All Activity

I wish I hadn't read the comments on the article when I saw it on Facebook. They were incredibly disappointing (but not unpredictable). I love and appreciate the Church's commitment to museums, and historical preservation. I am such a huge museum and historical site tour junky. This type of investment pays huge dividends not only providing access to interactive education, but museums are such a great resource for families/parents who are budget strapped and need an outing.

That is wonderful, and I am very happy for you! I can't explain such things either. Maybe that particular "isometric exercise" stage was over?

From what I recall from one of his videos in the past regarding prophesy and miracles, he essentially said that while examining things from an academic standpoint, to give credence to the prophesies and miraculous events of the Bible means that you by default have to allow that same latitude to all holy writ and supernatural claims. If it's possible that Jesus was resurrected, then it's possible that the resurrection motifs of Inanna, Dionysus, Attis, Odin, Ganesha, etc. are also true and also need to be weighed the similarly, using like approaches. Essentially, if you are wearing only your fancy academic hat, and are using academic tools to analyze texts and historical events, you can't swap out your tool-bag for a different one, just because it's something that your own tradition (or the predominate cultural tradition) presupposes. Academic tools, and tools of faith can be rascally to wield simultaneously with consistency and fairness.

The museum will house a dedicated genealogy center powered by FamilySearch. Tracing black slave genealogy in North America is historically difficult. FamilySearch has spent years digitizing millions of historic records including the Freedmen’s Bureau records, to help African American families discover their ancestral lines. Partnering with the museum it is hoped to expand that research effort.

My guess is he means follow the data when it comes to data-driven fields like history or science. Faith isn't data driven, and Dan has never advocated against faith.

So I've seen a lot of Dan's videos over the years. I can't mind read, but my mental model of him is thus: (for the very little that it's worth) Dan views religion as a faith based affair. It's a personal interaction and negotiation with God and with scripture and with our fellow humans. Leveraging personal religious beliefs to control others is bad. Claiming that the "data" prove "my" religious belief system is right and "yours" is wrong is bad. Leveraging religious beliefs to marginalize the weak and afflicted is exceptionally bad. Showing how critical mainstream biblical scholarship views the bible is the theme of his social media work. Just as the "data" don't prove Krishna created the universe, critical biblical scholarship shows they don't prove Adonai (Dan's term for the god of the old testament) doing so either. We shouldn't privilege our personal religious beliefs to show how much better we are than anyone else. We are stumbling through the dark just like everyone else. Every single harsh take Dan makes on social media is against someone leveraging their personal religious beliefs to go after or look down on someone else.

It depends on when you use the second one. If people use it to say what is present in the bible then yes, one should follow the data. If people use it as part of their beliefs (like resurrection) then it may make sense to follow the dogma. We would have to know in what context Dan was using it.

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma. That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data. (but I again acknowledge my information, which is second hand, could be very flawed and it is very possible Dan never said that)

Not sure.

It's not satisfying because it only works that way for some people, but it doesn't fit Nemo's situation or a lot of people. Generally it only fits people who feel they have done something wrong and need or want a clean slate to come back to and feel excommunication is part of that process. A reboot is only a reboot when it starts something over again. A reboot is not a reboot if the problems stay the same or get worse.

Thank you - ————- I don’t care about the case so much as I care about the fact that men took advantage, AGAIN, of an opportunity to ***get off. *** I’m glad people are angry about it. It makes me feel comforted in a way. Im not personally comforted at all by anyone who defends the men by suggesting that the men are potential victims of the woman. I recognize there are those who are unbothered by the absence of comfort. That’s fine too. But I’m here to point it out- this is a social media site, we are social beings interacting here and having a relationship, and I want you to know the impact you have on our relationship. I am not one to just be quiet about my thoughts. Take it or leave it, as I will with yours.

Trying to stay on topic, but Dan was the guest on Joe Rogan's podcast the other day. He did mention he doesn't publicly speak about where he is exactly religious wise. But he's a believer in God/Jesus I believe he said. Now I need to listen again.

Contacting the Physics dept at BYU might work. They have an email address on their site. It’s physics_office@byu.edu Here’s the info according to a news article chat found: Thursday, October 7, 2010 Location: The Royden G. Derrick Planetarium (located in the Eyring Science Center at BYU) Sponsorship: The lecture is an annual series sponsored by entrepreneur Briant Summerhays in honor of his father, Hyrum, to promote harmony and dialogue between science and religion. [1, 2, 3, 4] https://news.byu.edu/news/david-derrick-present-annual-summerhays-lecture-oct-7 looks like Derrick is not a physicist, but is an astronomy hobbyist and supporter. ”Derrick is an industry leader in personal remote monitoring and is a College Volunteer Leadership Council member in BYU’s College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. He also serves on BYU’s President’s Leadership Council. An astronomy enthusiast, Derrick has made many contributions to astrophysics research through generous donations. The International Astronomical Union and Smithsonian Institute have named an asteroid after him to honor his efforts. He holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and an MBA from the University of Utah.”

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.

It looks like you're 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 the category of heavenly/divine status or office, and not an "all-or-nothing" list of attributes. In biblical Hebrew, gods are not all defined as beings who are omnipotent or immutable. When Moses is called an elohim he is not all powerful, yet he is not a false elohim either, is he? D&C 132:19–20 describes the final, perfected state of resurrected exaltation, it is not describing every elohim in scripture. 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. They lose their status (Psalm 82:7), but you cannot fall from a divine status you never had in the first place. Their loss of permanency is a late judgment, not proof that they were mere mortal humans or non-divine all along. 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, faithful new sons who become new elohim to replace them.

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.