All Activity

I guess you do not quite grasp the fact that she did "rub shoulders" with many scientists on all sides. She definitely has the most profound perspectives than you do. If you had sat still for 9 minutes and focused on the video you would have obtained a faint glimmer of understanding. IF you have room in your brain that is overflowing with trash. You missed the point that it was the California legislature that was forcing lock-step adherence by public schools to "teach" the glow-bull warming hysteria. All part of the effort to make as many school children into drones of the socialist state as possible.

You are a wonderful person; a true believer in Christ. You just can't and therefore don't believe He believes in me as the same, just as I am with no help needed from the LDS church, its authority, its covenants, or its ordinances. Blessings, Navidad

Your "plot holes" that you listed here are interesting. For Augusta Cobb, that is a misunderstanding of her letter. He didn't forbid her from ever meeting with Joseph Smith. He made her promise to never meet with Joseph alone. And the reasoning was because Joseph would overcome her and make her his wife, instead of Brigham. In her letter she talks about how she would rather have been sealed to Joseph since Brigham is ignoring her. And she would rather have Joseph's child. And she also says that she did meet with Joseph (though I guess not in private) and she talks about how Joseph asked for her twice before she is sealed to Brigham. I was actually able to find the transcript of the letter. Page 89 of https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JSP_Book_91.pdf Here's the relevant parts So Augusta Cobb's letter is actually evidence of Joseph practicing polygamy, not the other way around. For Brigham speaking bad about Emma, yes, he was angry with her. I'm not sure how that is a plot hole for polygamy. The two did not get along, especially after the martyrdom and Brigham said some really harsh words. For Brigham openly acquiring wives after the martyrdom, where do you get that? And don't quote #85 from the site since that is not talking about "openly" acquiring. As far as I know, polygamy was still pretty much in secret and only those in the know really knew about it. It wasn't till the exodus that it was openly shown. And, if we ignore the "openly" part, the acquisition of wives actually fits better with Joseph being polygamist. Joseph probably had 18 wives in 1843. That's far more than Brigham ever did. And after he died, Brigham and others married many of the widows. That causes many of them to have higher number of wives than they would normally have. I find Joseph's widows and their pattern (especially the Nauvoo temple records) to be one of the major plot holes for those who don't accept Joseph's polygamy. I've yet to see a good explanation for them. Usually the explanation is that they were under the thumb of Brigham and his cronies and so they had to testify about their marriage to Joseph but that doesn't really fit with the evidence. For instance, Agnes Coolbrith (widow of Don Carlos Smith and Joseph Smith) was living in California and had no more connections with the Mormon church and yet she told her nephews (Joseph Smith III and his brothers) that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy and had other wives (page 5 (or 59) in https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Joseph-Smith’s-Plural-Wives-after-the-Martyrdom.pdf).

I'm not so sure "official doctrine" can ever be neatly contained, summarized or pinned down. I think that likely for Brigham Young, his views were not static and his rhetoric was not either. I think the historical data point to wide spread belief that the highest degree of the celestial kingdom required polygamy and that this was taught (at least at times) by the highest levels of the church and not just rogue local leaders. Lorena's family were among the first to practice plural marriage and were connected to apostles. Their and others understanding of the matter provide data in understanding the complex topic of how plural marriage was understood and thought of at the time. And just for the record, there are many women and men that to this day, view plural marriage as a requirement in the celestial kingdom. As far as I know the church position on this is officially agnostic (but I'm happy to accept corrections). As a reference see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10590_eng.pdf?lang=eng which instructs Nothing of the sort. At least here. Lorena's journey was a spiritual one led by dreams, visions, prayer and faith. She and Bent and Julia made their own decisions. Laying "blame" at someone else's feet for her adult grown up decisions would undermine and cheapen her own life experience.

Not a problem. I do that a lot. I just like to understand how others understand me…at least approximately.

That would depend on how you define Christian and deChristianizing. Most of us as far as I am aware allow the Christianhood of others who believe in Christ in different ways then we do. We might at times believe they aren’t very good Christians or that they have some mixed up beliefs. There are some idiots who talk about others “pretending” to do church and that certainly sounds like pretending to be Christian, but I am pretty sure what is usually meant the few times I have heard this was pretending to have authority, valid rituals, etc, not pretending to have belief.

I'm not sure how acknowledging what the official doctrine was and what local members genuinely believed "downplays" their sacrifice. They sacrificed because they loved God and believed their local leaders. Is it not entirely fair to parcel out what people in an era believed and official doctrine without being accused of undermining either? In any religious movement, grassroots popular theology often expands beyond the official canon. In 1880s Utah, local pulpits heavily emphasized plural marriage as the supreme mark of faith. As a result, many ordinary members like Bent Larsen and Lorena grew up believing it was the only way to the highest degree of glory. Bent Larsen was not a man of means, but local leaders often called and cleared ordinary faithful men, not just wealthy men. You can hold both truths together A. The lived experience of Lorena and thousands like them were taught at the local ward level that plural marriage was mandatory for the highest celestial degree, and they courageously sacrificed everything based on that belief. B. Whereas Brigham Young in the 1869 School of the Prophets to post-Manifesto presidency clarifications maintained that eternal sealing was the essential requirement, and that faithful monogamists who embraced the covenant in their heart inherited full exaltation. Can we be allowed to look at history objectively and hold these two distinct historical realities at once? Or is the driving force behind your argument at its core just a moral indictment of Brigham Young? Maybe you want to lay the emotional, domestic, and physical suffering of Saints like Lorena Washburn directly at the feet of Brigham Young? When you realized that top-level theological clarifications, like Brigham’s 1869 statement, don't support a universal requirement, are you then pivoting by questioning my moral responsibility for what I believe in this matter?

This is dangerous empathy imo, if this is all the info we are given. A great example of it. Now they can both freeze/get hyperthermia and die while feeling comfort in each other’s presence. On the emotional side it is wonderful, being willing to endure with a sufferer so they are not alone. That is love. But it might be stupid love. If that was the only option, that might be the right choice (Is Thomas a father or husband? If he is, does John even want him down there risking his life knowing he is responsible because Thomas gave him priority in that moment because I sure wouldn’t.) There may be times when going in the ditch and suffering and even dying with another is the right thing to do. Not all the time. However, acting like something is harmful to others or suicide when it’s not is ridiculous and self centered. So is abandonment and doing nothing just because the extreme isn’t wise. If no one else would be significantly harmed by one’s death, if it would be a miserable time, but both would survive with maybe some frostbite instead of John dying, etc. Inflating the risks for one’s own benefit is wrong. Making the other into something that doesn’t deserve companionship or comforting is sinful, imo. A healthier version would be to tell Samuel to let John know he went to look for something to help pull him out, though it might take some time. Maybe throw down his coat if that wouldn’t impede him in going for help. Then once help came and they got John out, that is the time to stay with him until he is back able to care for himself. Or if he could trust Samuel to intelligently look for help and not waste time, then Thomas could safely get in the ditch and wait with John until Samuel got back.

You’re right. I misread a phrase in your post and reversed the meaning. My bad.

While it is probably a bit silly to try to gatekeep who is a true Christian I think dechristianizing is less likely to lead to outright cruelty the way dehumanization does. I mean, saying the Cathars weren’t Christians ended up having a similar effect but I think it is less likely to happen today.

I am not sure where you got this. Not following your thought iow. I just posted how it seemed they were complaining how wrong something was (insisting on conversion before engagement) when the other guy did it while acting like it was the righteous, healthy thing to do when they did it (repent first and then we will talk). Which we apparently agree appears to be happening here. I am willing to listen if someone who is doing this believes it’s not. So that might be what you mean…I am open to there being another possibility, though it seems unlikely.

Wow! I will say a hearty Amen to that. Maybe we are saying the same thing. This is how I am putting it:

deleted

I am not looking for a response, but I am wondering if our (LDS and non-LDS Christian) missionary efforts are not at times guilty of "deChristianizing the desire target." I wonder if there is a significant difference between dehumanizing and deChristianizing our targets, especially if we think of it in terms of doing symbolic violence to the other. Both non-LDS Christians and the LDS-Christians deChristianize all others who are not them. This starts out culturally and soon is integrated into doctrine. Then into dogma. Then it may become moral disengagement (I am trying to use that new term), even when it is meant to "advance the kingdom." What could be more justifiable than that? In college, I was president of the Student Missionary Fellowship. As an adult, I served on the International Council of one of the largest Evangelical (uh-oh!) mission organizations in the world. Now as a 77 year old, I look back on all of that and reflect! I don't say any of this to diminish anyone but myself. It is wonderful to be old and to look back and "ponder" on all I have thought, believed, and done. Just my own personal reflection.

I like this analogy of the difference of empathy and sympathy: The Muddy Trench Two friends, Thomas and Samuel, were walking home through the countryside when they came across a neighbor, John. John had slipped off the main path and fallen deep into a muddy, rain-filled trench. He was cold, soaked, and utterly stuck, looking up at the steep, slick banks with a face full of despair. Samuel rushed to the edge of the pit. He looked down at John, shook his head with pity, and said, “Oh, John, I am so incredibly sorry you are down there. That looks terrible. It must be so cold and miserable. I truly feel awful that this happened to you. Stay strong, my friend!” Samuel stood at the top where it was dry, wringing his hands and offering comforting words from safety. This was sympathy. Samuel felt pity for John’s situation, but he remained separated from it, looking down from above. Thomas did something different. Without a second thought, Thomas slid right down the slick, muddy bank into the trench. He dropped to his knees in the cold muck right next to John. He didn’t offer a speech. He just sat in the mud, wrapped his arm around John’s shivering shoulders, and looked him in the eye. “I’m here,” Thomas said quietly. “It’s freezing down here, and it feels completely overwhelming. I’m going to sit here with you in the dark until we figure out how to climb out together.” This was empathy. Thomas didn’t just look down with pity; he chose to enter into John's suffering, to feel what he felt, and to connect with him on his level.

You are assuming consistency and fairness is valued. They complain that all these degenerates are trying to force them to affirm and agree with their views while they are busy privileging their own views. You can see why they dislike empathy. It might make them realize that they are doing what they are accusing others of doing. The old line still applies: “Every accusation is a confession.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_disengagement Short version is that it is a method of convincing yourself or others that moral standards don’t apply in some circumstances. You shut down the willingness to condemn yourself for immoral behavior. You reframe this behavior as morally acceptable or good while maintaining the moral standard as still being good. It just has a bunch of exceptions. It has a lot of forms but probably the most dangerous is dehumanization. When people are being called animals or inhuman or are portrayed as a kind of disease or infection it turns immoral actions into putting down a horse with a broken leg or healing the nation or the religious movement or whatever of a dangerous infection. “illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation.” ”illegal alien animal” ”The woke mind virus” “***** Derangement Syndrome (TDS)” ”LGBTQIA groomers” ”Transgender witches” Denying basic humanity and declaring that people are a disease or an impurity. Christians are specifically susceptible to this kind of rhetoric since the Old Testament is full of it. God spends a lot of time lambasting the Israelites for not genociding hard enough and now the enemy who were spared are corrupting the nation with their weird religious practices and immorality and yada yada yada. Here is a fictional “good guy” justifying destroying a planet to preserve a greater whole:

You can’t talk with someone before they agree with your view of discipleship? Because that seems to me to be what repentance is meaning here. If anyone here holds this view (seems unlikely because they are here discussing stuff with others who follow Christ in different ways, including some who don’t view him as God even if they might agree with somethings attributed to him), would be interested in clarification because it seems identical to what the ones quoted are claiming others are doing when the others allegedly demand “affirm their feelings and choices as valid, justified, and good”, only it is feelings and choices about beliefs of God and how to follow him.

There's a certainty word again - "definitely." I would suggest that if we are looking at conservative as a broad-based adjective examined in its entirety, that in my experience in US and Mexican-based Christianity, Black Protestant Christians and Hispanic Christians may be (notice the uncertainty?) more conservative (overall) than are White Evangelical or non-Evangelical Protestants. The word "Conservative" can be used doctrinally and/or culturally, especially as it relates to the family and revealed truth. In that broad sense, I disagree that Whites out-conservative Blacks and Hispanics. I think that showed up in the last voting cycle and surprised many. My whole life, I have claimed to be conservative in my biblical interpretations (hermeneutics) and liberal in my social values. Being conservative in one does not guarantee being conservative in the other. I think one of the challenges is that we often think we know the "other" better than the "other" knows themselves. That is true from all points of view. Our apriori biases cloud our conclusions, and we would rather not let them go! They are part of our identity, and identity often gives us our purpose.

Isn’t it why people can do bad/unethical things without guilt or shame? Stuff like I was only following orders, everyone else is doing it, it’s not as bad as, etc. Nehor is addressing the form that dehumanizes the desired target if I understood him correctly…answering this to test if I did. I must be bored because it makes more sense to wait till he answers.

Did you read the conversation and what they were referencing. All the books and podcasts they mentioned talking about the dangers of excessive or “toxic” empathy. This one conversation isn’t what started it or the sum total of the movement. While phrased differently the goal of the whole “toxic empathy” thing seems to be that there are some people who are lost and godless. From the Toxic Empathy book: “The erroneous conflation of love and empathy has convinced the masses that to be loving, we must feel the same way they do. Toxic empathy says we must not only share their feelings, but affirm their feelings and choices as valid, justified, and good. This confusion has not only made us a morally lost people but it’s also harmed the very people empathy-mongers claim they’re trying to help: the truly marginalized and vulnerable.” “…someone who doesn’t follow Christ must first repent of their unbelief before they repent of anything else. That means we get to share with them who God is and what He’s done for us before we have any conversation about sexuality and identity.” It is codswallop but buried in there is the idea that the maginalized and vulnerable who are godless aren’t actually marginalized and vulnerable. Once they repent we can talk but until then we have to make sure they suffer so they repent. As if God couldn’t punish the marginalized and vulnerable for their sins without the help of his ‘loving’ followers. It is also showing that those who think empathy it toxic if it is directed to the ‘undeserving’ have no real interest in trying to coexist in a pluralistic society. They want a trump card (pun intended) that they are right and want that reflected in how government functions. “God’s definition of what is good and loving will almost always contradict the world’s definition, which will inevitably put us at odds with mainstream culture. While this is uncomfortable, the sacrifice is worth it. The truth can change lives.” Ignoring the obvious historical ignorance of Christianity being the dominant faith in many parts of the world throughout history we are still left with this pathetic siege mentality of the poor Christians fighting off the godless hordes of mainstream culture and doing this while they control the levers of power. It is pathetic. It does serve an important purpose though. If you are in charge there can be a duty of care to everyone under your governance. If you can still cast yourself as an oppressed minority you can pretend that oppression of others is just a security measure to protect yourselves. You can throw out all Christian virtues in the interest of survival. The old fascist “the enemy is both strong and weak” bit where the opposition is portrayed differently based on what your rhetorical point is.

Can you tell us more about the "moral disengagement hypothesis?" I have never heard that term. I think I like it, but want ot know more.

So NPR generalizes from one conversation to a whole class of people. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Love the certainty. What you are claiming is like saying there are cat dogs for sure, but not every cat is a dog. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are two entirely different species of Christians, who have spent more time at each other's throats (metaphorically speaking) than they ever have at other brands or species of Christianity, including the LDS. Evangelicals migrated out of Fundamentalism in the 1940s and have never looked back. Fundamentalists have demeaned Evangelicals for their migration and have never even tried to mend the fence, or bridge the gap between them. You talk like you think cats and dogs are two points on the same continuum. Perhaps they are both four legged carnivorous mammals. That is as close as you can get. The closest metaphor I can think of is that you are saying that there are FLDS LDS Christians for sure, but not every LDS Christian is FLDS. I don't think that would make sense to either an FLDS or an LDS Christian. Yet, it is said out of a lack of knowledge of the true distinctions between them. Now, if you were to say there are conservative Evangelicals for sure, but not every Evangelical is a conservative, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. If you said there are liberal Evangelicals for sure, but not every Evangelical is a liberal, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. Words matter. I would be much less welcome to give a talk in a Fundamentalist church than I would be to give a talk in an LDS sacrament service. I might not be welcome in either depending on the LDS bishop, but at least in the LDS church that would be a local decision. Fundamentalists are pretty united, in my experience and knowledge, in their opposition to the reprobate Evangelical.

She is on a mountaintop somewhere and you are not?