Jump to content

juliann

Contributor
  • Content Count

    10,637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by juliann

  1. Also, this is a stretch but when Cig claims that they are blaming the members, I always go back to this very surprising Gen Conf statement, \ https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng I think that is exactly what happened here.
  2. Which is the question of infallibility....something as old as the first prophet. In 20 years of online conversations (or brawls) it has always, always come down to the demand a prophet can never be believed again after a mistake. Always. You can pretty much just push everything else away. I don't underestimate the hurt and damage from this episode, but the priesthood ban was worse, that was a series of prophets. But today we seem to be handling it and I do think more and more people are coming to the conclusion, in their own time, that God didn't do it and the church won't fall apart if we take him out of it. Had me going there for a minute....
  3. It was good until he started into his own exegesis, which is the very tired infallibility complaint. Especially when he goes to Bill Reel as the real prophet. The podcast is an hour longer than it needs to be. He repeats himself endlessly. Here is his black and white thinking problem....the reason it was changed, I think, is because it was not a good policy. He even says that people were leaving, so...newsflash, a LOT of us would agree with his original analysis, but more stayed than left. Then it only comes down to all the layers of infallibility. It was handled very badly. Yup. Very. I chalk it up to a steep learning curve that no prophet has ever had to face. But they changed it. He may not have realized the consequences originally, but it would be stupid to argue they don't get it now, in addition to the consequences of changing it. But they changed it. Didn't finish it, too much question begging.
  4. Seriously? You really aren't reading what she said. But feel free to mischaracterize her if it helps your data free narrative.
  5. Oh for heaven's sakes. You read stories. Meanwhile, you ignore piles of statistics. There is a difference between glamorizing suicide and talking about it. Maybe you can read some stories about that on your non factual sites. Suicide is a serious problem amongst our youth. It deserves more scrutiny than a few stories.
  6. Back to the important stuff, my yearly review of the bunches of green stuff threatening the speakers. It has usually been a tasty looking tossed salad. This year they went the extra step and created a salad bar with some containers for the heads of lettuce, and two lucious looking red tomatoes flanking each speaker! I'm sure I saw an artichoke, too.
  7. Come on, just because you don't know any doesn't mean it wasn't happening. I know people who left. When you have beloved gay family members it isn't a non-issue.
  8. I've posted this before, but I think it describes what has happened, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng The Doctrine of Christ By Elder D. Todd Christofferson We have a responsibility to determine what is good if we are members. But along with that is being able to express the testimony of the HG in a responsible manner. The HG doesn't speak in anger, skepticism, hatred, and relentless negativity. If anything, the internet is making it possible for the body of members to bear testimony in numbers and be heard. That wasn't available during the priesthood ban, if only it could have been corrected in 3 years.
  9. What ugly unloving thing to say. I know someone whose grandchildren were affected by this. The announcement itself says we are to mourn with those who mourn.
  10. Last conference I heard a credibly sourced “rumor” that was correct. This time all I have heard is the same long list of stuff with no source at all. Especially the wait until conference for your mission information. With all the bandwidth that report has taken, not one person has been able to come up with the infamous letter. I don’t see why there wouldn’t be more unexpected changes, but the current offerings seem weak.
  11. These are economists. "Using a c.arefully designed series of public goods games, we compare, across monogamous and polygynous households, the willingness of husbands and wives to cooperate to maximize household gains." I am not sure it is a good idea to assume that different ethnic groups don't have the same human reactions.
  12. Were you able to open this? I've tried everything and am stuck with the abstract.
  13. This thread is about this study. No red herrings. And if you think women weren't controlled in the 19c century, well, I don't know what to tell you.
  14. This would only be on a Mormon board if the comparison was to Mormon polygamy. And it just might be that modern Nigerian women can be compared to 19 c women.
  15. Of course not. Women can always be controlled somehow. It's a little harder now that we have legal and social rights, though.
  16. Especially if you are a woman who takes the brunt of it, we are the most in need of growth!
  17. If a woman thinks the worst discrimination is in the church, they are living under a rock. That is why hyperbole like this is damaging. I think the church is going to have to loosen its grip on women if they are going to survive. But good grief, it’s once a week and it’s voluntary. To compare that to what women face every other day of the week that can limit their ability to provide for their families is absurd. So rather than discussing the very real discrimination in the church, Reiss has everyone arguing about what is worse. Real productive.
  18. That they are wrongly referred to as "the church essays?" Said no one ever. He isn't being treated any differently than the church essays are so all that comparison does is support that it is all right to refer to his the same way. And, this is way beyond "updates." Of course, they could always exploit more recent pictures of hidden tribes people, I guess. This is a throw it all out and start over. There isn't even a foundation to build on this stuff is so old.
  19. Who runs and controls MSE and is making all of the statements? Really, this is just getting silly and is looking like a way to avoid discussing the content.
  20. Oh, wow. I hadn't looked at the website to see the other stuff. This is like a time machine back to the 90s. I cannot believe he used the Nat'l Geo statement without cluing his readers into their follow up. That is just plain dishonest. Just wow. I'm stymied why Dehlin is going backwards. And there is something really offensive about randomly linking to pictures of uncontacted tribes to display them as proof of....something. This is no different than the article from the two EV scholars that said the evangelical anti-cultists had lost the debate because they refused to engage with LDS scholarship. He might have more to lose than gain by opening the authors credentials to scrutiny. I will never forget how quickly they went dead silent on the DNA nonsense after three recognized experts in the direct area of expertise needed published a rebuttal to Murphy and those with more peripheral qualifications. Few scholars are going to want to weigh in because of professional concerns which hurts the Dehlins more than LDS because we seem to always have a few who will.
  21. If it was used as a formal reference or something, of course. Otherwise I think it is unreasonable to expect to see essays that were announced by Dehlin as something he solicited, and put on his website called anything but his essays. I recall he was proud of his sources, none of which were academically sound. Even when authors were identified on FM, it was consistently referred to as FM’s product even when a disclaimer was posted. Has Dehlin posted any disclaimer that the essay is the work of the author and may or may not reflect his views?
  22. I would and do. But those who make a living from it while claiming to be more accurate than what they criticize should be subject to more scrutiny. Dehlin now bears the burden of correcting this critique. And good luck with that given it has buried him in sources. I'll wait for Dehlin to pick it apart but in the meantime, I think the review is devastating in its thoroughness. It is not even in the same universe with what Dehlin has done. This, accompanied by his history of the same sloppiness, is convincing because there are far too many mistakes in only one of his essays. I'll add that his goof about Egypt is jaw dropping. That is huge and I don't think it is possible to give anything credibility that follows that kind of ignorance.
  23. I thought this was great.
×
×
  • Create New...