SeekingUnderstanding

Do you think it is fair to say "Every gay man has a latent pedophile waiting to escape in the right situation, ergo there is nothing wrong with saying that 'all gay men are potential pedophiles?'" you can't make this stuff up.

dup

What’s the consensus among those who have looked at the research? Is it him?

Beating a dead horse here, but... A Jewish survivor of the October 7th attack, survives kidnapping and abuse, lives with PTSD every time she sees a Muslim in public and says that in her lived experience "all muslims are potential terrorists" A native of the West Bank area is continually harassed by masked Jewish settlers, beaten and threatened with violence while just trying to live their lives says that in her lived experience "all settlers are potential terrorists". A woman, that time after time is harrassed, threatened, assaulted by men both strangers and friends says that in her lived experience, "all men are potential rapists". For me, I recognize that I don't worry when I run alone five days a week. My heart rate doesn't go up with a woman approaches me. I don't stack chairs by the door of my hotel room to prevent someone from entering. I don't worry about my personal safety. That position however is a position of privilege. You don't listen and don't care, so you don't care to hear that woman aren't saying every man has a latent rapist waiting to escape in the right situation. Rather, they are explaining their lived, shared, traumatic experience that every experience with a man alone is like being alone with a potential rapist. That they have to take precautions, have thoughts, and worries every single time a man approaches. And for good reason.

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.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

I think the best way to determine what was taught is by looking at what people who lived in that era believed and understood. By your own reckoning apostles were teaching that it was required. The belief it was required was wide spread and must have come from somewhere. Lorena entered into it soley based on that belief: And yet she married a Norwegian immigrant farmer. He left a year after their marriage and left Lorena and her sister wife to provide for themselves while he returned to Norway on a mission. Later they struggled immensely as Bent (her husband) went to prison (for plural marriage), they lived underground, and eventually Lorena raised her kids as a single mother as she was the second wife. Bent Larsen (her husband) was not well to do or a pillar of the community. He was not a man of means. Just a man who had unquestioning faith (not using that in a derogatory sense) in what he was taught. Understanding what they were willing to sacrifice and why is undermined by downplaying their belief as local leaders simplifying the message.

This is exactly the point I was trying to (inadequately) make.

I can't go along with this. "Illegal alien" is a legal term. "Illegal migrant" is already a kindness (since they are, in legal parlance, "aliens" and not "migrants"). From Grok (asking about a distinction between "illegal alien" and "undocumented migrant") Illegal alien is a legal term. “Illegal” is a derogatory slang term to reduce a person to their immigration status.

And yet your dispassionate assessment has omitted this fact in every post. As for very common you could have kept reading, but if you were indeed well read and informed on this topic as you claim you’d already know

I am unaware of any definition of empathy out side of right wing talking points that requires acquiescence to a policy point of view. I will say that some points of view are inherently unempathetic. For example describing a 20 week fetus as a clump of cells. Or calling undocumented migrants “illegals”. Or saying that the law of chastity impacts gay and straight people equally. Or saying religious people are delusional. This does not require one to adopt an anti-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-gay rights, or pro religious stance.

At a minimum a dispassionate evidence approach would require that you at least acknowledge that downplaying sexual assault by a friend is extremely common. So if we “must” acknowledge her text thread we “must” also acknowledge her realization later. We “must” also acknowledge how common it is for this exact thing to happen. Since you view me as an emotional wreck and you love chat bots here is Claude: “When rape or sexual abuse is perpetrated by a friend how common is it that the victim initially downplays the assault” Claude: “ It's very common. Researchers call it "unacknowledged rape": the person's experience meets the legal definition, but they don't label it rape. Prevalence: A 2016 meta-analysis (Wilson & Miller) found roughly 60% of people who experienced rape didn't initially call it that. Earlier work by Mary Koss found around 70% in college samples. Exact figures vary by study and how questions are worded. Friends and acquaintances: Downplaying is more common when the perpetrator is someone known and trusted than when it's a stranger. It's also more common when there was alcohol, no visible physical violence, or no physical resistance, because those cases don't match the "stereotypical rape" many people picture. Why it happens: Common factors include wanting to preserve the friendship or social group, self-blame, fear of not being believed, and not wanting to see a trusted person as someone who would do this. Calling it "a bad night" or "a misunderstanding" can be a way to cope. Over time: Many people re-label the experience later, sometimes months or years afterward, often after hearing others' stories or learning more about consent. Downplaying isn't a sign the assault was less serious or that someone is lying. If this is about you or someone close to you, I'm happy to talk it through or help find support.”

I too dislike the question set up. I can’t understand the second viewing, though with the definition of empathy like the following: How can empathy lead people away from God’s truth? I was taught that God perfectly understood shared and experienced all through the atonement. Wasn’t it empathy that led religious abolitionists to reinterpret the Bible when it comes to slavery? Empathy is the ability to understand, share, and experience another person's feelings, thoughts, or point of view. It allows you to see the world from someone else's perspective rather than just your own.

This is not remotely accurate. It is a substantial falsehood and mischaracterization.

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?"

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

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

These types of posts always trigger me. So I have polygamous ancestors everywhere in my family tree. I found out recently on this board that Lorena Washburn (my gg-grandma) was featured extensively in church publications. She wrote an autobiography. Lorena was one of 8 children born to a second wife. She wrote: Further she spoke of the sacrifice entailed: Her son BF Larson (who was well educated and led the fine arts school at BYU) later recalled: Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did. This just highlights the impossibility of the commandment. There was certainly no shortage of men trying though to indicate there was some high bar you had to pass. Lorena records being courted by countless married individuals started as young as six or eight: Here are more proposals: Another a week later: She writes of more but one of note. A young man she turned down as a first wife later came back to ask her to be her second: There doesn't seem to be any shortage of men approved for a second wife, rather there is a shortage of women available to be plural wives. And just because not everyone makes it to the " into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom" doesn't mean it wasn't taught and understood at the time that plural marriage was the requirement to gain entry there.

FWIW Dan explains why he is a full tithe payer: https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2026/10/20/why-i-tithe/

Wolf in sheep’s clothing is inherently lying.

Like calling someone a lying subversive wolf in sheep’s clothing?

So I've seen a lot of Dan's videos over the years. I can't mind read, but my mental model of him is thus: (for the very little that it's worth) Dan views religion as a faith based affair. It's a personal interaction and negotiation with God and with scripture and with our fellow humans. Leveraging personal religious beliefs to control others is bad. Claiming that the "data" prove "my" religious belief system is right and "yours" is wrong is bad. Leveraging religious beliefs to marginalize the weak and afflicted is exceptionally bad. Showing how critical mainstream biblical scholarship views the bible is the theme of his social media work. Just as the "data" don't prove Krishna created the universe, critical biblical scholarship shows they don't prove Adonai (Dan's term for the god of the old testament) doing so either. We shouldn't privilege our personal religious beliefs to show how much better we are than anyone else. We are stumbling through the dark just like everyone else. Every single harsh take Dan makes on social media is against someone leveraging their personal religious beliefs to go after or look down on someone else.

Yes, you are very comfortable calling Dan a liar by being a wolf in sheep's clothing: Very good objective assessment just dispassionately sticking with the facts there. Except there is a bit missing from your quote isn't there. What's hiding in the "..."? Here is Dan: "As long as I have supporters and detractors across the entire spectrum, I'm probably sitting in a sweet spot. I'm probably doing something right if I'm offering reasons for people to remain faithful and reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful." So good work being able to objectively decide that Dan is actually lying when he represents his positions but then bending over backwards to defend the frat boys offering "free p****" to their 50 closest friends. You do you.

I think it is interesting that you vociferously defend the Cornell frat boys from rape adjacent behavior (posting paragraphs and paragraphs), but you feel free to mind read and cast aspersions on someone here that you disagree with philosophically.