Another Podcaster Bites the Dust

[ZealouslyStriving]

I just don't get Deseret Book - they just added a book by Hanks to their audible app.

I am at a loss.

 

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I just don't get Deseret Book - they just added a book by Hanks to their audible app.

I am at a loss.

 

Why?

[ZealouslyStriving]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why?

I understand Ms. Hanks is a hero to several here- but the fact that she advocates things contrary to Church doctrine and principles should make Deseret Book think twice before promoting her.

 

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I understand Ms. Hanks is a hero to several here- but the fact that she advocates things contrary to Church doctrine and principles should make Deseret Book think twice before promoting her.

 

Well, I'm grateful they did. This book looks like it will help a lot of women. https://www.deseretbook.com/product/5111156.html?srsltid=AfmBOooU9eFGLxDN_AJohzny2jID_2oU3m9OQdBOf-P1E-Gew3CGfmD9

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

fact that she advocates things contrary to Church doctrine and principles should make Deseret Book think twice before promoting her.

Sounds pretty tame:

Quote

Through scriptural quotes, personal stories, and clinical examples, Hanks offers a bevy of tools designed to help sisters identify and meet their emotional needs, to accept their limitations, to let go of the guilt and perfectionism, and to lean on the Lord.

 

[MrShorty]

I recall a poll in a Facebook group I am in (so nothing scientific or anything) that consists of a number of "hyperconservative" members of the church. The poll question asked about the greatest threat to the church. To the tune of 80% of respondents, this Facebook group identified "progressive members" as the greatest threat to the church. For anyone who is familiar with Dr. Hanks work, she leans towards the progressive side. Many of these conservative members of the church take exception to some of the things she says about LGBTQ+ issues, women's issues, garment issues, and (the one that seems to get their dander up the most) using "personal authority" to make choices that run against the orthodox, conservative LDS grain. As a larger issue, what @ZealouslyStriving's post highlights, IMO, is the current tensions between conservative and progressive members as the church tries to figure out how to deal with many of today's difficult issues.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Sounds pretty tame:

 

And this particular book may be fine, but promoting her name and creating the possibility that people further seek her out is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

[MustardSeed]

Perhaps the Lord is more “progressive” than zealous conservatives want to know. 
Who knows. Certainly none of us do. We are just accountable to ourselves anyway. 

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Perhaps the Lord is more “progressive” than zealous conservatives want to know. 
Who knows. Certainly none of us do. We are just accountable to ourselves anyway. 

He was way more progressive than the conservative Jewish members thought He was going to be when He came the first time, I don't see why that would be different when He comes again.  But, the world is also a lot more accepting of sin than it once was, so perhaps the Jesus that the Israelites needed, with their strict rules and social morals, is not the Jesus that the world needs now?  I've never really thought about that before but now I'm wondering...

We're all probably a little right and a little wrong, just on different sides of the coin.  Jesus is probably more progressive than the conservatives will like and more conservative than the progressives will like.

 

Edited June 17, 2025 by bluebell

[Tony uk]

From my own reading over the years. Jesus came to make clear to all people, the difference between right and wrong. Or at least what God expected of people. Jesus did this in a way that was loving and caring, and most of all he managed to do and say without being judgemental, in a way people can be at times.

[halconero]

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I recall a poll in a Facebook group I am in (so nothing scientific or anything) that consists of a number of "hyperconservative" members of the church. The poll question asked about the greatest threat to the church. To the tune of 80% of respondents, this Facebook group identified "progressive members" as the greatest threat to the church. For anyone who is familiar with Dr. Hanks work, she leans towards the progressive side. Many of these conservative members of the church take exception to some of the things she says about LGBTQ+ issues, women's issues, garment issues, and (the one that seems to get their dander up the most) using "personal authority" to make choices that run against the orthodox, conservative LDS grain. As a larger issue, what @ZealouslyStriving's post highlights, IMO, is the current tensions between conservative and progressive members as the church tries to figure out how to deal with many of today's difficult issues.

Mote meet beam.

Ironically, I don't think they're entirely wrong; they just don't generalize their threat evaluations.

My sincere belief is that the philosophies of men, particularly political and social philosophies, are currently the largest threats to Church members. The -isms all provide answers to ontological questions of the soul like why things exist, what existence means, and relationships between individuals, groups, and sociopolitical entities that may be compatible with Gospel principles. At the same time, each of them provide answers that incongruous with Gospel doctrines and principles. I worry that people are increasingly willing to prioritize these incongruous teachings over Gospel principles, particularly in regards to their actions towards others.

Edited June 17, 2025 by halconero

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Perhaps the Lord is more “progressive” than zealous conservatives want to know. 
Who knows. Certainly none of us do. We are just accountable to ourselves anyway. 

I picture Jesus to be in the Julie Hanks camp.

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He was way more progressive than the conservative Jewish members thought He was going to be when He came the first time, I don't see why that would be different when He comes again.  But, the world is also a lot more accepting of sin than it once was, so perhaps the Jesus that the Israelites needed, with their strict rules and social morals, is not the Jesus that the world needs now?  I've never really thought about that before but now I'm wondering...

We're all probably a little right and a little wrong, just on different sides of the coin.  Jesus is probably more progressive than the conservatives will like and more conservative than the progressives will like.

 

Somewhere in the middle, like me, lol!

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Somewhere in the middle, like me, lol!

It wouldn't have to be somewhere in the middle.  It could be that some people have these things right, but these things wrong, but other people have these other things right and these things wrong.

I think the important thing is to listen to God instead of any one group which will always have something wrong because we are human.  Then we should vote on who we best fits the understanding we get from God.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tony uk said:

From my own reading over the years. Jesus came to make clear to all people, the difference between right and wrong. Or at least what God expected of people. Jesus did this in a way that was loving and caring, and most of all he managed to do and say without being judgemental, in a way people can be at times.

Perfectly said.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

Mote meet beam.

Ironically, I don't think they're entirely wrong; they just don't generalize their their threat evaluations.

My sincere belief is that the philosophies of men, particularly political and social philosophies, are currently the largest threats to Church members. 

I've never heard it put in these words but I think you are very right.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

the world is also a lot more accepting of sin than it once was

I am not sure about that.  We at least condemn slavery, even if many support it by benefitting from it or even actively participate in it.  I do believe possessing other humans automatically places them on a lower, ‘not as valuable as I am’ relationship, which I believe is a sinful, prideful attitude.  We also give verbal support to equality.  I wonder about charity….we have massive humanitarian efforts that are global and lots of local ones, but helping someone who comes to your backdoor like my great grandmother used to do isn’t common in the US at least.

We may be more accepting of chastity sins, but premarital sex was very common before as well as adultery for men, which in some places were formalized by the government even (in old China, the government ran brothels and might even get high class ladies to appeal to the elite from disgraced officials’ wives and daughters who were sold as slaves, including to brothels as punishment, even if they themselves were innocent of any wrongdoing….I am getting this from modern literature, some from early 1900’s and have confirmed the selling into slavery of females in more historical info, but not necessarily to brothels).

Treatment of women and children was pretty bad in the past allowing beatings and rape even, also requiring child labor laws (still happening, but again it’s condemned generally).

Then there is the gap between poor and the most wealthy, as that does seem more accepting in many areas, but that gets into politics, so I will just throw that out and label it as wrong when corruption is used to get that amount of wealth for one person and people can decide for themselves if corruption is inherent (I honestly don’t know if it has to be) or only a subset are corrupt. 

So worse sinning in some areas, better in others imo.

 But impossible to come up with a concrete, objective number telling us what era was more sinful because of too many unknowns, past and present (outside of the utopia periods in scripture).

Edited June 17, 2025 by Calm

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

So worse sinning in some areas, better in others imo.

 But impossible to come up with a concrete, objective number telling us what era was more sinful because of too many unknowns, past and present (outside of the utopia periods in scripture).

Right. Consider how bad things must have been in Noah's time to cause Gods to eliminate just about everyone. If things keep going the way they are God won't need to do that because mankind will eventually cause its own destruction.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not sure about that.  We at least condemn slavery, even if many support it by benefitting from it or even actively participate in it.  I do believe possessing other humans automatically places them on a lower, ‘not as valuable as I am’ relationship, which I believe is a sinful, prideful attitude.  We also give verbal support to equality.  I wonder about charity….we have massive humanitarian efforts that are global and lots of local ones, but helping someone who comes to your backdoor like my great grandmother used to do isn’t common in the US at least.

We may be more accepting of chastity sins, but premarital sex was very common before as well as adultery for men, which in some places were formalized by the government even (in old China, the government ran brothels and might even get high class ladies to appeal to the elite from disgraced officials’ wives and daughters who were sold as slaves, including to brothels as punishment, even if they themselves were innocent of any wrongdoing….I am getting this from modern literature, some from early 1900’s and have confirmed the selling into slavery of females in more historical info, but not necessarily to brothels).

Treatment of women and children was pretty bad in the past allowing beatings and rape even, also requiring child labor laws (still happening, but again it’s condemned generally).

Then there is the gap between poor and the most wealthy, as that does seem more accepting in many areas, but that gets into politics, so I will just throw that out and label it as wrong when corruption is used to get that amount of wealth for one person and people can decide for themselves if corruption is inherent (I honestly don’t know if it has to be) or only a subset are corrupt. 

So worse sinning in some areas, better in others imo.

 But impossible to come up with a concrete, objective number telling us what era was more sinful because of too many unknowns, past and present (outside of the utopia periods in scripture).

Sorry, I meant the Israelite world, with the Law of Moses.  The world that Christ lived in.

Edited June 18, 2025 by bluebell

[Stargazer]

Placeholder