SeekingUnderstanding

I’m upset. I was watching a COMPLETELY unrelated video on twitter when auto play jumped right into a closeup video that showed him bleeding out within a fraction of a second. Disgusting and horrifying.

It looks like Cox is confirming this. I know that conservatives feel mocked, and scorned by the left. I know Christians in the United States feel persecuted. But I wonder if there is anything quite like the anguish someone who is gay or trans feels when the persecution comes from friends and family (those closest around them) when they come out. Persecution that is greatly amplified by rhetoric like Kirk’s. Like I’m legitimately wondering. We’ve had a poster here say they feel absolutely gutted by it. What’s the equivalent?

I can’t help you with god since I don’t think she’s there. But I hate this for you. It’s vile. It’s one of the biggest reasons my wife and I left it behind. I hope you find peace and solace.

Especially the way it went down. Cox was holding a normal cautious press conference while Patel was live tweeting a play by play. I hate this timeline.

It's just depressing. Between cable news and social media I'm not sure we all survive this as a country.

From the same interview: ” 'I couldn't care less', Trump says about division within the country The president, when asked about how we “fix the country” or “come back together” after Kirk’s shooting, says that he “couldn’t care less”. “The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime, worried about the border,” Trump says. “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy”.

Kash Patel FBI director: https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1965903392934633587 “ The subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody. Thank you to the local and state authorities in Utah for your partnership with @fbi . We will provide updates when able.

“They”<tm> sure seem to be unhinged. Social media is so toxic and bad for society. It’s almost like people make money off of making people upset and outraged 😢🤔

The direct corollary would be a group of dissaffected catholic bishops posting online about their purportedly traumatic experiences in the Catholic conclave. Noticing this, the WSJ talked to them and published their experiences. I think the intent is not necessarily to get forbidden information at all, but rather to discuss why people found it traumatic and why they are all discussing it online.

But the intent doesn't have to be mockery, disrespect, or any of that. It can be as simple as, you no longer have any control over my life. You scarred me and now I claim the things that scarred me and can do what I want with them. Authority is part and parcel with the message. The publicness of it is an explicit rejection of the authority that led Grefell to exclude her grandmother from her wedding for example. I think this is pretty extreme, especially since Grefall is using clothing she owns and obtained without deception. A better analogy? A controlling husband coerced his wife to do a boudoir photo shoot for him (featuring only herself). After separating, the wife decides to post the photoshoot to the world. The ex-husband objects. Claims the photos were only for him and he still has authority over them and they can't be shared.

I think it’s your right to frame it that way, and it might be true and it might not. If I as a white secular white guy went and acquired a hijab, then dressed up a dummy in the hijab and burned it - that would be disrespectful. If an exmuslim woman that experienced trauma that she associated with the hijab decided to burn her own former clothing? I wouldn’t see that act as inherently disrespectful at all.

I haven’t read the WSJ article since it’s pay walled. I have seen the temple clothing picture however, so will limit my remarks to that. First, I think any former Latter-day Saint needs to (and almost certainly does) understand that Temple related content will be extremely offensive to current members. That said, I have a hard time understanding why you don’t think that people like Grenfall have just as much right to those clothes and rites as you do. Grenfall was forced to change out of her wedding dress and into a temple dress because it was a shade too creamy. She (and many other that have left your faith) have felt trauma from the temple rites (my niece was bawling and never went back to church if I understand correctly). Grenfell feels regret for excluding her elderly grandma from her wedding. And she posed for the WSJ in the actual clothing she was married in. Why doesn’t she have the right to take ownership of her pain by showing *her temple clothes. Why do you have more ownership of those clothes than her? Cunningham’s analogies fall laughable short: ”There is a long, public record of how mainstream outlets (including the Journal) handle other traditions’ restricted rites: with restraint. When Catholics choose a pope, reporters don’t slip cameras past the Swiss Guard; they acknowledge the sealed conclave and cover the smoke and statements, not the oaths inside the Sistine Chapel (see the Journal’s own recent explainer and history features on conclaves and their secrecy: here and here). When monks on Mount Athos bar women from entering their all‑male peninsula, the Journal writes about the place and its rules—but does not break them (book‑review coverage). When Muslims perform the hajj, the paper uses official vantage points, not undercover intrusions; its recent reporting on the devastating 2024 heat deaths shows exactly that kind of distance and care (news report and video). In other words: consent is the difference between a tour and a trespass—and the Wall Street Journal knows it” Grenfell didn’t sneak a camera in and film the wedding ceremony or endowment rites. The WSJ didn’t publish that. They did publish a picture of Grenfell in *her* wedding clothes that she owns. Is it offensive and considered sacrilegious by those who believe? Sure, by many of them. But that doesn’t mean that offense and sacrilege are the motive for printing it.

I don’t mean to doubt (haha) what you are saying, but how does this work in reality? The world is filled to the brim with competing and mutually exclusive ideas and truth claims. It may be true, but I have a hard time understanding how you don’t treat Islam’s truth claims with skepticism. Or a naturalistic world view. Or one that embraces Ancient Greek gods. That’s not bad or wrong. And for me all I’m saying is that doubting your doubts is not a virtue. Belief in a particular world view is not a virtue. Doubts are opportunities to grow, self examine, and perhaps change should change be warranted.

Put scientifically, data that doesn’t align with the current best theory / model might be user error vs a need to throw out the entire model! And everyone should be biased to be skeptical of new data (or doubt) that upsets a longstanding model or theory that has a long history of working well.

Everyone has bias. The question is what is our goal? Is the goal to maintain our current beliefs? Or to find deeper truths? If we view doubt as a fault and belief as a virtue, then change is impossible. If we view doubt as an indication that something in our current network of beliefs is inconsistent and wrong, AND we view changes in belief towards greater truth a virtue, then we can move closer to truth. I guess I would view or phrase this differently. Let’s say I was raised an evangelical biblical literalist and young earth creationist. I want to understand what the academic understanding of ancient near eastern history is. I don’t have to have trust that the university professors will teach me what I need to know to get a degree. That’s true by definition. I don’t have to accept what they teach is actually true either (as compared to the history I’ve accepted from my theoretical upbringing). I can learn their viewpoint and get a degree all while thinking their view of history is false. What I do have is an opportunity to choose which set of beliefs best matches with reality. I will be presented with archeological artifacts and data that challenge my world view. I don’t seek truth without bias because no one can. The best we can do is to be aware as we can of our bias and lean away from them. The more we want something to be true the more skeptical we should be. How do I determine truth? The question is impossible, but here are some random thoughts this morning. Maintain the idea that I am certainly wrong about many things I currently believe. Embrace doubt as an opportunity to expand knowledge and to change and grow. It’s ok to approach new information skeptically, to poke prod and question. And it’s ok to reexamine long held cherished beliefs, to poke prod question. It’s ok not to know.

I think “belief” and “doubt” are bad ways to frame the issue. What if we aren’t seeking reasons to believe or reasons to doubt. What if we just want to know what’s true. Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad? Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

😳I’d say it’s as factually true as any statement can be about the deep past. Especially the way it was stated. I was just being conversational about it. But if we are being pedantic grammar Nazi level weirdos about it, then according to the best philosophers there are no facts without shared assumptions. Everyone is boot strapping it at some level. BTW you must be fun at parties!

lol. Sorry you aren’t getting 20 wives in heaven. I stand by the following statement ad factually true: Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

I don’t think you are reading what I’m writing. I responded to Calms post. I referred to the fact she shared. If you have something substantive to contribute let me know.

This fact that I quoted? Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8. I wasn’t aware it was in dispute. Especially with the broad range and “likely” to boot thrown in there. But if you have data to bring to bear here be my guest.

I find satire to be the best response to many poorly formed ideas. And the idea that there are more righteous women in heaven than men is so pervasive that it hardly needs calling out.

I’d say it’s a response to the absurd assumptions that members propagate as to why polygamy is necessary in the first place, namely that there are going to be way more righteous women than men in heaven. Which is ridiculous horse poop right?

Not to mention what this fact says about the sex ratio celestial demographics. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/in-the-heavens-are-parents-single-report-no-1/

I think the evidence that Joseph often participated in treasure hunts as the seer is pretty strong. See here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-locations-of-joseph-smiths-early-treasure-quests/ But perhaps the best evidence is the Book of Mormon itself which appeared with a guardian spirit (and many other hallmarks), and contains stories of slippery treasure sinking into the earth.

I’m not sure there are many more respected Latter-day Saint historians than Don Bradley