All Activity

You are right…I need to focus on what you say. Maybe you are listening and maybe you understand, but neither are being conveyed by what you wrote. If you are listening and you do understand, that is rather strange though. What would your intention to intentionally misrepresent so many in the thread?

It is focuses on the wrong thing in a different way though….if you change the last part to something that reflects that is true for that individual…otherwise it seems to target the race of the “you” individual. I tried a few phrasings, but not creative today. None of them avoided implying something they shouldn’t have.

No, I am not. Insofar as you are presuming to tell me what is between my ears ("Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved"), yes, you are wrong. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. Your lack of insight as to what I know or do not know about "human psychology" is vast. It is also not unusual for someone to attempt to defend a poor argument by resorting to ad hominem, tone policing, Red Herring, and other logical fallacies. Multiple people who are aligned with your point of view about "all men" being "potential rapists," and disagree with me about it. Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is an informal logical fallacy that claims an idea, belief, or value is true or good simply because a majority or a large number of people believe in it. Sure would be nice to talk about the topic instead of me. Thanks, -Smac

Here is your bias and looks like inability to be empathetic with women in this situation. I can empathize and still disagree. I have a friend who never married, despite fairly extensive efforts to find someone. He has some fairly caustic things to say about "women" as a category. While I empathize (that is, I understand) his frustration and circumstance, I still disagree with his denigrating all women everywhere, as I find that to be not healthy or helpful or valid. And I reject that it is necessary. You conflate empathy with agreement. I don't. Grand. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

How is this not a red flag for you to cause you to stop and think “maybe I am misunderstanding something here’? Because I am not misunderstanding. I am disagreeing. You have affirmed the proposition that "All men are potential rapists." You have presented a paragraph-long exposition on what those five words mean, and that idiosyncratic explanation is supposed to supersede the ordinary and plain language of those five words. I am not going along with that. If Mustard's formulation is in view (that by "all men are potential rapists" she means that "this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations"), then she and you and Bluebell could just say that. But you don't. That you and others instead resort to the patently prejudiced statement "all men are potential rapists" to purportedly convey this other idea is, in my view, indicative of something else going on. Thanks, -Smac

Because the logic doesn’t apply, lol. As has been pointed out to you multiple times. I think it does apply. Thanks, -Smac

Doing it and doing it well are not the same thing. Doing it publicly and on display is not my thing. I am listening. I read and respond to virtually every post directed at me. What I am doing is disagreeing. I think you are conflating not listening with not agreeing. Thanks, -Smac

Dan also regularly speaks quite negatively about the Church. On Jesus Christ: Dan: On the Book of Mormon: Dan: Dan: On religion (broadly): Dan: Dan: Dan: On his impact on the faith of other Latter-day Saints: Dan: Dan: Reasonable minds can disagree, but I find much of the above fairly problematic. He is certainly entitled to say whatever he likes. Free Speech is a great thing. But I do not see him as an advocate for the Restored Gospel or the institution that houses it. If I were struggling in my faith and hoping to rehabilitate it, I would not go to Dan. I have also had some personal interactions with Dan in which he accused me of "carrying water" for racists, for wanting to "subjugate" women, and a number of other things. Apart from their falsity, I felt they were, or should have been, beneath Dan as a scholar. Yes. Dan is, broadly, not an "apologist" or a defender of the Church. I think Jacob has a pretty solid take on Dan, but reasonable minds can disagree about such things. To take pot shots (or potshots) means to make casual, random, or critical remarks at someone or something without careful thought, deep preparation, or direct engagement. I don't think Jacob has done this. To the contrary, I think Jacob's assessment of what Dan has said publicly has been studied, deliberate, measured and factually accurate. Thanks, -Smac

So, you concede that in a fairly innocuous place (the library), she would raise her guard just because a man sits next to her? Would she do the same if it was a woman? I'd posit no. I don't see how that is "situational awareness and particularized circumstances". That seems to just be normal day to day stuff. I admit the logical corollary (I don't know why you think I'm not admitting it). Every subset of man (black men, white men, etc) is also potential rapists. But when you make a sentence that singles out the subset of men, that is where the prejudice comes from. The skin color of a man doesn't make him any more dangerous than another. If the statement was "all black men are rapists", that is a prejudiced and pointless statement. Because most rapists are generally those who you know and probably the same skin color as you. If the statement was "all men of the same race as you are rapists", I think I might accept that since I think the statistics bear that out. And yes, it is per se sex-based prejudiced statements. That doesn't make it an ugly statement. Just like how Pence used a sex-based discrimination to exclude all women from his personal space unless his wife was there. For some, it sounded like sex-based prejudice but you seem to see it as a good thing.

Doing it and doing it well are not the same thing. You also may be very good in self reflection in other areas. What is shown here is not much self reflection, but deflection since you are not listening, but mining.

Because the logic doesn’t apply, lol. As has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people. I am going to continue to refuse to deal with the mathematical equation 1+1 =2,000,313,527 no matter how many times someone claims I am refusing to deal with basic math logic.

For someone talking to themselves, yes, quite lucid.

How is this not a red flag for you to cause you to stop and think “maybe I am misunderstanding something here’?

Here is your bias and looks like inability to be empathetic with women in this situation. I am not asking you to accept it is necessary, but accept they view it as necessary. Since it’s a nonstarter, I will leave it at that.

No, I am not. It is not unusual for the person who consistently misunderstands something to not realize it…if they did, they would more likely have corrected the misunderstanding. I would even assume it was my misunderstanding instead of yours as that is my default mode, I find that more useful….except multiple people have mentioned it.

But that isn't D&C 132. So, I don't know why we need to use that definition for D&C 132. Also, the Bible doesn't always use virgin with that meaning. Joel 1:8 - Lament like a virgin wearing sackcloth for the bridegroom of her youth. (ESV) Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth. (KJV) Unless you want to say that marriage was never consummated, this verse is describing a widow as a virgin.

I assume you are a meat eater, so killing animals is not the issue for you. Animal sacrifice done by Hebrews did not torture the animals (except perhaps by the scent of blood and the fear that might have spread). Which doesn’t sound any worse than slaughterhouses. So I am wondering what the issue is. Is it the mechanics or why would God need it done or something else? My view is while it was a hardship for the owner, it was much like tithing today. Some of slaughtered animal and other food products were used to feed the priest community which didn’t own land or farm themselves, so needed this type of support while the rest returned to the owner for a neighborhood feast which was to include the poor, so it wasn’t wasteful and invited sharing.

Uncle

I've been in Arizona for a couple of weeks and haven't read all the posts here yet (I have a lot of catching up to do). But I coincidently listened to that entire episode of Joe Rogan's podcast on part of my 10.5 hour drive between Arizona and Utah, and I really don't understand the big controversy over Dan. I have heard Dan speak highly of the church in many of his videos, and nothing he said in that interview seemed controversial. I haven't listened to Jacob Hansen's take on that interview yet (I don't have time - I need to drive to Arizona and back again to have that kind of time to listen to podcasts ). Jacob is an apologist for the church. That's his YouTube focus. And I like Jacob's approach most of the time, particularly as he testifies of Christ. But I don't think he understands Dan's YouTube focus and why the two are different. But taking potshots at fellow Latter-day Saints just doesn't seem to be in line with what the church represents in my opinion, or even for what Jacob's channel is supposed to represent. I just don't get it.

Self-awareness is "the conscious ability to recognize and reflect on your own thoughts, feelings, behaviors, values, and how you impact the world around you." I do that a lot. I am just not inclined to have you personalize this thread by making me a topic in it. So please, stop trying to do that. As for "relating" (presumably meaning to build social and emotional bonds with people), I do that a lot as well. I just don't want to do that here. You may be conflating "not relating" with "not agreeing." Thanks, -Smac

I love being a Latter-day Saint, and I personally struggle with the ethics and basic "rightness" of polygamy (as I do with a few other topics, such as animal sacrifice). None of these is anywhere near sufficient to dissuade me from my convictions regarding the Restored Gospel, but they are there. That said, I think we Latter-day Saints do not do ourselves any favors when we circumnavigate difficult or unpleasant aspects of our doctrines. I think the link you are provided is attempting to do that. In my view, the article is not a credible historical assessment. Joseph Smith’s participation in plural marriage is established beyond reasonable dispute by the weight of contemporary and near-contemporary evidence. The site is an advocacy piece that selectively emphasizes public denials while systematically minimizing or dismissing the private practice that the historical record documents. What the site does It compiles Joseph’s and others’ public statements against polygamy (including the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants article on marriage, Nauvoo-era denunciations, and Emma Smith’s statements), notes the absence of documented children with alleged plural wives, highlights later RLDS/Community of Christ denials, and argues that sealings were non-sexual family linkages and that Section 132 was a later Brigham Young innovation. These points are real and well-known. Public denials occurred; the practice was secret; no children with plural wives have been genetically confirmed as Joseph’s; and some family members later denied it. What it omits or downplays The consensus among historians (both in and out of the Church) is that Joseph Smith was sealed to roughly 30–40 women. Supporting evidence includes: Contemporary or near-contemporary statements from participants and close associates (e.g., Louisa Beaman sealing performed by Joseph B. Noble in 1841; accounts from the Partridge sisters, Zina Huntington, and others). Journals and records from the Nauvoo period (including William Clayton’s) that reference the practice. The text of the 1844 Nauvoo Expositor and related controversies that specifically alleged plural marriage under Joseph. Affidavits and temple-lot case testimony from the 1860s–1890s by people who had been in Nauvoo, many of whom described sexual relationships or “time and eternity” marriages. The Church’s own 2014 Gospel Topics essay and the documentary work of historians such as Todd Compton, George D. Smith, and Brian C. Hales (the last of whom is more conservative in interpretation but still concludes Joseph practiced plural marriage). The site treats late testimonies as unreliable while relying heavily on late RLDS denials, treats the absence of children as decisive (ignoring known contraceptive practices, short duration of many marriages, and the possibility of non-consummation in some cases), and reinterprets sealings as non-marital without engaging the language and context used by participants at the time. It does not seriously address the volume of independent, mutually corroborating accounts that would require an implausibly large conspiracy if they were fabrications. Bottom line Public denials are compatible with secret practice; they do not negate it (particularly given the exigencies arising from physical threats at the time). The historical record supports that Joseph Smith both publicly opposed polygamy and privately taught and practiced it among a limited circle in Nauvoo. The site’s contrary conclusion requires discarding or radically reinterpreting the bulk of the participant testimony and contemporaneous documentation while elevating later denials from one side of the post-martyrdom schism. That is not how the evidence is weighed by historians. The practice is not “beyond reasonable dispute” in the absolute sense that every detail is settled, but the core fact that Joseph Smith participated in plural marriage is. Brian Hales' website is a very good resource: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ I am curious. If you believe that Joseph Smith never participated in polygamy, then how do you account for Brian Hales and his research? He is, by all accounts, a faithful and devoted Latter-day Saint, so why do you think would he speak and document so much about a topic that is so controversial and difficult to accept? Moreover, what do you make of his scholarship? Thanks, -Smac

Ok. Self awareness / relating isn’t for everyone.

Could you please clarify the bolded item above? I do not see the correlation.

It seems to me one always ought to be cautious buying into claims of some self anointed recipient of visions and revelations that grant that person some special insight. Especially when it blatantly contradicts the body of evidence.

That's the nice thing about this board. We can all ignore each other or limit interactions to suit our preferences. Here, I decline to entertain your curiosity about me individually. If you want to ask me about my views on the sheriff in Arizona, or the Cornell matter, or the "all men are potential rapists" slogan, I will likely respond. Beyond that, no thanks. I acknowledge that. Perhaps, but only in a nominal, de minimis sense. In any event, I would prefer to discuss the topic, and my assessment of the topic. I decline to cooperate. I am not the topic. This thread started with "troubling allegations" against a sheriff in Arizona (who apparently is a member of the Church). Bluebell subsequently brought up the Cornell topic, which in turn has morphed into a revisiting of the "all men are potential rapists" slogan/mindset. I started the thread, so I'm okay with these forays. But turning this thread into a critique or examination of me personally is not appropriate. Please discuss the topics, none of which is me. Thanks, -Smac