The Nehor

I listened and am not convinced. I don’t find the argument plausible.

Section 132 is definitely filled with problems but that is not evidence for Joseph Smith practicing or not practicing polygamy.

Or the whole patriarchal lineage for Adam to Noah is cobbled together. I mean look at this comparison. Here is the line from Adam to Noah: Adam Seth Enosh Kenan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Here is the lineage of Adam through Cain with names that are obviously similar: Adam Cain (Kenan) Enoch (in both lists and Enosh is similar) Irad (Jared) Mehujael (Mahalelel) Methushael (Methusaleh) Lamech Some of them are swapped around some but they are the same or obviously similar names. It is the same list. Cain’s list also doesn’t work with the flood account. In there we get names where the person is supposed to be the progenitor of certain kinds of people. Those that dwell in tents, those that make music, etc. If they all died in the flood that story makes no sense. Most biblical scholars think two diverging accounts were stitched together. The editor appears to favor the Seth to Noah account as they get the heroic stuff and Cain’s line gets the secular stuff. You get a similar stitching with the two incompatible creation accounts at the beginning of Genesis. It is also possible that one of these literary lines didn’t have Adam and Eve as the only humans avoiding the plot hole of how Cain ran off and got a wife.

Dr. Judith Curry? The Dr. Judith Curry who has said the Earth is warming and that human produced CO2 is the primary cause? She says it is all a hoax? You’ve been lied to again. Stop believing the people feeding you this swill. Oh, and she is being ignored? She has testified before Congress at least six times now, is quoted (usually in a misleading way) regularly by people in power to justify doing nothing to mitigate climate change when she does advocate for climate change mitigation measures. The measures she suggests are more moderate but she does suggest that mitigation measures should be taken. So that is another lie from your lying friends. She is a contrarian about how severe climate change’s effect will be but in no way suggests that it is a hoax. She is also somehow ignored while being called before Congress repeatedly and used as a source to justify not doing anything about climate change? Do you realize how stupid that makes your silly little meme created by idiots who are either willfully and deliberately stupid or are malicious deceiving those that listen to them. And you just slurp up that misinformation and pass it along like a good little drone? Why do you do this? Do you not have any sense of dignity? Why aren’t you livid with these people who are lying to you repeatedly? I would be. Do you prefer comforting lies to reality? What is the problem here?

But Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I mean, if your visions contradict reality which is wrong? Your visions or reality?

Or we could act to effect social and cultural change so that women do not have to operate on the presupposition that all men are potential rapists? Just a thunk. And no, your analysis is not dispassionate. You clearly favor the perpetrators over the victim. It is all over your posts here.

No, JUST NO! Also it has not been established that everyone was equally ‘blotto’. The guys were still snorting the stuff off of her. There is no reason to think they weren’t sober when they walked in. Nor should it. They went on to lead successful lives in high paying professions? Oh, the AGONY!!!!!!! This is likely to be the result for these guys too no matter how this shakes out. One of them is pretty closely related to powerful people in South Korea too and the big guns lawyers are crawling in. More will follow. It is amazing how depraved the whole thing was to you in general when you were talking about the victim and suggesting it was still debased even if consent was involved. Now when talking about the alleged perpetrators you are wishing that they could have their reputations restored to some kind of pristine state? What happened to the bit about how depraved and debased the whole situation was no matter how it happened? Why shouldn’t people think less of them? I thought this was all very serious sin. Are we back to it counting less because they are rich white guys with bright futures that could be harmed by this?

Abraham H. Cannon’s journal gives a few quotations about concubines. Both Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow say that concubinage will be practiced. ‘I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines.' - President Snow ‘If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it‘ - President Woodruff

You read wisely then. Well done.

That was a joke.

They accepted Jesus’s and Paul’s call to celibacy even within marriage?

Truly Smac is the real victim of all the raping. All the poor dear does is jump in and defend rapists or suggest that the victim is somehow equally culpable and people think he is somehow defending rapists…..because he is. There, you can add that one to the list. Consider it a freebie. Actual rapists will repeatedly condemn rape in general. This is a well known thing in dealing with perpetrators of sexual abuse or rape. You can get them to agree on what constitutes the crime and point out they did it and then they deny it and say that what they did somehow doesn’t count. You are spending a lot of time giving the rapists every benefit of every possible doubt even if that doubt is spurious or ridiculous. Then you want to dissect everything about the victim and impute to her all manner of decisions and actions with the idea that she consented to things she did not consent to because she rationalized it away at first. There was rape. This isn’t hard. LMAO, truly you have a dizzying lack of self awareness. You can have that one as another freebie for your list. I am being generous today. Enjoy it while it lasts I guess.

All of those appear accurate to me and are based on factual evidence. What is the problem?

A lot of the ire he gets comes from correcting misinformation. A lot of his videos are countering apologists who get things wrong about the Bible. He also does some correcting of skeptics who get the Bible wrong. One example of the latter was a video debunking the idea that Jesus was based on the Egyptian goddess Isis. I think the most backlash he gets is from countering what amounts to political and cultural propaganda that abuses the Bible. This for example: A personal favorite is a response to culture warriors dunking on some people (possibly sarcastically) praying to a non-binary God. Always fun to see some mainstream Christians talk about the incomprehensible God with no physical body and insist that God is male thereby going back to the more ‘primitive’ belief that Jews and early Christians held about an embodied God because they need that metaphor to get angry and scream about blasphemy instead of chuckling at the silliness and rolling their eyes and moving on. Gotta demonize those satanic queer people for the blasphemy of saying something we also believe.

So when asked scholarly questions he should bear his testimony? They could grab any rando LDS person for that. Why would anyone want to listen to that? Accurate. It is not based on a philosophical claim or biblical scholarship. The conclusion is based on how historians operate. They take the data they have from a lot of fields (archaeology, textual criticism, etc.) and try to reconstruct what we can say is probable. Also most of this stuff of sociopolitical issues start with him doing a deep dive into the Bible as to what it says about those issues and he is brutally factual there even when the Bible says something he doesn’t like. Then often shares his thoughts on the issue. I don’t think you have spent any time listening to him. You seem to have built up an image of some strawman “enemy within” apostate who you are bitter about because he disagrees with you about your culture war nonsense. It is a historical conclusion. There is some special pleading here that we should definitely factor in the possibility of the supernatural when reaching historical conclusions when it involves Christianity’s traditional claims but no one is going to bat for the miracles of the other wandering wise men of the period or for miracles credited to being performed by polytheistic deities. It is a high bar but supernatural events have to have a LOT of evidence to prove. That is just how historical research works and the evidence for the resurrection is pretty weak. The resurrection narratives are assumed to be later stories because they are later stories. Yes, the idea that Jesus came back to life was prevalent early and the most likely point of origin for those stories is Peter (and possibly Mary). And cases of people seeing dead loved ones aren’t that rare. The empty tomb narrative is also late. There are a few problems with the empty tomb narrative. The biggest one is that is not how crucifixion victims were treated. They were thrown into mass graves. Now is it possible that someone begged for the body of Jesus and got it? Maybe. Or maybe that was a later rationalization. There was no one controlling the story. Peter was around but how was he going to reasonably counter people getting stuff wrong? He was probably dead before the Book of Acts and the gospels showed up. The Pauline letters say almost nothing about the life of Jesus. As far as we can tell Paul was focused on Jesus dying and being brought back to life and what that meant. Paul had one short time with Peter and the two did not seem to get along. I get the impression Peter just wanted him to just go and evangelize anywhere else. Also, there are lots and lots and lots of papers and books and videos by experts discussing the evidence of the resurrection. He didn’t “elide” that interpretive step. He is in line with most of the scholarship. You really have some perverse need to make Dan dishonest. Your flaw is that he presents the scholarship correctly and it doesn’t confirm your favorite dogma and he should support that dogma because that is what good LDS do. You also personalize this as if Dan is the one ruling it out. No, the historical consensus rules it as very improbable and he passes that along. There are plenty of scholars that will tell you what you want to hear. There are big flaws and a priori assumptions in their work too though so if you want to be consistent you would have to throw them out too. The most common one I see thrown around is claiming that the martyrdom of all the apostles/disciples prove it must have been real because no one dies for something they don’t believe is true. No one is claiming that Peter didn’t believe it. Or James. Or Paul. Also as a technical point Peter recanting wouldn’t have saved him. He and other Christians were reportedly being scapegoated for a crime so him disavowing Christianity wouldn’t have led to him being spared. And the rest of the apostles/disciple vanish from the historical record very quickly and accounts of their martyrdoms only pop up centuries later and many include things like dragons so there aren’t a lot of people taking those stories seriously but some apologists love endlessly repeating that they were all martyred when they won’t defend the only accounts we have of them being martyred. That is pretty dishonest. So you haven’t found a flaw in his schtick. Nor do I think you know enough about the state of the field or what Dan actually does to accuse him of dishonesty and trickery. The stuff Dan says is pretty much what Christian clergy who go to good educational institutions learn to get their degrees. This isn’t hidden stuff. Well…..except that clergy rarely share all this with their congregations for……reasons. Probably reasons similar to why you don’t like what Dan says. To be fair I do have one beef with Dan. Why has he not created a t-shirt with his line, “Leave my trans homies alone” on it? I’ll buy it!

This isn’t rhetorical overuse. It is calling a rapist a rapist because he raped someone. Rapists, bigots, and fascists are all real things, actual people that are these things. If you reflexively assume it is always hyperbole maybe that is an even bigger problem than the potential for overuse. Swatting someone away is a “no”. Being so insensate that all she remembers is being tired is a “no”. The text message was sent by one person. Others of them showed up. That is rapey behavior and it is RAPE to proceed without an enthusiastic “yes”. This isn’t hard. They knew they were taking advantage of her condition like a lot of rapists do. This is often how rape works. You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence. Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct. I find your condemnation facile. I don’t. We are talking about Cornell University where protesting on behalf of Gaza gets you deported while raping someone gets you a remedial essay assignment on why what you did was wrong. I won’t hold my breath expecting any form of justice. And seeking justice from God would involve *checks Old Testament* paying her father a fine and having the first guy marry her assuming she was a virgin. If not a virgin…..no crime committed. So not going to hold my breath there either.

I get wanting to hold onto that but while in many ways not brave to eternal struggles (as evidenced in this thread) I do have a strong thirst for knowledge and one thing I learned in a very harsh manner is sometimes the facts don’t match what I want them to. I would like to believe there is a simple or even complex solution to human conflict but as I studied history I didn’t find any way out of the constant conflicts between humans. They are baked into the world we live in. More recently I don’t like that I can’t find any good reason to trust God and have begun to doubt He exists at all. In fact in some ways I hope He doesn’t. If a lot of what His character in scripture is shown as is accurate I don’t trust Him at all and don’t want to live in a world he runs. I am still open to God somehow reaching out to help but am also terrified if He does as it will almost certainly involve breaking me in multiple ways because that seems to be how it works. Then again i think I could cope with a Telestial eternity if He just for the most part leaves us alone. Then again annihilation on death doesn’t carry the same fear for me that it used to. If that is the end then being dead will probably be a lot like what it was before I was born and that wasn’t so bad. I would rather the child not be finished but my wishes mean little in the face of cold reality.

I was talking about that specific kind of eternal rest. I was not conflating it with finding consolation in something in this life. I am glad for almost anything that alleviates suffering. There is already far too much of it. I don’t what minimize what you have gained. I do have a hard time accepting that God’s grace can only be manifest by pouring out suffering everywhere. The idea that humans must be broken in order to learn has a heroic bend to it and overcoming struggles is aspirational. I just find that grace less impressive when the consolation comes from the person who inflicted the suffering in the first place. Or at least allowed it to happen though with an omniscient and omnipotent being I have a very hard time determining a distinction between allowing and acting as both are direct choices made. This is the only way? The best way? Really? It also makes me shudder. If opposition in all things is some unending principle I have little reason to believe suffering and the like will stop in some future state where all will be made right. If the opposition matches the power of the person we might even expect it to get much worse.

A little. He wasn’t very good at it. He was better at it then this kind of really dumb playground insult level. What you said is Trump-level nicknaming. Sleepy Joe Biden. Lying Hillary. Childish and dumb. I mean, if you are going to insult someone put some wit into it. This is just sad.

I think they need to be more blunt. They are worried about offending climate change deniers in their own body. Do they really need this level of coddling?

I assume you mean the New York will be underwater by 2010 prediction as that is the most common one. Which he didn’t make. So their cunning plan was to have this girl call out the UN for failing the future in order to create a global totalitarian dictatorship that *checks notes* no one is seriously agitating for, has no support, and the UN doesn’t have the authority to create. This is conspiracy nonsense. Only the stupidest of fundamentalist evangelical rapture enthusiasts think that all nations are eager to lay down their sovereignty. Why are you doing this?

No, it is an accurate description of that biblical text. Dan takes his professional work seriously. If the facts give someone reasons to doubt the culprit is reality. LOL, have you watched Dan’s videos (Grok doesn’t count)? Or read any of this books? He is very methodical. He does his best to avoid spin. He will tell you what the text says and what the intentions appear to be based on the majority of the scholarship. He does this even when he dislikes what the Bible is saying. The irony is that a lot of his opponents attack him claiming he is a Mormon shill. Occasionally he has a good laugh about that and says that Mormon viewers don’t like what he is saying about as much as most Christians do. He is talking about Christians in general and yeah, he does do that because that is what the data points to. He won’t lie or obscure things to make people feel better. He is good at his job. So you’re just gonna assume Grok gave you the full context there then? You do know he is still active and participating in the Church right? He did put out a video as to why he doesn’t do a lot of textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, his views on the book, and some linguistic work he did do on the Book of Mormon: Oh, and if you want to have a lot of fun look up his video on trans issues.

I don’t accept the false dichotomy that there is a binary choice between God’s plan and embracing nihilism. Most atheists aren’t nihilists. Just because Hobbes had a negative take on people doesn’t mean I have to. And Hobbes ignores the fact that humans have always had societies and some form of government even if it was more informal so when did that nihilistic take apply?

Not just stand by. Deliberately put them in harm’s way and then not intervene. An active choice not to intervene. Good point, I don’t want to do that work. That is sick. If that is the highest righteousness then the laws of the cosmos I live in are depraved and sick. The hero of Omelas isn’t to be found in the ones who walk away. It is the person who hopefully one day goes in and rescues the suffering child and lets Omelas burn it that is the result. We find God’s rest in suffering and death. That is really screwed up. I don’t find the idea that someone suffered more than me edifying anymore. I can be grateful to someone who suffered more but it seems like God’s highest honor is to suffer and die for Him. A God of Martyrdom and Pain. Why do I want to be like this guy? Then my eternal reward is to allow the suffering of my own children forever and ever because that is the only way to find happiness and eventually get to do the same to my grandchildren? What kind of screwed up MLM is this? Excuse me, I would like off of the ride now please!

The video did lay out the timeline you say they omitted and I suspect the DA is playing ‘fast and loose’ with the facts. https://people.com/cornell-jane-doe-s-family-swatted-at-home-12164905 Not according to her attorney. Which you did just now by saying that mobocratic outrage was “utterly wrong”. You dismiss the mobocratic injury/murder attempt on the female victim and then tut about people being upset at the male perpetrators who, even if this isn’t something that can be criminally prosecuted, are still RAPISTS. She appears to have consented to the first two guys…..dubiously. Then those guys invited more guys in on the fun. You know who does that? Big Rapey Raper McRapersons. And those offended by the idea that they might be held accountable are targeting the victim with violence…..repeatedly. This is not new. This happens in many publicized sexual assault cases. The misogynists act to intimidate, silence, harm, or kill the victim. IT BAD. IT RAPE CULTURE. Please stop carrying water for them. K thx bye