All Activity

I suppose us oldies will be relieved of walking across the house and when we get to where we were going; it seems like we should remember why we were going there?

There is a list. There are seven attributes of the resurrected bodies of the just. The unjust have only the first three attributes. 1) Identity, "Resurrected bodies will retain their original identity; we will be essentially the same persons as before we died." 2) Integrity, "Resurrected bodies will retain all of the parts of their old bodies – resurrected bodies will be complete. This property or condition is called integrity." 3) Quality, "Our bodies will be youthful and will retain our original gender, a condition called quality." 4) Impassibility, "We will be immune from death and pain, a condition called impassibility." 5) Subtlety, "Our bodies will be free from restraint by matter, yet palpable. This is a property called subtlety. To St. Thomas, subtlety means perfect subjection of the body to the soul." 6) Agility, "We will have complete freedom of movement, our souls will direct our bodies without hindrance." 7) Clarity, "The glory of our souls will be visible in our bodies. We will be beautiful and radiant, a property called clarity." ---copied from the following website: https://thoughtfulcatholic.com/on-the-resurrection-of-the-body/ #4 is obvious to all. #'s 5 and 6 might seem similar. #5 One would not be hindered from passing through solid objects. But because such a body would be palpable, made out of matter, the soul would also be able use matter in the way we are accustomed at this time. I don't think we know how this operation of subtlety would work. Will the just have some kind of control over matter, or will it consist in control of one's body? #6 Movement could be instantaneous, or at least light speed perhaps! It seems like instantaneous. I say that because of someone who might like to explore the physical heavens. If it were only e at light speed it would seem to take almost forever to finish seeing things. Of course, time doesn't exist anymore. There are so many more questions that these proposals raise. It can be edifying to ponder any of them. Each are so full of mystery, and prompt questions to wonder about. This seems like an inkling of what would be in store, but it is revealed that it hasn't entered our thoughts or hearts what God has really prepared for those who love Him. Which is the greater motivation for behaving ourselves before God? Would it be the fear of being one of the unjust, or the desire of being among the just. I know belief in both hell and heaven continue to be factors in making me try to be better. How often do I put these things out of mind? Often. Daily. Praise God for His mercy and love towards us. The list above was written by a webmaster who took them from St. Thomas Aquinas. If you don't know, in the articles of the Summa Theologica, Thomas tries to avoid straw men by first listing some reasons why his eventual proposition might be in error. It can be pretty dry reading. There are good summaries of the Summa that are more accessible to the ordinary faithful. Obviously, non-Catholics will not necessarily accept any or all of these. But one should at least be able to recognize and respect the intellectual rigor which he poured into his entire works. When at the end of his life, he called his writings straw, we do not think he was saying his work was erroneous, but rather was acknowledging how that it lacked the brilliance of a single glimpse of what heaven is really like.

She has it: I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that. I have some surmises about why. And here: I both understand and agree with this sentiment. What I find objectionable and problematic is framing it in the abjectly prejudiced and circumlocutory "all men are potential rapists" slogan. Respectfully, we are each free to post as we like, within the confines of the board rules. I understand what she is saying. I am objecting to cloaking it in "all men are potential rapists." I don't think I have been dishonest in my prior posts. Thanks, -Smac

? : (

This is essentially word for word what I said. I acknowledge that. What you are quoting is from my effort to "steelman" your position, not to express mine. Thanks, -Smac

This is essentially word for word what I said.

I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension. I do. I disagree with expressing it using the "all men are potential rapists" slogan. I'll let you explain yourselves. I'm glad to hear that. Well, I'll give it a go. The strongest version of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment is to not take it at face value, not as a literal claim that every man will commit rape or that most men are one bad day away from doing so. It is a risk-management and pattern-recognition argument that runs roughly as follows: Women (and girls) face a non-trivial, asymmetric risk of sexual violence from some men. The large majority of sexual assaults are committed by men; the large majority of victims are women or girls. Because the cost of being wrong about a particular man is high (physical harm, trauma, long-term consequences) and the benefit of being maximally trusting is comparatively low, a rational person in a high-stakes environment will treat unknown men as carrying elevated risk until specific information reduces that risk. In this framing, “potential” does not carry its normative meaning, such as “likely” or “predisposed.” Rather, it means “capable, and the base rate is high enough, relative to the severity of the harm, that default caution is warranted.” The same logic appears in other domains: we treat unknown packages as potential bombs in certain settings, unknown dogs as potential biters, or unknown drivers as potential threats on the road—not because we believe most of them will cause harm, but because the downside of misplaced trust is severe and the information needed to rule the risk out is not yet available. Proponents often add that ordinary social cues and self-presentation are unreliable filters. Many men who commit sexual assault are not obvious outliers in everyday interaction; they can appear normal, charming, or low-risk until they are not. Therefore, individualized assessment is frequently unavailable in the moment, and a coarse, sex-based prior becomes a practical substitute for missing information. The claim is defended as descriptive of a precautionary heuristic rather than as a moral indictment of male nature. In short, the steelmanned position treats the statement as a shorthand for “the combination of base rates, severity of harm, and limited real-time information makes default caution toward unknown men a rational strategy for personal safety," or, more succinctly, “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," and not as a claim that all or most men are latent rapists. Again, you seem to be conflating disagreement with misapprehension. My surmise is that you are okay with expressing abjectly prejudiced things about men as a category, but not with expressing abjectly prejudiced things about gay or black or Muslim men as a category. This despite the fact that both statements are abjectly prejudiced. It would be interesting to see if you could reciprocate the "steelman" effort. The above steelman improves on the crude slogan by recasting it as a precautionary heuristic grounded in base rates, severity of harm, and limited information. Even in that stronger form, though, several problems remain. 1. It still overstates the base rate relative to the language used. Sexual assault by men is real and asymmetrically distributed, but it is not common enough that treating every unknown man as a meaningful threat is a well-calibrated prior. Most men never commit sexual assault. A heuristic that is useful in narrow, high-uncertainty settings (walking alone at night, accepting a ride from a stranger, being alone with someone who has already ignored boundaries) becomes misleading when generalized to ordinary social and professional life. The steelman keeps the original phrasing’s implication of broad applicability while the actual risk numbers support only limited, context-specific caution. 2. “Potential” does more work than the steelman admits. In ordinary language, saying someone is a “potential X” (potential murderer, potential thief, potential terrorist) is understood as a warning about latent disposition, not merely “capable in the abstract.” The steelman tries to deflate this to pure probability, but the original claim retains the stronger connotation. If the intended meaning is only “the base rate is non-zero and the cost of error is high,” clearer and less inflammatory and prejudicial language exists (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution”). The slogan is chosen because it conveys more than the steelman can justify. 3. The analogy to other risk heuristics is incomplete. In ordinary life we do not treat unknown packages as potential bombs, unknown dogs as potential biters, or unknown drivers as potential threats. We apply those heuristics in elevated-risk contexts or after specific cues. Extending a sex-based prior to men as a class, across most interactions, is a much broader generalization than the analogies support. It also ignores that women commit sexual offenses at non-zero rates and that many assaults occur in settings (home, party, acquaintance) where the “unknown man” prior is less relevant. 4. It underweights the costs of the heuristic itself. Treating an entire sex as carrying elevated default risk imposes real costs: social distrust, chilled ordinary interactions, reputational harm to men who have done nothing wrong, and the reinforcement of the very essentialist thinking the steelman claims to avoid. These costs are not symmetrical to the risk being managed. A heuristic can be directionally correct about relative risk and still be a poor policy once its collateral effects are counted. The steelman largely ignores this side of the ledger. 5. Better alternatives exist that capture the valid core without the overreach. The legitimate insight—base rates differ by sex, information is often incomplete, and the downside of error is high—can be expressed through ordinary situational awareness and individualized precautions without a group-level character claim. Examples include heightened caution in specific environments, attention to boundary-testing behavior, and targeted responses to concrete information (an arrest, a pattern of conduct, ignored refusals). These preserve the protective function while avoiding the false implication that men as a class are latent threats. In short, the steelman converts an inaccurate and prejudicial slogan into a more defensible risk argument, but it still stretches the data, retains misleading connotations, applies the heuristic more broadly than the analogies allow, and neglects the costs of treating half the population as a suspect class. The valid precautionary point can be made more precisely without those defects. -- Why do you think proponents of "all men are potential rapists" don't go with the less inflammatory and more directly descriptive sentiment along the lines of “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution?" Is it possibly because "all men are potential rapists" is a form of socially acceptable prejudice? The more precise formulation—“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution”—is accurate, actionable, and hard to object to on factual grounds. The fact that many proponents prefer the stronger slogan suggests the slogan is doing additional work beyond risk communication. Several overlapping motives may be in play: 1. It functions as a moral and status claim, not merely a safety heuristic. “All men are potential rapists” places men, as a class, under a cloud of suspicion and moral defectiveness. That is a different speech act from “base rates differ; adjust behavior in specific contexts.” The stronger version expresses condemnation and asserts a kind of group accountability and culpability. In environments where expressing negative generalizations about men carries little social cost (and can even signal virtue or solidarity), the inflammatory phrasing is available and attractive. 2. It is more useful for intra-group signaling and boundary enforcement. The less-inflammatory slogan (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution") efficiently communicates allegiance, seriousness about the issue, and willingness to reject “both-sides” or individualizing caveats. Softer, more accurate language can be read as insufficiently committed or as apologetics. Once a framing becomes a marker of in-group status, accuracy is often subordinated to the signaling function. 3. It lowers the evidentiary bar for suspicion and reduces the need for individualized judgment. If every man is already a potential rapist, then ordinary caution, discomfort, or an accusation requires less additional justification. Boy, we are really seeing this in reactions to the Cornell story. No need to maintain the presumption of innocence. No need to dispassionately examine all the evidence. The precise version of the sentiment still requires the listener to distinguish situations, look for actual behavioral cues, and treat most men as low-risk. The slogan collapses that distinction and makes default distrust (and dislike?) easier to maintain and defend. 4. Social permission is asymmetrical. Broad negative generalizations about men (especially in the context of sexual violence) are widely treated as acceptable or even insightful in many academic, media, and activist settings, while equivalent generalizations about other groups are not. This asymmetry creates an incentive to use the stronger language: it is low-cost to the speaker, high-impact on the target, and rarely punished. That is the operational definition of a socially tolerated prejudice. And I think it has been on display in this thread. 5. Precision can be rhetorically inconvenient. The accurate statement (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution") invites follow-up questions (How disproportionate? In which situations? What about female perpetrators? What is the actual prevalence?) and allows for disagreement about the proper scope of caution. The "all men are potential rapists" slogan short-circuits those questions. It is harder to engage without appearing to minimize the problem, which is strategically useful if the goal is moral pressure rather than calibrated risk reduction. So the preference is not primarily about better describing the risk. The readily-available and more precise version (“sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution") already does that. The "all men are potential rapists" slogan persists because it also serves as a vehicle for group-level moral judgment, in-group signaling, and the normalization of a form of prejudice that currently faces little social resistance. If the intended message is something like “sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so certain situations warrant extra caution," you and yours could just say that, and I would fully agree with it and endorse it. That you don't, and that you instead go with the obviously intentionally provocative and inflammatory "all men are potential rapists" suggests, to me that there is something else in play. That's my take, anyway. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. I'm making mention of it based on what is written in D&C 132. I figured "virgins" would be the context of what Joseph F. Smith said too. If elders should marry non-virgins, why would verses 61-63 specifically mention only virgins?

I think we should refrain from prejudice in everyday life. I also think we should regularly utilize common sense and situational awareness, but I don't think that requires us to view half the population of the planet as latent rapists. The latter. This decision is not based on abject prejudice against all men everywhere, but is instead based on a calculated assessment of a specific situation. A police arrest must be based on "probable cause," meaning that a reasonable person would believe—based on specific, objective facts and circumstances—that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or that evidence of a crime is located in a specific place. Situational awareness is about managing real, context-specific risks without converting statistical rarity into a character judgment about an entire sex. “All men are potential rapists” is a character judgment. Noting that a small percentage of men commit sexual violence and that certain environments or behaviors raise risk is ordinary prudence. The first treats men as a suspect class; the second treats particular situations and particular people as warranting caution—the same way we treat countless other low-probability but high-cost risks. Telling your kids to be cautious around a neighbor who has been arrested for child sexual abuse is ordinary prudence directed at a specific and known and evidence-based risk. The first collapses individuals into a suspect class; the second treats a concrete piece of information the way any responsible parent would, regardless of the neighbor’s sex. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you

A response that completely misses the single coherent point of my post (again!). If you actually understand the point that I, Calm, Mustard, Bluebell etc are making, please let us know. Please explain why we feel it's valid for woman to say "all men are potential rapists" but not ok to say "all gay men are potential pedophiles". You don't have to agree with the sentiment. But please explain why we feel one is ok, but not the other. Steel man the opposite side. I dare you. Because this post here shows you don't have a clue:

Back to Jane Doe's allegations. A Grok summary: I am curious as to how you folks feel about this seemingly exculpatory evidence. Does it alter your assessment of the case? Why or why not? So the case was taken away from the original prosecutor and assigned to Letitia James, who proceeded to make an ethical muck of things, and who may be "shopping for an outside independent prosecutor." This does not look good. I agree with this sentiment. I wonder if any of you feel there is "political pressure" in this case, particularly given public statements by Gov. Hochul and Ms. James. I agree with the evidentiary assessment. I have less to say about James. The two attorneys in this clip (from Grok) : Matt Murphy's take is more persuasive to me overall. Thanks, -Smac

My objection to prejudice is that it is inherently irrational, and that this particular expression of prejudice is unfair and damaging to society. That is a reasoned critique, not an emotional one. And none of the "go{ing} on and on" would justify the plainly prejudiced statement that "all men are potential rapists." With some men. The vast majority of men do not commit rape. From earlier in the thread: Thoughts? I believe that. But I don't think you would say this if the topic were "all black men are potential rapists," and then justified this categorical statement by pointing to a woman of your acquaintance who had endured improper behavior by a few black men. And I think you would not say this because, in the end, characterizing all black men everywhere as "potential rapists" is plain prejudice. Same goes if someone came along and presented a litany of abusive experiences at the hands of a few gay men. I don't think you would go along with "all gay men are potential rapists." You will be waiting a while. I would never make such a deplorable, abjectly prejudiced statement like "all gay men are potential pedophiles." Thanks, -Smac

"And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day". The Church's seminary manual states "At the time of Christ’s Resurrection, all of the righteous who had died before Christ were also resurrected. The wicked who had died still await their resurrection (see Moses 7:53–57; Mosiah 15:20–24; Matthew 27:52–53)". Would this mean Stephen (the first martyr) may have been the first to enter spirit paradise after it was emptied at Christ's resurrection?

He won't find any mainstream scholars arguing that Jesus thought marriage would continue in the eschaton.

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing that Jesus was an ascetic who required strict celibacy. I'm giving you the framework showing that Jesus did not value family relationships over celibacy, that his view was an immanent apocalypse, and that he understood as marriage as not continuing on beyond this life. All three of those are standards of New Testament scholarship. The "like the angels in heaven" is your clue that Jesus did not think marriage would continue past this life. Other important passages include his praise for those who abandon wives and children to live Jesus' lifestyle.

Where did you get this quote? Because the 2 sentences aren't related. @Zosimus shows the screenshot from Gospel Truth, volume 2, chapter 8, page 98 and it doesn't contain the first sentence. It only contains the second sentence. And the original source for the second sentence can be read at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Conference_Reports_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints/Sixty-Eighth_Semi-Annual/Discourse_by_President_George_Q._Cannon,_delivered_in_the_Tabernacle,_Salt_Lake_City,_Wednesday_Afternoon,_October_6,_1897. The first sentence is in the section above (same page but different section titled "The Indians to Build New Jerusalem"). Its source is "February 1, 1895, JI 30:75-76" which you can find at https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/d7c4b6cc-8bd8-44e2-940e-7c8a502e5e46/0/0. It is the "Topic of the Times" section, "The Indians" subsection.

Not the same story, I suspect, since my conversation with Mom was late 60’s most likely. It has probably happened many times to church members over the decades unfortunately. The way I remember the story is there was never any doubt she was choosing what she did, the focus was on her cheerfulness and willingness. But it’s been 55 years, so who knows.

If it is the same story, it was in the Ensign. Maybe around 1997-2000? I don't remember when exactly, but I remember the couple being prayful about it and choosing that. It was a very tough choice for them.

I think sometime before I became a teen, but maybe afterwards, Mom told me sometimes it was harder to live for someone than die for them. She had almost died a couple of times in her life, including as a child and had long lasting complications from them that she had to work hard and constantly to maintain a functioning body, so I think she had a decent background for her claim. We had just gotten home from church where someone had related the story of a mother choosing to put off cancer treatment because of being pregnant and leaving behind a young baby and several other young children because of her choice…or maybe it was in the church magazine that month. She was not dismissive of the sacrifice, she just thought recognition of what women (and men) had to do to live for their families should be praised as well. I do remember quite a few faith promoting stories of mothers dying for their children, how Christ like that was. Not much about how Christlike was washing dirty diapers while puking your guts out or fixing meals you can’t eat, etc. Mom taught me to look at the day to day stuff as marvels of love and charity and sacrifice, acceptable to God as much as giving up your life…it actually is just a different mode of giving up your life, most of the time not as permanent though. I have been thinking about this stuff off and on since then. My own health and seeing how it affected my children and husband has added another dimension to it. I also have several in the family who have struggled to get pregnant with heartbreak and joy as results. It is one of the most complicated discussions, imo, in the here and now. So many high value conflicts of life changing needs, not just desires. Implications pretty much expand into every nook and cranny. PS: I won’t be offended if anyone thinks I am wrong headed about this. While I feel strongly about certain aspects of it, others I could easily change my mind about…like new data on how soon a fetus experiences the world in a complex way. And I could change my views as medicine becomes more adept at saving premies’ lives if our society takes on that role without leading to the family having to constantly worry about bills now or in the future, so the parents and extended family can just concentrate creating a good home, whether their own or through adoption. And I would definitely be there for much stronger limits if society was stepping in to support children rather than withholding because of a need to hold parents accountable (if that is truly needed, another way that actually works that doesn’t punish children as a side effect needs to be found).

Cal. Hi. You always put so much loving thought into your beliefs. May we meet in a happy place of peace. I won't say more until then.

I also had very high risk pregnancies and know the pain of losing a child. I knew that I had 3 children coming to me before they were born. Had I been faced in the situation of my life or the life of my first pregancy I would have made it a matter of prayer. Knowing I had 3 children, there is a chance, being prayerful I would have chosen my life to go on and trusted God with my first pregnancy. I made it a matter of prayer with the second child of whether to have one biologically or adopt. The answers were clear I should have one. If we came to the choice of me or that pregnancy I would made it a matter of prayer, but there is a chance the prayful answer would have been to choose my life to go on because my first child, a little boy, needed me. The same with the third pregnancy. Before my 3rd c-section we reminded the dr so many times about doing the tubal ligation and any other thing that could be done because we were confident that I wouldn't make it through another pregnancy. But there have been times since then that I have thought about what I would do if I got pregnant despite having surgery. Again we would have made it a matter of prayer and trusted the Lord and there is a chance we would have chose my life over a pregnacy while my children were still young. And maybe when they were older too. I no longer believe in the church, but still feel the same - we don't know God's whole plan for us or our children. We don't know when my first pregnancy truly became my son and the same for the other two. Our whole life has been filled with prayer, being willing to do what He wants and trusting Him. I'm happy to let other women work with God without me thinking I know better than they do about their own situations and I trust that God loves each of his children and has a plan for them, no matter how far they got in this life and how they left it.

Thanks cal. You are always so generous.

This is logical given the understanding of the soul and sin.