Jump to content

Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 3


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Calm said:

1) He spent time telling non-Latter-day Saint Christians what they believed

2) telling people who have left the Church can't take the doctrines with them

 But especially

3)  He harassed people who disagreed with his tweets, particularly women.

Someone was sharing screenshots on Instagram yesterday, but those were only shown temporarily. If I see them anywhere, I'll share.

Link to comment

Ttribe showed number #2, though I disagree on the interpretation.  He isn’t IMO saying they can’t take the beliefs with them, just that there is no evidence those beliefs are true if you exclude revelations from Joseph Smith.  I disagree with him though.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ttribe showed number #2, though I disagree on the interpretation.  He isn’t IMO saying they can’t take the beliefs with them, just that there is no evidence those beliefs are true if you exclude revelations from Joseph Smith.  I disagree with him though.

She shares screenshots here: https://www.instagram.com/stories/highlights/17905742608748804/. There's a pause button at the top of the window to enable you to read the screenshots.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know see any screenshots.

Thanks,

-Smac

I saw several at that link. They are shown in the video and you can pause to read them.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

1) He spent time telling non-Latter-day Saint Christians what they believed

2) telling people who have left the Church can't take the doctrines with them

 But especially

3)  He harassed people who disagreed with his tweets, particularly women.

I don't agree with Hank Smith and people can believe what the like. I do not follow Hank on any social media; however, he is not the first teacher you get into it with a student. The other episode which happened a few months ago seems to have blown over. I think the professors at BYU are way to involved in the personal lives of their students and they forget where the boundaries are. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They have incredibly bad taste or an incredibly bad sense of humor or both.

I was wondering more about what he thinks it says about Hank Smith. 
 

But my question was posed to Pogi, so I’ll await his response. 

Link to comment

I do not know Hank Smith Personally.  I am not currently following him, but I have.  I've talked with him.  I've taken both youth and adult education week classes from him.  I've listened to his CDs.  

So taking it all with a grain of salt I agree with calm that he was trying to say the belief of a Heavenly Mother etc came from Joseph Smith not that he was trying to tell them what they believe.

The idea that he is with deznet goes so against everything I have ever heard him say.  He has been very vocal on including people and treating others well.  People do surprise you sometimes when what they say is not what they do.  No doubts that it happens, but I really would be surprised if he were associating with deznat.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Ttribe showed number #2, though I disagree on the interpretation.  He isn’t IMO saying they can’t take the beliefs with them, just that there is no evidence those beliefs are true if you exclude revelations from Joseph Smith.  I disagree with him though.

I, on the other hand, very much agree with him. 
 

Joseph Smith was the instrument through which divine truths were revealed. It is an incoherent position to embrace those truths while rejecting the divinity of Joseph’s calling. 
 

It is akin to the “inspired fiction” approach to the Book of Mormon, which approach I also reject as incoherent. 

Link to comment

After looking at deznat's FB page and their videos especially, I get why John Dehlin might fear for his family and himself, and gays or exLDS. They scare the living poop out of me. Some memes below:

Here's what they said on the post: The well-dressed, well-prepared gentleman needs not fear a silly rainbow day.

.156608406_762351518047165_4216679712422918370_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=wwpfApkQPXYAX9EwM5X&_nc_oc=AQk_MBNA1XZyVj3L4PNgljGCeGk1oTVjaUrxmTpdWJxEe707ZxOmKjBDosc3u8Ysxq8vKS4A8mQqs-Ypwdq87oHB&_nc_ht=scontent-den4-1.xx&oh=942360f87d3e34cd6f3b0ed27b617ff5&oe=60AE42A0

 

May be an image of 3 people and text that says 'Baby Hoss @NiasDiad Let's take the battle to the progmos! #DezNat "You'll have my sword' "And my AXE!"'

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I think the professors at BYU are way to involved in the personal lives of their students and they forget where the boundaries are. 

I agree with this.  A professor would seemingly have no meaningful priesthood stewardship over a student.  I think a student would be better off going to a family member, his ministering elders, his bishop or his stake president.

I've heard that seminary teachers in Utah (where they teach full-time) can likewise get overly involved in the personal lives of their students, and can end up improperly functioning in a quasi-ecclesiastical capacity parallel to the recognized lines of stewardship.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is an incoherent position to embrace those truths while rejecting the divinity of Joseph’s calling. 

There are other belief systems that have a Heavenly Mother and eternal marriage and existing before conception. 

Also I think a valid position is to believe Joseph was inspired about eternal truths but was not a prophet anymore than the rest of us are.

We can study others’ religious ideas and pray about them, etc and receive inspiration they are divine truths, correct?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Also I think a valid position is to believe Joseph was inspired about eternal truths but was not a prophet anymore than the rest of us are.

It’s not a valid position within our doctrinal paradigm. The Lord decreed that this generation (meaning this gospel dispensation) would have His word through Joseph Smith.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-13-this-generation-shall-have-my-word-through-you?lang=eng

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not a valid position within our doctrinal paradigm. The Lord decreed that this generation (meaning this gospel dispensation) would have His word through Joseph Smith.

 

So you don’t believe a nonmember might read about the belief of eternal marriage in the Swedenborg faith and choose to pray about it and then receive inspiration it was a divine truth?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you don’t believe a nonmember might read about the belief of eternal marriage in the Swedenborg faith and choose to pray about it and then receive inspiration it was a divine truth?

There will be no divine truth to the effect that Joseph Smith was a false prophet or that he lied about his divine calling. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There will be no divine truth to the effect that Joseph Smith was a false prophet or that he lied about his divine calling. 

That is not what I am saying is a valid position. I believe they may not have received a witness or otherwise not believe Joseph was a prophet, but still be inspired about other divine truths.

 I said nothing about being inspired to believe Joseph wasn’t a prophet. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And therefore, what? 

1) Deznat liked his interaction on twitter.  They tend to be attracted to unsavory and insulting tones and dialogue.

2) Hank Smith apologized for his interactions, and thought them imprudent and unfair enough to delete them.

...And therefore...his apology was probably well deserved.

Without any further evidence, it is probably best not to judge Hank Smith much beyond a bad day online.

He does seem to have a thing for shaming people by calling them “Korihors” though (he used the derogatory term 2 times in 3 days on his twitter account) - which makes this recent tweet of his all the more ironic:

“I don’t think it happens nearly as much as the Korihors of today claim, however, we can be more careful. Shame and the Atonement of Christ should never be used together...Christ’s sacrifice is a gift, not a guilt trip.“


While I completely agree with the idea, calling someone a “Korihor” for their perception of shame being used in the church is itself shaming.  All he is doing is validating their perceptions further.  Bad form.

I don’t know much about him, but I don’t like the derogatory and shaming tone in what amounts to name calling.  Korihor was an anti-Christ, seems a bit extreme and harsh in both of his uses of the term.  He did apologize for one of them at least.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
10 hours ago, pogi said:

1) Deznat liked his interaction on twitter.  They tend to be attracted to unsavory and insulting tones and dialogue.

2) Hank Smith apologized for his interactions, and thought them imprudent and unfair enough to delete them.

...And therefore...his apology was probably well deserved.

Without any further evidence, it is probably best not to judge Hank Smith much beyond a bad day online.

He does seem to have a thing for shaming people by calling them “Korihors” though (he used the derogatory term 2 times in 3 days on his twitter account) - which makes this recent tweet of his all the more ironic:

“I don’t think it happens nearly as much as the Korihors of today claim, however, we can be more careful. Shame and the Atonement of Christ should never be used together...Christ’s sacrifice is a gift, not a guilt trip.“


While I completely agree with the idea, calling someone a “Korihor” for their perception of shame being used in the church is itself shaming.  All he is doing is validating their perceptions further.  Bad form.

I don’t know much about him, but I don’t like the derogatory and shaming tone in what amounts to name calling.  Korihor was an anti-Christ, seems a bit extreme and harsh in both of his uses of the term.  He did apologize for one of them at least.

Couple of things:

Unless I’ve missed something here, Hank Smith apologized for one specific thing, i.e. calling someone Korihor. Saying he “apologized for his interactions” strikes me as overstating and overgeneralizing the matter, as though he regretted everything he said or did, not just the specific thing he apologized for. Again, I’ve not been following this episode closely, so if there’s something I’m missing, I’m open to enlightenment. 
 

Second, I strongly disapprove in concept of guilt by association. As an illustration, I have long admired Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf. I know that on occasion he has been cited approvingly by people with whom I’m apt to disagree. Should I allow that to diminish my love and admiration for Elder Uchtdorf? Certainly not. If he can connect on some wholesome level with such folks, I say more power to him. 
 

I’m glad you acknowledged that “without any further evidence, it is probably best not to judge Hank Smith much beyond a bad day online.” But posting the meme you did without comment appears to do just that in that it insinuates guilt by association, which, as I said, I cannot abide. That’s why I posed the question I did seeking clarification. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
7 hours ago, pogi said:

1) Deznat liked his interaction on twitter.  They tend to be attracted to unsavory and insulting tones and dialogue.

2) Hank Smith apologized for his interactions, and thought them imprudent and unfair enough to delete them.

...And therefore...his apology was probably well deserved.

Without any further evidence, it is probably best not to judge Hank Smith much beyond a bad day online.

He does seem to have a thing for shaming people by calling them “Korihors” though (he used the derogatory term 2 times in 3 days on his twitter account) - which makes this recent tweet of his all the more ironic:

“I don’t think it happens nearly as much as the Korihors of today claim, however, we can be more careful. Shame and the Atonement of Christ should never be used together...Christ’s sacrifice is a gift, not a guilt trip.“


While I completely agree with the idea, calling someone a “Korihor” for their perception of shame being used in the church is itself shaming.  All he is doing is validating their perceptions further.  Bad form.

I don’t know much about him, but I don’t like the derogatory and shaming tone in what amounts to name calling.  Korihor was an anti-Christ, seems a bit extreme and harsh in both of his uses of the term.  He did apologize for one of them at least.

Just for argument’s sake, what do you think should happen in the case of genuine modern-day Korihors? Do you think they should be allowed to continue on in their work of the destruction of the Church of Christ, without ever being called out to answer for their ungodly deeds, because it’s always wrong to “judge” such people? Or do you think there are some instances in which the condemnation of  modern-day Korihors is justifiable if, in point of fact, they really are modern-day Korihors?

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Just for argument’s sake, what do you think should happen in the case of genuine modern-day Korihors? Do you think they should be allowed to continue on in their work of the destruction of the Church of Christ, without ever being called out to answer for their ungodly deeds, because it’s always wrong to “judge” such people? Or do you think there are some instances in which the condemnation of  modern-day Korihors is justifiable if, in point of fact, they really are modern-day Korihors?

For argument's sake, BYU professors have zero authority in judging the spiritual worthiness of BYU students or anyone else. Judgment comes in disciplinary council through the appropriate authority. Furthermore, Korihor was ostensibly a real person. Why would a judge in Israel use a name of a real person to label another real person? People are judged for the own sins. It seems needless to use Korihor's name to identify a sin when it was not his name that condemned Korihor, but his actions. Furthermore, using a fallen person's name to label another is a shaming tactic, it's not an invitation to repentance. 

And generally, outside of disciplinary councils, people would help each other better by identifying problematic behaviors and inviting them to do better instead of name-calling.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Unless I’ve missed something here, Hank Smith apologized for one specific thing, i.e. calling someone Korihor. Saying he “apologized for his interactions” strikes me as overstating and overgeneralizing the matter, as though he regretted everything he said or did, not just the specific thing he apologized for. 

2 apologies are posted on his account. His first apology was to his readers that he may have offended in his comments.  Not only did he apologize for his comments/interactions that day, but he deleted them.  We can no longer even read what he said.  It was more than the Korihor comment that he apologized for and deleted.  

But like I said, we have all had our moments online and without further evidence, I think it best to leave it at that.

All I can say is that if my comments online inspired Deznat to take the time to create a meme about me and post it proudly on their Facebook page, it would certainly cause me to seriously question wether there is good reason to repent.
 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...