All Activity

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 forcing 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”. 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 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. 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 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 ‘principles’ like freedom of choice or personal responsibility poorly applied. ”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.

By "do it to ourselves, do you mean to ourselves personally, or do you mean as humans as a whole?

I disagree. When allowing for 'emotion in these conversations' to dip too far into largely unsubstantiated accusations (and criminal at that!) against another party, it is no longer simply about sharing one's feelings. And it certainly is not empathy. I remind my men's' groups continually that empathy does not mean agreement (though some times it does) with the details about what got the person to such an emotional state. I can emotionally connect with another's pain without the need to cast aspersions on another for contributing to said pain. As you've indicated regards to Nehor, I too can appreciate another's emotions around any given topic that I agree with, that is, until at some point in the future said emotion is aimed against me.

I would like to submit this is an example of why I suggested earlier that there will be no joining in discussion with you and other board members due to the fact that you appear to approach discussions from a lawyer‘s point of view, as though you are defending the law. I am speaking of the legal aspects of this topic, yes. And yes, my legal training affects my perspective and approach to topics such as this. I think there are times when we need to temper emotional responses and instead lead with dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis. I think we can have discussions, even when we differ in our approaches. Sure. Others come here for more than social connection. For my part, I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects. I'm not here for "social" reasons, except as this board tends to involve perspectives associated with the Church. I'm also not here to talk into an Echo Chamber. Emotions have their place. We are emotional creatures, after all. On this topic, however, emotions need to be tempered and subdued and partially set aside in favor of, again, dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis. The allegations are serious, so facts should matter more than emotions. I think we need to focus more on determining what happened and less on our emotional responses to information which has been curated by social media and news media. Sure. But in a subordinated and secondary way. That is where emotions should be placed. The primary focus should be dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis of what happened. Yesterday I had a nice talk with my wife about our neighbor, who a few days earlier had come over to our house to give some input on a painting project. She brought her little girl with her. We have known this girl from birth. She and her parents often sit near us in Sacrament Meeting, and she often comes to our pew and sits with us. She knows us by name and likes us. She's a fun and charming little person. Yesterday my wife and I commented on her, and how we hope to someday have grandchildren whom we can enjoy. As to that topic, I see no need for "dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis." Emotion and social interaction are the order of the day. But that topic is quite dissimilar to the topic under discussion in this thread. I think the legal aspects of some topics can be important. I also think that facts about difficult or controversial issues are as important, and in some ways considerably more important, than our emotions about those issues. Some discussions of sexual assault can fall into that category. Here, I think some folks are letting emotions and mobocratic outrage displace reasoned discourse. I think that's a bad idea. I can say that and also utterly condemn any form of sexual assault/abuse. Thanks. I would hope that I could make these points without being accused of defending rape. But those accusations have been made, several times over. And they have been made because of emotions and mobocratic rage, and to squelch reasoned and dispassionate analysis. I think that is a bad idea. Happy to. I deplore any form of sexual misconduct, both objectively and emotionally and philosophically and religiously. I have said nothing to suggest any other stance, but folks like Nehor have publicly accused me of defending rape, and I think he does so in order to silence reasoned discourse in favor of raw emotional responses and mobocratic rage. I think that is a bad idea. I think Nehor's comments here are mostly counterproductive and ugly, are borne of raw emotional and mobocratic rage, and are generally devoid of reasoned, evidence-based analysis, are are intended to squelch and silence such analysis so as to perpetuate mobocratic rage. I also find him for as a performative provocateur, and less as a person with whom reasoned discourse is generally possible. I have had numerous discussions with Analytics that have been substantive, even though we strongly disagree about most topics brought here. Same goes for quite a few participants on this board. But I don't think I have ever, over the space of many years and hundreds of interactions, had a reasoned conversation with Nehor. He's more or less endlessly emotional and performative and provocative. He likes to stir the pot, but he adds nothing to it. I feel pretty passionate about some things. Elective abortion, for example, is one of the more pernicious sins of our generation. And yet I don't go around screaming at pro-abortion folks, or endorsing or inciting violence toward abortion providers. I see the need for reasoned discourse on that topic. Persuasion should be a top priority. Heart and minds. Not to leave legal perspectives and issues neglected, mind you. Same goes for sexual assault. I have a friend who was sexually assaulted while she was a college student. The prosecutor elected to drop the charges, even though there was pretty good forensic evidence. This happened some years ago. My friend has had some real challenges arising from this experience, and it has adversely affected both her and her marriage (now over), her children, her extended family, and more. Even now I am frustrated and angry that she was assaulted, and that she received no justice. So yes, emotions matter. So too does reasoned, evidence-based discussion. It's a serious topic. I agree. I haven't told anyone to stop talking. I am, instead, suggesting that we set aside, or at least subdue, emotionalisms and mobocratic rage and seek to have some reasoned, dispassionate, evidence based discussion. You are, of course, free to disregard that request. Thanks, -Smac

I would like to submit this is an example of why I suggested earlier that there will be no joining in discussion with you and other board members due to the fact that you appear to approach discussions from a lawyer‘s point of view, as though you are defending the law. Others come here because this is social media with an emphasis on social. We are looking to connect. Like it or not we are all lonely human beings who need more connection and this is one way to get it. It’s frustrating when you do not allow emotion in these conversations to have any merit. These are emotional topics, and in my opinion, there is room for emotions **when we are not in a courtroom determining the fate of an accused person. I recognize that you come to the table to discuss gospel issues and to engage in discussion that allows you to defend facts and legal limits. I think that there is room for that. You make a lot of solid points. Please consider leaving room for the human side and emotional needs people like I have. I appreciate Nehors emotion around this topic because I feel seen and protected. That feels really good. And since there’s a part of me that is lonely and comes to social media to scratch a connection itch, his words meet a certain social need for me, especially coming from a man. And maybe if I was unfairly accused of rape someday I would hope that you would be on my legal team as well. I think there’s room for all of us here.

Group sex under the influence is extreme enough behaviour potentially dangerous to a woman’s health, both emotional and physical (I don’t know if it’s as emotionally damaging to men given the cultural lessons have been so different for them for eons) that a (preferably written) recorded in some way contract detailing acceptable behaviour (preferably signed) before taking anything mind altering is probably the only thing I see as morally removing the rape aspect. Could you elaborate? What if she signs the "consent form" or whatever, and thereafter withdraws her consent prior to the initiation of sexual contact? How does the form "remove the rape aspect" in that circumstance? Or what if she was coerced into signing the form? Or what if she was too blotto to give consent, even written and signed? Also, why is it that "group sex under the influence" is only "extreme" for women? Why not the men? Are they not also susceptible to being subjected to non-consensual contact? STIs? At least one of the men has accused Jane Doe of initiating sexual contact with him without his consent. Is this "consent form" thing something that Jane Doe should have signed as well? If not, why not? Thanks, -Smac

I think we are getting closer to what drives “me“ nuts about this topic. I get really triggered when people who have outrageously, beautiful, fortunate, wealthy beyond imagination, fun, ridiculous lives, and they claim to be “blessed” - like it just sends me to the moon. Likewise, when people have really hard things going on and they want to know why God has given them these trials and what he wants them to learn. This also sends me to the moon. If there’s any truth to these philosophies, then I’d like a word with God. But I do not believe that there is. There is no way that a God who is just and all knowing is going to create such diversity. I have to believe we do it to ourselves and that God weeps for us when things are hard and that he will exact absolute justice in the end. What else could there possibly be? That’s my biggest complaint about being religious. I have to hear these messages all the time and it just sends me! 😕

This isn’t rhetorical overuse. It is calling a rapist a rapist because he raped someone. Rapists, bigots, and fascists are all real things, actual people that are these things. If you reflexively assume it is always hyperbole maybe that is an even bigger problem than the potential for overuse. There is "use" and then there is "overuse." A person who subscribes to Nazi ideology may well be described by that term. Same goes for persons who subscribe to the tenets of fascism. A "rapist" is someone who has committed rape. These, then, are all proper uses of these terms. Then there is "overuse," in which "Nazi" and "Fascist" become merely pejorative, not descriptive. Whether the Cornell controversy involves "rape" is something that needs to be assessed. And given the seriousness of the charge, the assessment needs to be dispassionate and clinical and evidence-based. I agree. But then she - by her own narrative - thereafter had a threesome with the guy, with no indication that she did not consent to it. And her narrative describes her doing that to one man, with no indication that she did not consent to the other men with whom she had sexual contact. Also, there are allegations that Jane Doe initiated sexual contact with one of the men when he was too incapacitated to consent. So the allegations of unconsented-to sexual contact need to be addressed. I'm not sure "insensate" (that is, "lacking physical sensation, conscious awareness, humane feeling, or common sense") is apt here. Her 2024 narrative has some gaps, but she is generally quite descriptive of the events of that night. That would seem to indicate that she did have "physical sensation" and "conscious awareness." Moreover, the New York law about voluntary intoxication may well take the actions that night out of the ambit of rape. And if we set aside that law and speak of a lack of consent due to intoxication of any sort, then some or all of the men can make the same argument, that they were incapable of giving consent. Per this article, one of them, Scott Kretzschmar, has stated that "after he saw a fraternity Snapchat post advertising 'free p----y' upstairs, he went in the room already filled with several of his fraternity brothers — but that he never saw the woman naked, touched her or used ketamine," and that "he did not see the accuser in distress during his brief time in the room where she says she was sexually assaulted while she was under the influence of several substances." Who did what to whom is still very much in question, as are issues of consent and men rea. The same conclusory things can potentially be said about Jane Doe. All the more reason to be circumspect, dispassionate and clinical in assessing this matter, and set aside inflammatory language, emotionalisms and mobocratic rage. You are begging the question. You are presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated. Rape and other forms of sexual assault certainly do happen, and they are terrible. Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct. I find your condemnation facile. I think your comment here is unserious, and is intended to provoke and/or silence. I don’t. Because you are not assessing the matter in anything approaching a dispassionate and clinical way. Just raw emotion and mobocratic rage. We are talking about Cornell University where protesting on behalf of Gaza gets you deported while raping someone gets you a remedial essay assignment on why what you did was wrong. I won’t hold my breath expecting any form of justice. You are only proving my point. Your comments are almost purely emotional. Not reasoned. Not evidence-based. Not dispassionate. Thanks, -Smac

Which many of them? You mentioned D&C 132 earlier. “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting... Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." They (those of Psalm 82) are not deities; they lack permanency. Before that, the angels are not subject unto them; they lack “all power.”

One group is the Gods (of Abraham 4). The other group consists of organized intelligences who kept their first estate and would then come to earth to determine if they could keep their second estate (Abraham 3:24-26). The word "gods" is not there.

Yes, at the very beginning when Joseph copied characters for Martin to take to Anthon, there was almost definitely a curtain. That's what I said. But Anthon is relaying a story from before any of the real translation began. At some point in the 116 pages, Joseph also used a stone in the hat which Anthon would not have known about. Now, did Joseph have a curtain with that? We don't know. Martin never mentions a curtain when talking about the stone in the hat but from later scribes (Emma, Whitmer), they explicit mention that there was no separation. So, did the entire 116 pages with Martin always use a curtain (both with and without the stone in the hat)? And the rest of the Book of Mormon was without a curtain? And if you are trying to argue that wearing glasses while looking in the top hat would make it easier to read, I tested that. A lens does make the text bigger but it doesn't make it brighter. In the darker room that is probably more like an 1830s era home, it doesn't help that much. Also, Anthon never talks about a hat. At that point, as far as we can tell, Joseph didn't use the stone in the hat for the translation. From what Anthon and Martin say, he actually had the plates in front of him behind a curtain and was transcribing characters. Of course, we don't know what he actually did behind the curtain so he may have had a hat, but since he had a curtain I find the presence of a hat immaterial since he doesn't need it to hide anything as the curtain is doing the job. Maybe he was practicing with the hat? But Anthon is way too early in the process to tell us all that much.

Nvm…mind is wandering too far afield, spaced on where I was, I guess, lol. Wasn’t meant to post here.

It also stands out that Anthon described the very large spectacles as a lens. A lens is exactly what someone might put between the eyballs and a paper that they would like to be able to read small print more easily in low light, like you might find in the bottom of a tophat. "Anthon stated that Harris said the person who looked through the lens could read and understand the meaning of the characters."

There must have been a curtain, and a clear effort to not let anyone see what was going on behind it. Anthon confirms in 1834 he was told that by Harris and in 1834 he wouldn't have been able to know that from any other source but Harris. This was going on even before the translation/dictation work began after Harris returned from meeting Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon: "This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God.” "Anthon stated that Harris said the person who looked through the lens could read and understand the meaning of the characters. Anthon further stated that Harris told him that while the young man was behind a curtain, he translated some of the characters using the spectacles, not by the gift of God." source

Pretty sure that he could not save us at all….as in no progression. Maybe resurrected, though not perfected physical bodies if he was able to break death’s barrier as Christ did. I don’t know what in Christ allows him to do that for us for us. Was it simply his direct connection with God or something more that requires caring about others? I believe he was promising then what he promises now, no law, just do what you want. I don’t know if we would have experienced guilt without law if somehow he could make it work. Would be awful if we did and didn’t have a way to be redeemed by someone capable to it. He does not appear to be so in my view. He appears to me to be too egocentric.

True. But what does “wouldn’t work” mean in this context…that some would indeed be lost or that none of us would be exalted because we had no free will?

But we are also told this wouldn’t have actually worked. I think the other was more acceptable because this one wasn’t a valid option.

For me it depends on why he intervenes and doesn’t, but I don’t see any way to identify a difference or an explanation that isn’t pure speculation at the bottom as to why one and not another at this point.

I haven't watched the video but I've thought the same before so I think he does have a point (in what you've described him saying). Yes, we are currently in a culture that is embracing turning villains into victims and heroes into villains in our entertainment. I remember watching the series Supernatural (silly fun) and noticing that the angels were almost always the bad guys and the demons (including the "king of hell"--not lucifer) were the good guys. I think we would be dumb to think that being immersed in that kind of entertainment doesn't have an impact on how we view the world and who we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to and who we aren't.

I saw a reel where someone was talking about a time that he was pleading for a specific blessing in the temple and a thought hit him that said "If I told you this blessing was never going to come in this life, would you still be here? Would you still serve me?" That thought caught me up short. Do I believe I'm owed blessings and is that the only reason that I do the things I believe God has asked me to do? Is that why trust feels hard sometimes? Those are rhetorical questions that I'm pondering.

I can only see the difference when I compare it to the way that I manage my own children. I know the difference between when and why I intervene on their behalf and when I don't**, but it's not a difference that I've always been able to articulate to my children (or that they have been able to understand even if I could articulate it). So intellectually I get that a similar structure of parenthood is going to exist between God and me. It all makes sense on paper that way. But mentally and emotionally, that really doesn't ever make me feel any better when life is in the thick of it. So while I can see how the differences are there, that knowledge rarely makes me feel any better in the moment. Sometimes after the fact it does but not always. **Obviously there are some trials I would always intervene if I could (and those are the usually the ones where I can't intervene in any significant way anyway)

Agree 100%.

I can see why some might find some logic in this sentiment. That said, my understanding is that before any of us experienced mortality we were given the choice between mortality as we are experiencing it and a mortality where not one of us would be lost. What is your view on why the version of mortality we are all experiencing was more acceptable to you and me than the version where no one would be lost? Was there something that motivated our premortal choice that we are overlooking or did we just choose the wrong option?

A lot of the ire he gets comes from correcting misinformation. A lot of his videos are countering apologists who get things wrong about the Bible. He also does some correcting of skeptics who get the Bible wrong. One example of the latter was a video debunking the idea that Jesus was based on the Egyptian goddess Isis. I think the most backlash he gets is from countering what amounts to political and cultural propaganda that abuses the Bible. This for example: A personal favorite is a response to culture warriors dunking on some people (possibly sarcastically) praying to a non-binary God. Always fun to see some mainstream Christians talk about the incomprehensible God with no physical body and insist that God is male thereby going back to the more ‘primitive’ belief that Jews and early Christians held about an embodied God because they need that metaphor to get angry and scream about blasphemy instead of chuckling at the silliness and rolling their eyes and moving on. Gotta demonize those satanic queer people for the blasphemy of saying something we also believe.