SeekingUnderstanding

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.

I really have no time so will just respond here. A woman is invited to someone’s home by a “friend”. She is given a mind altering illegal drug by this friend. After taking this drug her “friend” texts 50 of his closest buddies that she is sexually available. Do you disagree with these facts? To me, these facts alone are at the very least rape adjacent behavior. I think these facts alone are so reprehensible, that these young men deserve 100 percent of the shame and scorn sent their way. I think that these types of behaviors should be discouraged and public scorn is one of the best tools to do so.

Hi @smac97. I don't have a lot of time for this, so let me just sum up one last time. This woman's friend enticed her to come over to a frat party, gave her ketamine for the first time, then invited her to have sex. He then publicly blasted over 50 of his closest friends that she was sexually available for them upstairs. Is this a rape case that is winnable in court? I doubt it. Due to rape culture, even the "perfect" victim's rape case is a tough sell in court. Am I comfortable saying that those men participated in rape or at the very least rape adjacent behavior. Absolutely. Am I fine with them having public consequences for their actions here? Absolutely. I think these types of public shaming is one of the only potential ways to drive changes in bad behavior of this kind. Men should be terrified about having any type of non-consensual sex. It seems that you disagree. Here is you over and over: You are working really, really hard here to make sure everyone knows that if you twist sideways and squint, offering a drugged up woman to 50 of your friends could possibly be just fine. "Must" these messages be read that way? No. But that's the plain english most likely thing that they mean. What's further disgusting to me is what you do next though. You work really hard to ask must we read the texts as rape, trying to give every benefit of the doubt. In the next breath, you aren't asking any more. You are telling us what we have to do. We must: So the "friend" does damage control right after. Supposedly you know all about rape cases having done work as a lawyer and a bishop. And yet you know nothing about how common this is. An abuser doing damage control right after. And a woman downplaying the abuse right after. https://cptsdfoundation.org/2025/06/05/fawn-response-the-trauma-survival-pattern-thats-mistaken-for-kindness/ So we must take those texts at face value. And then you ask must we really read the frat texts as advertising rape? I can't read this as anything but "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture". Will the Cornell kids get charged and convicted of rape? Almost certainly not. Do they deserve the public shame that comes with having their names associated with this forever? Absolutely. A last note pointing to your equivalence here. We have a drunk young woman invited to a frat house by a friend. The friend gives her mind altering drugs that remove any ability for her to consent to anything. The "friend" then texts his 50 closest friends that she is sexually available for all of them. This situation is simply "allegation alone" to you. Really?

Does this take into account recent apologetic Early Modern English arguments?

Since you are bringing it up, are you aaying you have worked with rape victims as an attorney? Representing them in court? I thought you were a property law kind of guy. Or perhaps your clients are the ones accused of rape? I think you pay entirely too much attention to what can be proved in a court of law to the evidentiary standard there. The reasonable doubt standard is a high bar to clear and rightfully so. It means that many many guilty people will also go free to avoid unjust imprisonment. It's not the standard by which people do or should live their lives when interacting with others. Yes, if only we could talk about the rape of our daughters, sisters, wives, friends and family with dispassion. That's the ideal we should all strive for. Yet you defend the text thread, and the men accused. The text thread ignores the consent of the woman and offers for free what is not theirs to offer. You claim rape culture doesn't exist, and you condone it with the same breath when you defend the text thread. This is just the latest version of "what was she wearing" so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. "She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped." Who cares? People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it.

That’s because you break apart posts to an extent where you lose the forest for the trees. That’s because you, as you have demonstrated over and over in threads like these, don’t have the foggiest idea how sexual assault normally occurs, is reported and treated. This is despite the repeated kind efforts of women in these threads trying to educate you. Every single person in that text thread was at a place where a woman’s consent was treated as inconsequential and secondary to a man’s desire. It’s exhibit ‘A’ in rape culture. Yes. Yes. The fact that you don’t see them as such means you are part of the rape culture problem. And if I was involved in an incident with this much supporting evidence, I deserve everything I get. Sure. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath. I could only wish your views weren’t the prevailing ones in American society. I don’t care who people decide to have sex with and I think blaming hookup culture for rape is rape culture exhibit ‘B’.

What if I prefer fried eggs over raw?

Good. Whether or not they can be criminally held responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no doubt based on the snapchat thread alone that they should not have their reputations permanently tarnished. Presumption of innocence is great for the state, but other institutions need not be bound by it. Any person that is on a text thread offering free passed out p***** and take no action to stop or report it, deserves to have their reputation permanently tarnished. That is damning enough for me to think that each individual at the very least on that thread should be named and kicked out of school for a start. Men need to be more afraid of supporting rape culture than they are of being "bros". Consent for sex isn't given by other men in a snap chat thread. Full stop, end of story. No further information needed as far as tarnishing their cherished white male reputation. Put a stop to rape. Report the conversation. Get the woman help. Stand up for her rights as a woman? Not support rape culture. Well here you are defending the rapists, so <shrug>. I think you mean rape culture. It's the culture that makes young women doubt themselves after they've been raped. It's the culture that tells them to look inward and repent for their wrong doing in contributing to their rape. It's the culture that says she agreed to a threesome at a frat party so why should we tarnish everyone else that raped her after. It's the culture that asks how many drinks she had or what she was wearing etc. The culture that urges a girl not to ruin someone else's whole life for a little mistake.

Well depends on if you identify as a Latter-day Saint. Pew uses self reported identity. "The church’s retention rate also has fallen over this time span. About half of Americans who say they were raised as Latter-day Saints still identify as members of the church in adulthood (54%), according to the 2023-24 RLS. That retention rate has steadily declined since 2007, when it stood at 70%."

Here is the relevant line correct: "They do become Y if the act is not procreative or not strengthening the union between husband and wife." And it's just circular. Your interpretation of your church leader's interpretation of gods will says opposite gendered marriages are ok and same gendered marriages are bad. It doesn't matter if particular sex acts are procreative. It doesn't matter if the couple can have kids. So appeals to biology are specious. All that matters is that the sex acts occur between married opposite gendered people because god said so.

I'm circling back around to this. Are non-reproductive sex acts ok between married opposite gendered people? Is it ok for a husband to perform o*** sex on his wife so that she can orgasm? How does this fit in your sexual ethic? What about opposite gendered a*** sex? What about opposite gendered mutual masturbation? These acts do not generate. They are biological dead ends from a procreation stand point. They have no reproductive purpose or possibility. Are these acts ok in your sexual ethic?

The gender of the participants is not what marriage is. Your interpretation of your religious leader's interpretation of thier god says it's important, but that is not "reasoned”, it's declared and accepted. We've determined that procreative capacity has nothing to do with it, because it doesn't matter if the couple engages in procreative sex, is past menopause, uses birth control etc. What is important to you, is your interpretation of your religious leader's interpretation of thier god says only opposite genders can marry. That is not reasoned but declared and accepted. So is the reproductive status, acts and genders of the participants. Except, your interpretation of your religious leader's interpretation of their god says only opposite genders can marry. That is not reasoned but declared and accepted. I have yet to see a distinction made that doesn't boil down to "your interpretation of your religious leader's interpretation of their god says only opposite genders can marry." It doesn't matter if the couple can have kids, wants to have kids or anything else. We've already demonstrated that you don't actually care about this. If science tomorrow created a way for gay people to have biological children it wouldn't change a thing. It boils down your religious leader's interpretation of their god says only opposite genders can marry. I don't think the genders or the race of the participants are important. They are on the same level to me. It boils down your religious leader's interpretation of their god says only opposite genders can marry. The parody does assume they are interchangeable. Because they are. Marriage serves the exact same role for married lesbians as married straight people. It serves the same role for infertile and fertile people. It serves the same role for black and white people. It serves the same role for people that participate in reproductive sex acts and non-reproductive sex acts. Except for you because your religious leader's interpretation of their god says only opposite genders can marry. Still waiting to see it. Here is what I see. You believe in God. God said each kid needs a Mom and a Dad and marriage and sex are only for opposite gendered people who are married. That's it. I mean we tried to go back and forth on the biology one. You said "as a reproductive act, it does not cohere" but apparently you have no problem with opposite gendered people participating in sex acts that are non-reproductive even if they do so exclusively. Further post menopausal woman still get to have sex even though as a reproductive act that doesn't cohere. Your fine with Jackie having sex even though she has XY chromosomes and as a reproductive act that doesn't cohere. So what's left? Your religious leader's interpretation of their god says only opposite genders can marry.

Are we talking about biology or "ordinary speech—body, rearing, identity"? Or perhaps "ordinary, legal, and social sense?"

I don't think black people should be able to get married. Because they have black skin. I'm not prejudiced against them, I just have a sexual ethic where children should be raised by non-black people. Don't worry though I have really good black friends and I don't think they are any less of people. I just have a rule about an act and an institution.

I'm sorry, but you’re the one using biology as a “reason” to discriminate. You're the one hell bent on saying sex and gender are one and the same and defined soley by gamete size. Jackie in your world view is a biological male and sex sex and gender are the same (I thought) you’d say she was male. To quote you "Biology militates against same-sex behavior. It is a genetic dead end. The plumbing does not work. Sex utterly and categorically lacks any procreative capacity or intent or purpose. Zero. Zilch. This is unlike heterosexual sex, which categorically does have procreative capacity and intent and purpose...." People with CAIS have internal testes and therefore are a genetic dead end. Is that the "reason" for the discrimination against gay people or not? Perhaps it's just a paper thin wrapper on a religious directive after all. And this is so bizarre from you: So there is an ordinary, legal, and social sense about being a woman and mother that transcends biology? Who would have guessed. Glad to have you on the record here. Referring to "identity" Wow.

And these are the easy ones. What if Andy and Abagail only enjoy o*** and a*** sex in their marriage. Is this ok? Most women can't reach orgasm from reproductive sex. Are acts that help them orgasm ok? Even though they have nothing to do with reproduction? What about Jackie Blankenship. She is a male according to SMAC. Born with internal testies and complete androgen insensitivity. Assigned female at birth. Married her husband and used surrogate to have a child. Is she depriving her daughter of a mother (since in your SMAC’s world view she is male)? @smac97 "reasons" are a paper thin wrapper around a religious edict.

I think it's important to carefully frame what we mean and I likely did not do that. From a certain perspective, every organism is just a machine built around a set of unfeeling uncaring genes. These machines are the result of a never ending arms race whose sole "purpose" is reproduction. I use purpose here loosely. Whichever genes evolve the best machinery reproduce and survive into future generations. Those that produce poor machines don't survive. I don't think that is a view that any person or organism holds day to day when viewing and deciding what has meaning in their life. For me sex is about fun, closeness, intimacy, love and connection. Are these things evolutionarily advantageous? Probably, but I don't really care. And I don't think most people do. My biological machine has evolved apparently to care very much about those things and care very little about the survival of the species. On a personal note, sex's purpose in my marriage would be very poorly described as about reproduction. have six children. Due to fertility issues only three were conceived "naturally". The other three were produced in ways that were very divorced the sexual act.

So this is poorly worded according to you. What you meant was: Therefore it’s bad? Because your “reasoned” approach seemed like you were appealing to biology. But really this is just sneaking in your earlier proposition that God says it’s bad. Because non reproductive acts are bad because god says so. I assume you apply this uniformly. When heterosexuals participate in non reproductive sex acts (oral a***) are these bad too? At any rate the reasoning here boils down to my interpretation of my church leaders interpretation of gods will says it’s bad.

@smac97I'm sorry, but I just can't with this lol. I'll try with the first part. You said: It's also "bad" because it is biologically incoherent. I said: Same sex relationships exist throughout nature. They fulfill many biological imperatives, like companionship, and love. Your response: And yet you appeal to biology to prove your morality. You say it's "biologically incoherent", therefore it's morally bad. I'm not saying it's morally good because it exists throughout the animal kingdom. Only that your claim that it's biologically incoherent is patently stupid and false. Things in biology serve more than one purpose all the time. Same sex behaviors in the animal kingdom (including humans) fulfill many biological imperatives. You do realize that biological organisms have more than the single purpose of reproduction right?

This is just patently stupid. Same sex relationships exist throughout nature. They fulfill many biological imperatives, like companionship, and love. Which brings us to your next fake objection: We've already determined that even if we gave Same sex couples the ability to produce biological offspring, that wouldn't change your view on anything. So this too is a fake objection. The vast vast vast majority of sex lacks any procreative capacity. Birth rates alone show that the vast majority of couples engage in birth control. People continue to have sex after menopause, tubal ligation, and vasectomies. Sex's primary purpose for humans then is connection and companionship. It performs this primary role equally well regardless of what parts a couple brings to the picture. In a tiny tiny fraction of instances it also produces offspring. But again this can't be your objection because even if we gave same sex couples the ability to produce biological offspring, that wouldn't change your view on anything. Who cares? There are many things in the constitution that are good and right. Many that were wrong. Slavery for instance. Another bad faith argument. You've conceded that even if the children of same sex couples were better off in every category it wouldn't change your view of the matter. This is the same thing. God says it's bad. There is no refutation of this "reason" This is kind of hilarious in a thread about surrogacy and how you think gay people shouldn't be allowed to have families. Again the vast majority of sex (like 99.9% for a couple that has two kids and has sex once a week for 40 years) is not procreative. There is no question or quiz for people getting married about whether they can or are able or are willing to procreate. Marriage as an institution and concept is severed from its procreative aspect already. And again all of this is a fake objection because you've admitted that even if gay couples were able to produce biological offspring that wouldn't change anything for you. And none the above matters. It's been hashed and rehashed on this forum ad infinitum.

Where can I read more about this? So I agree there is no revelation on the records of the church for the priesthood ban. But Young sure seems to go beyond opinion and invoke his prophetic mantle when he says this: "if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it."