Dan refutes Ben

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Yeah, that didn't work out, did it?  What she said seemed politically divisive then, and is becoming more so as more and more along-political-fault-line assessments of her remarks are published.

I have a hard time with the notion that Bishop Budde didn't see this coming from a mile away.  She wanted to score political points, and it worked.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

And yet "unity" seems, for her, to mean not enforcing immigration policy, and going along with the profoundly false central premises of trans ideology.  The "unity" here is not religious, but capitulation of one side of the political divide in favor of the other.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

Great stuff, in and of itself.  But the sermon, as a whole, still comes across as "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

This seems to be an allusion to illegal immigrants, and to the notion that not allowing open borders, and/or enforcing immigration laws, makes America bad, makes these folks "outcasts."  Again, "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

Great stuff, in and of itself.  But the sermon, as a whole, still comes across as "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

Massively political, this.  Emotional blackmail.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

This comes across as an implicit - or even explicit - accusation that Donald Trump - the target of her sermon - is planning to "lead {the} country" via a "culture of contempt."  This also comes across as an indictment of those who want secured borders, enforced immigration laws, a return to common sense re: the counterfactual underpinnings of trans ideology.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

So, it seems, that the enforcement of immigration laws, securing our borders, and setting aside factually incoherent notions inherent in trans ideology amount to some sort of threat to "innate human equality and dignity."

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

Great stuff, in and of itself.  But the sermon, as a whole, still comes across as "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Let me make one final plea, Mr President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families who fear for their lives.

Who or what is threatening their lives?  Bishop Budde doesn't say.  

Do you really see this as not political messaging?

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals – they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples.

Have mercy, Mr President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. Help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land.

May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.

 

"Have mercy" = "don't secure our borders, regardless of the horrendous trafficking of persons, the constant flow of drugs and criminals and bad actors, etc."

"Have mercy" = "don't enforce immigration laws."

"Have mercy" = "ignore the terrible burden that widespread illegal immigration imposes on the United States."

"Have mercy" = "ignore the difference between legal and illegal immigration."

"Have mercy" = "don't disagree with the counterfactual underpinnings of trans ideology."

Again:

Quote

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.
...

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Yes, the real problem is the lack of decorum.

*looks around*

That is definitely the real problem. Don’t look at anything else. Nothing is on fire. Focus on the lack of decorum.

[smac97]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

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?

Are those the only two options though? 

I suppose not.  But they do seem mostly mutually incompatible.  

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

That is an option, sure.  

14 hours 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?

No.  The people who would have been upset with her in those circumstances would be on the other side of the political divide (the ones who are currently singing her praises).

This corroborates the impression that Bishop Budde was playing politics.  Hers was "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, longview said:

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).

ROFL. Seriously ... so you are saying that spirit children could have procreated - that had all the parts to do so - but they just didn't. Yep, that is LDS doctrine all right. Not. There are some real problems with trying to understand Moses 7:48-49 in this way. Yes, it is true that Elder McConkie had some beliefs in this direction, but it is also true that he did not attempt to deal with the problems that occur. Does every rock have a spirit? Every tree? And when did that rock gain a spirit? Was it put into that rock when that rock separated from the rest of the earth? Or is this language meant to be figurative? That the earth and the things in it were planned in that spiritual world before they were created physically. Yes - definitely not doctrine.

9 hours ago, longview said:

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

I am not arguing with this. This is gender. It is biological sex that is not an essential characteristic, and certainly isn't eternal in the same way that gender is. There was no biological sex in the pre-existence. The idea that there will be biological sex in the eternities (that is, that we will have functioning genitalia) is a problematic claim with no clear doctrinal backing. I think that we can all appreciate the lengths that the early church fathers went through to explain how and why we would keep all those body parts that we would no longer need or use in the resurrection - the stomach, the lungs, the heart, the genitals - all those things that are used for things that would seem to be relevant only in mortality. We tend to think of the perfect body as being more or less the same as our body now, but, I think that what that perfection entails is largely an unknown - as is the question of the degree to which our bodies reflect that perfect form in mortality.

10 hours ago, longview said:

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.

I am not downplaying it. I am just pointing out what the text says. It seems to be something that you have a problem with. Just repeating the same thing over and over doesn't really change anything.

10 hours ago, longview said:

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.

And this is the problem. How can you be sure? What is the basis for this - other than this sort of theological vague statement that doesn't seem to have any applicability.

10 hours ago, longview said:

Please read my comment above about necessary steps and progression.

Yeah, I don't think your foundation is very solid.

10 hours ago, longview said:

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.

Your language says otherwise, and you come across here as a hypocrite. I didn't make the claim - I provided research from 2024, which outlines some of the reasons why the research that Smac97 provided was problematic. It is you that is trying to make a point through labels. Is breast reduction really a horrifying surgical mutilation? You don't seem concerned at all for the CIS gendered males who receive it as minors as part of their gender affirmation. Am I misreading you here and you think that those surgeries are all horrifying too? That you are using this language says as much about where you are and where you are coming from as it does about the issue itself ...

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But they do seem mostly mutually incompatible.

 

Do they seem mostly mutually incompatible all the many times that messengers from God do the same thing (and worse) to political leaders in public all throughout scripture?  

Quote

No.  The people who would have been upset with her in those circumstances would be on the other side of the political divide (the ones who are currently singing her praises).

Exactly, and people who agree with your views on it would be singing her praises.  Which shows a double standard and some hypocrisy on why they are actually upset with her.  They aren't upset with her because she brought in something that could be interpreted as political.

Otherwise they would be equally upset in the Biden example I shared.

Quote

 

This corroborates the impression that Bishop Budde was playing politics.  Hers was "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't think it corroborates that at all.  If it did, then the same people who are upset now would be upset if a similar thing had happened with Biden.  But as you said above, they wouldn't be upset at all if the tables were turned and a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion was aimed at liberals.

What it does illustrate is that the anger isn't because of mixing politics and religion.  It's because the reverend's message is making some Christian conservatives feel like they have to defend themselves against an implication of hypocrisy as well as justify their negative reaction to a message about mercy.

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, that didn't work out, did it?  What she said seemed politically divisive then, and is becoming more so as more and more along-political-fault-line assessments of her remarks are published.

I have a hard time with the notion that Bishop Budde didn't see this coming from a mile away.  She wanted to score political points, and it worked.

 

She probably did see it coming, but like the Savior said, His words are a sword and will divide rather than unity in this fallen world.  From my perspective, scoring political points is just a strawman.  Political points don't do anything for her.  They have no value in her line of work and I don't see how they could be of any value to her personally.  There is zero evidence that she did this for political points, it's an accusation meant to detract from a message that many religious conservatives find very personally uncomfortable.

She was willing to teach the precepts of God as she understands them publicly, regardless of the world's reaction.  Kudos to her for putting the things of God before the things of men regardless of the fallout.  Even if I disagreed with her I would admire her greatly for that kind of bravery.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

She probably did see it coming, but like the Savior said, His words are a sword and will divide rather than unity in this fallen world.  From my perspective, scoring political points is just a strawman.  Political points don't do anything for her. 

Scoring political points got her a lot of praise and attention.  Lots of interviews on CNN, The View, and various other outlets who dislike Trump.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They have no value in her line of work

Praise and attention have no value?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

and I don't see how they could be of any value to her personally. 

I do.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There is zero evidence that she did this for political points,

I think there is ample evidence that she did this for political points, and to gain praise and attention for herself. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

it's an accusation meant to detract from a message that many religious conservatives find very personally uncomfortable.

You are only proving my point.  You are framing reactions as being religious more than political.  The agreement/disagreement divide re: Bishop Budde's remarks is political, not religious.

See, e.g., here:

Quote

She also made it clear she sees the role of the clergy as supporting people who need it, and that it was far from inappropriate for her to say what she said.

“I mean, politics and faith can’t be separated. That’s true,” Budde told The Hill. “Because politics is about organized community and power and how power affects people. So, to say that religion isn’t political is really, it’s just not … true, right?”

I question Bishop Budde's sincerity.  I think she was grandstanding and misappropriated what was supposed to be a sacred, religious event.

I agree with these sentiments: Bishop Budde Embarrassed the Episcopal Church

Quote

On Jan. 21, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C., used the sacred pulpit of the National Cathedral during the National Prayer Service to deliver a politically charged homily aimed squarely at President Donald Trump.

This was an extreme departure from the service's intended purpose — an opportunity for unity, reflection, and prayer for our nation. Her remarks not only violated the solemn tradition of the event, but demonstrated a profound lapse in professionalism and spiritual leadership.

Yep. 

Quote

The National Prayer Service is meant to foster unity and understanding; Bishop Mariann Budde chose to sow division and discord. Bishop Budde's comments were fundamentally out of touch with millions of Americans who call the Episcopal Church home. Her partisan rhetoric misrepresented the diversity of thought within the church and projected the false narrative that Episcopalians uniformly share her views.

This could not be further from the truth. As a lifelong Episcopalian, I find Bishop Budde's version of the church unrecognizable.

"{S}he chose to sow division and discord."  Yep.  This is kind of hard to dispute (in fact, you don't seem to be disputing it, but are instead happy that she did so?).

Quote

Growing up, I remember traditional Anglican priests who believed in preaching the gospel, providing the sacrament, and reinforcing the core tenets of our faith — the belief in one God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.

Our priests focused on the Holy Sacraments and the teachings of Christ. The politicization of the pulpit would never have occurred. The church – specifically the parishes and dioceses – of my youth were ones that celebrated faith and sought unity, not ideological conformity.

Bishop Budde's actions earlier this week alienated countless members of the Episcopal Church who simply seek solace in their faith, and tarnished the church's public reputation in the process. Bishop Budde has since embarked on a media blitz in the aftermath of her heretical homily, doubling down on her divisive rhetoric rather than showing the humility and grace expected of a spiritual leader.

Her continued public statements reveal that her actions were neither spontaneous nor pastoral, but deliberate and politically motivated. Her behavior is far outside what is expected from a Bishop of the Episcopal Church, whose role should be to shepherd her flock — not to pursue a personal political agenda or public spotlight.

Bolded emphases added.

Again, if she wanted to provide pastoral counsel to Donald Trump, she should/could have met with him privately.  As it is, she hectored him by using a religious setting as a pretext and having him as part of a publicly captive audience.

Quote

A deeper look into Bishop Budde's record makes it clear that her political activism did not begin with this homily. Her and her family's history of personal campaign contributions to prominent national Democrats, her involvement in past protests against Trump, and her role in altering historic stained-glass windows of the National Cathedral to reflect a progressive agenda all paint the picture of a bishop more focused on politics than pastoral care.

I had known that she had previously spoken against Trump, but the (heavily politicized) stained-glass windows thing was news to me.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

She was willing to teach the precepts of God as she understands them publicly, regardless of the world's reaction. 

I think she did this to publicly show up a politician she dislikes (and has previously spoken against).

Her remarks were ostensibly directed at Trump, but I think plenty of people are construing them as intended for public consumption, as not to persuade Donald Trump, but to rebuke him in a very public venue at a very visible event (with a veneer of pretextual religiosity to boot, which makes this even more yucky).  

If she had wanted to influence Donald Trump, she could/should have spoken with him privately.  That she did so publicly, and thereafter went on a publicity tour for herself, suggests ulterior motives.  YMMV.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Kudos to her for putting the things of God before the things of men regardless of the fallout.  

"{A} pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Even if I disagreed with her

So you agree with her?  And more to the point, you agree with her politically?

I am right there with you in endorsing Christian concepts of "unity," and "mercy" and such.  Where we seemingly diverge is how those principles are to be applied politically.  

For example, I think we must secure our southern border, enforce immigration laws, and dispense with the counterfactual inanities underlying trans ideology.  I sense that, for Bishop Budde, showing "mercy" and "unity" requires open borders, lax or non-enforcement of immigration laws, and embracing and endorsing trans ideology.  These are political determinations.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I would admire her greatly for that kind of bravery.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  If she had provided her counsel privately, I would be agreeing with you.  But she didn't, so I don't.  For myself, I agree with the substance of what she said, but I think she presented it for politically partisan, more than pastoral, purposes.  Consequently, if she was using "the things of God" as a pretext for scoring political points and garnering praise and attention to herself, then no kudos are warranted IMO.  

Bishop Budde spoke at length about "unity," but she could hardly have been more divisive in her calculated actions.  Just look at the commentary about her.  Did her stunt draw Americans closer together?  No.  Did they influence Donald Trump?  No.  Was her sermon intended to do these things?  I doubt it.  She's a smart lady.  She knew what she was doing.  She's getting all sorts of praise and attention for herself (amazing how lovey-dovey the folks at The View become toward Christians when the Christians conform and pander to leftist sociopolitical preferences and ideologies), and she got to publicly show up the incoming POTUS.

"{F}or they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2025 by smac97

[ttribe]

This is just speculation of course, but relatively well informed speculation, I believe. If the person giving the sermon was a member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, using the exact same words, the same people currently crying about the "politicization" of the service would be defending the sermon with the their last breath. The utter lack of self awareness is astounding.

[The Nehor]

Abinadi was only preaching for the clout.

Edited January 28, 2025 by The Nehor

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is just speculation of course, but relatively well informed speculation, I believe. If the person giving the sermon was a member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, using the exact same words, the same people currently crying about the "politicization" of the service would be defending the sermon with the their last breath. The utter lack of self awareness is astounding.

I think that is true for some people. For others, no. We saw that people who normally strongly follow the prophet will not always align with church leaders with covid.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Rain

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is just speculation of course, but relatively well informed speculation, I believe. If the person giving the sermon was a member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, using the exact same words, the same people currently crying about the "politicization" of the service would be defending the sermon with the their last breath. The utter lack of self awareness is astounding.

Remember, she is just playing at church. She can't be sincere. Apparently.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is just speculation of course, but relatively well informed speculation, I believe. If the person giving the sermon was a member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, using the exact same words, the same people currently crying about the "politicization" of the service would be defending the sermon with the their last breath. The utter lack of self awareness is astounding.

"If."

I don't think the Brethren would have done what Bishop Budde did.  Instead, I think they would have sought to provide pastoral counsel privately.  And I would have supported that effort, by either them or by Bishop Budde.

As it is, though, Bishop Budde chose to play politics, to do so in a way that she must have known would yield a negative response from her target, and to do so in a way that also garnered a lot of praise and attention to her personally.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Remember, she is just playing at church. She can't be sincere. Apparently.

Remember, she was just providing a homily.  She can't have had political motivations when crafting deliberately provocative messaging about political issues to POTUS as part of a captive - and very public - audience.  Apparently.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"If."

I don't think the Brethren would have done what Bishop Budde did.  Instead, I think they would have sought to provide pastoral counsel privately.  And I would have supported that effort, by either them or by Bishop Budde.

As it is, though, Bishop Budde chose to play politics, to do so in a way that she must have known would yield a negative response from her target, and to do so in a way that also garnered a lot of praise and attention to her personally.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's called a hypothetical, Spencer. You do know what that is, I presume?

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think that is true for some people. For others, no. We saw that people who normally strongly follow the prophet will not always align with church leaders with covid.

True. I was speaking of people on this board. The people you are referring to generally populate the LDS Freedom Forum and similar online haunts.

[ttribe]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Abinadi was only preaching for the clout.

Indeed.

Perhaps someone can explain to me, like I'm a 4th grader, how Bishop Budde's actions are different than the story of Abinidi...aside from the whole burned to death part, of course.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

"If."

I don't think the Brethren would have done what Bishop Budde did.  Instead, I think they would have sought to provide pastoral counsel privately.  And I would have supported that effort, by either them or by Bishop Budde.

As it is, though, Bishop Budde chose to play politics, to do so in a way that she must have known would yield a negative response from her target, and to do so in a way that also garnered a lot of praise and attention to her personally.

It's called a hypothetical, Spencer.

A highly implausible one, and hence one hard to take seriously, or at face value, or as presented in good faith.

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You do know what that is, I presume?

I do.

The Church's stance on immigration is published to the world here: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/immigration

If the Brethren wanted to provide pastoral counsel to a politician about such a difficult and politically divisive issue, I think they would

A) reference the foregoing statement,

B) provide such further and particularized pastoral counsel in a private, not public, setting (so as to minimize the risk of appearing to being dabbling in politics, grandstanding, etc., such as we are seeing with Bishop Budde), and

C) would not thereafter take off on a media tour to accept plaudits from that politician's political adversaries.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, that didn't work out, did it?  What she said seemed politically divisive then, and is becoming more so as more and more along-political-fault-line assessments of her remarks are published.

I have a hard time with the notion that Bishop Budde didn't see this coming from a mile away.  She wanted to score political points, and it worked.

And yet "unity" seems, for her, to mean not enforcing immigration policy, and going along with the profoundly false central premises of trans ideology.  The "unity" here is not religious, but capitulation of one side of the political divide in favor of the other.

Great stuff, in and of itself.  But the sermon, as a whole, still comes across as "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

This seems to be an allusion to illegal immigrants, and to the notion that not allowing open borders, and/or enforcing immigration laws, makes America bad, makes these folks "outcasts."  Again, "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

Great stuff, in and of itself.  But the sermon, as a whole, still comes across as "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

Massively political, this.  Emotional blackmail.

This comes across as an implicit - or even explicit - accusation that Donald Trump - the target of her sermon - is planning to "lead {the} country" via a "culture of contempt."  This also comes across as an indictment of those who want secured borders, enforced immigration laws, a return to common sense re: the counterfactual underpinnings of trans ideology.

So, it seems, that the enforcement of immigration laws, securing our borders, and setting aside factually incoherent notions inherent in trans ideology amount to some sort of threat to "innate human equality and dignity."

Great stuff, in and of itself.  But the sermon, as a whole, still comes across as "a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

Who or what is threatening their lives?  Bishop Budde doesn't say.  

Do you really see this as not political messaging?

"Have mercy" = "don't secure our borders, regardless of the horrendous trafficking of persons, the constant flow of drugs and criminals and bad actors, etc."

Do you really believe that people want open borders regardless of human traffiking or is this just hyperbole? Please don't give me links.  I'm wanting to know your actual belief here. 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Have mercy" = "don't enforce immigration laws."

"Have mercy" = "ignore the terrible burden that widespread illegal immigration imposes on the United States."

"Have mercy" = "ignore the difference between legal and illegal immigration."

"Have mercy" = "don't disagree with the counterfactual underpinnings of trans ideology."

Again:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Indeed.

Perhaps someone can explain to me, like I'm a 4th grader, how Bishop Budde's actions are different than the story of Abinidi...aside from the whole burned to death part, of course.

King Noah is depicted as a fat disgusting evil cartoon, which in contrast makes it easy for all primary children to see Abinadi as a hero.  
It’s certainly my favorite story from the scriptures, teaching me about standing firm against all odds with my convictions. 
On the other hand, the 2025 inductee is seen by some as a hero himself, a promise of rescue from financial hardship, a voice of reason and a force against corruption.  Any fans of the president are going to take issue with anyone who threatens to redirect his path. 
It would be difficult to convince any King Noah fans that Abinidi was anything but a problem.  Oh except for Alma.  He was humbled and open to Gods message upon hearing Abinidi speak.  The rest of them were just angry.  I mean, we have all seen the screenshot- but here it is for reference for those who don’t follow Noah on FB 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

Do you really believe that people want open borders regardless of human traffiking or is this just hyperbole?

Yes.  Whether de facto or de jure, there are people who want open borders, as evidenced by the various hysterias expressed in response to the United States government taking steps to secure its borders.  Same goes for the government setting aside the counterfactual notions underlying trans ideology.

People on this very board have advocated illegal entry into the United States, and have even suggested that Latter-day Saints should help in such illegalities.

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

Please don't give me links.  I'm wanting to know your actual belief here. 

The status quo has been to tolerate having open, or heavily porous, borders.  We've been doing this for decades, but the last four years have been the most egregious.

Wanting, or ignoring, or tolerating, open/porous borders is the tacit position taken by lots of people.  Lots.  And this is not just in America.  England, Germany, and many other countries are disregarding / tolerating / encouraging large-scale illegal immigration.

There are terrible prices to pay for not securing borders, not enforcing immigration laws, etc. 

I like the pragmatic approach taken by the Church here and here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Abinadi was only preaching for the clout.

By all means, please continue to A) compare Donald Trump to King Noah, and B) also claim that Bishop Budde's rhetoric was not politically motivated.

Keep 'em coming!

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Scoring political points got her a lot of praise and attention.  Lots of interviews on CNN, The View, and various other outlets who dislike Trump.

Praise and attention have no value?

I do.

I think there is ample evidence that she did this for political points, and to gain praise and attention for herself. 

You are only proving my point.  You are framing reactions as being religious more than political.  The agreement/disagreement divide re: Bishop Budde's remarks is political, not religious.

See, e.g., here:

I question Bishop Budde's sincerity.  I think she was grandstanding and misappropriated what was supposed to be a sacred, religious event.

I agree with these sentiments: Bishop Budde Embarrassed the Episcopal Church

Yep. 

"{S}he chose to sow division and discord."  Yep.  This is kind of hard to dispute (in fact, you don't seem to be disputing it, but are instead happy that she did so?).

Bolded emphases added.

Again, if she wanted to provide pastoral counsel to Donald Trump, she should/could have met with him privately.  As it is, she hectored him by using a religious setting as a pretext and having him as part of a publicly captive audience.

I had known that she had previously spoken against Trump, but the (heavily politicized) stained-glass windows thing was news to me.

I think she did this to publicly show up a politician she dislikes (and has previously spoken against).

Her remarks were ostensibly directed at Trump, but I think plenty of people are construing them as intended for public consumption, as not to persuade Donald Trump, but to rebuke him in a very public venue at a very visible event (with a veneer of pretextual religiosity to boot, which makes this even more yucky).  

If she had wanted to influence Donald Trump, she could/should have spoken with him privately.  That she did so publicly, and thereafter went on a publicity tour for herself, suggests ulterior motives.  YMMV.

"{A} pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

So you agree with her?  And more to the point, you agree with her politically?

I am right there with you in endorsing Christian concepts of "unity," and "mercy" and such.  Where we seemingly diverge is how those principles are to be applied politically.  

For example, I think we must secure our southern border, enforce immigration laws, and dispense with the counterfactual inanities underlying trans ideology.  I sense that, for Bishop Budde, showing "mercy" and "unity" requires open borders, lax or non-enforcement of immigration laws, and embracing and endorsing trans ideology.  These are political determinations.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  If she had provided her counsel privately, I would be agreeing with you.  But she didn't, so I don't.  For myself, I agree with the substance of what she said, but I think she presented it for politically partisan, more than pastoral, purposes.  Consequently, if she was using "the things of God" as a pretext for scoring political points and garnering praise and attention to herself, then no kudos are warranted IMO.  

Bishop Budde spoke at length about "unity," but she could hardly have been more divisive in her calculated actions.  Just look at the commentary about her.  Did her stunt draw Americans closer together?  No.  Did they influence Donald Trump?  No.  Was her sermon intended to do these things?  I doubt it.  She's a smart lady.  She knew what she was doing.  She's getting all sorts of praise and attention for herself (amazing how lovey-dovey the folks at The View become toward Christians when the Christians conform and pander to leftist sociopolitical preferences and ideologies), and she got to publicly show up the incoming POTUS.

"{F}or they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with her message about leading with mercy.  Since it wasn't a political message and was the message of Christ, there was no need for me to consider her politics in any way.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I think that is true for some people. For others, no. We saw that people who normally strongly follow the prophet will not always align with church leaders with covid.

Good point.  There is a sense that with some, their political ideology is more important than their theology.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Scoring political points got her a lot of praise and attention.  Lots of interviews on CNN, The View, and various other outlets who dislike Trump.

Praise and attention have no value?

I do.

I think there is ample evidence that she did this for political points, and to gain praise and attention for herself. 

You are only proving my point.  You are framing reactions as being religious more than political.  The agreement/disagreement divide re: Bishop Budde's remarks is political, not religious.

See, e.g., here:

I question Bishop Budde's sincerity.  I think she was grandstanding and misappropriated what was supposed to be a sacred, religious event.

I agree with these sentiments: Bishop Budde Embarrassed the Episcopal Church

Yep. 

"{S}he chose to sow division and discord."  Yep.  This is kind of hard to dispute (in fact, you don't seem to be disputing it, but are instead happy that she did so?).

Bolded emphases added.

Again, if she wanted to provide pastoral counsel to Donald Trump, she should/could have met with him privately.  As it is, she hectored him by using a religious setting as a pretext and having him as part of a publicly captive audience.

I had known that she had previously spoken against Trump, but the (heavily politicized) stained-glass windows thing was news to me.

I think she did this to publicly show up a politician she dislikes (and has previously spoken against).

Her remarks were ostensibly directed at Trump, but I think plenty of people are construing them as intended for public consumption, as not to persuade Donald Trump, but to rebuke him in a very public venue at a very visible event (with a veneer of pretextual religiosity to boot, which makes this even more yucky).  

If she had wanted to influence Donald Trump, she could/should have spoken with him privately.  That she did so publicly, and thereafter went on a publicity tour for herself, suggests ulterior motives.  YMMV.

"{A} pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion."

So you agree with her?  And more to the point, you agree with her politically?

I am right there with you in endorsing Christian concepts of "unity," and "mercy" and such.  Where we seemingly diverge is how those principles are to be applied politically.  

For example, I think we must secure our southern border, enforce immigration laws, and dispense with the counterfactual inanities underlying trans ideology.  I sense that, for Bishop Budde, showing "mercy" and "unity" requires open borders, lax or non-enforcement of immigration laws, and embracing and endorsing trans ideology.  These are political determinations.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  If she had provided her counsel privately, I would be agreeing with you.  But she didn't, so I don't.  For myself, I agree with the substance of what she said, but I think she presented it for politically partisan, more than pastoral, purposes.  Consequently, if she was using "the things of God" as a pretext for scoring political points and garnering praise and attention to herself, then no kudos are warranted IMO.  

Bishop Budde spoke at length about "unity," but she could hardly have been more divisive in her calculated actions.  Just look at the commentary about her.  Did her stunt draw Americans closer together?  No.  Did they influence Donald Trump?  No.  Was her sermon intended to do these things?  I doubt it.  She's a smart lady.  She knew what she was doing.  She's getting all sorts of praise and attention for herself (amazing how lovey-dovey the folks at The View become toward Christians when the Christians conform and pander to leftist sociopolitical preferences and ideologies), and she got to publicly show up the incoming POTUS.

"{F}or they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Thanks,

-Smac

You question her sincerity? Have you checked into her history. I saw this and thought it would show she is sincere, like so many of us. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

This is just speculation of course, but relatively well informed speculation, I believe. If the person giving the sermon was a member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, using the exact same words, the same people currently crying about the "politicization" of the service would be defending the sermon with the their last breath. The utter lack of self awareness is astounding.

I hope the church will make a statement.