All Activity

Nvm…mind is wandering too far afield, spaced on where I was, I guess, lol. Wasn’t meant to post here.

It also stands out that Anthon described the very large spectacles as a lens. A lens is exactly what someone might put between the eyballs and a paper that they would like to be able to read small print more easily in low light, like you might find in the bottom of a tophat. "Anthon stated that Harris said the person who looked through the lens could read and understand the meaning of the characters."

There must have been a curtain, and a clear effort to not let anyone see what was going on behind it. Anthon confirms in 1834 he was told that by Harris and in 1834 he wouldn't have been able to know that from any other source but Harris. This was going on even before the translation/dictation work began after Harris returned from meeting Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon: "This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God.” "Anthon stated that Harris said the person who looked through the lens could read and understand the meaning of the characters. Anthon further stated that Harris told him that while the young man was behind a curtain, he translated some of the characters using the spectacles, not by the gift of God." source

Pretty sure that he could not save us at all….as in no progression. Maybe resurrected, though not perfected physical bodies if he was able to break death’s barrier as Christ did. I don’t know what in Christ allows him to do that for us for us. Was it simply his direct connection with God or something more that requires caring about others? I believe he was promising then what he promises now, no law, just do what you want. I don’t know if we would have experienced guilt without law if somehow he could make it work. Would be awful if we did and didn’t have a way to be redeemed by someone capable to it. He does not appear to be so in my view. He appears to me to be too egocentric.

True. But what does “wouldn’t work” mean in this context…that some would indeed be lost or that none of us would be exalted because we had no free will?

But we are also told this wouldn’t have actually worked. I think the other was more acceptable because this one wasn’t a valid option.

For me it depends on why he intervenes and doesn’t, but I don’t see any way to identify a difference or an explanation that isn’t pure speculation at the bottom as to why one and not another at this point.

I haven't watched the video but I've thought the same before so I think he does have a point (in what you've described him saying). Yes, we are currently in a culture that is embracing turning villains into victims and heroes into villains in our entertainment. I remember watching the series Supernatural (silly fun) and noticing that the angels were almost always the bad guys and the demons (including the "king of hell"--not lucifer) were the good guys. I think we would be dumb to think that being immersed in that kind of entertainment doesn't have an impact on how we view the world and who we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to and who we aren't.

I saw a reel where someone was talking about a time that he was pleading for a specific blessing in the temple and a thought hit him that said "If I told you this blessing was never going to come in this life, would you still be here? Would you still serve me?" That thought caught me up short. Do I believe I'm owed blessings and is that the only reason that I do the things I believe God has asked me to do? Is that why trust feels hard sometimes? Those are rhetorical questions that I'm pondering.

I can only see the difference when I compare it to the way that I manage my own children. I know the difference between when and why I intervene on their behalf and when I don't**, but it's not a difference that I've always been able to articulate to my children (or that they have been able to understand even if I could articulate it). So intellectually I get that a similar structure of parenthood is going to exist between God and me. It all makes sense on paper that way. But mentally and emotionally, that really doesn't ever make me feel any better when life is in the thick of it. So while I can see how the differences are there, that knowledge rarely makes me feel any better in the moment. Sometimes after the fact it does but not always. **Obviously there are some trials I would always intervene if I could (and those are the usually the ones where I can't intervene in any significant way anyway)

Agree 100%.

I can see why some might find some logic in this sentiment. That said, my understanding is that before any of us experienced mortality we were given the choice between mortality as we are experiencing it and a mortality where not one of us would be lost. What is your view on why the version of mortality we are all experiencing was more acceptable to you and me than the version where no one would be lost? Was there something that motivated our premortal choice that we are overlooking or did we just choose the wrong option?

A lot of the ire he gets comes from correcting misinformation. A lot of his videos are countering apologists who get things wrong about the Bible. He also does some correcting of skeptics who get the Bible wrong. One example of the latter was a video debunking the idea that Jesus was based on the Egyptian goddess Isis. I think the most backlash he gets is from countering what amounts to political and cultural propaganda that abuses the Bible. This for example: A personal favorite is a response to culture warriors dunking on some people (possibly sarcastically) praying to a non-binary God. Always fun to see some mainstream Christians talk about the incomprehensible God with no physical body and insist that God is male thereby going back to the more ‘primitive’ belief that Jews and early Christians held about an embodied God because they need that metaphor to get angry and scream about blasphemy instead of chuckling at the silliness and rolling their eyes and moving on. Gotta demonize those satanic queer people for the blasphemy of saying something we also believe.

If it’s true that he intervenes at times and not in others, then there “is” no difference, as I see it

Deleted. Changed my mind.

So when asked scholarly questions he should bear his testimony? They could grab any rando LDS person for that. Why would anyone want to listen to that? Accurate. It is not based on a philosophical claim or biblical scholarship. The conclusion is based on how historians operate. They take the data they have from a lot of fields (archaeology, textual criticism, etc.) and try to reconstruct what we can say is probable. Also most of this stuff of sociopolitical issues start with him doing a deep dive into the Bible as to what it says about those issues and he is brutally factual there even when the Bible says something he doesn’t like. Then often shares his thoughts on the issue. I don’t think you have spent any time listening to him. You seem to have built up an image of some strawman “enemy within” apostate who you are bitter about because he disagrees with you about your culture war nonsense. It is a historical conclusion. There is some special pleading here that we should definitely factor in the possibility of the supernatural when reaching historical conclusions when it involves Christianity’s traditional claims but no one is going to bat for the miracles of the other wandering wise men of the period or for miracles credited to being performed by polytheistic deities. It is a high bar but supernatural events have to have a LOT of evidence to prove. That is just how historical research works and the evidence for the resurrection is pretty weak. The resurrection narratives are assumed to be later stories because they are later stories. Yes, the idea that Jesus came back to life was prevalent early and the most likely point of origin for those stories is Peter (and possibly Mary). And cases of people seeing dead loved ones aren’t that rare. The empty tomb narrative is also late. There are a few problems with the empty tomb narrative. The biggest one is that is not how crucifixion victims were treated. They were thrown into mass graves. Now is it possible that someone begged for the body of Jesus and got it? Maybe. Or maybe that was a later rationalization. There was no one controlling the story. Peter was around but how was he going to reasonably counter people getting stuff wrong? He was probably dead before the Book of Acts and the gospels showed up. The Pauline letters say almost nothing about the life of Jesus. As far as we can tell Paul was focused on Jesus dying and being brought back to life and what that meant. Paul had one short time with Peter and the two did not seem to get along. I get the impression Peter just wanted him to just go and evangelize anywhere else. Also, there are lots and lots and lots of papers and books and videos by experts discussing the evidence of the resurrection. He didn’t “elide” that interpretive step. He is in line with most of the scholarship. You really have some perverse need to make Dan dishonest. Your flaw is that he presents the scholarship correctly and it doesn’t confirm your favorite dogma and he should support that dogma because that is what good LDS do. You also personalize this as if Dan is the one ruling it out. No, the historical consensus rules it as very improbable and he passes that along. There are plenty of scholars that will tell you what you want to hear. There are big flaws and a priori assumptions in their work too though so if you want to be consistent you would have to throw them out too. The most common one I see thrown around is claiming that the martyrdom of all the apostles/disciples prove it must have been real because no one dies for something they don’t believe is true. No one is claiming that Peter didn’t believe it. Or James. Or Paul. Also as a technical point Peter recanting wouldn’t have saved him. He and other Christians were reportedly being scapegoated for a crime so him disavowing Christianity wouldn’t have led to him being spared. And the rest of the apostles/disciple vanish from the historical record very quickly and accounts of their martyrdoms only pop up centuries later and many include things like dragons so there aren’t a lot of people taking those stories seriously but some apologists love endlessly repeating that they were all martyred when they won’t defend the only accounts we have of them being martyred. That is pretty dishonest. So you haven’t found a flaw in his schtick. Nor do I think you know enough about the state of the field or what Dan actually does to accuse him of dishonesty and trickery. The stuff Dan says is pretty much what Christian clergy who go to good educational institutions learn to get their degrees. This isn’t hidden stuff. Well…..except that clergy rarely share all this with their congregations for……reasons. Probably reasons similar to why you don’t like what Dan says. To be fair I do have one beef with Dan. Why has he not created a t-shirt with his line, “Leave my trans homies alone” on it? I’ll buy it!

That’s very much along the lines of what I feel like. God gave me the brain and heart (or maybe it’s my eternal nature) to want to care for others and then placed me in a world where I am constantly told it’s good to do so and it is certainly needed, plenty of opportunities. But then I end up with a body that limits what I can do to very little. And even allows me to make uninspired choices by accepting others’ authority who I have been taught I should trust (doctors, parents, teachers) that makes things much worse. So instead others still suffer and I get to see their pain and do nothing. I just don’t see much purpose in it. Whatever I learned from it, I think I got in the first 20 years. I have decided not to be concerned emotionally at least with the why, I am not likely to get answers when better people than I am did not. I do what I can to make the best world in my very little corner of it. Some day it will be over. Maybe even be beautifully magnificent. Maybe not, but I am going to construct my idea of life as if it is. It seems the healthiest way to deal with this reality. Definitely the best for my ego, lol.

This… I don’t understand why people insist faith must inform everything someone says or they don’t have real faith.

And you asked Grok.

Group sex under the influence is extreme enough behaviour potentially dangerous to a woman’s health, both emotional and physical (I don’t know if it’s as emotionally damaging to men given the cultural lessons have been so different for them for eons) that a (preferably written) recorded in some way contract detailing acceptable behaviour (preferably signed) before taking anything mind altering is probably the only thing I see as morally removing the rape aspect. Quoting this comment as I really, really agree with this, but can’t give a rep point because I see the personal stuff as too far….which happens with a lot of your posts. Not telling you to change them. I don’t feel the need to agree with everything I read. The only reason I don’t give thumbs up when there’s personal stuff is I am in a mood to be concerned someone might assume I agree with that. Sometimes I will assume people know me well enough to know when I wouldn’t support such speculation or judgment and rep even with personal stuff. My confidence in others understanding varies over time.

This isn’t rhetorical overuse. It is calling a rapist a rapist because he raped someone. Rapists, bigots, and fascists are all real things, actual people that are these things. If you reflexively assume it is always hyperbole maybe that is an even bigger problem than the potential for overuse. Swatting someone away is a “no”. Being so insensate that all she remembers is being tired is a “no”. The text message was sent by one person. Others of them showed up. That is rapey behavior and it is RAPE to proceed without an enthusiastic “yes”. This isn’t hard. They knew they were taking advantage of her condition like a lot of rapists do. This is often how rape works. You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence. Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct. I find your condemnation facile. I don’t. We are talking about Cornell University where protesting on behalf of Gaza gets you deported while raping someone gets you a remedial essay assignment on why what you did was wrong. I won’t hold my breath expecting any form of justice. And seeking justice from God would involve *checks Old Testament* paying her father a fine and having the first guy marry her assuming she was a virgin. If not a virgin…..no crime committed. So not going to hold my breath there either.

I have found, from a personal perspective. God, helps/aids/assists, in ways that people may not have expected, or in some cases preferred. The end result of God's interaction with people at specific times of need can be deemed a blessing, even if it is not, at times understood.

I would have to watch or rewatch with this in mind to give an accurate and detailed response. It’s been too long since I watched superhero movies. They are not very interesting these days, pretty shallow and unsurprising, too dependent on special effects and not decent dialogue or story. Having said that, going from memory, he has highly simplified in the cases I know about. I might agree with him. I find the Harry Potter movies boring in part because of the way Harry’s breaking the rules is treated. It seems to me he thinks it’s important to put experience and people in a black and white frame to teach morality. I don’t see the female heroes as perfect and limited only by circumstance at the beginning with no actual internal growth. Maybe he is missing subtleties because he isn’t looking for them. Then there is the whole need for punishment. What does that serve? Fear of punishment can teach one to look outside oneself to control one’s behaviour. Feeling responsibility and guilt otoh, that goes with you everywhere. I wonder if he is Christian. If so, has he missed the whole forgiveness arc in the New Testament? Plus how does society punish someone who they are essentially incapable of punishing? Any punishment must be self inflicted at that point, even if it’s sitting in a cell because they choose to submit. What would be punishment for someone with such mental powers. And better than punishment anyway is a life of redemption, something that gives rather than takes away as punishment does. Whether that actually happens or not I can’t remember or don’t know.

I just watched this YouTube video and found it interesting: Warning: The video includes a spoiler to the Green Lantern TV show, if that matters. A Grok summary: A few thoughts/questions: 1. Does this guy have a point? I think he does, but I'm interested in hearing other perspectives. 2. Why do you think this is happening? 3. Is this important? My three favorite fictional heroes are Gandalf, Captain America and Atticus Finch. Two of the three are "pop culture" guys. Thanks, -Smac

This is so unexpected and yet seems naturally like something you would do after interacting with you these years. I love that there is such a person like you on the board because it makes it so much more interesting. You have provided so many more details than I have been able to get before. Thank you. I know you likely do this to satisfy your own curiosity, but wow, it’s so great.