Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Alleged corruption. I don't trust anything Trump or Musk are saying till I see the documentation. 

And even then...

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you were ok with Biden and Obama's excessive EOs because they thought they were necessary for whatever reason they used to justify them?

I think Obama/Biden EOs were often calculated to facilitate widespread corruption, graft, theft, incompetence, etc.  The same goes for some EOs by "R" presidents.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think in utero babies should be humanized.  They are, after all, human.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just out of curiosity, how is an embryo that hasn’t implanted yet less human and less a living being than one that has implanted? How is that more “factual” and less “rote” than defining life at viability? Seems kinda arbitrary. 

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  

General authorities typically give general advice.  The problem with "particulars" in this context is that that generalized guidelines get subordinated to the "particular" statements about specific persons, books, etc.  The Church is generally not in the business of publishing imprimatur / nihil obstat-style lists of "approved sources."  If you disagree, feel free to post evidence of which "sources" the Church has declared as "approved." 

I think the Church's generalized "correct principles + let them govern themselves" counsel is the better way to go.  The Latter-day Saints ought to take generalized counsel and make their own reasoned and informed decisions about such things.  Otherwise, we may end up leaning too much on the "list" rather than on our own efforts, study, reasoning, etc. to figure out which voices to listen to and otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is no formal list of approved and not, but the implication has long held true that one should not go seeking information from sources outside the Church (see Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,"). Nevertheless, I will concede this is sufficiently vague to leave you in a relatively safe area for your argument - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/seeking-answers/05-consult-reliable-sources?lang=eng

ETA: The Church does, however, list "Divinely Appointed Sources" - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/doctrinal-mastery/acquiring-spiritual-knowledge/seek-through-divine-sources?lang=eng

Edited February 12, 2025 by ttribe

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was curious if you were familiar with the actual felonies and the particulars whereby the conviction was obtained.  I suspect you are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's discuss those felonies, Spencer.

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the status quo constitutes a far greater threat to the constitutional order than the efforts of Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk in exposing and getting rid of massive and widespread waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, incompetence, etc., all paid for with tax dolalrs.

So, it’s entirely appropriate to violate the Constitution in order to save the Constitutional order. One must break eggs, right? 😳

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Just out of curiosity, how is an embryo that hasn’t implanted yet less human and less a living being than one that has implanted? How is that more “factual” and less “rote” than defining life at viability? Seems kinda arbitrary. 

That is, I think, the point of efforts - such as yours - to argue from the margins.

That is not, however, how legislation typically works.  Your position here is an example of the "Exception" fallacy, in an outlier/exception is used to to define an entire system or group.  And/or the "False Equivalence" fallacy, in which an outlier is treated as equal in weight to the majority.

Legislation is, like politics, the art of the possible.  Laws typically enact a rule of broad and generalized applicability, and which is virtually never absolute, and the reasoning for which may not fully stretch out all the way to the farthest margins.

So a law may impose restrictions on elective abortion, even though some of its rationale may, which applied in extremis, not fully work (frozen embryos, for example).

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

That is, I think, the point of efforts - such as yours - to argue from the margins.

That is not, however, how legislation typically works.  Your position here is an example of the "Exception" fallacy, in an outlier/exception is used to to define an entire system or group.  And/or the "False Equivalence" fallacy, in which an outlier is treated as equal in weight to the majority.

Legislation is, like politics, the art of the possible.  Laws typically enact a rule of broad and generalized applicability, and which is virtually never absolute, and the reasoning for which may not fully stretch out all the way to the farthest margins.

So a law may impose restrictions on elective abortion, even though some of its rationale may, which applied in extremis, not fully work (frozen embryos, for example).

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not arguing from the margins. You said life begins at conception and later abandoned that for personhood at implantation. It’s fine if you don’t want to defend your assertion. I was just curious. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

But only from approved sources. You left that part out.

There is no formal list of approved and not,

I agree.  So your assertion about "only from approved sources" was substantially false, misleading and inaccurate.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

but the implication has long held true that one should not go seeking information from sources outside the Church.

Boy, gotta love "implications" that let you make assertions but not back them up.

D&C 88 (1832) and 109 (1836) both endorse the seeking of wisdom from "the best books."  It would be mighty tortured reasoning on your part to suggest that the Church had some vast library of "sources {inside} the Church" in the 1830s, and that the counsel to the Saints was to only read from this library.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Nevertheless, I will concede this is sufficiently vague to leave you in a relatively safe area for your argument - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/seeking-answers/05-consult-reliable-sources?lang=eng

There is a world of difference between "reliable" and "approved" sources.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Just now, smac97 said:

I agree.  So your assertion about "only from approved sources" was substantially false, misleading and inaccurate.

Boy, gotta love "implications" that let you make assertions but not back them up.

D&C 88 (1832) and 109 (1836) both endorse the seeking of wisdom from "the best books."  It would be mighty tortured reasoning on your part to suggest that the Church had some vast library of "sources {inside} the Church" in the 1830s, and that the counsel to the Saints was to only read from this library.

There is a world of difference between "reliable" and "approved" sources.

Thanks,

-Smac

See my edits.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not arguing from the margins.

I think you are.  I think most legislators and run-of-the-mill people have any particularized focus on frozen embryos.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

You said life begins at conception and later abandoned that for personhood at implantation.

I didn't abandon it.  The term "conception" is often used ambiguously, so its meaning can vary depending on the context (scientific, medical, legal, or philosophical).  You asked, in a casual conversation, for clarification on the context, and I clarified.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s fine if you don’t want to defend your assertion. I was just curious. 

I'm fine with defending my assertion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

See my edits.

Quote

ETA: The Church does, however, list "Divinely Appointed Sources" - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/doctrinal-mastery/acquiring-spiritual-knowledge/seek-through-divine-sources?lang=eng

 

Again, the "best books" referenced in The Doctrine & Covenants were apparently in existence (or anticipated to come forth) in the 1830s and after.  It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Church - particularly in the last several decades - has some sort of "approved" list of resource.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But only from approved sources. You left that part out.

Not really.  I would phrase it more of encouraging excluding or at least being very cautious with a particular category (anti-Mormon literature, though what this amounts might vary quite a bit on who’s identifying it) rather than having an approved list.

I base this on knowing there have been quite of few FAIR members who have even studied anti-Mormon sources/info (which is more than just criticism of the Church in my view, it gets into intentional misrepresentation/lying) and have been called as bishops, work for BYU so must have current temple recommends, and a few who were even friends with general officers and authorities who knew what they were doing while doing so.  So they studied way outside any texts or information provided by the Church or mentioned by leaders (thinking CS Lewis here ) without being told not to.

Plus there’s my personal experience of bishops being very familiar with me studying critical materials etc and applauding my efforts rather than telling me I shouldn’t be exposing myself or other members to that stuff. I haven’t even had any members in the past 40 years say anything negative about my ‘nonMormon about Mormonism or religion in general’ studies…well maybe one thing in that some thought it would be boring.

When you were an active member, did anyone in authority tell you to only study the Church from an approved list?  Am interested in members’ different experiences.

Edited February 12, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, it’s entirely appropriate to violate the Constitution in order to save the Constitutional order. One must break eggs, right? 😳

I have said nothing like this.  At all.  I have, instead, said that I want Mr. Trump to obey the law.

Feel free to point to what you see as constitutional violations in the last few weeks.  I'm happy to hear what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you are.  I think most legislators and run-of-the-mill people have any particularized focus on frozen embryos.

I didn't abandon it.  The term "conception" is often used ambiguously, so its meaning can vary depending on the context (scientific, medical, legal, or philosophical).  You asked, in a casual conversation, for clarification on the context, and I clarified.

I'm fine with defending my assertion.

Thanks,

-Smac

My state legislature has introduced multiple bills criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos, as have other states. Pretending this is some fringe reductio ad absurdum on my part is, well, absurd. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let's discuss those felonies, Spencer.

Feel free.  I previously raised some points here:

Quote

Also, the criminal case sure seemed to be, um, fishy.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In his most recent update on the trial, Andrew McCarthy concisely explicates the absurdity of the prosecution with links to previous columns that support each point. Under New York’s state constitution, the felony statute invoked gives insufficient notice of what it is criminalizing. The indictment fails to explain what laws Trump is alleged to have broken. Bragg purports to enforce federal law over which he has no enforcement jurisdiction. To top it off, Bragg’s version of federal campaign-finance law — over which he has no authority — diverges from the interpretations followed by the two federal agencies with exclusive jurisdiction over that law (the Justice Department and the FEC). Other than that, gangbusters.

 

Now your turn.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I have said nothing like this.  At all.  I have, instead, said that I want Mr. Trump to obey the law.

Feel free to point to what you see as constitutional violations in the last few weeks.  I'm happy to hear what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

The executive defunding government agencies without Congressional approval is an obvious one. But yes, you did say whatever Trump was doing was less a threat to the Constitution order than alleged widespread fraud and waste. Just own what you’re saying, Spencer. I’m fine with hyper partisan people, but I’m annoyed by the ones who claim they’re just being factual and reasonable.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My state legislature has introduced multiple bills criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos, as have other states. Pretending this is some fringe reductio ad absurdum on my part is, well, absurd. 

Supporters of these laws apparently are arguing that frozen embryos should be treated as human life rather than medical waste.

I may not fully agree with that stance (for both pragmatic and ethical reasons), nor oppose it either, but I appreciate its moral clarity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Supporters of these laws apparently are arguing that frozen embryos should be treated as human life rather than medical waste.

I may not fully agree with that stance (for both pragmatic and ethical reasons), nor oppose it either, but I appreciate its moral clarity.

Thanks,

-Smac

But you claimed I only brought it up as a fallacious attempt to to argue in unrealistic extremes. You may or may not agree with that “stance,” but you understand its implications. My daughter has been called a murderer, and her fertility clinic has seen ugly threats, legal and otherwise. This is not the kind of country I want to leave for my grandchildren. But, what the hell, you’ve got moral clarity. Screw the consequences. 

Edited February 12, 2025 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But you claimed I only brought it up as a fallacious attempt to to argue in unrealistic extremes. You may or may not agree with that “stance,” but you understand its implications. My daughter has been called a murderer, and her fertility clinic has seen ugly threats, legal and otherwise. This is not the kind of country I want to leave for my grandchildren. But, what the hell, you’ve got moral clarity. Screw the consequences. 

If I had anywhere endorsed any of the terrible behavior you are describing, your guilttripping effort would be more effective.  But I haven't, so it isn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  However, religiosity typically requires time, effort, money, etc.

For some but not for the majority.  I know and interact with quite a few Catholics, Protestants and Jews.  Most are pretty casual and put little to no time or money into their religion. I think your conclusions are based on where you live and your experience as a Latter-day Saint and I would agree that active Latter-day Saints are a higher % of the religion than the ones I listed and do put time, effort and money in.

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 Irreligiosity and agnosticism and atheism, and lax religiosity, let the individual sidestep such things.

Not really. You just seem to want to disparage such. While I would not call myself atheist, I am more an agnostic and skeptic, I put an inordinate amount of time into my studies and efforts. And I did the same as an active Latter-day Saint. I think more than most.  I also give time in other charitable efforts these days. I know many like minded individuals who do the same. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Vice-Chair of the DNC, David Hogg, has announced that he will never have kids.  That is, of course, his choice.  But it's sort of hard to view this as a "I'm sacrificing having a family for Gaia's sake," or some similar ennobling claptrap.  Instead, his announcement went like this: David Hogg vows to never have children: ‘I would much rather own a Porsche’

Not really buying this.  Getting married and having kids is hard.  Self-centered and self-indulgent plans are so much easier.

What does David Hogg have to do with this? I imagine if I wanted to put a little effort in I could parade plenty of examples of uber religious people who would cast negative light on religion and adherents. In fact the topic of this thread, which we have drifted away from, is chuck full of bad fruit and examples. And you might want to watch out for the project 2025 folk as well. They are not on the LDS team and would not view you as part of the Christian umbrella. They are not friends of Mormonism.  

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Latter-day Saints are strongly encouraged to study their faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes and so>  Some do, a lot do not.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Pink said:

Your side are a bunch of Nazi racist liberals that can't define what a woman is! That's why you lost and why Trump won. Trump is in office to demolish your woke bullshit 

Wow. Take a chill pill Pink.  Again you do not even know what my side is.  If you want to talk about who are fascists we can compare notes and see who fits the bill.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I had anywhere endorsed any of the terrible behavior you are describing, your guilttripping effort would be more effective.  But I haven't, so it isn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not guilt-tripping you, Spencer. Grow up. You seem to believe your factual and moral stances have no consequences and you can simply wave off anything that might be unpleasant. Again, at least have the moral clarity to acknowledge the results of your positions. They don’t occur in a vacuum. 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Wow. Take a chill pill Pink.  Again you do not even know what my side is.  If you want to talk about who are fascists we can compare notes and see who fits the bill.

Seems like someone’s in manic phase for whatever reason. 

[ttribe]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Feel free.  I previously raised some points here:

Now your turn.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll start by sharing something I posted on my personal Facebook on the day of the verdict:

 

Quote

Okay, some thoughts, observations and opinions on today's fraud trial outcome. But, I start with a story that rather summarizes where I stand on this trial.

 

Shortly after the indictment came out last year, I read the indictment, as well as the attached documentation offered in support of the indictment. Having reviewed the payment and accounting evidence, my initial opinion was that I did not see a reasonable, or even valid, way to defend against charges of falsifying business records. The transactions were plainly not recorded correctly, and additional evidence pointed toward those incorrect entries having been done so intentionally. Fraud and stupid look a lot alike. I considered it very unlikely that these entries were simple errors.

 

A few days after the indictment, I got a text from a former colleague who works in the forensic accounting world and who sometimes sends work my way. She works primarily on large financial statement fraud cases where there is likely audit failure which allowed the frauds to occur. We got on the phone the next day and she opened by telling me that she and her colleague had decided to pass on the case we would discuss and that she was willing to pass along my name to the attorneys who had contacted them for assistance, if I was interested. But first, she wanted me to know who my client would be - Donald J. Trump - and it was about this very case. Without hesitation I said "No." I won't go into all of my reasons, but one of them I mentioned was my review of the documents in the indictment. As far as I know, my name was never mentioned to Trump's attorneys based on that conversation.

 

A lot of time in this trial was devoted to the nature of the underlying payments having been made to Stormy Daniels as "hush money." Make no mistake, Trump was not on trial for paying Stormy Daniels. He was on trial for falsifying his business records to conceal the fact that he had paid Stormy Daniels. The amount of time devoted to this issue in the trial was likely for two reasons: 1) to establish a foundation and motive for the illegal act of falsifying business records; and 2), to support a novel upgrade in the charges taken by the District Attorney.

 

I've read the falsifying business records statutes applicable to this case and violations are typically charged as misdemeanors. However, to upgrade them to felonies, the DA's office attached the falsification to a felony accusation; namely, fraud on the American people, as the falsification related to keeping the information from the public during his Presidential campaign. I'll not debate the merits of this upgrade approach, but I will say upgrades to criminal charges happen with some regularity. This one seems a little more novel than most, admittedly.

 

Where do I stand on the outcome? From what I was able to look at, I don't think the jury had much choice but to hand down guilty verdicts. The falsifications were very egregious and, in my opinion, there was no gray area on those. I believe accusations of "weaponization" of the legal system, accusations of corruption on the part of the Judge, and the trial being "rigged" to be distractions on the part of the Trump political machine to continue to elevate his status as some sort of martyr.

 

Trump is no martyr. He's always been a conman and he always will be. He was known as "Teflon Don" for decades before he ever expressed any political aspirations for the very reason that he managed to get out of every legal tight spot. In my opinion, today's outcome is similar to the conviction of Al Capone on tax fraud charges. Everyone knew Al Capone was a mob boss and connected to numerous murders, but nothing would ever stick to him...nothing until the tax charges.

 

Trump's business reputation is one of dishonesty, using the legal system for bullying of his critics, and fraud. Today's verdict is no surprise to anyone who has studied his dealings in the past. Will there be political fallout? Undoubtedly. But, at least in this instance, everything he was accused of doing in this case, he actually did and this is accountability finally reaching Donald Trump.

 

Edited February 12, 2025 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'll start by sharing something I posted on my personal Facebook on the day of the verdict:

 

 

In my conversations with a couple of business attorneys, they have said the same thing: upgrading to felonies was slightly “novel” but not unheard of. But the fraud, misdemeanor or not, was obvious and egregious. But, you know, weaponization, and so forth.