All Activity

I'll let mustardseed speak for herself but I think you are misunderstanding what she is seeking here.

I'm explaining it really poorly, largely because I didn't understand it completely I'm sure. But the premise (as I remember it) was that the fall introduced the Law of Entropy into play. Once entropy entered creation, there is no stopping it. Everything will eventually entropy and decay into disorder if left to its own devices. The suffering--and everything else that comes with mortality--is just entropy in action. The Plan of Salvation is the only way to stop the entropy and give us access to the kind of life that God and Christ have--one without the effects of entropy. Justin Ritter wrote an article about a lecture that the physicist David Derrick gave called "Time, Entropy, and Faith Connected" (I haven't been able to find a transcript of the lecture itself so Ritter's summary is the best I can do) where Ritter explained that Derrick said:

Education is a social activity.

That acknowledgement has given me peace, but I understand it might not to others. But then through my life I have appreciated when people have acknowledged that things will be hard. It's like I was listened to.

Re: Pres. Uchtdorf's talk, and riffing on the quote in the OP This is what I find so compelling about this whole discussion. I'm sure Pres. Uchtdorf means well -- and there's probably actually some real truth in what he says -- but somewhere in this long battle with evil and suffering, it all just seems to come across as empty platitudes. It just seems that, no matter what answers we think we find or how we try to comfort ourselves, underneath it all is the acknowledgement that sometimes life is just hard.

Your making an error by trying to artificially sever Abraham 3 from Abraham 4 and ignoring how the literary narrative flows across these chapters. The exact word "gods" appears in Abraham 4, Abraham 4:1 is the direct narrative continuation of Abraham 3:24–28. Who is the "we" in Abraham 3:24? The Lord and "those who were with him" (the noble and great spirits). Who is the "they" in Abraham 4:1? The antecedent to "they" in 4:1 is literally the group that agreed to go down in 3:24. Abraham 4:1 explicitly defines the antecedent, "and they, that is the Gods..." Abraham 4:1 is giving the structural title ("the gods") to the council of spirits ("we") introduced at the end of Abraham 3. You seem to be playing an "all-or-nothing" game by insisting that if a group called elohim in Psalm 82 does not currently possess 100% of the attributes of a fully exalted, perfected, resurrected god in D&C 132, then they cannot be considered real divine beings at all. In ancient Near Eastern Hebrew thought as well as in LDS theology a "god" is simply category of heavenly/divine status or office, and not an "all-or-nothing" list of attributes. In biblical Hebrew, gods are not defined as beings who are omnipotent or immutable. D&C 132:19–20 describes the final, perfected state of resurrected exaltation. Demanding that every elohim in scripture possess "all power" is like demanding that a human toddler possess a college degree to be called a "human." The elohim of Psalm 82 DO possess real divine status and authority, as it explicitly calls them "gods" and "children of the Most High". They are divine sons sitting in the assembly of God in heaven. They were given administrative authority and domain over nations (cf Deut 32:8, LXX/DSS). That is real, delegated authority over lower domains. Psalm 82:7 says, "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." They lose their standing, you cannot fall from a divine status you never had in the first place. Their loss of permanency is a judgment, not proof that they were mere mortal humans or non-divine. If these beings were just ordinary mortals or non-divine figures with zero real divine standing, saying "ye are gods" and "ye shall die like men" makes no sense. Do any of these possess "all power" or absolute post-resurrection perfection? No. Yet the Hebrew text calls them elohim and sons. D&C 132 outlines the end result of faithful new sons who become new elohim.

The Apostle Paul was exceedingly grateful for all the trials and tribulations he had to pass through because he came to realize that it was by faithfully grappling with and overcoming each of these great challenges that the Lord was able to increasingly strengthen him in the inner man until he was finally spiritually empowered to overcome this fallen world and know before death that his exaltation was assured. Herein is the answer to your question. 7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak then am I strong. (2 Corinthians 12)

These are ideologically-driven accusations and presuppositions about people Dan has never met and about whom he knows little or nothing. They are conclusory and, as applied haphazardly as he does, devoid of substantive evidence. They are intellectually lazy, question-begging, histrionic, unscholarly, politically partisan, "trust me, I'm a scholar, so don's ask me to demonstrate what I am asserting"-esque, pandering and unreasoned. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln... Thanks, -Smac

Again, I think sexual assault is a serious topic, and ought to be treated as such. Actual rapists will repeatedly condemn rape in general. So do people who find rape abhorrent. I am proposing that we set aside inflammatory and emotionally-charged rhetoric, and that we examine the evidence dispassionately and clinically, and with decorum and sobriety. You are begging the question. She is certainly entitled to present her version of the events to law enforcement. She did that in 2024, and that statement, sworn to and voluntary, is quite difficult to reconcile with the allegations in the recently-filed complaint. I want to "dissect" the evidence. All of it. It just so happens that most of the evidence has come from Jane Doe, in the form of her 2024 statement and her 2026 lawsuit. We also have excerpts from text messages subsequent to the night in question. The cumulative effect of these allegations is quite mixed. Her civil suit presents allegations, but they are contradicted by her 2024 statement. The transcripts of her interviews with law enforcement were apparently not sent to the prosecutor, so that may be very pertinent. Her 2024 statement is her own. I did not "impute" it onto her. Her text messages are her own. I did not "impute" them onto her. The texts from the frat men are repulsive, but they are fairly ambiguous. They are not good evidence of culpable behavior and certainly not sufficient. Perhaps. If so, those culpable should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But whether there was culpable conduct requires an examination of the evidence. You aren't doing that, and you are castigating me for doing it. LMAO, truly you have a dizzying lack of self awareness. You can have that one as another freebie for your list. I am being generous today. Again, I would like to set aside the vitriol and rage and seek a dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis. Thanks, -Smac

Truly Smac is the real victim of all the raping. All the poor dear does is jump in and defend rapists or suggest that the victim is somehow equally culpable and people think he is somehow defending rapists…..because he is. There, you can add that one to the list. Consider it a freebie. Actual rapists will repeatedly condemn rape in general. This is a well known thing in dealing with perpetrators of sexual abuse or rape. You can get them to agree on what constitutes the crime and point out they did it and then they deny it and say that what they did somehow doesn’t count. You are spending a lot of time giving the rapists every benefit of every possible doubt even if that doubt is spurious or ridiculous. Then you want to dissect everything about the victim and impute to her all manner of decisions and actions with the idea that she consented to things she did not consent to because she rationalized it away at first. There was rape. This isn’t hard. LMAO, truly you have a dizzying lack of self awareness. You can have that one as another freebie for your list. I am being generous today. Enjoy it while it lasts I guess.

All of those appear accurate to me and are based on factual evidence. What is the problem?

I get it. Something grabbed hold of me with that talk, but I knew I didn't understand it at the time. I've since gained more understanding through reading books by Thich Nhat Hanh a Vietnamese Buddist monk, probably more in his book "No Mud. No Lotus. The Art of Transforming Suffering", but I couldn't say for sure it was that one. It doesn't really help with the thread question. Just that it helped me with gratitude in our circumstances rather than for them.

Why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Is Helping to Build a Juneteenth Museum Very cool. I am glad to see the Church helping with this. If anyone is in the Forth Worth area, a report about the museum when it opens would be great. Thanks, -Smac

Been thinking about this. If this was all we were told, it wouldn’t convince me this life was fair or just simply because we chose it out if what we were given. Because bluntly it looks to me that we were offered two lame choices and we wisely chose the lesser evil in terms of mortality and its value (a hellish life for most, but an awesome eternity vs a blah, maybe painless life—though Lucifer only promises to save us, not to protect us from harm, so could be a hellish life for every last one of us—and a blah eternity with no progression). That doesn’t turn the lesser evil into something wonderful or fair anymore than being told we would be murdered, but got to choose a quick painless death instead of following prolonged torture would mean our murder was fair and/or wonderful. We are also told we shouted for joy. That changes our choice option to apparently not lame, but extremely beneficial and fulfilling; still, we are left to trust this is true. This isn’t knowledge, but faith imo.

How is it not social when it matters to you to get others’ input on these aspects? Communication is a social act. By "social" I thought it was understood that we are referring to coming here to "socialize," that is, "to spend time with other people for pleasure" (emphasis added). Participating on this board is not pleasurable. It is not enjoyable. It is, however, interesting and worthwhile. So is going to the Harold B. Lee Law Library, but I don't go there to socialize either. Thanks, -Smac

A sampling of Nehor's and SeekingUnderstanding's various accusations against me: SeekingUnderstanding: "Well here you are defending the rapists, so <shrug>." SeekingUnderstaanding: "That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath." SeekingUnderstanding: "{Y}ou are part of the rape culture problem." SeekingUnderstanding: "Yet you defend the text thread, and the men accused." SeekingUnderstanding: "You claim rape culture doesn't exist, and you condone it with the same breath when you defend the text thread." SeekingUnderstanding (referring to a comment of mine) : "This is just the latest version of 'what was she wearing' so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. 'She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped.'" SeekingUnderstanding: "People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it. " SeekingUnderstanding: "Men should be terrified about having any type of non-consensual sex. It seems that you disagree." SeekingUnderstanding: "I can't read this as anything but 'defending the rapists' and 'defending... rape culture.'" Nehor (referring to me) : "Proceeds to defend rapists." Nehor: "Your attempt to make those who planned this rapefest as somehow morally equivalent to the victim is disgusting and misogynistic." Nehor: "A nice warning from all the rapists and rapist supporters that women should not try to hold men accountable for their crimes. We sure do love our misogyny don’t we? And some people say rape culture isn’t real. What clowns they must be." Nehor: "The misogynists act to intimidate, silence, harm, or kill the victim. IT BAD. IT RAPE CULTURE. Please stop carrying water for them." Nehor: "You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence." Nehor (referring to me) : "Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct." And I expect this to continue. This is unserious stuff, and should not be a part of a serious discussion about a difficult topic. We agree that sexual assault is a terrible and evil thing (though as you can see, Nehor and SU are working very hard to impute terrible sentiments onto me about it, despite my own statements condemning it). I hope Nehor and SU and others can set aside their performative emotionalisms and accusations and mobocratic rage and instead pursue a dispassionate, clinical, reasoned assessment of what actually happened. That's a solid point. I think Party A's calls for Party B to show "empathy" are sometimes - whether accidentally or intentionally - an attempt by Party A demand "agreement" from Party B, and/or to punish or silence or shame Party B if such agreement is not forthcoming. Nehor and SU are frequent flyers in terms of personal attacks and insults, and that saturation has heavily diluted whatever anemic potency online accusations from someone hiding behind a pseudonym may have had initially. I only critique their various ugly comments insofar as they are impeding dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis. Still, they can say what they like. Free Speech is a wonderful thing. Thanks, -Smac

A quick thought. I used to think this way as well. That the only way we could learn to become a god and to be like Christ, was to suffer through all the awful suffering a life can bring, whatever that may be. I am still sympathetic to that if I believed that we actually do become a god like being.

Yes, you are very comfortable calling Dan a liar by being a wolf in sheep's clothing: Very good objective assessment just dispassionately sticking with the facts there. I give Dan very little thought outside the few threads on this board about him, but "the facts" are there. He is saying things about the Church that are, in my view, subversive. From the first link: Same goes for his public comments about the divinity of Jesus Christ. I think this is subversive stuff, coming as it is from a self-identified Latter-day Saint. Per this video, Dan apparently felt it necessary to explain that he is "not an atheist." It looks, then, like what he says, publicly, on social media and to podcasters like Joe Rogan and, earlier John Dehlin, is not facially congruent with what most folks expect Latter-day Saints to say. And not just in my view, but for a sufficient number of persons that he felt this public explanation was necessary. A person with a substantial Social Media presence who has to go out of his way to declare that he is "not an atheist" may well be someone who is giving a lot of people the impression that he is an atheist. In the same video, posted a few months ago, he says he is an "active member" of the Church. I am quite willing to take that at face value. Subversion is, after all, something that happens from within. But again, that he has to go out of his way to say that he is an active member of the Church may be indicating that he is giving no small number of listeners the impression that he is not active, or that he is active-but-not-believing. He deliberately and specifically declares his personal beliefs "have nothing to do" with the "scholarship" he shares on social media. I have noted, quite a few times now, how I think Dan is doing quite a bit more than merely purveying "scholarship." I also don't really buy the "nothing to do" line, as I think he has his ideological presuppositions and commitments along with the rest of us. He also goes on to say it is "embarrassing" to other people who say that he is an "apologist" for the Church or the Book of Mormon. By no means do I take him to be an "apologist," that is, "a person who speaks, writes, or argues in formal defense of a specific belief, institution, doctrine, or political system." When he does speak about the Church and its doctrines - particularly the divinity of Christ and the revelatory provenance of the Book of Mormon, he certainly does not advance a faith-promoting viewpoint, but he has said quite a bit that seems calculated to demote faith. Nor do I accept his "Hey, I'm just an impartial scholar, objectively doling out 'data' like some sort of bearded Pez-dispenser" line. Again, I think he is doing a lot more than doling out scholarship. Again, he has his ideological presuppositions and commitments along with the rest of us. Right. He professes to be both an "active Latter-day Saint" and publicly declaring - repeatedly now - that he is "offering ... reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful" in the Church. I see that as subversion, don't you? I think what Dan is saying is subversive. "Objective" is hard in an explicitly religious setting, but what he is saying sure sounds subversive (see the above bullet list, and his publicly-declared happiness that he is "offering ... reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful" in the Church). As an observant and fairly well-informed Latter-day Saint, I have listened to Dan and find many of his comments to be subversive. I say this not because I want to insult him as a person, but to note what he has said publicly. John Dehlin, Natasha Helfer, Jeremy Runnells, Denver Snuffer, Sam Young, Kate Kelly, and many others have sought to subvert the Church while ostensibly members of the Church. If that is what Dan is doing, he wouldn't be the first one. I have not done this. Anyone who engaged in sexual misconduct, as a criminal matter, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I find the sexual licentiousness of the events of that night be terrible. I think influences like Hookup Culture and sociological defects in the Greek System have contributed to this, but in the end each adult must be held responsible for his or her own conduct. I surely would like to see Dan as not merely an "active" Latter-day Saint, but as a sincere and believing and observant one. His public pronouncements about the divinity of Jesus Christ are pretty hard to square with that. I don't see him as an advocate for the Church and its most fundamental tenets. To the contrary, he has said quite a bit to tear down those tenets, particularly as to the divinity of Jesus Christ and the revelatory provenance of the Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac

I’ve never heard it before. The idea of excommunication being a way to start over makes sense to me but I agree the reboot analogy seems off to me somehow too. But like you I can’t really explain why. Maybe something to do with how a reboot is primarily about starting again but an excommunication isn’t, though that can be one of the possible side effects?

I am quite fine with you or any others sharing their thoughts. This is a topic that is incredibly important I think, not just to me, but to all of us. It is a serious topic. And I have appreciated everyone's comments. I want to give some comments to this and some other posts. But I have to punt for a bit. I am still a part time partner at a CPA firm doing tax work. And the final deadline of 10/15 is almost here. And then I leave for a ten day trip out of the country. So, I promise to revisit this down the road. I just don't have the time to some thoughtful comments myself. Thank you all!

I believe my point still stands. Again, emoting and providing empathy is one thing. Wanting to emote and receive empathy (I totally get this) while throughout this thread other posters (and perhaps MustardSeed?) suggest a miscarriage of justice if these young men are not found guilty is something else. We cannot walk and chew gum in this case.

That could be part of the disconnect because we’re specifically talking about rape in this thread. Mustardseed was specifically talking about being able to emote as it concerns the topic of her (as a woman) and rape.

I like the talk. I don’t know how to be grateful in all circumstances when the definition of gratitude is to be thankful. I don’t know how to be thankful for trials. He gives some examples but they didn’t seem to show people being thankful as much as they showed people praising or worshipping God despite hardships. Being loyal and being thankful seem like two separate things to me. (just my thoughts I don’t expect you to have answers)

I'm not sure If I'm understanding you or if you're not understanding me? I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about people using the "I need to safe space to emote" as a pretense to accuse others of actions the people themselves don't know were committed. Again, true empathy toward someone does not require character aspersions against someone else. The minute an individual transitions from simply emoting to conclusory comments about the guilt of someone else, the conversation must turn to a more dispassionate exchange of ideas about the allegations to see if they stand up on their own. The position "Hey, I just need to safely express my feelings" is legitimate but it cannot walk hand in hand with "Hey, therefore the accused party is as guilty as sin and you are at best an enabler for not agreeing with me".

Yes, you are very comfortable calling Dan a liar by being a wolf in sheep's clothing: Very good objective assessment just dispassionately sticking with the facts there. Except there is a bit missing from your quote isn't there. What's hiding in the "..."? Here is Dan: "As long as I have supporters and detractors across the entire spectrum, I'm probably sitting in a sweet spot. I'm probably doing something right if I'm offering reasons for people to remain faithful and reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful." So good work being able to objectively decide that Dan is actually lying when he represents his positions but then bending over backwards to defend the frat boys offering "free p****" to their 50 closest friends. You do you.