All Activity

I'm not following. Are you suggesting the learned man in 2 Nephi 27 is not Charles Anthon? Who else could it be? By 1824, Anthon was protecting his career and reputation. He certainly would not admit in print to anything that would validate that he was the learned man in 2 Nephi that asked to see the sealed book. The Butler/Bennett account is the most revealing IMO. There's a strong argument to be made that Butler had confused Mitchill and Anthon and Bennett printed the story backwards. If this is the case, then Harris would have visited Mitchill first, and Mitchill would have referred him to Anthon who then "looked at his engravings—made a learned dissertation on them—compared them with the hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Egypt—and set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the East, but now no more.” I agree with RT that the account makes more sense if Harris visits Mitchill first and then Anthon. This seems to me to be the correct reading of the Bennett account. It was Anthon, not Mitchill, who made a learned dissertation on the characters.

Yes, why is it merciful to an animal and not to a human who might be barely conscious but in unbearable pain? One can be unconscious and still in pain. I think best practice is using medications that lower awareness to the point of not feeling pain, but I am not sure how they work in every case, especially if a patient has developed tolerance. Are there new ones that can be used instead? Also I get the slippery slope issue. It’s dangerous and I believe it should be primarily dealt with using living wills…which I need to get in place though I have let everyone know my wishes. But if we had a way to determine for certainty that someone would not recover (as our medicine improves, the accuracy of prognosis will as well), would anyone not already sort of comfortable with the idea of there are massive safeguards to avoid abuse okay with it then? (I suspect Catholics won’t as it is interfering with nature drastically, but seems like many life saving medications do that, so it is likely there are nuances.) I certainly hope I don’t get placed in a situation where a discussion on something more than withholding life support while making the person comfortable comes up. I also get that many have respect for life in general, but life is not abstract for me, it’s what we experience, not some distinct principle. I don’t see why I should respect a life that every last person would hate including the person living it. What makes a tortured existence of value? Serious question, not trying to be provocative. I don’t understand it? The being who possesses that life needs to be fully respected and cared for, but why doesn’t that sometimes mean helping them die? Not saying I know how to go about it safely, it just seems for many it shouldn’t even be considered as a hypothetical because it’s inherently immoral in their view and I wonder why.

Having experienced excruciating pain and other stuff that removed my rationality for a time, I have to wonder what good could come from prolonging such suffering when the end result is death. Not saying it won’t happen, just not seeing how it could at this point. Don’t we need to be conscious and aware to learn? If all the pain or whatever input swamps all our senses and mind, what learning can take place? Just think of trying to read if you were right next to a fire alarm going off. Sensory overload. It makes sense when there is a way out, an afterward, where is the time for reflection to think back and say ‘I may have felt like I was splitting in two and thought I was going to die and actually wanted to for a moment, but I am grateful now for the baby’ or ‘I couldn’t stand it, but now the skin graft is working, I can see scraping off the dead stuff over and over every day was worth it’. But when there is no after in mortality….I don’t see what difference it makes in the afterlife that we hung around longer in such pain if we didn’t have a choice.

Considering the likely subsistence living on many, knowing it wasn’t as bad doesn’t do anything for me. Nor do those types of justifications usually work (except perhaps when it comes to pain and embarrassment…this wasn’t as bad as….and I survived that). Two wrongs don’t make a right. They should like excuses to me. And using not as bad appears to be granting the premise it is wrong. Not saying the restrained extravagance of the temple was a wrong. Simply analyzing what is unsatisfying because I don’t know the why. It is not for me to say it’s not according to God’s will as I am not the one receiving direction to build or not build it. I never regretted a penny of tithing or other forms of donation to the Church. I love that temples are going up all around so that it is much easier for all Saints to get to them multiple times in their lives. We have never been close to poverty, so tithing is a very different experience for me than someone giving of their necessities. I certainly benefit myself from the sacrifice others make and am grateful for it. I never sit there and think ‘this could have bought so many meals’. (I do admit to sometimes thinking ‘less gold, more wood and stained glass please!’, but that is an aesthetic choice, not thinking of which costs more because I don’t know, labour can be very expensive. I trust temple building is directed by God. To me, that is probably the only thing that justifies it unless people donate without much prompting (limited to hearing of the opportunity). Spontaneous free will offerings, seems like they should be accepted without reservation. People should be able to give if they want to, even if they personally suffer because of it.

I suspect Joseph Smith would find all our political positions abhorrent. He would probably hold on to the political views he had then which definitely aren’t progressive by today’s standards and our current fad version of conservatism is ideologically anti-American Revolution so probably too conservative for him too.

Compare the body counts of God and Satan in the Bible.

I have to say that I think that taking a life in mercy is a mercy when they ask for it or if they certainly would if they could. My fascination with history has led me to a lot of stories of people suffering horrific wounds where death is certain but may take minutes or hours and I want to believe I would have the will to spare them that. Maybe a God can do some good with that horror but I wouldn’t leave a person to face it. I would grant that mercy to an animal. If it is a kindness to a less aware non-human animal I can’t see how humans who can experience the pain even more should not be granted mercy.

Also if it makes you feel better the tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon were both provincial and crude by comparison to the temples of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. Compared to the sprawling temple at Karnak or the temple of Marduk in Babylon it was a hick town chapel type of thing by comparison. Not saying it wasn’t nice and made of nice things but it was not as impressive in terms of size and wealth put into it compared to other contemporary places of worship. It was a big investment for such a small nation of course.

I have good news for you then. Most of the edible parts of the animal weren’t lost in most sacrifices. This varied by the type of sacrifice but in most of the commanded sacrifices some cuts of meat were kept by the priest and some went to the person who offered the animal to eat themselves. So you would go to the temple with your family and basically have a sacred bbq. Again, this varied by the type of sacrifice. The passover sacrifice, for example, was eaten by the family that offered the animal with some cuts going to the priests and levites. It was a ritual offering but also a ritual feast. This was reportedly part of the problem with Eli’s sons. They were stealing the cuts the offerer was supposed to leave for God and/or for the offerer. More seriously they were also having almost certainly coerced sex with the women who worked at the tabernacle who, in essence, worked for them. It is very hard to argue it is consensual when the boss’s son who can probably ruin your life if you refuse propositions you.

I was under the impression that 2 Nephi 27 isn't a very good match of what happened and it really needed a reframing to fit. Joseph Knight would be part of that reframing since he is a believer and would have that oral tradition. The 1832 history is also part of the reframing. Reading just what Anthon wrote in his letters (https://cipherfoundation.org/older-ciphers/anthon-transcript/charles-anthons-letters/) and what Bennet wrote in the Morning Courier (http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/courier.htm), there really doesn't seem to be anything like the back and forth as portrayed in 2 Nephi 27: "Bring hither the book, and I will read them." "I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed." "I cannot read it." I believe the earliest that shows up is Joseph's 1832 history which points to being a possible reframing of the story to fit 2 Nephi 27 since it doesn't naturally fit it.

As President Oaks once said, paraphrasing, there is some truth in Conservatism, some truth in Liberalism, but no salvation in any of them. When Christ returns, He will do so as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and what He says, goes. Which, to me, indicates that He might have to ask anyone who is too tightly wedded to a particular political ideology (whatever space one might claim on the political spectrum), "Will ye also go away?" John 6:67. I hope everyone here would answer as Peter did: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou has the words of eternal life." John 6:68.

Ever an inflammatory and historically inaccurate bully. Dispite being a religious sealing, even marrying a 14-year-old and having sex with a 14-year-old are legally different issues. Whether a marriage itself would be illegal, and whether sexual activity would constitute a crime, depends on the applicable state's laws and the circumstances. The historical record says he didn't have any marital relations with any 14-year-old. So as always, you don't know what you are talking about.

Depends on how each term is being defined. In his day he was progressive compared to the values of his day. If he kept all the same views today he'd be conservative.

He would be sharing a cell with this guy. 14 will get you fifty.

teddyaware clearly hasn't ever read the OT or BOM, God is killing his own children, why leave to others what you can do for yourself I guess

Rude

Good catch..l wasn’t as precise then because I didn’t know you were going to persistently take things out of context. I notice yet again you removed crucial context that was the main point of what I said and focused on something else. I spent the whole post clarifying “potential rapist” did not imply “latent rapist”. The above was showing the logical difference between the two. If I can consider every man a potential rapist and still date or marry them, should be rather difficult to imagine I think that means they are a latent rapist. I may have hangups, but putting myself in danger isn’t one of them. Phrasing it as such in my head—-which isn’t how actually phrase it, but amount to the same, so let’s pretend I do—doesn’t mean I use it publicly as a slogan or catchphrase. I do personally consider the possibility that the people I encounter every day may have hidden dangerous inclinations. I have studied too much not to know it happens. I also even examine myself to check to see if I am nurturing things that will lead me to become more selfish, denigrating of others, a worse temper, even if I could be abusive, impulsive, etc. I recognize this examination of possibilities is how my brain establishes safety. I think of worst case and then I do a reality check to reassure myself. It works so much better than pretending those ideas don’t occur to me. It tends to be less often over time with most people, but my brain gets intrusive thoughts about possible tragedies for some reason, so probably will be doing the “any red flags?” every now and then for all the people I know till the day I die. I don’t think it’s a bad thing because I will be less likely to dismiss red flags when I do see them in general and be more prepped to act on it rather than experience decision paralysis (fear of making the wrong decision and harming someone is pretty big for me). And I have seen them, just not among my loved ones. I also recognize that’s not what everyone does and it wouldn’t be healthy for everyone. For some it will increase anxiety, not decrease it. So I don’t hold it up as a solution…which is what I mean here by “endorse”. I would be content if I had other ways that worked for me to stay aware of potential dangers. If I find one that is as effective for me I will switch because it’s not a pleasant task. I also know women who use the phrase “every man a potential rapist” to do something similar for themselves…or something quite different. I have talked with them about why they do it…often it’s for the same reasons. Some of them promote it as effective. You could say if someone told me using this as a slogan helped them, I would even “endorse” their own use of it. There may even been a time I did promote it as a slogan or even just a technique as best practice in general, I don’t remember if I did as it’s not a frequent conversation typically, but I haven’t for years because I think there are better teaching aids/brain hacks for most people. So when I say “I don’t endorse it”, I mean I don’t go around using it as a standard part of how I would encourage people to prepare to be safe. And I don’t use that particular phrase for myself, though what I do amounts to the same thing. I consider the possibility and look for anything that might confirm it. Trump may have done something useful with drugs (it’s why my brain went to him in discussing “endorse”). I need to do more research as I just found out the details for me yesterday, but it looks like it’s going to at least work very well for me. As soon as I double-check and my insurance guy has a chance to do so, I am going to immediately take advantage of the changes in drug insurance options because it benefits me. Saying this is not me claiming it’s the way it should or will be for everyone or even saying I am happy it happened, it’s a good thing. I am actually worried it’s going to hurt a lot of people because it is so sweet for me. If the money isn’t coming from me, who is it coming from? My drugs aren’t cheap. Not trying to get into politics….just showing thinking something can be very useful in some contexts shouldn’t be assumed as an endorsement for using it in every circumstance by everyone or most. Btw, I expect I was sloppy in the beginning when this came up as a major discussion as I thought my and others’ point was easily understood. I also verbally process and since it may take time to find the best wording to describe what I want to say, not everything I say is what I end up wanting to say. I even change my mind because someone has caused me to reconsider how I say something. Shocker, I know. Who does that? You will probably find some other stuff I make less than precise or even blew it. I will be happy to clarify and even correct myself if you want to point out questionable things.

What even is the topic you wanted to get back to anyway?

Or a Third Party. He rejected both major parties of his era (Democrats and Whigs), viewing party orthodoxy as corrupt and detrimental to liberty. I'm concerned about the timing and editorial intent of media commentary around Joseph Smith. Because Latter-day Saints have voted overwhelmingly Republican for several decades. When outlets like The Salt Lake Tribune's center-left commentators highlight "progressive" aspects of Joseph Smith, or any claim that "Joseph Smith would vote [Progressive / Conservative / Libertarian] today" is an attempt to weaponize a religious leader for political leverage. If a modern Progressive claims him: They must ignore his patriarchal family structure, divine-right leadership model, rejection of secular pluralism, and views regarding colonization. If a modern Conservative claims him: They must ignore his advocacy for a national bank, federal override of states' rights, prison reform, and collective economic systems. Joseph Smith’s political thought was a pragmatic response to persecution, aimed at establishing a distinct political and divine order outside the standard American two-party framework.

No, it’s not. It’s your gig to say I am endorsing it. Even when I have said ‘nope’. You: "It’s your gig to say I am endorsing {the 'all men are potential rapists' slogan}. Even when I have said ‘nope’." Also you: "I go by the rule every man a potential rapist, have since I knew what rape was." Thanks, -Smac

“Prostitute” is not denigrating in my view. It speaks to a very real possibility that many women have had to face and any woman could. But maybe you think I think “prostitute” is insulting? Pedophile/rapist…I don’t feel the least insulted either. As far as you know, I could be. Why would I be insulted by you being cautious? I wasn’t insulted when my in-laws told us their kids couldn’t come over for a sleepover even though they knew us very well. My husband isn’t insulted when a girl or woman moves back if he gets too close, even if a close friend. He isn’t insulted he has been asked not to give hugs or required to do harassment training. He isn’t insulted the Church doesn’t want him to be alone with another woman so he can’t drive the sister missionaries home. I am not insulted because I can’t invite the elders in when alone. I am not insulted when I have to sign a business contract because someone won’t take my word for it even though I have never defaulted on a loan. I am not insulted I have to have a license even though I have never caused an accident, never got a parking ticket even. There are a lot of bad actors out there. Enough we need to be cautious even if most wouldn’t harm us, wouldn’t walk with our money if there was no evidence it was ours, wouldn’t steal our groceries, books, bikes if they found them on the street. People should not trust before it’s earned. “I don’t trust you” is not equivalent to “I think you are guilty” though. (Context matters herewith English as it allows multiple meanings, both “I distrust you” and the absence of trust or distrust). There is nothing in my appearance that demonstrates I am not a dog beater, rapist, thief, pedophile, prostitute, liar, murderer, candy stealer and never will be. Why would anyone trust me? Of course, no reason to assume I am guilty or am likely to be either…..but calling me a potential whatever isn’t saying that. And if you can tell in a lineup or by walking down a street which kid is going to steal your bike, which adult is going to kick your dog, which person is going to assault your daughter when she goes to a movie without her brothers, you need to stop being a lawyer and start a self defense service. It will go viral.

Seriously? Context is always relevant. Words have no meaning without context.

That’s the issue, isn’t it.

Why are you now talking about Muslims? I don't see what this has to do with D&C 132 or with what Joseph F. Smith said. It is an interesting diversion but not sure what it has to do with your original subject.

You apparently didn't actually read what I wrote. Because I said that the first line was in the earlier section, just as you show in your image. The problem is that you quoted both lines together as if they were actually together. They aren't they are in separate paragraphs and even separate sections. They come from 2 very different original sources. The 2 lines don't fit together. That's why I asked where you got it from. Because if you had gotten it from the actual source (which you just shared), you would have noticed that they are not related and wouldn't have pasted both together as if they were related.