SeekingUnderstanding

It seems like you are making Dan an offender for a word: "Resurrection is another thing that, from an academic point of view, that's a physical impossibility. And so without extraordinary evidence for that, there's no way a scholar can say 'Yes, this makes sense,' because it doesn't. It violates everything we know about the operation of the universe. So the bar for that kind of evidence is even higher, and we don't have data that come anywhere near getting us over that bar. So from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is not something that is supported by the data." It's exactly the same claim that you are making. "Without extraordinary evidence" there is no way someone that uses the historical critical method can confirm a miracle on the order of the resurrection. He lays it out. Much pithier than you I might add.

Which part of this do you disagree with? Resurrection is another thing that, from an academic point of view, that's a physical impossibility. And so without extraordinary evidence for that, there's no way a scholar can say 'Yes, this makes sense,' because it doesn't. It violates everything we know about the operation of the universe. So the bar for that kind of evidence is even higher, and we don't have data that come anywhere near getting us over that bar. So from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is not something that is supported by the data. Can you point me to the academic study of resurrection? The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, who was probably an apocalyptic itinerant preacher, who probably preached against the Roman Empire, and preached the coming of the Kingdom of God imminently, and was executed because of it. And then we have Jesus' followers afterwards spreading stories about him coming back to life and ministry before leaving again. Are you saying this isn't the mainstream academic view of critical biblical scholarship? Like what exactly is it about this paragraph in particular that you took the time to quote that you have an issue with. Which words go against what the church teaches? Why is it that Dan's chosen profession (making critical biblical scholarship accessible to the masses) bothers you so much?

Then yes. This is actually great advice is some circumstances. If I had a single friend that just won 100 million in the lottery, then the advice that people approaching him/her are all potential gold diggers is probably great. If I was an attorney advising a very wealthy client (whose wealth is well known), I’d give the same advice. Do you disagree?

Again if you were listening or understanding, that would be "All women are **potential** golddiggers" based on the nearly universal experience of all men having countless unpleasant experiences with women in relation to money issues. And if all that was true, it would parallel the issue here.

A person who understood what is being said, would be incapable of making this argument. This is not a disagreement, but you fundamentally not understanding the argument put forward. How in the world could you possibly believe that " the objection to “all black men are potential rapists” is that it is an over-broad, prejudicial character claim that ignores individual variation". You are not listening. You are not understanding. It appears willful and belligerent at this point.

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:

If you weren’t so emotionally wound up around the wording here it would be obvious. Here are just a few of the experiences (with some details slightly modified) of just one woman I know: As a teenager, was followed repeatedly by man driving car while walking dog around her neighborhood Older brother of roommate at BYU (was RM and AP on his mission) repeated cornered and one time pinned her down while expressing interest in her. Study abroad in Europe host dad (from conservative family who had hosted women before) sexually assaulted her Man pretending to be Uber driver asks her to get in car while in hot tub at business conference with several female friends, was groped under the water by strange man While at a different business conference man broke into her hotel room while she was sleeping Attending concert random stranger grabbed her butt At family reunion trusted family member spied on her in shower I could go on and on. This is just one woman and just some of her many many traumatic experience experiences with men. The men might be strangers. They might be friends. They might’ve been known for years. It really is traumatic. Now it’s your turn please provide the shared traumatic experience that would lead you to say all gay men are potential pedophiles. I’ll wait.

I'm curious for yours and other Latter-day Saints thoughts. Latter-day Saints believe that abortion should be permissible to protect the life of a mother. Some woman have been told by their physicians that any future pregnancy is very likely to be life threatening. My mother was told this after five c-section deliveries and chose tubal ligation. Given that no form of birth control is 100%, if these woman choose to continue to have sex with their partners, should they be allowed abortions? Since they are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter?

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)