New Book on Polygamy

[smac97]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I realized that some people would disagree when I wrote that but knew it would be those who had no desire to offer comfort anyway. 

I disagree.  I think we may seek to comfort others in different ways.

By way of example, I have a good friend who has had a very rough life.  She was in an abusive marriage, divorced, nearly destitute with two children, stabilized herself but then stumbled into a very bad and short-term marriage, and had some physical and mental health issues.  Fortunately, she ended up in a nice neighborhood and a nice ward (in Utah Valley) where she lived for several years and finished raising her children.

Last fall we spoke a few times and she told me that she was planning to sell her home and move to a secret location.  She said she was doing this because she felt threatened by some of her neighbors, who were Trump supporters (she was voting Biden).  I was quite surprised, as much of her angst centered on leaving her ward, which she very much loved.  I asked her if someone had threatened her, she said no.  I asked her if she had witnessed any violence or threats of violence against her or anyone else in the vicinity, she said no.  I asked her if anyone had said anything unkind or untoward to her, she said no.  I asked her why she was afraid of being targeted for violence and she pointed to things happening "in the country."  I asked her how she would be avoiding this prospective violence in the new place to which she was moving, and she said she did not know, and that there might be violence there, too.  All she knew was that she had to leave before the election. 

As she had raised the issue with me, and as I had known her for quite a while, and as I felt she might come to regret moving out of a ward/neighborhood she loved, I told her that we would support her in whatever course of action she chose, but then I asked if she had considered the possibility that she was overreacting, that she was making an important life decision rashly, and out of fear and speculation.  She got a little tense and agitated, and reiterated her fear that her neighbors might hurt her, and that she was all alone with nobody to look out for her.  I reminded her of how often she had mentioned how wonderful her ward was, and also that nobody had actually threatened her.  She then pointed to some neighbors who had posted their support for Trump on Facebook, and also mentioned the riots and protests that they were afraid might happen if Trump were to be re-elected, and that she took this as an indication that she was under threat, and that she needed to move and go inho hiding before the election.  I wished her well, as did my wife.

Well, she moved out.  She went into hiding for a few months, then ended up buying a house somewhere else.  She substantially upended her life, moved away from a neighborhood and ward and friends, solely based on fear and speculation.  Virtually no reasoning or rationally-adduced facts were part of the decision-making process.

I empathized with my friend, but I also loved her enough to at least attempt to help her see that her course of action seemed to be extreme, rash and unnecessary.  Also, her daughter stopped by to visit a few weeks ago, and is sounds like she - my friend - is kinda sorta regrettting having moved out of her neighborhood since her new one is sort of clannish and stand-offish.  

We each of us can express empathy in different ways at different times.

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

There are some topics that I don't have any desire to offer comfort on, so I'm not saying that in a self-righteous way. 

It is what it is--a bit of a reality sandwich that you just need to eat even though it doesn't taste that good because it's still good for you, as some would say.   

Giving a friend a reality sandwich can be very empathetic.  President Hinckley's father comforted him in a constructive and meaningful way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 4, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  I think we may seek to comfort others in different ways.

By way of example, I have a good friend who has had a very rough life.  She was in an abusive marriage, divorced, nearly destitute with two children, stabilized herself but then stumbled into a very bad and short-term marriage, and had some physical and mental health issues.  Fortunately, she ended up in a nice neighborhood and a nice ward (in Utah Valley) where she lived for several years and finished raising her children.

Last fall we spoke a few times and she told me that she was planning to sell her home and move to a secret location.  She said she was doing this because she felt threatened by some of her neighbors, who were Trump supporters (she was voting Biden).  I was quite surprised, as much of her angst centered on leaving her ward, which she very much loved.  I asked her if someone had threatened her, she said no.  I asked her if she had witnessed any violence or threats of violence against her or anyone else in the vicinity, she said no.  I asked her if anyone had said anything unkind or untoward to her, she said no.  I asked her why she was afraid of being targeted for violence and she pointed to things happening "in the country."  I asked her how she would be avoiding this prospective violence in the new place to which she was moving, and she said she did not know, and that there might be violence there, too.  All she knew was that she had to leave before the election. 

As she had raised the issue with me, and as I had known her for quite a while, and as I felt she might come to regret moving out of a ward/neighborhood she loved, I told her that we would support her in whatever course of action she chose, but then I asked if she had considered the possibility that she was overreacting, that she was making an important life decision rashly, and out of fear and speculation.  She got a little tense and agitated, and reiterated her fear that her neighbors might hurt her, and that she was all alone with nobody to look out for her.  I reminded her of how often she had mentioned how wonderful her ward was, and also that nobody had actually threatened her.  She then pointed to some neighbors who had posted their support for Trump on Facebook, and also mentioned the riots and protests that they were afraid might happen if Trump were to be re-elected, and that she took this as an indication that she was under threat, and that she needed to move and go inho hiding before the election.  I wished her well, as did my wife.

Well, she moved out.  She went into hiding for a few months, then ended up buying a house somewhere else.  She substantially upended her life, moved away from a neighborhood and ward and friends, solely based on fear and speculation.  Virtually no reasoning or rationally-adduced facts were part of the decision-making process.

I empathized with my friend, but I also loved her enough to at least attempt to help her see that her course of action seemed to be extreme, rash and unnecessary.  Also, her daughter stopped by to visit a few weeks ago, and is sounds like she - my friend - is kinda sorta regrettting having moved out of her neighborhood since her new one is sort of clannish and stand-offish.  

We each of us can express empathy in different ways at different times.

Giving a friend a reality sandwich can be very empathetic.  President Hinckley's father comforted him in a constructive and meaningful way.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do understand what you are saying.  We'll just have to agree to disagree that telling a woman who is really struggling with polygamy "It's no big deal" is a comforting and empathetic response. 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do understand what you are saying.  We'll just have to agree to disagree that telling a woman who is really struggling with polygamy "It's no big deal" is a comforting and empathetic response. 

On the other hand, there is a claim in some quarters that women will actually be fully backing polygamy -- in the near future:  

 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do understand what you are saying.  We'll just have to agree to disagree that telling a woman who is really struggling with polygamy "It's no big deal" is a comforting and empathetic response. 

I have not advocated that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, there is a claim in some quarters that women will actually be fully backing polygamy -- in the near future:  

 

Some fully back it now.  

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not advocated that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quotes like these:

• Neither man nor woman need "worry" about such things
• Polygamy in the hereafter, if it happens...it will not be "some unpleasant thing."
• [Worrying about living polygamy in the next life] seems to be more properly attributable to the blinkered and finite perspective of the individual
• Any person who is "worried that they might be forced" to enter into polygamy "after they die" is not in the right headspace. 
• [Worry about living polygamy in the next life] seems a lot like tilting at windmills
• Such worries are overwhelmingly speculative, and based on ignorance and fear.
• Those who are willing to set aside their ignorance and fear and speculation, and to study the scriptures, and to exercise faith, will likely not end up tying themselves into emotional knots over such things.

can reasonably be interpreted as you saying there is no reason for these women to worry about polygamy in the next life because it's nothing to worry about.

Also, I think you are confusing sympathy with empathy.  Earlier in the thread you stated:

Quote

I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it.  

You aren't describing empathy in that statement, you are describing sympathy.  In order to empathize with someone you do have to "join in".  The definition of empathize is to understand and share the feelings of another person.  That is why it can be so hard to empathize with someone if you've never experienced something similar, and why it is really hard (practically impossible sometimes) to empathize with them if you think their feelings are irrational.  

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Giving a friend a reality sandwich can be very empathetic.  President Hinckley's father comforted him in a constructive and meaningful way.

Thanks,

-Smac

My Trump friends, to a person, have all abandoned my friendship.  When I needed it most. They question my very morality, at least some. It doesn't help that I am an outspoken libertarian.  I don't see violence on the horizon but some church friends talk about guns in a disturbing way.  

I sympathize with your friend but with that mindset church association isn't going to help. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

My Trump friends, to a person, have all abandoned my friendship.  When I needed it most. They question my very morality, at least some. It doesn't help that I am an outspoken libertarian.  I don't see violence on the horizon but some church friends talk about guns in a disturbing way.  

I sympathize with your friend but with that mindset church association isn't going to help. 

Scary, right?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Quotes like these:

• Neither man nor woman need "worry" about such things

But not "It's no big deal."

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

• Polygamy in the hereafter, if it happens...it will not be "some unpleasant thing."

But not "It's no big deal."

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

• [Worrying about living polygamy in the next life] seems to be more properly attributable to the blinkered and finite perspective of the individual

But not "It's no big deal."

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

• Any person who is "worried that they might be forced" to enter into polygamy "after they die" is not in the right headspace. 
• [Worry about living polygamy in the next life] seems a lot like tilting at windmills
• Such worries are overwhelmingly speculative, and based on ignorance and fear.
• Those who are willing to set aside their ignorance and fear and speculation, and to study the scriptures, and to exercise faith, will likely not end up tying themselves into emotional knots over such things.

Again, but not "It's no big deal."

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

can reasonably be interpreted as you saying there is no reason for these women to worry about polygamy in the next life because it's nothing to worry about.

I don't think I have said "it's no big deal" or "there is not reason ... to worry."

I have repeatedly acknowledged that polygamy is a toughie.  I have also acknowledged that there is a lot of angst and worry about it.  My point is not that this is not a "big deal" (it is) or that there are no reasons to have some concerns about it (there are).  Rather, my point is that the angst seems to be overwhelmingly based on fear, ignorance and speculation, and not on reasoned analysis, revelation and faith.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Also, I think you are confusing sympathy with empathy.  Earlier in the thread you stated:

Quote

I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it.  

d

I think I understand the distinction (from Mirriam-Webster's) :

Quote

Sympathy, constructed from the Greek sym, meaning "together," and pathos, referring to feelings or emotion, is used when one person shares the feelings of another, as when one experiences sadness when someone close is experiencing grief or loss. Empathy is a newer word also related to "pathos." It differs from sympathy in carrying an implication of greater emotional distance. With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself.

I acknowledge that there seems to be varying approaches to the divergent meanings of these two terms (see, e.g., here).  My usage of the term, however, is congruent with what is noted above: "With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself."  

If someone has a reasoned and legitimate concern or fear, and if I share it, then I would be happy to sympathize with them.  As it is, however, much of what we are discussing here is not reasoned or based on revelation and faith, and is instead based predominantly on fear, ignorance and speculation.  Thus I can honestly say that I empathize, but I don't sympathize.  I see and understand - and even to some extent respect - those fears.  But I do not share them.  

Last night I was speaking with a good friend who told me he does not want to get the vaccine, as he does not trust the government.  He said he thinks the vaccine was developed in 2013 or so, and that Dr. Fauci was predicting a pandemic for years prior to 2020.  He mentioned a few other things, including that he is a conspiracy theorist.  I asked him how he felt about Pres. Nelson encouraging us to get vaccinated, and he had no answer.  Overall, he seemed to be alluding to a huge conspiracy, with the vaccines playing some sort of nefarious - but ill-defined - role.

Do you think I should sympathize or empathize with my friend?  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You aren't describing empathy in that statement, you are describing sympathy. 

Actually, I think I'm describing empathy.  See above.  My "I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it" statement seems pretty congruent with Mirriam-Webster's "With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself" explanation.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

In order to empathize with someone you do have to "join in". The definition of empathize is to understand and share the feelings of another person.  That is why it can be so hard to empathize with someone if you've never experienced something similar, and why it is really hard (practically impossible sometimes) to empathize with them if you think their feelings are irrational.  

That depends, I suppose, on how the term is defined and used.  See above.

I was able to empathize with my friend who went into hiding prior to last year's elections, even though I felt she was not being altogether rational about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Scary, right?

Yeah, I am not so sure smac is right about how friendly the ward would be if push comes to shove. Some would have charity win out. I suspect many wouldn’t and would adhere to the teachings of the cult instead.

[Teancum]

On 8/3/2021 at 2:04 PM, Tacenda said:

I believe JS wanted to have more than one woman. That's my true feelings, and I could be wrong. I say this because I believe if JS were to restore the church, he wouldn't restore something that's already been put away, such as animal sacrifice. Why would he restore things in the Old Testament? I think he saw it happened in the Bible and used it for his purposes. Remember he went to the grove and prayed for forgiveness? I believe he may have had a problem with women, or with lustful things in his life. And I believe a few others thought polygamy was the answer so that men wouldn't go to ladies in the night etc. 

But that's just me. I believe JS was very fallible.

I would be interested in SMACs position as to why he goes at such great lengths to accept JS' multiple wife practices when I know he would not do that for any other religious leader who does this. They claim it was godly. Many of the women that enter into multiple partner arrangements in other religious groups believe they have what we would term a testimony of it. The similarities are astounding.   

 

For me the evidence is fairly clear that Joseph was manipulative, used his position to convince  women to enter into marriage with him, pressured women and others in a stressful and way that was full of methods that caused the women great duress, promised eternal rewards to entire families if a woman would marry him and so on.  Also @smac97 you mentioned the older women.  Why nobody has a problem with that. Well I do.  I think one of the reasons he married older women was to help groom the younger women.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

Some of the people who struggle with polygamy might be stuck in that struggle because they refuse to acknowledge or engage with doctrines, teachings, or opinions that maybe could soften the blow.  They are convinced that the doctrine is evil and they refused to be comforted by anything that doesn't fit that perspective.

Or some have wrangled mightily with polygamy, worked to reconcile it, read about it, studied it, read the apologetics on it,  defended it for a long time and prayed about it.  And thus concluded  it was not from God.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

My Trump friends, to a person, have all abandoned my friendship.  When I needed it most. They question my very morality, at least some. It doesn't help that I am an outspoken libertarian.  I don't see violence on the horizon but some church friends talk about guns in a disturbing way.  

I sympathize with your friend but with that mindset church association isn't going to help. 

I can understand your concern.  I share it.  I think we as a society, including members of the Church, have become far too easygoing with the idea of resorting to violence as pertaining to sociopolitical disagreement.  

On this very board one person - apparently a member of the Church, said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that he "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists" and that the rioters "have killed no one and only caused a few injuries."

And then there are the #DezNat yahoos and their explicitly violent rhetoric/imagery.

I have a friend who attended the January 6 protest that culminated in invading the Capitol building.  I think he thought I would be impressed with what happened and that he had participated in it (I don't think he went into the Capitol building, but he was clearly happy with those who did).  He seemed to be upset when I told him that I strongly disagreed with the unlawful behavior.  He tried to justify the event by pointing to ostensibly worse and much bigger instances of protests/riots that resulted in billlions in property damage, many thousands of arrests, hundreds of injuries and dozens of deaths (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

I think violence in an ordered society is bad.  I think politically-motivated violence is really bad.  And such things cannot be excused or rationalized by saying "the other side did it first" or "the other side did it worse."  I think we need to be able to disagree with each other about sociopolitical issues without resorting to violence or threats of violence.  We have the right to peaceably assemble.  The Antifa/BLM protests/riots were not that.  The January 6 incursion into the Capitol building was not that.

I think we ought to look to what the Brethren have said about extra-legal violence and anarchy.  The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  

See also D&C 134:1: "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."  And verse 5: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."  Anarchy is condemned in verse 6: "We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker."

General Authorities have condemned and taught against anarchy.  See here: 

Quote

Elder Erastus Snow explained: “Anarchy—shall I say, is the worst of all governments? No: Anarchy is the absence of all government; it is the antipodes [opposite] of order; it is the acme of confusion; it is the result of unbridled license, the antipodes of true liberty. The Apostle Paul says truly: ‘For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.’ At first this is a startling statement. Even the monopoly of the one-man-power as in Russia [the Czar], or the monopoly of the aristocracy as in other parts of Europe, or the imbecility and sometimes stupidity of a republic like our own, is far better than no government at all. And for this reason, says the Apostle Paul, ‘The powers are ordained of God,’ not that they are always the best forms of government for the people, or that they afford liberty and freedom to mankind but that any and all forms of government are better than none at all, having a tendency as they do to restrain the passions of human nature and to curb them, and to establish and maintain order to a greater or less degree. One monopoly is better than many; and the oppression of a king is tolerable, but the oppression of a mob, where every man is a law to himself and his own right arm, is his power to enforce his own will, is the worst form of government.” (In Journal of Discourses, 22:151.)

...

Many leaders of the Church have spoken on the importance of Church members choosing righteous leaders. In January 1928 the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley) issued a statement that read in part:

...

“Without beneficent laws, righteously administered, the foundations of civilization crumble, anarchy reigns, decay and dissolution follow.

“We call upon all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world to honor the laws of God, and obey and uphold the law of the land; and we appeal to good men and women everywhere, regardless of creed, party affiliation, race or condition to join with us in an effort to put into operation the words of Lincoln, the great emancipator, that our country may continue to be a light to the world, a loyal, law-abiding, God-fearing nation.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1928, p. 16.)

And here:

Quote

President Smith, who had witnessed the mob violence of Nauvoo, often spoke of the importance of the rule of law in a civilized society. He and his Counselors in the First Presidency urged the Saints to be law-abiding and loyal citizens wherever they lived and to be faithful in their allegiance to their governments.1 On one occasion when a government official expressed contempt for the United States Constitution, President Smith countered: “Latter-day Saints cannot tolerate such a spirit as this. It is anarchy. It means destruction. It is the spirit of mobocracy, and the Lord knows we have suffered enough from mobocracy, and we do not want any more of it. … We cannot afford to yield to that spirit or contribute to it in the least degree. We should stand with a front like flint against every spirit or species of contempt or disrespect for the constitution of our country and the constitutional laws of our land.”

More recently, see here:

Quote

The leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has again linked arms with the NAACP, this time with an appeal to "join us in a journey of understanding and overcoming."

President Russell M. Nelson joined NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson, Leon Russell, NAACP chairman of the board, and The Rev. Amos C. Brown, NAACP chairman emeritus of religious affairs, in a joint op-ed posted on Medium early Monday under the title "Locking arms for racial harmony in America."

The group shared their "deep sorrow for the senseless, heinous act of violence that needlessly took the life of George Floyd. We mourn with his family, friends and community. We likewise look on with sadness at the anger, hate, contempt and violence spilling onto America’s streets, devastating cities across the nation, and creating fear and anxiety in citizens across this great land."

They added that "the wheels of justice should move fairly for all. Jesus of Nazareth came that we might have life, and have it 'more abundantly.' We should follow His example and seek for an abundant life for all God’s children. This includes protecting our brothers and sisters who have been wronged and bringing to justice those who have taken life or broken the law, thus robbing others of an abundant life."

The article ran 42 years to the day that the Church of Jesus Christ ended priesthood and temple restrictions for black members of the church.

To solve the problems of injustice and inequality, they invited all "to love God first, and then to love our neighbor as ourselves. We don’t pretend that either of these pursuits is easy, but we do declare that they yield the fruits the Lord promised."

Further, it "is more crucial than ever," for parents, teachers and others to teach children "to love all, and find the good in others.

"Oneness is not sameness in America. We must all learn to value the differences," it reads.

"We likewise call on government, business, and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all," the article says. "It is past time for every one of us to elevate our conversations above divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Treating others with respect matters. Treating each other as sons and daughters of God matters."

Read the full op-ed on Medium.

As with many folks who dabble too long in the philosophies of men to the neglectful exclusion of the inspired principles of the Restored Gospel, I think members of the Church who espouse or endorse or justify, or even participate in, extra-legal violence are, doctrinally-speaking, off the grid.  We need to remember our own history of being on the receiving end of mob violence and anarchy.

D&C 98 is an interesting resource for examining the value of restraint and refraining from violence.  Not at all costs, to be sure.  There are times when self-defense is justified.  But violence is overwhelmingly not the answer to  addressing sociopolitcal disagreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

On this very board one person - apparently a member of the Church, said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that he "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists"

What kind of sick perverts are we letting in here?

 

 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I am not so sure smac is right about how friendly the ward would be if push comes to shove. Some would have charity win out. I suspect many wouldn’t and would adhere to the teachings of the cult instead.

This from the guy who "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they {Antifa} beat up fascists."

I think we really need to listen to the Brethren about this stuff.  From January 2021:

Quote

Principles of government that allow God’s children to maintain human dignity and freedom belong to all mankind. (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:5).

With great concern we observe the political and cultural divisions in the United States and around the world. We condemn violence and lawless behavior, including the recent violence in Washington, D.C. and any suggestion of further violence. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics, we remind our members—whatever their individual political views—to be united in our commitment to the Savior Jesus Christ and His teachings. As His followers, we should treat one another and all of God’s children with respect, dignity, and love. No political or other affiliation should supersede that covenant and sacred responsibility.

We urge all people to remember the precious and fragile nature of freedom and peace. As citizens of the United States look ahead to the inauguration of a new president, we urge our members to honor democratic institutions and processes, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law (see Articles of Faith 1:12).

"Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children."  (D&C 98:16.)

I think that if we are supposed to renounce war and proclaim peace, we should start the process by renouncing the inappropriate behaviors that can precipitate and culminate in war.  History has shown us, many times over, that politically-motivated and other widespread extra-legal violence are a harbinger of war.  Anarchy and the breakdown of the rule of law are harbingers of war.  

-Smac 

[Bob Crockett]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Scary, right?

Yes.   I point out that the Deseret News has consistently come out against Trump and they ( these are church friends ) ask me if I'm a slave to the media. 

I know God will provide in the end. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What kind of sick perverts are we letting in here?

#DezNat, call your office.  

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This from the guy who "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they {Antifa} beat up fascists."

I think we really need to listen to the Brethren about this stuff.  From January 2021:

"Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children."  (D&C 98:16.)

I think that if we are supposed to renounce war and proclaim peace, we should start the process by renouncing the inappropriate behaviors that can precipitate and culminate in war.  History has shown us, many times over, that politically-motivated and other widespread extra-legal violence are a harbinger of war.  Anarchy and the breakdown of the rule of law are harbingers of war.  

-Smac 

History has also shown us that if you don’t ridicule fascists into obscurity and beat them down they keep trying their comically inept attempts to take over until they get lucky and succeed. I am not advocating for war. I am advocating that Nazi punching is good. It works. It is the most American of activities.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

My Trump friends, to a person, have all abandoned my friendship.  When I needed it most. They question my very morality, at least some. It doesn't help that I am an outspoken libertarian.  I don't see violence on the horizon but some church friends talk about guns in a disturbing way.  

I sympathize with your friend but with that mindset church association isn't going to help. 

I am sorry to hear that Bob. I have lost friends of Trump as well.  Some ditched me.  Some I wanted to ditch.

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Yes.   I point out that the Deseret News has consistently come out against Trump and they ( these are church friends ) ask me if I'm a slave to the media. 

I know God will provide in the end. 

Yes, but wasn't that right before the election in 2015? I was very proud of Deseret News calling him out for saying he would grab women by the you-know-what. 

That was the moment in time that sealed the deal for me on whom I would vote for. Worst out of the two anyway. 

[Navidad]

I am neither a member or a woman, but I have strong feelings about empathy and community. I believe it must include kindness and a willingness to "receive" whatever the struggling person is offering without debate, education, citations, advice, or even dialogue about it. Anything else is the equivalent of Job's counselors. Offering advice or pointing out why the concern is invalid, or not very valid, for whatever reason - dogma, doctrine, or simple lack of understanding what the "big deal" is all about is not kind, wise, nor empathic. This board has great potential to be a community, if not of faith, then of fellowship, if not of fellowship of friendship. Sometimes when I read some of the posts, I think some of the real names of the folks here might be Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar reincarnated! 

[Bob Crockett]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, but wasn't that right before the election in 2015? I was very proud of Deseret News calling him out for saying he would grab women by the you-know-what. 

That was the moment in time that sealed the deal for me on whom I would vote for. Worst out of the two anyway. 

Two times in 2021, at least what I've noticed from afar.  

I notice that "Warlock" (i.e., Bill Reel) is voting  all my posts down today.  What is he now, a conservative Trump supporter?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

History has also shown us that if you don’t ridicule fascists into obscurity and beat them down they keep trying their comically inept attempts to take over until they get lucky and succeed. I am not advocating for war. I am advocating that Nazi punching is good. It works. It is the most American of activities.

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence. 

You are advocating that people of one political stripe use arbitrarily-imposed labels ("fascist" and "Nazi") to justify the use of violence intended to silence and/or punish people of another politcal stripe.

You are, as I understand it, a member of the Church (I don't know, but that's my assumption). 

I think this is a very problematic posture for a member of the Church to take.  It is not congruent with the counsel we have received from the First Presidency.  Again, from January 2021:

Quote

Principles of government that allow God’s children to maintain human dignity and freedom belong to all mankind. (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:5).

With great concern we observe the political and cultural divisions in the United States and around the world. We condemn violence and lawless behavior, including the recent violence in Washington, D.C. and any suggestion of further violence.

You are advocating "violence and lawless behavior."

You are advocating "suggestion of further violence."

Quote

While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics, we remind our members—whatever their individual political views—to be united in our commitment to the Savior Jesus Christ and His teachings. As His followers, we should treat one another and all of God’s children with respect, dignity, and love. No political or other affiliation should supersede that covenant and sacred responsibility.

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence against other people, which is not congruent with "treat{ing} one another and all of God's children with respect, diginty and love."

Quote

We urge all people to remember the precious and fragile nature of freedom and peace. As citizens of the United States look ahead to the inauguration of a new president, we urge our members to honor democratic institutions and processes, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law (see Articles of Faith 1:12).

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence against other people, which is not congruent with "honor{ing} democratic institutions and processes" or with "obey{ing}, honor{ing}, and sustain{ing} the law."

I hope you reconsider what you are advocating here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am neither a member or a woman, but I have strong feelings about empathy and community. I believe it must include kindness and a willingness to "receive" whatever the struggling person is offering without debate, education, citations, advice, or even dialogue about it.

I'm curious about this.  Could you elaborate?  What if "whatever the struggling person is offering" is a falsehood?  A substantial and unfair mischaracterization?  A decontextualized cheapshot?  A scurrilous and baseless accusation against a person not there to defend himself?

If someone came up to you and, without invitation, launched into a diatribe insulting and disparaging the character and virtues of someone you know and love - your mother or your spouse, for example - would you excuse such ugilness because the provcateur is "strugglilng?"  Would you let accusations you know to be false to go unanswered and unchallenged?  

I wouldn't.  I would defend the honor and character and reputation of my mother, or my wife.  

And I would likewise defend my faith against such things.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Anything else is the equivalent of Job's counselors. Offering advice or pointing out why the concern is invalid, or not very valid, for whatever reason - dogma, doctrine, or simple lack of understanding what the "big deal" is all about is not kind, wise, nor empathic.

Job's counselors told him to "curse God, and die."  (Job 2:9.)  There is no overlap between that and defending one's faith from falsehoods, mischaracterizations, and so on.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

This board has great potential to be a community, if not of faith, then of fellowship, if not of fellowship of friendship.

To an extent, yes.  But it also has a very inquisitive and adversarial bent.  Candidly, I don't really come to this board for "fellowship" or "friendship" (although I have experienced those things here).  I come here to listen to discussions about topics that pertain to the Church, but which are not appropriate for discussion in a church setting.  I come here to listen to people hash things out about the Church, its doctrines, leaders, policies, practices and so on, and to share my thoughts about such things.  It's a marketplace of ideas, not an echo chamber. 

I'm reminded of a quote from a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, "The Measure of a Man," which involved a legal dispute about whether a sentient android - Commander Data - was "alive."  It's an entertaining, and fairly thought-provoding, episode, and written by an attorney, IIRC.  Anyway, Captain Picard, acting as Data's advocate, says this during his closing argument:

Quote

Your honor, the courtroom is a crucible; in it, we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product: the truth, for all time.

Essentially, that's how I view this board.  A "crucible" into which we pour discussion and analysis of the Restored Gospel and then "burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product: the truth," or at least we are trying to get closer to it.

Quote

Sometimes when I read some of the posts, I think some of the real names of the folks here might be Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar reincarnated! 

With respect, I disagree.  I think there is some value in have a venue to discuss difficult topics about our faith.  That doesn't mean that disagreements about various topics can or ought to be distilled down to "curse God, and die."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But not "It's no big deal."

But not "It's no big deal."

But not "It's no big deal."

Again, but not "It's no big deal."

I don't think I have said "it's no big deal" or "there is not reason ... to worry."

I have repeatedly acknowledged that polygamy is a toughie.  I have also acknowledged that there is a lot of angst and worry about it.  My point is not that this is not a "big deal" (it is) or that there are no reasons to have some concerns about it (there are).  Rather, my point is that the angst seems to be overwhelmingly based on fear, ignorance and speculation, and not on reasoned analysis, revelation and faith.

I think I understand the distinction (from Mirriam-Webster's) :

I acknowledge that there seems to be varying approaches to the divergent meanings of these two terms (see, e.g., here).  My usage of the term, however, is congruent with what is noted above: "With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself."  

If someone has a reasoned and legitimate concern or fear, and if I share it, then I would be happy to sympathize with them.  As it is, however, much of what we are discussing here is not reasoned or based on revelation and faith, and is instead based predominantly on fear, ignorance and speculation.  Thus I can honestly say that I empathize, but I don't sympathize.  I see and understand - and even to some extent respect - those fears.  But I do not share them.  

Last night I was speaking with a good friend who told me he does not want to get the vaccine, as he does not trust the government.  He said he thinks the vaccine was developed in 2013 or so, and that Dr. Fauci was predicting a pandemic for years prior to 2020.  He mentioned a few other things, including that he is a conspiracy theorist.  I asked him how he felt about Pres. Nelson encouraging us to get vaccinated, and he had no answer.  Overall, he seemed to be alluding to a huge conspiracy, with the vaccines playing some sort of nefarious - but ill-defined - role.

Do you think I should sympathize or empathize with my friend?  

Actually, I think I'm describing empathy.  See above.  My "I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it" statement seems pretty congruent with Mirriam-Webster's "With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself" explanation.

That depends, I suppose, on how the term is defined and used.  See above.

I was able to empathize with my friend who went into hiding prior to last year's elections, even though I felt she was not being altogether rational about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for an interesting discussion.