A few weeks ago an individual e-mailed me, excited to share new survey results regarding what people say they would do if faced with $100K in debts. The survey suggested people were inclined to be self-reliant, with women more likely than men to shoulder the burden responsibly. I looked at the link my correspondent had shared, as well as M* post that had inspired them to seek me out. But there was a problem.
Only 4% admitting they would tap parental help. But census results suggest ~23% of individuals aged 24-36 live with their mother, nearly double the percentage of adult children in this age range who lived with their mother in 2005. While surveys can be useful:
What people say they would do in a hypothetical situation is not the same as what they actually do in real situations When facts do not agree with assertion, facts should be preferred.
In an unrelated correspondence, a Facebook group I used to frequent returned to the matter of plural marriage, this time starting a discussion about William Law. This Facebook group is dominated by individuals who love to discuss Church history, but have largely abandoned any believe in the validity of the Church (if they ever had any such belief). The OP asked why people think William Law was so bad, since William Law said he loved Joseph and admired the Church. Since William Law denied the adultery and counterfeiting with which he was accused, they reasoned, he was innocent. I gave the reasons why I lend credence to Hyrum Smith’s accusations. WIthout going into detail:
People aren’t innocent just because they deny accusations. There needs to be exculpatory evidence, or at least lack of condemnatory evidence.
On the other hand, context and shifts in the meaning of words can make historical persons appear to be liars. In response to my explanation of why I think William Law was not innocent, someone asserted that Joseph Smith and John Taylor and Hyrum Smith were liars. But the response presumed facts that are not in evidence and ignored that meanings for words used for then-new concepts may not be the same meanings used today. It is worth remembering:
People aren’t sinners just because they have been accused. Evidence and context must be considered.
I look forward to that day when we know as we are known, when God will stand as our judge based on things as they actually are, not based on how we have managed to spin things. How restful, to have things judged based on God’s order rather than every tweeted opinion.
[FWIW, my impulse to post this was uninformed by and unrelated to the Federal court decision regarding Roger Stone, though the same principles apply.]