Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The predication issue is not what you are representing.

I invite you to reconsider this.  

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The prosecutors charged with him with altering business records to cover another crime (which is a felony).

"Another crime" refers to . . . "predicate crime{s}."

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It doesn't matter whether that other crime was ever charged, nor whether the other crime /was a felony, nor does he have to be convicted of the other crimes being covered. The initial indictment did not identify the other crime(s), but subsequent filings did. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York especially this portion -

One of the violations of NY State laws he was covering was the crime of conspiracy to promote the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. There is no need for any Federal crime to have been covered by the act of falsifying the business records.

So, once again, I ask you - Did he falsify the records?

Again, see the Somin and Calabresi articles.  You have either not read them, or do not understand them.

Is what he did a crime?  No, I don't think so.  We'll find out, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

DOGE IS NOT and official agency of the US government.

Yes, it is.

 

No it is not.

Yes, it is.

A DOGE Origin Story: How Barack Obama Laid The Groundwork For Elon Musk

Quote

Democrats thought they could shutter the Department of Government Efficiency before it even started, filing lawsuits that said its anticipated structure as an outside advisory committee was illegal. But when Inauguration Day rolled around, the reality was, for them, much worse: DOGE would be an official entity with hundreds of paid staff, authorized to hire outsiders with little vetting, and able to engage in openly ideological activity.

With a new home for DOGE in the White House, here's what you need to know

Quote

A proposed commission with a sweeping mandate to shrink federal bureaucracy and slash government spending now has a new home — and a more efficient mandate, as President Trump continues to turn campaign promises into actual policy.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that renames the little-known but highly respected United States Digital Service office as the United States DOGE Service, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an effort helmed by tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk.

In contrast to the initial announcement of DOGE, focused on federal spending, the workforce and technology infrastructure from "outside the government," Trump's Jan. 20 order outlines a temporary organization within the larger USDS office that will be led by a to-be-named administrator.

The order also moves the USDS from the Office of Management and Budget to the Executive Office of the President and directs each federal agency to create a "DOGE Team" that may include a team leader, engineer, human resources specialist and attorney to help facilitate Trump's "DOGE agenda."

More here.

We'll see how this stuff pans out.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are wrong.

Well, we'll see.

Thanks,

_Smac

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I invite you to reconsider this.  

"Another crime" refers to . . . "predicate crime{s}."

Again, see the Somin and Calabresi articles.  You have either not read them, or do not understand them.

Is what he did a crime?  No, I don't think so.  We'll find out, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Calabresi said this -

Quote

Shockingly, in this first ever prosecution of a former president, Alvin Bragg, the NY State District Attorney, is coy about what felony is being concealed by the allegedly falsified expenses. The reason he is being coy is because there is no other felony that Trump was concealing. And, if there were one it would be a state or federal campaign finance law, which would violate Trump's First Amendment rights.

Everything I'm reading is that it does not matter whether the concealed crimes was a felony or not. As to the First Amendment issue, that's what the appeal is for.

 

Let's do the hypothetical - assume he was only charged with the misdemeanor violation of New York Penal Law §175.10 in the second degree, which does not require the concealment of a second crime (https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article175.php#p175.05)

Was his alteration of the records a violation of New York Penal Law §175.10 in the second degree?

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I invite you to reconsider this.  

"Another crime" refers to . . . "predicate crime{s}."

Again, see the Somin and Calabresi articles.  You have either not read them, or do not understand them.

Is what he did a crime?  No, I don't think so.  We'll find out, I suppose.

Prof. Tribe's (no relation) pithy comment is worth noting: https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1778856997967822970

Quote

@jonathanalter should know better than to call this the “hush money trial.”

1. Hush money was just the MEANS Trump used to manipulate the 2016 election.

2. The FELONY he’s charged with is falsifying the business records he filed ABOUT that hush money TO COVER UP HIS INTERFERENCE with that election.

3. Saying he’s on trial for paying hush money, which isn’t even a crime, is like saying John Wilkes Booth was tried for standing behind President Lincoln during a play in Ford’s Theater.

And this - https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1796620252576362772

Quote

Trump’s trial for 34 felony violations of NY law — violations w/out which he might well have lost the 2016 presidential election — was a model of fairness that law students and trial judges will study for decades. There’s nothing here for any informed person to complain of.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Ah, Smac, welcome. Please, make yourself comfortable on the couch. No need to be nervous—this is a safe space. Now, I’m just going to settle into my chair here, light a cigar, and take some notes. Let’s begin.

You said that Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris’s behaviors are ‘many orders of magnitude’ worse than Donald Trump. Fascinating. Tell me more about that. When did you first start experiencing these thoughts? And would you say they’ve gotten stronger over time?

Do you know about Biden's daughter's diary?

Start there... I doubt Invanka's has anything similar.

 

Edited February 13, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Do you know about Biden's daughters diary?

Start there... I doubt Invanka's has anything similar.

 

 

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm wondering how someone such as you can overlook/ignore Mr. Biden's and Ms. Harris' various and extensive moral failings, incompetencies, corruptions, lack of accomplishments, etc., and vote for them despite these failings.

Thanks,

-Smac

Reality check: Mitt Romney has called Biden a "genuinely good man.” And we all know what he thinks of Trump: a "phony" and a "fraud."

Why do you think you understand Biden and Trump better than Romney does?

Just to narrow the focus, let’s set aside Trump’s extensive business failures (“A business genius he is not,” as Romney put it), his dishonesty, economic incompetence, and his role in blackening America’s reputation as a "shining city on a hill," we’re left with a mountain of corruption, including:

• Abuse of power: Impeached for withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political rival.
• Subverting democracy: Impeached (again) for inciting an insurrection to overturn a free and fair election.
• Criminal conspiracies: Indicted in Georgia for election-related racketeering (18 of his co-defendants pled guilty).
• Obstructing justice: Indicted for mishandling classified documents—then refusing to return them.
• Surrounding himself with criminals: Manafort, Cohen, Bannon, Navarro—the list goes on.

And when he took office again, one of his first acts was to pardon the violent criminals who attacked police officers on his behalf on January 6.

American Companies Lining Up to Bribe Trump

And let’s not talk about how X just handed Trump $10 million under the pretext of settling a baseless lawsuit. A private company cutting the president a huge check is blatant corruption—even under the guise of settling a frivolous lawsuit—but let’s not talk about that.

And let’s not talk about how ABC paid Donald Trump $16 million in a settlement to Trump, after he won, in an amount of “compensation far beyond any actual reputational damages.” Let’s not talk about that.

And let’s not talk about how Meta paid the sitting president of the United States $25 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit relating to his Facebook account being deleted. Let’s not talk about that.

All of these companies lined up to hand the newly elected president checks in the 8 figures to settle frivolous lawsuits. Let’s ignore Trump’s corruption of accepting these thinly-veiled bribes by companies that are afraid of what he’ll do to them as president.

Let’s not talk about any of that.

So Let’s Talk About One Thing

You said you wanted to talk about discuss "the particulars of what sure looks like a lot of...corruption,” So let’s focus on the following one thing:

Last October, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Kamala Harris. Trump didn’t like it, so he sued CBS for $10 billion.

After he won the presidency, instead of dropping the lawsuit (as any ethical person would), he doubled it to $20 billion.

Now, CBS wants to make a business deal that requires FCC approval. But to win Trump’s favor so they get the FCC deal, "a source close to Trump’s legal team said he would not be surprised if the president demanded $100 million — or more."

Think about that: A private U.S. company may have to pay the sitting president over $100,000,000--to settle a bogus lawsuit in which the president wasn’t damaged--so that the president won’t use the FCC to harm that company. 

Now, tell me: What are Kamala Harris’s acts of corruption that compare to this? List them. List all of them. And then explain how they outweigh a president shaking down a private company for $100,000,000 by using the power of his office.

You don’t have to show how Kamala Harris is "many orders of magnitude" more corrupt than this. Just explain to me why you--a person who cares deeply about corruption--sees Trump as the lesser of two evils.

You’ve argued that as a billionaire, Trump can afford to be virtuous. If that’s true, then why is he pocketing tens of millions of dollars from corporations terrified that he’ll use the government to punish them?

If we’re going to talk about "moral failings" and "corruption," then let’s actually talk about corruption.

Edited February 13, 2025 by Analytics

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Reality check: Mitt Romney has called Biden a "genuinely good man.” And we all know what he thinks of Trump: a "phony" and a "fraud."

Why do you think you understand Biden and Trump better than Romney does?

Just to narrow the focus, let’s set aside Trump’s extensive business failures (“A business genius he is not,” as Romney put it), his dishonesty, economic incompetence, and his role in blackening America’s reputation as a "shining city on a hill," we’re left with a mountain of corruption, including:

• Abuse of power: Impeached for withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political rival.
• Subverting democracy: Impeached (again) for inciting an insurrection to overturn a free and fair election.
• Criminal conspiracies: Indicted in Georgia for election-related racketeering (18 of his co-defendants pled guilty).
• Obstructing justice: Indicted for mishandling classified documents—then refusing to return them.
• Surrounding himself with criminals: Manafort, Cohen, Bannon, Navarro—the list goes on.

And when he took office again, one of his first acts was to pardon the violent criminals who attacked police officers on his behalf on January 6.

American Companies Lining Up to Bribe Trump

And let’s not talk about how X just handed Trump $10 million under the pretext of settling a baseless lawsuit. A private company cutting the president a huge check is blatant corruption—even under the guise of settling a frivolous lawsuit—but let’s not talk about that.

And let’s not talk about how ABC paid Donald Trump $16 million in a settlement to Trump, after he won, in an amount of “compensation far beyond any actual reputational damages.” Let’s not talk about that.

And let’s not talk about how Meta paid the sitting president of the United States $25 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit relating to his Facebook account being deleted. Let’s not talk about that.

All of these companies lined up to hand the newly elected president checks in the 8 figures to settle frivolous lawsuits. Let’s ignore Trump’s corruption of accepting these thinly-veiled bribes by companies that are afraid of what he’ll do to them as president.

Let’s not talk about any of that.

So Let’s Talk About One Thing

You said you wanted to talk about discuss "the particulars of what sure looks like a lot of...corruption,” So let’s focus on the following one thing:

Last October, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Kamala Harris. Trump didn’t like it, so he sued CBS for $10 billion.

After he won the presidency, instead of dropping the lawsuit (as any ethical person would), he doubled it to $20 billion.

Now, CBS wants to make a business deal that requires FCC approval. But to win Trump’s favor so they get the FCC deal, "a source close to Trump’s legal team said he would not be surprised if the president demanded $100 million — or more."

Think about that: A private U.S. company may have to pay the sitting president over $100,000,000--to settle a bogus lawsuit in which the president wasn’t damaged--so that the president won’t use the FCC to harm that company. 

Now, tell me: What are Kamala Harris’s acts of corruption that compare to this? List them. List all of them. And then explain how they outweigh a president shaking down a private company for $100,000,000 by using the power of his office.

You don’t have to show how Kamala Harris is "many orders of magnitude" more corrupt than this. Just explain to me why you--a person who cares deeply about corruption--sees Trump as the lesser of two evils.

You’ve argued that as a billionaire, Trump can afford to be virtuous. If that’s true, then why is he pocketing tens of millions of dollars from corporations terrified that he’ll use the government to punish them?

If we’re going to talk about "moral failings" and "corruption," then let’s actually talk about corruption.

Until @smac97shows the corruption of Biden/Harris, then he'll be talking smack. 

Here's a TikTok that should scare the socks off all of us. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DFLu4iVSHiU/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link But at the end shows how we can combat what's happening.

Here's another as well: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DFg9Qi7pihx/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Not a list, but only from Church sources, yes.

FWIW, I can't say I've ever had that experience. But I'm also likely a lot younger than you (definitely am to Calm, who I've met IRL). 

I read non-church material all the time. Mostly of historical, social-political, therapy, and religious oriented (cuz thems my interests). I've always seen the balance of both seeking out the "best books" including books from varying experts in varying fields...particularly outside of a sunday school setting. It's not something I'm quiet about. Plenty know that I'm currently doing a religion perusal and reading several texts or explanations of different religious traditions. Currently on the Tao, which I'm really liking. I've also went through a stint of "deep diving" biblical scholarship from people like Bart Ehrman and James Kugel. For my job I've read several varying books on sex and more on varying relational dynamics or mental health issues. I like youtube videos about science. 

But as mentioned, I'm a lot younger. Most of my adult life has been watching the world or scholarship and integration of open resources really expand. My experience at BYU included incorporation of a lot of material related to the subjects I was studying almost entirely not from LDS sources. So it never occurred to me when the few times there were limitations to resources being encouraged that it was a universal restriction in ones personal life to solely read church materials. Kinda defeats the purpose of the last article of faith in my mind. 

not to dismiss your experience. Like Calm, I find it interesting and a little surprising. But I don't doubt that you experienced that.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 13, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

was a universal restriction in ones personal life to solely read church materials.

I am pretty sure ttribe only limited it to learning about the Church.  I assume that he means scripture study as well, but maybe he means just church history?  I am thinking scripture, doctrine, policy, culture and history were what was limited to approved materials and not other subjects.

added:  if I traced it far enough back, it was Smac’s comment about Saints being encouraged to study their faith that triggered this side topic.  And ttribe responded from approved sources which led to me sharing my experiences and then asking if anyone here had been told to study their Church info from only church approved materials.

Interpreting it as never reading anything about anything unless church approved always struck me as an unlikely interpretation favoured only by antimormoms because you only had to attend BYU and hit the library or stand in a Deseretbook to be surrounded by nonChurch approved reading material (just think of all those textbooks students were required to read for class), but I found out how a member might come to that conclusion when a young lady said to me when I worked at a church member owned bookstore “everything here is approved by the Church, right?”  And I had to inform her, no, it was not, only materials published by the Church Distribution went through that process.  I am guessing she thought the Church had a department that read everything ever published which stamped “mostly harmless” on books that passed the vetting process as well as looked at religious themed toys offered, which list was then passed out to all church bookstores, owned by the Church or private. 

Edited February 13, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

DOGE IS NOT and official agency of the US government.

Yes, it is.

Apart from that, I'll leave you with final words as to political issues.

Actually an existing government agency U.S. Digital Service (instituted by Obama and hereinafter “legacy USDS”) was renamed to DOGE. All its funding and mechanism and staffing is being used LEGALLY. See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12493

Quote

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order (E.O.) titled “Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’” (DOGE), which reorganized an entity in the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the U.S. Digital Service, as the U.S. DOGE Service, using the same acronym as its predecessor (USDS). The E.O. directs the reorganized USDS to “implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” Two additional executive orders identify other USDS activities related to agency hiring freezes and hiring plans. This Insight describes USDS’s duties and activities as outlined in the DOGE E.O., historical operations of USDS, and potential areas of interest for Congress. Issuance of Executive Order The “Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’” E.O. reorganizes and renames the existing U.S. Digital Service (hereinafter “legacy USDS”) as the U.S. DOGE Service (also abbreviated as USDS), to be led by a USDS administrator who reports to the White House chief of staff. The E.O. also establishes within USDS a temporary organization referred to as the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization (USDSTO), also led by the USDS administrator, which “shall be dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda” and terminates on July 4, 2026. The E.O. also directs each agency head, in consultation with the USDS administrator, to establish a “DOGE team” of at least four employees within each agency. These teams will “typically include” a team lead, an engineer, a human resources (HR) specialist, and an attorney. According to the E.O., agency team members may include current agency personnel or new hires designated as “special government employees.” Each agency’s team is directed to coordinate with USDS and advise its agency head on implementing the DOGE agenda. The E.O. also directs the USDS administrator to implement a “Software Modernization Initiative,” which would seek to improve the efficiency of federal software and information technology (IT) systems as well Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov IN12493 Congressional Research Service 2 as promote interoperability among agency networks and systems. To facilitate this effort, agency heads are directed to provide USDS “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.” This E.O. follows a prior announcement in November 2024 by then-President-elect Trump that a DOGE would be established under the leadership of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. According to the statement, the DOGE would look at topics including regulations, expenditures, and restructuring agencies. The announcement also described the DOGE as providing “advice and guidance from outside of Government” by partnering with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). CRS is not aware that a USDS administrator has been named publicly, but the White House described Elon Musk as serving as a special government employee under the effort.

 

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, longview said:

Actually an existing government agency U.S. Digital Service (instituted by Obama and hereinafter “legacy USDS”) was renamed to DOGE. All its funding and mechanism and staffing is being used LEGALLY. See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12493

 

Call for Reference! I click on the links and it's nothing. 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Most of my assessments are based on commentary from attorneys, or people with extensive experience in the law.  Lots and lots of them.

To be sure, the attorneys I tend to find most credible lean toward the libertarian/conservative side of things, so I take their commentary with an appropriate grain of sale, or try to.

Neat, then it may interest you to know that the American Bar Association recently put out a statement warning that Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are undermining the rule of law.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5139300-bar-association-trump-administration-attacks-on-judges-cross-the-line/

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also deeply, deeply dislike the state of our government.  I love America, and the Constitution, and the generalized notions of a federal republic, but I am very troubled by the Deep State, the Administrative State, government bloat all over, waste, corruption, and so on.  I think a good way to "move forward" would to be set aside personal dislike of Mr. Trump.  He's POTUS, so those who dislike him will just have to deal with the reality that he gets to set Executive Branch policy and practice (within the confines of the law).  

The Deep State is not a real thing. It is a bunch of government bureaucrats and scientists and other professionals doing their jobs. Some are incompetent. Some are very competent. There is no conspiracy amongst them to accomplish far-ranging goals across multiple federal agencies and an moment’s reflection will reveal how ridiculous the idea is. They wouldn’t benefit from any massive conspiracy. They aren’t ideologically united. This myth was dreamed up by people who want to villainize government workers so they can hack and slash which is what they are doing.

If the President were setting policy within the bounds of the law I would be a lot less concerned. If they weren’t threatening to ignore court rulings I would be a lot less concerned. If they weren’t ripping things down and wrecking things without understanding what they are doing I would be a lot less concerned. If they weren’t vetting security agencies and loyalty testing employees for personal loyalty to the President and his agenda that would make me feel much better. Especially since that last one is what happens in failing democracies before they turn into authoritarian states.

This isn’t just a regular policy disagreement. It is a threat to constitutional norms. We are heading for some constitutional crises and I hope our institutions can survive them. I hope my worries turn out not to actually happen. When I talk to my friends in Europe their comment on hearing the news is to ask why people aren’t protesting and rioting in the streets and burning things as that would be the result where they are if these things were happening in their nation. They know authoritarian states better than Americans do and have seen these kinds of transformations.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Neat, then it may interest you to know that the American Bar Association recently put out a statement warning that Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are undermining the rule of law.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5139300-bar-association-trump-administration-attacks-on-judges-cross-the-line/

The Deep State is not a real thing. It is a bunch of government bureaucrats and scientists and other professionals doing their jobs. Some are incompetent. Some are very competent. There is no conspiracy amongst them to accomplish far-ranging goals across multiple federal agencies and an moment’s reflection will reveal how ridiculous the idea is. They wouldn’t benefit from any massive conspiracy. They aren’t ideologically united. This myth was dreamed up by people who want to villainize government workers so they can hack and slash which is what they are doing.

Correct. People who believe in a “deep state” show themselves completely unfamiliar with how government works and frankly, mark themselves as gullible and susceptible to propaganda. I’ve been working in and around the government (including in the DoD and the Executive Office of the President) for decades, and I can report it’s just a bureaucracy like any other. Those who believe business is more efficient and productive than government probably haven’t worked in the corporate world. Again, labels like “deep state” and “administrative state” are helpful warnings that we are not dealing with serious arguments. 

Edited February 13, 2025 by jkwilliams

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.

A DOGE Origin Story: How Barack Obama Laid The Groundwork For Elon Musk

With a new home for DOGE in the White House, here's what you need to know

More here.

We'll see how this stuff pans out.

Well, we'll see.

Thanks,

_Smac

I thought you were bowing out?

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, longview said:

Actually an existing government agency U.S. Digital Service (instituted by Obama and hereinafter “legacy USDS”) was renamed to DOGE. All its funding and mechanism and staffing is being used LEGALLY. See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12493

 

I am not clear on how renaming one agency something else makes it an official agency. If that is the case why has Musk not been put through the senate confirmation process?

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I am pretty sure ttribe only limited it to learning about the Church.  I assume that he means scripture study as well, but maybe he means just church history?  I am thinking scripture, doctrine, policy, culture and history were what was limited to approved materials and not other subjects.

added:  if I traced it far enough back, it was Smac’s comment about Saints being encouraged to study their faith that triggered this side topic.  And ttribe responded from approved sources which led to me sharing my experiences and then asking if anyone here had been told to study their Church info from only church approved materials.

Interpreting it as never reading anything about anything unless church approved always struck me as an unlikely interpretation favoured only by antimormoms because you only had to attend BYU and hit the library or stand in a Deseretbook to be surrounded by nonChurch approved reading material (just think of all those textbooks students were required to read for class), but I found out how a member might come to that conclusion when a young lady said to me when I worked at a church member owned bookstore “everything here is approved by the Church, right?”  And I had to inform her, no, it was not, only materials published by the Church Distribution went through that process.  I am guessing she thought the Church had a department that read everything ever published which stamped “mostly harmless” on books that passed the vetting process as well as looked at religious themed toys offered, which list was then passed out to all church bookstores, owned by the Church or private. 

Thanks. My brain farted on the context hard while writing that. I remembered more my surprise by the assertion bit the context of the assertion. It's still a surprise for me even within studying our faith because of similar reasons you mentioned above. I could get interperpreting it as not focusing on hyper critical books/materials or more extremist stuff from members within the church when they rarely set out a warning against this or that material...(I have a hard time seeing those as fitting into the genre of "best books" material anyways from the things I've seen/read over the years). But I never assumed that meant only focus on church approved stuff in terms of studying our religion. There's so much material that isn't official church stuff but isn't hyper critical stuff that it wouldn't make sense to even try to regulate that.

Rough Stone Rolling would be a solid example of something without overt church sanction that plenty of members have read to study the early founding of our religion. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Did you vote for Mr. Biden?  Or for Ms. Harris?  If so, you likely used the same moral calculus that I did, which involved coping with a field of deeply flawed candidates, and doing your best to choose.  And I bet you did that without endorsing the various problematic behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.

Or perhaps you did not vote at all, or voted for some no-way-he'll-win candidate, which would have been your choice, but effectively equivalent to not voting at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

In the last 3 pages I keep going back to this post when thinking about how it's unfolded since. I mentioned in another thread that the politics talk is hitting it's curdling point. Largely because of the personal attacks (both more indirect and direct) have started to come out. For whatever reason we do not do well in Disagreeing on this in particular.

So this will be political light while still being political. 

I did vote for both Biden and Harris (for the record I have voted rep or 3rd party down ballot multiple times before and register independent. For example, I was planning to vote romney for Senate if he'd ran again), but I didn't experience the same political calculus that you did. In order to understand someone like me, you'd have to understand that Trump was never an option. Ever. E.v.e.r. 

The reason isn't that complicated for me. Though I have plenty of issues with our current political system (pre-trump), there is worse out there. Several of my relatives lived in worse. Trump's methods and posture represents veering towards that worse to me. It's not just comparing equivalent levels of flaws. It's comparing levels of threat and corrosive capacity to a functioning democracy. 

I get that there are ways to dismiss or minimize this as being some version of hyperbolic rationale. I also work through an emotional response of incredulity about those who've voted for him. I've worked to understand that "other side" by seeking voices to better get their concerns, their own mental calculus, and their own understandings of our current situations. And though it's somewhat reduced my gut response of incredulity. It's cemented one fact very clearly for me: we are not doing the same mental math in our decision making. We see the same events differently, the same people drastically differently, and sometimes we don't really see the same events. 

If we don't get that or engage with that we will always be shocked, annoyed or some level of disgusted by those doing their math differently. It doesn't fully cure me of these, but it does balance the response with better understanding. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

Edited February 13, 2025 by BlueDreams

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Pink said:

You obviously left the mormon cult and couldn't handle the thought of thinking for yourself so you decided to join the liberal cult so you could still "benefit" from group think.  Liberalism is cult mentality on steroids. So go Rejoice in killing babies then maybe after lunch you can use skin color as a weapon to dehumanize people just like you liberals are taught.

 

You’re a living, breathing cliche. 😂

[Rain]

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Thanks. My brain farted on the context hard while writing that. I remembered more my surprise by the assertion bit the context of the assertion. It's still a surprise for me even within studying our faith because of similar reasons you mentioned above. I could get interperpreting it as not focusing on hyper critical books/materials or more extremist stuff from members within the church when they rarely set out a warning against this or that material...(I have a hard time seeing those as fitting into the genre of "best books" material anyways from the things I've seen/read over the years). But I never assumed that meant only focus on church approved stuff in terms of studying our religion. There's so much material that isn't official church stuff but isn't hyper critical stuff that it wouldn't make sense to even try to regulate that.

Rough Stone Rolling would be a solid example of something without overt church sanction that plenty of members have read to study the early founding of our religion. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

It was a somewhat common thing I heard. 

Most considered things at Deseret Book as church approved though I specifically remember when Deseret Book went through a change when it's customers expressed that they were unhappy with some of its books nit being "safe" for church members.  I was actually part of an event where they brought customers in and asked all sorts of questions.  If I remember  right the change went through not long after this. 

Early on I heard a lot of comments that Rough Stone Rolling was antimormon. 

[BlueDreams]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

It was a somewhat common thing I heard. 

Most considered things at Deseret Book as church approved though I specifically remember when Deseret Book went through a change when it's customers expressed that they were unhappy with some of its books nit being "safe" for church members.  I was actually part of an event where they brought customers in and asked all sorts of questions.  If I remember  right the change went through not long after this. 

Early on I heard a lot of comments that Rough Stone Rolling was antimormon. 

I heard some of this more distantly or via 2nd or 3rd person (as in reading some of the reviews on amazon or having someone tell me that they know someone who said it was some version of critical). It may just be the circles I walked in or was most immediately exposed to at the time just didn't lean that way in thinking. They tended to be more academic or college-going LDS members. Especially while I was in my 20's. There was a disproportionate number of people interested in academic study of their faith and practice.

Not that there weren't people who were more cautious about it. There were. There were just plenty of others to give an opposing opinion. So I didn't assume one or the other was more aligned to church standards per se.  

Besides I never took individual member responses as indicative of overarching policies. So seeing those views didn't override other people who took very different or even opposite stances to them. And I never felt like I had to abide by someone else's opinion of the matter. Though to be fair, that may partly be personality. There's very little that I feel like I have to abide in terms of social settings since my personality doesn't generally work that way. There's even less that I won't question. If you (general you) can't make it make sense or solidly back it up, I don't feel a need to believe it. I meet plenty who do have more of a sense of heed to social networks or systems... where it's a little harder to step out or be different. For them, sometimes hearing even one of these opinions from just the right source  (parent, local leader, trusted friend, etc) would have been enough to discourage them. So I could imagine a situation where someone heard or saw something similar to what you mentioned and gets to a conclusion that "latter-day saints don't read or study X." It's just not my experience at all.  

 

With luv,

BD

 

[jkwilliams]

37 minutes ago, Pink said:

Meaning,  you're probably a liberal that is to scared to think for yourself.  Liberalism and mormonism are alike in the sense that both cults promise to think for you, thus eliminating a majority of stress that can build up if someone is to much of a chicken **** to think for themselves. 

😂😂😂

[ttribe]

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

FWIW, I can't say I've ever had that experience. But I'm also likely a lot younger than you (definitely am to Calm, who I've met IRL). 

I read non-church material all the time. Mostly of historical, social-political, therapy, and religious oriented (cuz thems my interests). I've always seen the balance of both seeking out the "best books" including books from varying experts in varying fields...particularly outside of a sunday school setting. It's not something I'm quiet about. Plenty know that I'm currently doing a religion perusal and reading several texts or explanations of different religious traditions. Currently on the Tao, which I'm really liking. I've also went through a stint of "deep diving" biblical scholarship from people like Bart Ehrman and James Kugel. For my job I've read several varying books on sex and more on varying relational dynamics or mental health issues. I like youtube videos about science. 

But as mentioned, I'm a lot younger. Most of my adult life has been watching the world or scholarship and integration of open resources really expand. My experience at BYU included incorporation of a lot of material related to the subjects I was studying almost entirely not from LDS sources. So it never occurred to me when the few times there were limitations to resources being encouraged that it was a universal restriction in ones personal life to solely read church materials. Kinda defeats the purpose of the last article of faith in my mind. 

not to dismiss your experience. Like Calm, I find it interesting and a little surprising. But I don't doubt that you experienced that.

 

With luv,

BD

 

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I am pretty sure ttribe only limited it to learning about the Church.  I assume that he means scripture study as well, but maybe he means just church history?  I am thinking scripture, doctrine, policy, culture and history were what was limited to approved materials and not other subjects.

added:  if I traced it far enough back, it was Smac’s comment about Saints being encouraged to study their faith that triggered this side topic.  And ttribe responded from approved sources which led to me sharing my experiences and then asking if anyone here had been told to study their Church info from only church approved materials.

Interpreting it as never reading anything about anything unless church approved always struck me as an unlikely interpretation favoured only by antimormoms because you only had to attend BYU and hit the library or stand in a Deseretbook to be surrounded by nonChurch approved reading material (just think of all those textbooks students were required to read for class), but I found out how a member might come to that conclusion when a young lady said to me when I worked at a church member owned bookstore “everything here is approved by the Church, right?”  And I had to inform her, no, it was not, only materials published by the Church Distribution went through that process.  I am guessing she thought the Church had a department that read everything ever published which stamped “mostly harmless” on books that passed the vetting process as well as looked at religious themed toys offered, which list was then passed out to all church bookstores, owned by the Church or private. 

Correct. I was referring only to study of Church history.

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Thanks. My brain farted on the context hard while writing that. I remembered more my surprise by the assertion bit the context of the assertion. It's still a surprise for me even within studying our faith because of similar reasons you mentioned above. I could get interperpreting it as not focusing on hyper critical books/materials or more extremist stuff from members within the church when they rarely set out a warning against this or that material...(I have a hard time seeing those as fitting into the genre of "best books" material anyways from the things I've seen/read over the years). But I never assumed that meant only focus on church approved stuff in terms of studying our religion. There's so much material that isn't official church stuff but isn't hyper critical stuff that it wouldn't make sense to even try to regulate that.

Rough Stone Rolling would be a solid example of something without overt church sanction that plenty of members have read to study the early founding of our religion. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Yes, I am significantly older than you. For frame of reference, I served my mission (at age 19) from '91-'93. Ed Decker and his minions were making the rounds with the Godmakers when I was a teen and I was very much taught at home, in Sunday School, and in Seminary, that I should only be studying Church History from explicitly approved materials (e.g. lesson manuals and referenced items) and implicitly approved materials (which could be obtained from Deseret Book). I took that to heart. As a missionary, I purchased and read B.H. Roberts' History of the Church. That was my first introduction to some of the more, shall we say, unusual items in Church History (e.g. Zelph, Joseph's glass looking trial, etc.).

RSR wasn't published until 2005. By that time, I was almost 8 years into my career, had been married for 11 years, had two children, had held a number of callings and was very busy with life. I didn't give any thought about branching out in my studies until a few years later when I got involved in the predecessor to this board. The rabbit hole loomed large at that point.

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I heard some of this more distantly or via 2nd or 3rd person (as in reading some of the reviews on amazon or having someone tell me that they know someone who said it was some version of critical). It may just be the circles I walked in or was most immediately exposed to at the time just didn't lean that way in thinking. They tended to be more academic or college-going LDS members. Especially while I was in my 20's. There was a disproportionate number of people interested in academic study of their faith and practice.

Not that there weren't people who were more cautious about it. There were. There were just plenty of others to give an opposing opinion. So I didn't assume one or the other was more aligned to church standards per se.  

Besides I never took individual member responses as indicative of overarching policies. So seeing those views didn't override other people who took very different or even opposite stances to them. And I never felt like I had to abide by someone else's opinion of the matter. Though to be fair, that may partly be personality. There's very little that I feel like I have to abide in terms of social settings since my personality doesn't generally work that way. There's even less that I won't question. If you (general you) can't make it make sense or solidly back it up, I don't feel a need to believe it. I meet plenty who do have more of a sense of heed to social networks or systems... where it's a little harder to step out or be different. For them, sometimes hearing even one of these opinions from just the right source  (parent, local leader, trusted friend, etc) would have been enough to discourage them. So I could imagine a situation where someone heard or saw something similar to what you mentioned and gets to a conclusion that "latter-day saints don't read or study X." It's just not my experience at all.  

 

With luv,

BD

 

I was very much a rule-follower in my youth and young adulthood. That's probably a significant contributing factor to me getting a couple of degrees in accounting.

Edited February 13, 2025 by ttribe

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I heard some of this more distantly or via 2nd or 3rd person (as in reading some of the reviews on amazon or having someone tell me that they know someone who said it was some version of critical). It may just be the circles I walked in or was most immediately exposed to at the time just didn't lean that way in thinking. They tended to be more academic or college-going LDS members. Especially while I was in my 20's. There was a disproportionate number of people interested in academic study of their faith and practice.

Not that there weren't people who were more cautious about it. There were. There were just plenty of others to give an opposing opinion. So I didn't assume one or the other was more aligned to church standards per se.  

Besides I never took individual member responses as indicative of overarching policies. So seeing those views didn't override other people who took very different or even opposite stances to them. And I never felt like I had to abide by someone else's opinion of the matter. Though to be fair, that may partly be personality. There's very little that I feel like I have to abide in terms of social settings since my personality doesn't generally work that way. There's even less that I won't question. If you (general you) can't make it make sense or solidly back it up, I don't feel a need to believe it. I meet plenty who do have more of a sense of heed to social networks or systems... where it's a little harder to step out or be different. For them, sometimes hearing even one of these opinions from just the right source  (parent, local leader, trusted friend, etc) would have been enough to discourage them. So I could imagine a situation where someone heard or saw something similar to what you mentioned and gets to a conclusion that "latter-day saints don't read or study X." It's just not my experience at all.  

 

With luv,

BD

 

Yes, it has to do with circles we run in - that would include age of circles.  While I hear a lot less of it now I still get things along that line with the people who are 10 or 20 years older than me.  But I've also noticed that people here in Mesa or more so that way than people in Salt Lake were when I left.  It was definitely something I dealt with in my teens, 20s and 30s.

You and I have run in very different circles. While I did have the academic circles as well they were from 20 years earlier than yours.  Plus I was raised in Utah in a family much different than yours. 

I'm grateful that you understand experiences can be different! I've never felt you disbelieved my experiences because they were different like other people have. I love learning from what you share of your experiences.

 

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Correct. I was referring only to study of Church history.

Yes, I am significantly older than you. For frame of reference, I served my mission (at age 19) from '91-'93. Ed Decker and his minions were making the rounds with the Godmakers when I was a teen and I was very much taught at home, in Sunday School, and in Seminary, that I should only be studying Church History from explicitly approved materials (e.g. lesson manuals and referenced items) and implicitly approved materials (which could be obtained from Deseret Book). I took that to heart.

I went 89-90 so this fits me too.

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As a missionary, I purchased and read B.H. Roberts' History of the Church. That was my first introduction to some of the more, shall we say, unusual items in Church History (e.g. Zelph, Joseph's glass looking trial, etc.).

RSR wasn't published until 2005. By that time, I was almost 8 years into my career, had been married for 11 years, had two children, had held a number of callings and was very busy with life. I didn't give any thought about branching out in my studies until a few years later when I got involved in the predecessor to this board. The rabbit hold loomed large at that point.

I was very much a rule-follower in my youth and young adulthood. That's probably a significant contributing factor to me getting a couple of degrees in accounting.

I am a rule follower who doesn't like being told what to do if that makes sense.