All Activity

Yes, you are very comfortable calling Dan a liar by being a wolf in sheep's clothing: Very good objective assessment just dispassionately sticking with the facts there. I give Dan very little thought outside the few threads on this board about him, but "the facts" are there. He is saying things about the Church that are, in my view, subversive. From the first link: I think this is subversive stuff, coming as it is from a self-identified Latter-day Saint. Per this video, Dan apparently felt it necessary to explain that he is "not an atheist." It looks, then, like he says, publicly, on social media and to podcasters like Joe Rogan and, earlier John Dehlin, is not facially congruent with what most folks expect Latter-day Saints to say. And not just in my view, but for a sufficient number of persons that he felt this public explanation was necessary. In the same video, posted a few months ago, he says he is an "active member" of the Church. I am quite willing to take that at face value. Subversion is, after all, something that happens from within. He deliberately and specifically declares his personal beliefs "have nothing to do" with the "scholarship" he shares on social media. I have noted, quite a few times now, how I think Dan is doing quite a bit more than merely purveying "scholarship." He also goes on to say it is "embarrassing" to other people who say that he is an "apologist" for the Church or the Book of Mormon. By no means do I take him to be an "apologist," that is, "a person who speaks, writes, or argues in formal defense of a specific belief, institution, doctrine, or political system." When he does speak about the Church and its doctrines - particularly the divinity of Christ and the revelatory provenance of the Book of Mormon, he certainly does not advance a faith-promoting viewpoint, but he has said quite a bit that seems calculated to demote faith. Nor do I accept his "Hey, I'm just an impartial scholar, objectively doling out 'data' like some sort of bearded Pez-dispenser" line. Again, I think he is doing a lot more than doling out scholarship. He has his ideological presuppositions along with the rest of us. Right. He professes to be both an "active Latter-day Saint" and publicly declaring - repeatedly now - that he is "offering ... reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful" in the Church. I see that as subversion, don't you? I think what Dan is saying is subversive. "Objective" is hard in an explicitly religious setting, but what he is saying sure sounds subversive (see the above bullet list, and his publicly-declared happiness that he is "offering ... reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful" in the Church). As an observant and fairly well-informed Latter-day Saint, I have listened to Dan and find many of his comments to be subversive. I say this not because I want to insult him as a person, but to note what he has said publicly. I have not done this. Anyone who engaged in sexual misconduct, as a criminal matter, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I find the sexual licentiousness of the events of that night be terrible. I think influences like Hookup Culture and sociological defects in the Greek System have contributed to this, but in the end each adult must be held responsible for his or her own conduct. I surely would like to see Dan as not merely an "active" Latter-day Saint, but as a sincere and believing and observant one. His public pronouncements about the divinity of Jesus Christ are pretty hard to square with that. I don't see him as an advocate for the Church and its most fundamental tenets. To the contrary, he has said quite a bit to tear down those tenets, particularly as to the divinity of Jesus Christ and the revelatory provenance of the Book of Mormon. We Latter-day Saints, then, can choose to listen to the prophets and apostles, or to the alternative offerings of Dan McClellan. I choose the former. Thanks, -Smac

I’ve never heard it before. The idea of excommunication being a way to start over makes sense to me but I agree the reboot analogy seems off to me somehow too. But like you I can’t really explain why. Maybe something to do with how a reboot is primarily about starting again but an excommunication isn’t, though that can be one of the possible side effects?

I am quite fine with you or any others sharing their thoughts. This is a topic that is incredibly important I think, not just to me, but to all of us. It is a serious topic. And I have appreciated everyone's comments. I want to give some comments to this and some other posts. But I have to punt for a bit. I am still a part time partner at a CPA firm doing tax work. And the final deadline of 10/15 is almost here. And then I leave for a ten day trip out of the country. So, I promise to revisit this down the road. I just don't have the time to some thoughtful comments myself. Thank you all!

I believe my point still stands. Again, emoting and providing empathy is one thing. Wanting to emote and receive empathy (I totally get this) while throughout this thread other posters (and perhaps MustardSeed?) suggest a miscarriage of justice if these young men are not found guilty is something else. We cannot walk and chew gum in this case.

That could be part of the disconnect because we’re specifically talking about rape in this thread. Mustardseed was specifically talking about being able to emote as it concerns the topic of her (as a woman) and rape.

I like the talk. I don’t know how to be grateful in all circumstances when the definition of gratitude is to be thankful. I don’t know how to be thankful for trials. He gives some examples but they didn’t seem to show people being thankful as much as they showed people praising or worshipping God despite hardships. Being loyal and being thankful seem like two separate things to me. (just my thoughts I don’t expect you to have answers)

I'm not sure If I'm understanding you or if you're not understanding me? I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about people using the "I need to safe space to emote" as a pretense to accuse others of actions the people themselves don't know were committed. Again, true empathy toward someone does not require character aspersions against someone else. The minute an individual transitions from simply emoting to conclusory comments about the guilt of someone else, the conversation must turn to a more dispassionate exchange of ideas about the allegations to see if they stand up on their own. The position "Hey, I just need to safely express my feelings" is legitimate but it cannot walk hand in hand with "Hey, therefore the accused party is as guilty as sin and you are at best an enabler for not agreeing with me".

Yes, you are very comfortable calling Dan a liar by being a wolf in sheep's clothing: Very good objective assessment just dispassionately sticking with the facts there. Except there is a bit missing from your quote isn't there. What's hiding in the "..."? Here is Dan: "As long as I have supporters and detractors across the entire spectrum, I'm probably sitting in a sweet spot. I'm probably doing something right if I'm offering reasons for people to remain faithful and reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful." So good work being able to objectively decide that Dan is actually lying when he represents his positions but then bending over backwards to defend the frat boys offering "free p****" to their 50 closest friends. You do you.

In my previous job, security. It was mainly an all male environment. Over time women were being employed in the specific role where I worked. As a result of the number of males already in the role it fell on the male security staff, initially, to train the new female guard. The new female member was placed with an experienced male member of staff who was deemed sensible and reliable. As one of the male members of staff tasked with training the new female staff. Looking back, I realised any were a two way matter. Also, I realised, the female had the greater concern over anything with the potential to happen, assault or rape. Especially as the job involved working night shifts, and at times being in darl secluded areas for some time However, I must have been doing something right. As on a number of occasions, a couple of female members of staff asked to work alongside me. After reading through this topic, and considering my workplace environment. I have realised, that at general level. There is a genuine concern for a male to be wrongly accused. There is a greater concern for the female regards to rape and assault.

I think we all are doing all of this for social reasons. (Opinion) Another topic for another day in another place on this “social media” site. I spend time with my family and friends for social reasons. I attend Church mostly to receive the Sacrament and worship, but also for social reasons. I am not here for social reasons. I generally don't chitchat. I view this discussion board almost entirely for its utility to facilitate discussions. Substantive ones, about the Church mostly and also "church-adjacent" topics such as this one. I come here to listen to other Latter-day Saints, but also to listen to critics and opponents of the Church. I want to hear from people who do not agree with me, as it helps me broaden my horizons, re-assess and/or validate my perspective, learn new things, and so on. I don't come here for enjoyment. Folks like Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding regularly go to great lengths to make discussions as inflammatory and denigrating and ugly as possible. Their near-constant stream of personal attacks don't carry any particular weight, as I find them to be fundamentally unserious and intended to silence and shame, but these guys surely have made participating in this board as unpleasant as possible. I stay because, notwithstanding all the unfortunate stuff folks like those two constantly inject into discussions, I find the discussions to sometimes be worthwhile and informative and interesting. Not enjoyable, but worthwhile. Thanks, -Smac

I have done nothing of the sort. I have, instead, proposed that we set aside emotionalisms and invectives and mobocratic rage, and that we assess the issues dispassionately, clinically, and on the evidence. I find it unfortunate that you cannot bring yourself to do this, and that you instead conflate this call with "defense" of rape (or "rape adjacent behavior"). This is particularly so given that I have specifically and emphatically condemned the text messages, and nowhere have I defendant any wrongful conduct at the frat house at Cornell in October 2024. Again, here is an assessment of Dan which I posted two years ago. He's been behaving mostly the same way since then. I am critical of Dan due to his behavior and the things he has said. For example, Dan has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics," that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women," that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics," that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities," that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization," that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women," that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true," that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'" that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so, that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on. Much of this comes across as both conclusory and dogmatic (and framing moral issues as being about "power asymmetries" and such - rather than as issues to be resolved by the following of God's will - sounds more political and neo-marxist, than doctrinal/religious, particularly when coming from a professed Latter-day Saint). I have explained in substantial detail elsewhere what I think of Dan, and why. As for him being subversive relative to the truth claims of the Church, the phrase "res ipsa loquitur" comes to mind. He comes across as nothing like an advocate of the Church, nor ambivalent about it. Thanks, -Smac

This seems to be the crux of the issue. Many males struggle with the topic because their primary focus is “what if I get falsely accused of rape, how would I want people to behave towards me?” Women do the same only the worry is “what if I’m raped…” There is a 2-10% that one of the men posting here will be accused of rape. There is a 24% chance one of the women on this forum will be raped. (And statistically chances are very high some of us posting here already have been).

Sleep has been elusive lately, so memories may be inaccurate, but I don’t remember seeing this…thought some might be interested. https://www.sily understood .org/blog/2026/10/01/ladbible-nemo-the-mormon-documentary-response Wondering about others’ reaction to this analogy, have you heard it before, do you see it as useful. I think it’s easily understood, but I am finding it unsatisfying for a reason I can’t yet describe.

Perhaps this can help? Grateful in Any Circumstances By President Dieter F. Uchtdorf - Being Grateful in Our Circumstances, not just for our circumstances

I think it is interesting that you vociferously defend the Cornell frat boys from rape adjacent behavior (posting paragraphs and paragraphs), but you feel free to mind read and cast aspersions on someone here that you disagree with philosophically.

With the Hurricane Rachel and all of the cloud cover here in Utah, I noticed that it makes it even harder to read in the hat. And doing a quick check of cloud cover in Harmony and Fayette in the spring, it seems like there would be a decent amount of cloud coverage there. If Joseph did read out of the hat, I feel really sorry for his eyes. It would have been a lot of straining.

How is it not social when it matters to you to get others’ input on these aspects? Communication is a social act.

I think we all are doing all of this for social reasons. (Opinion) Another topic for another day in another place on this “social media” site.

Fair enough

Thanks

As a whole. In other words, it’s just life. (imo)

I’ve been feeling that lately, about being thankful for blessings and how that can feel like being thankful that I have been given things other people haven’t. And then I don’t really know what to do with trails because it’s like acknowledging that you aren’t being blessed during those times.

Of course you did. So thorough. So impressive. Just chuckling it is so sweet.

I don't really know many Latter-day Saints who even know who Dan is. He used to post here, and I had a number of direct interactions with him which substantially diminished my regard for his viewpoints and pronouncements. I don't think I am a "fundamentalist" (as in "a person who believes in and strictly adheres to a literal, traditional, and non-negotiable interpretation of scriptures, dogmas, or core principles"). I believe in the Restored Gospel, but I understand there are many aspects of it that need to be construed and evaluated, not merely rotely accepted as "literal." As for "tradition," I think it has a place, but not in any "strict" sense. Revelation should matter more than tradition. Same goes for negotiability of scriptures and "core principles." I think Dan has frequently gone beyond "the data don't support X." I also think Dan often uses pretensions about "data" to smuggle in and bolster his personal opinions. I also think Dan is subversive. I don't think this is an accurate characterization of things. That's the thing, I think Dan is rather frequently not "neutral." I think he is subversive, yes. Based on what he has said. Here is an assessment I posted two years ago. He's been behaving mostly the same way since then. Thanks, -Smac

Of course if she removes her consent later (during, not after the fact), it makes it rape. I don’t view such a “contract” about what are emotional relationships the same as a business contract where someone contracts to provide resources or services for money and then one is obligated in most cases to pay for them. This would be more like a medical form you sign attesting you understand what the doctor has told you about the procedure and agree to it. This doesn’t prevent you from changing your mind at the last minute requiring them to stop or suing them for malpractice if they act in a way not consistent with the explanation. “Waiver” might be a more precise term than “contract”. Feel free to supply one you see as most precise. The idea being anyone agreeing to group sex under influence in my mind must be first proven to be of sound mind at the time of making the decision as well as fully informed about and comprehending what will likely happen and what consequences will be. This should be the minimum standard. Otherwise it turns into someone taking advantage of someone else, including someone who might be in a self destructive mood. It won’t prevent all cases of taking advantage of someone, but hopefully would limit them to far fewer if this was SOP….which it likely never will be. I get some people like to experiment and cross typical social boundaries. Therefore I can imagine there are some (very foolish imo) women out there who do want to truly engage in group sex under the influence. If anyone, male or female, decides to do this, it should be under very controlled circumstances imo. For example, there should be a dedicated sober companion to ensure no one goes outside the boundaries intentionally or unintentionally in order to get them all home safely, just as it’s wise for friends who plan on getting stinking drunk to have one not drinking to ensure no one harms themselves more than just getting stinking drunk will on its own. Any variation from those agreed upon boundaries opens someone up to the accusation of rape, imo, whether or not they themselves were incompetent at the time, especially if someone else changes their mind and wants to stop. Even if it’s just pushing someone away because they can’t verbalize. I would assume any intelligent being would include in their requirements no sex once someone becomes so drugged they are unsble to verbalize or move, not only for the safety of the individual saying no, but for the safety of others participating so as to avoid turning into a rapist because they aren’t aware of the other’s changed mind. Would the above be legally enforceable? Unlikely in our culture that typically ignores or dismisses consequences when it comes to anything to do with sex in favor of poorly, incompletely, and inconsistently applied principles like freedom of choice or personal responsibility. Or family values. ”Or what if she was coerced into signing the form?” Why am I even having to answer this? Since when does coercion make anything legal or morally binding? ”Or what if she was too blotto to give consent, even written and signed?” Or this since it invalidates the condition I included? Why would I find acceptable something I specifically rejected to begin with? ”Also, why is it that "group sex under the influence" is only "extreme" for women?” Have I ever said it is only extreme for women or are you choosing to infer that? I only said I couldn’t judge the level of emotional damage for men. Since I specified both physical and emotional, is it that hard to get I was including potential extreme physical consequences for all involved, man as well as women? “ Is this "consent form" thing something that Jane Doe should have signed as well? If not, why not?” I don’t think you put much effort into reading my comment when you ask me if a woman should have signed a group sex consent form that I am insisting all participants sign. Even though you are assuming I am only talking about women when it comes to it being extreme….which is wrong, but logically implies a woman is the one who needs to sign the form to show she gives consent to engage in sex understanding the possibilities that can occur during such activities…which would of course include her initiating and acting on another participant, male or female. Or do you imagine I think women are passive in sex and never initiate it or do anything sexual to the men? And yes, if she engaged in oral sex without the consent of the guy, it is rape in my view.