bluebell

I really enjoy these kinds of videos from him.

Dan irks me on occasion as well, and I don't think it's because I have prioritized dogma over data. I think sometimes his online persona just annoys me that day for whatever reason. His videos are sometimes performative--which is not at all an insult, they need to be and they should be if he's going to find any success on social media--and his way of performing is not always my cup of tea or what I find useful. Again, not an insult because my feelings are not the standard for what actually is useful, even if my feelings on what I find useful are completely valid. Dan probably makes missteps as much as the next scholar and I don't think there's any harm in a respectful discussion on his public posts or videos where people disagree about his affectiveness or even discuss how his public views mesh with church teachings. I'm guessing that kind of stuff doesn't bother Dan at all or he wouldn't be so public. Smac and I differ because he tends to moralize his disagreements with people (as in, if someone doesn't say what he thinks they should say or believe what he thinks they should believe then he often implies that it's some kind of moral failure on their part) and I don't often think that is an accurate route to go. I don't believe that Dan is doing anything immoral in the way that he presents data or shows up online but I think that it's valid to discuss his impact on people's faith and I also think that it's valid for Smac to believe that Dan is doing more harm than good, even if I disagree with Smac on that. I've seen other very nuanced public latter-day saint "influencers" who are not at all dogmatic who have also had fair criticisms of Dan. Disagreeing with the way Dan does stuff is not a sign that someone doesn't like the best data that experts have put together.

When I first read the OP I thought the Red Man song was one of the new ones being released and about had a heart attack wondering when the church had lost their minds! That's definitely one that should stay historical and forgotten.

I was listening to the Follow Him podcast yesterday where they are discussing the book of Ezekiel. I don’t remember the scholar’s name that they had on, but he talked about this very thing. He talked about how growing up in the church, after we read a passage of scripture, the first thing that we are often taught to do is to ask how it applies to us. But he said the most important thing when studying scripture is to first ask what did the author mean and what was his intended audience supposed to learn. After we know that then it is very, very good to also learn how to apply it to ourselves, in our lives, and different present day situations. But it should not be the primary goal all the time. Context is crucial.

From a historical standpoint there is no reliable evidence that he had a husband/wife relationship with any underage girls. If he had lived long enough it sounds like his marriage to Helen Kimball would have been a normal marriage but all records point to them never being unchaperoned and their relationship never being more than on paper, so to speak. I know that you value honesty, and I’m saying that sincerely. This is one of those times where anyone who values accuracy will want to look into the historical record for themselves and not just repeat what they’ve heard in the past, especially if they’ve heard it from unreliable sources. You said it yourself, people lie. Especially when the lie justifies their biases or serves an agenda. There’s plenty of other stuff that you can be mad at Joseph Smith and the church about, this just doesn’t happen to be a valid criticism.

For the record, I take no offense to that statement (which is a false equivalent). Because I am not a prostitute it is not characterizing me and so there’s no reason to be offended.

Here's someone who can brag about their English skills. 5 stars for this post.

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. I didn't say anything in that post where you claim I let my mask slip ( ) that I haven't been saying since the beginning of discussions on this topic. You just think I did because you are so invested in finding ways to discount my perspective that you happily narrowed a complex and nuanced discussion between us on the subject that has been going on for probably over a year and spans dozens if not hundreds of posts down to five words.

Again (tediously so) you did not understand what I was saying and have no idea that you didn’t understand it because your narrow focus keeps you blind.

It actually is remedied by behaving as if all men are potential rapists Smac. That's the whole entire point of the mind set, and it does work.

Respectfully, you don't understand what she is saying because your focus isn't on her post, it is on your feelings about her post. You understand her words but only as you can apply them to your opinions and arguments, not as they apply to hers. You admit that you are focused on your objections to a phrase she used, not on understanding why her experiences have led to her using the phrase. You don't understand her because you can't stare at yourself and see someone else. It doesn't work that way. When I said 'honestly answer' I was speaking about you honestly acknowledging where your focus is--her or you. I wasn't calling into question whether or not you are telling the truth as you believe it in your arguments or your personal opinions. Sorry that was confusing, I should have worded it better.

Generally, I think that it's inherently a crime for us to attempt to take a life in mercy because we aren't God and don't know what He does.

Health of the mother can be an acceptable reason to get an abortion according to the teachings of the church. But to answer your question, that is something that would be between themselves and God. I very much refuse to attempt any form of judgement on specific women. I have also had a tubal after being told not to have any more children. If I got pregnant I would have the baby because of my beliefs about motherhood.

This is interesting to me. How can you tell that some of the conclusions are based on too much emotion (and what conclusions have you seen being made)? Sincere questions and not trying to argue and it's not a set up. I'm asking because I haven't really seen many conclusions on the Cornell case (though I've missed a lot of posts so they could be out there) but I have seen opinions on what people believe to be most likely considering the evidence that is now public. Are we looking at the same posts and reading them completely differently or are we seeing different posts so coming up with different perspectives on what is happening in the thread? In your view what is the difference between 'mostly likely considering the evidence' and 'conclusions based on too much emotion'?

I am not stridently opposed to abortion because my views align with the church, which allows it under certain circumstances. But I would say that in terms of someone's use of agency, I would rather they choose to sterilize themselves than choose elective abortions. Except in cases of rape, cohersion, or incest, women are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter and I don't believe the government or the voters can remove any of that responsibility from them. (I'm heart goes out to women who do end up pregnant in horrible conditions or circumstances. I believe in God's mercy and I'm glad I don't have to judge anyone because I would be horrible at it)