Calm

Iirc, it was his grandfather who made the offer of his friend answering questions and Runnells’ response was to go online (to the exMormon Reddit iirc, wherever it was you could see the original exchange for years) and outsource editing his draft with stuff he pulled from others (I don’t have an issue with that unless he told his grandfather he had come up with it just by reading faithful material) and gathering as many questions as possible. He was not a believer at the time and sent off a huge list of questions, a very aggressive and insincere imo response if the CES director had actually told his grandfather he would answer questions Runnells had. Pretty clear he was looking to make a name for himself in the community at the very least. I find it hard to believe that anyone who knows the actual story would fault the director for seeing what the reality was, recognizing there was no hope of convincing Runnells to reconsider and what the actual purpose of the letter was and refusing to waste his time playing Runnells’ game. I would not be the least bit surprised if director or someone who knew him and heard of Runnells’ list went online and found out how the list came to be. Would have been easier to find when there was less clutter. When people write FAIR with a list of quite a few questions, we generally pick out a few to answer in detail, sometimes with links if it’s a common question that has been addressed and sometimes with original research or commentary, often both. The majority of those list senders do not respond at all, some do not engage much, but just add more on and a few engage in actual discussion. When someone sincerely volunteers their time and effort, they have a right to expect to be respected even if there is complete disagreement and if not, why should they feel obligated to respond? Burnout happens quicker if efforts are ignored or dismissed without consideration.

Who wanted it sealed?

Reread a bit of the thread. Has forgotten the details. It looks like the claims were primarily founded on recordings of the father allegedly confessing in addition to her recovered memories. So was the lawyer claiming they altered them to make it sound like he was confessing when he wasn’t? Alteration of emails would be easier to prove if he kept his own. If I were a judge and saw proof of altering emails and the defendant claimed the recordings were altered as well, I would likely believe them. But maybe they went further and got them examined by experts who could tell if there was alteration even if they might not be able to testify to what was on them originally. Is this not a public case? I always assume the public nature meant most things were made public knowledge. Never been involved though or researched, so don’t know the rules.

Don’t disagree with you in the sense of treating someone with the consequences of being a rapist if they are not. You shouldn’t Makes no sense. It is about precaution. Never being alone where possible to limit this with someone who can overpower you unless there is very good reason to trust them, avoiding places where possible where one is vulnerable….unfortunately truly safe places are few and far between outside our homes (and even there for some the risk is high). Places that should be safe, that we must encounter…stores, banks, doctors’ offices, gyms, parks, schools, public transportation, private transportation, etc are too often sites of harassment and assault.

Too bad.

Will that be made accessible eventually?

How is this not essentially saying anyone is a potential rapist? (Serious question)

So there are sufficient warnings signs to be aware of in your opinion? How do you know someone is the wrong person to be worried about? Can we ignore the risk of being alone with a genial and respectful uncle or teacher or bishop because we can trust they are safe in your view? Not asking to challenge you, but to understand differences in our views, assuming there will be some differences. Obviously we both see caution as very important. Since I am the one who has brought up preparing to lower the risk the most in the conversation iirc and in fact that is the only value I see in using the “every man a potential rapist” (to really wake up girls and women so they stop being as dismissive of warning signs and precautions, as I have seen myself and so many other women making excuses in our past for very inappropriate behaviour by men of all ages), I do not see discussing ways of being cautious as blaming the victim any more than defensive driving (I used this analogy at the beginning of this subtopic) means an accident is the fault of the driver who is hit….especially since while in the case of driving that at times might be true, it never is in the case of harassment or assault as no one can be forced to do these immoral acts unlike accidental plowing into a car that stopped too quickly or crossed a line.

Means you likely needed the sleep, so very cool really.

I haven’t tracked many surveys or conversations about them, so not a good source on what the Church likely will do. While they might survey about the variety of beliefs among members (if only to see how well what they want to get taught is getting taught), I am guessing, it is highly, highly unlikely they would then divide members into categories following different trains of thought. They don’t want to contribute to members forming groups around popular figures, probably even if they were General Authorities and wouldn’t present them as if in conflict with each other, even intellectually, imo.

It’s a thing for me because of working in a privately owned church bookstore and having one too many people (young adults typically) come in thinking everything in the store was vetted by the Church. My guess is given what I have seen at times in Deseretbook stores, the Church doesn’t even vet stuff in bookstores they own. Leave it up to employees who sometimes err in judgment, imo. The Church tends to stay in its lanes it has already designated and doesn’t get too adventurous. Avoids discussion that involves a lot of speculation or labeling/categorizing outside the basic. Iow, they don’t promote anything that hints at ‘iteing’ (Masonites, McConkieites, etc).

That happens a lot to me. You were probably very focused on the movie. Sometimes very uncomfortable. Used to be more fun when younger because it didn’t interfere with getting necessary stuff done.

Whatever this is, do you know this of your own personal knowledge or from someone who says they were involved or is it third or fourth hand? If so do you know the original source? I trust you and I suspect I could trust those you trust as you come across as very sensible to me ….but people those you trust trust…. 😛

How would an infinite loving being, who embodies not only justice, but mercy benefit from punishing other beings that are so much less than him in knowledge and power?

What purpose would there be to suffering for our sins, paying the debt by ourselves or Christ so to speak (I believe ‘paying our debt’ is an inaccurate shorthand of a redemptive relationship that is currently beyond our understanding) if we continued to commit them throughout eternity?

Who is squirming? What you have said in your more recent posts aligns fine with what I have said from the beginning.

But the Bible itself, can you be safe spiritually by treating the entirety as textbook Word of God, no explanations needed, just straightforward formulas for behaviour….a+b=c?

I don’t actually disagree with Elder McConkie when he says this: I just don’t think it needs to be taught because I have a difficult time comprehending what could possibly be a fair and just opportunity given mortal conditions, especially due to the limits of communication and the massive dependence of our thoughts and feelings on biology. And that does mean D&C 76 is confusing to me. Many interpret that to say those who Noah preached to had a just and fair opportunity even though it sounds to me that they never got baptized and had a chance to live the Gospel.*** Given the conditions back then that often get described as justification for God destroying all of mankind save a few (they could no longer progress they were so mired in sin and corruption, repentance would not be possible in that state…or so I have heard), how would that be just? Isn’t it like teaching someone math who has a mental block against it and thinking they should have been able to get A+ in class just from the teaching? Without working with them to remove the block? ***Elder McConkie’s quote has that in it:

I was taught in church when young they were destined for the terrestrial kingdom at best. In church lessons. They were defined as those who were not valiant. Sunday School and seminary. (My parents had much fuzzier lines drawn, left it up to God, but I was too shy to debate back then, so I don’t know if they were actually more nuanced in some cases.) There was also debate over what was meant by died without law and if that meant never receiving the Gospel, never being baptized (though most said they had to be exposed to it and reject it, but that might be as little as not being interested when missionaries came to the door). There are good reasons why some LDS parents were heartbroken, even panicked, over kids leaving the Church, being “wayward” back then, imo.

What is odd to me is that we believe he can redeem them in mortality; after all he redeemed Alma the Younger who was probably taught the gospel and possibly even lived it when he was younger, but for whatever reason, then became someone who persecuted the Saints. Likely an apostate then, or how we would define one if in the modern Church. A child of one of our prophets who became an antimormon and not just any antimormon, but one of the worst kinds apparently. We have an extraordinary description of his redemption…not triggered by his own repentance even, but by the faith and prayers of his father. Yet for children of modern Saints we can’t see the same thing happening just because they died before they get the angel experience?

Agreed. A serious student won’t treat the Bible like a textbook, but make distinctions between the different genres, etc.

And if it’s a response he doesn’t like?

Looks like people are having fun creating language for it (deciding the meaning of the symbolism). So far my favorite is it about the internal self in crisis and each animal is a different part of the Self. Got interrupted watching it (got to go make rescue waffles), so have no clue if this will help (if you want help with it, lol). Looks like a stunning movie, but not sure I could watch it.

This explains what you see as a normal level of caution. I think it also explains the differences in interpretation of “potential rapist” and how you and I have different expectations of response to that premise With bugs identification is relatively easy. It is wise imo for someone at risk of an allergy to bees to have a moderately heightened awareness of bugs when bees are more likely to be present so that when one becomes aware of a bug close by (whether by sound or seeing it), one takes the time to identify where possible if it is a bee or not. No need to panic or to be fearful, that would be counterproductive in fact, interfere with realistic appraisal. Better to have a level of vigilance similar to when one checks one’s rear mirror and side and glances around one’s car periodically assuming all will be well, but knowing there is potential for it not to be and so there is a need to check so one has an opportunity to respond in a timely manner. Vigilance can vary based on location…winter time and indoors or in areas with no vegetation, no real need to check for red flags unless a red flag gets shoved in one’s face…bees sometimes do fly indoors after all. And my son got stung by a bee in the winter time because he stepped on a dead bee on our balcony. We should have swept it as there was a lot of debris, might be something else he could have step on to that was painful. Phrasing “every bug is a potential bee” doesn’t necessarily mean imagining every bug is a bee, it can mean one withholds any conclusions until one makes the appropriate effort to identify whether a bug is a bee or not and therefore requires action. One does not need to act until one knows for sure except in areas of high risks where bee encounters are highly probable. It definitely doesn’t mean one is assuming bees will be frequently be inside homes or around at night. That is for one thing against the stats dealing with bees. It would be irrational to spend time thinking on and planning anything beyond the bare minimum for these because such encounters would have a very low occurrence and in most cases once encountered, there’s easy solutions to control the situation (bees stuck indoors somehow hang around windows or doors, one can therefore remove oneself and get another to deal with the wayward bee). An epi pen covers the very rare occurrence of getting stung by a bee at night in the winter, such as occurred with my son. You can tell me if you have any problem with the above, it sounds to me much the same as what you wrote that I quoted. It would be helpful too if you explained why you went to extreme irrationality as if someone using ‘every man a potential rapist’ is imagining situations comparable in being fearful of bees at night, etc. I don’t understand when most of us are talking about taking realistic, rational measures for safety, you have jumped to being focusing on irrational, anxiety disorders attached to predators. Back to bees….sort of. Using your response to bees, I would like you to explain how one can prepare for assault in the same rational, realistic way you and I describe above for bees because I see those as good standards for preparation and caution for most (all?) things in life. These are serious questions as your answers will help me see how you and I view the risk differently (if we actually do) and what is appropriate to do about the risk (separating this from how to discuss it for now). 1) Someone would be unwise to imagine a bug is a bee when they identify that it lacks the distinctive identifiers, correct? What are the distinctive identifiers of a predator so that we can immediately know in the same way that someone is not a predator (not limiting this to only men or adults as predators can be women and juveniles? 2) Someone would be unwise to worry about bees in places they don’t typically appear, such as in our homes and anywhere indoors or times such as at night. Where are the places and times predators don’t appear? I agree those with allergies to bees should assume others who do not have that allergies are not at risk. At the very least it would be wasteful for those not allergic or likely around those who are to carry an EpiPen. That is better to go to those who know they need it. 3) How can you tell if someone is not at risk of being targeted by a predator? What is unique about those who have been victims of assault and harassment that we can use to identify those who they should not project the possibility of assault or harassment on? For those of us who have been victims and are now survivors, how do we know when it would be unreasonable to project the possibility of what happened to us onto other women or children or anyone for that matter? What shows who is safe and who might not be? If you could answer those 3 questions along with the previous ones, it would help me and hopefully others quite a bit in understanding your view of what is a realistic approach to safety in this area.

I thought they were just prepping the property.