LDS School Board Member Bullies Teenage Girl

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But that does not answer the two questions above.

Do you like any Latter-day Saints?

Yes. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you simultaneously dislike that which designates them as Latter-day Saints?

No. There is enough variety in both belief and practice among Latter-day Saints that the marker itself is not a source of dislike. I do have markers that I see that trigger instant dislike, but then we’d have to get political. And I don’t like any people who have those markers. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited February 12 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The people we love could be the ones we hate the most because they are able to hurt us so deeply. 
 

Can a child love and hate a parent who abuses them?  Can a person love and hate a spouse who cheats on them?

Perhaps my point is just incoherent? How would you react to a statement, “No one said I can’t hate you, I just have to love you.”

[smac97]

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

Compared to many posts on this board this one was heavily tied to the church as it occurred where they are and involves members.

I respectfully disagree.  She was speaking in her personal capacity.  On social media.  She said nothing about the Church, its teachings, her membership in it, etc.

Her comment cannot reasonably be construed as being "heavily tied to the church."

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

She wasn’t “in error” or “problematic”.

I think she was.

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

She was bullying a minor

Which, if true, would constitute behavior that is "in error" and "problematic."

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

and inspiring danger to said minor.  She knew this. She did it anyways. The cruelty is the point.

I recently defended John Dehlin (!) against similar charges:

Quote

I just can't get on board with blaming Mormon Stories for "online threats" from other persons.  There is no evidence that MS was intending to elicit such a reaction from anyone, or that a reasonable person could infer such an intent based on the actual content of the MS videos.

I'm no fan of Dehlin, but this line of reasoning fails out of the chute.

Fault for threats lies with those making them.

Ironically, your accusation only holds if it is describing online behavior that uses charged language calculated to foment a negative emotional response.  You do that all the time, but if someone who dislikes your comments responded with threats, I doubt you would own responsibility for those threats.  

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

Quote

A female, yes.

I think it is eminently reasonable to be concerned about, and/or disagree with, biological males participating in female sports.

They prefer to be called women. 

And yet, they are not "women."  They are biological men - males - who either have a mental disorder (Gender Dysphoria) or are otherwise asserting something that just ain't so.

Interestingly, the next phase of our discussion may well involve you publicly berating/insulting me because I disagree with the notion that a biological male can "identify" as a woman and thereby become one, and that it is hateful/intolerant/bigoted to hold this view.  Is this "bullying" by you?  Is it "cruelty" when you express an opinion someone else may dislike?  And if if someone were to come along, read your comments, and be inspired to issue some sort of threat against me, would it be reasonable to allocate fault for that threat to you?

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

She wasn’t stating a position on transgender women playing in women’s sports.

She impliedly was.

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

She was implying that a literal child was deceiving someone to “sneak in”.

She did?  She used that phrase?  Where?

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

This led to that child being targeted. That is an expected result. Unless she is a complete idiot she knew that. She did it anyways.

Ironically, you are doing pretty much what you are saying Natalie Cline did.  You are using emotionally charged rhetoric to evoke a negative response toward another person.

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

It wasn’t a mistake.

I think it was a mistake, that is, "an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong."

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

It was an attempt to hurt a child.  It succeeded to some extent I’m sure.

Meh.  This is hostile emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

Calling out a woman for being insufficiently feminine is CRUEL.

By all appearances, Cline's comment was not that the person is "insufficiently feminine," but instead that the person is a biological male playing in a female athletic event.  As it turns out, Cline was incorrect.

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

The kids around her are going to see this story. Some of the parents are going to ask their kids about this girl. This is the kind of thing that leads to parents pulling their child out of school for their emotional protection.

With all the news coverage, I think this stuff won't happen.  

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

She knew this. She did it anyways.

Again, this is emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

It wasn’t an error.

I think it was an error, that is, "a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech" or "belief in something untrue; the holding of mistaken opinions."

Apparently Cline thought a particular basketball player to be participating in a women's high school basketball game was a male.  As it turns out, the player was not a male, but rather a female.  Cline's surmise was . . . an error.

On 2/10/2024 at 4:43 PM, The Nehor said:

It was an attempt to hurt a child for not conforming enough to her idiotic standard.

Again, this is emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

And if by "idiotic standard" you are referring to differentiating participation in sports (most of them, anyway) based on sex, I disagree with that.  I think such differentiation is eminently reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12 by smac97

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps my point is just incoherent? How would you react to a statement, “No one said I can’t hate you, I just have to love you.”

I am certainly not saying having strong conflicting feelings is the best way or healthy and no one wants to be hated even if they believed they are loved as well unless they have major hang ups.

If your point is others will doubt the sincerity of expressed love if they become aware of coexisting hatred or even just dislike, I agree that will be the likely outcome.  Plus no one emotionally healthy wants to be resentfully loved as too often happens, no one emotionally healthy wants someone to feel obligated to love them.  Most people want to be loved for who they are as individuals, I am guessing.  I appreciate if others can love me as a daughter of God, but they don’t have to know me to do that and therefore that kind of love says nothing about me….and I think a lot of people look to those who love them and who they love to try and understand who they are, etc.

Edited February 12 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am certainly not saying having strong conflicting feelings is the best way or healthy and no one wants to be hated even if they believed they are loved as well unless they have major hang ups.

If your point is others will doubt the sincerity of expressed love if they become aware of coexisting hatred or even just dislike, I agree that will be the likely outcome.  Plus no one emotionally healthy wants to be resentfully loved as too often happens, no one emotionally healthy wants someone to feel obligated to love them.  Most people want to be loved for who they are as individuals, I am guessing.  I appreciate if others can love me as a daughter of God, but they don’t have to know me to do that and therefore that kind of love says nothing about me….and I think a lot of people look to those who love them and who they love to try and understand who they are, etc.

I would add any “love” expressed under the threat of a divine command in conjunction with the idea “I don’t have to like you”, is even more suspect. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Do you like any Latter-day Saints?

Yes. 

Good to know.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Do you simultaneously dislike that which designates them as Latter-day Saints?

No.

Okay, this is the part that I don't understand. 

From my viewpoint, a self-professed "Latter-day Saint" is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

It is also my viewpoint that you dislike meaningful portions - if not the entirety - of the institutional Church and its doctrines.  Am I correct on this point?  Your posts give this impression.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is enough variety in both belief and practice among Latter-day Saints that the marker itself is not a source of dislike. I do have markers that I see that trigger instant dislike, but then we’d have to get political. And I don’t like any people who have those markers. 

So your like and dislike of Latter-day Saints is purely about their political views, not about their affiliation with and observance of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I would add any “love” expressed under the threat of a divine command in conjunction with the idea “I don’t have to like you”, is even more suspect. 

If someone acts because of fear of a threat, I don’t see it as an act of love.  I find that highly unlikely as really loving that person, though thankfully it may give them the opportunity to grow in love as we often do when we serve others.

If someone is capable of seeing another as a child of God and values them for that relation, then I don’t see that as acting under the threat of a divine command even if they are trying to live in the way the divine command directs. You can obey God for multiple reasons, one being fear, another love, another trust, another habit, etc.  Why you obey God matters a lot. Eventually my belief is it needs to be out of love in order to become prepared to live in a celestial way. 
 

I would greatly prefer someone helps when help is needed for whatever reason rather than waiting around until they can help out of love. I suspect most people desperate for help feel the same way. 

Edited February 12 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From my viewpoint, a self-professed "Latter-day Saint" is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  
 

Respectfully it’s not your job to gatekeep Latter-day Saints. You don’t represent Latter-day Saints, and you don’t speak for them. 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

It is also my viewpoint that you dislike meaningful portions - if not the entirety - of the institutional Church and its doctrines.  Am I correct on this point?  Your posts give this impression.

I disagree with and strongly dislike *your interpretation of your faith. Strongly. But Calm? Nope. Rain? Nope. Nehor? Nope. Pogi? Nope. Peacefully? Nope. And so on and so forth. 

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

From my viewpoint, a self-professed "Latter-day Saint" is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Respectfully it’s not your job to gatekeep Latter-day Saints.

I think my viewpoint is pretty reasonable.  When discussing "Latter-day Saints," there are some general definitional parameters that must be set, and I think what I said above does that.  A person who is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot reasonably be designated as a "Latter-day Saint."  A person who is a member of the Church, but who does not subscribe nor profess belief in its doctrines, meets the barebones nominal definition, but that's about it.  For example, Aaron Eckhart, who served a mission, went to BYU, etc., said: “I’m sure people think I’m a Mormon, but I don’t know that I’m a Mormon anymore, you know? To be honest, to be perfectly clear, I’d be a hypocrite if I did say that I was, just because I haven’t lived that lifestyle for so many years.”

My comment isn't "gatekeeping."  It was just enunciating fairly mundane and noncontroversial parameters for what people mean when they use the term "Latter-day Saints."

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You don’t represent Latter-day Saints, and you don’t speak for them.

Not in an official capacity, no.  But unofficially?  You bet.  I do represent them.  I do speak for them.  I am one of them.  

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

It is also my viewpoint that you dislike meaningful portions - if not the entirety - of the institutional Church and its doctrines.  Am I correct on this point?  Your posts give this impression.

I disagree with and strongly dislike *your interpretation of your faith. Strongly. But Calm? Nope. Rain? Nope. Nehor? Nope. Pogi? Nope. Peacefully? Nope. And so on and so forth. 

Again, this does not respond to my question.

Putting your personal dislike me me aside, you seem to dislike meaningful portions - if not the entirety - of the institutional Church and its doctrines.  Am I correct on this point?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From my viewpoint, a self-professed "Latter-day Saint" is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Everyone else is a what?  SINO (Saint in name only)?  I don't believe that type of internal judgment and divisiveness is helpful in building the kingdom of God on earth.  There are countless members who struggle with different doctrines and do not subscribe in or profess belief in every jot and tittle, and yet profess to be Latter-day Saints.  Furthermore, there is hardly a universal agreement within the church as to what constitutes official doctrine.  There is great diversity in belief as to the doctrines among self-professed "Latter-day Saints".   It is not a black and white believe in everything or you are out scenario.  There are countless members who are striving to live the gospel as they understand it and remain faithful Latter-day Saints according to how the Spirit directs them personally, which may not always align with how you perceive the doctrines to be. 

 

Edited February 12 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

you seem to dislike meaningful portions - if not the entirety - of the institutional Church and its doctrines.  Am I correct on this point?  

Let’s take the Latter-day Saint doctrine that pre-existent righteousness determines skin color in this life. I find this abhorrent. Or how about the Latter-day Saint doctrine that God revealed the priesthood ban. I find that abhorrent. Or how about the Latter-day Saint doctrine that the Lamanties were marked with darker skin as a sign of their cursed status before God? Abhorrent. I can find prophetic (statements from prophets while acting in their official capacity) statements supporting each of these doctrines. But I can also in today’s modern church find Latter-day Saints who would not call any of the above doctrines of your church. And that any supporting statements from church leaders were in error, based on limited light. Who gets to decide which doctrines of your church define Latter-day Saintness? You!? lol. 

Edited February 12 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rain]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Respectfully it’s not your job to gatekeep Latter-day Saints. You don’t represent Latter-day Saints, and you don’t speak for them. 

I disagree with and strongly dislike *your interpretation of your faith. Strongly. But Calm? Nope. Rain? Nope. Nehor? Nope. Pogi? Nope. Peacefully? Nope. And so on and so forth. 

I need to be honest here. While I'm still a member, still have a calling (sacrament program) and still believe in some of the principles, it's not my faith anymore.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

I need to be honest here. While I'm still a member, still have a calling (sacrament program) and still believe in some of the principles, it's not my faith anymore.

I was actually aware of your post expressing doubt (but not that you longer self identify with the faith), but included you anyway. Good luck on your continuing journey!

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I was actually aware of your post expressing doubt (but not that you longer self identify with the faith), but included you anyway. Good luck on your continuing journey!

It's been a long road. I stay in part because of my husband. But also, I have felt such a strong desire to love others and have kinship and I recognize that means with the members as well. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree.  She was speaking in her personal capacity.  On social media.  She said nothing about the Church, its teachings, her membership in it, etc.

Her comment cannot reasonably be construed as being "heavily tied to the church."

I think she was.

Which, if true, would constitute behavior that is "in error" and "problematic."

I recently defended John Dehlin (!) against similar charges:

Ironically, your accusation only holds if it is describing online behavior that uses charged language calculated to foment a negative emotional response.  You do that all the time, but if someone who dislikes your comments responded with threats, I doubt you would own responsibility for those threats.  

And yet, they are not "women."  They are biological men - males - who either have a mental disorder (Gender Dysphoria) or are otherwise asserting something that just ain't so.

Interestingly, the next phase of our discussion may well involve you publicly berating/insulting me because I disagree with the notion that a biological male can "identify" as a woman and thereby become one, and that it is hateful/intolerant/bigoted to hold this view.  Is this "bullying" by you?  Is it "cruelty" when you express an opinion someone else may dislike?  And if if someone were to come along, read your comments, and be inspired to issue some sort of threat against me, would it be reasonable to allocate fault for that threat to you?

She impliedly was.

She did?  She used that phrase?  Where?

Ironically, you are doing pretty much what you are saying Natalie Cline did.  You are using emotionally charged rhetoric to evoke a negative response toward another person.

I think it was a mistake, that is, "an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong."

Meh.  This is hostile emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

By all appearances, Cline's comment was not that the person is "insufficiently feminine," but instead that the person is a biological male playing in a female athletic event.  As it turns out, Cline was incorrect.

With all the news coverage, I think this stuff won't happen.  

Again, this is emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

I think it was an error, that is, "a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech" or "belief in something untrue; the holding of mistaken opinions."

Apparently Cline thought a particular basketball player to be participating in a women's high school basketball game was a male.  As it turns out, the player was not a male, but rather a female.  Cline's surmise was . . . an error.

Again, this is emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

And if by "idiotic standard" you are referring to differentiating participation in sports (most of them, anyway) based on sex, I disagree with that.  I think such differentiation is eminently reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, Nehor isn't alone. A whole bunch of people are on the same page. So I'm surprised you are giving her a break like you are, IMO. Did you see how the parents felt? 

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Good to know.  

Okay, this is the part that I don't understand. 

From my viewpoint, a self-professed "Latter-day Saint" is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

It is also my viewpoint that you dislike meaningful portions - if not the entirety - of the institutional Church and its doctrines.  Am I correct on this point?  Your posts give this impression.

So your like and dislike of Latter-day Saints is purely about their political views, not about their affiliation with and observance of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Thanks,

-Smac

That is not what he said.  You are constantly inserting your own prejudice onto other people, and then claiming it is their point of view.  It is dishonest and insulting.  I wish you would think a little more before you respond to posters.  He NEVER said purely about their political views.  He was giving you an example of what he didn't like about some Church members

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My comment isn't "gatekeeping."  It was just enunciating fairly mundane and noncontroversial parameters for what people mean when they use the term "Latter-day Saints."

Not in an official capacity, no.  But unofficially?  You bet.  I do represent them.  I do speak for them.  I am one of them.  

-Smac

In general, I like most members of the Church.  I respect their values and find most to be decent people.  While I strongly disagree with many of the policies and some of their doctrine, I don't think the Church has no value.  Some of my Children are still in the Church and raising their own children in that religion.  I fully support their decision to do that.  

If I thought for one minute you represented the beliefs of most members, then I guess I would have to re-evaluate what I think of Church members in general.  Your posts can be summed up in three words.  Attack. Attack.  Attack. 

[mtomm]

It is not just a general love as defined in the dictionary that we are commanded to have. Christians are supposed to love as Christ loves. It's not very comforting to think that Christ hates me but really he "loves" me.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34)

So how does Christ love?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

So how does Christ love?

Very important point.

[Stormin' Mormon]

If we don't expect immediate perfection at obeying other commandments, why do we expect it for the commandment to love others? If we need time and practice and understanding as we grow into other commandments, why do we expect that loving others doesn't require time and practice and understanding?

Not liking someone is not Christlike, true. Not liking someone because they belong to a group they have no choice in belonging to probably ranks several rungs below that. But steps towards arriving at Christlike love would, I think, include being aware of those prejudices and striving to treat others the way Christ would have treated them (even if we can't yet muster up the strength to feel towards them the way Christ feels).

God can't drive a parked car. It's only while we are out and doing that we prepare our hearts for the transformative power of Christ's grace. Even if we can't love the stranger now, we can desire to love them, and while we await Christ's grace, we can demonstrate to God how earnestly we desire this transformation of our hearts by behaving now as if that desired blessing had already come.

I dont know if we can love those we dislike, but I know we can want to love them, and that that desire not only can affect our behavior in the here and now, it is a necessary first step towards someday achieving a Christlike love for all God's children.

Edited February 12 by Stormin' Mormon

[MiserereNobis]

It's pretty hard to force feelings. If love were just a feeling, how can I force it to arise? I can't make myself "love" (as a feeling) anyone just by sheer force of will, just like I can't make myself "be happy" by my will.

However, I can act in a loving manner using my will. I can do good things to those around me, to those I like, to those I am indifferent to, and to those I dislike. Using my will to act, to show a loving action, will actually increase my capacity to like someone. And from there the "feeling" of love will begin to arise.

I think there is great wisdom is separating love from emotion and focusing on love as an action. I can't control emotions, but I can control actions. Emotions come and go -- I shouldn't link love to something so ephemeral. But actions can help create the circumstances for certain emotions to arise. I can't make myself happy, but I can do things that foster happiness: healthy lifestyle, solid relationships, community service, etc. I can't make myself love you, but I can do things that foster love: help you when you are in need, take time to try to understand who you are, include you in my life, etc.

Personally I don't want someone to love me only when they feel affection for me. That's shallow and honestly a bit selfish.

Edited February 12 by MiserereNobis

[smac97]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

From my viewpoint, a self-professed "Latter-day Saint" is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Everyone else is a what?  SINO (Saint in name only)? 

See the above quote from Aaron Eckhart.  If someone neither believes in the tenets of our faith, and does not consider himself a Latter-day Saint, I don't want to force that designation onto him.

I think there are people who are only nominally Latter-day Saints.  I don't say that to denigrate them, but to describe their posture toward the Church.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't believe that type of internal judgment and divisiveness is helpful in building the kingdom of God on earth. 

He said, judgingly and divisively.   

5 hours ago, pogi said:

There are countless members who struggle with different doctrines and do not subscribe in or profess belief in every jot and tittle, and yet profess to be Latter-day Saints. 

I said nothing about "every jot and tittle."

Here is what I did say: "{A} self-professed 'Latter-day Saint' is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (emphasis added).

I used "generally" here to mean "usually; commonly; ordinarily" (as opposed to "never" or "rarely") or "with respect to the larger part; for the most part."

Is this really a controversial thing to say?

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Furthermore, there is hardly a universal agreement within the church as to what constitutes official doctrine.

God exists, is perfect and loving and benevolent, and is our Father.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and our redeemer and Savior.

We are here on this earth participating in what is commonly called the "Plan of Salvation."

Christ instituted His Church on the earth during the 2,000 or so years ago, and then restored it through Joseph Smith in 1830.

God calls and speaks through prophets and apostles, and vests in them some portion of His power, referred to as the "Priesthood," and authorizes them to speak and act on His behalf, to administer the ordinances and affairs of the Church, and to otherwise govern the Church via revelation from God and common consent from the membership.

The scriptures are imperfectly preserved/transmitted portions of prophetic writings.

These (and, I suppose, a few others) are "official doctrine{s}" of the Church, and I think that is beyond reasonable dispute.

There are, of course, other ideas and concepts that are on the periphery, or are derivative, or are less-than-indisputable in terms of doctrinal status.  But belief in these are not really central to the faith of the Latter-day Saints.  

5 hours ago, pogi said:

There is great diversity in belief as to the doctrines among self-professed "Latter-day Saints".

Individual interpretations of doctrine don't really have much bearing on my statement: "From my viewpoint, a self-professed 'Latter-day Saint' is someone who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

5 hours ago, pogi said:

It is not a black and white believe in everything or you are out scenario. 

I did not say or imply otherwise.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

There are countless members who are striving to live the gospel as they understand it and remain faithful Latter-day Saints according to how the Spirit directs them personally, which may not always align with how you perceive the doctrines to be. 

I never said that Latter-day Saints are only Latter-day Saints if their views "align with how {I} perceive the doctrines to be."

I am not the arbiter of doctrine.  The Church and the scriptures are.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but according to the Tribune, the girl is under police protection because of the danger of those that may want to harm her. 

The article wasn't under a paywall for me, but not sure how long.

https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2024/02/07/utah-school-board-member-natalie/

Deleted the article, hopefully some can read it. 

Edited February 12 by Tacenda

[smac97]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

you seem to dislike meaningful portions - if not the entirety - of the institutional Church and its doctrines.  Am I correct on this point?  

Let’s take the Latter-day Saint doctrine that pre-existent righteousness determines skin color in this life.

Boy, you just don't want to answer a basic question.  I'll leave you to it.

What you state above has been expressly repudiated.

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I find this abhorrent.

So do I.

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or how about the Latter-day Saint doctrine that God revealed the priesthood ban.

What "doctrine" or "revelation" are you referencing here?  I'm not aware of any revelation instituting the ban, just the one ending it.

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I find that abhorrent.

I don't know what you are referencing here.

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or how about the Latter-day Saint doctrine that the Lamanties were marked with darker skin as a sign of their cursed status before God? Abhorrent.

From FAIR:

Quote

Scholars Joseph Spencer and Nicholas J. Frederick offered insight into the presence of race and skin color in the Book of Mormon:

Recent years have seen a noticeable uptick in the frequency of publications on race in the Book of Mormon. The fact of the matter is that, however one tries to make sense of individual passages that are (or at least appear to be) about race, they look deeply problematic through twenty-first-century eyes. Many discussions on the topic boil down to asking how to interpret references in 2 Nephi 5 to a “mark” and a “curse” being placed on the Lamanites. Statements by Church leaders have tended to try to soften the correlation between the imposition of a “curse” and the text’s talk of a “skin of blackness” while still leaving space for literal interpretation. And so, in the minds of most believing readers, the Book of Mormon’s references to “black” and “white” skin are generally taken to be literal, referring to pigmentation: the Nephites physically possess light, “white” skin, and the Lamanites physically possess a dark or “black” skin. Readers perhaps most commonly imagine Laman and Lemuel as being initially white but then becoming dark after the Lord enacts a demonstrative change.

Of course, the existence of differently colored peoples would not in and of itself be a problem, especially if they were to live in harmony, appreciative of any differences among them. But various passages in the Book of Mormon seem straightforwardly to tie skin color to certain cultural and spiritual values, and dark skin is associated with striking frequency with spiritually negative values—many of them tied to classically racist and racializing tropes about things like laziness and savagery. In addition, certain passages suggest that dark-skinned individuals who come to Christ lose their dark skin and acquire white skin, suggesting that whiteness is a kind of moral standard for the Book of Mormon. These passages are troubling to believers who follow modern prophets in denouncing racism, and they’re often taken by twenty-first-century readers to be clear indications that the Book of Mormon had its origins in the nineteenth century’s racially charged atmosphere but also that they’re clear indications that the book is morally dangerous and uninspired.

Various approaches to these issues have been taken by believing and unbelieving readers of the Book of Mormon. Historical or even anthropological approaches have argued that the texts can be explained in terms of Lamanite intermarriage with other ancient American peoples hailing from different parts of the world, coupled with classic Nephite distrust of an outsider group. This approach is interesting, although it has to be said that it leaves the Nephites (especially and including their prophets, who write the troubling passages) in an ethically compromised position. Rather different readers have argued that the words “white” and “black” aren’t used to refer to skin colors in any literal sense; instead, they’re used symbolically as in many ancient cultures, to refer to what’s valued as good or righteous over against what’s disvalued as evil or wicked. This seems to remove literal questions of race, but some respond to this approach that it problematically leaves “whiteness” in a normative position, still the standard by which “blackness” is measured and found wanting. Still other approaches explore the possibility that what’s “white” and “black” in the text is clothing, animal “skins” rather than human flesh.

We’re ourselves disinclined toward symbolic approaches of these last several sorts, except in certain texts where the words “white” or “dark” are clearly used metaphorically (as in Jacob 3:8–10 or 3 Nephi 19:24–25). Even in those passages, the fact that whiteness becomes a standard remains problematic from a twenty-first-century perspective. In most passages, it seems clear to us that “white” and “black” indeed refer to skin pigmentation, so there really are serious and difficult race problems within the Book of Mormon. In our view, however, this makes the Book of Mormon more rather than less relevant to the twenty-first century. The book shows us what it looks like when a people develops systemic racism, with Nephites rejecting Lamanites simply because of the color of their skin (something at least a few Nephite prophets directly point out and criticize—most especially Jacob). What we’re reading when we read the Book of Mormon is a long and deeply relevant history of wickedness that ultimately ends in destruction, while the racially out-of-favor are slowly revealed to be a chosen and preserved people. The last prophet, Mormon, asks us to hear at length a dark-skinned prophet, the remarkable Samuel—who’s strikingly underappreciated in our collective reading. Along with some other recent readers, then, we find in the Book of Mormon a richly cautionary tale regarding racism and racialism. The book invites us to recognize, with the Nephite prophets at their most clear-sighted moments, that God invites all to come to him, “black or white” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is a book that might well teach us about racism and racialization, if we’re open to asking it to show us the consequences of such things.^[1]

(Emphasis added.)

It sure is easy to sit at a keyboard in 2024 and pronounce judgments on our benighted predecessors.  We have it all figured out, you see.  We don't have any errors in our perceptions, reasoning, assessment of evidence, or anything else.  "Presentism" writ large.

I myself prefer the tack taken in Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I can find prophetic (statements from prophets while acting in their official capacity) statements supporting each of these doctrines. But I can also in today’s modern church find Latter-day Saints who would not call any of the above doctrines of your church. And that any supporting statements from church leaders were in error, based on limited light. Who gets to decide which doctrines of your church define Latter-day Saintness? You!? lol. 

No, not me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The comment section quickly became filled with people calling out the player, naming her, threatening her and referring to her with vulgar language. Some identified her school and said they were going to call the principal.

I don’t understand how people can do this.