Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

He makes a point and then uses his point to prove he's right.  That's a weird form of 'science'.

And then he says something like "now that we all agree with me" and moves on as if his point is not still based on assumptions and biases that are not proven and not everyone agrees with.

I laughed out loud at that point.  Not impressed by his logic on this point.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'd imagine you'd say something like God loving the world, and people loving God. Or maybe bringing to pass the work and glory of God. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

For me it is maximizing joy (not just happiness or pleasure, but the meaningful stuff) and minimizing suffering.  And I am never going to claim this is an objective standard.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Life itself for one.

Existence for another.

Harris and you are simply choosing a value that is important to you, which is the ultimate of subjectiveness.

It is absolutely bizarre that he thinks whether or not something interests him is an objective standard.

Sentience is also hardly the primary value in everyone’s view or we would be euthanizing more people in vegetative states, etc.

Science has proven that many animals are sentient beings.  That alone would seem to call into question most of his conclusions (in what Analytics has quoted.  I have not read his book). 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

And yet there is still an objective difference between healthy food and poison...

Which varies a lot between people…what is healthy to one may be poison to another (think peanuts, strawberries in my case).

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Science has proven that many animals are sentient beings.  That alone would seem to call into question most of his conclusions (in what Analytics has quoted.  I have not read his book). 

Even birds…which having had them blankly stare at me a number of times, it’s taken a bit to wrap my head around the idea there is self awareness there instead of a more machine like (even if highly complicated) programming.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Calm

[gav]

7 hours ago, Eschaton said:

10 hours ago, gav said:

Have you actually read the Old Testament? More crucially do you understand much of it?

Yes and yes! 

See below 👇

6 hours ago, Eschaton said:

9 hours ago, gav said:

Critical Scholarship should be a little more critical of its criticisms... It is often so busy being critical that it misses the plot altogether.

Can you give me an example of where critical scholarship has done that?

Example follows...

11 hours ago, Eschaton said:

In ancient Israel Yahweh (Jehovah) asked Israelites for human sacrifice - for them to sacrifice their firstborn children to him. You see that in Exodus 22:29. Ezekiel in commentary on that commandment (Ezek 20:25-26) later reinterprets that commandment as a punishment for Israel's disobedience. Dan McClellan covers it briefly here:

I assume the above is the fruit of critical scholarship?

In Exodus when did the firstborn become the Lord's? and what was the substitute sacrifice given?

The answer to those two questions is a prime example of how the plot was altogether missed.

The chapter with bold where necessary:

Quote

Exodus 13 

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the Lord brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.

4 This day came ye out in the month Abib.

5 And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.

6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord.

7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.

8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.

9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt.

10 Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.

11 And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee,

12 That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord's.

13 And every firstling of an *** thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:

15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.

Focus on the minutia misses the whole theme of Redemption via a substitute Lamb.

Context matters!

Edited December 9, 2022 by gav

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I didn't think you were defending it.  There was however the appearance of downplaying or normalizing it.  

As to your second point those previous generations you refer to - were they cultures that had the gospel?  Followers of Christ?  Were they even during times when the gospel was on the earth?

The act of abortion runs counter to every gospel principle.  Its commonplace among those without the gospel is not a good indication that God doesn't purge us because of it.  Those with more light are held to higher standards.  Cultures and societies that allow such practices rapidly find themselves separated from God and devoid of his light.

The "purge" begins when insufficient light and closeness to God remains.

Is there a run on abortions amongst Church members that I missed?

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Sentience is also hardly the primary value in everyone’s view ...

Quite agreed.  “Salvation is nothing more nor less than to triumph over all our enemies and put them under our feet. And when we have power to put all enemies under our feet in this world, and a knowledge to triumph over all evil spirits in the world to come, then we are saved, as in the case of Jesus, who was to reign until He had put all enemies under His feet, and the last enemy was death ... Perhaps there are principles here that few men have thought of. No person can have this salvation except through a tabernacle." -- Joseph Smith

I agree with Joseph but also put a slightly different spin on it. Our greatest obstacle to eternal happiness is to be tossed hither and to, compelled to act contrary to our desire. An exalted being is one who has completely control over one's existence and all that is around him or her (as much as can be)*. They are agents to act and not be acted upon. One can be sentient and not have control over what happens to him/her/itself. They are captive to the flittings of nature. Thus, sentience alone, by itself, scarcely does much for our eternal felicity. Sentience is a necessary, but insufficient, condition.


* This also explains why we need both a physical and spirit body. If just a physical body "half" the universe is inaccessible to me. Same for if I just had a "spirit" body. But the other "blind" half still influences things but it would be inaccessible to me and I'd be subject to the whims and flows of an unseen power.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is there a run on abortions amongst Church members that I missed?

No.

Is there an increase in Church members believing abortion should be legal or even a right?

Is there an increase in members leaving the Church because their sociopolitical views can't be reconciled with its doctrines?

The world IS decreasing in closeness to God and acceptance of light.  Again, the prophesied "purge" to use your term is inevitable.

[Eschaton]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet you said: "Dan is talking about academic Biblical scholarship, not apologetics or LDS doctrine."

That sure looks like a juxaposition.

What's the juxtaposition? LDS people can be apologists, or they can do critical scholarship, or they can do devotional stuff. Or they can do all three at different times - just like anyone else can. 

 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not speaking of a "difference" as much as of a questionable "juxtaposition" (such as "Dan is talking about academic Biblical scholarship, not apologetics or LDS doctrine").

If you could define what you mean by "the historical method," that would be nice.

Happy to help. 

Historical method: 

Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.

Historical criticism:

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text". While often discussed in terms of Jewish and Christian writings from ancient times, historical criticism has also been applied to other religious and secular writings from various parts of the world and periods of history.

Textual criticism:

Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books.

Apologetics:

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I construed your juxtaposition as meaning something along the lines of "Academics are objective in their approach to the biblical text, with no biases or presuppositions involved in their efforts in any way."

I neither said nor implied that. 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have a pretty good grasp of both terms.  

Just out with it, if you please.  Are you attributing, relative to "approaching" the Bible, objective neutrality to the former ("critical Bible scholars") and heavy-handed bias and subjectivity to the latter ("apologists")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Bias is built into apologetics, as a defining feature. An apologist is a defense attorney for a faith position. 

The methodology of critical scholarship seeks to minimize bias, but completely eliminating bias is impossible.  

[Eschaton]

10 hours ago, gav said:

See below 👇

Example follows...

I assume the above is the fruit of critical scholarship?

In Exodus when did the firstborn become the Lord's? and what was the substitute sacrifice given?

The answer to those two questions is a prime example of how the plot was altogether missed.

The chapter with bold where necessary:

Focus on the minutia misses the whole theme of Redemption via a substitute Lamb.

Context matters!

I'm sorry, if you have a problem with the scholarship that isn't just knee-jerk disagreement because you don't like the implications, I'm not seeing it. 

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Science has proven that many animals are sentient beings.  That alone would seem to call into question most of his conclusions (in what Analytics has quoted.  I have not read his book). 

I'm not following you here. Harris agrees with you that science has proven that many animals are sentient beings. Thus, using his logic, when making calculations about morals, the well-being of sentient animals needs to be taken into account. 

Could you clarify where you're coming from?

12 hours ago, Calm said:

You are wrong.

For me it is maximizing joy (not just happiness or pleasure, but the meaningful stuff) and minimizing suffering.  And I am never going to claim this is an objective standard.

Harris's book is called "the moral landscape" to bring to mind the idea that there are multiple ways of achieving well-being. For you, well-being means joy. For others, it might mean fulfilling their responsibilities. For others, it might have to do with self mastery. It looks like you agree that there are multiple valid ways of promoting the well-being of sentient beings, and thus there are multiple moral paths we can live on.

So given what we know about science, including psychology and sociology, will it promote the wellbeing of society if it is governed by a dictator who murders his subjects who worship God differently than according to the dictator's preferences? Is that something that is good for the well-being sentient beings? In principle, science could weigh in on that, couldn't it? We could look at countries such as Iran or North Korea where the government dictates religion, and compare it to, say, Western Europe where religious freedom and liberalism abound. Which societies do a better job of promoting well-being? Which are more moral?

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

What's the juxtaposition? LDS people can be apologists, or they can do critical scholarship, or they can do devotional stuff. Or they can do all three at different times - just like anyone else can. 

 

Happy to help. 

Historical method: 

Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.

Historical criticism:

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text". While often discussed in terms of Jewish and Christian writings from ancient times, historical criticism has also been applied to other religious and secular writings from various parts of the world and periods of history.

Textual criticism:

Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books.

Apologetics:

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.

I neither said nor implied that. 

I stand corrected, then.

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Bias is built into apologetics, as a defining feature. An apologist is a defense attorney for a faith position. 

I agree.  There is a pronounced ideological bent, a presuppositional bias, in such efforts.

Quite a bit of "critical biblical scholarship" harbors the same "defining feature," but tends to keep it on the DL while presenting a posture of objective neutrality.

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

The methodology of critical scholarship seeks to minimize bias, but completely eliminating bias is impossible.  

That methodology is certainly aspirational, but I question its IRL prevalence and application.  See, e.g., these remarks by Jeffrey L. Morrow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

@Analytics, I'll reply to your posts, but it might be a while.  I'm part of the very small group doing our ward christmas party today (which I could vent about all day to you and anyone else that will listen) and I've got multiple things happening from now until it's over tonight.  I might be on here now and then but just to read a post here or there or make a quick remark.  Nothing that requires too much thinking.  I don't have it in me today.

But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quite a bit of "critical biblical scholarship" harbors the same "defining feature," but tends to keep it on the DL while presenting a posture of objective neutrality.

This seems like an easy conspiracy theory, presented with no supporting evidence. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That methodology is certainly aspirational, but I question its IRL prevalence and application.  See, e.g., these remarks by Jeffrey L. Morrow.

Thanks,

-Smac

Like I said, it's impossible to completely eliminate bias. But I think it is telling (in a good way) that you get atheist, believing Christian and Jewish Biblical scholars finding areas of agreement on scholarship despite differences in their personal beliefs. (Atheist Biblical scholars are actually somewhat rare). The methods used by Biblical scholars leads to converging conclusions that go against bias. 

 

From your source (a chair of theology, which is different than Biblical studies):

"One of the broadest of these assumptions is what we might call an anti-theological bias in biblical interpretation. That is the idea that proper scholarly biblical interpretation should be historical, and thus absent theology."

It's a bit weird to call that a "bias." Historians really can't include "God" into the equation - it's simply outside of the discipline of history. Some people like to think you could make a historical case, for example, that God really raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to heaven. But if historians included divine actors in their discipline, they'd have to take equally seriously historical evidence that Roman Caesars were raised from the dead and exalted to heaven as well - some people claimed that too. It's actually less biased to leave theology out of it entirely and use the same historical rules for all ancient texts, regardless of their respective religious matrices. 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Eschaton

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there an increase in Church members believing abortion should be legal or even a right?

Yes, but I suspect that is mostly because many states are being led by feckless lunatics who aren’t allowing doctors to save their patients even when the fetus is not viable and the mother may die.

A blanket ban on abortions is already being shown to be insane. And sure there are some exceptions but they were VERY intentionally ill-defined.

And yeah, even the Church doesn’t take the stance that abortions should be universally banned.

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there an increase in members leaving the Church because their sociopolitical views can't be reconciled with its doctrines?

Yep.

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The world IS decreasing in closeness to God and acceptance of light.  Again, the prophesied "purge" to use your term is inevitable.

And said purge is not going to be nearly as neatly targeted to the groups you rail against as you imagine..

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

@Analytics, I'll reply to your posts, but it might be a while.  I'm part of the very small group doing our ward christmas party today (which I could vent about all day to you and anyone else that will listen) and I've got multiple things happening from now until it's over tonight.  I might be on here now and then but just to read a post here or there or make a quick remark.  Nothing that requires too much thinking.  I don't have it in me today.

But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

I sort of don't miss those days, haha.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I sort of don't miss those days, haha.

**climbs onto soapbox**

Those who know me well know that one of my biggest pet peeves about being a woman in the church is that how, because of my gender, I am often expected/required to show my obedience and devotion to God through my willingness to plan parties or other similar events.

The RS especially is often taken advantage of in this way in December, with a huge amount of work being dropped in their laps because everyone knows that they will actually do it and make it nice, whether they want to or not.  And regardless of the emotional and mental stress they are already under just by virtue of being wives and mothers at Christmastime.

I'm feeling especially surly right now because me and mine are not actually in charge of this year's party, but we've been asked to do most of the work and coordinating and stressing about it anyway.

**climbs off of soapbox**

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

@Analytics, I'll reply to your posts, but it might be a while.  I'm part of the very small group doing our ward christmas party today (which I could vent about all day to you and anyone else that will listen) and I've got multiple things happening from now until it's over tonight.  I might be on here now and then but just to read a post here or there or make a quick remark.  Nothing that requires too much thinking.  I don't have it in me today.

But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Until then, enjoy the party!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

This seems like an easy conspiracy theory, presented with no supporting evidence. 

Says the guy who just characterized "Apologetics" without presenting "supporting evidence."

And, FWIW, I did provide a link to remarks by Jeffrey Morrow.  

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Quote

That methodology is certainly aspirational, but I question its IRL prevalence and application.  See, e.g., these remarks by Jeffrey L. Morrow.

Like I said, it's impossible to completely eliminate bias.

I agree.  A part of the problem arises when biases and presuppositions are not acknowledged.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

But I think it is telling (in a good way) that you get atheist, believing Christian and Jewish Biblical scholars finding areas of agreement on scholarship despite differences in their personal beliefs. (Atheist Biblical scholars are actually somewhat rare). The methods used by Biblical scholars leads to converging conclusions that go against bias. 

You may have a point.  There's a lot of groupthink in much of academia these days.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

From your source (a chair of theology, which is different than Biblical studies):

"One of the broadest of these assumptions is what we might call an anti-theological bias in biblical interpretation. That is the idea that proper scholarly biblical interpretation should be historical, and thus absent theology."

It's a bit weird to call that a "bias."

A person who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God is "biased," but a person who rejects that notion is not "biased?"

I think the best we can do is sit on the fence.  Consider, for example, these comments from Bill Hamblin:

Quote

There is a lot of talk among Mormon scholars about bracketing truth claims regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  This immediately leads to the question: why would one want to bracket truth claims?  The answer is generally that we can understand a particular part of Mormonism better by bracketing truth claims about other parts of Mormonism.
...
Although in our post modern age it may seem passé, to me the purpose of both religion and the academy is precisely to discover and understand truth, not to bracket it.  Our quest should be for the good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy.  If we bracket truth claims about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, for example, I believe many elements of the text become less comprehensible, and, indeed will become misunderstood.  Furthermore, it give non-Mormons a distorted view of what Mormons really believe.  Mormon truth claims are central to the nature of Mormonism and the beliefs of individual Mormons.  Bracketing or ignoring them necessarily distorts what Mormonism is really all about.  It is essentially pretending that Mormonism is something different than it really is.  Bracketing truth claims never helps us understand the truth in the broader sense.  It necessarily masks, hides, or distorts the truth, whatever that truth may be.

It seems to me that if someone has to bracket their truth claims about Mormonism in order to facilitate dialogue, it should be the non-Mormons.  Mormon truth-claims are an integral part of Mormonism.  To understand it properly you need to understand those truth claims.  It really doesn’t help a non-Mormon understand Mormonism better if she doesn’t understand that Mormons believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the deity and resurrection of Jesus, or the authentic prophethood of Joseph Smith.  If we bracket truth-claims about these matters, non-Mormons will never accurately understand Mormonism.  Thus, if non-Mormons really want to understand Mormonism, they shouldn’t want or ask Mormons to bracket our truth-claims.  Rather, they should tentatively bracket their own truth claims so they can better understand ours.  

I’m not asking for special treatment for Mormonism in this regard.  This is precisely how I approach any other religion.  Even though I am an outsider to those religions, I seek to understand them as the insiders understand.  What non-Buddhists might think about Buddhism is far less important to me than what Buddhists think about Buddhism.  When I approach the Buddhavacana, I understand that most western non-Buddhist scholars believe that most of the Tripiṭaka does not represent the actual words of the historical Buddha.  I get it.  But when I read that scripture, I try to understand what it means to Buddhists who believe in the historicity of the Tripiṭaka, because that permits me to understand Buddhism better.  I bracket my truth claims in order to better understand Buddhism.  I don’t ask the Buddhists to bracket their truth claims.

That does not mean, of course that there aren’t a lot of things about Mormonism that can’t be discussed without any reference to truth-claims: the social order of a Mormon ward; the colonization of Utah; the impact of the Deseret Alphabet, etc.  But bracketing truth claims about the Book of Mormon will ultimately lead to misunderstanding that book.  Grant Hardy’s wonderful Understanding the Book of Mormon is a case in point.  Although he chose to bracket historicity issues, the fact of the matter is, there was no reason for him to do so.  He could have written precisely the same book, with precisely the same insights, without bracketing historicity.

Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court once famously stated:

Quote

“Judges are like umpires,” John Roberts famously said at his confirmation hearing as Chief Justice. “Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them ... They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”

I think he here had in mind "judges" functioning in an appellate capacity.  Appellate judges typically do not suss out the "facts," but rather adjudicate the appropriate application of the law to the facts as established by the fact-finder (the trial judge/jury).  

Ideally, I think "critical bible scholarship" ought to function in a similar way.  As Hamblin put it:

Quote

Thus, if non-Mormons really want to understand Mormonism, they shouldn’t want or ask Mormons to bracket our truth-claims.  Rather, they should tentatively bracket their own truth claims so they can better understand ours.  

I’m not asking for special treatment for Mormonism in this regard.  This is precisely how I approach any other religion.  Even though I am an outsider to those religions, I seek to understand them as the insiders understand.  What non-Buddhists might think about Buddhism is far less important to me than what Buddhists think about Buddhism.

How often do they succeed?  How often to they refrain from injecting personal biases and presuppositions into their exegesis?

Interpreting an ancient text, originating in a different language and time and culture, about matters that are largely untestable, with all sorts of gaps strewn throughout our efforts to understand, is going to be a tricky business.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Historians really can't include "God" into the equation - it's simply outside of the discipline of history.

See Hamblin's comments above.

I happen to agree that the "ultimate" issues involving God are going to be untestable by historians.  Every discipline has its limitations.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Some people like to think you could make a historical case, for example, that God really raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to heaven.

But if historians included divine actors in their discipline, they'd have to take equally seriously historical evidence that Roman Caesars were raised from the dead and exalted to heaven as well - some people claimed that too.

I'm not sure what "historical case" means in this context.  

For example, can a "historical case" be made for the assassination of Julius Caesar?

Similarly, can a "historical case" be made that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven?

Both are putatively "historical" events, yet one ostensibly includes "'God' into the equation."  Yet how different are the approaches to these two events, really?

(I should note that I am mostly thinking out loud here, and I appreciate your input and insights.)

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

It's actually less biased to leave theology out of it entirely and use the same historical rules for all ancient texts, regardless of their respective religious matrices. 

And those "same historical rules" include conclusorily excluding "'God' from the equation"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

**climbs onto soapbox**

Those who know me well know that one of my biggest pet peeves about being a woman in the church is that how, because of my gender, I am often expected/required to show my obedience and devotion to God through my willingness to plan parties or other similar events.

The RS especially is often taken advantage of in this way in December, with a huge amount of work being dropped in their laps because everyone knows that they will actually do it and make it nice, whether they want to or not.  And regardless of the emotional and mental stress they are already under just by virtue of being wives and mothers at Christmastime.

I'm feeling especially surly right now because me and mine are not actually in charge of this year's party, but we've been asked to do most of the work and coordinating and stressing about it anyway.

**climbs off of soapbox**

 

Yes, served in two presidencies and remember well, and not just Christmas parties. Soon you can hopefully relax and enjoy Christmas 🎄☃️

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

**climbs onto soapbox**

Those who know me well know that one of my biggest pet peeves about being a woman in the church is that how, because of my gender, I am often expected/required to show my obedience and devotion to God through my willingness to plan parties or other similar events.

The RS especially is often taken advantage of in this way in December, with a huge amount of work being dropped in their laps because everyone knows that they will actually do it and make it nice, whether they want to or not.  And regardless of the emotional and mental stress they are already under just by virtue of being wives and mothers at Christmastime.

I'm feeling especially surly right now because me and mine are not actually in charge of this year's party, but we've been asked to do most of the work and coordinating and stressing about it anyway.

**climbs off of soapbox**

 

Say no when you're asked to do it then.  If the people doing the asking knew how much stress it was causing you then I imagine they wouldn't be asking you.  If you do agree to help then set clear limits on what you say you're able to do.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Say no when you're asked to do it then.  If the people doing the asking knew how much stress it was causing you then I imagine they wouldn't be asking you.  If you do agree to help then set clear limits on what you say you're able to do.

I wish it had been my decision because I would have limited our involvement to just one aspect of the party, instead of the three that we were assigned (decorating, food, and managing the budget) by the Bro. who was actually asked to be in charge.  But I'm not the president of anything and it was the other counselor who was asked at ward council.  

We did push back a little after the fact and told the Bro. that we would not be in charge of the main course.  We are a small RS and didn't feel that we could ask the sisters to make sides, cornbread, and dessert as well as the chili main course that was chosen.  

Edited December 10, 2022 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, served in two presidencies and remember well, and not just Christmas parties. Soon you can hopefully relax and enjoy Christmas 🎄☃️

 

[Dan McClellan]

On 12/8/2022 at 9:11 PM, gav said:

I assume the above is the fruit of critical scholarship?

My position there is the academic consensus, and in that video I even pointed to several publications that support my position. I also pointed out that the renegotiation of the commandment as requiring redemption comes from texts written much later (like Exodus 13). It's also the academic consensus that the Covenant Code is one of the earliest portions of Exodus and one of the earliest pieces of casuistic law in the Bible.