Calm

Just watched two instagrams…his language is full of Biblical references. Seems he’s doubling down on the religious themes. But maybe you weren’t equating “church” with “religion”. I am not sure my curiosity will be strong enough to review much of his stuff since there is a lot of distaste watching his stuff***, but I am very curious to see if Book of Mormon language is still as prevalent or LDS flavoured language. *** I believe he’s actually hurting victims more than helping them by creating his fantasies using the very real tragedies of trafficked kids and others and diverting funds from more effective responses than the flashy, hero making stunts focused on him like desperately needed aftercare as well as likely (previously at least) and even pulling kids into the trafficking system who weren’t there before by demanding younger victims when offered older ones. Cheated by using AI to summarize what Ballard is doing in Israel: In response to verifying what he claims he is doing through local sources:

Interesting choice of headgear: It’s from an instagram where he’s talking about a mysterious voice that inserts itself into a video recorded in the upper room. I wonder if he’s coming up with other signs or “miracles” as he labels it, showing Christ has his back. Here’s another one…

Given the withdrawal of support by Glen Beck and others and the now publicly confirmed excommunication, my guess is he’s decided it will be easier to achieve his desires if he focuses his scamming on EVs and Fundamentalists and so is tailoring his narrative to what catches their attention and sympathy the most. He’s been very popular with them in the past due to his pitching himself as the ultimate foe of child sex traffickers, etc. Turning the LDS Church into an institution controlled ultimately by satanic forces and his enemy and portraying Utah as a hotbed of satanic abuse while placing himself being uplifted in scenes in the Holy Land (great place to pitch for his personally led crusades) appeals to a certain type of Fundamentalist Christian. While there are LDS who follow this pattern type, he needs numbers for what he likely wants to do—get into national politics and big money (basing these on what he has said and done in the past) and those numbers can be most likely found among a different, much, much larger denomination.

Or whatever alleged rescue events he went on were staged events and so had little risk. Where’s the glory? From what he said, my guess is he is still hoping to recover his credibility somehow and get back on his dream track of money, power, and fame. He has most likely lost the chance of becoming a senator for Utah or anywhere else in his current state, though given others’ behavior such hasn’t kept them forever out of the halls of power. But to beat the rep of sexual predator, he needs to have more “sizzle” to drown out the accusations. And that means him in front of the camera on rescues.

Or because he keeps denying how he betrayed Pres Ballard’s friendship and broke the rules by making claims Pres Ballard was backing Tim Ballard’s financial schemes…unless something has changed. Same old same old…. “which he specifies as satanic ritual abuse of children happening in Utah” Unfortunately part of the market he has tapped into will lap this up.

Not sure what you mean by this.

All of our apostles have been ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Even when President Nelson was alive, there were 15 prophets leading the Church. President Nelson was the senior apostle in that sense, the leader of the leaders. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/the-lord-calls-his-prophets?lang=eng ”Having to explain the succession process early in the missionary lessons would be an interesting twist on teaching.” Missionaries should be challenged every now and then (as if learning the lessons, often in a new language, living in a new location and possibly culture, abiding by a rigorous and repetitive schedule, being required to be sociable even when it’s difficult to do so, and learning to endure the 24/7 company of someone you didn’t choose as a companion and may or may not be that compatible with isn’t enough of a challenge).

Our physical bodies have a beginning, but no end in your view, yes?

I don’t know why you think parents who adopt their children are not “literal” fathers and mothers, especially given we can become adopted children of Christ and there is nothing in the scriptures that somehow diminishes that status of being children of Christ as not as real or as valuable as the status of being children of God. Also we don’t know if the adoption process in eternity is similar or completely different than what we do here on earth, I don’t think assumptions like it is not as deep and intimate of a connection should be made. Do we not believe that with God all things are possible? Why put limits on him he has not placed himself? We believe there is a fundamental spiritual change when we become the adopted children of Christ, why wouldn’t that be part of adoption by Father and Mother. Perhaps adoption spiritual means them sharing a part of their spirit elements with us so we are materially changed into beings of greater agency and ability to use our basic eternal nature, thus inheriting their attributes and destinies. And just as when God forgives, purifies and sanctifies us through our repentance and acceptance of Christ’s atonement we become as if we had never erred or sin, why not with spirit adoption we become as if we were never not the sons and daughters of God? How more literal of parenthood could you get? Btw, I like the tripartite idea better, but have no problem if it has something’s wrong. My guess is either description isn’t close to reality because we can’t comprehend what actually occurs.

It is, however, an LDS teaching. And probably the current dominant interpretation of revelation about the preexisting forms of humanity. I know there are some though who see it as a two stage (so far) rather than a three stage process, with intelligences being interchangeable with spirits. My memory is they point to Joseph Smith using the terms interchangeably and the language of scripture suggests we were adopted by God and thus became his spirit children, but it’s been awhile since the last time I saw this type of discussion, so I may have misremembered. However, the tripartite version seems to be the much more popular, taught in Primary to RS/PH. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-2?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-36-doctrine-and-covenants-93?lang=eng Otoh, right above this quote is commentary that shows the ambiguity because “spirit” gets applied to “intelligence” rather than a separate ‘material’. Does that mean intelligences are similar to atoms that put together are physical bodies? It is “intelligence” that is the refined, more pure spirit matter? If so, then hasn’t God formed our eternal personalities, etc by choosing what intelligence building blocks he used to organize us? If so, are we really that independent as actors? Or is something else being suggested here? Here’s another that uses intelligence and spirit interchangeably, that suggests our spirits are eternal (and thus being begotten by God means adopted): Here is a nonChurch website and therefore nonofficial discussion about the tripartite model, including how it developed. https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/15/tripartite-existentialism/

Women can have a huge impact on others as mothers, but so can men as fathers. For example your father (sorry if this is too personal, you seem comfortable discussing your family, but if I have misread you, I want to remove anything that is problematic) had a massive impact on you by what he didn’t do…protect you from the abuse of your mother.

Are they in the 24th Ward? It’s listed as Portuguese. I don’t see a Spanish speaking ward here. Springville has a Spanish speaking ward. As does Spanish Fork

Disappointing…wish they would have switched to outside donations instead. The threatening phone calls are disturbing. This is brilliant. Very needed.

Yeah, Kirk digs himself deeper into it again because he states without documentation or any support that racial quotas lower standards. And this is why the perception the Black pilot is less trained exists in his view if I understand him correctly….meaning there are Black pilots who received less rigorous training due to the lowering standards (wouldn’t this be a problem for white pilots as well, at least newer ones, if standards were lowered across the board?). Haven’t read anything yet beyond declarations without support such as his and plenty of other supported claims that retire him, so at this point I say he is sharing a falsehood as if it was truth and given how often I have seen him share it now, I suspect he’s been confronted by evidence refuting it, so it raises it to deception for me. Foxx emphasized it being perception, but did not say that the perception was caused by the actual lowering of standards. He may think that and if he does, he is as wrong as Kirk imo and him being Black and saying it doesn’t make it any less true. And while it might be true that standards to get into some pilot schools have been dropped to attract more applicants, it is the shortage of pilots over all that is the cause (apparently due to not wanting to to pay salaries of grounded due to Covid restrictions pilots for unknown length of time, many senior pilots were offered and took early retirement packages). Plus just because it was easier to get into the school doesn’t mean it is easier to get the license to fly for an airline. I am relying on AI here, but if you require something more credible, I will look for it. The question was “what changes have occurred to airline pilot qualifications over the years” and it looks like qualifications have generally become stricter this century, not less. The only lowering of standard mentioned was many airlines no longer require a four year degree. My guess is most don’t think that is relevant. They would prefer more hours in the cockpit to hours in a college classroom learning history or how to write a literature review.

I know the feeling.

I still don’t view the Church in that time period as misogynistic. I don’t equate sexism with misogyny for one thing. Misogyny may be broadening its definition, but I believe it still has the connotation of contempt or disdain, if not outright hatred. I may be out of date. Language can change fast.

If I had refused to watch videos from black people who knew Kirk, you would have a point. If there are transcripts, I will use them. If there aren’t, it will likely take me longer, but if it’s for a continuing conversation and claims are repeated, typically I do end up taking on the video, though may not watch the entire part, but will watch the quoted material and anything before or after that’s on the same subject. I prefer transcripts and I prefer Kirk’s own words to others’ interpretations. I have spent some time trying to find fuller transcripts for his quotes and a bit of time trying to find accessible without signing up for anything actual shows. None of the quotes I find most problematic are available in full transcripts that I can find and I don’t care to subscribe, to hand out my email to others unless absolutely necessary. It is hard enough at this point to catch all the important emails in the mass of trivia I get. I have been assuming that defenders will share what they see as sufficient to refute misconceptions and depending on those as my fullest context. Kind of wondering though why if it’s so important to people for Charlie Kirk to be understood and fuller context will show this, why someone hasn’t put complete transcripts out there to be found easily without having to get added to a mailing list. That would be my first impulse…and link with time stamp to a video so people could see the original as well. If anyone knows of those, I would love to see them if access without sharing private info. I admit to having lost the actual videos post you posted somewhere. They are not coming up in a search, so when I decided to do a deeper dive that you suggested, from black individuals’ POV, I had to use your list of names. Searching on videos for Brandon Tatum, Charlie Kirk, and black pilot, I got an instagram where Tatum’s primary response was ‘silly’, ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ and ‘go watch what he actually said’….but no actual details of clarification or links to fuller clips. Nothing else pulled up seemed relevant. So that had not increased my knowledge at all besides to learn of someone who supported Kirk (though I was already aware of many, so not much new info). Terrance K. Williams: His video on Kirk’s death was beautiful and moving. Scanning through his Instagram account, his tributes to Kirk were great. I got stopped though by one though that claimed Democrats assassinated Abe Lincoln, JFK, MLK, and Malcolm X and tried to assassinate others, that it is a criminal and deadly dangerous organization. His credibility for his political arguments took a major hit for me even if I don’t doubt his love for Kirk and Kirk’s concern and friendship with him. Rob Smith: found some very moving tributes by him as well as stories about Kirk helping young black kids get to the White House, didn’t find context corrections from him, but he led me to this one by Isaiah Robinson, which showed nothing more than what I had seen before, so I assumed Kirk’s defenders saw that as enough information to get a correct picture of Kirk. And if so, I stand by what I said. DEI meant more minorities were being interviewed, etc, but never meant unqualified individuals were hired or let into universities and allowed to pass classes they should have failed, so the only reason someone would go there in thought was if they choose to do so if they were informed that black pilots, etc were actually fully qualified for those jobs, etc. And to share that thought and to justify that thought as “fair” (as did the person he was talking to and he did not stop and say the guy was wrong) when experienced in public speaking is very problematic to me for the reasons I gave above. His alleged black women don’t have the brain power to be taken seriously (altered by a reporter iirc) is defended because he didn’t say that but only applied it to four black women…as if that makes it alright. Even if he had said that about 4 highly respected white guys…if someone ever says “Charlie Kirk did not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously, he was only there because he stole someone else’s slot”…I would find that highly offensive. He is also connecting their current undeserved in his view apparently status with the aid they received from Affirmative Action, which has implications for everyone else helped by the same…which was why he brought up them saying that Affirmation Action helped them be where they are today. The assumption that it was a white person who would have gotten their slot is problematic as well. Btw, this is another clip that defenders show ending here, so assuming they feel this is sufficient and nothing significant follows that would change meaning. PS: I brought this up because of Stargazer asking if Kirk ever lied about something….I think he is deceptive about the results of Affirmative Action, specifically the quality of such hires. I think he has chosen language in some cases that allows him to attack it without responsibility (DEI is forcing him to have these doubts even though he knows it’s not reality, but the only way that makes sense for him to fairly have doubts is if DEI allows unqualified people to steal slots from qualified people and he gave in another instance, four examples of where he saw that as happening).

Here’s more of the quote… Why does he choose to interpret (instinctively or not) the white qualified guy not getting the job to mean that anyone else getting it isn’t equally qualified? That’s his choice. That’s his responsibility. His own bigotry, imo. Where is the accountability?

But why would DEI create that space when it was never about lowering standards, but about opening up opportunities, allowing more to be considered. That he goes there isn’t DEI’s fault, but his acceptance of the falsehoods others promoted about it, including now himself since he is labeling the DEI as at fault. I edited to correct my comment, but then forgot it wasn’t a new post, so reposting here so you don’t have to go back. He is still blaming the DEI rather than the falsehoods here. Why is he forced to look at it as allowing unqualified people at the helm if he knows that isn’t true? It’s like blaming LDS themselves because someone’s gut response is “they are not Christian!”. They didn’t get the idea we don’t believe in or follow Christ from us.

The widespread corruption in the CCP seems like it wouldn’t lend itself well to such an approach. A significant purge of officials and leaders would be needed first, imo, to “easily adopt” such an approach. Plus if Chinese entertainment is any sign of their society’s desires, the Chinese want to be rich and get special treatment just like most of the rest of the world.

Truth….

The one debate I watched, I couldn’t tell much because he refused to engage with his own stats, but he tossed out “that’s incorrect” against stats I believe are correct because I looked at both the original research, which seemed to follow decent methodology, and the rebuttal and found the rebuttal highly problematic (using a category as something it was not, for example, to raise numbers). So I don’t know if Kirk made a habit of this, but it definitely sent up a red flag to me that I needed to be careful with his claims. Also his comments about black pilots…that was an outright lie to me to suggest they hadn’t met the same standards as every white pilot who flew, that they weren’t really qualified when they had passed all the same tests and had to fly extensively for just as many hours before getting their pilot license, so they had the experience as well. Edited: I am wrong he was claiming black pilots weren’t qualified. He was only saying he gut thought that way….and it was someone else’s fault, not his responsibility apparently. This was part of one factcheck I checked on this. The problem is I think Kirk is an experienced commentator and he should have anticipated that most people would have missed the point given how he presented it. It comes across as more plausible deniability to me given his own level of communication skills, which I see as quite advanced, he is very articulate and can be very insightful from what I have seen. So a misstep like this leading to a massive misunderstanding as he recognizes….hard not to see it as intentional for me. He is still blaming the DEI rather than the falsehoods here. Why is he forced to look at it as allowing unqualified people at the helm if he knows that isn’t true? It’s like blaming LDS themselves because someone’s gut response is “they are not Christian!”. They didn’t get the idea we don’t believe in or follow Christ from us. There were comments I watched of Kirk’s that I thought were excellent. Some of the questions and experiences couples should explore before getting married were very intelligent, imo.

This…

Give me a crisis and that’s me. It’s needed. Around kids too because they need security. In recent years I have decided to be my more natural self because I don’t have the energy to play a different person for the benefit of even adults like I used to. I don’t need to be everyone else’s safety net/mother. That is not in the “it’s needed” category most days and shouldn’t be. So there might be raised eyebrows on the “calming” descriptor around my home because I get intense pretty quickly (as in interest and mental energy, not anger), though I put a loooootttt of effort into making the house a calming refuge for all, but primarily for massively selfish reasons. Calm people around me is much less stressful as is a calm environment. My husband is very mellow, so probably has a calming effect on others. But he is at times inconsistent in followthrough, so that lowers the sense of security some for me. Between the two of us, the intensity level stays at a reasonable level most of the time. I hope I am seen as the last two, I do work at those still. Being supportive of others was never a pretense like trying to be the stable one was. And seeking knowledge is probably my prime directive and why not share that when appropriate?

I don’t see the older Church as misogynistic, more attempting beneficent paternalism towards women in general. In a lot of ways though the older Church gave a lot of freedom and leadership to women (healing blessings, independently running the RS raising their own funding, etc). However, much of these freedoms and leadership opportunities were diminished over time and then substantially reduced under correlation (for example, the RS had raised funds to build their own headquarters in SLC, but the lot promised them was given to the Bishop’s Building instead and the RS got the second floor, they had to wait another 30 years before they got permission to try again). https://www.ldsliving.com/14-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-relief-society-building-on-temple-square/s/91190