- Nucleolus: in nucleus, produces ribosomes
- Chromosomes: contain DNA
- Centrioles: tubulin thing that makes up centrosome in the middle of a chromosome
- Smooth Endoplasmic Reticulum: storage of proteins and lipids
- Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum: synthesizes and packages proteins
- Chloroplasts: photosynthetic, sunlight transferred into chemical energy and sugars
  - More on this in photosynthesis
- Vacuoles: storage, waste breakdown, hydrolysis of macromolecules, plant growth
- Plasmodesmata: channels through cell walls that connect adjacent cells
- Golgi Apparatus: extracellular transport
- Lysosome: degradation and waste management
  - Mutations in the lysosome cause the cell to swell with unwanted molecules and the cell will slow down or kill itself
- Mitochondria: powerhouse of the cell
  - Mutations in the mitochondria cause a lack of deficiency of energy in the cell leading to an inhibition of cell growth
- Vesicles: transport of intracellular materials
- Microtubules: tubulin, stiff, mitosis, cell transport, motor proteins
- Microfilaments: actin, flexible, cell movement
- Flagella: one big swim time
- Cilia: many small swim time
- Peroxisomes: bunch of enzymes in a package that degrade H202 with catalase
- Ribosomes: protein synthesis
- Microvilli: projections that increase cell surface area like tiny feetsies
  - In the intestine, for example, microvilli allow more SA to absorb nutrients
- Cytoskeleton: hold cell shape
Cellular Transport
- Passive transport: diffusion
  - Cell membranes selectively permeable (large and charged repelled)
  - Tonicity: osmotic (water) pressure gradient
- Cells are small to optimize surface area to volume ratio, improving diffusion
- Primary active transport: ATP directly utilized to transport
- Secondary active transport: something is transported using energy captured from movement of other substance flowing down the concentration gradient
- Endocytosis: large particles enter a cell by membrane engulfment
  - Phagocytosis: “cell eating”, uses pseudopodia around solids and packages it within a membrane
  - Pinocytosis: “cell drinking”, consumes droplets of extracellular fluid
  - Receptor-mediated endocytosis: type of pinocytosis for bulk quantities of specific substances
- Exocytosis: internal vesicles fuse with the plasma membrane and secrete large molecules out of the cell
- Ion channels and the sodium potassium pump
  - Ion channel: facilitated diffusion channel that allows specific molecules through
  - Sodium potassium pump: uses charged ions (sodium and potassium)
- Membrane potential: voltage across a membrane
- Electrogenic pump: transport protein that generates voltage across a membrane
- Proton pump: transports protons out of the cell (plants/fungi/bacteria)
- Cotransport: single ATP-powered pump transports a specific solute that can drive the active transport of several other solutes
- Bulk flow: one-way movement of fluids brought about by pressure
- Dialysis: diffusion of solutes across a selective membrane
Cellular Components Expanded: The Endomembrane System
- Nucleus + Rough ER + Golgi Bodies
  - Membrane and secretory proteins are synthesized in the rough endoplasmic reticulum, vesicles with the integral protein fuse with the cis face of the Golgi apparatus, modified in Golgi, exits as an integral membrane protein of the vesicles that bud from the Golgi’s trans face, protein becomes an integral portion of that cell membrane

Calculations

Surface area to volume ratio of a shape (usually a cube)
U-Shaped Tube (where is the water traveling)
- Solution in u-shaped tube separated by semi-permeable membrane
- find average of solute (that is able to move across semi permeable membrane)
- add up total molar concentration on both sides
- water travels where concentration is higher
Water Potential = Pressure Potential + Solute Potential
- Solute Potential = -iCRT
  - i = # of particles the molecule will make in water
  - C = molar concentration
  - R = pressure constant (0.0831)
  - T = temperature in kelvin

Labs

Diffusion and Osmosis
- Testing the concentration of a solution with known solutions
- Dialysis bag
  - Semipermeable bag that allows the water to pass through but not the solute
- Potato core
  - Has a bunch of solutes inside

Relevant Experiments

Lynne Margolis: endosymbiotic theory (mitochondria lady)
Chargaff: measured A/G/T/C in everything (used UV chromatography)
Franklin + Watson and Crick: discovered structure of DNA; Franklin helped with x ray chromatography

3) Cellular Energetics

Content

Reactions and Thermodynamics
- Baseline: used to establish standard for chemical reaction
- Catalyst: speeds up a reaction (enzymes are biological catalysts)
- Exergonic: energy is released
- Endergonic: energy is consumed
- Coupled reactions: energy lost/released from exergonic reaction is used in endergonic one
- Laws of Thermodynamics:
  - First Law: energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and the sum of energy in the universe is constant
  - Second Law: energy transfer leads to less organization (greater entropy)
  - Third Law: the disorder (entropy) approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches 0
- Cellular processes that release energy may be coupled with other cellular processes
- Loss of energy flow means death
- Energy related pathways in biological systems are sequential to allow for a more controlled/efficient transfer of energy (product of one metabolic pathway is reactant for another)
- Bioenergetics: study of how energy is transferred between living things
- Fuel + 02 = CO2 + H20
  - Combustion, Photosynthesis, Cellular Respiration (with slight differences in energy)
Enzymes
- Speed up chemical processes by lowering activation energy
- Structure determines function
- Active sites are selective
- Enzymes are typically tertiary- or quaternary-level proteins
- Catabolic: break down / proteases and are exergonic
- Anabolic: build up and are endergonic
- Enzymes do not change energy levels
- Substrate: targeted molecules in enzymatic
- Many enzymes named by ending substrate in “-ase”
- Enzymes form temporary substrate-enzyme complexes
- Enzymes remain unaffected by the reaction they catalyze
- Enzymes can’t change a reaction or make other reactions occur
- Induced fit: enzyme has to change its shape slightly to accommodate the substrate
- Cofactor: factor that help enzymes catalyze reactions (org or inorg)
  - Examples: temp, pH, relative ratio of enzyme and substrate
  - Organic cofactors are called coenzymes
- Denaturation: enzymes damaged by heat or pH
- Regulation: protein’s function at one site is affected by the binding of regulatory molecule to a separate site
- Enzymes enable cells to achieve dynamic metabolism - undergo multiple metabolic processes at once
- Cannot make an endergonic reaction exergonic
- Steps to substrates becoming products
  - Substrates enters active site, enzyme changes shape
  - Substrates held in active site by weak interactions (i.e. hydrogen bonds)
  - Substrates converted to product
  - Product released
  - Active site available for more substrate
- Rate of enzymatic reaction increases with temperature but too hot means denaturation
- Inhibitors fill the active site of enzymes
  - Some are permanent, some are temporary
  - Competitive: block substrates from their active sites
  - Non competitive (allosteric): bind to different part of enzyme, changing the shape of the active site
- Allosteric regulation: regulatory molecules interact with enzymes to stimulate or inhibit activity
- Enzyme denaturation can be reversible
Cellular Respiration
- Steps
  - Glycolysis
  - Acetyl co-A reactions
  - Krebs / citric acid cycle
  - Oxidative phosphorylation
- Brown fat: cells use less efficient energy production method to make heat
- Hemoglobin (transport, fetal oxygen affinity > maternal) and myoglobin (stores oxygen)
Photosynthesis
- 6CO2 + 6H20 + Light = C6H12O6 + 6O2
- Absorption vs action spectrum (broader, cumulative, overall rate of photosynthesis)
- Components
  - Chloroplast
  - Mesophyll: interior leaf tissue that contains chloroplasts
  - Pigment: substance that absorbs light
- Steps
  - Light-Dependent Reaction
  - Light-Independent (Dark) Reaction (Calvin Cycle)
Anaerobic Respiration (Fermentation)
- Glycolysis yields 2ATP + 2NADH + 2 Pyruvate
- 2NADH + 2 Pyruvate yields ethanol and lactate
- Regenerates NAD+

Calculations

Calculate products of photosynthesis & cellular respiration

Labs

Enzyme Lab
- Peroxidase breaks down peroxides which yields oxygen gas, quantity measured with a dye
- Changing variables (i.e. temperature) yields different amounts of oxygen
Photosynthesis Lab
- Vacuum in a syringe pulls the oxygen out of leaf disks, no oxygen causes them to sink in bicarbonate solution, bicarbonate is added to give the disks a carbon source for photosynthesis which occurs at different rates under different conditions, making the disks buoyant
Cellular Respiration Lab
- Use a respirometer to measure the consumption of oxygen (submerge it in water)
- You put cricket/animal in the box that will perform cellular respiration
- You put KOH in the box with cricket to absorb the carbon dioxide (product of cellular respiration)-- it will form a solid and not impact your results

Relevant Experiments

Engelmann
- Absorption spectra dude with aerobic bacteria

4) Cell Communication & Cell Cycle

Content

Cell Signalling
- Quorum sensing: chemical signaling between bacteria
  - See Bonnie Bassler video
- Taxis/Kinesis: movement of an organism in response to a stimulus (chemotaxis is response to chemical)
- Ligand: signalling molecule
- Receptor: ligands bind to elicit a response
- Hydrophobic: cholesterol and other such molecules can diffuse across the plasma membrane
- Hydrophilic: ligand-gated ion channels, catalytic receptors, G-protein receptor
Signal Transduction
- Process by which an extracellular signal is transmitted to inside of cell
- Pathway components
  - Signal/Ligand
  - Receptor protein
  - Relay molecules: second messengers and the phosphorylation cascade
  - DNA response
- Proteins in signal transduction can cause cancer if activated too much (tumor)
  - RAS: second messenger for growth factor-- suppressed by p53 gene (p53 is protein made by gene) if it gets too much
- Response types
  - Gene expression changes
  - Cell function
  - Alter phenotype
  - Apoptosis- programmed cell death
  - Cell growth
  - Secretion of various molecules
- Mutations in proteins can cause effects downstream
- Pathways are similar and many bacteria emit the same chemical within pathways, evolution!
Feedback
- Positive feedback amplifies responses
  - Onset of childbirth, lactation, fruit ripening
- Negative feedback regulates response
  - Blood sugar (insulin goes down when glucagon goes up), body temperature
Cell cycle
- Caused by reproduction, growth, and tissue renewal
- Checkpoint: control point that triggers/coordinates events in cell cycle
- Mitotic spindle: microtubules and associated proteins
  - Cytoskeleton partially disassembles to provide the material to make the spindle
  - Elongates with tubulin
  - Shortens by dropping subunits
  - Aster: radial array of short microtubules
  - Kinetochores on centrosome help microtubules to attach to chromosomes
- IPMAT: interphase, prophase, metaphase, anaphase, telophase
  - PMAT is mitotic cycle
- Steps
  - Interphase
  - Mitosis
  - Cytokinesis
- Checkpoints
  - 3 major ones during cell cycle:
  - cyclin-cdk-mpf: cyclin dependent kinase mitosis promoting factor
  - Anchorage dependence: attached, very important aspect to cancer
  - Density dependence: grow to a certain size, can’t hurt organs
  - Genes can suppress tumors
- G0 phase is when cells don’t grow at all (nerve, muscle, and liver cells)

Calculations

Chi-squared

Relevant Experiments

Sutherland
- Broke apart liver cells and realized the significance of the signal transduction pathway, as the membrane and the cytoplasm can’t activate glycogen phosphorylase by themselves

5) Heredity

Content

Types of reproduction
- Sexual: two parents, mitosis/meiosis, genetic variation/diversity (and thus higher likelihood of survival in a changing environment)
- Asexual: doesn’t require mate, rapid, almost genetically identitical (mutations)
  - Binary fission (bacteria)
  - Budding (yeast cells)
  - Fragmentation (plants and sponges)
  - Regeneration (starfish, newts, etc.)
Meiosis
- One diploid parent cell undergoes two rounds of cell division to produce up to four haploid genetically varied cells
- n = 23 in humans, where n is the number of unique chromosomes
- Meiosis I
  - Prophase: synapsis (two chromosome sets come together to form tetrad), chromosomes line up with homologs, crossing over
  - Metaphase: tetrads line up at metaphase plate, random alignment
  - Anaphase: tetrad separation, formation at opposite poles, homologs separate with their centromeres intact
  - Telophase: nuclear membrane forms, two haploid daughter cells form
- Meiosis II
  - Prophase: chromosomes condense
  - Metaphase: chromosomes line up single file, not pairs, on the metaphase plate
  - Anaphase: chromosomes split at centromere
  - Telophase: nuclear membrane forms and 4 total haploid cells are produced
- Genetic variation
  - Crossing over: homologous chromosomes swap genetic material
  - Independent assortment: homologous chromosomes line up randomly
  - Random fertilization: random sperm and random egg interact
- Gametogenesis
  - Spermatogenesis: sperm production
  - Oogenesis: egg cells production (¼ of them degenerate)
Fundamentals of Heredity
- Traits: expressed characteristics
- Gene: “chunk” of DNA that codes for a specific trait
- Homologous chromosomes: two copies of a gene
- Alleles: copies of chromosome may differ bc of crossing over
- Homozygous/Heterozygous: identical/different
- Phenotype: physical representation of genotype
- Generations
  - Parent or P1
  - Filial or F1
  - F2
- Law of dominance: one trait masks the other one
  - Complete: one trait completely covers the other one
  - Incomplete: traits are both expressed
  - Codominance: traits combine
- Law of segregation (Mendel): each gamete gets one copy of a gene
- Law of independent assortment (Mendel): traits segregate independently from one another
- Locus: location of gene on chromosome
- Linked genes: located on the same chromosome, loci less than 50 cM apart
- Gene maps and linkage maps
- Nondisjunction: inability of chromosomes to separate (ex down syndrome)
- Polygenic: many genes influence one phenotype
- Pleiotropic: one gene influences many phenotypes
- Epistasis: one gene affects another gene
- Mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA is inherited maternally
Diseases/Disorders
- Genetic:
  - Tay-Sachs: can’t break down specific lipid in brain
  - Sickle cell anemia: misshapen RBCs
  - Color blindness
  - Hemophilia: lack of clotting factors
- Chromosomal:
  - Turner: only one X chromosome
  - Klinefelter: XXY chromosomes
  - Down syndrome (trisomy 21): nondisjunction
Crosses
- Sex-linked stuff
- Blood type
- Barr bodies: in women, two X chromosomes; different chromosomes expressed in different parts of the body, thus creating two different phenotype expressions in different places

Calculations

Pedigree/Punnett Square
Recombination stuff
- Recombination rate = # of recombinable offspring/ total offspring (times 100) units: map units

Relevant Experiments

Mendel

6) Gene Expression and Regulation

Content

DNA and RNA Structure
- Prokaryotic organisms typically have circular chromosomes
- Plasmids = extrachromosomal circular DNA molecules
- Purines (G, A) are double-ringed while pyrimidines (C, T, U) have single ring
- Types of RNA:
  - mRNA - (mature) messenger RNA (polypeptide production)
  - tRNA - transfer RNA (polypeptide production)
  - rRNA - ribosomal RNA (polypeptide production)
  - snRNA - small nuclear RNA (bound to snRNPs - small nuclear ribonucleoproteins)
  - miRNA - microRNA (regulatory)
DNA Replication
- Steps:
  - Helicase opens up the DNA at the replication fork.
  - Single-strand binding proteins coat the DNA around the replication fork to prevent rewinding of the DNA.
  - Topoisomerase works at the region ahead of the replication fork to prevent supercoiling.
  - Primase synthesizes RNA primers complementary to the DNA strand.
  - DNA polymerase III extends the primers, adding on to the 3' end, to make the bulk of the new DNA.
  - RNA primers are removed and replaced with DNA by DNA polymerase I.
  - The gaps between DNA fragments are sealed by DNA ligase.
Protein Synthesis
- 61 codons code for amino acids, 3 code as STOP - UAA, UAG, UGA - 64 total
- Transcription Steps:
  - RNA polymerase binds to promoter (before gene) and separate the DNA strands
  - RNA polymerase fashions a complementary RNA strand from a DNA strand
  - Coding strand is same as RNA being made, template strand is complementary
  - Terminator on gene releases the RNA polymerase
- RNA Processing Steps (Eukaryotes):
  - 5’ cap and 3’ (poly-A tail, poly A polymerase) tail is added to strand (guanyl transferase)
  - Splicing of the RNA occurs in which introns are removed and exons are added by spliceosome
  - Cap/tail adds stability, splicing makes the correct sequence (“gibberish”)
- Translation Steps:
  - Initiation complex is the set up of a ribosome around the beginning of an mRNA fragment
  - tRNA binds to codon, amino acid is linked to other amino acid
  - mRNA is shifted over one codon (5’ to 3’)
  - Stop codon releases mRNA
Gene Expression
- Translation of mRNA to a polypeptide occurs on ribosomes in the cytoplasm as well as rough ER
- Translation of the mRNA occurs during transcription in prokaryotes
- Genetic info in retroviruses is an exception to normal laws: RNA to DNA is possible with reverse transcriptase, which allows the virus to integrate into the host’s DNA
- Regulatory sequences = stretches of DNA that interact with regulatory proteins to control transcription
- Epigenetic changes can affect expression via mods of DNA or histones
- Observable cell differentiation results from the expression of genes for tissue-specific proteins
- Induction of transcription factors during dev results in gene expression
- Prokaryotes: operons transcribed in a single mRNA molecule, inducible system
- Eukaryotes: groups of genes may be influenced by the same transcription factors to coordinate expression
- Promoters = DNA sequences that RNA polymerase can latch onto to initiate
- Negative regulators inhibit gene expression by binding to DNA and blocking transcription
- Acetylation (add acetyl groups)- more loosely wound/ less tightly coiled/compressed
- Methylation of DNA (add methyl groups) - less transcription- more tightly wound
Mutation and Genetic Variation
- Disruptions in genes (mutations) change phenotypes
- Mutations can be +/-/neutral based on their effects that are conferred by the protein formed - environmental context
- Errors in DNA replication or repair as well as external factors such as radiation or chemical exposure cause them
- Mutations are the primary source of genetic variation
- Horizontal acquisition in prokaryotes - transformation (uptake of naked DNA), transduction (viral DNA transmission), conjugation (cell-cell DNA transfer), and transposition (DNA moved within/between molecules) - increase variation
- Related viruses can (re)combine genetic material in the same host cell
- Types of mutations: frameshift, deletion, insertion
Genetic Engineering
- Electrophoresis separates molecules by size and charge
- PCR magnifies DNA fragments
- Bacterial transformation introduces DNA into bacterial cells
Operons
- Almost always prokaryotic
- Promoter region has operator in it
- Structural genes follow promoter
- Terminator ends operon
- Regulatory protein is active repressor
- Active repressor can be inactivated
- Enhancer: remote gene that require activators
- RNAi: interference with miRNA
- Anabolic pathways are normally on and catabolic pathways are normally off

Calculations

Transformation efficiency (colonies/DNA)
Numbers of base pairs (fragment lengths)
Cutting enzymes in a plasmid or something (finding the lengths of each section)

Labs

Gel Electrophoresis Lab
- Phosphates in DNA make it negative (even though it’s an acid!), so it moves to positive terminal on the board
- Smaller DNA is quicc, compare it to a standard to calculate approx. lengths
Bacterial Transformation Lab
- Purpose of sugar: arabinose is a promoter which controls the GFP in transformed cells, turns it on, also green under UV
- Purpose of flipping upside down: condensation forms but doesn’t drip down
- Purpose of heat shock: increases bacterial uptake of foreign DNA
- Plasmids have GFP (green fluorescent protein) and ampicillin resistance genes
- Calcium solution puts holes in bacteria to allow for uptake of plasmids
PCR Lab
- DNA + primers + nucleotides + DNA polymerase in a specialized PCR tube in a thermal cycler
- Primers bind to DNA before it can repair itself, DNA polymerase binds to the primers and begins replication
- After 30 cycles, there are billions of target sequences

Relevant Experiments

Avery: harmful + harmless bacteria in mice, experimented with proteins vs DNA of bacteria
Griffith: Avery’s w/o DNA vs protein
Hershey and Chase: radioactively labeled DNA and protein
Melson and Stahl: isotopic nitrogen in bacteria, looked for cons/semi/dispersive DNA
Beadle and Tatum: changed medium’s amino acid components to find that a metabolic pathway was responsible for turning specific proteins into other proteins, “one gene one enzyme”
Nirenberg: discovered codon table

7) Natural Selection

Scientific Theory: no refuting evidence (observation + experimentation), time, explain a brand/extensive range of phenomena
Theory of Natural Selection
- Definition
  - Not all offspring (in a population) will survive
  - Variation among individuals in a population
  - Some variations were more favourable than others in a particular environment
  - Those with more favourable variations were more likely to survive and reproduce.
  - These favourable variations were passed on and increased in frequency over time.
Types of Selection:
- Directional selection: one phenotype favored at one of the extremes of the normal distribution
  - ”Weeds out” one phenotype
  - Ony can happen if a favored allele is already present
- Stabilizing Selection: Organisms within a population are eliminated with extreme traits
  - Favors “average” or medium traits
  - Ex. big head causes a difficult delivery; small had causes health deficits
- Disruptive Selection: favors both extremes and selects against common traits
  - Ex. sexual selection (seems like directional but it’s not because it only affects one sex, if graph is only males then directional)
Competition for limited resources results in differential survival, favourable phenotypes are more likely to survive and produce more offspring, thus passing traits to subsequent generations.
- Biotic and abiotic environments can be more or less stable/fluctuating, and this affects the rate and direction of evolution
  - Convergent evolution occurs when similar selective pressures result in similar phenotypic adaptations in different populations or species.
  - Divergent evolution: groups from common ancestor evolve, homology
  - Different genetic variations can be selected in each generation.
  - Environments change and apply selective pressures to populations.
- Evolutionary fitness is measured by reproductive success.
- Natural selection acts on phenotypic variations in populations.
  - Some phenotypic variations significantly increase or decrease the fitness of the organism in particular environments.
- Through artificial selection, humans affect variation in other species.
  - Humans choose to cause artificial selection with specific traits, accidental selection caused by humans is not artificial
- Random occurrences
  - Mutation
  - Genetic drift - change in existing allele frequency
  - Migration
- Reduction of genetic variation within a given population can increase the differences between populations of the same species.
- Conditions for a population or an allele to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are
  - Large population size
  - Absence of migration
  - No net mutations
  - Random mating
  - Absence of selection
- Changes in allele frequencies provide evidence for the occurrence of evolution in a population.
- Small populations are more susceptible to random environmental impact than large populations.
- Gene flow: transference of genes/alleles between populations
Speciation: one species splits off into multiple species
- Sympatric (living together i.e. disruption) Allopatric (physically separate, i.e. founder effect) Parapatric (habitats overlapping)
  - Polyploidy (autopolyploidy), sexual selection
- Species: group of populations whose members can interbreed and produce healthy, fertile offspring but can’t breed with other species (ex. a horse and donkey can produce a mule but a mule is nonviable, so it doesn’t qualify)
  - Morphological definition: body shape and structural characteristics define a species
  - Ecological species definition: way populations interact with their environments define a species
  - Phylogenetic species definition: smallest group that shares a common ancestor is a species
- Prezygotic barriers: barriers to reproduction before zygote is formed
  - Geographical error: two organisms are in different areas
  - Behavioural error (i.e. mating rituals aren’t the same)
  - Mechanical error: “the pieces don’t fit together”
  - Temporal error (i.e. one organism comes out at night while the other comes out in the day)
  - Zygotic/Gametic isolation: sperm and egg don’t physically meet
- Postzygotic barriers: barriers to reproduction after zygote is formed
  - Hybrid viability: developmental errors of offspring
  - Hybrid fertility: organism is sterilized
  - Hybrid breakdown: offspring over generations aren’t healthy
- Hybrid zone: region in which members of different species meet and mate
  - Reinforcement: hybrids less fit than parents, die off, strength prezygotic barriers
  - Fusion: two species may merge into one population
  - Stability: stable hybrid zones mean hybrids are more fit than parents, thus creating a stable population, but can be selected against in hybrid zones as well
- Punctuated equilibria: long periods of no or little change evolutionarily punctuated by short periods of large change, gradualism is just slow evolution
- Evidence of evolution
  - Paleontology (Fossils)
  - Comparative Anatomy
  - Embryology: embryos look the same as they grow
  - Biogeography: distribution of flora and fauna in the environment (pangea!)
  - Biochemical: DNA and proteins and stuff, also glycolysis
- Phylogenetic trees
  - Monophyletic: common ancestor and all descendants
  - Polyphyletic: descendants with different ancestors
  - Paraphyletic: leaving specifies out of group
- Out group: basal taxon, doesn’t have traits others do
- Cline: graded variation within species (i.e. different stem heights based on altitude)
- Anagenesis: one species turning into another species
- Cladogenesis: one species turning into multiple species
- Taxon: classification/grouping
- Clade: group of species with common ancestor
- Horizontal gene transfer: genes thrown between bacteria
- Shared derived characters: unique to specific group
- Shared primitive/ancestral characters: not unique to a specific group but is shared within group
Origins of life
- Stages
  - Inorganic formation of organic monomers (miller-urey experiment)
  - Inorganic formation of organic polymers (catalytic surfaces like hot rock or sand)
  - Protobionts and compartmentalization (liposomes, micelles)
  - DNA evolution (RNA functions as enzyme)
- Shared evolutionary characteristics across all domains
  - Membranes
  - Cell comm.
  - Gene to protein
  - DNA
  - Proteins
- Extant = not extinct
- Highly conserved genes = low rates of mutation in history due to criticalness (like electron transport chain)
- Molecular clock: dating evolution using DNA evidence
- Extinction causes niches for species to fill
- Eukaryotes all have common ancestor (shown by membrane-bound organelles, linear chromosomes, and introns)

Calculations

Hardy-Weinberg
- p + q = 1
- p^2 + 2pq +q^2 = 1
Chi Squared

Labs

Artificial Selection Lab
- Trichrome trait hairs
- Anthocyanin for second trait (purple stems)
- Function of the purple pigment?
- Function of trichome hairs?
BLAST Lab
- Putting nucleotides into a database outputs similar genes

Relevant Experiments

Darwin
Lamarck
Miller-Urey
- Slapped some water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen is some flasks and simulated early earth with heat and stuff and it made some amino acids.

Matthew Gong Birthday Letters 27-28 Today · Public Happy Birthday to Me. I was tempted to change the title from “Birthday Letter” to “State of the Matt,” because they haven’t been on my birthday in…. several years. Last year, I didn’t post a letter. I didn’t write one either. It’s not that I didn’t want to; it’s just that last year was…complicated. When I get stuck in my head, my boyfriends jokingly like to remind me “Other people feel things too, your emotions aren’t unique,” and they’re usually right. However, I don’t think there are many people who are openly queer and whose dad is now in one of the highest positions of authority in the LDS church. If there are, I would love to meet them for a nice cup of group therapy. We have so much to talk about. The Road Home/我的父亲母亲, 2017 “Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.” -Family Proclamation to the World My family is (in)famous for our analytical and serious dinner discussions full of “I think” statements. Sometimes we have trouble with the “I feel” conversations because we are so analytical. Me coming out was definitely an “I feel” kind of conversation. Seven years ago, I came out to my family. My relationship with my parents immediately hit a rocky patch. It wasn’t because they rejected me. They didn’t know if it was “just a phase” or what to do in general. To my parents’ credit, it was always clear they loved me, even when what they said wasn’t helpful. In my anxious, depressed state, it was hard to understand that they still loved me. We had to relearn how to talk to each other. I was simultaneously the son they had always known and a stranger. I had to learn to communicate a part of myself that I’d kept buried. They had to learn to talk to the “new” me and not their concept of me. It was emotionally intense work. The relationship we have now took several years and many uncomfortable conversations to arrive at. We’re closer now than we’ve ever been. I’m so glad my parents are an important part of my life. I am lucky, not every gay Mormon kid gets a good response when they come out. Coming out is hard enough; coming out while Mormon is often accompanied by added friction between identity and ideology. That tension isn’t unique to the LDS Church, but it is usually stronger since Mormons tend to be all-or-nothing about their beliefs. That Feeling When a Your Stomach Drops, 2017 “Being brave doesn’t mean you aren’t scared. Being brave means you are scared, really scared, badly scared, and you do the right thing anyway.” ― Neil Gaiman, Coraline I found out at the same time as the rest of the world. I didn’t know it was happening until my dad’s name was read from the pulpit. I’d had my suspicions, my mom had seemed stressed and my dad had his diplomatic stoicism cranked past eleven for the week leading up to the announcement, but I didn’t actually know. Texts from friends, acquaintances, and erstwhile associates started to arrive before the words had even sunk in. Most of the texts coming in were congratulatory: “Isn’t it so great?”, “He’ll do such a great job”, and “Congratulations to your family.” The staccato hum of well-wishers added to the maelstrom in my head. One of my best friends simply texted “I’m so sorry.” At the time I thought “Today is the day I lost my father. His life isn’t his anymore, and we are on opposite sides of a great divide.” I was furious. I was proud. I was conflicted. I was hurting. I wanted to be alone in my grief. My fear was that people would politicize my me and my dad. That our interactions would be nitpicked to brand us as avatars of ideologies. Despite my melodramatic gut-reaction he was still my dad. It didn’t matter if we agreed about everything; we’re still family. So, when I talk about the Church, I mean the Church. When I talk about my father, he’s just my father. That’s kind of the point of this whole letter. Before I talk about the Church, I want to talk about why I was proud that my father accepted the calling. I am not thrilled about his decision, but I respect his choice. I have known him for my whole life. I have seen him make mistakes. I have seen him change his mind. I have seen him struggle to understand. I have seen him grow more compassionate. I have never seen him desire a position of power. He is human and fallible, but he strives. My father is a good man. If he’s given power to wield, I trust that he will exercise his conscience and wield the power to the best of his ability for the betterment of those in his stewardship. I am hopeful he will be a force for good. Hiraeth, 2018 “Father my questions are fair ones. I fled from my fears for too long. If I’m going to call myself your son. I’d best sing you one honest song. I have to believe it’s alright. To see but still question my sight. To seek peace but still wrestle still fight. ‘cause I still can’t sleep. I still hear my wolves howling at night.” -Timid the Brave, “It’s Alright” The Church… That’s a complicated subject… It needs context. In my head, the Church is three distinct entities: the organization, the religion, and the culture. The organization is embodied by the institutional hierarchy—the general authorities, the first presidency, and the quorum of the twelve. The religion is the collection of beliefs, dogmas, and practices that comprise worship and daily living of latter-day saints. The culture is dictated by the local congregations, and is often the lens through which the organization is filtered. Sometimes I wish I wasn’t a moderate. It would be easier if I could speak in absolutes. Black and white thinking is easier; it’s concrete and well defined. It’s also brittle and reductive. I see so much potential within the organization to affect powerful change and good in the lives of members and people. In many places, functional wards and stakes are strong communities that care for one another. I have seen participation in church service inspire people to become kinder, more compassionate, and change despite the immutability of their own past. These positive aspects are not unique to the Church, but they are common. I believe most members of the Church are trying their best to live virtuously to their experience and beliefs. From a grassroots perspective, the Church is built on good intentions and succeeds in many ways. However, the Church is a hierarchy, a power structure. Power structures are always vulnerable to the mistakes of the fallible and the corruption of the malicious. The monolithic rigidity of the religion today makes me super sad. The old school doctrine was punk rock and radical. The idea that everyone was an embryonic god? Wild. When they said everyone was worth saving and actually meant it? Unapologetically universalist. The beliefs were molten—shifting and evolving—in fascinating and weird ways. The possibility of change was exciting and hopeful. But the inertia of tradition quenched the radical spirit as each generation left a patina on the Church. The religion calcified—rigidity replaced flexibility—and the organization became anchored in its conservative position. The relationship between the organization and the culture fascinates me. Despite its efforts to appear homogenous, the Church is anything but. There are West Coast Mormons who are different from Utah Mormons, who are different from International Mormons. People’s lived experience of the religion is as variegated as Joseph’s Dreamcoat, and some are much more flamboyant. Within each region, there’s latitude in ward cultures too. Bishop roulette is a real thing, and the “standardized” handbook is interpreted based on the discretion of a local leader. A truth behind any power structure is that the power of the system is proportional to peoples’ belief or adherence to the system. As much as the organization appears to be top-down, meaningful changes in the lives of individuals start from the bottom up. This gives me hope that even while the organization and religion remain unyielding, the culture can be the impetus for change. There are parts of the religion that I still hold to and cherish. I am a consummate humanist and fiercely devoted to the belief that we have true agency. While I believe actual uses are rare, I maintain that it is possible. By extension, I value my own ability to make choices and accept the consequences of my actions. I believe we are responsible for more than just our own happiness. I believe that humans are fallible, but not that we are inherently corrupt. Despite our imperfections, there is inherent value in humanity and that value is not infringed upon by a litany of labels and asterisks. The religion taught me to be intentional, patient, compassionate, forgiving, repentant, and to strive to better myself. I believe at the religion’s core is an immensely powerful set of values that drive human progression. In that core, I see an elegance that is beyond human intention. I have also seen the human intentions in the history of weaponizing the religion. The religion also taught me that queerness, is a mental illness, is vile, or simply does not exist. I learned this explicitly from the pulpit, and implicitly through the actions of members of my congregation. A lot of people say that the doctrine is inclusive, or, if it isn’t now, that it could be. Someday… if people would just be a little bit more Christlike… if the leaders would just be a bit more inspired… if god would change his mind. I still hope for a day when the radical free spirit of the Church will be rekindled and shakes off the rust. Maybe someday, the religion will change. For me, waiting for that day was like standing on a glacier and hoping that it would melt before I froze. That is to say, the conflict and tension of the predicament were artificial, a false dichotomy. Those weren’t my only options. The struggle to reconcile my history with my reality has shaped me in ways deeper than I can comprehend. I will carry those marks, both good and bad, forever. It will always play some part in my life because of my family, and that’s… how it is. I don’t hate the Church because, distilled to its essence the Church is its members, striving for meaning and a better life. Beautiful in their attempts, terrifying in their potential, and human in their efforts. Brave New World, 2018 “Then everything danced to a stranger tune And we found our song and we found our truth And now that we know it's that we always knew Farewell to the chains we were born into
And as we danced among the ashes of our lives We laughed it off And then we burned our tiny worlds and found the ocean Just beyond those paper walls” -Ben Cooper, “Ship in Port” When I was growing up, I couldn’t see a future where I was happy. I saw templates for the traditional wife-two-kids-white-picket-fence or the grandiose successful-single-guy-with-no-real-friends, and I’d even heard about an elusive template for happy-and-contented-possibly-with-a-dog. The templates play out in film, stories, celebrity, and in our friend’s lives. Sometimes they are cautionary tales, vengeful-man-is-consumed-by-own-hatred, others are bittersweet, underdog-takes-on-the-man-dies-trying-but-their-legacy-brings-change, and other some are even aspirational, luxury-obsessed-teenager-becomes-famous-by-a-social-media-fluke. Many important life decisions are made to follow the script of a particular template. This is not meant to belittle or diminish the importance of peoples’ choices; just an observation that there are patterns in the warp and weft of peoples’ lives. Of course, these are all caricatures of people’s lived experiences, but they form the backbones of peoples’ narratives. For a long time, I tried to shoehorn myself into different “straight” templates. I lived the template and, for a while, things would be going well, but then I'd see a couple kiss in public. "You will always be nervous that kissing your spouse in public will draw unwanted attention." It jolted me back to my reality. It didn't matter which template I tried. I didn’t fit. The carriage always turned back into a pumpkin. Learning what being queer meant, and finding a path through life took me a long time. The only queer life templates I had heard of were tragic: died-young-of-AIDS, estranged-from-family-with-trust-issues, celibate-and-self-loathing. I never imagined being-happy-as-you-are was even a possibility. Last year was a revelation. I started dating someone who truly changed my outlook on my history, and who has loved me as I am. He has loved me without pretense, and in the totality of my strengths and weaknesses. The greatest gift of being queer is the necessity to build your own template. So, we’re making a go of it. We’re writing our own story, together. There are still many chapters to write, but I think I’ll call the template for this chapter: Matt-unapologetically-queer-and-happy. The Roaring in My Head Was Like Thunder, 2019 Face, pressed into your hands couldn't tell if you were crying or laughing They both sound the same when you ain't got no skin in the game So, I took up the fight and the roaring in my head was like the thunder Until I uncurled my fists and allowed myself to not give a damn
I heard you say that we'd lost, we'd lost, we'd lost, we'd lost our way But I don't think we had much to lose that path was never built for us And I ain't gonna hang my head for them, for them And I ain't gonna let them paint the truth with sin And I ain't gonna tell you it's okay but at the end of the day You were just something to blame -Ben Cooper, “Everything Costs” Whether it’s by fate, a god’s will, or happenstance, I find myself in a somewhat unique situation for a queer person in the Church. I certainly never asked for this. I’m just a person trying to live my life honorably and to the best of my ability. If it had been up to me, it wouldn’t have gone the way it did, but… this is my reality now. It took two years for me to be comfortable enough to write this letter. It was necessary for me to take the time I needed to come to terms with everything. I didn’t want my actions to be dictated by knee-jerk emotional reactions. I was also keenly aware of many groups who wanted to co-opt my voice for their own agenda. I wanted to be certain I was speaking my truths and not parroting someone else’s opinions. There were also mundane reasons I waited too. I had my life to live, new jobs, a new relationship (two years and counting!), and the minutia of daily living. There was some trepidation about becoming visible. More than the fear of unwanted negative attention, I didn’t want to risk what I had worked so hard to reclaim. I am afraid that speaking truth to power will strain important relationships. By choosing to become more visible, some people will think that I’m a radical dissident, while others will be annoyed that I’m not critical enough. The Church’s treatment of LGBTQ people needs to change, and I can’t sit on the sidelines any more. Just Something to Blame, 2019 “Tell them they can be great someday, like us. Tell them they belong among us, no matter how we treat them. Tell them they must earn the respect which everyone else receives by default. Tell them there is a standard for acceptance; that standard is simply perfection. Kill those who scoff at those contradictions, and tell the rest that the dead deserved annihilation for their weakness and doubt. Then they'll break themselves trying for what they'll never achieve.” - N.K. Jemisin, “The Fifth Season” This section contained thoughts about the Church and being LGBTQ. It’s been moved into a separate piece of writing. Despite moving it, I still felt strongly about including the header Intentional Memories 2019 “So remember now Pay tribute to every sacrifice laid upon the altar of somehow For all the times Somehow we overcame Somehow we pushed on Somehow we’ve gone the distance And in going there we possessed the freedom to map the uncharted lands of any and Everywhere We are unbound” -Shane Koyczan, “Remember How We Forgot” My boyfriend calls me an “experience vampire.” I think it’s supposed to be a compliment or, at the very least, it’s not an insult. He usually calls me this after I geek out with him about a book or show that he’s experiencing for the first time. I can’t feel the smug satisfaction about being right about a plot twist in a favorite series again, but I can re-experience it vicariously through him. It’s probably an extension of my drive for novelty. That drive is altruistic, mostly. Sharing things that are awesome is a good thing to do. It just so happens I get to re-experience them vicariously. The “experience vampire” thing extends beyond vicarious living too. I get in trouble when I listen to the little voice that asks, “Well, why not?” to weird and random stuff. The drive for novelty has been the impetus for many stories. The kind that are funny in hindsight, with ample perspective. The thing about stories and memories is that they usually mark an instant in time when something shaped you. I call these blips of experience “ephemera”. They’re like the crystals inside geodes. Crack open a memory and you’ll find them. Most ephemera are small. The hike that taught me the sound of rain on stone at the top of Mount Timpanogos. The first bite of an apple from the family tree after being gone; the summer ripened-sweetness crunched like fall and tasted like home. Some are consequential and defining. Hearing the phone call bearing news of the death of my grandfather, and feeling the solidity of history that came before me. In many ways we are the sum total of our ephemera. I love watching the spark in someone’s eyes as they find an ephemera inside a new experience. If that makes me an experience vampire, then I guess I am one. This year I have spent a lot of time trying to understand how shared experience builds empathy. Experiences are qualia and aren’t transferable. I think about this when I see people talk poorly of people affected by homelessness. I think about this in context of Church leaders attempting to understand LGBTQ experiences. I think about this when I watch friends fight over different political ideologies. Understanding why someone is slow to trust or quick to smile or has a different opinion requires context that can’t always be given. I wonder if there are ways of architecting an experience to bridge the communication gaps, giving people intentional memories. Change Log for Perspective Patch 2.018 “I evaluate decisions and major life choices by what I hope are meaningful metrics. As a math geek/engineer I’ve tried optimizing for a small set of these.” - Matt Authenticity has provided a useful dimension for calculating an action’s value in net human good, but it is ultimately a variable of human good. I’m condensing authenticity to be a variable of human good. In the past I have self-medicated existential crises by consuming media to numb my brain. It’s not a healthy long-term solution. I will prioritize creating over consuming. Net human good was results-focused and didn’t account for contextual variables surrounding an action. The intentionality of an action is necessary to fully evaluate a decision. The internal alpha testing creation and intentionality over the last year has demonstrated improved performance in the system. To reflect this, two new metrics have been added to the evaluation policy: net creation and intentionality. This brings the total governing metrics to three principles. Birthday Wishes: I wish this year will bring light and inspiration. I wish this year will be full new stories. I wish I will become wiser. I wish this year will be the start of great change. I wish that I will be a force for good. Good Thoughts: 1. What is a small triumph or victory from today? 2. What was something good that happened today? 3. What is something you’re grateful for? 4. Who is someone you'd complement and why? 5. What are you looking forward to in the next week? 6. What is a positive affirmation about yourself, phrased in an unqualified “I am” statement? 1. I finally finished this damn letter. 2. I found someone! 3. I am grateful for the modern conveniences and the privilege to utilize them. 4. My nuclear and extended family; they’re awesome and I am nourished by their relationships. 5. Travelling to new places and making traditions together. 6. I am tenacious. Conclusions I might be walking straight into a storm and I know you’ve got my back. I couldn’t do this without you. It’s going to be a wild ride. Love and gratitude, Matthew Gong
EDIT: FORMATTING

Mathew Gong, gay son of general authority, makes a public post about his relationship with his father.
Matthew Gong Birthday Letters 27-28 Today · Public Happy Birthday to Me.
I was tempted to change the title from “Birthday Letter” to “State of the Matt,” because they haven’t been on my birthday in…. several years. Last year, I didn’t post a letter. I didn’t write one either. It’s not that I didn’t want to; it’s just that last year was…complicated. When I get stuck in my head, my boyfriends jokingly like to remind me “Other people feel things too, your emotions aren’t unique,” and they’re usually right. However, I don’t think there are many people who are openly queer and whose dad is now in one of the highest positions of authority in the LDS church. If there are, I would love to meet them for a nice cup of group therapy. We have so much to talk about.
The Road Home/我的父亲母亲, 2017 “Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.” -Family Proclamation to the World
My family is (in)famous for our analytical and serious dinner discussions full of “I think” statements. Sometimes we have trouble with the “I feel” conversations because we are so analytical. Me coming out was definitely an “I feel” kind of conversation. Seven years ago, I came out to my family. My relationship with my parents immediately hit a rocky patch. It wasn’t because they rejected me. They didn’t know if it was “just a phase” or what to do in general. To my parents’ credit, it was always clear they loved me, even when what they said wasn’t helpful. In my anxious, depressed state, it was hard to understand that they still loved me. We had to relearn how to talk to each other. I was simultaneously the son they had always known and a stranger. I had to learn to communicate a part of myself that I’d kept buried. They had to learn to talk to the “new” me and not their concept of me. It was emotionally intense work. The relationship we have now took several years and many uncomfortable conversations to arrive at. We’re closer now than we’ve ever been. I’m so glad my parents are an important part of my life. I am lucky, not every gay Mormon kid gets a good response when they come out. Coming out is hard enough; coming out while Mormon is often accompanied by added friction between identity and ideology. That tension isn’t unique to the LDS Church, but it is usually stronger since Mormons tend to be all-or-nothing about their beliefs.
That Feeling When a Your Stomach Drops, 2017
“Being brave doesn’t mean you aren’t scared. Being brave means you are scared, really scared, badly scared, and you do the right thing anyway.” ― Neil Gaiman, Coraline
I found out at the same time as the rest of the world. I didn’t know it was happening until my dad’s name was read from the pulpit. I’d had my suspicions, my mom had seemed stressed and my dad had his diplomatic stoicism cranked past eleven for the week leading up to the announcement, but I didn’t actually know. Texts from friends, acquaintances, and erstwhile associates started to arrive before the words had even sunk in. Most of the texts coming in were congratulatory: “Isn’t it so great?”, “He’ll do such a great job”, and “Congratulations to your family.” The staccato hum of well-wishers added to the maelstrom in my head. One of my best friends simply texted “I’m so sorry.” At the time I thought “Today is the day I lost my father. His life isn’t his anymore, and we are on opposite sides of a great divide.” I was furious. I was proud. I was conflicted. I was hurting. I wanted to be alone in my grief. My fear was that people would politicize my me and my dad. That our interactions would be nitpicked to brand us as avatars of ideologies. Despite my melodramatic gut-reaction he was still my dad. It didn’t matter if we agreed about everything; we’re still family. So, when I talk about the Church, I mean the Church. When I talk about my father, he’s just my father. That’s kind of the point of this whole letter. Before I talk about the Church, I want to talk about why I was proud that my father accepted the calling. I am not thrilled about his decision, but I respect his choice. I have known him for my whole life. I have seen him make mistakes. I have seen him change his mind. I have seen him struggle to understand. I have seen him grow more compassionate. I have never seen him desire a position of power. He is human and fallible, but he strives. My father is a good man. If he’s given power to wield, I trust that he will exercise his conscience and wield the power to the best of his ability for the betterment of those in his stewardship. I am hopeful he will be a force for good.
Hiraeth, 2018
“Father my questions are fair ones. I fled from my fears for too long. If I’m going to call myself your son. I’d best sing you one honest song. I have to believe it’s alright. To see but still question my sight. To seek peace but still wrestle still fight. ‘cause I still can’t sleep. I still hear my wolves howling at night.” -Timid the Brave, “It’s Alright”
The Church… That’s a complicated subject… It needs context. In my head, the Church is three distinct entities: the organization, the religion, and the culture. The organization is embodied by the institutional hierarchy—the general authorities, the first presidency, and the quorum of the twelve. The religion is the collection of beliefs, dogmas, and practices that comprise worship and daily living of latter-day saints. The culture is dictated by the local congregations, and is often the lens through which the organization is filtered. Sometimes I wish I wasn’t a moderate. It would be easier if I could speak in absolutes. Black and white thinking is easier; it’s concrete and well defined. It’s also brittle and reductive. I see so much potential within the organization to affect powerful change and good in the lives of members and people. In many places, functional wards and stakes are strong communities that care for one another. I have seen participation in church service inspire people to become kinder, more compassionate, and change despite the immutability of their own past. These positive aspects are not unique to the Church, but they are common. I believe most members of the Church are trying their best to live virtuously to their experience and beliefs. From a grassroots perspective, the Church is built on good intentions and succeeds in many ways. However, the Church is a hierarchy, a power structure. Power structures are always vulnerable to the mistakes of the fallible and the corruption of the malicious. The monolithic rigidity of the religion today makes me super sad. The old school doctrine was punk rock and radical. The idea that everyone was an embryonic god? Wild. When they said everyone was worth saving and actually meant it? Unapologetically universalist. The beliefs were molten—shifting and evolving—in fascinating and weird ways. The possibility of change was exciting and hopeful. But the inertia of tradition quenched the radical spirit as each generation left a patina on the Church. The religion calcified—rigidity replaced flexibility—and the organization became anchored in its conservative position. The relationship between the organization and the culture fascinates me. Despite its efforts to appear homogenous, the Church is anything but. There are West Coast Mormons who are different from Utah Mormons, who are different from International Mormons. People’s lived experience of the religion is as variegated as Joseph’s Dreamcoat, and some are much more flamboyant. Within each region, there’s latitude in ward cultures too. Bishop roulette is a real thing, and the “standardized” handbook is interpreted based on the discretion of a local leader. A truth behind any power structure is that the power of the system is proportional to peoples’ belief or adherence to the system. As much as the organization appears to be top-down, meaningful changes in the lives of individuals start from the bottom up. This gives me hope that even while the organization and religion remain unyielding, the culture can be the impetus for change. There are parts of the religion that I still hold to and cherish. I am a consummate humanist and fiercely devoted to the belief that we have true agency. While I believe actual uses are rare, I maintain that it is possible. By extension, I value my own ability to make choices and accept the consequences of my actions. I believe we are responsible for more than just our own happiness. I believe that humans are fallible, but not that we are inherently corrupt. Despite our imperfections, there is inherent value in humanity and that value is not infringed upon by a litany of labels and asterisks. The religion taught me to be intentional, patient, compassionate, forgiving, repentant, and to strive to better myself. I believe at the religion’s core is an immensely powerful set of values that drive human progression. In that core, I see an elegance that is beyond human intention. I have also seen the human intentions in the history of weaponizing the religion. The religion also taught me that queerness, is a mental illness, is vile, or simply does not exist. I learned this explicitly from the pulpit, and implicitly through the actions of members of my congregation. A lot of people say that the doctrine is inclusive, or, if it isn’t now, that it could be. Someday… if people would just be a little bit more Christlike… if the leaders would just be a bit more inspired… if god would change his mind. I still hope for a day when the radical free spirit of the Church will be rekindled and shakes off the rust. Maybe someday, the religion will change. For me, waiting for that day was like standing on a glacier and hoping that it would melt before I froze. That is to say, the conflict and tension of the predicament were artificial, a false dichotomy. Those weren’t my only options. The struggle to reconcile my history with my reality has shaped me in ways deeper than I can comprehend. I will carry those marks, both good and bad, forever. It will always play some part in my life because of my family, and that’s… how it is. I don’t hate the Church because, distilled to its essence the Church is its members, striving for meaning and a better life. Beautiful in their attempts, terrifying in their potential, and human in their efforts.
Brave New World, 2018
“Then everything danced to a stranger tune And we found our song and we found our truth And now that we know it's that we always knew Farewell to the chains we were born into
And as we danced among the ashes of our lives We laughed it off And then we burned our tiny worlds and found the ocean Just beyond those paper walls” -Ben Cooper, “Ship in Port”
When I was growing up, I couldn’t see a future where I was happy. I saw templates for the traditional wife-two-kids-white-picket-fence or the grandiose successful-single-guy-with-no-real-friends, and I’d even heard about an elusive template for happy-and-contented-possibly-with-a-dog. The templates play out in film, stories, celebrity, and in our friend’s lives. Sometimes they are cautionary tales, vengeful-man-is-consumed-by-own-hatred, others are bittersweet, underdog-takes-on-the-man-dies-trying-but-their-legacy-brings-change, and other some are even aspirational, luxury-obsessed-teenager-becomes-famous-by-a-social-media-fluke. Many important life decisions are made to follow the script of a particular template. This is not meant to belittle or diminish the importance of peoples’ choices; just an observation that there are patterns in the warp and weft of peoples’ lives. Of course, these are all caricatures of people’s lived experiences, but they form the backbones of peoples’ narratives. For a long time, I tried to shoehorn myself into different “straight” templates. I lived the template and, for a while, things would be going well, but then I'd see a couple kiss in public. "You will always be nervous that kissing your spouse in public will draw unwanted attention." It jolted me back to my reality. It didn't matter which template I tried. I didn’t fit. The carriage always turned back into a pumpkin. Learning what being queer meant, and finding a path through life took me a long time. The only queer life templates I had heard of were tragic: died-young-of-AIDS, estranged-from-family-with-trust-issues, celibate-and-self-loathing. I never imagined being-happy-as-you-are was even a possibility. Last year was a revelation. I started dating someone who truly changed my outlook on my history, and who has loved me as I am. He has loved me without pretense, and in the totality of my strengths and weaknesses. The greatest gift of being queer is the necessity to build your own template. So, we’re making a go of it. We’re writing our own story, together. There are still many chapters to write, but I think I’ll call the template for this chapter: Matt-unapologetically-queer-and-happy.
The Roaring in My Head Was Like Thunder, 2019
Face, pressed into your hands couldn't tell if you were crying or laughing They both sound the same when you ain't got no skin in the game So, I took up the fight and the roaring in my head was like the thunder Until I uncurled my fists and allowed myself to not give a damn
I heard you say that we'd lost, we'd lost, we'd lost, we'd lost our way But I don't think we had much to lose that path was never built for us And I ain't gonna hang my head for them, for them And I ain't gonna let them paint the truth with sin And I ain't gonna tell you it's okay but at the end of the day You were just something to blame -Ben Cooper, “Everything Costs”
Whether it’s by fate, a god’s will, or happenstance, I find myself in a somewhat unique situation for a queer person in the Church. I certainly never asked for this. I’m just a person trying to live my life honorably and to the best of my ability. If it had been up to me, it wouldn’t have gone the way it did, but… this is my reality now. It took two years for me to be comfortable enough to write this letter. It was necessary for me to take the time I needed to come to terms with everything. I didn’t want my actions to be dictated by knee-jerk emotional reactions. I was also keenly aware of many groups who wanted to co-opt my voice for their own agenda. I wanted to be certain I was speaking my truths and not parroting someone else’s opinions. There were also mundane reasons I waited too. I had my life to live, new jobs, a new relationship (two years and counting!), and the minutia of daily living. There was some trepidation about becoming visible. More than the fear of unwanted negative attention, I didn’t want to risk what I had worked so hard to reclaim. I am afraid that speaking truth to power will strain important relationships. By choosing to become more visible, some people will think that I’m a radical dissident, while others will be annoyed that I’m not critical enough. The Church’s treatment of LGBTQ people needs to change, and I can’t sit on the sidelines any more.
Just Something to Blame, 2019
“Tell them they can be great someday, like us. Tell them they belong among us, no matter how we treat them. Tell them they must earn the respect which everyone else receives by default. Tell them there is a standard for acceptance; that standard is simply perfection. Kill those who scoff at those contradictions, and tell the rest that the dead deserved annihilation for their weakness and doubt. Then they'll break themselves trying for what they'll never achieve.” - N.K. Jemisin, “The Fifth Season”
This section contained thoughts about the Church and being LGBTQ. It’s been moved into a separate piece of writing. Despite moving it, I still felt strongly about including the header
Intentional Memories 2019
“So remember now Pay tribute to every sacrifice laid upon the altar of somehow For all the times Somehow we overcame Somehow we pushed on Somehow we’ve gone the distance And in going there we possessed the freedom to map the uncharted lands of any and Everywhere We are unbound” -Shane Koyczan, “Remember How We Forgot”
My boyfriend calls me an “experience vampire.” I think it’s supposed to be a compliment or, at the very least, it’s not an insult. He usually calls me this after I geek out with him about a book or show that he’s experiencing for the first time. I can’t feel the smug satisfaction about being right about a plot twist in a favorite series again, but I can re-experience it vicariously through him. It’s probably an extension of my drive for novelty. That drive is altruistic, mostly. Sharing things that are awesome is a good thing to do. It just so happens I get to re-experience them vicariously. The “experience vampire” thing extends beyond vicarious living too. I get in trouble when I listen to the little voice that asks, “Well, why not?” to weird and random stuff. The drive for novelty has been the impetus for many stories. The kind that are funny in hindsight, with ample perspective. The thing about stories and memories is that they usually mark an instant in time when something shaped you. I call these blips of experience “ephemera”. They’re like the crystals inside geodes. Crack open a memory and you’ll find them. Most ephemera are small. The hike that taught me the sound of rain on stone at the top of Mount Timpanogos. The first bite of an apple from the family tree after being gone; the summer ripened-sweetness crunched like fall and tasted like home. Some are consequential and defining. Hearing the phone call bearing news of the death of my grandfather, and feeling the solidity of history that came before me. In many ways we are the sum total of our ephemera. I love watching the spark in someone’s eyes as they find an ephemera inside a new experience. If that makes me an experience vampire, then I guess I am one. This year I have spent a lot of time trying to understand how shared experience builds empathy. Experiences are qualia and aren’t transferable. I think about this when I see people talk poorly of people affected by homelessness. I think about this in context of Church leaders attempting to understand LGBTQ experiences. I think about this when I watch friends fight over different political ideologies. Understanding why someone is slow to trust or quick to smile or has a different opinion requires context that can’t always be given. I wonder if there are ways of architecting an experience to bridge the communication gaps, giving people intentional memories.
Change Log for Perspective Patch 2.018
“I evaluate decisions and major life choices by what I hope are meaningful metrics. As a math geek/engineer I’ve tried optimizing for a small set of these.” - Matt
Authenticity has provided a useful dimension for calculating an action’s value in net human good, but it is ultimately a variable of human good. I’m condensing authenticity to be a variable of human good. In the past I have self-medicated existential crises by consuming media to numb my brain. It’s not a healthy long-term solution. I will prioritize creating over consuming. Net human good was results-focused and didn’t account for contextual variables surrounding an action. The intentionality of an action is necessary to fully evaluate a decision. The internal alpha testing creation and intentionality over the last year has demonstrated improved performance in the system. To reflect this, two new metrics have been added to the evaluation policy: net creation and intentionality. This brings the total governing metrics to three principles.
Birthday Wishes: I wish this year will bring light and inspiration. I wish this year will be full new stories. I wish I will become wiser. I wish this year will be the start of great change. I wish that I will be a force for good.
Good Thoughts: 1. What is a small triumph or victory from today? 2. What was something good that happened today? 3. What is something you’re grateful for? 4. Who is someone you'd complement and why? 5. What are you looking forward to in the next week? 6. What is a positive affirmation about yourself, phrased in an unqualified “I am” statement? 1. I finally finished this damn letter. 2. I found someone! 3. I am grateful for the modern conveniences and the privilege to utilize them. 4. My nuclear and extended family; they’re awesome and I am nourished by their relationships. 5. Travelling to new places and making traditions together. 6. I am tenacious.
Conclusions
I might be walking straight into a storm and I know you’ve got my back. I couldn’t do this without you. It’s going to be a wild ride. Love and gratitude, Matthew Gong

122nd Senate Rules
Resolved by the United States Senate,
Rule I: President Pro Tempore

The President Pro Tempore shall serve at the pleasure of the Senate.
Upon the start of a new Congressional term, the Senate shall elect the President Pro Tempore by a vote of all Senators where a majority of all votes determines the winner.
Upon a vacancy of the office of President Pro Tempore, there shall be a prompt election to elect the President Pro Tempore conducted in the same manner as Senate Rule I, 2.
The President Pro Tempore may resign this position without resigning their Senate seat.

Rule II: Oaths

The Oaths and Affirmations prescribed by the constitution and US law shall be taken by each Senator before entering upon their duties.
Rule II, 1. of the Senate rules applies to all Senators, regardless of if they are entering for the first time, an incumbent returning, or appointed.
The following Oaths have been prescribed by the Constitution and US Law "I, A__ B__, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." (5 U.S.C. 3331.)

Rule III: Amendment of Rules

No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any Senate rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on two days’ notice specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

Rule IV: Quorum

A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

Rule V: Voting Procedure

All voting periods (including amendment proposals) have a minimum length of 48 hours from their time of posting by the Senate Clerk.
No voting period (including amendment proposals) shall exceed one week in length from their time of posting by the Senate Clerk.
The Senate Majority Leader may lengthen any voting period (including amendment proposals) prior to the voting period beginning or during the voting period by informing the Senate Clerk.
The Chairman of a Committee may lengthen any voting period (including amendment proposals) within their committee prior to the voting period beginning or during the voting period by informing the Senate Clerk.
During a voting period, a Senator must vote either in the affirmative by commenting ‘yea’, in the unaffirmative by commenting ‘nay’, or may declare themselves present but not voting in either the affirmative or unaffirmative, by commenting ‘present’ or ‘abstain’.

a. Amendments to bills in either committee or floor votes shall be considered passed with a simple majority.

No Senator shall delete or remove their vote, but a Senator may change their vote in a manner prescribed by the Senate Clerk

Rule VI: Docket

No one shall submit legislation to the Senate who is not currently serving as a United States Senator. A Senator may sponsor legislation authored by a non-Senator which will allow it to be submitted to the Senate.
Any Senator may submit a piece of legislation to the Senate in the manner prescribed by the Senate Clerk.
Legislation shall be added to the Senate docket in the order in which it was submitted.
The Senate Majority Leader may table any legislation (including treaties and nominations) by informing the Senate Clerk. The Senate Majority Leader may rush any legislation (including treaties) to an amendment proposal or Senate floor vote by informing the Senate Clerk. The Senate Majority Leader may rush a nomination to a Senate floor vote by informing the Senate Clerk. The Senate Majority Leader may alter the order of legislation (including treaties) on the docket by informing the Senate Clerk.

a. A discharge petition, once ordered to the Senate Clerk, can be issued by a simple majority vote of Senators to immediately put legislation before a committee up to an amendment proposal or floor vote on the Senate floor.
b. Legislation (including treaties and nominees) that has come up for an amendment proposal, amendment vote, or Senate floor vote may no longer be tabled.

Legislation originating from the House of Representatives shall be treated the same as Senate legislation and all rules applying to Senate legislation shall apply to it as well.

Rule VII: Amendments

No Senator shall propose an amendment in a committee (other than a technical, clerical, or conforming amendment) which contains any significant matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee where the amendment is being proposed.

Rule VIII: Reference to Committees

In any case in which a controversy arises pursuant to a Chairman or Ranking Member exercising their authority under Senate Rule XI, 5 as to the jurisdiction of any committee with respect to any proposed legislation, the question of jurisdiction shall be decided by the President Pro Tempore, without debate, in favor of the committee which has jurisdiction over the subject matter which predominates in such proposed legislation; but such decision shall be subject to an appeal.

Rule IX: Committee Establishment

There is established a Standing Committee on Veteran Affairs, Foreign Relations, and Armed Services, which shall have jurisdiction over measures relating to the following: the armed forces, foreign relations and treaties, homeland security and governmental affairs, issues of defense and war, and veteran affairs. This committee may be referred to as the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Armed Services.
There is established a Standing Committee on Commerce, Finance, Labor, and Pensions, which shall have jurisdiction over measures relating to the following: appropriations and budgeting, revenue and government finance, banking, the currency, labor, interstate commerce, trade, pensions and Social Security, social welfare, small businesses, and education. This committee may be referred to as the Senate Committee on Finance.
There is established a Standing Committee on Health, Science, and the Environment, which shall have jurisdiction over measures relating to the following: agriculture, nutrition, forestry, civil space matters, science, transportation, energy, natural resources, the environment and conservation, public works, public health, and healthcare. This committee may be referred to as the Senate Committee on The Environment and Healthcare.
There is established a Standing Committee on Judiciary, Local Government, and Oversight, which shall have jurisdiction over measures relating to the following: local government, the Federal District, the judiciary, constitutional amendments, the impeachment of officials, government ethics, government oversight and accountability, and Senate rules and administration, and federal intelligence operations, and its oversight. This committee may be referred to as the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
If ⅓ of senators consent, a special committee may be created to address a particular concern.

Rule X: Selection of Committees

Each standing committee shall be composed of five senators, with each senator serving on two different committees.
Each Senator must caucus with either the Senate Majority Leader or the Senate Minority Leader for the purposes of committee selection.
The Senate Majority Leader must assign three places on each committee.
The Senate Minority Leader must assign two places on each committee
The Senate Majority Leader will decide committee placements for individual Senators of their caucus.
The Senate Minority Leader will decide committee placements for individual Senators of their caucus.
Where, due to the size of a caucus, it is required that the opposing caucus leader must select committees for a member of their opposing caucus they must respect the choices of the opposing caucus leader except where it conflicts with their own committee selections.
The Majority Leader shall select the Chairman of each committee.
The Minority Leader shall select the Ranking Member of each committee.
Upon the vacancy of a committee Chairmanship, the Majority Leader shall select one member of that committee to become Chairman.
Upon the vacancy of a committee Ranking Membership, the Minority Leader shall select one member of that committee to become Ranking Member.
Committees shall be completely re-established in accordance with Senate Rule X upon any successful recaucusing of the Senate Majority Leader.
The Senate may create and abolish committees, reform their jurisdictions, or change the leadership and membership on any or all committees by a Senate Resolution passed by a majority of the Senate.
Senators which replace other Senators shall take that Senator’s committee assignments, but not their positions of either Chairman or Ranking Member.

Rule XI: Committee Proceedings

A majority of the members of a committee shall constitute a quorum of that committee.
Committees shall have the power to amend legislation within their committee, to deem a measure fit for consideration on the Senate floor, to deem a measure unfit for consideration on the Senate floor, to report measures to the Senate floor, and to subpoena individuals for questioning on various measures and events before the committee in accordance with Senate Rule XII.
Committees shall wield these powers by a simple majority of a quorum except with regards to hearings as the committee will establish their own rules in accordance with Senate Rule XII.
While legislation (including treaties) is on the docket, the Senate Majority Leader may contact the Senate Clerk to inform them as to which committee, if any, the legislation should be assigned to. Otherwise, the Senate Clerk shall send legislation to an appropriate committee.
Where the Chairman or Ranking Member of another committee objects to the Senate Clerk’s determination of an appropriate committee to send legislation, the dispute shall be resolved with reference to Senate Rule VIII.
Legislation may proceed to the Senate floor without first being referred to a committee by the Senate Majority Leader informing the Senate Clerk or consent of ⅔ of the Senate.
Each Senate confirmation shall be sent to the appropriate committee, as determined by Appendix A, for a committee vote before being reported to the Senate floor, unless otherwise prescribed by the Senate Majority Leader or a petition of ⅔ majority of the Senate.
There shall be a binding vote on that nominee where a majority of the committee in favor shall approve the nominee for a report to the Senate floor. Should a majority of the committee not be in favor the committee shall not approve the nominee for a report to the Senate floor.
The Chairman may prescribe that a private committee hearing with the nominee, not exceeding one week, precede the vote on the nominee by informing the Senate Clerk.
The Chairman of each committee may send legislation not currently in amendment proposal or amendment votes in their committees straight to a committee vote by informing the Senate Clerk.

Rule XII: Hearing Authorization; Committee Rules

Each standing committee is authorized to hold such hearings, to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and documents, to take such testimony. Each such committee may make investigations into any matter within its jurisdiction, may report such hearings as may be had by it.
Each committee shall adopt rules by majority vote (not inconsistent with the Rules of the Senate) governing the procedure of such committee with regards to hearings and the issuance of subpoenas.

Rule XIII: Election of Majority and Minority Leaders

Upon the start of a new Congressional term, the Senate shall hold an election for the office of Senate Majority Leader by a vote of all Senators where the candidate receiving the most votes is the winner. The runner-up becomes Senate Minority Leader, but if there are multiple runners-up gaining the same number of votes, the Vice President shall decide the Senate Minority Leader, but the Senate Minority Leader must be from a different party as the Senate Majority Leader.
If there are two or more candidates, and all receive the same number of votes, the Vice President shall decide who becomes Senate Majority Leader.
If there are more than two candidates, and the candidates who have received the most votes have also received the same number of votes, the candidate(s) receiving the lowest number of votes shall be eliminated and another ballot of the remaining candidates shall be held.
If there is one candidate, the Senate Majority Leader shall select a senator from another party to be Senate Minority Leader.
A re-caucus for the positions of Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader can be issued by both the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader informing the Senate Clerk, or by a majority resolution.
Should the office of Senate Majority Leader become vacant the Senate shall hold an election to determine a new Senate Majority Leader in accordance with Senate Rule XIII; this includes a new Senate Minority Leader.
Should the office of Senate Minority Leader become vacant the minority caucus shall select a new Senate Minority Leader. If the minority caucus cannot decide on a new Senate Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader shall select a member of the minority caucus to be the Senate Minority Leader.
The Senate Majority Leader or Senate Minority Leader may resign these positions without resigning their Senate seat.

Rule XIV: Poison Pill Amendments

No member shall submit any amendment which strikes all significant portions (where significant portion is taken to mean all sections, excluding any definitions, short title, or other procedural section) of a part of legislation, which strikes the enacting clause or amends the enacting clause to a date further than ten years beyond the implementation date of the legislation, or otherwise significantly delays the enactment of the legislation beyond what is just and reasonable, which significantly negates the purpose of the legislation, which strikes particular tenses, letters, or other grammatical functions to make the legislation incoherent, which adds non-germane and/or absurd sections to the legislation to ensure its failure, or which generally alters the language of the legislation in a manner unduly severe or contrary to the original purpose of the legislation.
This rule shall be interpreted and enforced by the Chairman of a Committee within their committee and by the Senate Majority Leader outside of committees, and members in violation may be appropriately sanctioned.

Rule XV: Secret Sessions

The Senate, by majority vote, may hold a secret session for no longer than seventy-two hours and may be extended by three days by majority vote. No records shall be kept during this time.

Rule XVI: Senate Chamber

The Senate Chamber shall not be granted for any other purpose than for the use of the Senate; no smoking shall be permitted at any time on the floor of the Senate, or lighted cigars, cigarettes, e-cigarettes or pipes be brought into the Chamber. It shall be the duty of the Committee on Judiciary, Local Government, and Oversight to make all rules and regulations respecting such parts of the Capitol, its passages and galleries, including the restaurant and the Senate Office Buildings, as are or may be set apart for the use of the Senate and its officers, to be enforced under the direction of the Presiding Officer. The Committee shall make such regulations respecting the reporters' galleries of the Senate, together with the adjoining rooms and facilities, as will confine their occupancy and use to bona fide reporters of newspapers and periodicals, and of news or press associations for daily news dissemination through radio, television, wires, and cables, and similar media of transmission. These regulations shall so provide for the use of such space and facilities as fairly to distribute their use to all such media of news dissemination.
The Senate Majority Leader may open a weekly speech thread within the Senate where Senators may comment on any matter they choose while still respecting the rules and decorum of the Senate.

Rule XVII: Usage of Senate Rules

Any power a Senator, Chairman, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, President Pro-Tempore, or the President of the Senate is granted within these rules, that is not pertinent to normal Senate business, must be made as a comment on the appropriate thread while pinging the Senate Clerk.
In the event of an ambiguity or contradiction within the Senate Rules, the President Pro Tempore may issue an interpretation of the Senate Rules that solves the problem. The President Pro Tempore has final jurisdiction over interpretation of the Senate Rules.

Rule XVIII: Senate Filibusters

A filibuster is the process whereby a Senator holds the Senate floor in an attempt to prevent a piece of legislation (including treaties and nominations) from progressing.
Any Senator may begin a filibuster by commenting in the appropriate thread designated by the Senate Clerk with the phrase “I am starting a filibuster on [Legislation Title]” and pinging the Senate Clerk.
Legislation Title shall refer to the type and number of a bill or be clear beyond a reasonable doubt when opening a filibuster on a treaty or nomination.
A filibuster on legislation may only be started during amendment proposals or amendment votes. A filibuster on treaties and nominations may be started during amendment proposals or amendment votes, if applicable, and during Senate floor votes, respectively.
If, due to action by the Senate Majority Leader legislation (including treaties or nominations) has no amendment proposal phase or amendment vote phase then a filibuster may be started only within 48 hours of the original posting of the legislation’s (including treaties and nominations) floor vote phase.
Once a filibuster has been started, the Senator must comment on the amendment proposal, amendment vote, or Senate floor vote thread indicating beyond a reasonable doubt that they are filibustering.
Once a Senator has commented in accordance with Senate Rule XVIII, 6. the legislation (including treaties and nominations) will not proceed out of its current phase until the filibustering Senator comments that the filibuster is over or at least 6 Senators comment on the filibustering Senator’s comment indicating they are ending the filibuster. Ending a filibuster in this manner ends all currently active filibusters on the legislation (including treaties and nominations).
Once a filibuster has been ended in accordance with Senate Rule XVIII, 7. The legislation (including treaties and nominations) will proceed to the next legislative phase unless the filibuster was ended within 48 hours from the original posting of the legislation (including treaties and nominations) in which case the phase remains open for all usual action including another filibuster.
No Senator may initiate a filibuster on any legislation (including treaties and nominations) more than once.
No Senator may have more than three filibusters ongoing at one time.
A filibuster does not prevent any Senator from taking action they normally would be able to on legislation (including treaties and nominations) including, but not limited to, voting, proposing amendments, and voting on amendments.
The Senate Clerk must verify that active filibusters have not been ended at least once a week or upon request of the Senate Majority Leader or Senate Minority Leader.
The Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader, if in agreement, may end a filibuster immediately by commenting in the manner prescribed in Senate Rule XVIII, 7.

Rule XIX: Upholding the Constitution Amendment

All legislation submitted to and originating from the Senate must include a section citing the main constitutional basis, or basises for the provisions of the legislation. Should the President Pro Tempore, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader all agree that the legislation involved does not include such a basis, the legislation shall be struck from the docket

Rule XX: Determining Senate Seniority

The Seniority date of each Senator is calculated in the first instance as the date on which the Oath in Rule II is taken by the Senator that began their current, continuous service in the Senate. Those Senators taking the Oath earlier are more senior than Senators taking the Oath later. For the purposes of this rule, only the calendar day and year are considered and not hours, minutes, seconds, or any smaller denomination of time.
In the event that two or more Senators took the Oath in Rule II on the same date the more senior is the Senator whose state they represent entered the Union earlier.
In the event that two or more Senators took the Oath in Rule II on the same date and the state they represent entered the Union on the same date the more senior is the Senator who has a longer length of service in the positions described in Appendix B based on hierarchy. Any amount of service in a higher office will make that Senator more senior than a longer length of service in a lower office.

Appendix A
Standing Committee on Commerce, Finance, and Labor 1. Secretary of the Treasury
Standing Committee on Health, Science, and the Environment 1. Secretary of Health and Human Services 2. Secretary of the Interior
Standing Committee on Judiciary, Local Government, and Oversight 1. Attorney General 2. Supreme Court Justices
Standing Committee on Veteran Affairs, Foreign Relations, and Armed Services 1. Secretary of State 2. Secretary of Defense
Appendix B

Former senator
Former vice president
Former House member
Former Cabinet secretary
Former state governor
Population of state based on the most recent census when the senator took office

Quorum International

quorum lighting replacement parts

quorum lighting replacement parts - win

State President letter PART 1

"How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in [anti-LDS] materials?"

Drafted a Social Commentary Essay - Would Appreciate Feedback

Are We Spellbound?

What About Today?

AP Bio Guide (Units 8 in comments)

1) Chemistry of Life

Content

Calculations

Labs

2) Cell Structure & Function

Content

Calculations

Labs

Relevant Experiments

3) Cellular Energetics

Content

Calculations

Labs

Relevant Experiments

4) Cell Communication & Cell Cycle

Content

Calculations

Relevant Experiments

5) Heredity

Content

Calculations

Relevant Experiments

6) Gene Expression and Regulation

Content

Calculations

Labs

Relevant Experiments

7) Natural Selection

Calculations

Labs

Relevant Experiments

Mathew Gong, gay son of general authority, makes a public post about his relationship with his father

Matthew Gong’s post- if you can’t read it on Facebook (formatted and perdy)

S. Res. 31: 122nd Senate Rules

quorum lighting replacement parts video

quorum lighting replacement parts top