Calm

For Utah? I thought Snow was the primary therapist who promoted it here. Are you talking about the book? Something Michelle iirc, Remembering Michelle maybe.

I never had such a perception and it didn’t occur to me that others might as what seemed conveyed to me was that she withdrew from public life as much as possible and didn’t want to get involved in religious leadership having seen the high cost to her family. I am wondering about others who grew up in the Church as well as those who converted. I expect my upbringing was somewhat different than the typical Saint, though I don’t think I was that familiar with events that occurred and others besides Joseph’s beliefs (my mother deep dove into tue JoD and Joseph’s teachings and studied Swedenborg and others…and then she talked to me and my siblings about the teachings and her own ideas because there wasn’t any adults interested around her). Would like to compare perceptions about Emma in this case. I am already familiar with how she was seen as not enduring to the end and practically an enemy to the Church in my Primary days, but got ‘rehabilitated’ starting sometime in my MIA (YW) days iirc when Joseph and Emma’s love story started to get emphasized, in part because one of their descendants converted and was published in the Ensign, iirc. Have heard quite a bit of discussion about that aspect before, but not that much about the succession and Emma’s role in the RLDS beyond supporting her son.

Hocus Pocus is great, you should really try and see that. Practical Magic…I remember that as entertaining, but don’t have much desire to see it again, but then I am not a Sandra Bullock fan (there is just something about her performances that triggers angsty feelings for me, maybe because they almost always set up very awkward situations for her). I like both Aidan Quinn and Nicole Kidman and Stockard Channing is always fun to watch in my experience (which is probably pretty limited as I limit movies to a few genres and tend to avoid others).

Church employees retire at the usual age, so if TB restricts the corruption to “middle management”, then the high profile decades long secret doesn’t really apply. But I don’t see it as realistic for middle management either given the oversight that occurs. At the very least even if one restricts the ‘pure’ corruption to a limited, but powerful number, those surrounding them would have to be at least corrupt enough to look away. The so called secret combinations in the Book of Mormon were known to the public it seems and the identities of some individuals involved were known to faithful church leaders and they did all they could to root them out, including public denunciations. Appealing to scripture to ‘prove’ the likely existence of current secret combinations while ignoring the response of church leaders and others seems highly inconsistent to me.

It seemed to be something of a thing back in the 80s. I also knew of a political group that attempted setting up a community somewhere in Utah (my memory says south Utah county) based on the United Order. I don’t know if I am just out of that loop now (and was never really in it, I just knew people through the ward) and such things are still happening or those particular forms of preparing for the end times has died out. (There is the getting ready to get called out version, but last I heard Julie Rowe’s attempt to buy land and set up a community failed miserably pretty quickly plus I don’t remember if they were modeling on the United Order or just some idea of Rowe’s.)

The judge does not say as TB claims iirc (will doublecheck later) that the documents had nothing bad in them. He said they were irrelevant to her case, but published to make TB look bad. That implies the judge saw inappropriate behavior in the materials. He didn’t give TB a clean bill of moral health as implied by TB. So not a win for either based on merit (or lack there of) of the defendant, but a dismissal because of illegal information gathering. Smac and any other lawyers or qualified commentators on legal matters, is this a case of the fruit of the poisonous tree…or rather would be if the judge had allowed them? He is avoiding the possibility by banning the letters.

Thanks! And good to see you.

Given how strongly the Lord came out about taking care of the poor and needy, mourning with those who mourn, etc, I don’t think one has dig deep for exotic, devilish rituals or beliefs to find what the Lord considers as abominations.

Since there is no such evidence found so far beyond personal anecdotes that have not been able to be verified even though many, many have investigated, I think there is no such thing as “too many times”. The Satanic Panic caused a tremendous amount of harm, including distracting people from actual abuse, and it needs to be stepped on, imo.

If you want to edit, I can try and remember to replace your old quote with the new version.

And what made Satan lustful?

Perhaps the narrator was referring to William Marks, who Emma supported as successor.

When it comes to phrases and words that are seen as racist dog whistles, I give a lot of leeway to people who get into politics in casual discussions who might pick up language with baggage they don’t understand or care about because they don’t grok the consequences of using them. When it comes to professionals for whom communication is their life’s work, including attempting to know how the ‘other side’ thinks if only to challenge them better, but hopefully also to communicate understanding with each other, ideas they shared as well as disagree on and who have extensive access to materials critiquing their own words so they can easily find out how others are reacting….well, those people I hold to a much higher standard of word choice. Even if for their in-group the problematic words and phrases don’t hold the same meaning as they do in a group they are challenging, if someone truly cares about communication in between the groups, cares about increasing understanding, cares about others’ feelings, then I expect them to take care in choosing words and to avoid at least those that are significant problems and if truly intent on establishing understanding even if not agreement between the groups, even avoid the less baggaged ones. This discussion reminds me of when Richard Abanes, a journalist who wrote on controversial topics for Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalists like Harry Potter, was writing his epic on the LDS faith. He acted as if he was very committed to getting it right, facts as well as avoiding offensiveness, even to the point of privately asking me to help edit his book (I had taken one chapter of his first edition and gone through it point by point on where he got things wrong, he wanted me to do that for the whole book, though of course it would just be taken as suggestions). When he asked that, he also asked I keep it private (a little too late as I had mentioned it to others for their opinion), but the next time he got called on inappropriate word choice, he threw out asking me as evidence he was serious about getting it right, so I don’t feel restricted in sharing this. He had chosen to use the phrase “celestial sex” to cover the idea of having spirit children when exalted and refused to change it when we told him that it conveyed the wrong idea as it focused on the wrong thing plus had inappropriate connotations (it seems like there were at least a half a dozen challenging him on this besides me, including some LDS scholars he claimed to really respect, but ZLMB is gone and I don’t know how to find a particular conversation on Wayback to doublecheck my memory). We went to great lengths to persuade him the tone and implications of that phrase conveyed something quite different than how LDS typically viewed the topic, but he refused to change it because he said that it was his audience’s perception…which made it clear he wasn’t interested in improving understanding as much as he was interested in reinforcing the stereotypes his audience was fond of, going for the sordid description more often than accurate. Charlie Kirk reminded me of Abanes, using words he didn’t have to because it was expected of him by his primary audience as they enjoyed getting their perceptions reinforced…and unfortunately quite a few phrases/ideas were racist imo. So I saw him as having great potential as a communicator who could have built bridges, but who chose entertaining his chosen market instead. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t stuff of his I liked a lot and wish was spread more, but I am like Nehor when it comes to professional communicators…avoid the racist hints (I also dislike when those on the left use language that implies or directly calls out conservatives in general as racist, uneducated, self centered, etc.; the dog whistles aren’t solely used by one group).

I had forgotten this had happened, but I believe it very much puts TB’s claims of hidden cabel members running an operation to discredit him while still pushing church leadership as decent people as improbable (not that I haven’t always seen it that way, but this confirmed my guesses of how things actually went down with the statement): From Governor Cox: I still have to do some speculating here, but I highly doubt Cox settled with speaking with someone at middle management level. He does not name who he talked to, but it makes sense he would only be satisfied by connecting with someone who was not just handling the phone and repeating what they were told. He had to have known he would get asked about this and besides possibly thinking of himself as a representative for all the little people wanting to know what the heck was going on, he wouldn’t want to look foolish and incompetent as he would if it came out later that it was a rogue statement and the person who assured him it was cleared what just some little guy who made assumptions. Cox is intelligent and would have gone for information to someone in upper levels, who would be able to find out what actually happened, imo. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2023/09/21/gov-spencer-cox-says-lds-churchs/

Have you looked into the whiteboard meeting accusation? If it is true, it’s pretty much about funneling money into TB’s pocket. Supposedly that is at least one time he lied about Pres Ballard’s involvement as a silent partner in the venture to potential backers. There is discussion off and on of the whiteboard on a thread that heavily dissected the claims being made on various sides back in Sep 2023. One detailed post is here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75552-tim-ballard/page/10/#findComment-1210162024

This is not to criticize you because it sounds like you are just commenting on the accessibility of these claims and I agree there is quite a bit out there. But I feel the need to add that just because it’s there doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to accept it as truth, just as claims of a flat earth or faked moon landing should be approached with skepticism first. You sound like you came across those posts quite some time ago and hadn’t researched it since and it is likely this was before the info about B Snow was easily accessible online, even in wiki at this point, as well as the info on satanic ritual abuse being debunked by therapists, LEOs, etc., but these days, no one responsible should be accepting this stuff as valid, imo, without insisting there is physical evidence made available to substantiate such. Too much harm has been done, imo, to automatically support the possibility or even to remain neutral to it. If someone insists it happened to them, of course you need to be careful in how you approach it as there is likely mental issues involved as likely someone has convinced them it happened or they convinced themselves (it doesn’t exclude the possibility of other forms of abuse either), which implies they are vulnerable. I also don’t mean someone should go online at sites promoting such as out there happening, arguing with those convinced likely isn’t going to change people’s minds. I just mean when one comes across it like on here in a casual conversation, presenting the evidence against it is important. There is real, horrific abuse out there. Attention paid to SRA not only pulls resources away from stopping actual abuse, but it makes it harder for many people to believe actual claims of children once they find out the truth. I think Tim Ballard is going this route because he is trying to inflate his own importance and he recognizes this is a fear inducing idea that puts people in a panic, which makes them more likely to contribute/support him. Given his law enforcement background, I think he is lying outright. It is unreasonable to me that he wouldn’t be aware of the issues surrounding SRA at this point if he is even a quarter as informed about children’s safety issues as he claims.

I get them from time to time, lol

I have been under the impression that the one thing they still push as a fulfillment of last days is missionary work, reaching out to all the world, but maybe it’s been more me inserting it into talks then them saying it.

I agree. I am curious though what marineland sees as the source of these desires. What first caused Satan to desire to be like God and in a way he didn’t consider God’s Will., but his own.

But what made him want that. First cause type of motivation. If you don’t understand what I mean… I want food. Why? I am hungry. Why? My stomach is empty and my body is signaling me I need to eat. Why? Because someone or something made my biology in such a way I need fuel, which triggers hunger so I get it. What made Satan so that he wanted to be like God?

I always got the impression when this argument was used was that the endurance to come was us tolerating the sufferings that our spirit children would go through without stepping in and ruining it for them like helping butterflies out of cocoons, we would know that it would work out for them in the best way possible as it had for us. (Which is rather circular…we suffer so we will let our kids suffer…and they suffer so their kids can suffer….).

Then why would they bother with the extensive efforts that Welfare and LDS Philanthropies require? I don’t think you are addressing enough context.

Her siblings did not support her in her claims, some vigorously contradicted her, even those not in the best relationship with Hugh or the Church.. It was a shame the lengths she went for this. I don’t understand why she thought her memory’s extreme weirdness was proof she didn’t make it up. I have some very vivid memories, guessing they are memories of dreams since I think someone else would have noticed that our whole neighborhood (50 adults at least) had been hypnotized in the middle of the night and ending up walking down street blank faced and ignoring the cries and tugs of their children (not small town, USA either, San Francisco suburb street separated from a very busy highway by just a chain link fence back then. Must have been hard for her thinking she had experienced something that she couldn’t get her family to accept, but she went too far in trying to get evidence. She seems to have survived, still hanging out with Oprah.

How do you explain the lack of any other response from Pres. Ballard if he actually told KB that he was not involved and would look into it?

Also this in relation to the Church: Elder Scott’s comment is very telling, imo.