Jonathan Rauch, "Civic Theology" and the Church

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2025 at 10:14 AM, smac97 said:

I think Rauch is pointing to what the Church is doing and publicly commenting on it, and I think his commentary about the Church was a worthy topic for this board.

I think it is a worthy topic. I still think your interest in Rauch is more due to his complimentary views about Mormonism. If he had the same criticisms of Mormonism as he does EV Christians I think you would not be as fond of him. What do you think about his criticism of Christianity. Do you agree?

On 2/19/2025 at 10:14 AM, smac97 said:

Not sure about that.  There are quite a few checks in place.  The Church's long-held political neutrality and prohibition against politicking at the local level.  The First Presidency letter a while back cautioning against rotely voting based on political party.  The NY Times article I quoted earlier (discussing indicia that the Latter-day Saints are drifting away from the GOP).  The data Mr. Rauch presented showing that the Latter-day Saints are not marching in lockstep with a particular political party (as opposed to EVs, who apparently are). 

Thanks,

-Smac

What the church leaders say about politics and what the church members say and do is quite different. LDS people still voted overwhelmingly for Trump and it seems many, at least in mu circle, are quite positive about the first month to Trump 2.0.  We shall see how they feel as the constitutional separation of powers continues to have the Trump/Musk wrecking ball taken to it.

[Doctor Steuss]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the Guttmacher Institute: "9 states and the District of Columbia do not restrict abortion on the basis of gestational duration."

As the National Catholic Register puts it: "In nine states and Washington, D.C., abortion is legal for the entirety of pregnancy, until the moment of birth, for any reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for providing the additional verbiage.  I think even when people hear this (as opposed to your previous verbiage of "no restrictions at all"), they may still interpret this to mean that terminating the pregnancy after viability automatically means terminating the life of the baby.  Which is why I wanted to note that after viability, advanced care must be provided to the baby if a live birth happens as a result of the pregnancy termination.  I imagine other states have it codified in legislation as well like Alaska does, but it's also standard medical ethics.  Back in the early 2000's (when I was an infection control coordinator for a hospital), I helped revise and compile all of their policy and procedure manuals in anticipation of an upcoming audit.  Primarily, I worked on the NICU manuals (which I admittedly lobbied to get to do, because I already spent my lunch breaks there holding babies -- I'm a sucker for little ones).  Even back then, in Nevada, it was spelled out that advanced medical interventions were mandated for any abortion that resulted in live birth.  It was a long time ago, but to the best of my memory they gave a hard stop week number when NICU interventions were required, rather than use the term "viability."

Terminating a pregnancy doesn't always necessitate terminating the life of the baby, and in most instances, advanced care directives are initiated for terminated pregnancies with live birth after viability.

Alaska's legislative hard stop might be on the cusp of being a little late (150 days), given Curtis Means survival at 21 weeks and how medical science and intervention techniques advance, but fortunately they also have some additional verbiage that allows viability determination by physicians prior to that hard stop.  I'd personally like to see the advanced care directives for viability moved up much sooner, and standardized, but I'm no medical ethicist (or lobbyist).

The pro-choice legislation that tried to gain traction in the federal legislature after Roe v. Wade was overturned specifically talked about viability and advanced directives for the baby as it's already the standard for late term abortions in places that don't have gestational limits.  Are there extremists that don't hold this position?  Absolutely.  But the vast majority of pro-choice legislation, and medical guidelines, lay out the necessity for life saving interventions for babies in aborted pregnancies.

No restriction on gestational limits doesn't mean "no restrictions at all."

Edited February 20, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think it is a worthy topic. I still think your interest in Rauch is more due to his complimentary views about Mormonism.

This is a discussion board about the Church, so discussion about Rauch will naturally be related to what he has had to say about the Church.  But it's not about a matter of mere "compliments."  It's the idea that Rauch, "a self-described atheistic Jewish gay man," and a staunch advocate of same-sex marriage, has ideas which align with the Church's, such that he appreciates and is speaking in favor of what the Church is doing.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If he had the same criticisms of Mormonism as he does EV Christians I think you would not be as fond of him.

But I would listen to what he has to say, as I do when I listen to you and all the other critics of my faith.

I like what the Church has been doing re: "civil theology," and I like that Mr. Rauch is bringing attention to that.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What do you think about his criticism of Christianity. Do you agree?

I don't know what "criticism" you are referencing here. Again:

Quote

Mr. Rauch states that the above data indicate that white evangelicals "are exactly, precisely in line with the Republican Party," and that this is "not true of any other Christian group."

Put another way, Mr. Rauch seems to be saying that white evangelicals are taking their marching orders from political platforms/ideologies (hence the near-exact overlap between them in the above graph).

He may well have a point.  And if this is so, I am not comfortable with it, as I think religious/moral/ethical scruples are, or should be, "upstream" from political ideology/affiliation.

I think the Latter-day Saints ought to keep an ear out as to what its critics are saying.  Sometimes it's just a difference of worldview and opinion.  Sometimes it's just vitriol and calumnies.  But sometimes they have something to say that is worthy of consideration.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What the church leaders say about politics and what the church members say and do is quite different.

Yes, some members do not exactly follow prophetic counsel "about politics."  Many, however, do.  Meanwhile, the counsel itself is pretty good.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

LDS people still voted overwhelmingly for Trump and it seems many, at least in mu circle, are quite positive about the first month to Trump 2.0.  We shall see how they feel as the constitutional separation of powers continues to have the Trump/Musk wrecking ball taken to it.

No comment, as I am attempting to stay away from political commentary.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 2/17/2025 at 3:08 PM, smac97 said:

"But if you hate them, if you fear them, if they're a threat to your country, to your very existence, we're in a different world."

I get that. On the other hand if one side IS a threat to our country, our constitutional republic and to 80 years of the greatest treaty and alliance the world has ever seen, one that has held at bay a third world war for 80 years, well sorry, but I give no quarter. I do not hate the average Trump/MAGA supporter. I get the politics of why you or they may support many of their positions.  Heck there are some I could support. I am for the most part opposed to abortion. I think government it to large and waste and fraud ought to be rooted out. I am for lower taxes. I am for a strong defense.  But nothing else matters to me but for what I honestly think we are witnessing and that is an attempt to destroy our representative form of government and a power grab by the current executive branch that moves us to an autocracy.  No other political issue is more important to me than this.  It is Project 2025 being implemented right before our eyes. And yes I do hate those who are doing this.  The whole lot of them. And I do fear them. They are an a clear and present threat to our Republic.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

"But if you hate them, if you fear them, if they're a threat to your country, to your very existence, we're in a different world."

I get that. On the other hand if one side IS a threat to our country, our constitutional republic and to 80 years of the greatest treaty and alliance the world has ever seen, one that has held at bay a third world war for 80 years, well sorry, but I give no quarter.

I think this is the sort of rhetoric that Mr. Rauch is speaking against, and both sides do it to each other.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do not hate the average Trump/MAGA supporter.

But that's not all Mr. Rauch said: "But if you hate them, if you fear them, if they're a threat to your country, to your very existence, we're in a different world."

Mr. Rauch was cautioning against viewing ideological opponents in this way, and here you are, viewing ideological opponents in this way.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I get the politics of why you or they may support many of their positions.  Heck there are some I could support.

And you would not be in agreement with others, as I have noted for myself a number of times now.  Meanwhile, I think the Church's counsel against blindly going along with political ideology is good.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am for the most part opposed to abortion. I think government it to large and waste and fraud ought to be rooted out. I am for lower taxes. I am for a strong defense. 

Same here.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But nothing else matters to me but for what I honestly think we are witnessing and that is an attempt to destroy our representative form of government and a power grab by the current executive branch that moves us to an autocracy. No other political issue is more important to me than this.  It is Project 2025 being implemented right before our eyes. And yes I do hate those who are doing this.  The whole lot of them. And I do fear them. They are an a clear and present threat to our Republic.

I will refrain from further commentary, as I am attempting to avoid political discussions on this board.  If you want to continue this conversation privately, please DM me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the Guttmacher Institute: "9 states and the District of Columbia do not restrict abortion on the basis of gestational duration."

As the National Catholic Register puts it: "In nine states and Washington, D.C., abortion is legal for the entirety of pregnancy, until the moment of birth, for any reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

And how often do these late-term abortions actually happen?

They are rare. Most late-term abortions occur due to some medical risk to the mother or the fetus being non-viable.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And how often do these late-term abortions actually happen?

They are rare. Most late-term abortions occur due to some medical risk to the mother or the fetus being non-viable.

It's only ok to point out the rarity of abortions due to rape. Stop doing that.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think this is the sort of rhetoric that Mr. Rauch is speaking against, and both sides do it to each other.

But that's not all Mr. Rauch said: "But if you hate them, if you fear them, if they're a threat to your country, to your very existence, we're in a different world."

Mr. Rauch was cautioning against viewing ideological opponents in this way, and here you are, viewing ideological opponents in this way.

He was cautioning against viewing them in this way when that view is inaccurate. When it is accurate you are in a very different set of circumstances. There is a reason liberal democracies need some variant of a Bill of Rights that protect minorities. If you don’t have one often every election turns into an existential threat to someone’s rights. When you have a party campaigning on taking away hard-won rights that is an existential threat. Pretending it is just a reasonable disagreement is madness.

The problem we have is that we have had some rhetorical nutcases casting things as existential for decades now. It becomes background noise. So when a real existential situation comes up it is lost in the static and is normalized. I doubt this was planned but it was probably inevitable.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And you would not be in agreement with others, as I have noted for myself a number of times now.  Meanwhile, I think the Church's counsel against blindly going along with political ideology is good.

Irony died years ago.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And how often do these late-term abortions actually happen?

They are rare.

Elective abortions, for any reason or no reason at all, are legal up to the moment of birth in 9 states plus D.C.

I am glad that this particular subset of elective abortions are rare.  Would that we could say the same for elective abortions earlier on in the gestational timeframe.

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Most late-term abortions occur due to some medical risk to the mother or the fetus being non-viable.

Which would comport within the framework espoused by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

On 2/19/2025 at 10:49 AM, smac97 said:

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.   

Yes I know.

I will soon post a thread on "Radical Empiricism" which led to "Empirical Religion".

Just google those subjects and it will clear as day- IFF you understand philosophical jargon.   AND it would be helpful if you followed up on the slogan from William James I already quoted- "Belief creates the actual fact"

Copernicus and the boys had to have just a LITTLE belief in order to test it.  VIOLA!  It turned out to be a "fact"

Also perhaps you should read the book of Mormon which is echoed (unknowingly) by William James.

Here, I will help you

This is "Empirical Religion":

Quote

 

Alma 32:

"26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

 

"BELIEF CREATES THE ACTUAL FACT"  - William James

And so Subjective Empiricism becomes Objective Empiricism when millions have repeated the experiment and affirmed it,

Edited February 20, 2025 by Mfbnew

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Elective abortions, for any reason or no reason at all, are legal up to the moment of birth in 9 states plus D.C.

I am glad that this particular subset of elective abortions are rare. 

And of those nine states only four have clinics that will take patients past 28 weeks. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Would that we could say the same for elective abortions earlier on in the gestational timeframe.

Assigning personhood to conception creates all kinds of problems. Spontaneous (and often unnoticed) miscarriages become horrific deaths. If the Pro-Life movement were serious about protecting the fetus they would be pouring money into figuring out why this happens and how to prevent it. They don’t. They don’t actually believe it.

Their main concern is the moral state of the parent. If the mother takes any action that might endanger the fetus SHE MUST BE PUNISHED! SHE IS MONSTER! The dead fetus is just proof that the mother is evil. We must stop mom from being evil. Preserving life is an afterthought. Whether it was done intentionally or just happened it was still a death. If it was the lost life that was of value the emphasis would be on that life and not on punishing the woman.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Which would comport within the framework espoused by the Church.

Which is not what most of the Pro-Life movement seeks. Women are already dying because of draconian anti-abortion laws that require vague standards of danger to the mother’s life so doctors have to wait until the situation is critical before intervening. Or mother has to be transported to a state that has a more sane state legislature with all the risks that involves.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I get that. On the other hand if one side IS a threat to our country, our constitutional republic and to 80 years of the greatest treaty and alliance the world has ever seen, one that has held at bay a third world war for 80 years, well sorry, but I give no quarter. I do not hate the average Trump/MAGA supporter. I get the politics of why you or they may support many of their positions.  Heck there are some I could support. I am for the most part opposed to abortion. I think government it to large and waste and fraud ought to be rooted out. I am for lower taxes. I am for a strong defense.  But nothing else matters to me but for what I honestly think we are witnessing and that is an attempt to destroy our representative form of government and a power grab by the current executive branch that moves us to an autocracy.  No other political issue is more important to me than this.  It is Project 2025 being implemented right before our eyes. And yes I do hate those who are doing this.  The whole lot of them. And I do fear them. They are an a clear and present threat to our Republic.

Bolding mine. I fear them also.  Our freedoms are at risk by the very people who should know better.

Edited February 20, 2025 by sunstoned

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Assigning personhood to conception creates all kinds of problems.

Yes, some.  Abortion, in addition to the killing of the child, also creates all kinds of problems (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this is the sort of rhetoric that Mr. Rauch is speaking against, and both sides do it to each other.

But that's not all Mr. Rauch said: "But if you hate them, if you fear them, if they're a threat to your country, to your very existence, we're in a different world."

Mr. Rauch was cautioning against viewing ideological opponents in this way, and here you are, viewing ideological opponents in this way.

Yes.  For this issue I reject his advice or premise. Totally.  We are at a point in our nation's history as serious as the American Revolution and the civil war. If you disagree we have no common touch point now until I see a change of course from this administration I cannot back away from my position.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

I will refrain from further commentary, as I am attempting to avoid political discussions on this board.  If you want to continue this conversation privately, please DM me.

Thanks,

-Smac

The topic of you thread necessitates touching on politics. If you want to take that part off line I may consider but perhaps we are much too far apart and it might just frustrate both of us.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And you would not be in agreement with others, as I have noted for myself a number of times now.  Meanwhile, I think the Church's counsel against blindly going along with political ideology is good.

I missed this. Which others do you refer to?  Also I think the counsel from the church on this is good as well. To bad it seems to be ignored a lot. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And you would not be in agreement with others, as I have noted for myself a number of times now.  Meanwhile, I think the Church's counsel against blindly going along with political ideology is good.

I missed this. Which others do you refer to? 

I'd prefer to not go back into overt political discussions.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Also I think the counsel from the church on this is good as well. To bad it seems to be ignored a lot. 

Ah, well,  The Saints are far from perfect.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  For this issue I reject his advice or premise. Totally. 

Okay.  That is your right.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

We are at a point in our nation's history as serious as the American Revolution and the civil war.

If so, I don't think that point started on 01/20/25.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you disagree we have no common touch point now until I see a change of course from this administration I cannot back away from my position.

I will refrain from further comment for the reasons previously stated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

so, I don't think that point started on 01/20/25.

Of course not.  It’s been decades in the making, imo.  Still needs to be addressed now imo.  I don’t know if we are even close to the point of no return (I very much hope not), but the numbers of people suffering unnecessarily has, imo, risen drastically and the sooner the trend gets reversed, the better.

Edited February 20, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 2/17/2025 at 4:09 PM, smac97 said:

Yep.  I'm willing to make compromises.  But hard feelings and personal antipathy, such as how I think SU feels about me, can obscure that reality.  Oh, well.

So in the spirit of this thread and what Rauch is trying to persuade us to do, how do we, given my hard line in the sand that I just mentioned, and likely your disagreement with my position, discuss or views, opinions, concerns and fears to better understand and perhaps draw closer together?  I honestly believe and fear that we are watching the destruction of our constitutional republic. How can you and I dialogue in a way that Rauch would appreciate?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 2/17/2025 at 2:09 PM, smac97 said:

Yep.  I'm willing to make compromises. 

On abortion what compromise are you willing to accept if you were a legislator. 

Edited February 21, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'd prefer to not go back into overt political discussions.

Ah, well,  The Saints are far from perfect.  

Thanks,

-Smac

See my most recent note on how you think we can emulate what Rauch is saying

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, some.  Abortion, in addition to the killing of the child, also creates all kinds of problems (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

So really you are just trying to save women from psychological distress?

Yeah….I don’t buy it.

Plus if the fetus is aborted it won’t experience any psychological distress so really it is morally neutral.

And no, I don’t believe that but I suspect I am advancing the argument as seriously as you advanced yours.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Elective abortions, for any reason or no reason at all, are legal up to the moment of birth in 9 states plus D.C.

I am glad that this particular subset of elective abortions are rare.  Would that we could say the same for elective abortions earlier on in the gestational timeframe.

Which would comport within the framework espoused by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Elective could mean for the life of the mother and her baby already deceased. Unless you have evidence? Because no mother would abort a nine month old living/viable human being. https://ourbodiesourselves.org/blog/debunking-the-mythical-nine-month-abortion 

Alyson Draper, a 40-year-old Mormon woman, is one of the eighty percent of women who had a later term abortion because the fetus had birth impairments. She shared her story of “the most wanted and planned pregnancy ever,” because she desperately wanted people to understand that her experience was not at all what Trump described:

I had to have a late term abortion. It was the worst moment in my life. What made it even worse was the State of Utah had made it illegal.

I had one dead twin. The other had severe Spina Bifida. It was so bad that his brain had developed outside his head, and his spine was open clear to the lumbar level. There was ZERO hope, and no medical miracle that could save him. Our dreams were shattered. These twins were from IVF. I was forty, and there would be no more pregnancies.

Draper needed a late-term abortion not only because of these circumstances, but also because her own life was at risk. Abortions to protect the health of the mother usually involve precarious situations, when a woman has a life-threatening condition like heart failure, lupus, or an infection in the uterus.

Edited February 21, 2025 by Tacenda

[Benjamin McGuire]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

As CPA who practices tax law I respectfully disagree. And when I said the tax code was pro children I do not say it was enough to cover the cost of children. But between former tax exclusions for dependents, child tax credits that have been up and down, credits for day care, credits for college costs, the earned income tax credit that is child focused, the head of household status for single filer with children the tax code has provided child focused incentives. Are they enough to incentivize having children? Likely not. But they do provide tax breaks that childless people do not enjoy.  Oh and the married filing join "penalty "was eliminated in 2017 or perhaps earlier. Hard to remember of the tax law changes over the past 35 years.

Yeah - no.

The marriage penalty still exists. It isn't as bad as it was. However, the tax relief for married couples that came in 2017 starts to expire in 2025. Oh wait, that's this year.

Yes, there are tax breaks for having children. On the other hand, the average cost of daycare in Michigan (where I live) is $905 per week. A $2,000 tax credit is negligible. We can say that the tax code is pro-children, but that sort of statement is always in comparison. Compared to no child tax-related benefits, it's pro-child. But, relative to the costs of children? It's pretty much neutral. As another facet, my experience over the past decade has been that it is far more beneficial to stop identifying my children as dependents as early as possible. Because of the widened brackets in 2017, child dependents also became less valuable (the odds of them shifting the bracket enough to matter went way down, while the benefits of their being their own household went up). I suspect that my experience is not unique. The benefits have only increased for children in the past couple of years with the changes to education credits. Even with limited income, the education benefits for them can be much larger than the child tax credits would be for me. So, yes, the tax code is pro-child in a sense. But no, the tax code does nothing to incentivize either marriage or having children. And that was the issue here. The changes we have made over my life time (I am in my 50s now), have been band-aids. No one really wants to fix the tax code. And we are only talking about the income tax part of things at this point, aren't we ...

[Injeun]

Excuse me if I bristle at the flatteries of an unbelieving, unrepentant, shameless deviant like Rauch. There is nothing benign about such people who would love nothing more than to see the Church repent of virtue and be their advocate for the abolition of the divinity of God and for the exaltation of sin. Yes, I'm hostile to the lull of deceit. But what's the greater threat, to remember God or to be led carefully to hell by the adversary.