All Activity

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.

If it’s true that he intervenes at times and not in others, then there “is” no difference, as I see it

Deleted. Changed my mind.

So when asked scholarly questions he should bear his testimony? They could grab any rando LDS person for that. Why would anyone want to listen to that? Accurate. It is not based on a philosophical claim or biblical scholarship. The conclusion is based on how historians operate. They take the data they have from a lot of fields (archaeology, textual criticism, etc.) and try to reconstruct what we can say is probable. Also most of this stuff of sociopolitical issues start with him doing a deep dive into the Bible as to what it says about those issues and he is brutally factual there even when the Bible says something he doesn’t like. Then often shares his thoughts on the issue. I don’t think you have spent any time listening to him. You seem to have built up an image of some strawman “enemy within” apostate who you are bitter about because he disagrees with you about your culture war nonsense. It is a historical conclusion. There is some special pleading here that we should definitely factor in the possibility of the supernatural when reaching historical conclusions when it involves Christianity’s traditional claims but no one is going to bat for the miracles of the other wandering wise men of the period or for miracles credited to being performed by polytheistic deities. It is a high bar but supernatural events have to have a LOT of evidence to prove. That is just how historical research works and the evidence for the resurrection is pretty weak. The resurrection narratives are assumed to be later stories because they are later stories. Yes, the idea that Jesus came back to life was prevalent early and the most likely point of origin for those stories is Peter (and possibly Mary). And cases of people seeing dead loved ones aren’t that rare. The empty tomb narrative is also late. There are a few problems with the empty tomb narrative. The biggest one is that is not how crucifixion victims were treated. They were thrown into mass graves. Now is it possible that someone begged for the body of Jesus and got it? Maybe. Or maybe that was a later rationalization. There was no one controlling the story. Peter was around but how was he going to reasonably counter people getting stuff wrong? He was probably dead before the Book of Acts and the gospels showed up. The Pauline letters say almost nothing about the life of Jesus. As far as we can tell Paul was focused on Jesus dying and being brought back to life and what that meant. Paul had one short time with Peter and the two did not seem to get along. I get the impression Peter just wanted him to just go and evangelize anywhere else. Also, there are lots and lots and lots of papers and books and videos by experts discussing the evidence of the resurrection. He didn’t “elide” that interpretive step. He is in line with most of the scholarship. You really have some perverse need to make Dan dishonest. Your flaw is that he presents the scholarship correctly and it doesn’t confirm your favorite dogma and he should support that dogma because that is what good LDS do. You also personalize this as if Dan is the one ruling it out. No, the historical consensus rules it as very improbable and he passes that along. There are plenty of scholars that will tell you what you want to hear. There are big flaws and a priori assumptions in their work too though so if you want to be consistent you would have to throw them out too. The most common one I see thrown around is claiming that the martyrdom of all the apostles/disciples prove it must have been real because no one dies for something they don’t believe is true. No one is claiming that Peter didn’t believe it. Or James. Or Paul. Also as a technical point Peter recanting wouldn’t have saved him. He and other Christians were reportedly being scapegoated for a crime so him disavowing Christianity wouldn’t have led to him being spared. And the rest of the apostles/disciple vanish from the historical record very quickly and accounts of their martyrdoms only pop up centuries later and many include things like dragons so there aren’t a lot of people taking those stories seriously but some apologists love endlessly repeating that they were all martyred when they won’t defend the only accounts we have of them being martyred. That is pretty dishonest. So you haven’t found a flaw in his schtick. Nor do I think you know enough about the state of the field or what Dan actually does to accuse him of dishonesty and trickery. The stuff Dan says is pretty much what Christian clergy who go to good educational institutions learn to get their degrees. This isn’t hidden stuff. Well…..except that clergy rarely share all this with their congregations for……reasons. Probably reasons similar to why you don’t like what Dan says. To be fair I do have one beef with Dan. Why has he not created a t-shirt with his line, “Leave my trans homies alone” on it? I’ll buy it!

That’s very much along the lines of what I feel like. God gave me the brain and heart (or maybe it’s my eternal nature) to want to care for others and then placed me in a world where I am constantly told it’s good to do so and it is certainly needed, plenty of opportunities. But then I end up with a body that limits what I can do to very little. And even allows me to make uninspired choices by accepting others’ authority who I have been taught I should trust (doctors, parents, teachers) that makes things much worse. So instead others still suffer and I get to see their pain and do nothing. I just don’t see much purpose in it. Whatever I learned from it, I think I got in the first 20 years. I have decided not to be concerned emotionally at least with the why, I am not likely to get answers when better people than I am did not. I do what I can to make the best world in my very little corner of it. Some day it will be over. Maybe even be beautifully magnificent. Maybe not, but I am going to construct my idea of life as if it is. It seems the healthiest way to deal with this reality. Definitely the best for my ego, lol.

This… I don’t understand why people insist faith must inform everything someone says or they don’t have real faith.