All Activity

The wounds I would have caused would have been to lead men astray in the least matter concerning the Gospel. As Alma (Jr) said, to lead men astray is to murder them. Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror. - Alma 36:14 Now, this is not to say that I have murdered anyone in such a fashion, only that I might have. Because I think it's better to be safe than sorry in the things of God, I'm trying to reach anyone that would have heard / read my words concerning the Gospel, that they may be disabused of my pretensions to knowledge, or hypocrisy, as I believe the word is meant in the scriptures. I don't want to come up into the presence of God with anyone's blood upon my garments. Because I am as yet spiritually blind, if spirits even exist, having never beheld the things of God with my eyes, I literally don't know what I'm talking about, and wish to be free from the guilt of their blood - if that's even a thing. I believe it is a thing. There is of course another reason as well. I suspect I am not the only spiritually blind person, if spirits exist, who has undertaken to teach about the things of God, thus potentially leading men astray and murdering them. There are very few who openly claim to have seen God, to have knowledge of that which they speak. Joseph Smith was one, and I believe him. Those who have not seen God literally don't know what they're talking about, and are blind leaders of the blind, for the sighted have no need of any man to teach them. If my fellow blind people desire, as I do, to at least do no harm to anyone, and to guarantee that they do no harm in this realm, then maybe they also might rethink their approach to the things of God. Confession, as they say, is good for the soul. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

Is this why you came back here, you think you may have caused some wounds, thus the confession or is there another reason?

I think the best way to determine what was taught is by looking at what people who lived in that era believed and understood. By your own reckoning apostles were teaching that it was required. The belief it was required was wide spread and must have come from somewhere. Lorena entered into it soley based on that belief: And yet she married a Norwegian immigrant farmer. He left a year after their marriage and left Lorena and her sister wife to provide for themselves while he returned to Norway on a mission. Later they struggled immensely as Bent (her husband) went to prison (for plural marriage), they lived underground, and eventually Lorena raised her kids as a single mother as she was the second wife. Bent Larsen (her husband) was not well to do or a pillar of the community. He was not a man of means. Just a man who had unquestioning faith (not using that in a derogatory sense) in what he was taught. Understanding what they were willing to sacrifice and why is undermined by downplaying their belief as local leaders simplifying the message.

I challenge these contentions. You say that "we all know certain extremists..." I am not familiar with a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate the motives and feelings of everybody. Has everybody here heard of this phenomenon except me? For those who are in the know about this ugly phenomenon, with empathy, maybe you might see these "certain extremists" in a more favorable light? Maybe you have misunderstood them? I cannot possibly see someone who disapproves of empathy having so much influence over a population in such a short time. You call it "slow poison"? This would have to be one of the swiftest acting social poisons ever if you were even correct in your theory. Regarding your opinion about White Evangelicals...Do you know a lot of them, other than through the internet? Besides this poll, what leads you to find them so deep in anti-empathy as to be "probably a lost cause at this point"? Are there any other categories of people in the world that in your opinion are "probably a lost cause at this point"? I am confident that the evangelicals I have known, even the white ones, if they knew you, would be empathetic about your view of them. They have much good in them as do you. Everyone alive has good nature as a foundation upon which God's grace can build a virtuous and loving person, another Christ! I do not know your background, but I know God loves you, in spite of it and because of it. We are all the same in that regard. We all have some bad and some good in us. God does not consider anybody a "lost cause" and neither should His children. That alone is enough truth for empathy with our fellows in the same condition. There are reasons, almost entirely hidden from us, that have shaped the characters of those who we are tempted to despise the most. As your brother in the God-Man Jesus Christ, I admonish you to try to understand everybody, all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus. We can't give up on any one, and certainly not an entire group of Jesus' brothers and sisters as "a lost cause", not at any point. I am happy to note that you qualified your comment with "probably". I say definitely NOT...a lost cause! I am a former white Evangelical and minister, who will always be thankful for their help as God's instrument in a beginning of a life in Jesus many years ago. I have firm hope that He that willed a beginning of His life in me, through these white Evangelicals, will continue it in me until the day of Christ Jesus. 3DOP

Then my belief this survey is faulty is even stronger after thinking more about it. One question that only measures priority between two things at best does not measure absolute value. These statements are not mutually exclusive or even on a spectrum, they deal with two different things that may or may not have something to say about the other. By absolute value I mean how much they value the position on its own, independently of the other position. Someone might just not see empathy as relevant or necessary, so not view it be as much of a foundational principle of Christian behaviour, but also think it’s silly to call it dangerous, so they get measured as valuing empathy when that’s not accurate, they just don’t see it as dangerous. Not saying this is true for enough that it invalidates the findings completely, but with only one question, how can they eliminate that possibility from confounding the results. A more likely possibility that screws up the ability to draw any such conclusion from that question is even if one might view the misuse of empathy as dangerous, doesn’t mean one doesn’t value the appropriate use highly or as a foundational principle of Christianity, it is just that the concern is more intense. In case that seems unlikely….think about another situation where one might view medication as an essential part of a good treatment for pain management to the point of fighting with doctors to ensure they got effective care, but also even more strongly view misuse of pain meds as dangerous because experiences due to mismanagement by doctors. We have a situation like that in my own family where my daughter is suffering because insurance will only cover 2 pills a day while she needs 3 of a very expensive drug based on past treatment when they were covered, but one of the reasons she needs a stronger dose than typical is because her first doctor to treat her anxiety messed up and gave her the wrong drug at too high of a dose, which made her RLS severe rather than moderate. So I see drugs as adding much to life, but so easily destroying it as well. “Do no harm” needs to be of primary purpose. One might very strongly view empathy as a foundational principle of Christianity and try to use it constantly with everyone in their life, but still have a massive concern with misuse because they experienced suffering in their lives because someone applied it incompletely…perhaps a sibling had physical and mental limitations and their parents spent so much time advocating for their sibling’s needs, supporting that sibling with so much of their time and attention, ensuring that sibling was able to fulfill their hopes and dreams while they were left to fend for themselves because the parents were so overwhelmed by the fear of their one not as capable child not having a quality life, that it didn’t occur to them that their other ‘normal’ or healthy child might need their help as well. The parents’ empathy for their sibling was very important and not misplaced, but it was not enough. Their other child needed it too. Focus on one person or group’s needs so strongly that another is neglected is not uncommon from what I see. In a world of limited resources, it’s understandable and we need to be careful not to become so concerned with one demand that other demands we are responsible for fall unattended. The question only measures whether one feels more strongly about it being a foundational principle than they see it as potentially dangerous. Saying that LDS or white evangelicals value empathy less than others do because they more often rated the danger higher based on this one question is unfounded because the question doesn’t provide that type of information, which is how strong they feel about empathy. One also might not feel that strongly about the statement empathy is a foundational Christian principle because for them empathy isn’t viewed as tied to religion, but tied to humanity while the other statement is a closer approximation of their beliefs. If they are being accurate and not trying to figure out what the question is trying to measure, they might choose the dangerous statement as closer to their position even though they would rate the statement “empathy is of primary importance in the lives of all humans” higher. I don’t see this as happening much, it’s more of an issue with the methodology and not seeing them take the time to avoid potential confusions. It is always disappointing to see large scale studies that could provide very meaningful data screw up. What a wasted opportunity. And unfortunately many will see it as justifying labeling white evangelicals and LDS in general as not valuing empathy…which means that is going to become the focus with arguments over whether this is true or not rather than how empathy is best applied.

This is exactly the point I was trying to (inadequately) make.

When immigration status is the topic or associated with the topic, I think referring to illegal aliens as such is descriptive, not pejorative. Are you okay with references to "Illegal aliens," but not "illegals?" Thanks, -Smac

Yes I believe that's right

I value empathy. The opponents of Christ and traditional Christianity do not. Do you value empathy Kenngo?

There are fundamentalist evangelicals for sure, but not every evangelical is a fundamentalist.

The Covenant Christians have omitted mention of my talk on their "permanent record," https://restorationarchives.com/events/general-conferences , though they left up the youtube of it: As for my confession being performative, or, as I understand it, hypocritical, indeed not. I am indeed blind, having never seen, and cannot serve as anyone's guide in matters pertaining to the gospel. I'm trying to make the bandage as big as the wound I may have caused. Even the talk I delivered there is merely but to repeat the words of Christ, as I believe them to be, with minimal introductory statements or contextualizing, coupled with an invitation to be baptized that is in response to another directive I believe to be from Christ. I figure I can do no harm by repeating the words of Christ, as I believe them to be. Composing that talk was an interesting and learning experience; it took 45 days. However, I feel the need to clarify: I am absolutely NOT proselytizing anyone within range of this thread to join the Covenant Christians. That would be by my standards a no-no. I refuse to be a foolish and blind guide. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

Hmmm. With due respect, I wonder ... does anyone have a mirror handy that Eschaton can borrow?

Just to be clear, it appears there was only one question on empathy. The other questions were on different topics, correct? I found what I think is their database, but 2026 hasn’t been added yet. Nor can I find anything resembling this empathy question. https://ava.prri.org/?_gl=1*1k13v1y*_gcl_au*MTc5NTEwNjEwMi4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga*MTMzMDA3Njk4My4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga_0B2WQXPZMT*czE3OTI1NjY2MzYkbzEkZzEkdDE3OTI1NjcwODIkajMkbDAkaDA.

"The Puzzle of monogamous marriage" barely even touches Mormon polygamy. It talks about how the government was able to impose monogamy and that changed the number of available males and females for marriage. And then it mentions the Heath & Hadley article. So, not a really great source about Mormon Polygamy. The Heath & Hadley article "Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society" is interesting. It focuses on wealth and how that impacts the number of kids and how many survive. It shows that poorer fathers had more kids per wife (they included poor polygamous fathers in this group) and had more that reached the age of 15. That looks like it would be a great source for the site's statement except the fact that it shows that a poor polygamous household also did better than a wealthy polygamous household. So, if we want something that says "polygamy bad, monogamy good", that source is not it. It just says "wealthy fathers bad, poor fathers good". So, no, I don't find this to be a source for the websites statements.

Edited: ah, I misread this. I'm reading those documents. I just wish it had been with MDD 56 instead of having to go to the sister site and then having to notice that HMD 28 is somehow related and then to know to track down the sources. As I've said, this site is confusing and not very well built.

I'm just trying to see how you fit Joseph teaching Hyrum about polygamy (eternal sealings if you want to say that). Because I want to see how you actually deal with the evidence. I agree there are tons of plot holes because it fits a lot better to have Joseph being the original teacher of polygamy. To me, there are a ton more plot holes trying to force Brigham to be the source of polygamy. I'm trying to find evidence that you agree is real and is contemporaneous. I've talked with people who would not accept that Hyrum said what he said. They would add or remove extra words or change its meaning. For example, Whitney Horning in "Hyrum Smith: A Prophet Unsung" talks about this speech and misrepresents it. She says on page 298 that "Hyrum had to choose which one of his wives he would enter into an Eternal marriage covenant and be sealed for eternity, the living one, Mary, or the deceased one, Jerusha". That is not what Hyrum says. So, I'm glad to know that you do accept that Hyrum was talking about being sealed to two women. Now, whether that meant he would be sealed to both in the hereafter, I'm fine with not arguing about it. But the sealing to two women did happen.

Considering how many LDS use evangelical Christianity’s talking points (particularly the fundamentalist and/or Christian Nationalist versions) as a watering trough and enthusiastically lap it up I am very unsurprised. Thanks President Benson. Good job everyone! Why we thought feasting on the propaganda of groups that historically have despised us was a good idea is completely beyond me. Especially since many of them still despise us even if they find us helpful at the moment as a gaggle of ‘useful idiots’.

Jared is the former poster, Log. You wouldn’t have known him since he last posted in 2012. https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/1698-log/ I am fuzzy on any older views he once held. I need to review some…or just start fresh perhaps…but I like to see how people’s ideas change over time with life and learning.

HMD 28. The traditional LDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is contradicted by child mortality rates of early Mormon polygamists. In addition to polygamy producing fewer children than traditionally claimed, data analysis of early Mormon households has also found that child mortality rates (defined here as children under age 15) were higher within Mormon polygamous families in the 1800s than within monogamous families. It was shown that even children of wealthy polygamist men had a lower survival rate than children of poorer families with less wives (most of the poorer men included in the data had only one wife). The analysts state, "This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men, and the rich men had significantly more total offspring (including those that did not make it to [age] 15)." The researchers speculated these numbers are indicative that fathers with less wives were more family-involved and less neglectful of their wife and children, whereas wealthy men with multiple wives devoted more time, funds, and attention towards adding additional wives. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Sources: Heath K. M., Hadley C. 1998. Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society: mating versus parental effort. Curr. Anthropol. 39, 369–374 10.1086/204748 (doi:10.1086/204748) [DOI] [Google Scholar][Ref list] Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 5;367(1589):657-69. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290. PMID: 22271782; PMCID: PMC3260845.

Hmmm, a search on Jared Livesey says he participated in detailed theological debates. For example, he argued about repentance, spiritual perfection, and salvation in a 2019 discussion on the Mormon blog By Common Consent. Other online discussions suggests that his online absence had already attracted attention years ago. A 2026 Covenant Christian Conference website lists Jared Livesey as a speaker in the Denver Snuffer-associated religious community. He seem to be applying our own standards of repentance and truthfulness to his claims of spiritual knowledge. And uses exceptionally absolute language, "utter and complete ignorance," "I acknowledge I am a fool," and the repeated "if spirits even exist." That intensity makes the post feel like a major rupture rather than an ordinary change of opinion. It may be sincere, performative, or both. Whether it is a sincere confession, a dramatic exit, or a pointed piece of religious criticism remains uncertain.

Considering that the historic monogamy site gives an actual book and page number which is false and that it looks like it originally came from mormonthink, my guess is that it was invented and that historic monogamy site just assumed it was real without doing any checking.

Showing both sides would require more than one webpage? On the internet? Where that amount of space is completely trivial? That is a ridiculous justification for not including it. I don’t necessarily think they need to present the comprehensive case but there is a lot more stuff that needs refutation. I don’t trust answers to prayers as an indicator of truth anymore.

I've had very little success with the Journal of Discourse online search in past years. On more than one occasion I've made a search for a quote that I *know* is in there that either I or others have seen with their own two eyes, but the search came up with nothing.

Great, love this. You specifically mean eternal polygamy only, yes? Specifically for widowers? I imagine you'd find monogamy-affirmers on both sides of that, like I said I have my own opinion on it but I think whichever way you fall is besides the point when talking about denouncing all of Brigham Young's harmful teachings. But no, Joseph letting Hyrum being sealed to two women doesn't automatically in the minds of monogamy-affirmers mean that they believe there will be eternal polygamy for remarried widowers. The LDS church now allows remarried widows to be sealed to more than one husband, does that mean that the LDS church now teaches eternal polyandry? Most LDS members still say "No" about that. As in Joseph only ever taught of eternal polygamy for widowers and then Brigham Young maybe came up with mortal polygamy doctrine as a misinterpretation of what Joseph taught? Supposing that, a "Brigham Young misinterpreted Joseph" argument wouldn't explain why Brigham Young forbid Augusta Cobb from ever meeting with Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain why Brigham claimed that Joseph called Emma the "wickedest woman who ever lived" and that Emma tried to kill Joseph, it wouldn't explain why Brigham Young started openly acquiring wives but only after the Martyrdom, and others that I won't list off as it would make this comment too long, so there would be a lot of plot holes left open for me with such an argument as that.