- ji on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Jonathan, I’ve never used AI in my life – I wouldn’t know where to start. I am sympathetic to your point. However, I did (and still do) have a differing perspective. It is easy for someone to offer a mite out of his abundance; indeed, that is really no sacrifice at all. But the widow the Savior observed sacrificed all she had. Yes, the “church” of the day accepted her offering, and our Savior sanctified it, but no one had the right to ask for that sacrifice from her, and our Savior did not ask that from her. However, it seems to me that you are asking for someone else to make a sacrifice — and it seems like you think it is a very small thing, and you do so from a position of privilege or abundance. That’s all well and good, I suppose, but you specifically called it a widow’s mite and thus you invoked the story from scripture. To me, it seems improper, maybe even uncharitable, to ask someone else to sacrifice all they have. Maybe the someone else from whom you are asking for a sacrifice might see what you are asking for as too much, and thus my differing perspective. I suppose there was a reason you wrote your article, and your thoughts may have been animated by the more egregious offenders in the “other” community you were addressing rather than the rank-and-file, so to speak, but I don’t know exactly whom you were addressing because you don’t say. But by asking for someone else to sacrifice what you see as small and characterizing it as a widow’s mite, you also invoked our Savior’s observation of the scene, and well, yes, it caused me some unease. Clearly, what I wrote offended you, and I am sorry for that — that was not my intention, as I am sympathetic to your point — but I was honestly troubled by your invocation of the widow’s mite to make your point. Anyway, all that said, I do not know if I should be honored or aggrieved that you thought I was using AI — this is new territory for me. Again, my apologies for offending you, as my purpose was only to offer a differing perspective.” May 9, 04:51
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: ““Vaccine sceptics,” “vaccine denialists”, wow.. seem pretty strong feelings there… particularly in light of the fact real scientists are still trying to sort out fact from fiction on the data but one thing’s clear – the federal public health bureaucracy dropped the pelota big time. You can’t seem to let Covid, it’s associated vaccine, and Fauci et al, shenanigans go… and equating a life long government bureaucrat of now well established duplicity with the President of the Church seems a bit of a stretch, as does (maybe I’m not smart enough to get your reasoning) equating whether or not to live the law of chastity with whether or not getting the covid vaccine made sense… I’m just a country boy taught to first use the brains the good Lord gave me…but seems like an apples/gorillas comparison… not even in the same ball park… get over it…move on to other things mi hermanito” May 9, 01:58
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “ji, however you’ve been using AI recently, it’s not working. A human being would have stopped before writing, essentially, that you strongly disagree with the opposite of my post.” May 8, 23:56
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Jonathan, I’m not understanding what you’re saying (I don’t know what a system prompt is), but I am discerning a lack of charity on your part. I think I offended you with my comment, and I am sorry for that, but I offered it honestly.” May 8, 18:56
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “ji, I’m very disappointed by that. I would feel a lot better if you would share your system prompt with us.” May 8, 18:41
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Anon, the problem is not the doubts or questioning, it’s the way that people have rushed to embrace the most epistemologically destructive way to deal with their doubts and questions. Honest doubt is coupled with humility towards one’s own views rather than certitude. Christian belief and Church membership necessarily implies acknowledgment of authorities of various kinds. One either accepts that certain texts have scriptural authority and reasons from them, or one doesn’t; we either accept certain people as authoritative interpreters of scripture, conveyers of divine will, and organizers of church affairs, or one does not. If we’re going to discuss something as Christians and church members, then we have to land on one side of that line. The authority of a particular person or text may not be absolute – it usually isn’t – but it certainly exists and can’t be ignored. Another consequence of Christian belief is accepting that we – you, me, everyone else – are in fact morally deficient. The central ordinance of our weekly worship is meant to remind us of that.” May 8, 18:40
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, April 2026: “People unironically take this seriously? “Drawing on queer theory, feminist theories of the body, and histories of Mormon gender formation, the article argues that Friberg’s art does more than reflect religious ideals: it actively inscribes them onto the male bodies… While Friberg’s paintings are not explicitly sexual, Davis contends that their lingering attention to sculpted male bodies produces a homosocial, homophilic, and homoerotic visual language—one that simultaneously reinforces hegemonic masculinity and opens unexpected space for queering Mormon male identity.”” May 8, 16:40
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Great post, Jonathan. I’d add that our insistence on the law of chastity makes our teachings surrounding other gender/sexuality topics a lot more credible. I have evangelical friends who lamented that some of their churches’ permissive approach to chastity undermined their teachings about biblical marriage and family arrangements back in the run up to Obergefell. I suspect that some of the people advocating a more indulgent line on chastity have this as ulterior motive.” May 8, 16:39
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “I don’t think we should treat disagreement with or questioning Church teachings on any subject as necessarily destructive to all religious authority. That creates a false dilemma: either accept every traditional teaching or unravel the entire faith. In reality, relious life In practice, religious traditions have always involved reinterpretation, development, and disagreement over doctrine. This post also leans heavily on appeals to authority rather than engaging in substantive moral analysis. While the conclusion invites imperfect people to “just show up,” the compassion there is limited by the assumption that dissenting members must permanently see themselves as morally deficient rather than as faithful believers who understand the tradition differently.” May 8, 15:43
