All Activity

I am. I agree. I agree. I can't go along with this. "Illegal alien" is a legal term. "Illegal migrant" is already a kindness (since they are, in legal parlance, "aliens" and not "migrants"). From Grok (asking about a distinction between "illegal alien" and "undocumented migrant") : That seems about right. I don't think the Law of Chastity "impacts gay and straight people equally." I think it applies equally. Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior. Most people don't want to, so that impact on them is negligible. Some do, so that impact is more potent. Same law, disparate impact. Yes, broad ugly stereotypes are indeed lacking in empathy, as they impute negative characteristics onto an entire category of persons, without regard to individual choice and conduct. "All men are potential rapists" is another not-very-empathetic sentiment. Looks like we may agree more than we disagree. Thanks, -Smac

If you are capable of judging your own posts as dispassionate (which is laughable to me, no one is that capable), then why can’t you grant others the ability to judge their own posts as not rage based? Two posters out of many. And yet that is what you see. What you choose to focus on. “Mobcratic” even.

At a minimum a dispassionate evidence approach would require that you at least acknowledge that downplaying sexual assault by a friend is extremely common. I acknowledge that it happens (I'm not sure what "extremely common" means) I deny doing it or anything like it. Embellished or false allegations of assault are also not uncommon. Do you acknowledge that? "Realization" begs the question. Hence the value in a dispassionate analysis. I think your assessment has been based on an inversion of the presumption of innocence and a general inability or unwillingness to dispassionately analyze the evidence. The rush to judgment seems to be emotion-based, not evidence-based. Thanks, -Smac

This reminds me of the treatment of young men who chose or could not go on missions in the past. Sure, no one said they were excluded from exaltation and I would say official doctrine officially rejected that, but girls and young women were being taught to marry returned missionaries, so that first off dropped the likelihood of a temple marriage for those who didn’t go. And while those who couldn’t go may not have been looked down on as sinners, they were pitied in my experience and that raised caution in thinking of them as marriage partners….if they couldn’t handle a mission, maybe they would have trouble with marriage. When one ideal is emphasized, it can too often make something else look less than, not ideal even when it may qualify as such.

Not really. The rush to judgment has not been reasoned or evidence-based. The presumption of innocence has been inverted. My calls for a dispassionate examination of the evidence have been met with ugly accusations from folks like Nehor and SU. To the extent this is all an extension of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment, I find that to be irrational and prejudiced. Patently. Thanks, -Smac

"We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years" Who are these certain extremists? It would be helpful to know of whom you speak? Evangelicals stand against extremism in all its forms. That is why the formed in the early 1940s and why they still exist today. I would not describe either Latter-Day Saints or "Evangelicals (white or otherwise) as the two most conservative religious populations. That is a bridge way too far. Perhaps Fundamentalist Mormons and Fundamentalist non-Mormon Christians are among the most conservative religious populations who are Christian. There certainly are more conservative religous groups like Salafist Islam that out-conservative conservative Christian groups. Of course, now we have to define Conservative, don't we? Russian Mennonites here in Chihuahua are certainly extremely conservative in many ways. They are neither Mormon, and in many cases are Fundamentalists rather than Evangelicals. Some in certain places here certainly are Evangelicals. There are many doctrinally conservative Presbyterians who are an interesting combination of Mainstream, Evangelical, and Fundamentalists, depending on who you are using the terms. Many of them are more conservative than the LDS, depending on how you use the term. There also is great variance in Conservativeness (is that a word) among Catholics. All of that is why I think we always need to define our terms prior to engaging in discussing the "other." I often find labels unhelpful, especially those that are meant to rank, normalize, generalize, dehumanize, other, and only. I am a White Evangelical (capital E). How am I lost? Somehow I don't think you are complimenting me; at least it doesn't feel that way.

Hi all, Please receive my confession: https://confessionoflog.blogspot.com/2026/10/my-confession.html Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

I bet they didn’t become monogamous wives either…. 😛

Labeling others’ reactions generally here as rage based over and over is an example of your own emotional posting.

They are men. You are a man. You want men to be talked about a certain way…or maybe it’s not talked about in certain ways. Probably both now I think of it. You do not always appear to be as cautious or caring about women if one looks at the amount of space you devote to concern about each and the emphasis you give when discussing the presumption of innocence in both cases. It’s not necessary that you be as concerned with women as men given you won’t encounter many of the same sorts of things that women encounter and it’s easy to assume you might encounter the same sort of stuff as other men. The problem is you presenting yourself as dispassionate when you do so, but label others as emotional or rage based when they do something similar. Your emphasis (the depth and amount of time you spend on this) and concerns about false accusations vs false acquittals is not dispassionate.

I am unaware of any definition of empathy out side of right wing talking points that requires acquiescence to a policy point of view. I will say that some points of view are inherently unempathetic. For example describing a 20 week fetus as a clump of cells. Or calling undocumented migrants “illegals”. Or saying that the law of chastity impacts gay and straight people equally. Or saying religious people are delusional. This does not require one to adopt an anti-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-gay rights, or pro religious stance.

Regarding empathy: And passages like this: Remembering "that you too were strangers" at least ancestrally, is a direct call and example of empathy-guiding behavior. Finding a way to see one's self in another's circumstance, rather than looking for evil and grounds to harden one's heart. That is consistent with the foundational commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself." It also happens that one characteristic of the loss of plain and precious things is hardening of hearts. I have a forthcoming essay with long collection of quotes from the Bible on this topic. I often think of this passage from Nibley in "The Unsolved Loyalty Problem". Labels, carelessly splashed over minorities, like generalizing about them as "murders and rapists", "invaders", and inaccurate claims that they are "eating the dogs" or performing sex change surgery on school children without parental consent, or claiming that even notable citizens are "left wing radicals who want to destroy the country" are designed to circumvent empathy and "stir up the hearts of men to anger." Even over-simplifying the question of legal abortion, (a very different thing than coercive abortion), allowing for case by case consideration of circumstances and a possibility that there might actually be application of a basic principle of "opposition in all things", rather than an absolute way of thinking to which all must conform without regard to circumstances, that has contributed recently to 200 women dying due to ectopic pregnancy and their not being able to get proper care for fear of legal repercussions in their states. Is it toxic empathy that raises that kind of question? Should we only mention circumstances and share only paradigmatic accounts that re-enforce our ideological preferences? Is that "pure knowledge" that cannot fail to enlarge our souls? FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Is Jane Doe on this message board listening to the Law of Chastity or WoW discussion? Will her behaviour or perspectives likely be remotely affected by our discussion? And how are you applying a Law of Chastity or WoW discussion to the “potential rapists” portion? If you are saying women would be much less likely to view men as potential rapists if they were aware the men were committed to living the Law of Chasity and WoW and this phrase might even disappear if the LoC and WoW became society wide, I agree with you. If something else, I am not following you at all.

Then at best Brigham Young can only be said to have wildly contradicted himself on more than one occasion, as he was one of the leaders in a "small town" (Paris, Idaho in this case) who was preaching such things publicly: "Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever." Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873 Journal of Discourses volume 16, pg. 166. August 31, 1873 It's significant that it was published both in the Deseret News and in the Journal of Discourses — with him saying that his preached word is as good as scripture, HMD 47. 'Weren't some of those things merely stated as his own personal opinion?' I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95 I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible... Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264 historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Brigham Young also taught that it's not good enough to be a polygamist in name only, he taught that such marriages needed to follow the model of Abraham and Hagar in being consummated or maybe supposed attempted impregnation in order to have it count in the eyes of God: HMD 94 ~ Some members who practiced polygamy on paper still weren't willing to use it to ‘raise up seed’ ~ There seem to have been certain husbands and wives who were willing to believe in the teaching that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation, but who nonetheless put it off for themselves until later in life, perhaps deciding to raise a family together as a couple first with the plan to find an old widow or spinster to support as a plural wife at some point in the future. Brigham Young spoke out against these men who were not willing to procreate with plural wives (as well as against plural wives who were not willing to procreate with their husbands) when he said, Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding upon the Lord by the participants fulfilling their vow and covenant, 'to fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant.' This means obeying the law of Abraham and Sarah as set forth in the Holy Scriptures (D&C Sections 131 and 132, especially verse 34). Without compliance to this law upon which eternal marriage is predicated, you will get about as far as anyone married outside the temple. The Lord says, "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." See D&C 82:10. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 167 The Doctrine & Covenants verse that he references (D&C 132:34) is the verse stating that Abraham had been commanded to impregnate Hagar. Brigham Young's counsel here then, is that men are commanded to consummate marriages with plural wives who are young enough to bear children, and that plural wives are commanded to allow their husband to try to impregnate them. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

I think it would help if more people saw you as actually doing that rather than believing you are doing that. But the way you are choosing to talk about what facts we do know and where you then take it does not appear to be dispassionate to me. Bluntly, it is coming across to me as a way to dismiss others’ conclusions…some of which are emotional, but some no more emotional than your own.

At a minimum a dispassionate evidence approach would require that you at least acknowledge that downplaying sexual assault by a friend is extremely common. So if we “must” acknowledge her text thread we “must” also acknowledge her realization later. We “must” also acknowledge how common it is for this exact thing to happen. Since you view me as an emotional wreck and you love chat bots here is Claude: “When rape or sexual abuse is perpetrated by a friend how common is it that the victim initially downplays the assault” Claude: “ It's very common. Researchers call it "unacknowledged rape": the person's experience meets the legal definition, but they don't label it rape. Prevalence: A 2016 meta-analysis (Wilson & Miller) found roughly 60% of people who experienced rape didn't initially call it that. Earlier work by Mary Koss found around 70% in college samples. Exact figures vary by study and how questions are worded. Friends and acquaintances: Downplaying is more common when the perpetrator is someone known and trusted than when it's a stranger. It's also more common when there was alcohol, no visible physical violence, or no physical resistance, because those cases don't match the "stereotypical rape" many people picture. Why it happens: Common factors include wanting to preserve the friendship or social group, self-blame, fear of not being believed, and not wanting to see a trusted person as someone who would do this. Calling it "a bad night" or "a misunderstanding" can be a way to cope. Over time: Many people re-label the experience later, sometimes months or years afterward, often after hearing others' stories or learning more about consent. Downplaying isn't a sign the assault was less serious or that someone is lying. If this is about you or someone close to you, I'm happy to talk it through or help find support.”

So am I. The challenge is when "empathy" is portrayed as "And so it is your job to, in the name of 'empathy,' support and validate my decision to electively abort my baby." It is this sort of weaponized / coercive strain of "empathy" that I find problematic. Frankly, I think "empathy" is often used more for its imputed embellished connotations than for its normative meaning. Thanks, -Smac

That depends on what "empathy" means, or its connotations. As I asked previously: "{D}oes 'empathy' require, in your view, not merely the 'the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another,' but also the acquiescence to and endorsement and validation of those emotions/thoughts/attitudes?" For example, Let's go with your proffered definition: "Empathy is the ability to understand, share, and experience another person's feelings, thoughts, or point of view. It allows you to see the world from someone else's perspective rather than just your own." I think in the reckoning of some, to "empathize" with a woman who wants to electively abort her baby means to endorse and validate that desire. Do you think that sort of "empathy" might be seen as "lead{ing} people way from God's truth" (assuming the individual believes "God's truth" to include rejection of elective abortions)? So was I. But understanding and endorsement/validation are two different things. I think some folks collapse them into each other. Yes. I think plenty of people opposed to elective abortion do so out of empathy with and for the unborn. I think plenty of people who want strong and secured borders do so in part out of empathy with and for the untold millions of women and children who have been physically and sexually abused during and after illegal border crossings. Sex trafficking relies heavily on porous borders. And yet people who oppose elective abortion and/or open/unsecured borders are often accused of lacking "empathy," presumably for the mothers of aborted babies and those who have entered the U.S. illegally, respectively. Thanks, -Smac

I am cooking waffles right now and then having to do other chores, so can’t dive into this. How many questions actually dealt with empathy on the survey? Was that its primary purpose or only a section of it with one or two questions? If the latter, I see drawing any conclusions from it about actual empathy as highly problematic even while I find the framing of empathy by Republican leadership at this time horrendous. While I disagree with those who might broaden empathy to include requiring agreement in every way (though I don’t believe this is as widespread as claimed by some on the right, I have seen this type of acceptance being demanded by some or they will cut off contact, which is justified in some cases for sure, but not all that I have seen), I would prefer to see errors in that direction than the other. While I believe empathy can be involved in the rejection of abortion, it naturally follows that if one is empathetic to the unborn, one needs to care for it in more than just saying no to abortion. Not stepping in to ensure the healthiest pregnancy as possible, removing reasons for abortion being the best option is a rejection of empathy for the unborn as is not ensuring the children are fed no matter what their parents are like as children are not accountable for their parents’ mistakes or sins.

Navidad differentiates (probably correctly imo in terms of scholarly categories…spacing on the right word now for that, but I don’t believe that is how most people use “evangelical”) between Evangelical and Fundamentalist. If I understand him correctly, one can’t be both. OTOH, there can be evangelical or fundamentalists LDS, Catholics, Muslims, etc. In his view, my guess that the groups of political or religious “extremists” that see empathy as highly dangerous are more likely Fundamentalist than Evangelical. He will hopefully correct me if I have misunderstood him. You both will end up talking past each other if you don’t agree on a definition for Evangelical here and given his past comments, I don’t think Navidad will budge on this. It concerns him greatly. I can understand that as it can cause great confusion as it is doing here (there are many liberal white evangelicals, but they are getting clumped in with white fundamentalists in this survey).

Are you sure you want to use “deceiving” (it’s phrased as he is deceiving, which is intentional behaviour) here when he is referencing a survey?

Yes, I think people are likely inserting some form of ‘false empathy’, performative empathy perhaps here rather than “godly empathy”? But that needs its own survey to tease out.

I disagree strongly with your two ‘examples’ of the meaning of empathy as I think those are caricatures while agreeing with your comment about it being an inappropriate forced choice. I would also like to see how the survey was tested for its actual correspondence to valuing empathy and how it did.

I too dislike the question set up. I can’t understand the second viewing, though with the definition of empathy like the following: How can empathy lead people away from God’s truth? I was taught that God perfectly understood shared and experienced all through the atonement. Wasn’t it empathy that led religious abolitionists to reinterpret the Bible when it comes to slavery? Empathy is the ability to understand, share, and experience another person's feelings, thoughts, or point of view. It allows you to see the world from someone else's perspective rather than just your own.

The woman allegedly replied, “Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,” although noting that her memory was “super clouded too.” I don't understand. Would changing "must" to "should" make the observation more palatable to you? By what principle do you sift out relevant evidence? What pieces of evidence merit attention and evaluation, and which do not? For me, I think we start with questions about indicia of reliability, authentication, hearsay, inculpatory and exculpatory, and so on. A near-contemporaneous statement from Jane Doe that "{none} of the sexual stuff was illegal" surely seems relevant. Its authenticity does not appear to be in dispute. Hearsay is not an issue. It's facially exculpatory. So what grounds do we have for not taking the text at face value? There is certainly a fair argument which could be made about delayed processing, trauma, and so on. There are also fair arguments which could be made about how she was telling the truth then, but changed the narrative. Also, I said nothing about Jane Doe's statement "exonerating" the accused. Reading and interpreting text messages in context and in relation to other communications is an entirely legitimate exercise that both sides will do. Whether that results in exoneration or conviction is yet to be seen. Thanks, -Smac