- RLD on How I taught Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (annotated edition): “I like it. What I think makes this work is that you had a clear goal and you designed the whole lesson to accomplish that goal. I’m not sure how you’d word it, but something like “Encourage the class members to be less simplistically cynical.” I don’t know if you chose that based on a problem you perceive in your ward or if you were trying to immunize them against a strong trend you (and I) perceive in society, but either is legit. The scriptures give us several variations on “preach nothing but repentance.” That doesn’t mean every lesson needs to be on the topic of repentance, but rather, that every lesson should have the goal of creating some kind of change in the class members. That’s very different from Old Testament 101. You can’t “cover” Proverbs and Ecclesiastes in any meaningful way in 25 minutes if you’re trying to do what a university professor would do–and it’s not like we have university professors teaching most of our classes. (If people want that there are some great books they can read.) But you can read Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, prayerfully identify something from it that will help your ward members change, and teach them a 25-minute lesson that will encourage them to do so. And you did.” Sep 23, 11:15
- on How I taught Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (annotated edition): “People say things like, “Well, every politician is corrupt,” but that’s not a smart observation, and it’s not true. It only serves the interests of the corrupt. Oh, I like this. It would be devastating to QAnon if every adult understood this.” Sep 23, 09:14
- on Judging in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 9/20: “Stake conference this week. Our stake president spoke on how the atonement has the power to change us, and we shouldn’t limit ourselves by insisting “That’s just how I am.” Even if we can’t see how or when something will change, we can lay it on the altar, be clear that we want it to change, and leave it in the Lord’s hands. “I’m just not outgoing” was one of his examples, so I recognized how it applied to me. Elder Teixeira presided, and he surprised me. He spoke about how, while serving as a general authority, the Lord prompted him that he needed to up his game…as a landscape photographer. He’d been doing it as a hobby for 30 years, but felt he needed to dig in and learn more about the technical parts of the craft. So he enrolled in a university program and graduated with a degree while serving in the Presidency of the Seventy. There was no mention of it somehow being critical to his Church service, just art for its own sake. I’ve long thought that Jesus is a Creator, and if we want to follow all of his example we need to be doing something creative. (Though “something creative” is really broad, not just “art.”) But this was taking it far more seriously than I expected. It made me think about how I’ve been coasting on the musical skills I learned in my youth and undergrad days for 30 years, and wonder if I should change that.” Sep 22, 15:17
- on Joseph Smith as a 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard: “Stephen, I stand by my critique. Can you really list “Family” as a category, make mention of Hubbard’s three marriages, and then completely fail to mention Joseph’s 27+ plural marriages? That’s to say nothing of the apparently devastating impact those marriages allegedly had on Emma? And what of the allegations that he pressured women into those marriages (including marrying young women who were part of his household). I’m sorry, but you are cherry-picking evidence in support of your thesis. I get that you are trying to demonstrate that any comparison between Joseph and L. Ron is ill-founded (and I tend to agree), but you’re not doing so in a credible way.” Sep 22, 13:19
- on Joseph Smith as a 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard: “Not a Cougar: I’m trying to be more sophisticated here than simply saying “L. Ron Hubbard was bad, was Joseph Smith bad too?” Rather, I’m looking at the particular points of reference that people may draw in comparing the two and seeing how much merit they have.” Sep 22, 11:44
- on Joseph Smith as a 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard: “Stephen, I don’t really love this post. That said if you’re going to “steel man” the comparison, I think you’re leaving out a lot of relevant fodder (though I admit completely that what constitutes fodder depends on what you think of Joseph). As a warning, the following is drafted and slanted to be provocative (i.e., it doesn’t constitute my personal opinion on Joseph or my reading of the evidence and I won’t debate anyone else about the veracity of the allegations): 1. Joseph engaging in treasure digging and never being able to demonstrate the ability to actually find the treasure (and being tried as a disorderly person over it – the Church paints it as an acquittal, but the outcome of the trial is not clear). 2. Joseph having a relationship with Fanny Alger that amounted to an affair and had to be justified afterwards as a marriage and then having other leaders who disagreed with his actions excommunicated (i.e., Oliver Cowdery) 3. Engaging in a whole host of multiple plural marriages without Emma’s knowledge or consent (and engaging in a sham ceremony to cover up his actions on at least one occasion) 4. Seemingly conveniently timed revelations used to coerce people into complying with Joseph’s wishes and that benefitted him. 5. A callous disregard for the law when the law didn’t go along with his wishes (e.g., the Kirtland Safety Society). 6. A willingness to retcon Church history when he needed to justify a new practice or idea (e.g., the appearance of Peter, James, and John to restore the Melchizedek priesthood, something the Whitmers argued never happened). Again, this short list doesn’t represent my own feelings about Joseph, but suggesting that comparisons of Joseph with L. Ron are completely ungrounded forces you to simply ignore plenty of points raised by those not enamored of Joseph. Also, to be 1000% clear, I’m not going to argue with anyone about the list I created – the veracity of these issues was not the point for listing them.” Sep 22, 10:43
- on Joseph Smith as a 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard: “To be clear, I’m responding to the people who make the flippant comparison online. I’m saying that Joseph Smith *does not* = L. Ron Hubbard” Sep 22, 09:38
- on Joseph Smith as a 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard: “This comparison is too reductive. Really? Why do we need to drag Smith’s name through the mud this way? Do you know what this does to persons recovering from Scientology as they encounter Mormonism? Have you seen Leah Remini’s show ‘Scientology and the Aftermath”? So unnecessarily triggering. Superficial similarities do not make Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard historical equivalents any more than George Washington and Colonel Sanders. Both wore distinctive clothing and became famous firsts, so . . . let’s lump them together too. This reminds me of those Linclon-JFK “coincidence” cards sold at gas stations. They point out the number of letters in their names are the same, both had successors named “Johnson”, both assassinated on a Friday, etc. This list sounds eerily meaningful until you realize it’s just coincidences strung together. At least Lincoln-JFK comparisons are fairly innocuous because the comparison doesn’t inherently demean either man. Your comparison is different. When you choose a deeply discredited figure like Hubbard as the point of comparison, the associate itself carries a negative judgement. Cherry-picking the similarities between the two and presenting them as historically meaningful is not serious historical work, it’s a RHETORIC that sneaks the conclusion into the comparison.” Sep 22, 09:00
- on Joseph Smith as a 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard: “I’ve heard it all: Mormonism is “19th century Scientology.” Mormonism is “Islam for white people.” The Nation of Islam is “Mormonism for black people.” And so on. It’s all very reductionist and juvenile.” Sep 22, 08:46
- on Joseph Smith as a 19th Century L. Ron Hubbard: “My one starting and ending beef with Scientology is its universal opposition to all psychiatric medication. I used to live in Hollywood and went to the anti psychiatry museum and ended up arguing with there visitor center person when they tried to sell me on their view. While psych med prescriptions isn’t always correct the message not to take meds is harmful to many who buy the take. They also seemed to be recording or monitoring visitors digitally when they visit, so it was kind of a creepy experience. I’ve never met a Scientology member in the wild, especially in the places I’ve lived in flyover country. I don’t like being compared to Scientologists or Evangelicals in general but I can see why people do it.” Sep 22, 07:31
