Dan refutes Ben

[Mfbnew]

On 1/24/2025 at 10:31 AM, longview said:

Both personal revelation and prophetic warnings and teachings are necessary. Jesus' Intercessory Prayer (John 17) emphasizes the absolute necessity of Oneness or Unity in the Godhead, and between God and the Twelve Apostles, and with the Body of Christ the Church. Why we raise our right arms to sustain callings even if we are imperfect. Always striving for greater progress and unity (in overcoming the natural man).

I am not denying that for one second- BUT in order to BELIEVE that scripture is "true"- or that prophetic warnings and "oneness" one must have some sort of personal reason for "knowing those assertions are true"

And of course the only way one can know that is through personal revelation.

Even moral issues require it- how do we "know" that murder is wrong?

Even atheists of course believe that as well as theists because the "Universe" tells them or their "gut".  How do they know what is a "heinous" crime as opposed to a simple mistake?

"Something inside".

So the bottom line here, for me, is ultimately some "feeling" that tells us what is right or wrong, true or false.   You pick your own formula and then judge by that formula of what is seriously wrong and what is less seriously wrong.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The effort to recast these issues as moral issues is as much about creating a new morality as it is about supporting the political policies.

Isn’t asking for mercy for the vulnerable in our society framing the discussion as moral though first? (I think Shapiro’s comments are ridiculous, but don’t understand your comments that Shapiro is recasting the issues as moral).

[longview]

5 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

And of course the only way one can know that is through personal revelation.

Ultimately, yes. But every person also needs to find that balance between his own "insights" and the "guidance" of the church. To carefully ponder on what course correction he needs to make.

Consider what happened with this apostle: (from the wiki)

"Richard Roswell Lyman (November 23, 1870 – December 31, 1963) was an American engineer and religious leader who was an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1918 to 1943.

"Lyman is often noted as the most recent LDS Church apostle to have been excommunicated. In 1943, J. Reuben Clark, first counselor in the church's First Presidency and its de facto leader due to church president Heber J. Grant's poor health, became aware that Lyman had for a number of years been in an intimate relationship with a woman he had earlier been assigned to counsel. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles convened a disciplinary council to hear the case and Lyman's explanation, after which he was immediately excommunicated. Lyman was rebaptized in 1954 at age 83, and his full priesthood blessings were restored posthumously in 1970."

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Actually, CFR on the idea that Bishop Budde espouses "surgical mutilation and chemical castration of under age children".

Yes, I was about to do the same. 

As written it could be either Bishop Budde being the one espousing such or those who do the “far left virtue signaling” Longview is clumping Budde with…as long as someone in the group Longview defines as ‘far left virtue signalers’ espouses such, even if Budde doesn’t, Longview is not technically misrepresenting Budde, but it’s a guilt by association attempt it seems to me if the Bishop doesn’t actually espouse such practices.

Edited January 25, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t asking for mercy for the vulnerable in our society framing the discussion as moral though first? (I think Shapiro’s comments are ridiculous, but don’t understand your comments that Shapiro is recasting the issues as moral).

Shapiro is suggesting that there is in fact a moral reason for criticizing the Bishop's comments. Shapiro isn't suggesting that there is no basis in scripture for the Bishop's comments. What he says (among other things) is: "Jesus was not in favor of free migration across all borders." This is a theological claim. The implication of this claim is that Trump's immigration agenda should consequently be viewed as moral. That is the morality claim. Shapiro is taking the Trump policies and making morality claims about their content.

And the response itself is this moral outrage (of the sort we just saw from @longview) - trying to associate the Bishop with every possible evil under the sun (yes, there is a bit of hyperbole on my part). Even if we didn't think that the idea of surgical mutilation and chemical castration wasn't some over the top reference to transgender surgery, it is clear to anyone who knows anything at all about the Bishop that this isn't an actual representation of her belief. Her audacity in asking for mercy is now equated to these horrible evils - so that moral anger is both justified and even necessary - because, if we aren't morally outraged, then perhaps we too are espousing "far-left virtue signaling which includes surgical mutilation and chemical castration of under age children."

At any rate, this is one time when I am not pleased to see what I am describing unfolding in the dialogue here.

[teddyaware]

28 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You see, this is complete nonsense. That you think this sort of comparison is appropriate says an awful lot about you, and your lack of personal integrity. Apparently you have bought into the nonsense new morality.

I think we can simply leave it at that.

Edit: Actually, CFR on the idea that Bishop Budde espouses "surgical mutilation and chemical castration of under age children".

Since Mariann Edgar Budde is a prelate in the Episcopal Church hierarchy, and since the Episcopal Church has officially come out in favor of child sex change therapies and procedures, it seems quite unlikely that she wouldn’t also be in favor of her church’s officially stated favorable position on child sex change therapies and procedures. Sorry to disappoint you.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/episcopal-church-endorses-gender-affirming-mutilations-of-children/

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Shapiro is suggesting that there is in fact a moral reason for criticizing the Bishop's comments. Shapiro isn't suggesting that there is no basis in scripture for the Bishop's comments. What he says (among other things) is: "Jesus was not in favor of free migration across all borders." This is a theological claim. The implication of this claim is that Trump's immigration agenda should consequently be viewed as moral. That is the morality claim. Shapiro is taking the Trump policies and making morality claims about their content.

And the response itself is this moral outrage (of the sort we just saw from @longview) - trying to associate the Bishop with every possible evil under the sun (yes, there is a bit of hyperbole on my part). Even if we didn't think that the idea of surgical mutilation and chemical castration wasn't some over the top reference to transgender surgery, it is clear to anyone who knows anything at all about the Bishop that this isn't an actual representation of her belief. Her audacity in asking for mercy is now equated to these horrible evils - so that moral anger is both justified and even necessary - because, if we aren't morally outraged, then perhaps we too are espousing "far-left virtue signaling which includes surgical mutilation and chemical castration of under age children."

At any rate, this is one time when I am not pleased to see what I am describing unfolding in the dialogue here.

Is there a transcript of the TikTok from the OP? I can find Bishop Budde's sermon online, but I'm wondering what is the textual/theological basis for the position, "Jesus was not in favor of free migration across all borders."

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Since Mariann Edgar Budde is a prelate in the Episcopal Church hierarchy, and since the Episcopal Church has officially come out in favor of child sex change therapies and procedures, it seems quite unlikely that she wouldn’t also be in favor of her church’s officially stated favorable position on child sex change therapies and procedures. Sorry to disappoint you.

You never disappoint me Teddy, with your badly formed views of LDS theology (and Christianity more generally), and your willingness to misrepresent whenever possible. You don't disappoint me.

However, in going along with this, you are still party to the misrepresentation - because in order for what the Epicopal Church presented to mean what is being suggested here, you have to add something to it. This is what their policy stated:

Quote

Resolved, that the 80th General Convention calls for the Episcopal Church to advocate for access to gender-affirming care in all forms (social, medical, or any other) and at all ages as part of our Baptismal call to “respect the dignity of every human being”; and be it further

Resolved, that the 80th General Convention affirms that all Episcopalians should be able to partake in gender-affirming care with no restriction on movement, autonomy, or timing; and be it further

Resolved, that this 80th General Convention supports public policies at the local, state, and national levels in all our countries to support gender-affirming care.

This simply points to the idea that the Church is going to advocate for access to gender-affirming care for those who need it. Gender reassignment surgery? Virtually non-existent in the U.S. for minors. It just doesn't happen. Unless, of course, we want to count the hundreds of gender reassignment surgeries that are performed on intersex infants every year ... but that's a different issue, right? There are a lot of things covered by gender affirmation support that don't involve surgery. And yes, one side effect in men taking estrogen (as part of HRT) do become infertile, but, there isn't enough data to analyze whether or not this is true for male children - because we don't generally give estrogen to children for HRT. Puberty blockers (which are usually given in those circumstances to allow for later decision making on the individuals part) do not cause sterility - they are not a chemical castration. So, this isn't analogous at all. The Episcopal Church is in favor of allowing individuals to receive appropriate gender care. They don't advocate for children to have gender reassignment surgery. They don't advocate for children to be chemically castrated. They do suggest that when there is gender dysphoria, that such care is appropriate and that those who require it should not be treated differently from the rest of their membership.

So, again, you didn't disappoint Teddy.

Edited January 25, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is there a transcript of the TikTok from the OP? I can find Bishop Budde's sermon online, but I'm wondering what is the textual/theological basis for the position, "Jesus was not in favor of free migration across all borders."

There is no justification for it - just the blanket statement. It typical of his stuff. That's part of the point that Dan was making. Shapiro is just making all of this up - to justify his 'righteous' anger at the Bishop.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Is there a transcript of the TikTok from the OP? I can find Bishop Budde's sermon online, but I'm wondering what is the textual/theological basis for the position, "Jesus was not in favor of free migration across all borders."

If you want Shapiro’s comments, they appear to be here.  As Ben says, there is no basis given, it’s just presented as a statement of fact, but then he requires that others show Jesus was in favor of free migration (which as Dan points out was a nonissue back then as immigration wouldn’t have been restricted even if there might be social and economic implications to being a foreigner back then (Dan also states his position iirc without documentation unless it’s in the caption, I find it much more likely that Dan is familiar with immigration practices in New Testament times though).

https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-jesus-was-not-favor-free-migration-across-all-borders

Quote

And in the middle of the service, which is sort of interfaith service, kind of — it has a a variety of of people who get up and and speak. One of the people who was preaching, and I say preaching kind of in scare quotes, is a person named Mariann Budd. Mariann Budd is an Episcopal bishop, a female Episcopal bishop. So you can imagine she's not going to be exactly a traditionalist. And she gets up in front of President Trump and Vice President Vance, and she proceeds to spew a diatribe of woke mind nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, Christianity, traditionalism, anything. Anything. 50 years ago, you would be much more likely to hear this in a communist party hall than in a church. One of the terrible things about the decline of religion in America is that you now hear this kind of trash in churches.

So this resistance pastor gets up and is gonna make herself famous by ripping into Donald Trump and JD Vance the day after the inauguration. And she's gonna do so by spewing absolute nonsense wokeness about both trans kids, who don't exist. OK. When I say they don't exist, I mean that there may be kids with gender dysphoria, but the notion that a child knows that their body is not in line with their with their sex is ridiculous on his face. She spews nonsense about trans children and about illegal immigrants and suggests that if President Trump wishes to emulate the values of Jesus, then he must abandon his entire political agenda. I noticed that Jesus was not in favor of free migration across all borders. You're gonna have to show me where in the Bible he was in favor of that. And I certainly know that Jesus was not in favor of the idea that boys and girls are the same and are interchangeable and boys can become girls. But, of course, it has nothing to do with religion. It is what the left has done with nearly every institution. They've hollowed out the institution. They hollowed out the church, and they stuck in a bunch of left-wing woke garbage.

Did you want Dan’s rebuttal transcript instead?

Edited January 25, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

This presents views of immigration and immigrants in Rome in NT times.  While not specifically mentioned, there does not appear to be border restrictions, though people could be expelled for teaching non Roman religions.

https://theconversation.com/jesus-paul-and-the-border-debate-why-cherry-picking-bible-passages-misses-the-immigrant-experience-in-ancient-rome-155021#:~:text=Many foreigners in the capital,the presence of immigrants negatively.

Quote

Understanding the reality of immigrants and their status during the birth of Christianity shapes how Jesus’ teachings are understood. At the time when Jesus tells his disciples about the necessity of “welcoming the stranger,” this was the righteous response to the political tragedy of a fellow human being. To deny them hospitality would be a death sentence. Not all immigrants migrated for economic reasons – for some it was their only life option because of the imperial act of expulsion.

Knowing that immigrants could be expelled for negatively influencing the Roman culture must also shape our understanding of Paul’s teaching to “submit” to Roman authorities. Since Paul was a Roman citizen, it would have been instinctive to instruct other Christians living in Rome to maintain political peace with the empire. As with Ovid, being a Roman citizen did not exempt them from being treated like foreigners. The empire was indiscriminate in its deportation power, and citizens like Paul who introduced non-Roman religions were not exempt.

 

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you want Shapiro’s comments, they appear to be here.  As Ben says, there is no basis given, it’s just presented as a statement of fact, but then he requires that some show Jesus was in favor of free migration (which as Dan points out was a nonissue back then as immigration wouldn’t have been restricted even if there might be social and economic implications to being a foreigner back then (Dan also states his position iirc without documentation unless it’s in the caption, I find it much more likely that Dan is familiar with immigration practices in New Testament times though).

https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-jesus-was-not-favor-free-migration-across-all-borders

Did you want Dan’s rebuttal transcript instead?

If you have Dan's rebuttal transcript, yes please (thank you), but it seems from the other posts that he wasn't taking a doctrinal position on the topic.

In another thread ("Feedback — thematic codebook for study on migration in the Gospel"), I couldn't see how the Gospel has specific solutions for specific immigration problems, though it does offer a method (inspired counsels) for those so inclined to use them. More practically perhaps, the council format might be used in a secular fashion and political setting with great results (usually compromise, somewhere between lose-lose and win-win) for those willing to apply them (as in Abraham 1:26). But contending with anger, especially concerning the points of doctrine, disrupts this ("But who's contending with anger? Not me!!!).

If I were to get on my soapbox on this problem of polarization, it would be to bemoan the loss of teaching children civic virtue. While this carries the risk of also indoctrinating them on how to use it politically (whatever the parents' persuasion), they do grow up and make up their own minds.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If you have Dan's rebuttal transcript, yes please (thank you), but it seems from the other posts that he wasn't taking a doctrinal position on the topic.

From FB…transcript does not indicate who is speaking, watch the video if you can’t figure out which.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC1-oYocbis

Quote

this resistance Pastor gets up and is

going to make herself Famous by ripping

into Donald Trump and JD Vans the day

after the inauguration all right let's

see it and she's going to do so by

spewing absolute nonsense wokeness a

plea for Mercy for the most vulnerable

in our society is not nonsense wokeness

it is a repeated and consistent message

of Jesus's throughout the New Testament

and this was a sermon about both trans

kids who don't exist trans kids

indisputably exist and denying their

humanity and their existence is

grotesquely hateful and

stupid hey when I say they don't exist I

mean that there may be kids with gender

dysphoria so trans kids but the notion

that a child knows that their body is

not in line with their with their sex is

ridiculous so you're obviously

struggling to comprehend the difference

between sex and gender which means you

don't have the first clue what you're

talking about you're not an expert on

this and it's very clearly not your

prerogative to declare how other people

are allowed to experience the world

around them and themselves within it so

you would be doing the world the favor

if you would just shut the hell up and

let the adults do the talking on his

face she spews nonsense about trans

children she said that there scared

which is an indisputable reality and she

plad for Mercy which is her Christianity

speaking none of that is spewing

nonsense not knowing the difference

between sex and gender and pretending

that trans kids don't exist is hateful

and harmful nonsense that you just

spewed and about illegal immigrants and

suggest that if president Trump wishes

to emulate the values of Jesus then he

must abandon his entire political agenda

if drawing from the words of Jesus to

plead to our nation's most elite for

mercy on behalf of transkids and

undocumented immigrants means one must

abandon their entire political agenda

then their entire political agenda is

trash I noticed that Jesus was not in

favor of free migration across all

borders no you didn't you made that up

because there's no part of any record

associated with Jesus that says anything

about this because they did not have

concepts of restricting travel across

borders anciently if you traveled into a

new area you might be subject to new

laws you might be disadvantaged when it

came to natives in the area you might

have new taxes that you had to pay but

there was no attempt on the parts of

sovereigns to restrict the crossing of

borders so no you didn't notice that you

made it up you're going to have to show

me where in the Bible he was in favor of

that and I certainly know that Jesus was

not in favor of the idea that boys and

girls are the same and are

interchangeable and boys can become

girls uh you certainly know absolutely

no such thing whatsoever the New

Testament is overwhelmingly silent on

this issue because it just wasn't

Salient for the authors of the gospels

you're just making stuff up but given

that you don't even have a firm grip on

how people are discussing these issues

today you certainly don't have the

foggiest idea how they were discussing

them 2,000 years ago you don't know what

it means that in the gospel of Matthew

Jesus is represented as praising as more

righteous those who make themselves Unix

for the kingdom of heaven so you don't

even begin to have the first clue how

they discussed issues of sex and gender

and the mutability or immutability of

those characteristics in the ancient

world the only thing that is clear from

this little histrionic display is is

that you have no business talking

outside of the confines of your own

household you need to just sit a few

plays out and again let the grown-ups

talk and the fit for this video has been

Dale Keon's Incredible Hulk

 

[Mfbnew]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Ultimately, yes. But every person also needs to find that balance between his own "insights" and the "guidance" of the church. To carefully ponder on what course correction he needs to make.

So you are actually maintaining that this apostle who was knowingly breaking the "LAW of chastity" was "guided" by his own insights/testimony which he saw as church "GUIDANCE" to guide him to continue an illicit affair for a number of years.

I find that to be an absurd position.

This has got to be one of the best attempts to twist words that I have ever seen in my life.

 

[why me]

She gave a very political sermon to the president. He and his family were like a trapped a couldn't escape. It was more like a billy sermon. And it was ill mannered to do it in such a way. The president handled it well.

[Kenngo1969]

I can, of course, read neither minds nor hearts, but, from where I sit, if my intent is to climb up on my soapbox and virtue signal to anyone who happens to see, to hear, to read, or to become aware otherwise of what I have to say how much better I am (and how much better those who agree with me are) than those who don't, I congratulate the Bishop on achieving her objective.  If, on the other hand, her intent was to persuade President Trump of the wrongfulness of his position (and of the wrongfulness of those who agree with him) ... she failed ... miserably.    

All of that having been said, no one's politics (no matter what they are) are, in the theological sense, going to save even one soul.  Only Christ can do that.  When we say that Christ will return to reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (and when we pray for Him to do that), that's exactly what we mean.  And if we say, "I want You to reign over me ... in every sense but [fill-in-the-blank-here]," that won't work.  And if we expect the way Christ does things to align exactly with our particular political convictions, that won't work, either.  It is likely that He would offend everyone who is wedded too tightly to particular political convictions.  As President Oaks said once, there is some truth in liberalism, some truth is conservatism ... but no salvation in either of them.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, why me said:

She gave a very political sermon to the president. He and his family were like a trapped a couldn't escape. It was more like a billy sermon. And it was ill mannered to do it in such a way. The president handled it well.

Have you read or listened to the actual sermon? 

Would you have been okay with it if she kept it general and did not plead with Trump from the pulpit?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump

I agree they were a trapped audience.  Seems like the majority of the talk calling for unity could equally be applied to Democrats as Republicans or any other party in the US, especially anyone contributing a culture of contempt.  The specific part towards Trump asked him to be merciful and compassionate without saying he wasn’t or giving specifics in how he should go about doing so.  He could have responded that it was a good reminder for us all and that he always tried to approach lawmaking with mercy as well as justice even if some people don’t see it that way.

I personally see a lot in common with this talk.  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/10/03-a-pattern-for-unity-in-jesus-christ?lang=eng#title1

Quote

We live in an age when a surging tide of discord and disputation is spreading across the globe. Aided by technology and abetted by people whose hearts have waxed cold, these divisive forces threaten to fill our hearts with contempt and corrupt our communication with contention. Communal ties are breaking. Wars are raging.

Against this backdrop, true followers of Jesus Christ yearn for peace and actively seek to build a different kind of society—one that is founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. To this end, the Lord has charged us to “be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:27). Indeed, unity is a hallmark of the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Is it the duty of the pastors invited to speak at such services to be supportive of the President?  Serious question.

She has been vocal in the past.  She gave the benediction at a Democratic National Convention.  Why would anyone expect different from her?  Who invited her to speak out of curiosity?  Apparently she was chosen last October.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/after-eyebrow-raising-sermon-trump-bishop-budde-beset-criticism-and-praise

Edited January 26, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

if my intent is to climb up on my soapbox and virtue signal to anyone who happens to see, to hear, to read, or to become aware otherwise of what I have to say how much better I am (and how much better those who agree with me are) than those who don't, I congratulate the Bishop on achieving her objective.

Is this what we are calling general conference now?

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I couldn't see how the Gospel has specific solutions for specific immigration problems

The most frequent references in scripture to immigration and immigrants occur in the Old Testament, and can been seen by looking at two important words used to translate the concept in the Hebrew: Stranger and Sojourner. The primary instruction for ancient Israelites can be found in Exodus 22:21 (and the parallel texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy:

Quote

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 23:7 -

Quote

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

Leviticus 19:33-34

Quote

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

The Israelites weren't always particularly good at treating the immigrants in their lands as if they were natives, but, the commandments are there with regard to that.

The New Testament follows the Old Testament in much of its language, substituting the Greek παροικος and ξένος for the Hebrew גֵּר - but it is translated the same way. Matthew 25 has that bit in there that deals specifically with foreigners (aliens) in the parable of the sheep and the goats:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

To use a fairly neutral source, Strong's concordance defines the Greek word this way:

Quote

a foreigner, a stranger

1. alien (from a person or a thing)

Now, I will also agree that immigration issues are significantly different today than they were three millennia ago (for innumerable reasons). However, as far as the Old and New Testaments describe the treatment of the immigrant - the stranger/sojourner/alien in your land, the scriptural texts are pretty clear. Criminalizing immigrants and then claiming that there is a morality in deporting them because they are criminals does not seem to fit well into that scriptural message. Trying to claim that the scriptures say the opposite of what they say is going even a step farther ...

Edited January 26, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

two important words used to translate the concept in the Hebrew: Stranger and Sojourner.

Ben, is it true that ger in Hebrew refers to resident alien and the implication is they have sought permission to live in the land?  I have seen this claim made.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If I were to get on my soapbox on this problem of polarization, it would be to bemoan the loss of teaching children civic virtue.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Civic virtue is the idea that we should place the common good above our own. But, the current polarization seems to be at that lower level. The debate is over whose good do we want to promote, and how do we define our society for whom that good is supposed to exist. This is always the problem with identity politics. When we fragment society into groups, we are no longer really able to engage with a good for the entire society.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, why me said:

She gave a very political sermon to the president. He and his family were like a trapped a couldn't escape. It was more like a billy sermon. And it was ill mannered to do it in such a way. The president handled it well.

Not at all. Her sermon was theological. It had political overtones only because of the context of the shift in stated policy goals that came with the new president. Without that context, the sermon of mercy to the weak would not be out of place on any given Sunday. It is the place of the religious leaders in our country to remind the political leadership of the need for them to act morally and ethically. The only reason why we might suggest that the president handled it well is because we have seen far worse temper tantrums from him in the past ...

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ben, is it true that ger in Hebrew refers to resident alien and the implication is they have sought permission to live in the land?  I have seen this claim made.

No. There is nothing implicit in the word to add that qualification. What this idea refers to is the idea that comes with later views on hospitality. That is, once you accept the stranger and give him hospitality, you have given them status within the community that you are obligated to maintain. But, you cannot really take that specific context and expand it so that it applies to all of the other ways in which the term is used - particularly in the Old Testament - where there is absolutely no justification to do so. So I would reject that claim - and so would readers of the text anciently - who do not make this sort of distinction.

Edited January 26, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[longview]

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

So you are actually maintaining that this apostle who was knowingly breaking the "LAW of chastity" was "guided" by his own insights/testimony which he saw as church "GUIDANCE" to guide him to continue an illicit affair for a number of years.

I find that to be an absurd position.

This has got to be one of the best attempts to twist words that I have ever seen in my life.

Sorry if I gave you this impression. My point was Elder Lyman KNEW he needed a course correction but chose to keep "this minor wrinkle" secret from the Brethren. He claimed never to have had physical relations with her. Who knows but him and her. In any case he needed to consult with the Brethren about his second residence and be prepared to receive counsel.

[longview]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This simply points to the idea that the Church is going to advocate for access to gender-affirming care for those who need it. Gender reassignment surgery? Virtually non-existent in the U.S. for minors. It just doesn't happen.

Did you miss @smac97 earlier thread on the topic of gender reassignment? A very lengthy discussion with numerous examples of "intervention" on under age children and a growing number of "de-transitioners" regretting the devastation on their lives.

Reuters has a 2022 statistical report - - - detailing: Puberty blockers, Hormone therapy, Top surgeries (mastectomies).

"A total of 17,683 patients, ages 6 through 17, with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis initiated either puberty blockers or hormones or both during the five-year period. Of these, 4,780 patients had initiated puberty blockers and 14,726 patients had initiated hormone treatment."