Dan refutes Ben

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

She sounds like a beautiful person, and not someone who does stuff for political clout.

[InCognitus]

51 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

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 

I'm pretty sure George Lucas got his inspiration for this scene from that Arnold Friberg painting:

 

[Senator]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 also claim that Bishop Budde's rhetoric was not politically motivated.

 

I'm not convinced that the Bishop's rhetoric was any more politically motivated than it was religiously motivated. Especially when you consider that the cross-section where the two realms inevitably dance together is sizeable. The convocation that this prayer took place literally invited such a dance.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Senator

[Rain]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Where do you feel open borders increases traffiking? Meaning to you feel it increases traffikking of US citizens? Or people outside of the US? Or both sides?  And if both sides is it to the same extent?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

That's the funny thing about this issue. If we had open borders ... none of it would be illegal anymore. It also seems reasonable to suggest that having open borders is not immoral.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

CFR as I think you have misunderstood positions and therefore are currently misrepresenting positions of posters on this board.  And I will be asking mods to follow up on this if you choose to ignore it.

Understanding why people feel forced by the current dysfunctional setup to illegally immigrate and wanting compassionate treatment for such is not advocating for illegal entry.  I suspect I am one of those who you think advocate for such given your past responses to me and I know I would certainly prefer people find other options rather than illegal entry.  I would never encourage someone to attempt it, too dangerous for one thing, even if I can comprehend why they do it and want to help those stuck in limbo because they made that choice.

In context of people’s full comments, my memory says posters that have expressed sympathy to those who resort to illegal entry on the board who have explained their reasoning want the law changed so there is much less temptation, hopefully none, for those in true need to resort to illegal entry. 

And I am guessing many of the ones (maybe even all) who view the current enforcement policies as screwed up to the point of being unenforceable in a just fashion who have been vocal on the board, such as myself, likely want a strong border, but with easy access for immigration, such as being able to easily apply from one’s home and be able to expect one will gain entry relatively quickly if one is not a criminal.  That way if the law allows easy, accessible legal immigration, the vast majority of those attempting illegal entry will actually be criminals and can be dealt with accordingly by our not overstretched border patrol and legal system.  I may be projecting from my own position and what Danzo and a couple of others iirc have presented, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's the funny thing about this issue. If we had open borders ... none of it would be illegal anymore. It also seems reasonable to suggest that having open borders is not immoral.

Ben, do you support completely open borders or is your position more nuanced than that?  I am wondering if I didn’t retain your stated position in earlier threads.

I agree completely with this statement, but do not believe in completely open in the sense that no need to apply for immigration status or no one is checking ids coming through or making sure there is permission from both parents for minors to leave countries…though I want it very streamlined and easily available for the vast majority of people.

So I figure you may not be for completely open borders as well, but your post might get used to suggest that.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's the funny thing about this issue. If we had open borders ... none of it would be illegal anymore. It also seems reasonable to suggest that having open borders is not immoral.

So are you advocating for open borders?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You question her sincerity?

Yes.  That's why I said "I question Bishop Budde's sincerity. "

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Have you checked into her history.

By way of clarification, I am questioning her sincerity as regarding her claims of non-political motives for her stunt against Pres. Trump.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I resent that. King Noah was more sympathetic and likable. Both are serial adulterers and morally debased so there is some comparison but it is not a one to one thing. Plus it is not likely Noah was as chubby as his common portrayals or as chubby as Trump is.

I don’t characterize “politically motivated” things to be inherently wrong or dirty but I don’t think this is solely politically motivated. Speaking out against those in power is cool and good. Dealing with that comes with the job. I think more people should be doing it. I’d make it less general too.

Was Abinadi politically motivated? Elijah? Moses? Isaiah? Nathan? All of them approached political leaders and were far harsher in calling out their sins. Would you be handwringing about how mean they were to Pharoah or King David? Probably.

The more important question should be is the criticism true.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

"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."

 

Wow. The sermon you heard was vastly different from the one given. No wonder you thought it was political. It helps to understand how you approach things said by those you disagree with. That is full blown distortion and mind reading. Keep at it champ!

[longview]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Wow. Heavy duty ridicule. Remember that spirit children were made in the IMAGE of God. That they were prepared to occupy mortal tabernacles. You cannot escape the FACT that spirit children were called SONS and DAUGHTERS before the Earth was organized. Thus gender was ESTABLISHED in the beginning.

It would have violated the Plan of Redemption if they were to reproduce in the pre-existence. That would put a stop to the mortal stage/experience. Even if they understood the concept and tried to act, it would NOT have worked. Only Celestial Beings can create/organize spirit children. Only the mechanics of spirit joined with mortal physical body can bring about reproduction.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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?

How do you know what thoughts/ponderings McConkie may have had on this topic? We do know that the Earth goes thru stages: 1- Terrestrial Edenic state; 2- the Fall; 3- reverting back to the Terrestrial after the Second Coming; 4- transformation into a Celestial Orb (crystal planet, sea of glass, burnings). That sentient entity will eventually be "resurrected" in a glorious state.

Joseph Smith taught that dogs (and most if not all animals) have self aware spirits. If you are an animal lover, you will be reunited with your pets.

I do believe that ALL things in the physical creation have spiritual components. All plants including trees. I am not inclined to think that trees have sentient spirit being. I am open to the possibility of the sentient planet (Gaia?) own planetary spirit providing the needed complement for all objects that do not have independent souls. Maybe that rock is part of the makeup of Gaia. It would not matter if rocks were to break into tinier pieces. Interestingly Jesus told the Pharisees in Luke 19:40 "And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Genesis 2:9 "Nevertheless, all things were before created, but spiritually were they created and made, according to my word." Please do not put a limit on God.

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

For sure there is no need for blood to circulate in a resurrected body. What do you think of my earlier statement that we will be able to consume food in the resurrection? But I am not too worried about it and will be content to wait until the next world.

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

18 hours ago, longview said:

Please read my comment above about necessary steps and progression.

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

I am very confident in my understanding of the Plan of Redemption. You, on the other hand, do not believe in Abraham's mission. What parts of the Gospel do you believe?

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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 ...

I am very grateful for Joseph Smith and the Restoration. I love the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the standard works. I am striving to be the best I can be as a Disciple of Jesus who is head of THE Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I apologize to you for my imperfections and for not always using the highest possible standards for our communications.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wow. The sermon you heard was vastly different from the one given. No wonder you thought it was political.

Plenty of people thought her sermon was political.  Some people are just okay with it.

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It helps to understand how you approach things said by those you disagree with.  That is full blown distortion and mind reading. Keep at it champ!

It's less that I disagree with Bishop Budde as to the substance of what she said (I am a big fan of both "unity" and "mercy"), but rather the time, place and manner in which she said it.  I think she divisively politicized what should have been a unifying religious service (as evidenced by, inter alia, this thread).  I also think she appropriated religious terminology to provide a pretext for publicly hectoring a politician about political matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Specifically, what evidence, Spencer?

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

A very convenient dismissive.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Plenty of people thought her sermon was political.  Some people are just okay with it.

It's less that I disagree with Bishop Budde as to the substance of what she said (I am a big fan of both "unity" and "mercy"), but rather the time, place and manner in which she said it.  I think she divisively politicized what should have been a unifying religious service (as evidenced by, inter alia, this thread).  I also think she appropriated religious terminology to provide a pretext for publicly hectoring a politician about political matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Serious question: if this had been Biden instead of Trump, would you be responding this way?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Plenty of people thought her sermon was political.

So in lieu of looking at what was actually said, you’re just using your feelings. Huh. How ironic for the person that describes himself as one who just wants to look at the facts. You keep doing you champ!

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

So are you advocating for open borders?  

Changing the discussion? My opinion is irrelevant. What do you think is an appropriate number of immigrants that we should invite into the country every year?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I am very grateful for Joseph Smith and the Restoration. I love the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the standard works. I am striving to be the best I can be as a Disciple of Jesus who is head of THE Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I apologize to you for my imperfections and for not always using the highest possible standards for our communications.

It's not me you should apologize to. This has moved far enough from the OP that it's probably not worth continuing. But I do want to add one thing -

Do you remember the bit I quoted from Matthew 25 earlier? What comes next is also enlightening:

Quote

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

What we believe is largely going to be irrelevant in light of what we do. And as long as we oppress the weak, as long as we oppress the strangers (the immigrants) around us, as long as we refuse to treat those who are sick with the healthcare that they need, and refuse to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked - we will stand before God and be found wanting - or as Jesus says (Matthew 7):

Quote

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This has moved far enough from the OP that it's probably not worth continuing.

Yes, it is surprising. Our discussion began way back on page one of this thread. It did veer off on a tangent. We were contrasting the backgrounds of Shapiro and Budde. Which were more likely to be "Machiavellian."

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Plenty of people thought her sermon was political.  Some people are just okay with it.

It's less that I disagree with Bishop Budde as to the substance of what she said (I am a big fan of both "unity" and "mercy"), but rather the time, place and manner in which she said it.  I think she divisively politicized what should have been a unifying religious service (as evidenced by, inter alia, this thread).  I also think she appropriated religious terminology to provide a pretext for publicly hectoring a politician about political matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hopefully they get the message that religious speech should henceforth be bland and inoffensive. Let religion never again afflict the consciences of those in power. It should utter bland platitudes and get out of the way. It is a perfunctory thing. They are there just as a symbol to legitimize the current ruler. Let there be no dissent.

How will we have unity unless religious leaders just shut up? After all the current administration has shown nothing but a deep desire for unity and then some upstart bishop ruined everything. Alas America, this could have been such a beautiful time if that possibly lesbian bishop had just not gotten so uppity. We weep for the fall of civility and decorum. Now let’s get back to the President promising to avenge himself against his enemies and hope that will bring back the unity and civility that now teeter on the brink of annihilation.

We can only live in hope.

 

[sunstoned]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hopefully they get the message that religious speech should henceforth be bland and inoffensive. Let religion never again afflict the consciences of those in power. It should utter bland platitudes and get out of the way. It is a perfunctory thing. They are there just as a symbol to legitimize the current ruler. Let there be no dissent.

How will we have unity unless religious leaders just shut up? After all the current administration has shown nothing but a deep desire for unity and then some upstart bishop ruined everything. Alas America, this could have been such a beautiful time if that possibly lesbian bishop had just not gotten so uppity. We weep for the fall of civility and decorum. Now let’s get back to the President promising to avenge himself against his enemies and hope that will bring back the unity and civility that now teeter on the brink of annihilation.

We can only live in hope.

 

Agreed.  Playing the religious freedom card and asking our deal leader to show mercy to others is beyond the pale. What was she thinking?

 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

Specifically, what evidence, Spencer?

A very convenient dismissive.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence that has been presented is that 1) she did it in public to politicians and 2) some liberals really liked it and some conservatives really did not, and 3) the line of who did and who didn't is largely divided based on political ideology.

But it's worth noting that only one of those three things did the reverend have any control over, and none of them speak at all to her motive as there are other very reasonable options that are equally valid and likely under the same evidences.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

As far as I can tell, the only evidence that has been presented is that 1) she did it in public to politicians and 2) some liberals really liked it and some conservatives really did not, and 3) the line of who did and who didn't is largely divided based on political ideology.

But it's worth noting that only one of those three things did the reverend have any control over, and none of them speak at all to her motive as there are other very reasonable options that are equally valid and likely under the same evidences.

That was my read on things, as well. So, in terms of evidence, what we actually have is "evidence."

[Benjamin McGuire]

The other fun thing is that we are dealing with the gap between locutionary and illocutionary acts. That is a technical way of saying that what we say and what we do when saying something can be different. I don't think that there is anything wrong with discussion about the illocutionary aspects of the speech. It does seem to me that there is a bit of mind reading going on when people are arguing about what someone intended to do through what they are saying. My part in this discussion has largely been about the locutionary part of it - what is actually being said

The challenge with Shapiro's comments is that they function at both levels. He goes after the illocutionary act (labels it a political argument and attributes intention and motivation to the speaker). But he also goes after the locutionary act by suggesting that this cannot be a Christian message. It is interesting to see the different comments here and how they reflect this split. Do those who want to see this as mostly a political act (who are focused on the illocutionary act) - do they view the message as a Christian message? I personally think that it's impossible not to see this as a political act of some sort (the context requires it) - but I also think that there is a lot of room there for a range of intentions on the part of the speaker.

I am more interested in the question of the range of beliefs on the message itself and not the intention or act that comes with that message. There is less of a need to engage in mind reading there. The actual message of the speech - the locutionary act - was it wrong?

[Kenngo1969]

As much as I agree with Bishop Budde that I should have compassion on "the stranger that is within [my] gates," I think it's a fair question to ask whether she has sufficient compassion for Lakin Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, and so on and so forth, along with their families and friends.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Kenngo1969