All Activity

It makes it simple to think of it in one dimensional terms.

Yes… he knows who butters his bread. It would be the end of him if he admitted it. He said the dominant narrative is not true… who is the one teaching the dominant narrative??? The church and by extension the q15 besides in the quote you provided look at what he said: “Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story. A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display. That would not have happened even five years ago. The list goes on and on.” why would that bot have happened five years ago??? The church had the seer stone the whole time and they knew it. It is because the part of the dominant narrative they were teaching our kids (and me) didn’t include that even though they knew it. They lied.

Perhaps to you and me the detachment would be reasonable… can you think of any general authority back then (1980s) allowing thst as an excuse to distance oneself from the church? I can’t and I knew most the q12 back then personally. the pov they were exposed to is literally the apostles. At the time my family entertained many of them at the house… on numerous occasions. In fact Packer was a regular and he and my father got along famously. Here’s a quote of what the guys mindset is in testimonies and missionaries: “It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?” Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.”” Boyd k Packer https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng in context this can be explained away, but Mormonism is a religion of one-liners and this one is still around. Remember this is my parents buddy and his pov. how bout the one about coming home with honor or in a pine box? Yep that one got used on me as well. I don’t recall who said it, but that one still is being tossed around as well. my point is the church and its leaders created this culture. I agree that was the theory. Oddly enough when I presented this lack of testimony and called the behavior lying, my bishop told me… he was talking about the consequences with lds girls after not going on a mission. Oh man I still can’t believe this. “ you think you have integrity by not bearing your testimony thinking it’s a lie, but I can tell tell you that by not going you will never be considered by any good lds girl to have any integrity at all. In fact you will just be looked at as another faithless apostate who isn’t worth the time and you will get the wife you deserve.” Im guessing he was saying I’d marry a non Mormon hooker or something. He was right about one thing though.. I am an apostate as it relates to the Mormon church but I can sleep well knowing I didn’t trick anyone into joining the church. the wife on the other hand… boy did I marry up. I have to add. Looks like we still have church leaders putting the verbal beat down on kids https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8KCnpq8/

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/feature/sunday-meeting-schedule

So if you think he is lying? That he really believes saying the Church lies is true even though he never said that in the first comment? Something may be not true for reasons other than lying.

I thought I read somewhere years ago that both Adam and Methuselah both had the same lifespan: 999 years and 6 months? According to Lecture of Faith 2:41 "Methuselah in the 1656th, it being the same year in which the flood came." Your chart shows him living from 800 to 1800.

Ur right I should have put quotes around the part he did say… I added the lies part in keeping with the ending of some of my other bullet points. Here’s the quote from his fireside: "I think that for the Church to remain strong, it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can't be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change." [1] I know he walked back the comment, but I’m inclined to believe something a guy like him says when they say something the first time. It’s more likely what they really think. this dominant narrative being not true thing reminds me of the mitt Romney talk at byu… “It is an honor to be here today and to address you. It seems like only a few years ago that I sat where you are sitting—actually, it was in the Wilkinson Center. Things were different then: the Beatles were the only boy band, Bell Telephone was the only telephone company in the country, BYU cafeteria food was all they served in the Cougareat, and Emma was Joseph Smith’s only wife.” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/mitt-romney/life-lessons-front/

Is there a link where this can be read. My googlefu failed today…or maybe I just have no patience

Except that’s not what he said. He never used lies or even untruths, implying intention. He clarified a month later saying it’s “not a fair judgment” in his opinion that the Church was lying. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/richard-bushman-and-the-fundamental-claims-of-mormonism.html

This is abusive. This would not be okay in any healthy family, in or out of any faith, no matter how ultimately true or false for any reason. Abuse being done for a good cause never ever justifies it. With this getting attached to the Church and faith, it makes any emotional detachment of the child as they grow from both very understandable. Given that context of likely emotional distance, the warts, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, mistakes, etc. are reasonably sufficient reason not to believe, imo. That is not a child’s personal failure, but the adults who refused to examine their own behaviour themselves, imo. While I get that the adult themselves in this may have come from abusive backgrounds themselves and this what they learned was ‘proper’ behaviour, in this day and age I find it hard to believe that they weren’t exposed enough to other POVs that caused them to consider they might be wrong. Maybe I am just too optimistic about changing family dynamics. I think that’s one reason having two parents it’s important, more likely to get a reality check. ‘Fake it till you make it’ was a very popular method of self improvement gurus not that long ago. I remember those talks. My interpretation from hearing to many of them and other such pep talks on other subjects was there was a sincere belief it would become true and most seemed to think it would happen quickly as soon as being immersed in an environment where one cares about and serves God and others 24/7. They portrayed the mission field as practically an irresistible force of self conversion. There was even accepted by many iirc that the desire was enough for it to be seen as true, desire to believe made it true that you believed in your heart of hearts or you wouldn’t have that belief. It wasn’t lying, it was anticipation. Pretty dysfunctional anyway, imo. Not something to justify basing behaviour on, committing an entire life’s track to just because there might be good intentions (btw, turning one’s kids into puppets for self gratification is not good intentions in my book, wanting them to become something because you sincerely believe they will be happier themselves is, again imo). The way to hell and alll….. It was misguided, imo, based on an oversimplification of how our brains work. It also ignores the other person, treating them as a thing that thinks and acts by one’s own rules and not their own, assuming our desires for them are the same desires they have for themselves. Fake it till you make it is still promoted as an effective behavioural change method, though it’s better framed. I still have doubts on how well it works. Human behaviour is complex and it could be other variables that often go along with this idea that may be what is effective. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/202301/when-is-it-ok-to-fake-it-till-you-make-it After this, it goes into what can make it a disaster. Bottomline is if it’s manipulative for personal gain, where often the person pushing faking it is pretending to manipulate others into belief in them. This can certainly happen in a church or family setting unfortunately, not just business or political. This guy’s “your head and heart will follow your feet” feels very much in line with how missionaries and others were told they would find their testimony by bearing it.

Yes, it is terrible

Exactly. Like the author said, of course it's not all men. But it would not be the incredibly number of men that it is if all the 'good' men actually stopped enabling, celebrating, deflecting, and excusing the bad ones. We need more guys like this author who recognize that when someone responds to these crimes with 'it's not all men', it's a sign that person has lost the plot.

I have not read the book, but I just ordered it from Amazon... that said, I'll share why I left for anyone who cares: BIC and raised in household of father who was in bishopric and stake presidency and ultimately THE stake pres by the time i graduated HS. I never wanted to go on a mission. It just never appealed to me. May have been because one of my siblings was very free about sharing how much he hated his mission. He went in the late '70s and I recently (within 90 days) have found out he has now left the church along with the rest of his family Parents, bishop, seminary teacher, priesthood leaders made full court press on me to compel me to serve a mission. This started the week after I joined the military while a senior in high school. This whole thing devolved into public call outs in both seminary, priesthood and MIA. Also my bishop engaged in name calling over the whole episode. Family put serious pressure on me,,, yelling, screaming, throwing things etc. Six months of pure hell before I went to bootcamp. I was openly called the worst thing that ever happened to our family and what a disappointment I was and always would be for not going on a mission we have an extended family member who is extremely popular and was by all accounts a stellar missionary in his youth. He was much older than me. His reputation was used against me and how i definitely didnt want to disappoint him. He was our family version of Paul H Dunn ...more later on this guy I even said I didnt have a testimony and didnt want to lie to investigators. Family and bishop didnt care and said well just go lie anyway. We know its the truth and it doesnt matter what you think.... go on your mission or else. We will pay for your college, a car etc if you go... bla bla bla I didn't go on a mission and made a career out of the military. I stayed active, married in the temple and all that good stuff. Stayed active until my early fifties. This early experience at 18 taught me.... 1- my church leaders advocated lying in order to convert people. Sure they believed it all to be true, but they wanted me so testify on a mission as to the truthfulness of the gospel...even if I didnt believe it. I was actually suprised by this push to go anyway and just regurgitate a fake testimony and 2- question everything because if my leaders will openly tell me to lie about a testimony, what else do they approve of lying about? or what will they lie about in order to keep people in-line? And moving on: I also learned all these years later that the stud missionary guy the whole family adored actually had sex with a couple of women on his mission. He got caught, but they didnt send him home and he got no discipline. It helps to have GA friends apparently.... I mean I guess thats the favor that got pulled. My family knows tons of them. This happened before I was born and the whole family knew, but kept it a secret. They used his stellar "example" to try and leverage me into going on a mission because I wouldn't want to disappoint him. He ended up being excommunicated near the end of his life lol... I learned that the Sealer who sealed my wife and I had previously been involved in a sexual tryst close in proximity to our marriage. So.... he wasn't worthy to be there in the temple doing that... more lies... No discernment on the part of the temple presidency. I understand the first presidency approves sealers??? If true, no discernment there either.... lies lies lies I was active in the scouting program and frankly I was stunned by the award fraud that went on there in multiple wards and stakes. It pretrty much seemed to be the thing to do. Much easier than enforcing standards. Lies Lies Lies Gospel Topics Essays come out. Doing a dive there it is obvious the church lied about its history. That pretty much got me. Much of what I was taught growing up and what I was teaching out of manuals at church turned out to be shades of truth...., but not really true. Richard Bushman said it perfectly. The dominant narrative of church history wasnt true. Lots of lies about church history SEC scandal pops up... Reading the SEC decision was the final straw.... more lies and deception. Bottom line for me. The church leaders have lied, will lie, and they encouraged me to lie to convert investigators and the discerment they say they have is fake. End of story. Now My wife, me and nearly all our kids are out. The end.

It’s what we do. But like I said, our ward only does teacher training once a year so we’ve only had to do it once a year for primary as well. It will be interesting to see if that changes with the new directions.

This was actually one of the suggestions in the materials that got sent out and the FAQ panels they held: that Primary presidencies consider hosting their own training meeting if it's inconvenient to find a way for the teachers to attend the regular SS/RS/EQ/Youth Sunday School training meetings.

Another interesting take, again, by Brigham, was a statement of his that Joseph taught that the City of Zion was more akin to a country, and comprise the area of the Gulf of Mexico America. Combined with Joseph's other statements regarding the entirety of North and South America comprising Zion, it seems, if Brigham's statement is accurate, that they imagined it as more a merger of countries.

If you take Genesis, the Book of Moses (both the OT1 and OT2 revisions) and the Doctrine and Covenants 107 timelines as literal histories, there's actually a 635 year gap betwen Zion being taken up into heaven and the flood. Noah spends around 120 years alone building the ark before the flood happens. I put together a spreadsheet a while back that includes this figure: Note, if you're wondering why Adam shows a 1,000 year lifespan, it's because that's what Oliver Cowdery recorded in Old Testament Revision 1. The Book of Moses as canonised right now relies on Old Testament Revision 2, which was a copy of the *incomplete* OT1. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith later went back and edited Adam's age there, along with a few others. Interestingly, Brigham Young later stated (I'd have to find it, it's somewhere in the Church's history catatalogue) that Adam, not Methuselah, was the oldest man to have ever lived. He further said that 1,000 was the appropriate lifespan for Adam, as a 1,000 years was a day unto God, thereby fulfilling God's promise that Adam would die in the 'day' he partook of the fruit. Obviously not canon, just relaying the discourse as far as I can remember it (I can look it up sometime, but I have a lot on my plate right now).

In the context of this entire thread- I don’t care so much about the legalities of what can be determined to be illegal or not. This is disgusting and as a woman I’m not feeling safer in the world by any part of this story. The only thing that invites more safety to my psyche is that the first exposure I had to the story was a man spouting off in a very angry way in a video talking about this and how disgusted he is with rape culture, and the fact that men do not do enough to shut this down with other men. That’s a good start.

I think so too. This is exactly what Pope John Paul II speaks about with regard to the Theology of the Body. We should not personify things, nor should we "thingify" persons. (I got that nomenclature from a podcast by Christopher West), I have only been studying it for the last year. I am not an expert. But it seems like much more than about only marriage and dating. It is about the dignity of persons, but emphasizes how easy it is for men and women to get emotionally attached to each other, and enjoying an emotional and physical consolation from the marriage act, without a chaste regard for the other person's well-being, and imagining it to be love. The concept extends to all humanity, married and unmarried. We should guard against having a utilitarian attitude towards anyone for any reason. Physical desire between the sexes is natural and good. It is part of our nature. But when it is uncoupled from a sincere desire to satisfy the entire mental and spiritual good of the other, it is not charity. It is not what we can call "true love". It does not mirror the kind of unity which God designed us for, and for which Jesus prayed for us in John 17, and which St. Paul speaks of where marriage is seen mystically in Ep. 5:31, 32 as typifying the unity between Christ and His Church, which like the marriage act also is an embrace which results in "one body". "The virtue of chastity, whose function it is to free love from utilitarian attitudes, must control not only sensuality and carnal concupiscence, as such, - but - perhaps more important - those centres deep within the human being in which the utilitarian attitude is attached and grows. There can be no chastity unless the forms of volitional subjectivism, of which I have spoken, and the varieties of egoism which they conceal are overcome: the more successfully the utilitarian attitude is camouflaged in the will the more dangerous it is; 'sinful love' more often than not, is not called sinful, but simply 'love', since those who experience it try to convince themselves and others that love is just this and cannot be otherwise. To be chaste means to have a transparent attitude to a person of the other sex - chastity means just that - the interior 'transparency' without which love is not itself, for it cannot be itself until the desire to 'enjoy' is subordinated to a readiness to show loving kindness in every situation." ---Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, English translation copyright 1981 by William Collins Sons & Co., London, reprinted (1993), Ignatius Press, p. 170, San Francisco (written and published in Polish before he was Pope John Paul II. His last name is pronounced Voy-tee-wah. Italics are not mine. For any Solzhenitsyn fans out there, the translator, H.T. Willets was Alexander Solzhenitsyn's much preferred translator into English of all of his works.

This is where technology, and especially the internet can be used for the good.

This to me is the root of most evil…not seeing others as persons as ourselves, but a thing for us to benefit from, to use, discard, play with, destroy.

This happens way too much when family is visiting…not the whole time, but we seem unable to stay off of them for most of the day. The internet has allowed me not to experience loneliness like my mother did with her similar health issues, but it has also impeded best self care…I am certain my sleep would be better without it, though I would probably also be on a higher dose of some pretty heavy duty drugs since it’s the best distraction from pain and RLS I have found so far…which is why I haven’t given it up like some other things with high costs. I got smart and just got an alarm clock, more clutter on my bedside table, which is annoying, but hopefully that will lead to less touching of phone at night and therefore easier to say no to it. For me, light conversation is difficult, I want to go deep on every subject or just skip it. That can be hard to do with casual friends who don’t have much background so we know which things interest us to ask about. Getting on a phone is so much less anxiety provoking. So easy for me to understand this trend.

A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law. Some details here: More details here: Per this article, this Snapchat thread was, in the eyes of Jane Doe's attorney, “inviting the members of the fraternity to rape my client" and a 'critical piece of evidence' handed to authorities two years ago." My initial reaction was concern for the young woman. This is a terrible story. Next, I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general. Nevertheless, what do the text messages actually say? The key parts: “free p—y” (about 1:42 a.m.) “I f—king love Chi Phi.” “Like you can walk in and whip it out.” Later: “Shop still open?” — “Yea.” Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault? Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure. They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity. However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised? Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?" The text messages must also be read in light of a subsequent communication between Jane Doe and one of the accused: This later text — “shut it down… before it got way out of hand” — is stronger than the group chat. “Out of hand” is how people talk when a scene went past what they can defend, not when they think they hosted a tidy orgy. That said, her reply (“Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal”), cuts the other way for a prosecutor, which is why the DA said the 2026 civil complaint is “dramatically different” from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024. "Could not verify." The later texts are potentially damaging to his case, and he does not want to go on the record about them. More details per the civil complaint: It would be interesting to see what legal claims Jane Doe has against Kretzschmar. From this article: This is the difficult part of armchair quarterbacking the prosecutor's case. Allegation A against Kretzschmar ("said the lawsuit accused Kretzschmar of snorting ketamine off her body") plus Lack of Allegation B ("the lawsuit’s opening lists {Kretzschmar} as accused of rape, but the text of the claim does not") plus Forensic Evidence ("{Kretzschmar} took a hair follicle test and had no ketamine in his system" (and K was not found) plus Subsequent Seemingly Exculpatory Statement by Jane Doe ("'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too'") Would seem to create all sorts of room for "reasonable doubt" as to Kretzschmar. And if Kretzschmar is exculpated by the evidence (the forensic evidence re: ketamine and Jane Doe's subsequent "not illegal" text message may do a lot to undermine her theory of the case, as it affects her credibility, and her credibility is vital), then her civil complaint against him - alleging that he committed rape - would be a false rape allegation. And if she made a false allegation against Kretzschmar, is it possible that she is falsely accusing any or all of the other six? That's the way things might play out as to that aspect of the case. There are other aspects of it that have some problems: Huh. I wonder what the differences are. Again: "{H}er sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'" I suspect "both campus and Ithaca police" looked at her initial sworn statement and took its claims - and the absence of claims of being "drugged against her will or gang raped" - at face value. That doesn't mean she was not drugged or raped. It does mean that the evidence in support of her claims is mixed, perhaps even mediocre-to-poor. All seven of these young men have been named by names. Their reputations may well never recover. That does not mean they are innocent. The presumption of innocence gives us a starting point. It is a rebuttable presumption, but so far the evidence needed to rebut that presumption seems to be not very good. I am similarly deeply concerned about this incident, regardless of the verity of the allegations. Hookup Culture is a terrible thing, particularly when mixed with drugs and alcohol. Systems and groups, like fraternities and sororities that regularly host drug-and-booze-filled events and lifestyle environments are creating the environment for, and facilitate and foment, licentious behavior, and are doing a terrible thing to individuals and to society. Good counsel, all of this. "Responsibility" to do what? Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay. {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking." Again: Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'" Looks like Kretzschmar, at least, may have thought that. This is where I get confused about denigrating references to the "'not all men' argument." What to "all men" have to do with any of this? All but a very few of us were not situated to do anything at all. As for doing "something," men do such things all the time. While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something. Then perhaps "the 'not all men' argument" ought to be recognized, particularly when broad generalizations are in play. There are countless stories of men intervening to save others from harm. Lots of men have done, and will do "something" when another person - man or woman - "cross{es} the line." A fair question. "{T}he DA said the 2026 civil complaint is 'dramatically different' from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024." "He said Monday that her sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'" Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'" The forensic report on ketamine was probably close to the 2024 events. If so, the prosecutor may have looked at that as well. If true, this is appalling. 100% agree. Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay. {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking." A terrible circumstance no matter what the facts turn out to be. Thank you, -Smac

I find it very appropriate, that information like this is put into the public arena, so that there is a better understanding of the matter, especially from the perspective of the female. I think there was a movie in the 80s, with Jodie Foster. Possibly based on a actual event, or influenced by similar. That focused on a female, who went into a bar and was attacked by a number of men. If I remember correctly, the female was accused of incorrect place/dress/behaviour.

Agreed. The Susan B Anthony Project has a Survivor's Art Gallery that shows what actual rape survivors were wearing when they were raped. If you follow this link and scroll down a tiny bit, you can see it. It's heartbreaking and shows that rape has nothing to do with clothing. https://sbaproject.org/what-were-you-wearing/