The Nehor

This is like a joke aimed at people that believe in astrology. Not a lot of malice and just a lot of eye-rolling at how ridiculous it is.

I believe Paul was perfectly fine with slavery as an institution because he seemed to be perfectly fine with slavery as an institution. Oursourcing understanding scripture to AI? Hail the coming of the MACHINE GOD!!!!! Praise the OMNISSIAH!!!!! There is no such thing as a loving and benevolent slave owner. Slavery is violence. Also it is motivated by love and not fear? That is not slavery. I liked God better when He was out freeing the captive instead of claiming they are His. This is standard apologetic drivel to try to make it not sound bad that the Bible compares God to a slave owner. Which the AI slurped up and vomited out. How very uninteresting.

I would say that you can safely ignore the other counsel given in the same context then. I’ve heard Ignatius supposedly said that but I can’t find anything supporting it. The current consensus from what I have read is that Clement misread Philippians. Eusebius’s comment about Paul’s wife is explicitly pulled from one of Paul’s epistles and does not suggest Clement knew this from any other source: The thing is Paul doesn’t greet his wife in any of the epistles we have. Then Origen in a commentary says: So Origen got the same idea from an epistle of Paul’s and it is supposedly in Philippians but isn’t there either. However there is an easy way to misread Philippians that could suggest such a reading. I don’t know ancient Greek but the explanations I have read seem to be reasonable. Another possibility could come from Paul talking about having “a believing wife” accompanying some of the apostles in their ministry. Maybe his wife wouldn’t convert and their marriage was terminated? Maybe the “unequally yoked” bit came from very personal experience.

While I think the current situation is bad in many ways comparing this kind of feeling poverty to chattel slavery is hyperbole. Smacks a little too much of this kind of thinking: The Romans were equally deluded about slavery and how violence controlled their society. They created the whole paterfamilias thing where slaves were part of the household to soften the idea of slavery. Slaves, women, and others were caricatured as violent and sexually rapacious and only the wise educated Roman citizen was moral enough to control them. So they had to control them using violence (often sexual violence). So the whole system was set up to convince the people doing all the violence were only doing it to prevent all the violence. There were similar justifications in the pre-Civil War South. The fear was that abolishing slavery would lead to widespread murder and rape. It did, except it was the KKK and their ilk doing almost all of it. Never believe someone who says they have to be violent and predatory and rapey for the good of others and/or for society as a whole.

It was admittedly to an audience that thought the Second Coming was coming any day now so it can be seen as special circumstances. I haven’t seen any such sources that appeared convincing. The consensus of most biblical scholars is that the “present distress” is the incoming and imminent return of Jesus. The bit about Paul not taking along a wife could just as easily be Paul saying that he could have a wife and travel with her. Paul is bragging about how he abstains from a lot of things to avoid tripping up the “conscience” of the weak to encourage the people to avoid doing anything that would cause other believers to falter.

That advice was given to people who expected Jesus to return any day now. It was next to advice to not marry, not have children, not change your job, and basically just don’t alter your life because it wouldn’t matter soon. And because he will discipline you harshly if you don’t. In a very loving way of course. Using the master/slave relationship as a metaphor for the gospel doesn’t do God or ourselves any favors.

Paul seems to have been perfectly fine with slavery of all kinds. Using a metaphor about God being a slave owner seems to reinforce that.

The problem with this is that it isn’t suggested in the Biblical text that God had to approve of men taking additional wives or concubines. The Mosaic Law doesn’t put any such provisos on Israelites marrying additional wives or buying concubines or taking war captives as sex slaves.

Generally concubines were slaves. For all practical purposes they were even if they weren’t explicitly a slave (and most were slaves). They had less power than full wives and full wives didn’t have much power. The Torah talks primarily about two kinds of slavery. One is debt slavery and the other is chattel slavery. Debt slavery was temporary for adult male Israelites (or forever if you married another slave and didn’t want to leave your wife), maybe temporary for female adult Israelites (depends which law code you read), and permanent for non-Israelites and probably also for children. Chattel slavery was forever or until you were voluntarily released. The King James translation hides a lot of slavery. The servants in the New Testament in the parables are usually slaves. The handmaidens are slaves. A lot of the parables compare God to a slaveowner and the people working for Him as slaves. That puts a bit of a question mark on the D&C when God talks about people being his servants and calling Emma His handmaid.

Not sure that pointing out that sex slaves existed is nit picking. Some might consider it important.

To quote C.S. Lewis: “Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.” Also pedophilia has (for better or worse) become the worst sin so being able to ascribe it to your enemies gives you license to vent hate. The caricaturing of trafficking turns it from a business with an understandable and common motive (money) into something foreign (satan worship and sin for the sake of just being as vile as possible and the like). It lets you dehumanize your opponent. If they don’t operate like the rest of humanity it is easier to justify fighting them in an unjust way or directly harming them. This is especially tragic when the claims about their vileness are baseless. As a side benefit if someone is a terrible person then making up much worse people helps them feel better about themselves and lets them feel heroic by comparison.

Most of the Church’s stronger areas are in the southwest and east and the church is reportedly stronger in the urban areas. These aren’t usually the big conflict areas. A short piece on the struggles of LDS Church members in Nigeria due to culture: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/6/445 The conflict isn’t particularly targeting Christians though there is propaganda drumming up this angle at the moment by some groups with specific objectives. Boko Haram is anti-Christian but it is also anti-Islam except for those allied to it directly. They have gotten around the prohibition on killing other Muslims by declaring them all apostates. In this case apostasy is tied to being involved with such repulsive practices as “democracy” and “scientific” anything. Basically an anti-intellectualism that in some cases holds that reading anything other than the Quran is bad. That being said while they would gladly fight Christians (and do) they are most active in the northeast which is mostly Muslim and the actual conflicts on the ground are often not tied to religion. There is ethnic conflict and just plain old banditry and economic conflict. The effects of climate change and desertification in Nigeria is bad and getting worse and this has pushed some people south and is causing a lot of local conflicts over resources and land. There is also plenty of Christian on Christian violence going on as well. This isn’t some stark divide where innocent and devout Christians are being preyed on by caricatured jihadists. International watch groups estimate that around 10% of the violence has religion as its primary justification. The Nigerian military and law enforcement is trying to clamp down on this but they have been infiltrated (particularly at the lower levels) by the various groups involved. There is also some political grandstanding by Nigerian politicians that isn’t helping anything. The security forces also have the habit of acting way beyond the bounds of the law and often attack without legal provocation and execute suspected terrorists with no due process. A big human rights problem. The current Nigerian government does not want a US military intervention so moving in would be an invasion. Some opposition groups do want intervention but this is likely more about wanting to destabilize the government and/or thinking it will aid separatist groups in breaking away from the nation. There is also still some simmering resentment in the Nigerian government and people for the sudden and unexpected shutdown of the United States foreign aid programs worldwide that left a gap in several areas, mostly in dealing with the effects of climate change and medical aid. Projected death toll of pulling this aid will occur slowly but will probably be thousands dead in the country. If I can put on my amateur geopolitical nerd hat for a second: A US military intervention would be bad. The best case would be a few air strikes are launched that kill people and it is over. It won’t accomplish anything but the cost in blood would be low. If that sates the bloodlust of those calling for this that would be the best option to minimize damage all around. Solving this conflict would need boots on the ground and a lot of them. The US military is trained to fight conventional opponents and they are VERY good at this. If it weren’t for the Russian nuclear deterrent the US military could intervene and end the conflict in Ukraine within a few months. This wouldn’t be like that. This would more likely be a cross between Afghanistan and Vietnam. Patrols that have to fear suicide bombers from all parts of the populace. A population and government that doesn’t want the troops there. It is counterinsurgency so you have to target people who may or may not be ‘civilians’. It would almost certainly be a boondoggle with lots of human rights violations and a lot of traumatized military personnel. A quagmire with no real end game. It would also give the US military a black eye and threaten national security. Recruitment numbers are slowly growing back towards normal levels but getting involved in a conflict like this would tank US recruitment and could present an ongoing problem for decades. One good article on the current conflict: https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/nigeria-united-states/why-president-trump-threatening-humanitarian-intervention-nigeria Another: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/11/8/nigerians-demand-own-solutions-to-violence-as-trump-threatens-us-invasion

You know you can just ask Ballard if you want to be an apostle of his new church. You don’t have to keep defending him here and hope he will notice.

I am not sure they were either but I grew up thinking they were. When I was taught about the apostasy growing up they came up a lot as an example of how things went horribly wrong.

I was mocking my own faith more than Catholicism. Like seriously we talked down the “apostate” faiths and now are going down a similar faith.

I suspect Paul was mostly calling for celibacy for the same reason he was telling everyone not to make a fuss about politics or not to change their job. He thought Jesus was about to return so why make any life changes. Either that or he was a Plato Bro. Or both.

I am beginning to suspect my church will start wrangling doctrinal issues in councils soon. Used to be revelation was everything but I see more and more about councils lately. It is only a matter of time. Hopefully we at least come up with better names for our councils.

A lot of it is an adoption of Plato’s thoughts. He was (at least in his later works) opposed to any sex that wasn’t procreative. Christianity (at least the kind of Christianity that survived) took that and gave it biblical justification. Add in Paul’s recommendation that people should be celibate if they could and it all leans that way.

Seems to be almost but not quite saying these are some kind of divine sign which is kind of weird. Pictures were nice though.

Really late but missed this reply. So the thing that previous administrators were working towards needed an outsider to come in and *checks notes* continue to move in the same direction? How impressive! Yes, we truly needed a crackpot to come in and shake things up so they could continue to do the same thing on this one issue. What a glorious win!!!!

It is because the apostles and prophets actively discouraged the use of the cross as a symbol. Hope this helps alleviate your bewilderment and perplexion. On behalf of all the fools that don’t measure up to your supreme level of divine wisdom we apologize for burdening you with our existence. Please forgive us all-knowing senpai! Also we used the cross until the 1910s and stopped because of plain old iconoclasm and anti-Catholic prejudice in which the Church just aped Protestant denominations. So this plainly obvious truth that only the divine quasi-messiah (you) figured out in 1975 was something the leaders of the Church took over a century to figure out. So either you are wrong or the church has gone into apostasy and only you, the divine messenger, can fix this. How can you waste your time on a small message board when you have this kind of a divine calling. GO FORTH! GO FORTH FOR THE GOOD OF THE WORLD!!!!!!

The idea that Jesus was somehow fully human and had no physical defects is to say He wasn’t actually human in a way we would understand. I am not saying he had to be infertile but if every physical attribute was “perfect” then he didn’t suffer infirmity the way humans in general do and missed out.

Well, he spent a lot of time with 12 guys and one of them talked about how much Jesus loved him so……. *duck, cover, and run*

Definitely a cultural thing. Part of it is a weird blend of homophobia and toxic masculinity anything appearing vaguely feminine being horrible. Of course just about everything in terms of dress that is now seen as feminine was at some time masculine. Men limit what they can wear and punish dissenters by ostracism and turn around and police what women can wear under threat of slut-shaming. It is almost as if we just hate everyone.

A lot of the stuff you are talking about is fantasy conspiracy.