MrShorty

I met him when I was 15. As I recall (no promises), he was a devout atheist. Judging by Dune, he had a fascination with Islam.

Vinegar is slightly acidic, not alkaline.

I never knew the guy, but I'm thinking if someone told Herbert that they were finding Christian typology in his books, he'd have a massive belly laugh.    His books are about how politics, religion, power, and random chance intersect, over and over again, randomly, across human history.   About how all four are wielded by different groups and individuals at different times for their own ends. 
 

Notice to everyone who isn't me or my people:

And they are known to the state of California to cause cancer.

Something along those lines.  The logic behind it was pretty much complete fabrication for the plot.  It went like this:
PROBLEM:
Because prescient individuals could look into the future, then they could eventually see the end of the human race.  And no matter how far into the future that end was, it was still an end.   Then they use reverse cause and effect to say that if anyone could see the end of the human race, then the race was doomed. SOLUTION:
Create a breeding program where humans could no longer be detected by prescient observers.  That way, no one can see the end of the race.  The human race would be secure. By the end of God Emperor of Dune (fourth book) he had achieved such an individual who would continue that genetic characteristic to her children.  Thus the human race was secure.  (nevermind variables like the heat death of the universe). That was really twisted logic to me.  It was like believing in predestination because God has foreknowledge.  
I began reading the next book Heretics of Dune.  I couldn't get past the second chapter.  It was just plain boring.  It didn't really have any of the same characteristics.  I was no longer invested in the story or characters.  And after the disappointment from God Emperor, I was not going to invest the time.

I am not a Dunie (or Dunehead, or Dunefanboi, or a Herbertian, or whatever they might call themselves), so take my recollection with a few large grains of salt. (And yes, I fully realize that I'm responding to a comment Jamie made four years ago.)
***POTENTIAL SPOILERS, IF MY MEMORY IS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO CORRECT***
As I recall, the whole überpoint behind the Dune series was that galactic humanity was going to be destroyed if nothing was done to set the future timeline straight, which was being corrupted by the incessant lookaheads of spice consumers, especially the starship captains (they have a special name that I don't remember). Paul thought to ignore this unpleasant reality and "do the right thing", as he saw it. His son Leto II decided instead to basically take the curse upon himself, transmute himself into a horrid sandwormy monster, live for a thousand (or more) years as a horrible tyrant, and in the end allow himself to be overthrown, all to put the otherwise-inavoidable galactic catastrophe to rest. So comparisons to the Harkonnens seem unfair, if not completely beside the point.

Thankfully, I don't think I've heard this in my Sunday School class - if I have, it's been rare.  Personally, I wish the people doing those podcasts / YT channels / etc. would stop.  The point of CFM is for people to learn from the Holy Ghost.  If they have a podcast to turn to, they're not turning to the Holy Ghost.  People think that some stranger's brilliant insight is more impressive than the Holy Ghost telling them [whatever simple thing], but they're wrong.  Even feeling the Holy Ghost testify of the truthfulness of something presented in a podcast is not as important as learning to hear the Holy Ghost during your personal, private or family scripture study.  The podcast may be easier or more interesting, it may feel like you learned something, but it's not as important as learning to learn from the Holy Ghost. /rant

Is it just me or does it seem like every Sunday School class revolves around what Come Follow Me podcasts have to say about the scriptures? I know they can be helpful in personal study but I rarely ever hear a teacher say anymore "While I was studying the scriptures this week, here is what I learned...". It's kind of getting on my nerves.

This means that BYU will need to start stocking up on Saran Wrap again.     

Sad end to a once great conference.  The last two commissioners destroyed the Pac 12.
 
Unfortunately this is the new path of college football.  NIL and the upcoming super conferences will destroy college football as we have known it.  ACC is the next conference to die as they get poached by the Big 10, SEC and Big 12.

I don't know what a big 12 or a pac 12 or a pac NW is.  But if this news allows me to wear my U of U tshirt and go "woo-woo-woooooooo!" at BYU people while they look awkward, upset, or uneasy (because that's their reaction to the news, not the reaction to me acting weird), then I'm all for it.

Sadly, Utah has condescended to ask the Big 12 to take them in. Sadder still, the Big 12 will almost certainly agree to do so.

I feel ever so strange saying it, but I don't know that I've felt the spirit so strongly than I have while reading a decades old Science Fiction book.  But as Card goes through the process of describing life and the "twining" of "philotic" connections, and the idea that a believable God would only be one that is parental in nature, I can't help but see the truth in it (to be fair I am reminded of the meme in which Lewis says if everyone doesn't know the Lion is Jesus he is going to cry, it seems like it's a hammer in it's bludgeoning nature).  All of that is to say, while I am sure I am in an echo chamber in both the book and in the audience I speak to now.   I am coming out of/going through some of the worst anxiety and depression in my life, and I can't say in words how helpful it is.  It makes God real.  While I can't take all of the insights in this book as Gospel, and would be foolish to do so, it gives me possibilities on how God might work, and makes him not magic, it just makes him real.

My thoughts upon completion.
It was a difficult read. This history is heavy. I find myself further convinced, with Reeves (and Mason and Woodward and a growing body of other faithful LDS), that this aspect of our history is not of divine origin. I also recognize that this, in the end, is a major point of contention and disagreement around this issue. In keeping with the opening disclaimer, I don't know how many of Reeves' subjective interpretations and opinions that are present throughout the book are the interpretations and opinions of the Church or its leaders or its members.
In the end, I still find myself "dissatisfied" (if that is the right word) with the justifications and explanations that are given. More and more, this issue feels like something that will fall under "problem of evil" type of questions that just don't have good, satisfying answers or explanations. Maybe we can only hope to have conversations around these issues that help us wrestle with the problems and questions and issues in a way that allows our faith to remain intact in some form.
Perhaps all we can really do is try to learn from this history, and try to do better in the future as we grow towards Zion and celestial society.

Chapters 17 to end: Chapter 17 is kind of the end of the "documentary history" portion of the book. Chapter 17 is a brief look at what led up to the '78 revelation (appears to pull largely from Ed Kimball's history) told in parallel to the story of a Freda Beaulieu, who was able to receive her temple blessings in July of '78 after years of faithful isolation from the church. Chapter 18 to the end is where Reeves shares his opinions about the sticky questions and implications that come out of this particular part of our history. In Chapter 18, Reeves states that he does not believe in any kind of "divine origin" for the ban. He talks about the post-78 justifications that we use to rationalize the existence of the ban today. He identifies 4:
1) Gospel spreads in stages, trying to draw a parallel between "first to the Jews, then the Gentiles" so that we claim "first to the Whites, then the Blacks"
2) God's restricting priesthood to Whites is a parallel to God restricting priesthood to the tribe of Levi.
3) 19th century America was so racist that something bad would have happened to the church if it had been inclusive and desegregated.
4) Everyone was racist in the 19th century, so 19th century saints just did not or could not know better.
Reeves explains why he rejects each of these justifications. One gets the impression that Reeves may not believe there is a "justification" for the priesthood ban.
In Chapters 19 and 20, Reeves gives his explanation (I don't think he would call it a justification, though) for the ban. Basically, he chalks it up to agency and human frailty and the idea that God does not always intervene when bad things happen -- even if the bad thing that is happening is due to the choices and frailties and misunderstandings of His prophets and apostles.
In chapters 21 and 22, Reeves turns from looking at the past to looking at the future, emphasizing how the church has progressed out of and hopefully beyond its past, regressive beliefs. He talks about his testimony of the Savior and how He can heal us of our errors and help us grow and progress to new and better understandings of issues related to race, with hope and encouragement that we as a people will take the call to "root our racism" seriously.
Throughout these last chapters, Reeves emphasizes his status as a believer with a solid testimony of the Restoration and modern prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think he wants to assure readers that, while this is heavy, difficult history, it need not break our shelves or crush our testimonies.

Tripped over this today and just wanted to say that it would be well worth your time to revisit it (or visit it for the first time).
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/the-atonement-all-for-all?lang=eng

Chapters 15 and 16: In these chapters, Reeves highlights some of the "disagreements" within the church over the racial restrictions. He mentions Pres. G. A. Smith's 1949 1st Presidency statement and Pres. D. O. McKay's 1969 First Presidency statement, as well as Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. He also documents several examples (mostly from Latin America) of how difficult it was in some places to identify those with Black African ancestry and restrict them from receiving priesthood and temple ordinances.
All of this brings us to the end of phase 2 and prepares us for 1978 and phase 3 -- returning to racial inclusivity.

Sounds promising.  We'll see.
One thing bothered me about the presenter.  He kept saying "degrees Kelvin" instead of "Kelvins."  It makes me believe he's just a presenter, not a real science geek.

Chapters 12, 13, 14: these chapters take us quickly through the late 19th into the early 20th centuries, showing a broad trend of uncertainty around the ban with examples of some mixed race people receiving full temple blessings and some who don't (Jane Manning James is in this part of the story). As precedent gets more and more firmly entrenched, we go from John Taylor's uncertainty to Joseph F. Smith being the first to fully write out a policy that blanketly restricts anyone with any know black African ancestry no matter the degree from priesthood and temple privileges. This section even includes anecdotes of segregated congregations where faithful Black members were not allowed to worship in the same meetings as white members.
I hope the book has hit bottom. Looking forward, the next few chapters appear to be moving into discussing the lead up to the '78 revelation, so I hope it gets better from here.

Chapters 9, 10, 11: This is where it gets hard.
9 focused on the issue of interracial marriage. The main storyline follows a William Appleby who was sent by church leaders to survey the branches on the East Coast. During his travels, he encountered an interracial marriage in Massachusetts, found the situation appalling, and took his concerns to Brigham Young and church leaders. Following popular beliefs of the day ( Reeves cites a Josiah Nott who was an anthropologist firmly opposed to interracial marriages), church leaders agree with Appleby. Reeves suggests that one major motivation for implementing the restrictions was to dissuade against interracial marriages.
10. Covers the 1852 legislative session when Utah Territory codified its acceptance of slavery, notably against the opposition led by Orson Pratt. BY uses his belief in a curse of Cain type doctrine to justify slavery and also restrict Blacks from holding the priesthood. Reeves notes that BY gives no explanation for his change in attitude from a few years before.
11. Turns attention to Orson Pratt. In the prior chapter, Pratt seems a hero, because he seemed so opposed to slavery. In this chapter, Reeves recounts how Pratt introduced the "neutral/less valiant in the preexistence" justification for race based restrictions.
Some heavy stuff here. I recall from podcasts featuring Reeves that he told DB when they approached him for this project that he insisted on being able to include stuff from the 1852 legislative session, no matter how hard it would be to read in the 21st century. Reeves mentions the 2013 disavowal a few times as well, but he otherwise doesn't seem to be holding back. Stuff was said and stuff was disavowed and we just have to sit and wrestle with it.
 

Chapters 6, 7, 8: Chapter 6 focuses on what Reeves calls "Universalism" (meaning universal access to priesthood and temple ordinances) in Nauvoo, with the example of a Sarah Ann Mode, who was mixed race from Phillidelphia, PA, joins the church sometime after census records start listing her as "white," eventually receiving full temple ordinances. According to Reeves, she is the earliest example we currently have of a Black person receiving full temple ordinances. Chapter 7 looks at Winter Quarters after leaving Nauvoo -- in particular the case of William McCary. This account shows how some of the attitudes towards race started changing in the church (McCary wasn't the most upstanding of characters).
In chapter 8, Reeves focuses on the scriptural proof texts and interpretations that were used by other Christians and 19th century Latter-day Saints that informed the (flawed??) understanding of race and the supremacy of the white race and the inferiority of all other races. Reeves seems rather sour on these interpretations of the texts, much preferring other interpretations. One aspect he highlights that stood out to me was he noted how the abolitionist/anti-abolitionist divide in the US split other Christian denominations, but the LDS church managed to stay together in spite of differing opinions by many within the faith.
This is the end of Reeves' Phase 1 description. I wonder if Reeves has overstated the case for "universal," desegregated access and underplayed the racist beliefs of the 19th century saints in order to emphasize his point.
Next time we start into Phase 2 -- the implementation of a race based segregation as far as priesthood ordination and temple participation goes.

Chapters 3, 4, 5: Historical settings that illustrate some of the dynamics of the 1830s and 40s. Chapter 3 goes briefly through the Missouri era. He focuses quite a bit on W. W. Phelps publication of an article in his paper that local Missourians (remember that Missouri was a pro-slave state) felt was too racially inclusive -- an event that Reeves highlights as "the beginning of the Saints expulsion from Jackson County" and, eventually, the state of Missouri. Chapter 4 is a very quick synopsis of the same racial attitudes he describes in much more detail in Religion of a Different Color. Chapter 5 focuses on the specific issue of slavery, noting amongst other things how the issue of slavery split other Christian denominations along north/south lines (like the Baptists), but somehow the Latter-day Saints managed to stay together as a group. Reeves says at the end of chapter 5:
It can seem that, though the issues have changed, the church is still trying to figure out how to create a unified church while welcoming people of competing and conflicting and contradictory ideologies.

Acts 20:7-9