All Activity

I think we should refrain from prejudice in everyday life. I also think we should regularly utilize common sense and situational awareness, but I don't think that requires us to view half the population of the planet as latent rapists. The latter. This decision is not based on abject prejudice against all men everywhere, but is instead based on a calculated assessment of a specific situation. A police arrest must be based on "probable cause," meaning that a reasonable person would believe—based on specific, objective facts and circumstances—that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or that evidence of a crime is located in a specific place. Situational awareness is about managing real, context-specific risks without converting statistical rarity into a character judgment about an entire sex. “All men are potential rapists” is a character judgment. Noting that a small percentage of men commit sexual violence and that certain environments or behaviors raise risk is ordinary prudence. The first treats men as a suspect class; the second treats particular situations and particular people as warranting caution—the same way we treat countless other low-probability but high-cost risks. Telling your kids to be cautious around a neighbor who has been arrested for child sexual abuse is ordinary prudence directed at a specific and known and evidence-based risk. The first collapses individuals into a suspect class; the second treats a concrete piece of information the way any responsible parent would, regardless of the neighbor’s sex. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you

A response that completely misses the single coherent point of my post (again!). If you actually understand the point that I, Calm, Mustard, Bluebell etc are making, please let us know. Please explain why we feel it's valid for woman to say "all men are potential rapists" but not ok to say "all gay men are potential pedophiles". You don't have to agree with the sentiment. But please explain why we feel one is ok, but not the other. Steel man the opposite side. I dare you. Because this post here shows you don't have a clue:

Back to Jane Doe's allegations. A Grok summary: I am curious as to how you folks feel about this seemingly exculpatory evidence. Does it alter your assessment of the case? Why or why not? So the case was taken away from the original prosecutor and assigned to Letitia James, who proceeded to make an ethical muck of things, and who may be "shopping for an outside independent prosecutor." This does not look good. I agree with this sentiment. I wonder if any of you feel there is "political pressure" in this case, particularly given public statements by Gov. Hochul and Ms. James. I agree with the evidentiary assessment. I have less to say about James. The two attorneys in this clip (from Grok) : Matt Murphy's take is more persuasive to me overall. Thanks, -Smac

My objection to prejudice is that it is inherently irrational, and that this particular expression of prejudice is unfair and damaging to society. That is a reasoned critique, not an emotional one. And none of the "go{ing} on and on" would justify the plainly prejudiced statement that "all men are potential rapists." With some men. The vast majority of men do not commit rape. From earlier in the thread: Thoughts? I believe that. But I don't think you would say this if the topic were "all black men are potential rapists," and then justified this categorical statement by pointing to a woman of your acquaintance who had endured improper behavior by a few black men. And I think you would not say this because, in the end, characterizing all black men everywhere as "potential rapists" is plain prejudice. Same goes if someone came along and presented a litany of abusive experiences at the hands of a few gay men. I don't think you would go along with "all gay men are potential rapists." You will be waiting a while. I would never make such a deplorable, abjectly prejudiced statement like "all gay men are potential pedophiles." Thanks, -Smac

"And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day". The Church's seminary manual states "At the time of Christ’s Resurrection, all of the righteous who had died before Christ were also resurrected. The wicked who had died still await their resurrection (see Moses 7:53–57; Mosiah 15:20–24; Matthew 27:52–53)". Would this mean Stephen (the first martyr) may have been the first to enter spirit paradise after it was emptied at Christ's resurrection?

He won't find any mainstream scholars arguing that Jesus thought marriage would continue in the eschaton.

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing that Jesus was an ascetic who required strict celibacy. I'm giving you the framework showing that Jesus did not value family relationships over celibacy, that his view was an immanent apocalypse, and that he understood as marriage as not continuing on beyond this life. All three of those are standards of New Testament scholarship. The "like the angels in heaven" is your clue that Jesus did not think marriage would continue past this life. Other important passages include his praise for those who abandon wives and children to live Jesus' lifestyle.

Where did you get this quote? Because the 2 sentences aren't related. @Zosimus shows the screenshot from Gospel Truth, volume 2, chapter 8, page 98 and it doesn't contain the first sentence. It only contains the second sentence. And the original source for the second sentence can be read at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Conference_Reports_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints/Sixty-Eighth_Semi-Annual/Discourse_by_President_George_Q._Cannon,_delivered_in_the_Tabernacle,_Salt_Lake_City,_Wednesday_Afternoon,_October_6,_1897. The first sentence is in the section above (same page but different section titled "The Indians to Build New Jerusalem"). Its source is "February 1, 1895, JI 30:75-76" which you can find at https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/d7c4b6cc-8bd8-44e2-940e-7c8a502e5e46/0/0. It is the "Topic of the Times" section, "The Indians" subsection.

Not the same story, I suspect, since my conversation with Mom was late 60’s most likely. It has probably happened many times to church members over the decades unfortunately. The way I remember the story is there was never any doubt she was choosing what she did, the focus was on her cheerfulness and willingness. But it’s been 55 years, so who knows.

If it is the same story, it was in the Ensign. Maybe around 1997-2000? I don't remember when exactly, but I remember the couple being prayful about it and choosing that. It was a very tough choice for them.

I think sometime before I became a teen, but maybe afterwards, Mom told me sometimes it was harder to live for someone than die for them. She had almost died a couple of times in her life, including as a child and had long lasting complications from them that she had to work hard and constantly to maintain a functioning body, so I think she had a decent background for her claim. We had just gotten home from church where someone had related the story of a mother choosing to put off cancer treatment because of being pregnant and leaving behind a young baby and several other young children because of her choice…or maybe it was in the church magazine that month. She was not dismissive of the sacrifice, she just thought recognition of what women (and men) had to do to live for their families should be praised as well. I do remember quite a few faith promoting stories of mothers dying for their children, how Christ like that was. Not much about how Christlike was washing dirty diapers while puking your guts out or fixing meals you can’t eat, etc. Mom taught me to look at the day to day stuff as marvels of love and charity and sacrifice, acceptable to God as much as giving up your life…it actually is just a different mode of giving up your life, most of the time not as permanent though. I have been thinking about this stuff off and on since then. My own health and seeing how it affected my children and husband has added another dimension to it. I also have several in the family who have struggled to get pregnant with heartbreak and joy as results. It is one of the most complicated discussions, imo, in the here and now. So many high value conflicts of life changing needs, not just desires. Implications pretty much expand into every nook and cranny. PS: I won’t be offended if anyone thinks I am wrong headed about this. While I feel strongly about certain aspects of it, others I could easily change my mind about…like new data on how soon a fetus experiences the world in a complex way. And I could change my views as medicine becomes more adept at saving premies’ lives if our society takes on that role without leading to the family having to constantly worry about bills now or in the future, so the parents and extended family can just concentrate creating a good home, whether their own or through adoption. And I would definitely be there for much stronger limits if society was stepping in to support children rather than withholding because of a need to hold parents accountable (if that is truly needed, another way that actually works that doesn’t punish children as a side effect needs to be found).

Cal. Hi. You always put so much loving thought into your beliefs. May we meet in a happy place of peace. I won't say more until then.

I also had very high risk pregnancies and know the pain of losing a child. I knew that I had 3 children coming to me before they were born. Had I been faced in the situation of my life or the life of my first pregancy I would have made it a matter of prayer. Knowing I had 3 children, there is a chance, being prayerful I would have chosen my life to go on and trusted God with my first pregnancy. I made it a matter of prayer with the second child of whether to have one biologically or adopt. The answers were clear I should have one. If we came to the choice of me or that pregnancy I would made it a matter of prayer, but there is a chance the prayful answer would have been to choose my life to go on because my first child, a little boy, needed me. The same with the third pregnancy. Before my 3rd c-section we reminded the dr so many times about doing the tubal ligation and any other thing that could be done because we were confident that I wouldn't make it through another pregnancy. But there have been times since then that I have thought about what I would do if I got pregnant despite having surgery. Again we would have made it a matter of prayer and trusted the Lord and there is a chance we would have chose my life over a pregnacy while my children were still young. And maybe when they were older too. I no longer believe in the church, but still feel the same - we don't know God's whole plan for us or our children. We don't know when my first pregnancy truly became my son and the same for the other two. Our whole life has been filled with prayer, being willing to do what He wants and trusting Him. I'm happy to let other women work with God without me thinking I know better than they do about their own situations and I trust that God loves each of his children and has a plan for them, no matter how far they got in this life and how they left it.

Thanks cal. You are always so generous.

This is logical given the understanding of the soul and sin.

I think that’s a rational position.

In medieval times, it had not yet been determined that the soul comes into existence at conception. It wasn't that Aquinas would have accused the Mother of God of having sinned. Rather, it was undetermined at that time when the soul came into the body. It had to have occurred at least by the time of quickening, when the baby had mobility in the womb. In medieval times the timing of the entrance of the soul was undetermined. The teaching in the New Catechism (#366) is recent and does not affirm the timing. It only affirms that the soul is created "immediately" by God. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 argues for why the current position of the Church satisfies the major premises of three schools of thought. But it does not reference a defined statement of the Church's doctrine either. www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm The question of timing appears to be more difficult than I have previously considered. For instance, twins are sometimes joined in the womb, before they split bodily. Are there two souls in one body before they split? I don't think we have that information at this time. The only hints I can think of is not from reasoning but revelation. When the Blessed Virgin visited Elizabeth after the Incarnation, the Christ child would have been only weeks old at the most. Elizabeth referred to Mary as "the mother of my lord." But even Elizabeth's inspired remark could be referring to the future. Ps. 51 has David saying that in sin he was conceived. Assuredly he is not referring to the marriage act. The Psalmists frequently resort to hyperbole. This could be another example of that. It would be a sola scriptura argument which as always, never settles doctrinal controversy. My reading of the New Catechism leaves the timing open according to how I read in #366. I think one would have to resort to the fallible teachings of St. Paul VI (Humanae Vitae) and John Paul II in regards to contraception and abortion. We are still learning all the time. We are trending towards ensoulment at conception. I have to admit that I do not think we are all the way there yet. Edit: Or maybe Catholics should infer ensoulment at conception because of the defined teaching of the Immaculate Conception. This does little for non-Catholics, but I think we could affirm that Mary could not be "immaculately conceived" without a soul for a length of time.

Generally, I think that it's inherently a crime for us to attempt to take a life in mercy because we aren't God and don't know what He does.

Death of a child or spouse are the worse life stressors on many scales for good reason, often dramatically so. I do consider myself lucky.

I actually agree with this. But the child has to live with the consequences whether the parent is the best or the worse. I don’t believe life is so great any suffering is worth it. I believe in mercy killing under very limited circumstances. Very, very limited if there can be no consent. If we can accept God will take life in mercy, why would such be inherently a crime? Carelessly, selfishly…that is sinful as in my view all things selfish and careless are (I don’t mean simple lack of attention here, but lack of caring, lack of emotional investment). I understand that others view things differently. I don’t judge anyone as not charitable or empathetic enough if they see things differently. People think differently based on biology, environment, experience, and likely imo the faint influence of their eternal self (quieted down so we can experience mortality mentally and spiritually independent as possible). I will judge people if they take away the parents’ choice (whether birth or abortion is forced…the latter is pure evil, imo; the first is understandable out of concern for the child) and then refuse to stick around to support the forced circumstances. Children shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of people not their parents even more than their parents. Back to abortion choices… It’s the children a mother may already have that rank first and foremost for me. In my belief, there’s not a back up plan for them if Mom dies or her health goes down the tubes, if their father is also their grandfather or uncle, etc. There is if there is a miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. God promised everyone a chance at life enough to receive a body and a wonderful afterlife. Not too many universal promises for the in between. He promised to heal our wounds as if they never existed; he never said all the pain and suffering should therefore be acceptable to us. He never dismissed hardship in such a way. He even went out of his way to remove unnecessary suffering caused by our sins if we let him. Yes, he pointed out it was a “small moment” in the expanse of existence. Yes, he mentioned others had it even harder. He did say we didn’t understand the full context in a couple of places, that there is often a purpose to the sufferings, a reason to endure, including to condemn the wicked…which is something I will be asking for an explanation for because it seems to be very unjust (I can see if the need was to participate because there would be a future softening of the heart, but why should a good person suffer just so a bad person can be punished? The wicked won’t get blessings, isn’t that enough?) Anyway….best not to jump ship when things get difficult or to push others overboard. There is a purpose to suffering. (Doesn’t mean we need to go look for it. Definitely doesn’t mean we should intentionally cause it for others.) So I am not even close to saying that every baby in difficult circumstances should be aborted. My preference would be not to, but I don’t see it as automatically short sighted, uninspired, immoral or otherwise not the best choice. I believe that sometimes miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion is less harmful to a spirit than that specific life would be. I have known two women who are so fertile that even with two or more forms of birth control (it was impressive what they had tried), they typically got pregnant in a few months after their latest pregnancy. One kept miscarrying. She wanted a child, but needed her body to heal for a better chance. I think she finally managed to carry one to term. The emotional toll of going through that again and again was horrendous. And yes, they used abstinence a few times in there. Can’t remember if she chose to get sterilized or not. The other’s husband got a vasectomy after the sixth or seventh kid, iirc. His body apparently accepted sterilization when hers had not. Might have been fifth kid. Yes, they both could have abstained for years instead. But in most of the cases, their doctors assured them this time it would take. The fail rate of tubal sterilization is pretty low. They had taken reasonable precautions. If they hadn’t shared their experiences with me, I would have been clueless of the behind the scenes trauma. Would have thought the childless state of the first was a preferred choice (her husband was a grad student) and the many children of the second her plan from the beginning. Neither of them chose to abort. I think that was magnificent of them given life had been one long pregnancy and very short recovery from pregnancy for both for years and years. I don’t like pregnancy, didn’t dislike it either. It was meh. Even breastfeeding wasn’t a fulfilling experience for me. First kid did it so fast I didn’t have time to get comfortable and bond. Second kid…brain was going weird by then and I would fall into depression with let down. It is just the way I am wired I think given other experiences. I don’t adapt well to quick changes of state. OTOH, I adore my newborns and young ones. The tears come every time I think of them. I have lost them, never to see them again. The adults are way too different. I cannot have the same connection with them now that I did then. They don’t move, looks smell, or make sounds the way they did then. If I could care for my babies, I would have had many more. Postpartum is not great; worse was pregnancy was causing health issues to dramatically accelerate. My son was very independent, it he still needed me fully present, being able to have him as the center of my world. So I waited 8 years for the next one till I knew he could handle it better if I was emotionally or physically absent. I owed him that having chosen to bring him into the world. He should not have to pay for my actions. She took me down so hard and kept me down (my body responding to her needs) that after a few years we knew it was best to stop there. I would not have aborted if birth control (two kinds) failed and I got pregnant, but I would have mourned…and kept my mouth shut about the cost on the family it would be. Loved the adult versions too, btw. Not as intensely, as overwhelmingly I think, but as deeply. For anyone in difficult circumstances who decides after serious consideration, preferably much prayer and research into possibilities, to abort, I would mourn with them if they decide for their family this time an abortion is necessary. I am sooooo grateful when families are not placed in that position. I don’t know why our American society isn’t doing everything they can to help each family avoid being placed in circumstances where abortion feels like the only workable option. It saddens and angers me. I am not objective about that in the least though I have lots of objective reasons why we should be helping families in this way rather than just telling them it’s not allowed. It’s an intelligent way to grow our economy, strengthen our community, lower long term costs.

It is fun and so fulfilling to play in a healthy body. I still remember and treasure the feeling. I think it would be cool to experience different modes of strength, flexibility, etc.

If you weren’t so emotionally wound up around the wording here it would be obvious. Here are just a few of the experiences (with some details slightly modified) of just one woman I know: As a teenager, was followed repeatedly by man driving car while walking dog around her neighborhood Older brother of roommate at BYU (was RM and AP on his mission) repeated cornered and one time pinned her down while expressing interest in her. Study abroad in Europe host dad (from conservative family who had hosted women before) sexually assaulted her Man pretending to be Uber driver asks her to get in car while in hot tub at business conference with several female friends, was groped under the water by strange man While at a different business conference man broke into her hotel room while she was sleeping Attending concert random stranger grabbed her butt At family reunion trusted family member spied on her in shower I could go on and on. This is just one woman and just some of her many many traumatic experience experiences with men. The men might be strangers. They might be friends. They might’ve been known for years. It really is traumatic. Now it’s your turn please provide the shared traumatic experience that would lead you to say all gay men are potential pedophiles. I’ll wait.

I'd like for there to be no artificial barriers between anyone and anyone else. I'd like union and/or reunion with everyone and everything, and that includes all of you, with @The Nehor expessing as all of their genders. I would like to know and be known. I'd like to have understanding and I'd like to have something meaningful and challenging to work on, even if the latter means temporarily foregoing understanding. I'd like to play whatever my role is as part of All That Is.