All Activity

Rude

Good catch..l wasn’t as precise then because I didn’t know you were going to persistently take things out of context. I notice yet again you removed crucial context that was the main point of what I said and focused on something else. I spent the whole post clarifying “potential rapist” did not imply “latent rapist”. The above was showing the logical difference between the two. If I can consider every man a potential rapist and still date or marry them, should be rather difficult to imagine I think that means they are a latent rapist. I may have hangups, but putting myself in danger isn’t one of them. Phrasing it as such in my head—-which isn’t how actually phrase it, but amount to the same, so let’s pretend I do—doesn’t mean I use it publicly as a slogan or catchphrase. I do personally consider the possibility that the people I encounter every day may have hidden dangerous inclinations. I have studied too much not to know it happens. I also even examine myself to check to see if I am nurturing things that will lead me to become more selfish, denigrating of others, a worse temper, even if I could be abusive, impulsive, etc. I recognize this examination of possibilities is how my brain establishes safety. I think of worst case and then I do a reality check to reassure myself. It works so much better than pretending those ideas don’t occur to me. It tends to be less often over time with most people, but my brain gets intrusive thoughts about possible tragedies for some reason, so probably will be doing the “any red flags?” every now and then for all the people I know till the day I die. I don’t think it’s a bad thing because I will be less likely to dismiss red flags when I do see them in general and be more prepped to act on it rather than experience decision paralysis (fear of making the wrong decision and harming someone is pretty big for me). And I have seen them, just not among my loved ones. I also recognize that’s not what everyone does and it wouldn’t be healthy for everyone. For some it will increase anxiety, not decrease it. So I don’t hold it up as a solution…which is what I mean here by “endorse”. I would be content if I had other ways that worked for me to stay aware of potential dangers. If I find one that is as effective for me I will switch because it’s not a pleasant task. I also know women who use the phrase “every man a potential rapist” to do something similar for themselves…or something quite different. I have talked with them about why they do it…often it’s for the same reasons. Some of them promote it as effective. You could say if someone told me using this as a slogan helped them, I would even “endorse” their own use of it. There may even been a time I did promote it as a slogan or even just a technique as best practice in general, I don’t remember if I did as it’s not a frequent conversation typically, but I haven’t for years because I think there are better teaching aids/brain hacks for most people. So when I say “I don’t endorse it”, I mean I don’t go around using it as a standard part of how I would encourage people to prepare to be safe. And I don’t use that particular phrase for myself, though what I do amounts to the same thing. I consider the possibility and look for anything that might confirm it. Trump may have done something useful with drugs (it’s why my brain went to him in discussing “endorse”). I need to do more research as I just found out the details for me yesterday, but it looks like it’s going to at least work very well for me. As soon as I double-check and my insurance guy has a chance to do so, I am going to immediately take advantage of the changes in drug insurance options because it benefits me. Saying this is not me claiming it’s the way it should or will be for everyone or even saying I am happy it happened, it’s a good thing. I am actually worried it’s going to hurt a lot of people because it is so sweet for me. If the money isn’t coming from me, who is it coming from? My drugs aren’t cheap. Not trying to get into politics….just showing thinking something can be very useful in some contexts shouldn’t be assumed as an endorsement for using it in every circumstance by everyone or most. Btw, I expect I was sloppy in the beginning when this came up as a major discussion as I thought my and others’ point was easily understood. I also verbally process and since it may take time to find the best wording to describe what I want to say, not everything I say is what I end up wanting to say. I even change my mind because someone has caused me to reconsider how I say something. Shocker, I know. Who does that? You will probably find some other stuff I make less than precise or even blew it. I will be happy to clarify and even correct myself if you want to point out questionable things.

What even is the topic you wanted to get back to anyway?

Or a Third Party. He rejected both major parties of his era (Democrats and Whigs), viewing party orthodoxy as corrupt and detrimental to liberty. I'm concerned about the timing and editorial intent of media commentary around Joseph Smith. Because Latter-day Saints have voted overwhelmingly Republican for several decades. When outlets like The Salt Lake Tribune's center-left commentators highlight "progressive" aspects of Joseph Smith, or any claim that "Joseph Smith would vote [Progressive / Conservative / Libertarian] today" is an attempt to weaponize a religious leader for political leverage. If a modern Progressive claims him: They must ignore his patriarchal family structure, divine-right leadership model, rejection of secular pluralism, and views regarding colonization. If a modern Conservative claims him: They must ignore his advocacy for a national bank, federal override of states' rights, prison reform, and collective economic systems. Joseph Smith’s political thought was a pragmatic response to persecution, aimed at establishing a distinct political and divine order outside the standard American two-party framework.

No, it’s not. It’s your gig to say I am endorsing it. Even when I have said ‘nope’. You: "It’s your gig to say I am endorsing {the 'all men are potential rapists' slogan}. Even when I have said ‘nope’." Also you: "I go by the rule every man a potential rapist, have since I knew what rape was." Thanks, -Smac

“Prostitute” is not denigrating in my view. It speaks to a very real possibility that many women have had to face and any woman could. But maybe you think I think “prostitute” is insulting? Pedophile/rapist…I don’t feel the least insulted either. As far as you know, I could be. Why would I be insulted by you being cautious? I wasn’t insulted when my in-laws told us their kids couldn’t come over for a sleepover even though they knew us very well. My husband isn’t insulted when a girl or woman moves back if he gets too close, even if a close friend. He isn’t insulted he has been asked not to give hugs or required to do harassment training. He isn’t insulted the Church doesn’t want him to be alone with another woman so he can’t drive the sister missionaries home. I am not insulted because I can’t invite the elders in when alone. I am not insulted when I have to sign a business contract because someone won’t take my word for it even though I have never defaulted on a loan. I am not insulted I have to have a license even though I have never caused an accident, never got a parking ticket even. There are a lot of bad actors out there. Enough we need to be cautious even if most wouldn’t harm us, wouldn’t walk with our money if there was no evidence it was ours, wouldn’t steal our groceries, books, bikes if they found them on the street. People should not trust before it’s earned. “I don’t trust you” is not equivalent to “I think you are guilty” though. (Context matters herewith English as it allows multiple meanings, both “I distrust you” and the absence of trust or distrust). There is nothing in my appearance that demonstrates I am not a dog beater, rapist, thief, pedophile, prostitute, liar, murderer, candy stealer and never will be. Why would anyone trust me? Of course, no reason to assume I am guilty or am likely to be either…..but calling me a potential whatever isn’t saying that. And if you can tell in a lineup or by walking down a street which kid is going to steal your bike, which adult is going to kick your dog, which person is going to assault your daughter when she goes to a movie without her brothers, you need to stop being a lawyer and start a self defense service. It will go viral.

Seriously? Context is always relevant. Words have no meaning without context.

That’s the issue, isn’t it.

Why are you now talking about Muslims? I don't see what this has to do with D&C 132 or with what Joseph F. Smith said. It is an interesting diversion but not sure what it has to do with your original subject.

You apparently didn't actually read what I wrote. Because I said that the first line was in the earlier section, just as you show in your image. The problem is that you quoted both lines together as if they were actually together. They aren't they are in separate paragraphs and even separate sections. They come from 2 very different original sources. The 2 lines don't fit together. That's why I asked where you got it from. Because if you had gotten it from the actual source (which you just shared), you would have noticed that they are not related and wouldn't have pasted both together as if they were related.

No, it’s not. It’s your gig to say I am endorsing it. Even when I have said ‘nope’. Me saying I understand why some might endorse/use it and I find their reasons reasonable is not actually me endorsing it….nor is it endorsing every way it is used. Me saying I understand why some of my relatives endorse Trump and I find it reasonable for them to do so is definitely not me endorsing Trump. Nor is it me thinking all my relatives who endorse Trump do so for reasonable reasons.

Seems like a selective appeal to authority that conflates one particular hyper-skeptical school of historical-critical reconstruction with the broader consensus of biblical scholarship. Your argument relies heavily on a specific history-of-religions paradigm popularized by radical apocalyptic reconstructions. While apocalypticism is a recognized component of historical Jesus research, the mainstream scholarship (E.P. Sanders, John P. Meier, Richard Bauckham) explicitly rejects the conclusion that Jesus advocated universal celibacy or viewed the family as a disposable earthly vice. I quoted E.P. Sanders who pointed out that Jesus' strict, unyielding prohibition against divorce demonstrates that He viewed marriage as an eternal, God-joined ordinance, directly contradicting the idea that Jesus viewed family as a disposable earthly arrangement. I quoted Dale Allison and Joseph Fitzmyer who explicitly refuted the idea that "like the angels" means humans become sexless. Jesus is explaining the immortal condition of the resurrected body, not declaring that personal relationships or covenant identities are abolished. Carey A. Moore (Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Vol. 40A) Carey A. Moore commenting on Tobit 6:18 and 7:11 where the angel Raphael declares Sarah was set apart for Tobias "from of old" and "destined for him forever" "The union of Tobias and Sarah was not a matter of mere human arrangement, nor even simply of pious parental duty; it was a match made in heaven, predestined from eternity (apo tou aiōnos / eis ton aiōna). In the author's view, their marriage is an act of divine providence - prepared before the world was, sealed by angelic intervention, and intended to endure into the age to come." (Carey A. Moore, Tobit (Anchor Yale Bible), p. 218) On the Covenant of Marriage in Second Temple Judaism commenting on Tobit 7:12–13 "Marriage in Tobit is elevated far above a social contract or a utilitarian means of property inheritance. It is presented as a sacred covenant ordained by God from creation, protected by angels against demonic destruction, and invested with eternal validity. The story asserts that a true marriage, rightly contracted under God's law, possesses a heavenly reality that transcends the threats of death and mortality." (Carey A. Moore, Tobit (Anchor Yale Bible), p. 232) George W.E. Nickelsburg (Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction) In his analysis of the Book of Tobit "The author of Tobit constructs the narrative around the theme of divine providence overriding earthly tragedy. The marriage of Tobias and Sarah is the central plot device demonstrating this principle: their union was decreed in heaven before it was consummated on earth. The angelic decree that she was 'destined for him from eternity' (Tobit 6:17–18) establishes marriage as an eternal ordinance belonging to the divine order, rather than a temporary arrangement dictated by circumstance." (George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 2nd ed., p. 34) Analyzing Tobit's prayer in Tobit 8:5–7 "In Tobit 8, the marital prayer explicitly harks back to the creation of Adam and Eve. By grounding their union in the primordial creation order, the text presents marriage as God's original, ideal design for humanity. The union of man and woman is not an earthly concession to mortality, but a holy state ordained from the beginning, restored through covenant faithfulness, and destined to endure." (George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 2nd ed., p. 36) The assertion that scholars think ancient Jews only viewed marriage as a temporary mortal contract is false. When Jesus engaged the Sadducees in Matthew 22, the concept of a divinely ordained, heavenly sealed marital union was not an anachronistic invention, but a recognized theological framework documented in mainstream Second Temple texts like Tobit. Raphael Patai provides evidence that directly reinforces the eternal marriage. In his book The Hebrew Goddess (1967) demonstrates that in First Temple theology and late Rabbinic traditions, Like Yoma 54a in the Talmud, the two Cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies were sculpted not merely as sexless angels, but as a male and female figure locked in a marital embrace. "The ancient Hebrew sanctuary was not merely a place of prayer or sacrifice, but the earthly locus of a divine bridal chamber (Nymphon), where the holy union of the male and female divine principles was solemnized into eternity." (Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, pp. 32–34) In his examination of ancient Jewish Temple ritual, Patai details the Heavenly Union (Yichudim) "Human marriage was viewed not as a temporary worldly contract dictated by mortal necessity, but as an earthly reflection of the ultimate heavenly mystery (Yichud). The coupling of husband and wife in holiness on earth was believed to participate in and sustain the eternal, unbreakable union of the King and His Matronit in the divine realm." (Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, p. 142) Patai’s analysis shows that in ancient Temple symbolism, angelic beings in the Holy of Holies were explicitly gendered and depicted in eternal marital union. Jesus' claim to restore the original First Temple order connects directly to this framework, the ultimate sanctuary reality was not celibate isolation, but the eternal, holy union of male and female. If Jesus is using the Book of Tobit or the broader Second Temple tradition to defend the resurrection against the Sadducees, then He is drawing on a text whose central theological premise is eternal marriage (eis ton aiona).

For the record, I take no offense to that statement (which is a false equivalent). Because I am not a prostitute it is not characterizing me and so there’s no reason to be offended.

Then yes. This is actually great advice is some circumstances. If I had a single friend that just won 100 million in the lottery, then the advice that people approaching him/her are all potential gold diggers is probably great. If I was an attorney advising a very wealthy client (whose wealth is well known), I’d give the same advice. Do you disagree?

Thank you for this! For some reason I never realized the perfectly obvious fact that the Savior would be in favor or the multiple millions of child sacrifices that have been performed in these latter-days under the glorious banner of unlimited abortion rights, right up to the very moment of birth! If only the Savior were here today to set the callous church leaders straight with regard their backward, anti-progressive stand on abortion! With this realization, my faith in the love of God has increased exponentially!

You haven’t elicited anything. I offer it willingly to the board as a real life example of the very topic we are now discussing. If it is too real for you and you are uncomfortable engaging, I’m OK with that. I offer it to anyone else who might take offense, though we have not heard from anybody else who does. But should there be anyone else, I’m hoping it bridges a bit of a gap between us and offers some clarity.

Pretty cool that man on the large sized ring! My hope for heaven is much like it is on earth. The beauty in the world is astounding to me. I hope to eat actual food and speak actual words. I can't wait to be with my deceased loved ones as well. Just came home from St. George Utah and we hiked a little bit of Zion's National Park. I hope to one day climb Angel's Landing, but don't know if I'll ever make it. Can't hurt to have a goal. Swimming is sooo good for you, I'm glad you do that Calm!!

Like the Saviour, he'd be progressive.

No, I didn't understand the word differences or hadn't at the time. But sure hope I empathized as well as sympathized in situations.

I didn't take it as a personal dig. You said the argument is "silly," not that I am a silly person. Nevertheless, the response looks like an appeal to ridicule. The argument is "silly," ergo you don't need to address its substance. Okay. An explanation as to how you reached this conclusion would be interesting. I'm not sure such a discussion would be worthwhile, as it would entail you providing details about your private life, and I don't want to elicit such information. Thanks, -Smac

- I’m sorry I didn’t intend that as personal. Please accept my apology. I’d like to scratch from the record and instead say, I find the statement to be unhelpful and false equivalent in this conversation . The gold digger comparison works, makes a LOT more sense. Regardless, let’s get back to the topic. I described my actual experience of feeling unsafe with men, would like to know what you think of it.

I fixed the hypothetical to add "potential." Should've been in there in the first place. Thanks, -Smac

If that was the only context given, quite possibly. How is context relevant? The denigration is categorical (all women are "potential" prostitutes / pedophiles / rapists). I'm genuinely curious what you have to say. What sort of context would justify denigrating all women everywhere in these ways? Thanks, -Smac

Again if you were listening or understanding, that would be "All women are **potential** golddiggers" based on the nearly universal experience of all men having countless unpleasant experiences with women in relation to money issues. And if all that was true, it would parallel the issue here.

Appeal to ridicule. Oh, well. Thanks, -Smac