All Activity

Because the logic doesn’t apply, lol. As has been pointed out to you multiple times. 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 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

You don’t have to engage with me. It doesn’t change my curiosity. Like it or not, this is a social media site. You and I have a relationship. If you’re gonna dive into your career, I’m gonna dive into mine.

I'd rather discuss the topic, and my reasoning and assessment of the topic. The selective refusal to apply the same logic to the racial subset ("all black men are potential rapists") reveals the inconsistency of the position staked out by folks like you. If the justification for “all men are potential rapists” is average strength plus disproportionate offending rates, that justification necessarily applies to black men (who are, obviously, men, and hence all "potential rapists"). If the objection to “all black men are potential rapists” is that it is an over-broad, prejudicial character claim that ignores individual variation, that same objection applies to the claim about men. The fact that one version is socially licensed/acceptable and the other is not does not change the structure of the generalization. It only changes the consequences of stating it. The two statements are not equivalent in social reception, which I think is why folks like you are comfortable affirming the "all men" slogan but not the "all black men" slogan. The former apparently is, to you and your circle, socially acceptable, but the latter is not. The two statements nevertheless remain logically equivalent as categorical group accusations. Affirming the broader claim while treating the narrower one as obviously prejudiced is an inconsistent application of the same standard. And I think that inconsistency is deliberate and ad hoc and unjustified. Those advancing the "all men are potential rapists" do not want to admit the logical equivalence of "all black men are potential rapists" because the latter is prejudiced and socially unacceptable, whereas the former is prejudiced but socially acceptable (in some quarters, anyway). The inconsistency reflects the avoidance of the adverse "consequences of stating" the categorical accusation. Nevertheless, if a person thinks that "all men are potential rapists" she must also affirm that she thinks that "all black men are potential rapists." Thanks, -Smac

"Virgin" in a sexual sense. And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (ESV) Then said Mary unto the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (KJV)

I’m so curious about you Smac.

We have clarified five bazillion times In a pretextual and ad hoc effort, yes. The five-word statement "all men are potential rapists" is, on its face, prejudiced. Hence the need to "clarify" and add paragraph-long rationalizations and equivocations and circumlocutions to avoid this patent reality. If that is what you mean, you could say that. 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. "All men are potential rapists" is patently accusatory. I will continue to speak against patent prejudice. "All Muslims are potential terrorists." "All gay men are potential pedophiles." "All women are potential prostitutes." "All black men are potential rapists." I denounce all of these categorical denigrations because they are per se prejudiced. I likewise denounce "All men are potential rapists" as per se prejudiced. Thanks, -Smac

We have clarified five bazillion times that this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations and does not identify a latant desire within every man. But go off.

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. I think my comments are generally pretty lucid. Okay. I disagree with your perspective that "all men are potential rapists." I find that to be a horrible, prejudiced, unchristian idea that should be set aside by any and all professing Latter-day Saints. If we had a complex and nuanced discussion that involved six words, "all black men are potential rapists," I would focus on that phrase and condemn it for its horribleness. Would you? Thanks, -Smac

Here's someone who can brag about their English skills. 5 stars for this post.

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. I didn't say anything in that post where you claim I let my mask slip ( ) that I haven't been saying since the beginning of discussions on this topic. You just think I did because you are so invested in finding ways to discount my perspective that you happily narrowed a complex and nuanced discussion between us on the subject that has been going on for probably over a year and spans dozens if not hundreds of posts down to five words.

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women". Yes, I accept that. That was not my question. I figured. You and everyone else is fine with saying "all men are potential rapists," but you are not willing to admit the logical corollary that every subset of that category, such as all black men, are also "potential rapists." I think you won't admit this because you see, correctly, the phrase "all black men are potential rapists" as abjectly prejudiced. I am glad you are not prejudiced based on skin color. I hope in time you can set aside prejudice based on sex. "All men are potential rapists" is a per se sex-based prejudiced statement. Thanks, -Smac