bluebell

Yes, the light of Christ, sorry for being confusing. When I read Manol's statement about this not being a mainstream teaching it caught me off guard so I had to go and look to see if he was right (because that's not how I remembered it). These were some of the first things to come up in the church's (horrible awful) search engine:

His spirit as in the spirit of Christ. At least that’s what it teaches on the church’s website. But as far as Holy Ghost is also a God, then yes God is omnipresent in that way as well in our teachings.

For me it’s a complicated yes

It was a stupid song.

Right. We teach that He is omnipresent through His spirit. Which is the same way that all other Christian religions teach He is omnipresent, if I understand right.

It is a part of mainstream teachings that God is omnipresent.

I think you are both right. There are times when it's relevant to judge the merits of the art itself and times when it is relevant to judge the merits of its message or intention.

It, rightly so, makes us uncomfortable now but 'teenagers' as a concept didn't even exist until the early 1900s. You were pretty much an adult once you weren't a child anymore. The past was what it was and there isn't really any benefit to trying to fit it into our modern culture and current beliefs about minors. It doesn't change the past or how people in the past saw the world. We get more out of understanding the past correctly (so we can hopefully do better in the future) than we do trying to judge it.

I really enjoy these kinds of videos from him.

Dan irks me on occasion as well, and I don't think it's because I have prioritized dogma over data. I think sometimes his online persona just annoys me that day for whatever reason. His videos are sometimes performative--which is not at all an insult, they need to be and they should be if he's going to find any success on social media--and his way of performing is not always my cup of tea or what I find useful. Again, not an insult because my feelings are not the standard for what actually is useful, even if my feelings on what I find useful are completely valid. Dan probably makes missteps as much as the next scholar and I don't think there's any harm in a respectful discussion on his public posts or videos where people disagree about his affectiveness or even discuss how his public views mesh with church teachings. I'm guessing that kind of stuff doesn't bother Dan at all or he wouldn't be so public. Smac and I differ because he tends to moralize his disagreements with people (as in, if someone doesn't say what he thinks they should say or believe what he thinks they should believe then he often implies that it's some kind of moral failure on their part) and I don't often think that is an accurate route to go. I don't believe that Dan is doing anything immoral in the way that he presents data or shows up online but I think that it's valid to discuss his impact on people's faith and I also think that it's valid for Smac to believe that Dan is doing more harm than good, even if I disagree with Smac on that. I've seen other very nuanced public latter-day saint "influencers" who are not at all dogmatic who have also had fair criticisms of Dan. Disagreeing with the way Dan does stuff is not a sign that someone doesn't like the best data that experts have put together.

When I first read the OP I thought the Red Man song was one of the new ones being released and about had a heart attack wondering when the church had lost their minds! That's definitely one that should stay historical and forgotten.

I was listening to the Follow Him podcast yesterday where they are discussing the book of Ezekiel. I don’t remember the scholar’s name that they had on, but he talked about this very thing. He talked about how growing up in the church, after we read a passage of scripture, the first thing that we are often taught to do is to ask how it applies to us. But he said the most important thing when studying scripture is to first ask what did the author mean and what was his intended audience supposed to learn. After we know that then it is very, very good to also learn how to apply it to ourselves, in our lives, and different present day situations. But it should not be the primary goal all the time. Context is crucial.

From a historical standpoint there is no reliable evidence that he had a husband/wife relationship with any underage girls. If he had lived long enough it sounds like his marriage to Helen Kimball would have been a normal marriage but all records point to them never being unchaperoned and their relationship never being more than on paper, so to speak. I know that you value honesty, and I’m saying that sincerely. This is one of those times where anyone who values accuracy will want to look into the historical record for themselves and not just repeat what they’ve heard in the past, especially if they’ve heard it from unreliable sources. You said it yourself, people lie. Especially when the lie justifies their biases or serves an agenda. There’s plenty of other stuff that you can be mad at Joseph Smith and the church about, this just doesn’t happen to be a valid criticism.

For the record, I take no offense to that statement (which is a false equivalent). Because I am not a prostitute it is not characterizing me and so there’s no reason to be offended.

Here's someone who can brag about their English skills. 5 stars for this post.