All Activity

Error. Brigham Young explicitly laid down other conditions "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture" The Deseret News was a weekly newspaper where shorthand reporters sat in the congregation, took rapid shorthand notes of a Sunday sermons given without preparation, and rushed those transcriptions into print to keep the frontier community informed. This was not a meticulous, multi-tiered canonical review where Brigham Young sat down with to carefully vet, rewrite, and officially authorize every single paragraph of his rhetoric as doctrine. The theological mechanism Brigham Young was invoking when he held up the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants was the living oracles are more authoritative to us today than written books. He was championing a foundational pillar of Latter-day Saint theology. The principle of continuous, living revelation, for the immediate, active challenges of the present day. Brigham had a right to propose new scripture, but if he truly intended a sermon to be officially accepted, it would be first presented and voted on by the body of the Church. What Brigham actually taught about his own preaching, "I have known many times I have preached wrong and spoken false principles, but I am but a human being and I am not perfect... pray to God in the name of Jesus to bind me up from speaking false principles." (Brigham Young, May 1854, speaking in Springville, Utah) If Brigham Young himself explicitly acknowledged that his impromptu pulpit preachings could contain human error, rough edges, or false principles, then he certainly would not view a quick newspaper transcription of a Sunday sermon as an infallible, immutable scripture. God will not suffer the leaders to "lead the Church astray" (JD 9:289), as that has a very specific theological meaning. It refers to a collective institutional apostasy. God will not allow the Church as a whole to lose its priesthood keys, wander into total unauthorized darkness, or break the eternal covenant path to salvation. It does not mean every administrative policy, disciplinary decision, personal opinion, or sermons spoken without preparation made by a Brigham Young is free from error.

Church leadership

“Not”?

"their"? No. The Church has publicly supported legal mechanisms to protect gay rights as to housing and employment and such. Pres. Oaks publicly spoke against a Kentucky county official who announced she would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Church has specifically and emphatically and publicly spoken against any mistreatment of any person on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Church and some in the LGBT community have divergent and incompatible ideas on some issues. The LGBT "community," to the extent it exists, is not "anti-Mormon" because of that disagreement. I think the same should be said in the reverse. Most people, in the end, favor some constraints on abortion. That said, I'm not sure the Church has an "agenda" about it. Thanks, -Smac

It has been documented that a high percentage of members are Republicans and/or conservative. I haven’t experienced at church the sense that I am required in some members’ view to toe the line of conservative thought because I am a member, but I have certainly experienced it outside the Church in family gatherings (vast majority are LDS) and among my LDS friends. I can understand how some non strong conservatives might feel like they are not seen as proper members of the faith community by those who phrase such things as “you can’t be a good member and be pro choice”. But the Church does not require such rigid membership standards and accepts a very wide range of political positions among its members. In some places, conservatives are not even the most numerous in a congregation (easier to experience outside of the US I believe, was for me). I have also experienced, though in far fewer encounters, that type of push from a liberal position (not in the Church community), so not saying this behaviour is unique to religion or even more common among conservatives than liberals. I do find liberals typically more varied and less centralized, so to speak, in the US, so that might affect the frequency. Don’t know. And for myself, there are several things about the general church culture I would love to see change and I do what I can to promote such change. This does not me I have any inclination to dictate to leadership what the Church’s positions should be. Mostly it means I act in the way I believe we should be acting and if misinformation comes up, I find opportunities to correct such. Mostly this has been in context of trashing other faiths, on a few occasion it was racist comments by kids. I can see someone believing that their faith community should better reflect what they see as discipleship of Christ, especially if it is declared the best way to follow Christ is found within their faith. An LDS member may believe the Church’s ordinances, etc are valid, but also believe the primary purpose of the Church is to be the primary example of discipleship of Christ in the world. And they don’t find such yet in the Church. Doesn’t mean they don’t applaud many of the things the Church does, just that they see certain aspects as inconsistent.*** It wouldn’t surprise me if many members struggle with the financial side of church operations or believe it should be more politically active to promote laws that will better contribute to what they see as a Zion community (not using Christian here because that implies Christian dominance and while some members who want the Church to be more politically active in my experience definitely want Christian dominance, others are thinking more in terms of how Christ told us to treat each others…which is what Zion means to me). ***basing this on what I have read in both liberal and conservative online LDS communities as well as personal experiences. There are areas I would like to see the Church more proactive in, but I also know actually effecting positive change in behavior is extremely complicated and too often what we see as common sense approaches have the opposite of the intended effect. I don’t have the information church leadership does, so I don’t know if they are basing their behaviour on tradition, inspiration, and/or informed wisdom. Very willing to give the benefit of the doubt in these cases given the level of fantastic stuff I see happening and because of how well the Church has nurtured my faith in God over the years even if I get frustrated at times.

Because he was the church president, so it was his name they were using to seduce women, I preached in the grove, and pronounced a curse upon all Adulterers and Fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs. (DHC 4:587) The public will perceive the aggravating nature of this case; and will see the propriety of this exposure. Had he only been guilty of adultry, that was sufficient to stamp disgrace upon him because he is a man of better information, and has been held high in the estimation of many. But when it is considered that his mind was so intent upon his cruel, and abominable deeds, and his own reputation not being sufficient to enable him to do it, he must make use of my name in order to effect his purposes, an enlightened public will not be astonished at the course I have pursued. In order that it may be distinctly understood that he wilfully and knowingly lied, in the above insinuations, I will lay before my readers an affidavit taken before an alderman of the city, after I had charged him with these things: (19 May 1842 - Nauvoo City Council) “[A] charge [was] [preferred] against Chauncey L. Higbee by George Miller for unchaste and un-virtuous conduct with the widow [Sarah] Miller, and others.” In the trial, “Three witness[es] testified that he had seduced [several women] and at different times [had] been guilty of unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with them and taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women if it was kept secret &c and also taught that Joseph Smith authorised him to practice these things &c” (24, May 1842 -Joseph files charges against Chauncey L. Higbee in court.) 25 May 1842 - Catherine Warren learns that John C. Bennett incorrectly claimed support by the leaders of the church -- The charge was preferred “against Ms. Catherine Warren by George Miller for unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with John C. Bennett and others. The defendant confessed to the charge and gave the names of several other [men] who had been guilty having unlawful intercourse with her[,] stating they taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women and that the heads of the Church also taught and practiced it[,] …learning that the heads of the church did not believe of [the] practice [of] such things[,] she was willing to confess her sins and did repent before God for what she had done and desired earnestly that the Council would forgive her.” “...he went to some of the females in the city, who knew nothing of him but as an honorable man, & began to teach them that promiscous [promiscuous] intercourse between the sexes, was a doctrine believed in by the Latter-Day Saints, and that there was no harm in it; but this failing, he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house. (Times and Seasons, July 1, 1842, p. 839-840) 1st for trying to seduce a young girl, living in his house by the name of Phebe Madison. 2nd. For using my name in a blasphemous manner, by saying that I tolerated such things in which he is guilty of lying &c &c. Joseph Smith (Dinger, J. S. (2011). The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, p. 479-480. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books) I was present with several of the Twelve, and gave an address tending to do away with every evil, and exhorting them to practice virtue and holiness before the Lord— told them that the church had not received any permission from me to commit fornication, adultery, or any corrupt action, but my every word and action has been to the contrary... I condemned such actions in toto, and warned the people present against committing such evils, for it will surely bring a curse upon any person who commits such deeds. (25 November 1843 - Joseph gave an address to the Twelve) I know that the LDS church argument to those quotes is, "But none of those instances were authorized polygamy," but I consider HMD section 43 to address that well too, 43. 'Can't polygamy be seen as being different from Celestial plural marriage?' LDS historians have argued that the "plural marriage" commanded by God and supposedly practiced by Joseph Smith was of a different nature than man-made polygamy, and so argue that even when Joseph condemned polygamy by name, he was never condemning "Celestial plural marriage". One significant problem with this theory is that Joseph's denunciations include not just polygamy by name, but also any plurality of wives: ...we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. 1835 - “General Assembly,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (August 1835) 2: 162. Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one. [sic] Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. Joseph Smith, July 1838 - [Editorial,] Elder’s Journal, 1 (July 1838), 43. No man shall have but one wife. Joseph Smith's office journal, 5 October 1843. As written by Willard Richards What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. Joseph Smith, LDS History of the Church 6:409-411 Another major issue with this theory is that Joseph never used the terms, "plural marriage" nor "Celestial marriage" in any of his first-hand or contemporaneous records. Yet another significant issue with this theory is that D&C 132:1 does not describe itself as giving the doctrine of "Celestial plural marriage" nor "Celestial plurality of wives" but simply, "the principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines." The terminology that church historians use to distinguish between the polygamy they believe Joseph Smith to have been practicing versus the polygamy they argue him to be condemning appears to be anachronistic, as Joseph condemned, by name, polygamy, spiritual wifism, fornication (the legal term in use), and having more than one wife in general. "Celestial marriage", "Celestial plural marriage", or any of their variations were not in recorded use until after Joseph and Hyrum's deaths, and polygamists in later years describe "spiritual wifery" as being the term in common use previous to their trek west, ...Mrs. Durfee invited my sister, Eliza, and me to her house to spend the afternoon. She introduced the subject of spiritual wives, as they called it in that day. Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl", 1876 Spiritual wives, as we were then termed, were not very numerous in those days... Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Pioneer Day". Women's Exponent, 24 July 1883 At the time [in Nauvoo] 'spiritual wife' was the title by which every woman who entered into the this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order." Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Juvenile Instructor. 1882 Brigham Young in 1844, 1845, 1847, 1849, and 1851 used the terms 'spiritual wife' and 'spiritual wifery' when speaking of polygamy. In 1855 Heber C. Kimball preached, If you oppose any of the works of God you will cultivate a spirit of apostasy. If you oppose what is called the "spiritual wife doctrine," the Patriarchal Order, which is of God, that course will corrode you with a spirit of apostasy, and you will go overboard. Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City. 6 October 1855. Journal of Discourses vol. 3 p. 125

I have nothing but the highest regard for you. I don't really know how to respond to this last message, so I haven't. I am not requiring you to deny part of the core of your own faith. That would be silly and very innapropriate of me. I am trying to figure out if you deny part of the core of your own faith. Sometimes it seems that you do, but of course, if so, you want to do that on your own terms. Sometimes it seems as if you don't, while sometimes you do support the traditional core tenets of LDS belief. I say that as an observer, nothing more. Dechristianing is something that my LDS friends feel forcefully from certain non-LDS Christians. I don't blame them. At the same time, there appears to be a real blind spot about how the LDS do that to all other non-LDS Christian faiths and individuals. There appears to be no cognitive awareness of the reciprocity of the feelings at the act of de-Christianization at the hands of the Saints. Your missionary work has been explained to me a dozen times as for the purpose of giving me more, not taking anything away from me. But indeed, it does take away the core of my faith. I would rather not burden you with my experience or with my personal soul wounds at the hands of the Saints or at my own hands. Religious conflict is often reciprocal; of course, my blindspots are your arena. Your blindspots are my arena. So we talk past each other. I would rather not do that with you. As a member of this forum, I read the posts where this or that Saint is really mad at the Evangelical (I give up) or Fundamentalist who stands on the corner of Temple Square. I don't blame them. I do fault them for not understanding the reciprocity in the relationship when an LDS Christian informs me of the inadequacy of what is the core and extent of my entire Christian life. To join your faith, in fact, I am required to deny part of the core of my own faith. I heartily believe your doctrine has morphed out of your history and shared culture. Of course I believe the same for the Mennonites. However, when I joined them, they did not suggest that Christ did not approve of my former Baptist faith. That is what is especially toxic for me in listening to my LDS friends/ evangelists. Some have fussed recently on this forum about what is deemed "toxic empathy." I think that toxic empathy is a real thing as practiced by many Christian groups including yours and mine. It reminds of family therapy systems theory where one of the challenges in toxic families, is what is deemed the "go away closer" challenge that abused children face. Best wishes. And once again I celebrate you as a whole and intact Christian, complete with all the gifts, rights, and privileges of eternal life that come with Christ's approval at the judgment seat.

You don’t think their approach to same sex marriage, including political involvement qualifies as antiLGBT+ agenda (I am not condemning that behavior even if at this time I see issues with it because I find the arguments against it poorly constructed, I am open to it has been revealed that God knows something we don’t and that same sex relationships are somehow inherently detrimental to those who participate in them; I am also open to it being similar to the Priesthood Ban where the evidence we now have demonstrates pretty clearly the origin was not revelation, but cultural beliefs imported in)? There are some aspects of the anti-abortion agenda I strongly applaud. Anti-abortion is not seen as a negative term by those who are anti-abortion. If it’s a problem with implying it’s against people rather than relationships, are you okay with describing the Church as having an anti same sex/transgender behaviour agenda?

Then it will be another point that we are speaking past eachother due to not seeing eye-to-eye, as while it’s clear that the Lord had other motivated reasoning, that the conditions were such that it would be justified regardless of what other additional motivation the Lord had. (We also don’t know that Nephi and his family would have definitely been safe if Nephi had only taken his clothes and left an unconscious naked Laban where he found him – Laban likely could have sent his servants outside of the city wall to find them once he awoke and found his stuff gone.) I think it to be significant that the angel only said, “the Lord will deliver Laban into thy hands” once the exact situation of theft/attempted killing had already occurred.

You are not a potential rapist. But I will probably not put myself in any precarious situation with you or any other man without being on high alert. That is ALL anyone is trying to say.

I don't see the nexus. I can abhor abject prejudice, such as "all men are potential rapists," and also want to see justice done for victims of sexual assault. There is no tension between these sentiments. They compliment each other. I have a wife, daughters, mother, mother-in-law, sisters and sisters-in-law, lots nieces, aunts, female cousins, and many female friends and neighbors and acquaintances. I have had several personal experiences in working with victims of sexual assault, both as an attorney and as a bishop. I am deeply invested in the welfare all of all women and girls, and I am grateful to live in a country that takes allegations of sexual assault seriously. I strongly support any and all efforts to prosecute sex crimes to the fullest extent of the law. We do that by . . . following the law, which has 250+ years of backdrop in terms of developing statute, case law, evidentiary and procedural rules, and so on that are calculated to facilitate addressing allegations of this sort. The system is not perfect, but it's one of the best ones available. Of the system's various imperfections, human foibles are a biggie. Letting emotionalisms run roughshod over evidentiary analysis and due process is a bad thing. Rushing to judgment without due regard for the application of the law is a bad thing. Abject prejudice, including horrible presuppositions such as "All black men are potential rapists," is a bad thing. Ignoring or refusing to address substantial evidentiary issues is a bad thing. Using prejudice to disregard and/or invert the presumption of innocence is a bad thing. "Passion" in terms of encouraging abstention from mobocratic rage and rushing to judgment, and encouraging fair-minded evaluation of the evidence, and maintaining the presumption of innocence, and so on. Yes, I'll own that. The "all men are potential rapists" thing has been years in the offing. I just find it unfortunately in play in here. Thanks, -Smac

We do have different standards - you're going by the received Christian tradition and I'm going by the historical consensus.

The above quote was published in the Deseret News though, in addition to the Journal of Discourses. The publication date is above. Then I would consider Brigham Young to have contradicted himself on that point too: Feb. 23, 1862 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:289 “The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.” Aug. 31, 1873 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 16th Volume, p. 161, reported by George Q. Cannon "If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, October 1897, 22-23.

Does it distinguish that it is the first infants of a first wife, and that it is while they are infants, that the mortality rates for her are high? Because if it is just, "children of a first wife" in general, then such figures could suggest that a first wife and the children of a first wife become more proportionately neglected than other plural wives after a second, third, or fourth wife are added. If it's an average of 11 years after first marriage that a man gets a second wife, then the children of his first marriage are still under the 15-year-age benchmark used to determine child mortality in the 2012 meta analysis study. So it would potentially be possible that it is when a man gets a subsequent wife that the mortality rates for his current and future children from his first wife rise higher.

I just did a word count check on the Historical Monogamy Doctrine main page, and it's over 25,000 words long, which is as long or longer than some graduate thesis papers are. That wouldn't be including the text on any of the graphic inserts. I then counted the Denunciations page and there were several thousand words' worth of quotes on there as well. Maybe the writer didn't think it necessary to rewrite what has already been written. The LDS church's argued narrative of events can be found on several sites and publications already, there have already been hundreds-of-pages-long books written on the monogamy-only topic (which the writer herself recommends for more in-depth study) and there are literally hundreds of hours of YouTube videos going in depth on it as well, which are also on the Further Study page. Obviously, the website is an apologetic argument towards a non-polygamous Book of Mormon, D&C, and Joseph Smith, so like other apologetics, it's arguing things from the standpoint of their own stance being a valid stance. I went ahead and checked the word count on Monogamy as Divine Design too, and it's even longer -- nearly 27,000 words (26,800-something).

Interesting stuff. Thank you for sharing it. That's a delicate and well-stated position. He is not saying the Church is an "anti-LGBTQIA+ institution," and is instead attributing that sentiment to others. That said, elsewhere he refers to “the Church’s anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda,” so, yeah. That's a nice thought. Would that he could extend it to other topics, such as elective abortion. As it is, and based on his statements on this board, he seems unable or unwilling to grant that there are "thoughtful, insightful, and well-meaning folks on all sides of" that issue. In a sense, I agree with him on this point. In the end, we much each do what we think is right. That said, Latter-day Saints who are "advocating for others" to leave the Church are being, well, subversive. I agree with him on this point. He goes on to endorse the use of tithing to support "initiatives the Church is involved in in developing nations around the world" and subsidizing education Very sensible, this. Particularly the bit about "binary purity tests." I am curious what these "ideas for the future" involve relative to the Church. These folks stay because, in their view, the Church "is just as much their community as anyone else's." I would like to better understand what this means. Same goes for staying in the Church "to provide safe spaces for others." "{A}nd they want to try to effect whatever change they are able to from the inside." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. For me, the fundamental reason I stay in the Church is because I believe it is what it claims to be. That it also does all sorts of wonderful things to improve society is a natural and intrinsic "by their fruits"-style outgrowth of that fundamental reason. I too want to effect positive change within the Church, but not in an adversarial or subversive or "loyal opposition" sort of way. "{M}ore outspoken within church settings about the harm facilitated by the Church." I would like to better understand what he means by this. Because he correlates this outspokenness with people concluding he "will hold space for them," I more or less infer some things about that. I am currently my ward's Sunday School teacher (one of them, I teach ever other week). I have been in the ward a long time, so I think I'm a known quantity. I would be troubled if I had said things or behaved in ways "within church settings" that would alienate people from attending Sunday School. Then again, I would be troubled-but-still-okay-with-it if I had this effect while teaching the doctrines of the Restored Gospel in a representative capacity for the Church, and not in my personal capacity. There are, I think, instances in which Christ was not "safe," when He said things that people disliked, but which were nevertheless true and therefore needed to be said. There are, then, instances in which Latter-day Saints, as disciples of Jesus Christ, will be required to say things that are true but unpopular. The Rich Young Ruler listened and "went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions" (Matthew 19:22). Jesus was not, it seems, "safe" in that instance. In John 6, Jesus preached the Bread of Life sermon, and "{f}rom that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:66). Again, not "safe" (subjectively, anyway). Christ's healing on the Sabbath and defending it (e.g., the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1–6; the woman bent double in Luke 13:10–17; the man born blind in John 9). The response in Mark 3 is that the Pharisees immediately began plotting with the Herodians how to destroy Him. Not "safe." Driving out the money-changers and overturning tables in the Temple (Mark 11:15–18; John 2:13–22). Not "safe." Declaring “I and the Father are one” and accepting the charge of making himself equal with God (John 10:30–33; John 5:18). The response was an attempt to stone him for blasphemy. Not "safe." That what Jesus was doing was right was not, in the moment, as important as whether observers/listeners subjectively felt. I have long had qualms with the concept of "safety" to the extent it is used in the context of "Person X saying something that I don't like or don't want to hear." It excuses the listener from evaluating whether what Person X is saying is valid, and instead adjudicates Person X's message on its subjective and individualized impact. I think the prophets and apostles have spent many years working very hard to be as kind and compassionate and accommodating as possible as to matters for which there is substantial social and political disagreement (re-defining marriage, the Law of Chastity, abortion, etc.). But in the end, they are bound to teach and propound the revelations, some of which are not popular, and some of which can cause some to feel not "safe," or even feel resentments, even anger and hatred. Life would be so much easier if the tension and pressures imposed on the Church and its members over these issues were eased. No more ugly disparagements and slanders. Estrangements and hard feelings, some of them, might begin to resolve. I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept. Perhaps this is why Christ said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words." Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." I think that the Latter-day Saints are being called upon to live out-of-step with some of their neighbors on some issues, such issues pertaining to doctrines and beliefs regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity. Affirming that God commands that sex be kept within the bounds of marriage between a husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the marital union, is going to make some people - including some Latter-day Saints - not feel "safe" if they do not agree with those principles. I think it is incumbent on the Latter-day Saints to discern the Lord's will and follow it, even if it means regularly getting raked across the proverbial coals for it. Even if doing things like supporting and endorsing the Law of Chastity makes some others feel "not safe." Christ had warnings for us along these lines. Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail." I'd like to think that Dan believes that the Church is what it claims to be. I really hope. I'd like to think that Dan accepts the Law of Chastity and endorses it, and encourages others to live according to it, including its constraints against same-sex behavior. But I don't think he does. I'd like to think that Dan believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don't think he does. I'd like to think that Dan believes that abortion, electively killing in utero babies, is a terrible thing. But I don't think he does. Dan acknowledges that the Church is doing a lot of good things, but he apparently does not include within those things (A) teachings about the Law of Chastity which contravene broad sociopolitical trends involving re-defining marriage and endorsing same-sex behavior, and (B) teachings against abortion. To the contrary, it seems fairly clear that he is putting (A) and (B) into the following characterizations of the Church: He refers to “an institution that still harms marginalized, minoritized, and oppressed groups in a variety of ways.” He states: “This doesn’t remotely mean I am blind or in any way indifferent to the harm that the Church has done and continues to do with those dollars, and I have spoken out against that repeatedly and consistently in public and private for over 20 years now.” He writes: “I particularly abhor the more recent contributions and messaging the Church has made to oppose a citizen-led ballot measure aimed at legislating reproductive freedom in Idaho.” He refers to “the Church’s anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda,” which “has bothered me for more than 20 years.” He speaks of “the harm facilitated by the Church.” He describes people “who are in the crosshairs of the Church’s oppressive heteronormativity and misogyny.” I could see some difficulty in ward members being aware of what Dan has said publicly about the Church, and then attend Sunday School and have him teach lessons in a representative capacity on behalf of the Church he so regularly publicly disparages. "I can utilize my presence in the Church and my growing platform for the benefit of those inside and outside the institution." I would hope he could also use his "growing platform" to benefit . . . the Church. Thanks, -Smac

I think you and I may have different standards about first century historical standards! Doesn't mean either of us is wrong or that either of us has a better grasp on the truth. I am more interested in historical standards, whether of a religious nature or not. My perspective in that regard is that of a historian, not a person of faith. I often have to keep the two separate in my work.

We don't have eye witness testimony to that effect. That comes from John, written last in the 90s CE, the least historical of the four gospels. We have no eye witness testimony in regards to any of the teachings of Jesus, but the self-exalting sayings in John are the least likely to be historical. Otherwise one has to explain why that kind of language doesn't appear in our earliest gospels. If the authors of Mark/Matthew/Luke knew that Jesus was saying those kinds of things, why didn't they report it? And why do the sayings in John match the writing style of the author of John's gospel? By historical standards only a small percentage of the reported sayings of Jesus are likely to have been something Jesus actually said in life. Those historically likely sayings include some of the memorable aphorisms and parables, and other sayings that align with historical criteria.

I agree with you as long as you accept oral tradition as historically valuable to the researcher. All history is spun through a degree of belief and desire. That doesn't mean we reject it. If it did, we would have no history, not even of yesterday!

Hmmmm. I would suggest it is from a historical and linguistic studies perspective (view), correlating the Hebrew concept of truth with that of the Greek. There is eyewitness testimony (primary source material) to the exclamation of Jesus that he claimed to be "the way the truth and the life." One can believe that in so doing he spoke the truth or not; his was a revealed truth that he in turn revealed to others. It was, not in the the modern concept of truth that he was correct or incorrect. His claim is knowledge by the rules of what we accept as first century history. Whether it is truth by modern standards is obviously debatable. But that is applying presentism to the event, not the historiography of first century history which does not require belief to be accurate in the context.

I suppose if the desire to be harmless is not sufficient, there is always the argument from self-interest.

The Book of Mormon does not explicitly say Sam was disqualified from leadership or priesthood because he was less righteous than Nephi. There is a difference between saying that leadership was associated with Nephi's line and asserting that every subsequent leader was his biological descendant. The text does not establish an unbroken genealogical succession of rulers or priests. Nor does it clearly state that priesthood authority was exclusively hereditary. Jacob 1:9–11 says that the people wanted to preserve Nephi's name, so his successors were called Second Nephi, Third Nephi, and so forth. It does not identify the second king's personal name or whether he was a biological son of Nephi. See Val Larsen's discussion in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, which proposes Nephi's unnamed successor may have been Sam or Sam's oldest son. In 2 Nephi 3:23–24, Lehi promises that Joseph's descendants will not be destroyed, that they will hearken to the words of a book, and that a mighty person will arise among them to accomplish a great work and help restore the house of Israel. In the Church's interpretation, the passage points to Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. So Joseph, Lehi's youngest son, received the greater blessing.

That's a Christian theological view. From a historical perspective Jesus was a law-observant apocalyptic Jewish wisdom teacher who, like many other Jewish thinkers, had his own interpretation of Torah.

Nope, It is likely that the writers of the Gospels were relying on each other and oral traditions or scattered written documents that relied on oral tradition. Did they spin what Jesus said to match their own beliefs? Sure, hence you have Matthew saying that the Law of Moses will continue until the End of Days while the other gospel writers do now. That is not fraud though. It is the normal human impulse to read things through the lens of your own beliefs and desires combined with not having much in the way of hard data on the life of Jesus. Also the gospel writers don’t all agree on what the meaning of Jesus even was. It takes a lot of tortured rationalizations to make them match up. Particular trying to make the Gospel attributed to John have the same message as the synoptic gospels. Not fraud.

Somebody can claim revelation and not be lying. My mother-in-law had a revelation that I was supposed to have another baby. According to her anyway. I believe wholeheartedly that she believed it. She just wanted it so bad.