The Nehor

True but that hasn’t been the case for most of history. For a long time the best bet was to grab all the stuff from other people to increase chance of survival with a partial exception about stealing stuff from your own tribal group since taking from them might mean being killed or ostracized. A lot of the primary causes for conflict are obsolete in our world but our biology hasn’t caught up and likely won’t.

It is when that desire for security and happiness requires the privation of others that things tend to go bad and it takes very little to get to that point.

Who do you think is upset about the papal robes caricature but is ignoring the garment mockery? Those are the ones you were insinuating were hyporcrites. Who are these hypocritical double standard havers?

Catholics are perfectly okay with this garment mockery?

Unless the “you should believe this” is based on objective evidence it is probably primarily an emotional appeal and likely a selfish one.

Likely result: You get blocked by some people. And what are you even going to say? A hot take that shooting people is wrong? May not want to go there unless you want to listen to people suggest sensible gun control legislation and increasing access to mental health care to decrease incidents like this.

No, part of the problem is you referring to it as “the problem” so your statement comes across as declarative and sounds like it means something. If you think about it though your statement is meaningless. You didn’t even define at all what the problem is. Gun violence? Some cultural issue about violence? My insinuating that an immoral grifter with heinous opinions is an immoral grifter with heinous opinions? My irrational obsession with finding comfortable hoodies? You won’t define it. You will only refer to it with vague euphemisms and a broad umbrella term. That is definitely part of “THE PROBLEM”. Oh well. It will probably be forgotten in a few weeks anyways. Either that or the President will send troops to Utah to ‘stop all the violent crime’ or whatever justification they pick this time. That could be fun/horrifying to watch.

Being able to shoot accurately does not mean you aren’t crazy. I hope they catch the shooter That person is dangerous.

Possible but that is real dedication. I find it more likely the shooter just took the shot when they were pretty sure they had it. Waiting for the ‘dramatic moment’ would be very stupid. It is of course possible that the shooter is very stupid and did wait. I don’t know.

I think the lesson is that it is much more poetic when you die by a method you actively advocate for. He doesn’t have a problem with the method, just the target. I can’t “both sides” this as equal. One group of people want to put down the rabid man-eating tiger and another advocates for preserving the man-eating tiger because it seems to eat more people they disagree with. When one of the primary pro-man-eating tiger advocates gets eaten by the tiger that is a twisted form of justice. It is the kind of thing that happens to villains at the end of stories so the hero isn’t responsible for it and the death feels deserved. I mean the whole thing seems almost deliberately staged to showcase this lesson. Someone asked him how many shootings there were in the US every year and he did his smug condescending thing with a counter question: “Counting or not counting gang violence?" Then he got shot. What a fitting line for him to go out on. I’ve complained that the writers for our timeline have been phoning it in for the last few seasons but that was quality drama. At least some of the writers are still trying.

I saw the video. If the tent behind him was a fully staffed top tier trauma center he still wouldn’t have made it.

Encourages and applauds political violence, dies by political violence. There is probably a lesson in there somewhere.

True. Anyone who can look at a situation and say that it can’t get any worse clearly just lacks imagination.

Disagree with the Public Square article. They talk about journalistic respect but their analogies are flawed. They suggest a picture of someone protesting in temple clothing as the equivalent of sneaking into a Catholic conclave or Mecca. The equivalent of this would be if the WSJ reporter infiltrated the temple which didn’t happen. I found it hard to take the article writer seriously after that.

If being Him is not being able to coherently communicate I am not sure I am that eager for that goal.

Just once I want that audit report in General Conference to reveal some bombshell finding on the books they discovered.

Proof that we are so stupid and useless that even omniscience won’t enable the divine to construct and deliver a message through to us. That is kinda terrifying. Why are we trying to seek divine direction again?

Also whether the sources are reliable.

There is this old piece from Sunstone: https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/095-10-13.pdf From what I have read it seems Heber had an affectionate relationship with his wife but not a romantic or particularly loving one at least in his early letters. When he entered plural marriage he was much more effusive but it is not clear if this was a change in their relationship or compensating for his new wives. From what I have read he tended to be more distant with his other wives and much more practical. Could be attempts to protect Vilate’s feelings or not being comfortable with them or any number of things. I feel a bit bad for them.

If the woman was in a position in which a divorce wouldn’t be potentially ruinous then yes, it is an advantage. Which is why women in Utah during Brigham Young’s time were all becoming doctors and lawyers and scientists. He said some semi-progressive things about women’s education but I am not going to find them for you. The terrible caveman caricatures and the enlightened ‘ahead of their time’ beacon of gender respect/equality caricatures can burn next to each other.

They had liberal divorce laws from the 1850s to 1878. After that they were relatively normal. Utah was behind the curve in modernizing divorce law with “no fault” rules. I also suspect that without plural marriage the laws wouldn’t have been so liberal. Utah was not the first territory or state to grant women suffrage. New Jersey (weirdly) was. This was in the late 1700s where their first state constitution gave voting rights to women who met the property requirements. Admittedly the property requirements were high and could realistically only be met by widows and heiresses since if the woman was married the property was his. This was done away with within a few decades where voting was explicitly tied to being a man and the property requirements were being lowered to allow more people to vote as part of the wave to give the federal and state governments greater legitimacy. The first territory to give women the right to vote was Wyoming. Utah granted the same rights shortly afterwards. Elections were held in Utah before Wyoming so (assuming you ignore New Jersey’s short-lived and limited suffrage) Wyoming territory was first to grant women the right to vote and Utah was the first to have women actually vote. I am glad Utah did this but it is disingenuous to suggest that this was done because the territorial government (and the Church) thought women should be voting on their own merits. Some did but the Church needed a voting bloc to oppose the Liberal Party (an anti-Mormon party) and wanted to counteract the votes of a lot of the non-Mormon immigrants in Utah who were very often unmarried. On a more national level there was support for giving women in Utah the right to vote hoping they would oppose polygamy. They mostly didn’t. Then Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker act which was aimed to break at least some of the church’s political power and which removed the right to vote from all women in the territory. Women got the right to vote back when Utah became a state. Utah was one of the first states to grant women’s suffrage. In general Utah’s record on granting suffrage is mixed. Early to grant it to women but really slow to remove laws preventing Native Americans from voting. Sending women to testify before Congress and meet with legislators to try to make plural marriage seem more palatable was a good PR move and they were very sincere but it doesn’t mean latter-day saints were deeply invested in women’s rights in general.

You’re projecting again.

Your sarcastic comment is unironically correct.

You have to really rip that verse out of context to make it about Jesus preaching to the dead. In context it is pretty clear that it is talking about people that were taught the gospel while alive but are not dead. I know I spend all day grinning and chuckling about living in the most unjust and unmerciful horror show imaginable. This is why you can’t reach anyone. Everyone else is just an inhuman caricature to you that operates on pure spite and malevolence. I am not sure if this is how you think most people operate or if this is how you operate and you are projecting. I don’t know which is scarier either.