All Activity

Yes, I'm aware. Interestingly, the Orthodox rabbi I worked with said that Evangelicals were the best friends Jews have in America. We are pro-Israel, pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and even though we 'witness' to Jews, when they put a hand up and say, "Not interested in your Jesus," we tend to stop. On the other hand, the Lubavitch rabbi said he despised Evangelicals and that we were guilty of attempted spiritual rape (for trying to convert Jews to Christianity). Messianic Jews respond and accuse non-Messianic Judaism of actually being rabbinic Judaism. They argue that the rabbis don't have the spiritual authority to say who is or is not the Messiah. Those who realize just how deep this controversy goes find themselves at a loss. On the one hand, Jesus commands Christians to witness "first to Jerusalem," and on the other, opposition to Jesus is what unites nearly all Jews (including secular ones). This probably explains, at least partially, why we see Israel as important in the last days, why we identify with Jews (seeing ourselves grafted into the promises), and yet also see a distinction.

I looked a bit more closely about what exactly this new law is supposed to do, which is apparently to provide a clear definition of antisemitism to help decide if antisemitism motivated actions/decisions, and thus whether the Civil Rights Act applies. And I think for that purpose, the wording of the referenced documents is too easy to manipulate.

I'm also concerned about "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." Especially when combined with the part of the definition that says, "...are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." So if one American Jewish person advocates for something that helps Israel while harming the US, saying anything about it could be anti-Semitism and thus illegal?

I don't know what to make of it. It feels like we are abandoning truth. Reading comments on the post from working moms who live hectic, chaotic lives as if it's the better way just doesn't ring true to me. How can working full-time be consistent with putting your role as a mother first? Surely, other women/people are supplementing work in the home while you are prioritizing outside work. Surely, you are with co-workers for more hours in the day than you are with your children. It's a tough economy, and women probably have to work now. We can be realists about that and adjust and support each other as a religious community. But I doubt it's a good idea to change the narrative without explaining. It's not good for me to be gaslighted, like I'm the one who misinterpreted very clear messages from past leaders and church publications (not to mention my own experience and social science research).

The Nephites felt validated in wanting multiple wives because others had had them. When the Lord gives general guidance it should also be the Lord to approve any departure from it. Not, "Well so and so did it...".

If the Lord says do it then do it. If one woman feels the Lord directing them to have a job while rearing a family then obviously that is what needs to happen. If other women don't receive that same divine guidance but use them as an excuse to not be home with the children that's their problem.

Oh, I’m gonna be ok. But this kind of communication is going to validate a bunch of women (and men) in the church.

I can understand the negative reactions to talks like these. Like the ones that use the unneeded, decorative piano as a positive object lesson, getting extensive medical treatments that insurance doesn't fully cover while people suffering from the same malady in the rest of the second and third world have to make do. It is cultural and these folks need to be forgiven for their tunnel vision. Tons of mentions that the speakers are very well off. The above snippet comes across as an endorsement of super-womanism. A the same time, we mustn't be envious or competitive in our pursuits just because someone in authority or influence is doing it. What helps me forgive these kinds of flaws is finding hints of their recognition of "personal circumstances." If you can do it and be happy, fine. If it's not for you, don't. plenty of speakers insert their faults and humanity into their talks, too, and they are sometimes criticized for that. As far as the trends in what patriarchs say, a) there is always a prayerful choice; b) it may not be fulfilled in this life ; and c) the Lord may know something we don't. And d) sometimes getting ready for "A" brings about opportunity "B" which the Holy Spirit confirms as perfectly right. Read these blessings very carefully and prayerfully. The central message as I see it (Oaks and Johnson) is "family first," whatever else the individual may pursue in life.

No, I’m not either. Classic case of “I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

So under this bill, Holocaust denial becomes a crime? Yeah, I'm not on board with that level of goodthink.

Aaron Sherinian update anyone? @JustAGuy If me, my wife and MiL are noticing that we are presenting a mixed message. There must be others that are confused as well.

Yep, only economical on a large scale. We might some day have cool things like nuclear batteries or tiny modular reactors, but molten salt reactors are currently "go big or go home". Massive investment that demands buy in and support from governments and investors. It also promises to satisfy the "cleanest, greenest, safest" demands that grips the world, so the humans might be willing to invest millions or billions into zero-emission ultra-green energy that produces only a tiny fraction of the waste compared to solar or wind, with a fraction of the cost to human life.

Sorry to laugh at a serious subject, but I can picture your cat on the phone to ADL saying “Cancel @zil2! My food is twenty minutes late and she’s making comments about my religion!”

This is so vague and meaningless as to be absurd. Under this definition, me feeding my cat could be argued a form of antisemitism (since nothing and no one is excluded from it - it's a boundless "definition").

These are my biggest takeaways from the bill text. The IHRA defines antisemitism as follows: The IHRA goes on to list several examples of antisemitism under this definition. Link There's also this section in the bill text. 3b in particular seems very relevant. My gut reactions: 1. I trust MTG's constitutional expertise less than I trust my cat with an unsupervised plate of bacon. And I certainly wouldn't hold her up as a voice against antisemitism 2. The language in the bill doesn't seem to leave any room for prosecuting people who believe that biblical jews were responsible for the death of Christ. It seems pretty clear that the intent of the text is to prevent modern Jews from being blamed, stigmatized, and persecuted for something that happened 2000 years ago, and I see nothing wrong with that. No one blames modern Catholics for the Inquisition, or modern Mongolians for the ancient conquest and general terrorizing of their Asian neighbors, Those are things that we learn about in history class without an expectation that we will hate Catholics and Mongolians for it. I think there's plenty of room to treat the crucifixion of Christ in a similar fashion.

Recent post that triggered my wife (who also has a law degree) but never practiced and raised 11 children. I don’t do facebook so never would have seen it.

I remember that (I believe it was) Pres Hinckley gave counsel for young women to get an education and/or other means of obtaining work for themselves. But that was not about avoiding the role of SAHM. It was "just in case" of husband's death, divorce, etc.

Sure. But I expect the wording wasn't such that if looked at carefully it meant "you must have a career". Maybe. I dunno. Worth considering.

I didn’t quote him directly but when my wife, I and my daughter heard the words I and my daughter were confused. My wife felt undermined. She did get an education @ BYU, and she has worked @ a fortune 500 company the past 2 years. She hates it. Her husband is trying to get into medical school and she just wants to start a family. She calls the benefits @ her company golden handcuffs.

So, the Antisemitism Bill (HR 6090) that just passed "apparently" has verbiage that makes belief in the New Testament illegal. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 on X: "Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews. Read the bill text and… https://t.co/Y0eeOiVfnw" / X (twitter.com) It's not just her, but 70 D and 21 R (total) voted against it. But those who passed it (both R and D) are crying out how ridiculous it is that anyone would interpret the bill that way. There's nothing to worry about. Uh-huh. Text - H.R.6090 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress The texts gives two statements about what constitutes Anti-Semitism. 1. Definition The definition seems sufficiently vague as to give you the gist of what Anti-Semitism is. And I think that most people would understand that. But the broad definition is also one that is easily left up to interpretation. This is the same problem as other "hate speech laws." 2. Contemporary Examples A big problem is that such verbiage is not included in the bill itself. It incorporates them by reference only. This means that many won't actually look at the definition and examples. They just want to pass the bill anyway... because no one wants to be seen as anti-semitic.

This is a better response than I ever hoped.

Oh... and for what it's worth, the above doesn't imply having a career.

There are already repercussions.

I don't know what to think.