All Activity

An inevitable rebellion against truth that we cannot escape. There is no way to not rebel. Setting up a standard where someone is inevitably doomed to fail is not good. Creating an escape hatch isn’t proof of any deep and abiding love. It is common decency. You also present a false dichotomy. Either people roast in hell for a long time until they beg God for forgiveness for doing something they could not avoid doing (which is still all kinds of screwed up) or there is no way and they are there forever. Those are the only two options. An omniscient being sat down to figure things out and this is what they came up with? Really? Behold the mercy of our God. He pushed us into a well….or if you want we agreed to be pushed into the well because it was the only way to progress I guess. Then God wants praise and thanks and abject humility and deference because God was nice enough to lower a rope for us to climb out with? I mean, the Book of Mormon calls humans wretched and all that but God designed us and designed the world we live in so if it went wrong is it really not on God? These don’t follow each other naturally. Broken down this is saying if there is no objective morality or maybe a subjective morality that God imposes the Universe wouldn’t exist. This whole sequence is filled with so many baked in presuppositions required for this to work that it is virtually meaningless.

Is that your own spin on LDS doctrine and speculative myth?

Perhaps. We do not yet have a clear determination of what happened. And the discussion has become way too emotional and political. So we have a substantial dearth of information, social-media-driven outrage, and emotionalisms overriding clinical assessment. For example, consider some of these news items in just the last 24 hours: Jane Doe in Cornell rape case facing death threats, backlash for accusations Entirely inappropriate, if true. Cornell rape accuser faces threats demanding she drop her lawsuit, attorney says I would think threats of this sort would be immediately reported to law enforcement for investigation. Cornell Gang Rape Scandal: Misidentified Marine Wants Court Error Struck After Death Threats A major error by the attorney. And way too much emotion and vitriol. Cornell student informs cops that frat bros told her to keep ‘orgy’ secret: ‘Bad for our image’ Secret frat meetings "to get all of the men on the same page about what happened" would, if true, be quite troubling. But we don't really know if this is true. Frat leadership potentially tampering with witnesses would also be troubling if true. "If." We don't know. Cornell 7 accuser’s lawyer claims frat bros ‘had meetings’ to cover up gang-rape allegations: ‘Conspiracy of silence’ I question the wisdom and propriety of the attorney trying this case in the media. I am concerned he is seeking to foment public outrage, when the more proper course of action would be to let legal investigations and proceedings take their normative course, including course corrections for past errors (if appropriate). Bar named in Cornell rape lawsuit disputes accuser's account, says she was never served alcohol while underage Whether she was intoxicated prior to going to the frat house is, I think, an important factual component, both as to her ability to consent and the credibility of the persons involved. 'Damage control': Phone calls, records suggest some Cornell frat brothers tried to contain 'gang rape' allegations Accused Cornell fraternity member claims accuser 'sodomized' him while incapacitated, alleges university ignored him as assault survivor Man at center of Cornell gang rape lawsuit told probers he’s the real victim of Jane Doe The allegations against Jane Doe are, if true, very troubling. I have some concerns about it as well. Why do you doubt this is a viable rape case? Could you elaborate on this? What effects of "rape culture" do you believe are in play? I agree that rape cases can be difficult to prosecute, but I'm not quite ready to blame "rape culture" for it. The normative rules of evidence, presumptions of evidence, burden of proof, and so on are not changed for rape cases (except for some limited purposes such as obscuring the identity of the victim, which would seem to not be problematic). "Absolutely." As in "without exception; completely; wholly; entirely." Is this perspective based solely on a dispassionate evaluation of all relevant evidence? Or are there other factors that affect your perspective? "Absolutely." I find this troubling. I don't think your certainty is well justified. I think it is a rush to judgment borne of emotion. Unless, of course, the young men are not guilty of rape. Then social-media-fueled rage and mobocratic "public shaming" of them for something they did not do becomes quite problematic. Are you similarly "absolute" in your assessment of Matthew Ingalls' claim that Jane Doe sexually assaulted him? Your comment here is a good example of the vitriol and emotionalism in play here. I have said nothing to condone any sort of sexual misconduct, and have instead repeatedly condemned it. I have also condemned "Hookup Culture" and its attendant ill effects on society, as well as problems with the Greek System. And yet here you are, speaking anonymously and publicly accusing a non-anonymous person of terrible things, apparently because I am advocating for a measured evaluation of the evidence rather than an emotional rush to judgment. Again, if you were one of the "Cornell 7," or if you were innocent, I don't think you would be agreeing with your own present posture. You would want the evidence to be evaluated, for the presumption of innocence to remain in place, for this matter to be adjudicated in the normal course of legal proceedings rather than through social media and news media coverage. Yes. I am trying to be candid and clinical. I wrote the above even though I knew that you, with your reflexive ad hominem proclivities, would find it problematic. The best way to work with a person fueled by emotion is to persist in dispassionate analysis. Again, we do not have all the facts. And a lot of countervailing allegations. I agree. I am glad we have that in common, at least. Perhaps. I'm not sure what a "consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex" situation would look like. We also have Jane Doe's text: I acknowledge that her attorney is characterizing her text as being the result of her being "in denial and traumatized at the time," and on that basis we should not believe her words. But this begs the question. And here: "Was laughing but seemed to be in shock." Boy, that's subjective. "Doe did not call it rape or assault that morning." Of course, she could have been traumatized. Or she could have not thought to characterize it as rape or assault because it was consensual. We don't have sufficient evidence either way. "{R}ecounting as this sort of crazy thing she had done." Again, very subjective. The rumors were about Jane Doe being a "slut" (Jane's own wording, apparently). It may be that she "had not processed the what had happened." Or perhaps "what had happened" was consensual. One challenge with this sort of story is that there does seem to be an implicit infantilization of women. That is, if she says something that is later falsified or else contravenes her current narrative, we are supposed to disregard the item because she "was in denial and traumatized at the time" or "seemed to be in shock" or she had not yet "realize{d} that it was something bad" or "had not processed what had happened to her yet." Yes, these things are possible. But they require us to review her own words and behaviors in a "whatever interpretation preserves her credibility" sort of way. It is also possible that she consented to sexually licentious behavior, and that she was telling the truth when she said “non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal.” I don't think it is healthy for us to infantilize women by giving them an open-ended exemption from the normative rules of law enforcement investigation and the rules of evidence in court. Something like this: "I'm a woman, and because I'm a woman you must reflexively and automatically believe everything I say about sexual assault except where I say something that damages my credibility, such as when I said 'non{e) of the sexual stuff was illegal,' in which case you must reflexively and automatically *not* believe what I say, and you must disregard because I was traumatized, and I was traumatized because I say so, and my say-so may not be questioned because if you do hate women and are enabling rape culture." The answer, I think, is to refrain from mobocratic rage, and to let the normative processes and rules play out. We ought not have a two-tiered system. On the same day she went to the clinic she texted that "non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal." Can you see how a dispassionate assessment of this might raised some legitimate questions? This is a text exchange with one of the men whom she now accuses of sexual assault. What is the context here? See here: Why is she speaking of her "reputation" being "destroyed" and her feeling "utterly ashamed?" Is she necessarily describing a sexual assault to one of the men whom she claims assaulted her? Or is it possible that she was referring to an alcohol-and-drug-fueled sexually licentious incidence of group sex in which she consensually participated? If the former, why did she, when told she had "{nothing} to be ashamed of," respond with "You're right?" Why did she tell her sorority system that rumors of her promiscuous behavior "are true?" Is it possible she was, at the time, traumatized and in denial? Yes. Is it possible she was, at the time, ashamed of participating in group sex in the upstairs room of a frat house? Yes. We need to dispassionately evaluate the evidence. Jane Doe: “{None} of the sexual stuff was illegal.” Also Jane Doe (after having been disinvited to a party at the frat house) : "90% of what happened that night was not consensual." A dispassionate jury may well look at things like this and find Jane Doe's credibility to be poor. She was drunk and using drugs and "had gaps in her memory," but she also "can say with 100% confidence {she} was raped." Her capacity to consent is, based on the evidence, in question. She says she went to the frat house drunk, but the bar at which she was supposed to have downed 10 drinks said that did not happen. She has said things that she has later contradicted. She has materially adversely affected her own credibility in a case where credibility is vital. I don't recall anyone mentioning that Jane Doe has visible signs of physical abuse. An attorney weighs in on this: Matthew Ingalls alleges Jane Doe sexually assaulted him, but I have not seen a reflexive acceptance of that allegation. I hope you can eventually put aside your emotionalisms. When a prosecutor or a judge says this, it's not "disgusting." It's the way the law works. So the "friend" does damage control right after. Supposedly you know all about rape cases having done work as a lawyer and a bishop. And yet you know nothing about how common this is. An abuser doing damage control right after. And a woman downplaying the abuse right after. https://cptsdfoundation.org/2025/06/05/fawn-response-the-trauma-survival-pattern-thats-mistaken-for-kindness/ I am aware. I am trying to assess the evidence dispassionately, and to defer "absolute" conclusions for the time being. I encourage you to do the same. Because you dislike me personally. Extremely. And because your assessment here is mobocratic and emotional, not dispassionate and clinical. That's how I see it, anyway. Attorneys and judges go through the same sorts of analysis as I have been doing here, and for it they are sometimes subjected to the same sorts of ugly emotionalisms and accusations as you are presenting here. "Absolutely" is not warranted here. Actually, we don't know that. The bar at which she said she got drunk says that this did not happen. I encourage you to read the Complaint (or excerpts of it) that reference the use of ketamine. It is her own attorney that equivocates. From the above excerpt of the attorney's assessment: Having written many hundreds of complaints, and responded to many hundreds, I take note of equivocation in them. If Jane Doe's attorney had a good faith basis to allege that she had been "administered alcohol and drugs" without her consent, then he would have said so. He did not. Instead, he used wording ("pressured" and "plied") which are "sufficiently vague" to justify an interpretation that consent was absent. It is her own attorney that equivocates on this point. What other evidence of sexual assault, apart from her say-so, has been produced so far? I would appreciate any information you may have on this point. I don't think I'll ever be able to get past your personal animosity toward me, but perhaps you could shelve it long enough to examine this issue dispassionately. Sexual assault is a terrible thing. Nobody denies that. Hence my appreciation for the Restored Gospel, which utterly condemns such behavior, and which also provides behavioral safeguards that reduce the risk of it. The Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, if followed, will help women - and men - avoid circumstances in which sexual assault can occur. I also think the Greek System often has a pretty terrible tendency to create environments for sexual assault and sexual licentiousness. My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself. A woman said it. It must be so. Any questions = "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture." Evidence, particularly anything that might contravene Jane Doe's narrative, does not matter to you at all. You, a bystander who has only reviewed partial bits and pieces of the evidence, are already "absolutely" sure of what happened. For you, there is no differentiation between the actions of any of the 7 men accused. For you, there cannot be even the possibility that Jane's recollection may be flawed, incomplete, inaccurate in some respects, and so on. For you, there cannot be even the possibility that Jane or anyone else might fabricate (or exaggerate, or mischaracterize) a serious and emotionally-charged accusation of misconduct. I am troubled by mobocratic responses to events such as this. I think we need to be more measured and dispassionate in our assessments of difficult topics, and not let emotions override reasoning analysis and due process. Thanks, -Smac

More of 'em are than you might think. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-common-way-that-people-accidentally-lead-the-police-straight-to-their-front-door/answer/Ken-K-Gourdin For what it's worth.

Thank You for Your Service. 👍

God didn’t create hell. Fundamentally, hell is the inescapable natural consequence of one having to live within his own tormented conscience due his failure to comply with the eternal laws that alone are able to reconcile repentant souls to the God of truth and justice. In truth, hell is a naturally occurring spiritual condition that needs to exist as an essential manifestation of the immutable law of opposition in all things. Indeed, the existence of hell is powerful evidence of God’s infinite and eternal love for each of his spirit children, for it’s by the means of the torment of conscience for rebellion that recalcitrant human souls are finally able to awaken from the sleep of death and reach out in faith to the Savior (who suffered in the depths of hell for us all) for rescue and deliverance. The abolishment of hell would mean the end of existence for hell is an essential and indispensable manifestation of the law of diametric opposition in all things, and as father Lehi so eloquently testified, without opposition in all things nothing could exist. Without hell no one could be saved, for there would be nothing to be saved from and life would be totally meaningless. And lest we forget, with full foreknowledge we all joyfully signed up for this experience in the fallen state knowing that it was the right thing to do. By his own experience, Alma powerfully testifies how the state of hell is able to awaken souls to the wonders of God’s redeeming love… 13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments. 14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror. 15 Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds. 16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul. 17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world. 18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death. 19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more. 20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain! 21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy. (Alma 36)

Why would you think Nehor and others who see the OT and other scriptural version of hell as abuse believe that way rather than simply your premises that God, if there is a God who loves mankind, has set up such a hell? It’s not like they are rejecting only half of the story, but wholeheartedly trust in the rest of it. I don’t believe Nehor is suggesting there is no law if there is God, but rather that image of law where people suffer in misery due to circumstances that appear to be beyond their control isn’t actually all that lawful. It certainly isn’t just in the way we are taught to understand justice. We have to make quite a few assumptions to justify it. Some people don’t see it as wise to base their own lives and others on assumptions, especially when it doesn’t appear that such a version of God is trustworthy, not having fulfilled promises as others assured them God would.

Agreed! So, here's the thing: Can you expand your paradigm beyond what the scriptures and the Sunday School manual explicitly give you permission to believe and embrace? (This is a rhetorical question; I'm pretty sure I've seen you do so.) Some version of the vending machine approach arguably has a place in a paradigm where outcomes not only matter, but are pretty much the only thing that really matters. Which kingdom are you and those you love going to wind up in? That would be an outcome which matters. The vending machine approach is, at least theoretically, about being able to control outcomes, including that one. And I would have a really hard time arguing from the LDS canon that we don't need to worry about outcomes. Such is my opinion, and imo such is the unarticulated truth behind the oft-repeated injunction to “fear not”, but there are far more scriptures giving reasons to be fearful than giving reasons not to be. Personally, I think this sort of thing is by design. I think there comes an intentional point where circumstances call upon a person to apply what they've learned about how to recognize truth. Sort of like, “you've passed the lecture part of the course, now here's the lab where you put it into practice.” And of course I could be wrong. Thanks! Me too. Sometimes I can go straight "there" just by having the intention, but most of the time I have to consciously and deliberately choose thoughts which “tune me in” to that particular “radio station”.

With full and complete exposure to all the possibilities we might encounter while in this fallen state, we all had complete foreknowledge and agreed to the Father’s plan of salvation before we were born. You and others like yourself likely said, “Lord, if causing me to experience the full, unalloyed effects of my sinfulness turns out to be the only way you’ll be able to save and reclaim me from an endless hell, then you have have my permission to cause me to experience what it’s like to live with myself in my unconverted, unredeemed state until I finally wake up realize that the only way to escape the perfectly natural effects of my rebellion against truth is to repent accept Christ as my Lord and Savior. But I guess you think it would be better to just let the unconverted wicked spend all eternity in the endless sorrow and misery of hell without the Lord even trying to rescue them? It’s hard to kick against the pricks wishing to live in a fantasy world where good and evil have no consequences. 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

I need to remember there is someone else on the board watching for these things now and see if you posted before I report stuff, lol. (there may have been others before, just quiet about their assistance to the mods)

I am highly annoyed that dark chocolate became touted as a health product and available without much sugar like I like it just as I phased into the chocolate triggers rls stage. I had been way too smug about not having this common attribute of rls, smirking at those who did. Hubris

Here's another way to look at it. There is a ton of apologetic scholarship that argues the Book of Mormon is a translation from an ancient text. Some of those make very specific claims (EModE, Hebrew/Egyptian wordplay, Nahom, etc). Why is there so little independent engagement with that? With the Book of Daniel, a scholar can argue for the 6th century origin and not be dismissed out of hand. The 2nd century scholars will engage with the argument, even if they think it is weak. They'll attack problems in the argument or even concede if the argument has value (for example, the idea that there are parts of the Book of Daniel that are much earlier than the 2nd century seems to be gaining strength). With the Book of Mormon, just because independent scholars treat it as a 19th century text doesn't mean that they've refuted that it could be a translation of an ancient text. It may just be that since we don't have the ancient text and that we don't know what language it was in, it's difficult to make a good, independently testable hypothesis about the underlying text. And then you add on the supposed supernatural origin which creates its own set of problems. So, when you say "There is no argument to be made or someone would have made it already", I don't agree. Just because no one has made the argument doesn't mean that there isn't an argument to be made. It could just mean that scholars don't see the question as sufficiently testable or worthwhile to pursue, given the evidence available. That's not the same thing as saying that the evidence has been examined and refuted.

Is God a species or a role? If a role like a judge, just because all judges are human, doesn’t mean all children or even all adult humans are judges.

Perfect I also see the purpose of ritual as getting our brains aligned with a certain mindset that makes us more receptive to the Spirit. Others may see that as just more suggestible if they don’t believe in the Spirit. I am okay with that. Only make use of it in a good way, not to manipulate people. I have noticed it with the Sacrament at home. It does little for me because it doesn’t ‘feel’ like the sacrament. The sense of community when doing it at church is very powerful for me. There are quite a few other things that I do as secular rituals to help me transition from one mindset to another to prepare.

The unknown scribe and the other non-Cowdery scribes are all in the small plates text. As far as we know, Alma through Moroni was all done with only Oliver Cowdery as the scribe (except for the one line where Joseph himself wrote it).

Yeah, but the new model is just the old ‘vending machine’ model with extra steps. You may not get blessings in this life but, trust us bro, you are scoring all kinds of brownie points in the next. When you test God’s promises and they fail does it really make sense to rationalize that the promises work but just work in an untestable way? Maybe….kind of….I dunno, I don’t find it that comforting or helpful.

I think it is something where people are filling in the gaps. But then I treat scripture like a cafeteria. 😛

I agree with the scholars. That doesn’t mean it is not about the end times. It is just that the writer of Revelation thought the end times were going to hit very very soon.

The case is definitive. Which is why the positive case is only made in apologetics publications, not in historical journals. None of the apologetics around an ancient BOM are publishable within the realm of critical historical scholarship. Anyone who has a good grasp of academic Biblical scholarship can see insurmountable anachronisms on practically every page of the book. "(which result in many apparent anachronisms pointing in the other direction)" This isn't actually true. Update: A few insurmountable anachronisms: Quoting passages from the New Testament or OT written after the departure of Nephi from Jerusalem The appearance of Satan as an evil cosmic entity opposed to God The idea of rewards and punishments in the afterlife The idea of a coming messiah who would suffer and die for anyone's sins Alluding to stories from the New Testament like the virgin birth or the 12 apostles, etc References to specific names of New Testament figures Double anachronisms - references to New Testament texts not even in the oldest manuscripts, but ones added centuries after the fact (long ending of Mark, Jesus sweating blood, etc) All of these and more tell historians that there's no case for a historical Book of Mormon.

Yet the Book of Revelation is not about the end times. But rather is addresses Rome under the rule of Nero. At least according to Bart Ehrman and other NT scholars.

Yup, the vending machine approach was the standard Israelite teaching until the apocalyptic period. After that it became about rewards in the afterlife, since it was becoming apparent that following the law did not guarantee a good life (after centuries of persecution and occupation). But the old vending machine approach from Isaiah and other scriptures didn't disappear from scripture.

Update: Not only am I an Eternal Bachelor in a Family Church, I have been assigned to lead a discussion in my Elders Quorum on Elder Neil L. Andersen's April 2026 address, "Eternal Marriage is an Eternal Journey." "OK, Brethren, let's discuss what the Eternal Bachelor knows about Celestial Marriage." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2026/04/55andersen?lang=eng Somebody, somewhere has a sense of humor, I see!

This is advertorial content designed to sell Umrah travel packages. This is very inappropriate on an LDS board with rules against advertising. Dallin H. Oaks is the only person Latter-day Saints recognize as God's living prophet today, so do visit Utah sometime. *Reported*

Cataclysmically

Did someone say ... Cookies?!??!!???!!!