JVW

In general I've viewed sympathy as "feeling bad for someone" and empathy as "feeling bad with someone". I think both types of empathy have value. Knowing how someone is feeling can help a person know how best to respond to them. Like when I get in a debate with someone over a sensitive topic, understanding the point at which they are feeling angry will inform my response to deescalate the conversation. Understanding why someone believes the way they do and seeing it as valid I think is a kind of antidote to the poison of viewing another with any sort of negative feeling attached. When thinking about how to obtain these kinds of empathy a few things are coming to mind: - If I've been through what another has been through, then I'll understand them better. My best example of this from my life is that since I always felt like an outcast growing up I naturally am inclined to reach out to, and befriend, people who present themselves as outcasts, and I have a sort of 6th sense to that energy regardless of how one presents. - Perhaps "steel man" an argument or "devil's advocate" are methods to help increase cognitive empathy? I'm not sure how to intentionally increase my ability to experience cognitive empathy, but I think that critical thinking may be a necessary element. - Propaganda certainly has an effect of changing how empathetic people feel. Pardon the extreme example but it's the first one that comes to mind. Rebranding pedophiles not as evil, soulless people but instead helpless victims who can't help how they feel or act and rebranding them as Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) will have a subtle effect, over time, of leading people to be more empathetic to pedophiles and less condemning - for better or for worse. Me too, thanks for participating. There are so many factors at play in our lives that we have zero control over. You believe and act the way you do based in large part around where you were born, who your parents are, who your peers were, how you were treated by others growing up, etc. A very simple example of this is when and how a child gets exposed to pornography. Very few, if any, children actively seek out pornography, yet every child has seen it. It's not their fault, and for some kids it has little to no negative impact, and for others it ruins their life. More examples: A person born with parents who run a Communist state will be naturally predisposed to see the world differently than if that same person was born to a parent out in a rural Chilean community. That will fundamentally change the entire lens of existence for that person, and it's not their fault or their choice. If Fidel Castro, being raised in a wealthy family and influenced in certain ways, decides to start a revolution and takes power during it, there is a high chance that many of his choices are entirely valid due to the context of his life. I can't judge what a valid decision is based on my outside perspective, but I don't doubt that if Fidel was born into poverty he wouldn't have had the impact on world history that he did. I would argue that the vast majority of context in a person's life is out of that person's control, and God is very deliberate about what weakness He gives His children. What families He places them into. What trials He allows them to experience. And, knowing all of this context, I think there are so many choices and decisions we make that are probably absolutely stupid and wrong, but because of who we are at the time that we make them they go in the "weakness" bucket (which is responded to with mercy) instead of in the "sin" bucket (which is responded to with justice). I believe that all of life is designed to aid us in being ever more humble and that humility will ultimately lead one to Christ and His mercy. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly you are saying that humility is the name for the Christlike attribute I'm looking for? Are you also suggesting that Christ's advocacy is currently happening because we all deserve death immediately but we aren't dead because Christ is advocating so well for us and trying to help us return to Him? I think this may be why I immediately associated empathy with feelings. Because, regardless of how I think, the way I communicate is colored by the way that I feel. I personally believe that the result of forgiving someone is a change in how I feel about that someone. I can be cautious, wary, and defensive of an abuser while simultaneously feeling about them the same way I feel when I think about a family member. At the same time I can be open and vulnerable with someone while feeling about them the same way I do when I think about the most harmful and abusive person in my life. But I don't think I can be empathetic towards someone I hate or assign "nefarious motives" to.

Isn't charity more about giving service to people and donating money and stuff? What do you mean?

I think this interview fell flat. I think the questions were decent but the responses were mostly kind of lame. I know the brethren are sharp and aware of current events. I'm sure they speak very frankly to each other in meetings about how they're going to approach various issues. But there was only a few responses from each that wasn't "Heavenly Father loves you. You are a child of God. Pray and life will get better" and that doesn't exactly work when answering a question like "How do you see the role of women in the church?". President Eyring's response to that question was really sweet, talking about his dearly departed late wife, but it didn't really answer the question. When asked the question about their message to the youth of the world my immediate thought was "tell them to get off of their phones", which Elder Christofferson said in a gentle way, so he gets half a point. Edit: I don't have access to YouTube on my home network or else I would copy and paste a transcript of the interview. So if someone could do that I'd be very much obliged.

I have typically viewed "devil's advocate" as a really lame way to poke and prod at someone when they're trying to express their views. In the past I've used devil's advocate as a way to shield myself from criticism of my own views, or to keep them hidden from others. However, the way I currently use devil's advocate is different now since I find life more rich when I'm honest and open with others about sensitive topics. I now use devil's advocate in specific cases when I feel like someone isn't critically thinking and could use a little nudge. In my mind, perhaps due to my atheistic roots, I play devil's advocate with myself a lot, and perhaps devil's advocate is part of the roots that build a critical thinking mind. But the really interesting thought I had while reading about it on that link you shared is that Christ is literally a devil's advocate. We are all carnal and devilish. Those who believe in God all use Him as justification for their beliefs and actions, regardless of what those may be. And it is pretty much certain that we all believe things that align with the devil, because we are all proud in our own ways. So I actually think this term fits in nicely with what I've been thinking about. I've mentioned the idea before in some prior post that just as Laban was drunk when he was slain since it was better for "one man to perish than for an entire nation to dwindle" that Christ was drunk on the sins of the world when He was slain, and the way He was treated by God was the way that God would treat the ultimate sinner. So I don't think it's unreasonable to view Christ as a devil's advocate because, though sinless, He was in the company of devils when the Father forsook Him. I'm not a terribly emotional person, so I'm not sure what to think about empathy being applied here. I know that as far as feelings go, a distinct lack of hatred, vitriol, accusation, bitter condescension, and dismissal are key. I don't know if Jesus has to believe we are innocent of the crime though, because I don't think the best lawyer on the planet cares about whether or not their client is innocent. Do you have any links that have your favorite description or explanation of how you feel about and define the word "empathy" that I could take a look at? My initial response was to agree wholeheartedly with your logic about Christ as our advocate, but there is one thing I'm not sure I agree with. I don't know if Christ will be defending our actions and beliefs except in how they relate to us turning towards or away from Him because there's really no action I've ever taken that I could view as being defendable before God, but maybe I'm being a little too hard on myself here. That's an interesting idea and I can agree with it to an extent. How would you reconcile forbearance with how Captain Moroni treated the Kingsmen? I don't know if Captain Moroni had the attribute we are discussing here, since we don't have a biography of his whole life, but I like to believe that he was one of the most Christlike men who ever lived based on how he's revered in the Book of Mormon. If Captain Moroni wasn't very forbearing then was he making poor decisions? If he was alive in our current political and religious climate do you think he would be on the peacemaker side or would he be an "intolerant bigot" type of person? I do believe it's possible to have the quality I'm referring to while also being short-tempered with people, or standing up for truth without compromise. I believe that the way we feel about others and perceive them will subconsciously influence the words we use, tone of voice we have, and a bunch of other non-verbal things that ultimately contribute to a peacemaking environment. Thanks brother, I like you too. Life is sure is complicated, but it is a lot of fun how much color everyone brings to the table in these online discussions, and I've been given so much to think about due to the diversity of perspective present here.

The last few weeks I've been pondering on what may be a newly discovered Christlike attribute (for me) and I wanted to get the forum's input on my idea. In Preach My Gospel there are several Christlike attributes listed: Faith, Hope, Charity, Virtue, Integrity, Knowledge, Patience, Humility, Diligence, and Obedience. See: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-2023/14-chapter-6?lang=eng and there is a fun little quiz at the bottom of that link. The Christlike attribute I'm now considering I'm not sure what word to name it but I'll try and express the idea. We hear in church all the time that Christ suffered in the flesh so that He would understand perfectly everything that we're going through in order to succor us. I would also argue that His perfect understanding of us will enable Him to be a perfect advocate for us at the judgment bar of God. Christ perfectly understands each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan and said that Latter-day Saints will burn in hell or that a return to "Christian Nationalism" cannot include the Latter-day Saints. Christ understands how incomprehensibly, impossibly stupid the "other side" of the political aisle appears to be. I believe that Jesus gives me the benefit of the doubt when considering my perspective and beliefs. I even view Him as agreeing with me in many ways and I don't think I'm unique in that belief. I believe that he understands the reasons why I believe what I do, and why I act the way I act, and that He doesn't condemn me for it. And I believe that He views my enemies the same way. We are all wrong compared to God. The amount of truth we know is infinitesimally small compared to all their is to know. Yet I haven't personally encountered many instances in which God has told me, "You're wrong" and I don't believe He has done that very often to others. He allowed Brigham Young to preach blood atonement, he allows me to hold my wacky views, and he doesn't often correct my perspective or condemn me for holding said views even when they are wrong. Maybe this is similar to "steel man" or that practice in debate where you study to defend a side you disagree with? I don't know what to call it but I hope I'm making sense. People talk about being tolerant, patient, kind, compassionate, peacemakers. Yet those types of attributes aren't adequate for a perfect advocate, and they aren't exactly healing the algorithmic division existing in our hearts. I have felt this way recently about my cousin. He has left the church and is currently going through a divorce. After hearing a brief account of his life story and some of the significant events that have happened in it, I can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if I don't personally agree with all of his choices and see some ways in which he appears foolish (like picking up a cigarette habit). Is what I'm talking about a Christlike attribute? What would you call it? How would you more succinctly define it? Is there any scriptural backing for this idea? Is it a bad thing? These are fresh thoughts so sorry for the text wall. Also, if I'm not really conveying my idea properly please let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase my thoughts better. I'm hoping that the discussion here will help me learn more about these ideas I've been having.

I feel you. I have been posting much less than I would've otherwise because of the uptick in politics on the board. Then when I do post I usually feel like an idiot after but invested so much time into my post that I'd feel ashamed to delete it. I'm glad that you chose to respond today. I don't really have any concerns about the new First Presidency so I won't be praying and asking God about whether He called them or not. If they make some decisions that I think are absolutely stupid then I might feel some motivation to have a chat with God about it. I've found in the past that God is very responsive to me when it comes to matters dealing with the leadership of the church. I'd be curious to hear how He responds to you if you ever feel motivated enough to talk to Him about your concerns.

Whoever has been saying that Antifa can't be bad because their group name means something good... I think that's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. If I ever start a terrorist cell with decentralized leadership remind me to call it Rainbow Pony Club so that if anyone ever tries to catch me or call me out they can be calmed down because my name is kind. For all I know, during the Book of Mormon times the Gadianton Robbers had a great name because Gadianton was a man of high repute in Nephite history, so how could they have ever been a conspiracy or evil? As far as whether or not Antifa, as an organization, exists Andy Ngo would like to have a word. The KATU livestream has a few potential issues, but nothing insurmountable. They announced it would be happening well in advance, and that it would only be for 24 hours, so protestors could (potentially) choose how they want to present during the limited timeframe. What can balance and offset this narrow 24 hour window of time is watching footage from others who have recorded footage during the event. One who immediately comes to mind is Nick Shirley (but I'm sure there are others) who has spent a lot of time at the Portland ICE protests and has been threatened, bullied, and harassed just for being present with a camera on. I'd like to point out that I'm not writing this in defense of the "right" side of the aisle. I don't care if antifa is "right" or "left", I don't care if the people who have documented them or documented the protests are "right" or "left". I don't care if someone views both of the nice sounding named American political parties as good or bad. Now, to relate to this thread, I've been around the internet absorbing opinions and propaganda and I've read a lot of comments sections. I've spent a lot of time on mainstream sites, alternative sites, independent sites, extreme sites, blogs, conspiracy sites, and even a few sites that when I visited them I felt like my name was put on a list at the FBI. I've seen a lot of varying perspectives, and I've noticed something really strange. No matter how extreme or moderate someone is on either side: far-left, far-right, communist, capitalist, etc. Everyone seems to agree on one thing, that they don't like Israel. Since Charlie Kirk died I think the "right" side of disliking Israel has started to become more mainstream, whereas it used to be more whispered around the internet. While the "left" side has had a mainstream disdain of Israel for years as protestors have defaced art or glued their hands to stuff to stand with Palestine. The right side comes at it more from the conspiracy angle and wanting to be isolationist, they don't like how Jews own all the media, entertainment, banks, etc. The left side comes at it more from the genocide angle and disagreeing with where the government allocates funds in the Middle East. But they all share that same common enemy. So whether you are attending this Truth and Treason movie with lefties or righties, know that all of them will hate Nazis while simultaneously hating the Jews. (The ones who sympathize with Nazis don't attend movie theaters because they don't know how to have fun in life. ..... that's a joke, by the way.) I have never heard of the left sympathize with Hitler, and I have seen that in fringes on the right. I have never heard of the right sympathize with Mao or Stalin, and I have seen that in fringes on the left. So I call it even in my mind. Each side has fringe people who sympathize with men who were responsible for the deaths of millions. Don't let that stop you from enjoying a good movie, which this sounds like it may be shaping up to be.

Looky what I found in the official church email announcing this: Isn't that an interesting way to phrase it?

What? Elder Christofferson is 80?? Time sure flies.

You say that, but I'm not sure that's true. I know all apostles have all the keys of all dispensations or whatever. So they could ordain people to any position they want. This last conference, as previously noted, indicated to me that there may be something different about a "biblical prophet" and an apostle. In discussing it with a friend recently I noted that perhaps an apostle's role is more administrative because the apostles, since the very first ones, were about building up the kingdom of God on the Earth. Where the Biblical prophets were more about keeping Israel in check and ensuring that whatever God chose to do, it wasn't a surprise. Prophets in the Bible didn't exactly have to do administrative things because the Kings and rulers of Israel were the administrators of Israel. We can say, "oh the news doesn't know if the prophet is ordained or not" but the news would also say there's no such thing as a "second anointing" ceremony in the temple reserved for special people. There's all sorts of secret stuff that the "top" brethren are privy to that general membership isn't, and that's not a bad thing.

They certainly do have an end, I'll be experiencing it in 1 day to 50 years or less from now (God willing). As far as resurrected bodies are concerned, they are described as distinctly different from physical bodies. One is "flesh and blood" the other is "flesh and bone". One is temporary and corrupted in God's image, one is what the logical result of a "celestial pregnancy" would be. Presumably, following my logical train of thought, an exalted body will have an end because it had a starting point, but maybe the resurrected body we inhabit has always existed and this mortal body is in the celestial bodies image? We know next to nothing about celestial bodies so we could argue any which way we want about them. I am actually too tired to go down this deep doctrine rabbit hole. I have never heard of anyone debating anything about post-resurrection physical bodies before so I don't have much else to say (unprompted) than what I wrote above. What do you think? Is this even related to the eternal nature of our spirits? Joseph Smith said our spirit is eternal, I believe him.

I know all of the apostles are also prophets, and I didn't really think anything of it even though people in church say things like "the capital "P" prophet" referring to the president of the church and "lower case "p" prophet" when referring to the apostles. I viewed them all the same but there are a few things that indicate that perhaps apostles and prophets (i.e. the president of the church) are not entirely equal in their roles. One was President Oaks mentioning that he wrote the talk before Nelson's death, as if that mattered. The other is that the apostles all quote the living prophet all the time, and they don't call him "our dear president", and they don't quote other apostles while referring to them as "our dear prophet Elder Anderson", etc. They quote the current church president in a whole slew of talks every conference and refer to him as "our dear prophet, President so-and-so" and there are even calls for people to pray for "the prophet" not "the prophets". All that being said, this idea is a very new idea for me, I just had it like 5 days ago, but I think it merits some consideration. There may very well be a special and unique mantle placed on "the prophet" that "the prophets" don't have, even though they have all of the keys of the priesthood.

It is interesting to note that in this last General Conference President Oaks made a special point about how his talk had been written before the passing of President Nelson. As if to say, "I didn't write this under the prophetic mantle as President of the church." Also worth noting, and this is purely my own conjecture, but President Nelson was hitting it hard on Second Coming talks. He was very direct about how close it is and how we need to prepare. This conference I don't think I heard the words "Second Coming" a single time in the entire 10 hours. It makes me wonder if God has certain messaging reserved only for the president of the church, even if all Apostles are prophets as well. It's hard to really pin down because historically there's never been apostles and prophets living simultaneously. I don't know the timeline on when John the baptist was murdered, but if he was alive while the 12 apostles were, it wasn't a very long overlap and besides, Jesus was living at the time so He kind of trumped the prophet and the apostles. Before Jesus there were no apostles, only prophets, and the way missionaries teach, it really sounds like the president of the church is viewed like Jonah or Moses, and the apostles are viewed as similar to the apostles in the new testament. I don't know if there's a distinction, but I do know that I'm tired and I like to ramble when I'm tired. Have a great weekend brother.

Haha wow, that article is wild. So this "tripartite" thing that I referred to as "pipeline" started with Brigham Young. I see that back then they were attempting to reason out why, if God gave birth to spirits, and has perfect foreknowledge, God birthed the devil instead of skipping him or recycling his "intelligent" matter. Well, good news, Brigham Young also espoused a bunch of other fun stuff that people still believe in like Adam-God theory, blood atonement, and polygamy. Even the idea of an infinite period of time to repent and a sort of "reincarnation" concept applied to the plan of salvation wherein you keep recycling through the plan until you become a Jesus and then a Father has roots in Brigham Young. I'm part of a pretty hardcore FB group that believes in all of this stuff and has plenty of receipts from the early brethren to prove their doctrine. If I was a betting man, I'd bet my life savings that I have always been a spirit, even if there ever was a time in which I was not God's presence. That's how much I'm not into the cultural idea of the tripartite model. I think the theological underpinnings are more barebones than our evidence that sealing and Celestial marriage is a true doctrine (which really, we only have half of section 132 to back that one up). So somehow, even though we went from intelligences -> spirits, the matter that formed our spirits was not intelligent and could be recycled, even though we believe that all matter is intelligent. I've heard people interpret that verse in Mosiah about how we are less than the dust of the Earth as the dust having intelligence and obeying God when He tells the dust to do something, and since the dust is perfectly obedient we are less than it. Yet somewhere there is unintelligent matter that was used to create a "body" for my spirit? Meh. Everything has always been the way that it is. We are eternal beings. We have no end, which nobody seems to have a hard time grasping. We have no beginning, which everyone has an impossible time grasping, so now we have this rooted LDS cultural belief (at least in Utah) that our spirits had a beginning, but will have no end. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm pretty sure that the intelligences -> spirits -> physical body pipeline is not LDS doctrine. There is one place in all of the Standard Works that uses the word intelligence in its plural form, and that's Abraham 3:23 or somewhere around there. As far as spirits having a body is concerned, again, there is one verse in all of the standard works that references that idea, and it is an implication which could very well be just an imperfection in the way the Book of Mormon is written when the premortal Jesus, speaking to the brother of Jared states, "this is the body of my spirit". I don't know historical church support for this idea or who the first person was to craft this kind of pipeline narrative, but I don't think it started with Joseph Smith because he preached that our spirits are eternal and we came to have God as our father because he presented laws to us that we chose to comply with in order to progress. I know that a couple of years ago Elder Christofferson stated in General Conference the "pipeline" concept, so I could take that as LDS doctrine at that point but! One apostle saying one thing that could be interpreted to be true by one verse and implied by one other verse is, at best, really shaky doctrine. I do not like this idea at all. I believe that my spirit has always existed and is eternal. I do not believe that celestial parents are up in heaven being celestially intimate to create spirit bodies for "intelligences" whatever that is. It doesn't make any sense to me. How can a glorified, exalted, physical being get pregnant and give birth to anything other than a glorified, exalted, physical being. And on that note, while I'm on this tangent, I view the plan of salvation as God's pregnancy. The plan of salvation is how we go from the point of conception to being born, after much turmoil and labor, into an glorified, exalted, physical child just like our parents.

lol funny story, going into their marriage he was a liar and adulterer, and after a decade of marriage to her and being abused by her he sank into doing terrible things. But yes, he did have an impact on me, much of it bad, and some of it very good. I understand that fathers matter, but fathers generally aren't raising the kids, they are feeding and playing with them. And if the mother isn't raising the kids, then it's some stranger woman making 20 bucks an hour. So women tend to have the upper hand in the child rearing scenario. I do recognize that the absence of a father in a home does have an impact on like jail rates, and girls having daddy issues and stuff. Like my sisters have all dated men like 10-20 years older than them their whole lives cause they didn't have a dad for most of their life (and were abused by him in their own ways). I don't know where I heard it from, but I've reflected on this idea for several years now. How girls can naturally become mothers because they are raised by their mothers and can emulate them. But boys cannot naturally become fathers because they are raised by their mothers but can't become one themselves. That's why cultures around the world would have rites of passage for young men to become men, to prove themselves and their ability to raise a family. Modern civilization has largely done away with this and men now are just a bunch of grown up children much to the chagrin of their wives. I, myself, still harbor a lot of childish tendencies that I have to keep an eye out for so as not to unnecessarily burden my wife by not pulling my adult weight in the family. I don't know how true the above sentiment is in reality, but it rings true to my gut, which is why I've reflected on it so much.

I know it's not debatable but I'm wondering how you quantify the impact of mothers raising kids, or women raising kids in daycare, or women teaching and raising kids in public school? Also the impact of a woman on her husband and his growth and development? I know there is a general debate about the "blank slate" and nature vs nurture for people's personalities and decision making. Let me try to see if I can sound like I'm making sense. I was raised by my mom until I was 14. A large part of who I am was fundamentally shaped by my mother. And because she was a very abusive person I view my personal capacity to accomplish things in life as quite low. I feel like I have a short ceiling that's keeping me cramped, and a lot of that I personally attribute to my messed up childhood and a lot of the choices my mother made. Now, she passed away last year, and I am definitely my own man, but there is still so much baggage there that limits me. I often will wonder what life would have been like if I was raised by a good mother, how different would my life be? the choices I make? the lens I see the world through? What kind of leader, father, or employee I would be? How much better? Moms and social mothers are really underrated I think. Another example, my cousin is going through a divorce. 4 years before his divorce he left the church and a year or two before that he started drinking because "his wife drove him to drink". Now there's a lot of factors at play, but he told me that the fundamental issue was that he married someone who he is incompatible with. To make a long story short I can see, as his cousin, how his mom impacted and shaped him during his formative years and how that contributed to this failed marriage and his choice to leave the church. She was very rigid and structured and controlling and his life was lived for him up until the point at which he achieved the dream of owning a home with a wife and kids but his wife wasn't happy and he wasn't happy. Don't get me wrong, I am my own man, and so is my cousin. I'm just trying to state a huge, often ignored or shrugged off, impact that women have on men. (Let's not even get started on the impact of porn on society.) So while the church may be ruled by men, the generations of the church are not shaped by men, they are shaped by women. I think there's something lost when we take out 98% of a person's life doing boring, home stuff around women and focus only on the visible 2% final product that appears in a public capacity. On the one hand, speaking as a man, I may sound like an idiot, because I don't know what it's like to be a woman ruled over by a man. But on the other hand, speaking as a man, I know what it's like to be a boy, a teenager, and a man and how all of my female leaders, teachers, and peers shaped and impacted me. A ton of a man's motivation, for better or for worse, is related to women. And I believe that impacts decision making by male leaders. Lastly, please understand that I view your opinion as valid. I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. Life is just really complicated.

I don't have time to read the article right now, but based on the topic I think there is a very interesting dynamic the church has to deal with here, and I have been discussing this idea with my wife lately due to all of the immigration stuff and also since she's had a ton of exposure to the illegal immigrant community as she herself was one, as was her family (from Australia), and her ex-fiance (from Guatemala), and most of the people she served on her mission in Chicago Spanish speaking. She has a lot of interesting stories related to illegal immigrants, anyways, what was I talking about? Oh yeah, so the church is worldwide and Christ will deny none who come unto Him. And the church has the temple which they view as like, the place where people can build a relationship with Him. So there is Doctrine and Covenants 134 and Article of Faith 12 about obeying the law, supporting the government, that sort of thing. But in the temple recommend interview there is no question about whether or not someone obeys the law. There is the question about whether or not you are honest in your dealings with your fellow man, which could be interpreted in a variety of ways. One way it could easily be interpreted to mean (at least partially) is "do you lie to the government" like cheat on taxes, illegal immigration status, etc. I think it's really interesting that obeying the law of the land is not a requirement to enter the temple, I haven't personally decided on whether or not I agree with that. But regardless, the church doesn't care if a member is an illegal immigrant, and I believe they, in fact, support illegal immigration if it means keeping a family together because family > government law to the church. So when it comes to a religious institution masquerading as a University there's an interesting line to toe. To run a University that's accredited I'm sure they have to create some close ties to the government and have to follow a bunch of government rules. And again, we literally have canonized scripture saying to obey the government as long as they respect freedom of conscience. But the church doesn't care about immigration status and wants to support everyone's walk with God. I don't know what the answer is, but it is a fascinating problem. I do know that I don't respond well to threats. If I was part of the Dreamer center I would have been ok to close down if the proper channels were followed, but the moment someone calls with a threat I respond with a middle finger and that Dreamer center would stay open and be put up on a big pedestal. So I say, open that center back up, hire a few private security, and stick it to the man!

Oh you know me, I'm super casual with words. I just meant women were second class citizens or whatever. I think the church has always treated women exceptionally well, but I'm probably in the minority view on this forum, and I'm a man so my opinion carries less weight here.

My favorite part of the video was reading the back and forth arguments in the comments section. After digesting what I read here is what I currently think about DEI stuff. Does it have a negative impact on the airline pilot industry? No. It's just a way to get more minority type people into flight school programs, but they all have to put in the same amount of flight hours and stuff. Do I disagree with DEI at a fundamental level? Yes and no. I assume the worst out of businesses: nepotism, favoritism, etc. So unless there is a law to force certain hiring behavior then I expect a business will do the most shady thing possible in their hiring practices. I don't know how DEI is setup but I imagine it is not like how I would set it up. I would have DEI handled at the state or city level, not the federal level. And I'd have each state or city have DEI hiring practices reflect their demographic. So if a state is 5% black then DEI is 5% black. If it's 5% white, then DEI is 5% white. That only applies for race, not for gender, because, depending on the industry, women don't want to work there and vice versa. I do not want to see a 50% male childcare employment rate. I think men are going to abuse my kids, call me sexist. And I don't expect 50% of people who install solar to be women. My favorite comment that gave me pause for consideration as far as skill vs quota was this. Would DEI work to enhance the NBA? If there was a quota for NBA or NFL to be 50% white, would that improve the quality of athletes in the sport? Call me racist, but I don't think it would. I think there's a reason that sports are largely black and it's because they have rigorous drafting procedures and pipelines to ensure that the best athletes rise to the top and get hired, and they have a large financial incentive to make sure their team gets the best players. So, as with anything else, DEI appears to be a mixed bag, it has been fun to think about this topic which I frankly had forgotten about since university like 15 years ago.

I probably shouldn't participate in this conversation but I can't resist. I'm just going to leave this 2 minute clip here. First half is Charlie Kirk defending himself about DEI hires and black pilots, second half is Jamie Foxx talking about black pilots.

If this thread was teetering on not getting locked you certainly cemented that outcome with this post. I enjoyed reading it, thanks for sharing brother.

Ok, that makes sense, thank you for explaining. I understand what you're saying. The church has grown and changed so rapidly that it seems like there is a variety of baggage from each generation still living. I know that my mom, born in '63 in Seattle in a family of 11 who believed that their mom was a prophetess, believed that breaking the law of chastity was as bad as murdering someone, and that if she was raped then she was going to hell for it. And, to me, that view sounds like a different sect, but I know there were many, many people who grew up believing that and probably still do. I imagine there are probably plenty of younger women who feel like male priesthood stuff sucks, but I imagine the baggage is different, and deeper, for older generations because they grew up in a time before women were really part of the workforce, or their grandmother was in a polygamous family, or whatever. Less removed from the old misogynistic church if that makes sense.

There's a little bit of truth in everything. I could pick 20 articles on the internet about the same current event ranging from whatever side and angle you want, and there will be overlap in all of them. That common ground is a pretty safe way to identify truth I think.

Uh... if the lady being interviewed was excited, I don't think she was excited because "how could he want to get my opinion, a mere woman". I think she was excited because she really respects and admires him and views her own opinion as insignificant in contrast to his. I could be wrong because she mentioned how she was an immigrant and stuff. So she did place some emphasis on how her labels bring her a sense of humility in contrast to the prophet. But there are many people who practically worship the prophet, male and female, who would all feel like they were meeting with a giant among mortals if they were invited to a meeting with him. If you look at the church pipeline I'm pretty sure all church leaders counsel with women. Bishops in counsel settings have women present and get their input on running ward affairs. I imagine Stake Presidents have female leaders at the Stake level that they counsel with. It is not a rare commodity for a women to participate in giving their opinions about how to run the church. IDK about Seventies and stuff like that, I haven't been exposed to it. Women get to express their opinions all over the place, I'm not sure what your on about here.