All Activity

In terms of LDS people, it may be the word itself that people are rejecting to due to their political affiliations, but not (yet) the concept itself in their every day life. Hard to say.

This seems to be an exercise in excuse-making. We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years, and the slow poison has worked its way into the two most conservative religious populations, white evangelicals and Latter-Day Saints. White evangelicals are probably a lost cause at this point, but I don't think the same is true of LDS people.

That’s strange to me. While charity does not require empathy, LDS have the highest rate of both volunteer hours and financial donations (outside their own community as well if iirc) They also send their kids out to serve in communities for different from their own and encouraging seniors to go as well. Then there is how we view other religious groups in the most favorable light even while being low ourselves. I wonder about the wording and whether they measured it as a principle or a behavior. It is possible we have a hard time relating to others while still caring a lot. Known lots of LDS like that including my dad, the most charitable man I have run across when it came to helping out.

Your original post is more than a little deceiving. Answering both statements in what you consider to be the negative is not determinative of "not valuing empathy." Furthermore, nowhere does it define what they mean by Evangelical. As an Evangelical, I value empathy, but perhaps also not highly enough to respond positively to both statements, especially number 2. I am very uncertain as to what it means by "a society guided by God's truth." You would have to tell me a lot more before I would affirm that statement. What does the author of the statement deem to be God's truth? Do you believe that everyone in society should be guided by "God's truth" as determined by Fundamentalists? By the doctrine of the LDS Church? By non-Christian concepts of God's truth? All society? Everyone?

"Calumny" is the act of making a false, malicious, or unverified statement about someone with the explicit intent to damage their reputation. People who go around announcing "All Muslims are 'potential' terrorists" or "All gays are 'potential' pedophiles" or "All Black men are 'potential' rapists" are making a per se prejudiced statement. Hence there is no falsity or lack of verification. And since I am attempting to persuade others to abandon this terrible sentiment, my critique of it has not been malicious. My objection to "all men are potential rapists" is based on reasoning, not on emotion. I object on similar grounds to "All Muslims are 'potential' terrorists" or "All gays are 'potential' pedophiles" or "All Black men are 'potential' rapists" and such. Would you endorse these categorical denigrations? Or, if you disagree with them, does that make you "emotionally defensive" about them? I do understand that. I just haven't seen much in the way of "a reasoned and evidence-based" approach to this topic. As it is, all you and yours have done in terms of "disagree{ing}" with my assessment is to label me a rape apologist. That is neither reasoned nor evidence-based. It's just ad hominem. “All men are potential rapists”-style claims are prejudiced because they attribute a serious moral failing or criminal propensity to an entire demographic category on the basis of sex alone. That framing treats men as a homogeneous group defined by risk rather than as individuals whose actual conduct, character, and choices vary widely. It substitutes group membership for evidence about particular people, which is the same logical structure used in other forms of stereotyping that are routinely recognized as unfair (e.g., treating members of any other large group as inherently dangerous or untrustworthy because of the actions of some subset). Most men do not commit sexual assault; the claim therefore overgeneralizes from the behavior of a minority and applies a presumption of potential guilt that would not be accepted if directed at other groups (such as Muslims, gay men, black men, etc.). The result is a collective characterization that is both factually overbroad and ethically inconsistent with judging people by their own actions. While at BYU I dated a woman who had served her mission in Marseilles. She told me that she harbored a strong and pervasive distrust and dislike of all Muslim men because she had had numerous unpleasant experiences with some Muslim men while serving as a missionary. I appreciated the impact of her - as you call it - "lived experiences and exposure to" some Muslim men in Marseille in the early 90s, but I don't think she was justified in harboring prejudiced sentiments against the entire category of all Muslim men everywhere. Different lived experiences and base-rate information are worth discussing. The difficulty is when that discussion collapses into a collective characterization of “all men” as potential rapists. That framing is not simply a heightened individual caution based on evidence about particular people or situations; it is a group-level presumption. Treating an entire demographic as inherently risky on the basis of sex is the same structure of stereotyping that is recognized as prejudiced in other contexts. Statistics about sexual assault, false reports, underreporting, or post-incident behavior can and should be examined carefully; they do not require or justify assigning potential criminality to every member of a sex. The presumption of innocence is a legal rule that governs the state’s power to punish. Outside that setting, people routinely make risk-based decisions about association, business, and trust on incomplete information. That is ordinary prudence. What is not ordinary prudence is converting incomplete information into a standing presumption that applies to an entire class of people. One can decline to associate with someone who seems sketchy without treating half the population as sketchy by default. This is not remotely accurate. It is a substantial falsehood and mischaracterization. I did nothing of the sort. The language in those disgusting texts is ambiguous, hence not "plain language." On the texts and the group chat, the request was not that they “must” be read as fully exonerating. The point was that they are relevant evidence that undercuts the narrative in the civil complaint and that they should not be set aside or reinterpreted solely to preserve the accusation. Applying ordinary evidentiary standards—looking at what was said, when, and whether it is consistent with the later account—is not “calumny.” Calling a group-level presumption about all men “prejudiced” is an evaluation of the logical structure of the claim. Those are different exercises. One can acknowledge patterns, risk, and imperfect information without adopting a categorical rule that men, as a class, are to be regarded as potential rapists. Thanks, -Smac

Lorena wrote, "We were taught in those days that there was no way to get to the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, only by plural marriage." Sure, small southern Utah towns during the 1870s and 1880s (St. George, Monroe, Orderville), leaders heavily emphasized plural marriage as the pinnacle of devotion, local speakers simplified the message down, and many Saints may have believed plural marriage was necessary for the highest exaltation, because that was the dominant local cultural narrative preached from the rural pulpits. However, official clarifications by Church, even Brigham Young himself, Joseph F. Smith and Wilford Woodruff, at that time affirmed that faithful monogamous couples inherit exaltation. Apostle John Holman argued that no one could achieve Celestial glory without taking multiple wives and Brigham Young directly corrected him and shut the debate down (Recorded in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Sept 25, 1869). Brigham did feel it was sin to entertain feelings against the doctrine, meaning rebellion against God's revelations, or refusing a priesthood calling for selfish reasons. A monogamous man who lived faithfully and accepted the restoration, including the revelation "in his heart" was completely acceptable, a man who rejected the revelation or refused an assignment out of rebellion was the one under condemnation. The Discourse by Joseph F. Smith July 1878, "We are not under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times..." Let's not conflate what local Utah Saints felt and understood in 1880 with either Section 132 and what 1880 official doctrine of the Church actually required. Lorena Washburn Larsen’s autobiography is an incredible historical document. Lorena’s accounts do actually demonstrate the historical dynamics I have been outlining. Lorena repeatedly turned down proposals, and her father supported her right to do so. Lorena didn't seem obligated into sealings. The men proposing to Lorena were prominent local figures, a bishop, a Co-op store president, a merchant who had plenty of means, and a future county judge. This fits the precise pattern of established, financially stable men who weren't necessarily proposing spontaneously, someone was suggesting specific women to men in the ward whom they believed could provide for them.

Politicians trying to control the narrative….where have I heard that before

Are you saying people that talk about "all men are potential racists" are bigoted? I thought you were above such calumnies. If you weren't so emotionally defensive about this issue, you *might, just might be able to understand that people can look at the same facts on the ground in a reasoned and evidence-based manner and disagree with your assessment. This disagreement might stem from different lived experiences and exposure to other information that they feel is more important here. Things like the likelihood of made up allegations vs the likelihood of sexual assault. Studies and personal experience with how perpetrators reach out and do damage control immediately after knowingly violating boundaries and how victims often downplay their own victimhood. These are all reasoned and evidence based things that can be studied. If you weren't so overwrought with emotion here, you would actually be able to acknowledge this. The presumption of innocence is important to you, and it is very important feature of legal system. When adjudicating social behavior and how we judge and interact with others, it's not the only useful and rational way to interact with the world. This has been explained to you over and over. If I think someone is sketchy, I'm not going to do business with them or associate with them. I'm not going to wait until they are convicted of a crime. Your first post here instructed us as to how me "must" read the victim's texts as exonerating the accusers ignoring other reasonable interpretations. Your first post here asked us to set aside the plain language of the snapchat group chat and read it in a more charitable light. Why are you allowed to call the women here bigoted for explaining that they must view all men as potential rapists, but pointing out your strong preference in reading the facts here in support of the men a "calumny?"

Ah. So it's a political poll, more than a religious one. "Empathy" might well have been seen by respondents as being used in a political context, more than a religious one. "Empathy" = open borders, lax-to-non-existent enforcement of immigration law. "Empathy" = full-throated endorsement of elective abortion, on demand, for any reason or no reason at all. And so on. The framing of the questions, then, do seem to be questionable. I find this to be substantively unhelpful. The two statements are not logical opposites. Someone can hold that empathy is generally foundational and that it can become dangerous or distorting when it pulls people away from other moral commitments (truth, justice, long-term goods, etc.). A forced choice between them collapses that possibility and turns a continuum into a binary. Asking the two items separately (with standard agree/disagree scales) would almost certainly have produced substantial overlap—people strongly endorsing both. Thanks, -Smac

Why is being dispassionate on a social media website important?

I too was curious. See here for analysis: https://prri.org/research/darkening-mood-and-shifting-political-loyalties-ahead-of-midterm-elections-findings-from-the-2026-american-values-survey/#_ftnref6 And here for the apparent source question: https://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026-AVS-W3-Topline-V4.pdf

How do you define the term? Dictionary.com: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another." Can a person be "empathetic" about people wanting to come to the United States and still feel that secured borders and enforcement of immigration laws are good ideas? Or does "empathy" require, in your view, not merely the "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another," but also the acquiescence to and endorsement and validation of those emotions/thoughts/attitudes? I truly understand why so many people want to come to the U.S. I nevertheless want them to come here in compliance with our laws, not in violation of them. I appreciate and respect the idea that a pregnant woman may want to not carry her pregnancy to term. I can do that and still disagree with the elective killing of that baby. I can empathize with the Cornell "Jane Doe" and still seek to dispassionately evaluate her allegations of sexual assault. Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if the survey defined "empathy." I think its parameters need to be defined and contextualized and depoliticized. Too many facets of society have, to varying degrees, conflated "empathy" with "agreeing with my sociopolitical ideology and preferences." For example, people wanting a strong and secured border and enforcement of immigration laws may be accused of lacking "empathy" by people who do not want these things. Another: A person who is opposed to elective abortion may be accused of lacking "empathy" for women by people who are in favor of elective abortions. Conversely, this latter group may be accused of lacking "empathy" for unborn children by those opposed to elective abortion. And so on. I am sort of curious about the poll. There are two statements, but only one graph totaling 100%. I would have answered "Strongly Agree" to both of those statements, but the poll results seem to limit respondents to responding one or other other. Am I missing something? Again, I would like to see how "empathy" is framed for the purposes of the poll. Perhaps so. More non-dangerous empathy all around would be a good thing. There are dangerous and unhealthy manifestations of "empathy," though. Weaponized empathy occurs when someone exploits another person's compassion, kindness, or emotional impulses to manipulate, control, or advance a self-serving agenda. Instead of acting as a bridge for genuine human connection, empathy is used as a tactical tool or defense mechanism. Politicians and political actors do this all the time. Similarly, suicidal empathy is a term popularized by Canadian behavioral scientist Gad Saad in his 2026 book, Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind. Saad defines the concept as an inability to make rational or survival-oriented decisions because an individual or society is conditioned to prioritize emotional empathy or victimhood over logic, self-defense, and cultural preservation. The theory claims that progressive political and cultural elites have "hijacked" human empathy, miscalibrating moral priorities so that offenders, fringe groups, or outsiders are favored over law-abiding citizens and traditional values. Examples: Open-border or permissive immigration frameworks are cited as primary examples, which critics of the concept argue compromise national security and dilute local cultural norms. Criminal Justice: Proponents of the term claim that modern justice systems coddle violent criminals or prioritize the perceived hardships of perpetrators over the safety of victims. Lindsey Clancy. Oi. Privilege Guilt: The mindset is often attributed by its defenders to "privilege guilt" among affluent, educated Western populations who seek moral absolution through uncritical tolerance. Lindsey Clancy. Oi. I hope the Latter-day Saints can embrace empathy in the form in which God intended, and also that they discern and resist efforts toward weaponized/suicidal "empathy." Interesting. Thank you for sharing.\ Some further thoughts: Arguments for the notion that empathy is a Christian virtue Scripture repeatedly calls for entering into the experience of others. Romans 12:15 instructs believers to “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” The Gospels portray Jesus as moved with compassion at the sight of suffering (e.g., Matthew 9:36; 14:14; Mark 1:41), and his His mortal experience itself is the ultimate act of God entering human experience. The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) and the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:31) presuppose the ability to imaginatively grasp another person’s situation and needs. Many Christian ethicists treat this capacity—often labeled empathy—as a practical means of fulfilling the law of love. Christian tradition has long valued “compassion” (literally, “suffering with”) and “mercy.” Empathy can be understood as the psychological or affective component that makes genuine compassion possible rather than merely formal or distant. Arguments against the notion that empathy is a Christian virtue The Bible never uses the modern psychological term “empathy.” Its central moral vocabulary is love (agapē), compassion, mercy, justice, and truth. These are oriented toward the objective good of the other person and of the community, not toward the subjective accuracy or intensity of one’s emotional mirroring or adherence to or rejection of particularized sociopolitical objectives. Empathy, as commonly understood, is selective and partial. It tends to favor those who are most similar to us, most visible, or most skilled at eliciting emotional response. Christian love is commanded even toward enemies and the unlikable (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27–35). A virtue that systematically favors the near and the appealing is therefore incomplete at best and distorting at worst. When empathy becomes the governing moral criterion, and when it is not centered on objective good, it can override justice, truth-telling, and the long-term good. Scriptural examples of moral courage (e.g., the prophets confronting Israel, Jesus cleansing the temple, Paul’s rebuke of Peter) often involve actions that would register as low-empathy in the moment yet are presented as righteous. Christian ethics subordinates feeling to right action ordered toward the ultimate good. In short, Christians widely affirm the duty to be moved by and act for the suffering of others. Whether the modern concept of “empathy” is the best name for that duty, or whether it introduces distinctive liabilities, remains a point of disagreement. Thanks, -Smac

Empathy is a traditional Christian value, which the opponents of Christianity have rejected. You don't seem to understand what the word means.

Yes. Her perspectives are MUCH higher than yours. She has been interacting with many sides and knows the whole story. Here is her review of her career (9 minutes and 25 secs) - - - Here is an article from six years ago on California legislature attempt to control the narrative - - - https://www.frontpagemag.com/proposed-ca-legislation-would-mandate-climate-sara-dogan/

Active Latter-Day Saints who have a good understanding of their religion know that empathy untethered to justice and accountability before God is all too often taken as a green light to persist in destructive sinful behavior. There can be no true mercy unless the appropriate and necessary measure of justice is placed into the opposing cup on the scale.

From the results, it seems like "empathy" as understood by those responding, might be more of a non-Christian value than Christian. It appears that the Christian value of good will and the need to love our neighbors includes a balance that recognizes that loving everyone cannot blur the distinction between good and evil behaviors which we might discover among those for whom we are called to love. Unconditional love and good will to all? Yes. But that cannot mean unconditional approval of every possible kind of human behavior.

I am make a concerted effort. I don't think you and most other participants can say the same. I don't even think you guys are trying. I've been watching a mob-rage-induced rush to judgment all the way. I think that is a mistake. First, your statement's references to "perpetrators" and "victim" begs the question. You previously referred to "the alleged perpetrators ," and I think that is more apt. Second, I do not favor the frat members. I find their licentious behavior to be depraved and reprehensible. The issue is whether the evidence - most notably Jane Doe's contemporaneous statement in 2024 and her text messages - indicates that their behavior amounted to nonconsensual sexual contact - rape. Right now there is real doubt about whether a prosecutor could even get an indictment on the evidence, let alone a conviction. Third, if a sufficient measure of inculpatory evidence eventually accumulates, those found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (as I noted in my first post: "I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law"). Sexual assault and abuse is one of the most evil things that exist in our society, and it needs to be taken very seriously. Fourth, you have described yourself as a "full blown pervert." If you, in behaving in ways that demonstrate this self-appellation, were ever accused of crossing the line into nonconsensual behavior, I think you would suddenly have all sorts of appreciation for the presumption of innocence, and for people who decline to do what you have done here, namely, disregard the evidence and go with a mob-rage-induced rush to judgment. I think you might even request that bystanders fairly and dispassionately evaluate the evidence. Thanks, -Smac

Interestingly enough, it's possible that some of the earliest creation narratives actually started with Noah and the Flood. The flood itself is described in terms akin to the waters of chaos covering the earth at the start of Genesis 1.

Indeed that is a possibility, and also kind of the point I tried to make a few times in my previous posts (and perhaps failed to get across. My bad). The original figure wasn't my attempt to provide a particular proof of a particular timeline or lineage. It was my own private attempt (originally) to understand how different textual traditions developed and understood different patriarchal narratives, including Joseph Smith, but also the Yahwist, Priestly and other redactors of the Hebrew Bible.

I hope that won't put you off from reading it. It's one-sided with short sections as it's meant only to be an introductory reading of the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't polygamous and that polygamy wasn't of God. It's very open right there in its intro paragraph that it is an introduction (so it doesn't go in-depth) and that it's intention is to make the introductory case for Joseph's monogamy and monogamy-only doctrine: "These section points are meant to provide a basic foundational understanding of the narrative that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, together with the elementary case for plural marriage as a whole to be rejected as doctrine." In its last section, it references the Further Study page for more in-depth and nuanced study, including Whitney Horning's book which I think is over 400 pages long. As an introduction site, it's actually rather long -- I think it's about three hours to read. If you were to insist that it should "show both sides" then it would be at least twice as long at that, which simply wouldn't work for one webpage. As far as giving an overview goes, it's rather comprehensive, and reading this site first serves to be a good jumping off point to dive in deeper to the topic afterwards, which this site recommends people do by providing the links for the further study materials itself: 110. 'What if I'm still not yet convinced?' Many aspects of early Mormon polygamy are more complex and not easily addressed by simple Question-Answer format. Deeper understanding of this narrative, with important and relevant details of Joseph Smith's life and ministry, can be gained by accessing the listed content on the Further Study page. Additional theological arguments against polygamy, integrated with the psychosocial evidence showing polygamy to be a harmful practice, can be found on the sister website linked below, titled, Monogamy as Divine Design. Also seek confirmation of the truth from the Lord in prayer, as "by the voice of the Spirit ye may know the truth of all things," and as Joseph Smith read, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." historicalmonogamy.wisxite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

A recent survey on empathy found that white Evangelicals care the least about empathy, followed by Latter-Day Saints. Although LDS people scored low, white evangelicals scored by far the lowest. A symptom of America's recent moral decline. I hope LDS leadership can shore up the Christian value of empathy among church members even as radical extremists try to poison their followers against this traditional Christian value. https://religionnews.com/2026/10/20/an-empathy-gap-divides-americans-ahead-of-the-midterms-say-prri-report/ "Religious groups were also split. At least two-thirds of most major religious groups said empathy “is a foundational moral value for a healthy society,” as did 83% of religiously unaffiliated Americans. White evangelicals were the least likely to name empathy as a foundational social value (42%), and more than half of white evangelicals (54%) said, “empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.”

In order to make things neat and tidy we diminish their sacrifice. BF Larsen on his mother Lorena said: (emphasis added by me)

I received my copy from family. Do you have a familysearch account? https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/memories/KW8P-5HR search for autobiography

That is a masterclass in selective source reading.