Dan refutes Ben

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Not necessarily. Sometimes rebuke of public figures or government is not about changing their hearts (though I assume the hope is always there for most), but letting others see them in comparison to what is being taught in scripture.  This can be taken too far, but it isn’t a given it is in each case a public rebuke is given.

My guess is the public rebuke of Tim Ballard by the Church was made less in the hope of changing the heart of Tim Ballard and more in changing the hearts of those who were currently supporting him, for example. There are some who have interpreted it as part of the toxic partisanship, but I believe it was done to protect the innocent.

Could there not be some listening that start to rethink the government’s behaviour in regards to immigration and other things if they both listen to the sermon and the response of Trump and other officials?

Maybe we are too divided, but I can see the sermon being given in the hopes that there would be hearts of the public turned, which in turn might result in a change of government policy.

I think the best evidence of her motives is that we are having this discussion.  Had she wanted to positively influence Donald Trump, she could/should have asked for a private meeting, or sent him a letter, and we would not have known about it, and Trump would not have been publicly castigated from the pulpit.  Instead, she waited until he was part of a captive audience, publicly showed him up on his policy positions, and is now on a circuit through CNN, The View, etc. 

Political ideology and discourse should be downstream from religion.  I think she reversed that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28 by smac97

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did you mean to write privately?  Because it seems like she did communicate with him publicly.

Yes, thx.  I've corrected the post.

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In your opinion, what should her course have been if she wanted to impart wisdom and counsel to Trump and also everyone in attendance and watching it happen on TV?

Look at all the hullabaloo that arose a while back when the Church publicly called out Tim Ballard.

Imagine if Sen. Harry Reid was name-checked and dressed down by an apostle during General Conference regarding the falsehoods he published to the world about Mitt Romney not paying taxes?  Would that have been a good idea?  I think not.  Even though I found these falsehoods troubling, I would not want Sen. Reid to be publicly rebuked in this way.

So I guess she would have to choose.  Does she want to impart pastoral counsel, or grab the limelight and earn some partisan praise for a few minutes?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28 by smac97

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So I guess she would have to choose.  Does she want to impart pastoral counsel, or grab the limelight and earn some partisan praise for a few minutes?

Thanks,

-Smac

Are those the only two options though?  What if she sincerely believed she was doing what God wanted her to do and so for her the choice was to obey God, or not make people angry at her?

If this same person had stood in front of Biden and pleaded for him to protect the innocent and make abortion illegal, do you think the people who are upset with her right now would have been upset with her under those circumstances?

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the best evidence of her motives is that we are having this discussion. 

So the fact that people were having online conversations, including on the board, about the Church’s motives in regards to its public rebuke (a lot harsher than the one given Trump which was more implied than explicit) of Tim Ballard is best evidence that the Church’s motives involved political ideology?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If this same person had stood in front of Biden and pleaded for him to protect the innocent and make abortion illegal, do you think the people who are upset with her right now would have been upset with her under those circumstances?

Or arguing that political ideology should be downstream from religion.

Edited January 28 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Look at all the hullabaloo that arose a while back when the Church publicly called out Tim Ballard.

So do you disapprove of the Church issuing a public statement about Tim Ballard even though his behaviour directly affected thousands, possibly millions of people who were donating to his projects? Not sure of your position here with you linking this comment with your criticism of Bishop Budde.

What would you say if a church leader had rebuked him in private first (my guess is that happened as I find it hard to believe Elder Ballard would not have confronted him) and TB chose to lie about it not happening?  So the Church just keep quiet and let the harm be perpetuated? Or take the opportunity when it presented itself for a very wide audience so that the necessary disavowal would reach even ears that would ignore the Church Newsroom as not worth their attention or weren’t even aware such a platform existed for church announcements?

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Does she want to impart pastoral counsel, or grab the limelight and earn some partisan praise for a few minutes?

Are you okay with the generic first part of her sermon addressing unity?  Is your criticism limited solely to her remarks addressed to Trump? (Wanting to understand your position better)

Edited January 28 by Calm

[halconero]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the best evidence of her motives is that we are having this discussion.

That's a bit circular, though isn't it? It's like saying her motives are evident because we are discussing them, and we are discussing them because of her motives.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Trump would not have been publicly castigated from the pulpit.

You keep using words like castigate, rebuke, and criticize. Can you cite which part of the sermon you see as fitting any of those qualities and explain why it fits? This isn't a CFR, I guess I'm just having a tremendously difficult time parsing the reverends words form well known verses or principles in scripture, some of which includes very public preaching of the Gospel, including the principle of mercy on the stranger (e.g., see Moses' recitation of the Torah, including its prescriptions on the treatment of strangers, and the people of Israel's reliance on him in the wilderness).

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Political ideology

I frequently remind students that politics and policy share the same etymology, and that political ideology prescribes a certain set of actions. To what extent did the reverend do this beyond a general call for mercy? Did she advocate particular measures beyond compassion? What, in particular, is wrong with a call for compassion to a world leader?

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She waited until he was part of a captive audience

This understates individual agency in the matter. The National Prayer Service is tradition, not law. Furthermore, the incoming Administration generally helps set the program. Finally, in what sense was Trump held captive there beyond social norms? What prevented him from leaving? As I said earlier, my grad students are arguably more captive to my teaching than POTUS is to her preaching — their educational and professional future depends on how well they attend to, listen, and internalize my lecturing; the president's performance in office does not.

Finally, I should note (as I did previously), that God has often used captive opportunities to preach Gospel through his servants. A few examples:

1. Moses before Pharaoh:

- God instructs Moses to wait until Pharaoh is out on the water in his boat and to preach to him from the river bank (Exodus 7:15-16; 8:20).

2. Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar:

- Nebuchadnezzar has a dream that causes him such angst that he tries to get all his court magicians to help him interpret it (Daniel 4)

- He finally implores Daniel to help him understand the dream (Daniel 4:18-19)

- What does Daniel do? He interprets it, and then adds this:

"Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility."

3. Jeremiah at the Gate:

- God instructs Jeremiah to go and "stand in the gate" of the temple, and there proclaim the word (Jeremiah 7:2). Want to pass through the gates? Time to hear the word of the Lord.

- One of the things Jeremiah preaches?

"For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour; if ye oppress not the stranger (i.e., the foreigner or the alien), the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever."

4. Paul before King Agrippa and Festus (Acts 25-26)

- Festus is about to send Paul to Jerusalem for a trial, when Paul whips out his Roman citizenship and triggers a big ole hullabaloo by appealing to Caesar.

- Festus and Agrippa conduct a preliminary hearing, and what does Paul do? He happily obliges, and then puts King Agrippa on the spot by asking him if he believes in the prophets, and before King Agrippa even answers, confirming that he does. When Agrippa remarks on Paul's attempt to convert him, Paul responds with the scriptural equivalent of "oh, most definitely."

- By the way, according to Acts and tradition, Paul's appeal to Augustus triggers a further trial, meaning Festus and Agrippa can't set him through. We get a sense of what Paul may have done with his time in Rome, which includes bearing testimony before the Emperor and his counsel (Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 5) and even converting members of the household of Caesar. The only way Paul could have gained this sort of access to the Imperial household was by trigger legal *obligations* that bound the Emperor to hear his testimony.

5. King Noah and Abinadi (Mosiah 13)

- Is King Noah a captive audience of Abinadi? Start in chapter 13 of Mosiah, which begins with King Noah attempting to end the trial and send Abinadi away to be slain.

- They go to seize him, and God transfigures Abinadi, "for I have not delivered the message which the Lord send me to deliver;" It is only after the delivery of his message that Noah and his servants are permitted to end the audience as it were.

6. Samuel the Lamanite (Helaman 13)

- The Nephites didn't exactly want to listen to Samuel. They cast him out, and didn't want to let him back into the city.

- He gets on the wall, such that a very unwilling audience could hear him, the point of projectiles being thrown at him.

- Was the point of the wall just so he could better reach an audience with open hearts and open minds? Let's see what Samuel says:

"And now, because I am a Lamanite, and have spoken unto you the words which the Lord hath commanded me, and because it was hard against you, ye are angry with me and do seek to destroy me, and have cast me out from among you."

"And ye shall hear my words, for, for this intent have I come up upon the walls of this city, that ye might hear and know of the judgments of God which do await you because of your iniquities, and also that ye might know the conditions of repentance;"

- If calling for compassion or mercy amount to castigation, criticism, and rebuke, Samuel surpasses those definitions into outright condemnation, suggesting that the sword of justice hangs over this people.

7. Nephi and Lehi in jail (Helaman 5)

- Nephi and Lehi (the brothers) are thrown in jail and God causes an earthquake.

- A thick cloud of darkness overshadows the Lamanites, such that they "could not flee" and "were immovable."

- God gives the multitude at the jail a little bit of power to look, who then asks the apostate Nephite how they might have the cloud of darkness removed from them. The answer? Repent.

8. Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail:

- How did Joseph use his time in Liberty jail? Preaching to the guards, of course. Parley P. Pratt did the same in Richmond Jail, btw.

The evidence suggests that God doesn't have a problem creating scenarios where certain audiences are compelled by circumstance, legal obligation, or other factors to hear the message. A traditional church sermon, located in a place where one might reasonably expect to hear a call to repentance or an admonition to do better, seems to be far less binding on someone compared to being stuck in a boat on a river, needing to pass through a gate, legally constrained to hear a trial, passing underneath a permanent fixture in a city, or being overshadowed by darkness. In fact, given the 2021 inaugural homily, where far more direct calls regarding *specific* policy agendas were cited, I generally fall back to my comparison of this talk with ones given in General Conference or official Church Statements, and find it positively standard Christian discourse surrounding our treatment of strangers or margins of society.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, halconero said:

That's a bit circular, though isn't it? It's like saying her motives are evident because we are discussing them, and we are discussing them because of her motives.

You keep using words like castigate, rebuke, and criticize. Can you cite which part of the sermon you see as fitting any of those qualities and explain why it fits? This isn't a CFR, I guess I'm just having a tremendously difficult time parsing the reverends words form well known verses or principles in scripture, some of which includes very public preaching of the Gospel, including the principle of mercy on the stranger (e.g., see Moses' recitation of the Torah, including its prescriptions on the treatment of strangers, and the people of Israel's reliance on him in the wilderness).

I frequently remind students that politics and policy share the same etymology, and that political ideology prescribes a certain set of actions. To what extent did the reverend do this beyond a general call for mercy? Did she advocate particular measures beyond compassion? What, in particular, is wrong with a call for compassion to a world leader?

This understates individual agency in the matter. The National Prayer Service is tradition, not law. Furthermore, the incoming Administration generally helps set the program. Finally, in what sense was Trump held captive there beyond social norms? What prevented him from leaving? As I said earlier, my grad students are arguably more captive to my teaching than POTUS is to her preaching — their educational and professional future depends on how well they attend to, listen, and internalize my lecturing; the president's performance in office does not.

Finally, I should note (as I did previously), that God has often used captive opportunities to preach Gospel through his servants. A few examples:

1. Moses before Pharaoh:

- God instructs Moses to wait until Pharaoh is out on the water in his boat and to preach to him from the river bank (Exodus 7:15-16; 8:20).

2. Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar:

- Nebuchadnezzar has a dream that causes him such angst that he tries to get all his court magicians to help him interpret it (Daniel 4)

- He finally implores Daniel to help him understand the dream (Daniel 4:18-19)

- What does Daniel do? He interprets it, and then adds this:

"Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility."

3. Jeremiah at the Gate:

- God instructs Jeremiah to go and "stand in the gate" of the temple, and there proclaim the word (Jeremiah 7:2). Want to pass through the gates? Time to hear the word of the Lord.

- One of the things Jeremiah preaches?

"For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour; if ye oppress not the stranger (i.e., the foreigner or the alien), the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever."

4. Paul before King Agrippa and Festus (Acts 25-26)

- Festus is about to send Paul to Jerusalem for a trial, when Paul whips out his Roman citizenship and triggers a big ole hullabaloo by appealing to Caesar.

- Festus and Agrippa conduct a preliminary hearing, and what does Paul do? He happily obliges, and then puts King Agrippa on the spot by asking him if he believes in the prophets, and before King Agrippa even answers, confirming that he does. When Agrippa remarks on Paul's attempt to convert him, Paul responds with the scriptural equivalent of "oh, most definitely."

- By the way, according to Acts and tradition, Paul's appeal to Augustus triggers a further trial, meaning Festus and Agrippa can't set him through. We get a sense of what Paul may have done with his time in Rome, which includes bearing testimony before the Emperor and his counsel (Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 5) and even converting members of the household of Caesar. The only way Paul could have gained this sort of access to the Imperial household was by trigger legal *obligations* that bound the Emperor to hear his testimony.

5. King Noah and Abinadi (Mosiah 13)

- Is King Noah a captive audience of Abinadi? Start in chapter 13 of Mosiah, which begins with King Noah attempting to end the trial and send Abinadi away to be slain.

- They go to seize him, and God transfigures Abinadi, "for I have not delivered the message which the Lord send me to deliver;" It is only after the delivery of his message that Noah and his servants are permitted to end the audience as it were.

6. Samuel the Lamanite (Helaman 13)

- The Nephites didn't exactly want to listen to Samuel. They cast him out, and didn't want to let him back into the city.

- He gets on the wall, such that a very unwilling audience could hear him, the point of projectiles being thrown at him.

- Was the point of the wall just so he could better reach an audience with open hearts and open minds? Let's see what Samuel says:

"And now, because I am a Lamanite, and have spoken unto you the words which the Lord hath commanded me, and because it was hard against you, ye are angry with me and do seek to destroy me, and have cast me out from among you."

"And ye shall hear my words, for, for this intent have I come up upon the walls of this city, that ye might hear and know of the judgments of God which do await you because of your iniquities, and also that ye might know the conditions of repentance;"

- If calling for compassion or mercy amount to castigation, criticism, and rebuke, Samuel surpasses those definitions into outright condemnation, suggesting that the sword of justice hangs over this people.

7. Nephi and Lehi in jail (Helaman 5)

- Nephi and Lehi (the brothers) are thrown in jail and God causes an earthquake.

- A thick cloud of darkness overshadows the Lamanites, such that they "could not flee" and "were immovable."

- God gives the multitude at the jail a little bit of power to look, who then asks the apostate Nephite how they might have the cloud of darkness removed from them. The answer? Repent.

8. Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail:

- How did Joseph use his time in Liberty jail? Preaching to the guards, of course. Parley P. Pratt did the same in Richmond Jail, btw.

The evidence suggests that God doesn't have a problem creating scenarios where certain audiences are compelled by circumstance, legal obligation, or other factors to hear the message. A traditional church sermon, located in a place where one might reasonably expect to hear a call to repentance or an admonition to do better, seems to be far less binding on someone compared to being stuck in a boat on a river, needing to pass through a gate, legally constrained to hear a trial, passing underneath a permanent fixture in a city, or being overshadowed by darkness. In fact, given the 2021 inaugural homily, where far more direct calls regarding *specific* policy agendas were cited, I generally fall back to my comparison of this talk with ones given in General Conference or official Church Statements, and find it positively standard Christian discourse surrounding our treatment of strangers or margins of society.

I also am confused by the idea that it is unChristian to rebuke or teach public figures publicly.  It seems like the scriptures explicitly endorse the tactic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

and pleaded for him to protect the innocent and make abortion illegal

This is a good comparison, but Budde didn’t even go this far. She advocated for mercy and compassion. Not open borders and trans surgeries for teenagers. A better analogy might be a plea to  be mindful of the unborn with mercy and compassion as you enact and enforce the law. 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a good comparison, but Budde didn’t even go this far. She advocated for mercy and compassion. Not open borders and trans surgeries for teenagers. A better analogy might be a plea to  be mindful of the unborn with mercy and compassion as you enact and enforce the law. 

Yup.

Compare this with the homily delivered by Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II at the 2021 inaugural prayer service:

Quote

Mr. President, you have known the breach of economic struggle in your childhood and the breach of a broken heart.

Madame Vice President, you have known the political and social breach caused by racism that tried to place a breach between the intelligence you had and the school you could attend. Your mother fought and organized because she knew this nation’s breach. And both of you know that the only way forward is for breaches to be repaired.

This moment in our nation is not about left, right, or centrist. It should not be about Republicans and Democrats. Even what we saw happen at the Capitol two weeks ago is the results of a long history—a politics of division that was cynically named “positive polarization” by those who thought they could use it for their own political advantage. This strategy of feeding and seeding intentional racial and class divisions into the body politic spilled over into the inevitable violence that ideas of supremacy always produce.

If we want to come out of this jam and move forward together, we cannot accept the racial disparities, violence, and breaches that impact Black, brown, Native and Asian Americans while offering collateral damage to our poor white brothers and sisters and ultimately our entire democracy.

We can’t accept the poverty and low wealth of 140 million Americans before COVID-19 and many more millions since. We must have a Third Reconstruction. We must address the five interlocking injustices of systemic racism, poverty, ecological devastation/denial of health care, the war economy, and the false moral narrative of religious nationalism. These are breaches that must be addressed, and according to the text, repairing the breaches will bring revival.

The above, in my opinion, is a much more explicit use of the pulpit to advance a particular political agenda, imo. I would agree with @smac97 and others here is Reverend Budde was similarly prescriptive on issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration.

I just don't see how suggesting there's a lot of scared people (fact) and that the Gospel asks us to show mercy and compassion to the stranger and the marginalized to be all that prescriptive. If anything, it aligns with Joseph Smith's suggestion that we teach correct principles and then govern ourselves. If mercy and compassion aren't correct principles, I don't know what is. The reverend didn't go beyond suggesting the application of said principles to issues of governance, especially when she herself prefaced her words by saying that reasonable people can disagree with regards to specific policy agenda items.

If we're taking issue with something so milquetoast as that, what happens if or when God calls a prophet to directly confront the princes of this world as he has done multiple times in the past?

Edited January 28 by halconero

[The Nehor]

Always nice to be reminded that I am sharing pews with people that despise me.

[longview]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Biology is the makeup and function of our physical bodies, not of our eternal intelligence or spirit (assuming the three part version here, just spirit if you see that version as more likely).  Therefore biological sex is a characteristic of our physical bodies, which bodies we did not have before mortality.

There are at least five stages of existence. Lets take the example of a righteous person making it all the way to the Celestial Kingdom:

1. intelligences. What did they look like? We don't know. But they did not have the added attributes that made spirit children more capable.
2. spirit children. They were made in the image of God. They had all the body parts including genitalia. But they did not procreate. The scriptures teach that all things were first made spiritually. Which is a necessary component of physical creation. Even the Earth has a spirit that makes it self aware and able to speak or express feelings (see Moses 7:48-49).
3. physical mortality. The body is quickened with the entrance of the spirit. It dies when the spirit separates from it. It is made with carnal and coarse matter.
4. disembodied spirit. Upon death, the spirit person enters into a probationary state to prepare for the Resurrection. It is different from stage 2 because it will have acquired very powerful inclinations and appetites from Earth life. Which intensifies many times over upon entry into this state.
5. the Resurrection. Not only will the body be in the image of God but it will be imbued powerfully with Celestial Glory. I am conjecturing that the body will come back with the same appearance as on Earth but perfected using Celestial matter composed from different dimensions of the Universe. Terrestrial and Telestial bodies will be composed using less powerful dimensions involving different matter and levels of power.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

However, since intelligence is coupled with our spirit essence/element, I am not sure the spirit essence/element needed to have gender as well.

You should be sure. Talmage unambiguously declares that spirit children had a "sex" identity. Which was a necessary precursor to entering into mortality. Even if there were no "biological reproduction" (or any other kind) going on in the pre-existence. McGuire is merely quibbling when he argues that gender is something different from sex. In the Proclamation sex is gender and gender is sex. Talmage is in harmony with the Proclamation.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

7 hours ago, longview said:

When you say "they formally disconnected biological sex from gender in the Proclamation on the Family", you are in effect putting YOUR words into the "mouth of the LDS Church." None of the church leaders would agree with the idea that "gender" in the pre-existence would include a broad spectrum of "identities" in addition to the straightforward MALE and FEMALE.

And I am not saying that either. You are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that Gender is separated from biological sex - because there is no biology (let alone biological sex) in the pre-existence. So we have a gender long before we have the biological sex part.

See my response to Calm above. You already know that the Proclamation calls gender an essential characteristic. Pre-mortal sex/gender is an essential pre-cursor to mortality. Which makes sex functional during mortality enabling biological reproduction

 

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But we know from the evidence that this simply isn't the case. So we can conclude that gender is eternal, and biological sex - at least in mortality - is temporary - and they do not have to be the same. That's all there is to it.

. It is also a critical and essential characteristic throughout the Eternities. Notwithstanding the confusion of mortality.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This separates the two of them. The only way that you could make the argument that they aren't separated is by suggesting the biological sex always reflects that eternal gender.

No. It is a progression. The fact we can have children in mortality is very meaningful. Temple sealings make it possible for families continue intact into the Eternities. The family unit is the pattern of Heaven. Not only did Abraham obtain the promise of a large posterity ON Earth, he was also promised Eternal Increase (alluding to Fathering uncountable spirit children, even to infinite creative generations).

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But we know from the evidence that this simply isn't the case. So we can conclude that gender is eternal, and biological sex - at least in mortality - is temporary - and they do not have to be the same. That's all there is to it.

No. Far from it. Eternal Increase is a Promise. Sex/Gender is promised to be the same. Stop twisting the Proclamation. Do not downplay the essentials.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not suggesting that there are all sorts of eternal genders.

Glad to hear it.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am merely suggesting that you cannot look at the biological sex of a person by itself and know what their eternal gender is with certainty. That is a disconnect. I am sorry that this is so hard for you to comprehend.

I agree that would be the case in LESS than 1% of births. In healthy and unambiguous bodies we can be SURE there is NO turning to the right or to the left in as far as God is concerned. Gender dysphoria is a mental or emotional disturbance that must be treated with care.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is no sex in the pre-existence if we are separating sex and gender. There is only gender. The sex part comes later in mortality. Do I think that confusion will be cleared up in the eternities? Sure. That doesn't change my point at all.

There is NO separation in sex/gender. You are blindly disregarding the testimony of Talmage and others. Do you understand there was a spiritual creation that was a necessary precursor to the physical?

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

8 hours ago, longview said:

But sex/gender in the pre-existence will PREVAIL in the Eternities.

And I don't disagree with this. I am not concerned though with the Eternities - I am concerned with the here and now

Please read my comment above about necessary steps and progression.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and way that people like yourself, who are hell bent on demonizing these individuals instead of displaying mercy and charity towards those who are already facing difficult issues in their lives. I am certain that you will be called to account for these actions that are anything but Christlike.

I do have charity, not contempt, for those who have tragically been misled into horrifying surgical mutilations and chemical castrations. You say they are rare but I trust Smac97's previous thread detailing frightening numbers. I do not believe Nehor's propaganda discounting and minimizing the increasing numbers of  regretful de-transitioners. This is a WAR for the hearts and souls of people. To fight the abominations of unwarranted abuse of the body is righteous. I do not claim to be perfect. I apologize for my statements that may have been contentious to you.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, longview said:

They had all the body parts including genitalia.

How do you know this?  How do we know for sure what the spirit of God looks like?  Perhaps the Brother of Jared saw what he expected to see or was capable of seeing which was not a perfect representation of Jesus’ spirit.  Plus did Jesus’ spirit look like how he did 20 years later when his physical body matured into adulthood or did he look very different since there was no influence yet from Mary’s physical dna?

Why would spiritual sex organs be needed?  Did we also have spiritual wisdom teeth and tailbones and other useless and better off without them bones and organs (my tailbone has been hurting off and on, sometimes quite painfully ever since my son broke it getting born 40+ years ago, I would love to live without it).

We have drawn some conclusions from the visual aspects of revelation without further revealed information provided as far as I have seen, so we are dependent on limited visual capabilities and the verbal ability to describe what was seen…assuming there was no veil of forgetfulness or restriction of info being applied in this case, which to me is a big assumption…and then dependent on biased interpretation (our assumptions and expectations about what we see influence a very great deal what we actually see/interpret, why would this be different in a memory of a vision?

I do agree revelation provides this:

Quote

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/3?lang=eng#p10
 

I am just not sure this is complete information.  After all, I am not the identical image of Christ, I am missing certain body parts and have others he did not have.  Nor is any male in identical form unless Jesus had an identical twin we are unaware of.  So “in his image” allows for some significant variations.

Edited January 28 by Calm

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, longview said:

ry. I am conjecturing that the body will come back with the same appearance as on Earth

Why would the less than one hundred years physical body have more influence on our eternal physical appearance than our eternal spirit bodies if the spirit body is an identical structure to a physical body?

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, longview said:

Talmage unambiguously declares that spirit children had a "sex" identity.

And did he claim revelation or that he reasoned this out or something else?  What was the source of this information for him?

Edited January 28 by Calm

[longview]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you know this?  Why would spiritual sex organs be needed?  Did they have wisdom teeth and tailbones?

From the many sources I have read thru the decades of my life. A conglomeration of ideas.

As I explained, as a necessary precursor to the way the earthly physical body is organized. That includes various organs such as brain, heart, stomach, intestines, bones, etc. I speculate that even the spirit body will be organized all the way down to the cell level. Which allows the spirit body to fully integrate the control and interplay of spirit with coarse matter physical body.

As for wisdom teeth, I suppose it is "programmed" into the DNA strands as part of the fallen world experiences. Even aging is programmed into the DNA.

I have read in some places that resurrected Celestial beings will be able to consume fruits and whatever foods. I do not know how that will be handled down past the throat. My impression is that the Celestial body will never hunger. It will be powered by some kind of energy flowing into their bodies. Mortal bodies have blood circulation but immortal bodies do NOT require blood. There are scriptures to that fact.

[longview]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would the less than one hundred years physical body have more influence on our eternal physical appearance than our eternal spirit bodies if the spirit body is an identical structure to a physical body?

When we became spirit children, we gained more attributes. I speculate we may have had "cookie cutter" generic appearance. Our personalities probably were different. Jesus was the first born of spirits And He was the most intelligent of them all.

In mortality, we gained even more attributes and capabilities. The DNA of fallen earth provided a huge variety of appearances. including heights, body types, etc.

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

And did he claim revelation or that he reasoned this out or something else?  What was the source of this information for him?

I would not worry about that. I already stated that Talmage is in harmony with the Proclamation long before 1995. I consider the Proclamation to be reliable scripture.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, ttribe said:

I've been saying for years that for many members of the Church right-wing U.S.-centric political ideology is more important to them than the scriptures or the Church's own teachings. I never thought I'd see it so blatantly on this board. On the LDS Freedom Forum, sure, but this board not so much.

This.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Does she want to impart pastoral counsel, or grab the limelight and earn some partisan praise for a few minutes?

Are you okay with the generic first part of her sermon addressing unity?  Is your criticism limited solely to her remarks addressed to Trump? (Wanting to understand your position better)

I think the targeted, politicized portion was problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the targeted, politicized portion was problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am sorry.  Part of my mind requires precision and this part dominates when I am trying to understand someone.  You actually answered a question I did not ask.  I am aware that you believe the targeted portion is problematic.  Maybe by saying this you meant the generic part was acceptable or at least nonproblematic…but that position is not required by what you said.

So could you please respond specifically about the first part of her sermon where she is addressing everyone?  Whether it is at least not problematic in your view as a sermon?

I will quote it to make it easy to identify…

Quote

Joined by many across the country, we have gathered this morning to pray for unity as a nation – not for agreement, political or otherwise, but for the kind of unity that fosters community across diversity and division, a unity that serves the common good.

Unity, in this sense, is the threshold requirement for people to live together in a free society, it is the solid rock, as Jesus said, in this case upon which to build a nation. It is not conformity. It is not a victory of one over another. It is not weary politeness nor passivity born of exhaustion. Unity is not partisan.

Rather, unity is a way of being with one another that encompasses and respects differences, that teaches us to hold multiple perspectives and life experiences as valid and worthy of respect; that enables us, in our communities and in the halls of power, to genuinely care for one another even when we disagree. Those across our country who dedicate their lives, or who volunteer, to help others in times of natural disaster, often at great risk to themselves, never ask those they are helping for whom they voted in the past election or what positions they hold on a particular issue. We are at our best when we follow their example.

Unity at times, is sacrificial, in the way that love is sacrificial, a giving of ourselves for the sake of another. Jesus of Nazareth, in his Sermon on the Mount, exhorts us to love not only our neighbors, but to love our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us; to be merciful, as our God is merciful, and to forgive others, as God forgives us. Jesus went out of his way to welcome those whom his society deemed as outcasts.

Now I grant you that unity, in this broad, expansive sense, is aspirational, and it’s a lot to pray for – a big ask of our God, worthy of the best of who we are and can be. But there isn’t much to be gained by our prayers if we act in ways that further deepen and exploit the divisions among us. Our Scriptures are quite clear that God is never impressed with prayers when actions are not informed by them. Nor does God spare us from the consequences of our deeds, which, in the end, matter more than the words we pray.

Those of us gathered here in this Cathedral are not naive about the realities of politics. When power, wealth and competing interests are at stake; when views of what America should be are in conflict; when there are strong opinions across a spectrum of possibilities and starkly different understandings of what the right course of action is, there will be winners and losers when votes are cast or decisions made that set the course of public policy and the prioritization of resources. It goes without saying that in a democracy, not everyone’s particular hopes and dreams will be realized in a given legislative session or a presidential term or even a generation. Not everyone’s specific prayers – for those of us who are people of prayer – will be answered as we would like. But for some, the loss of their hopes and dreams will be far more than political defeat, but instead a loss of equality, dignity, and livelihood.

Given this, is true unity among us even possible? And why should we care about it?

Well, I hope that we care, because the culture of contempt that has become normalized in our country threatens to destroy us. We are all bombarded daily with messages from what sociologists now call “the outrage industrial complex”, some of it driven by external forces whose interests are furthered by a polarized America. Contempt fuels our political campaigns and social media, and many profit from it. But it’s a dangerous way to lead a country.

I am a person of faith, and with God’s help I believe that unity in this country is possible – not perfectly, for we are imperfect people and an imperfect union – but sufficient enough to keep us believing in and working to realize the ideals of the United States of America – ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, with its assertion of innate human equality and dignity.

And we are right to pray for God’s help as we seek unity, for we need God’s help, but only if we ourselves are willing to tend to the foundations upon which unity depends. Like Jesus’ analogy of building a house of faith on the rock of his teachings, as opposed to building a house on sand, the foundations we need for unity must be sturdy enough to withstand the many storms that threaten it.

What are the foundations of unity? Drawing from our sacred traditions and texts, let me suggest that there are at least three.

The first foundation for unity is honoring the inherent dignity of every human being, which is, as all faiths represented here affirm, the birthright of all people as children of the One God. In public discourse, honoring each other’s dignity means refusing to mock, discount, or demonize those with whom we differ, choosing instead to respectfully debate across our differences, and whenever possible, to seek common ground. If common ground is not possible, dignity demands that we remain true to our convictions without contempt for those who hold convictions of their own.

A second foundation for unity is honesty in both private conversation and public discourse. If we aren’t willing to be honest, there is no use in praying for unity, because our actions work against the prayers themselves. We might, for a time, experience a false sense of unity among some, but not the sturdier, broader unity that we need to address the challenges we face.

Now to be fair, we don’t always know where the truth lies, and there is a lot working against the truth now, staggeringly so. But when we do know what is true, it’s incumbent upon us to speak the truth, even when – and especially when – it costs us.

A third foundation for unity is humility, which we all need, because we are all fallible human beings. We make mistakes. We say and do things that we regret. We have our blind spots and biases, and we are perhaps the most dangerous to ourselves and others when we are persuaded, without a doubt, that we are absolutely right and someone else is absolutely wrong. Because then we are just a few steps away from labeling ourselves as the good people, versus the bad people.

The truth is that we are all people, capable of both good and bad. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn astutely observed that “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, but right through every human heart and through all human hearts.” The more we realize this, the more room we have within ourselves for humility, and openness to one another across our differences, because in fact, we are more like one another than we realize, and we need each other.

Unity is relatively easy to pray for on occasions of solemnity. It’s a lot harder to realize when we’re dealing with real differences in the public arena. But without unity, we are building our nation’s house on sand.

With a commitment to unity that incorporates diversity and transcends disagreement, and the solid foundations of dignity, honesty, and humility that such unity requires, we can do our part, in our time, to help realize the ideals and the dream of America.

 

Edited January 28 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Look at all the hullabaloo that arose a while back when the Church publicly called out Tim Ballard.

So do you disapprove of the Church issuing a public statement about Tim Ballard

I'm still somewhat ambivalent about it.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

even though his behaviour directly affected thousands, possibly millions of people who were donating to his projects?

He was publicly accused of immorality  By the Church.  With no warning or membership council or due process or anything like that.  It was a pretty odd think to see.

I'm not sure what you mean by "his behavior affected thousands, possibly millions."  What behavior?  What effect?  And what effect had occurred when the Church publicly denounced him?

4 hours ago, Calm said:

What would you say if a church leader had rebuked him in private first (my guess is that happened as I find it hard to believe Elder Ballard would not have confronted him) and TB chose to lie about it not happening?  

From the handbook:

Quote

32.12.2

Informing Others about a Decision

If a bishop or stake president informally restricts a person’s membership privileges in personal counseling, he normally does not inform anyone else (see 32.8.3). However, these leaders communicate with each other about informal restrictions as they help members.

If a person’s membership privileges are formally restricted or withdrawn in a membership council, the bishop or stake president communicates the decision only to those who need to know. The following guidelines apply.

• He considers the needs of victims and potential victims and the feelings of the person’s family.

• He does not communicate the decision if the person is appealing it. However, he may communicate that it is being appealed if he feels it is necessary to protect potential victims. He may also communicate it to support the healing of victims (although he does not give victims’ names) or to protect the integrity of the Church.

• As needed, the bishop communicates the decision in confidence to ward council members. This is to inform leaders who might consider the person to be available for callings, teaching lessons, or giving prayers or talks. It is also to encourage leaders to offer care and support to the member and his or her family.

• With approval from the stake president, the bishop may communicate the decision in his ward’s elders quorum and Relief Society meetings if the situation involves:

  • Predatory behaviors that may threaten others.

  • Teaching false doctrine or other forms of apostasy.

  • Flagrant sins such as practicing plural marriage or using cultist teachings to attract a following.

  • Publicly contradicting the actions or teachings of general or local Church leaders.

• In such cases, the stake president may also need to authorize a communication to members of other wards in the stake.

• In some cases, the bishop or stake president may feel it would be helpful to notify some or all of the victims and their families that a membership council has been held for the person. He does this through their bishop or stake president.

• If a person’s predatory tendencies put others at risk, the bishop or stake president may give warnings to help protect others. He does not reveal confidential information and does not speculate.

• In all other cases, the bishop or stake president limits any communication to a general statement. He simply states that the person’s Church membership privileges have been restricted or withdrawn for conduct that is contrary to the laws and order of the Church. He asks those present not to discuss it. He does not ask whether they sustain or oppose the action.

• If a member is in good standing after a membership council (see 32.11.1), the bishop or stake president may communicate that to dispel rumors.

The Church generally does not publicly denounced private misconduct by its members, particularly when there has been no secular or intra-church adjudication and finding that the misconduct had occurred.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

So the Church just keep quiet and let the harm be perpetuated?

What "harm" are you referencing here?

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Or take the opportunity when it presented itself for a very wide audience so that the necessary disavowal would reach even ears that would ignore the Church Newsroom as not worth their attention or weren’t even aware such a platform existed for church announcements?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With no warning

According to Tim Ballard…who if the Church rebuke was valid is a liar.

Quote

What behavior?  What effect?  And what effect hadoccurred when the Church publicly denounced him?

setting up companies to funnel donations into his private control as outlined on the whiteboard 

The announcement of the Church, especially the part that showed he lied about Elder Ballard being a silent partner, I assume gutted his support from all save those who think it’s a hoax or the Church has gone to the dark side.

 

Quote

What "harm" are you referencing here?

Potential defrauding of donations people thought were going to save kids when they weren’t.  Then there is the continued harm of his influence over women if he gained more power through political positions (he was supposedly going to run for the Senate and may well have won).

As far as the wide audience, from what I understand a good portion of the donations to OUR were from evangelicals and fundamentalists who normally would not get alerts from the Church Newsroom.  While he was apparently officially separated from OUR at that time, OUR certainly still benefitted from the association (I believe there was mention the movie based on Ballard drove up donations to them).

Edited January 28 by Calm

[sunstoned]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the targeted, politicized portion was problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do you feel asking Trump to be merciful towards the powerless is political?  This is something religious leaders do and have done for years. It is calling out the obvious. I guess what is glaring in this situation is that if we take Trump at his word, there will be no mercy.  And sadly, many so-called Christians seem to be okay with that.

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Why do you feel asking Trump to be merciful towards the powerless is political? 

I previously posted these:

Quote

Kent Larsen over at Times & Seasons posted this: Questions about Bishop Budde’s Remarks

From the "Comments" section:

"The sermon given was inappropriate for that setting because it was a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion. The sermon should have, and could have, made a number of the same basic points without the brazen political statements. The sermon should have been addressed to all of the leaders present, not merely the president. Attacking President Trump personally for his policies turned this from a sermon to a political attack in a service that was originally meant to rise above politics and unify the leadership and nation before God."

"If the Bishop had wanted to go after Trump politically, she should have picked a political venue. Dragging the church into politics ends badly for both politics and the church."

"For a general analysis to work, you need to change the message 180 degrees. If Bishop Budde had called on Pres. Biden to protect the unborn and cease promoting sinful lifestyles, would you still support that use of her office and opportunity (or shift from opposing to supporting it)? Pick a position that works as well for a message you support as it does for one you oppose."

And this:

Quote

The President and Vice President, accompanied by their families, entered the house of the Lord to pray. That alone is worth reflecting on—a public act of humility, whether it was a photo-op, a tradition observed, or a genuine desire to seek God’s guidance.

It was an extraordinary moment, ripe for a message that could transcend politics and remind all in attendance of the eternal truths that undergird all human and political power.

The bishop could have spoken of kings and magistrates, reminding us of how God bends history to His will. She could have spoken about life’s brevity—which Trump so nearly learned about first hand this summer. She could have spoken about the fleeting nature of governments and kingdoms. But she didn’t.

Instead, at the end of her message she closed a door. She delivered a lecture—aimed not at the congregation, but at a single member in it. The pulpit became a podium, the sanctuary a platform for ethical and political instruction.

In that choice, she missed a moment. The people (or the person, really) who came for guidance and hope were included as subjects of the message. The subject of every sermon should always be Jesus Christ and no one else.

I understand that she feels deeply about immigration and the rights of sexual minorities. What she said would be hard to disagree with. I don’t disagree. As we sort out all of the issues that everyone knows need sorting, we must maintain mercy. We need to show mercy. Mercy is an advanced human characteristic that God loves to see in us!

What she said to him would better have been said in another place at another moment. She has been hailed as a courageous bishop speaking truth to power. She is courageous, I’ll agree. But sometimes truth needs not to be delivered in a sermon to a single man in the middle of church, but carried to him over a time of fellowship and pastoral concern.

The sermon was an opportunity—a singular, sacred one—to speak to the hearts of those gathered and to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those in attendance and around the world.

I also look at the reaction to her remarks, which seems to be generally falling along party lines.  That is, the "Left" is construing her remarks as anti-Trump, and the "Right" is, too (only they are upset about it).

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This is something religious leaders do and have done for years.  It is calling out the obvious. I guess what is glaring in this situation is that if we take Trump at his word, there will be no mercy.  And sadly, many so-called Christians seem to be okay with that.

This presupposes, I guess, what you mean by "mercy."  Context matters.

I wrote this back in 2014:

Quote

A member of my ward, who is also a personal friend of mine, was recently sentenced to 1-15 years in prison for some very serious crimes to which he had plead guilty. I attended the sentencing hearing, during which some of the details of his crimes were discussed in open court. I observed my friend and saw that he was very distressed. If called upon to describe that hearing, I think he would describe it as "traumatic, brutal and humiliating." However, the judge who conducted the hearing did so with decorum, civility, respect and compassion. The judge discussed the facts of the case, both the thoroughly unpleasant nature of my friend's crimes and the various efforts my friend had been making in the months leading up to the hearing to correct his behavior and make amends. The judge acknowledged these efforts, but then found that the severity of the crimes involved required more than merely parole (which is what my friend had hoped to get). The judge then sentenced him, but then also spent a few minutes giving him counsel and advice regarding what he should do while in prison (be a model prisoner, participate in therapy programs, write to family often, etc.). In other words, the judge treated him with kindness and decency even while in the very act of sentencing him to prison.

I think that many (most?) disciplinary councils are like this, and that priesthood leaders generally conduct such councils with the intent to find the truth, to treat the individual with kindness and love, and to discern the will of God.
...
My friend who was sentenced to prison left a wife and four children behind. The judge knew that when he sentenced my friend to prison. But the judge felt that the nature of my friend's admitted crimes required prison time. Frankly, I have a hard time faulting the judge for that conclusion. I can imagine that the decision to send a married father of four to prison weighed heavily on the judge. I think we can likewise surmise that priesthood leaders in the LDS Church are cognizant of the potential ramifications of disciplinary actions on "the innocent."

What metric of "mercy" do you think was, or should be, in play here?

Should the judge have shown "mercy" and let this man's serious crimes go unpunished?

Should the judge have not sent this man to prison because doing so created a hardship for his wife and children?

My sense is that Bishop Budde's call for "mercy" was based on her political preferences relating to non-enforcement of immigration laws, and regarding some aspects of trans ideology, and on her dislike of Trump.

I agree with the above quote suggesting that her remarks came across as "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion," as "a political attack in a service that was originally meant to rise above politics and unify the leadership and nation before God."

Also from one of the above quotes, "If Bishop Budde had called on Pres. Biden to protect the unborn and cease promoting sinful lifestyles," I don't think the same people praising her now would have sung the same tune.  Her remarks appealed to political sentiments far more than religious ones.

Thanks,

-Smac