#for context im giving up on all of my assignments given for this week im gonna fail all of them

[spaciebabie]

i....give up

[honoredbastard]

I COME BACK WITH THOUGHTS/THEORIES ON ITADORI AND HIS RELATIONS- I THINK.

anyways, so i'll just point this out: i'm not good at speaking my thoughts in an organized manner. i absolutely suck at it, i speak on how my brain brings up the thoughts so i might ramble, get over my head in a thought, etc. i can't control it so i apologize in advance for the jumpiness of the texts. i will spell a lot of things wrong and not everything will be correct, as i read translations and on a manga site. don't worry it's not illegal, i believe.

MANGA SPOILERS AHEAD.

i apologize for my absence! last week or two weeks ago the tower to my computer completely broke and will not turn on. i tried to repair it and follow my fathers instructions but nothing worked. even cleaned off the fan and went through countless nights readjusting things. it's not my cords either so to help me out my father is working extra shifts to get me a new pc. so in the meantime i'll do small posts like these but not full writing/head canons until i have a computer tower lol. a family member was kind enough to allow me to have their phone while we work throughout this issue.

now onto the actual topic:

kenjaku and itadori's relationship. ( family wise ).

for context in the most recent chapter, 160 "colony" kamo shows up in sasaki's home and talks to her about the culling game and a barrier. but that's not the point, the point is as he's guiding her to the barrier inside her "dream" at the end he says "oh right. i almost forgot to tell you. thank you for getting along with my son." and then she is awakened inside the barrier, in her pajamas beside iguchi. when sasaki and iguchi look at the barrier and gather themselves they bring up kamo.

sasaki asked iguchi if he mentioned his son and he says no. this leaves sasaki in a state of confusion when itadori flashes in her mind. she says his name aloud like she finally connected the dots. now. why am i bringing up this whole kenjaku thanking sasaki for being his "son"'s friend. it throws me off because why didn't he thank iguchi?

did he not think iguchi meant their friendship? because sasaki was the one uninjured and still counted itadori as a friend? does iguchi not consider itadori as a friend anymore?

because we haven't seen these two at all since the incident. that raised many questions in me. as well "how can itadori be related to kamo?" and itadori is related to choso.

because kamo's technique is explained ( vaguely. we are aware he can create barriers, take over bodies, and has incredible cursed tools. chapter 134. this is also where choso makes his connection ( i believe. ) to itadori yuji as his brother. but because we saw this with todo many thought itadori just had another unconsious technique that allows the person who is hit create false memories and believe of a completely made up relationship with itadori without his knowledge. but alas, i was wrong. ) and we're given more hints shown than told ( imo ) i tried my best to make sense out of the situation and what he said. i think my conclusions are pretty solid, so continuing on.

we're given very little history on itadori, his past, and family. at the start of the manga we know that itadori's only family he knows is his grandfather and that he is ill in the hospital. at the very very beginning we learn that itadori is your average cute, fluffy, laid back but strong and goofy protagonist. in smaller words: itadori is kirby but even cuter and dumber.

my first impressions of him is a pineapple. if you're confused to this saying: it's calling a person prickly on the outside but sweet on the inside. and this is true, itadori's grandfather seems prickly and cold on the outside but he genuinely cares for itadori.

he raised itadori for all we know and did that with his all in assumption. but this ends up backfiring onto itadori, because he cares so much for his grandson - he ends up leaving a " curse " on yuji.

help people. save them.

itadori takes this to heart as his grandfathers speech is his last one. when he looks over to his grandfather the man is dead and now yuji is left alone. then the following events occur.

at this point in time i assumed itadori was an orphan ( he technically is if we're connecting the dots. his parents has not been shown, he doesn't speak of them, they aren't in the picture. we can conclude either they disowned itadori or died before he could make complete memories of them. )

but when we are shown in chapter 143 itadori's parents we see this "woman" jin ( yuji's father ) and his grandfather talking about has the same scar pattern. this scar pattern is either stitching ( assuming that is how kamo keeps the top of the opened skull from coming off. this is also how kamo revealed his cursed technique / body of sorts ( the brain, assuming that is kenjaku in his cursed technique and not the body / puppet he is controlling " getou suguru " ) to gojou. )

this is the only way i find kamo being able to assign itadori as his son. why is that you might be asking this dumbass here.

we do not have the full story, exact date, location, and full context of the memory/dream itadori is having. this cannot be fake either because kamo would than have no reason to call itadori his son. or is there? anyways.

take a leap of faith with me. imagine that before itadori is born ( he seems no more than a few weeks or days old in this memory. hence why i am thinking my conclusion is pretty solid in theory. but yknow gege, there might be something different. ) anywhooo.

TW. D3ATH/IMPLYING ANTI LIFE ATTEMPT

kamo had to have taken over yuji's mothers body after an accident OR after she gave birth to yuji. his grandfather is interrupted by her before he can finish his sentence but it seems to be leading to the conclusion that either kaori ( yuji's mother ) died while giving birth to yuji or kaori could not conceive and tried to take her own life or cause an accident that would take her life. ( i read a fan translation for this part but im pretty sure i also read the official translation today too and it added up to the same. )

i believe in the first idea, but since kamo's cursed technique wasn't explained in detail i don't know the conditions of his body technique. does the original host of the body have to be dead? can he regenerate body limbs ( i highly doubt. getou lost an arm during his fight with yuta. overconfident dick. reminding me of an ex ANTWAYS. i forgive him for being overconfident smooch. he learned. OFF TOPIC but continuing on i promise.

this is being continued from the cut off point. i'm so upset so it'll just be summarized. i can't believe this shit lol i took three hours just to finish it for it to literally cut off the bottom half.

continuing on in a sadge mood. kamo must not have the complete ability to take over a body. after all getou took his only arm he had as he was dying and choked his own body to his full ability. getou was willing to die ( possibly, you never know he could be alive if he killed his own body. moving on. ) just to have the chance to save his friend from being swallowed by a damn box.

so there has to be a chance that kamo cannot fully take over the previous persons complete consious and memory of their body. if getou still had his other arm after losing the fight to yuta, he could've choked kamo with both arms. in theory kamo wouldn't be able to control the right arm and die to the previous host choking him to death.

so why wouldn't the other hosts do it? after all, kamo did say it was his first time experiencing such a thing. assuming kamo has lived throughout many bodies in his 150+ lifespan none of the previous hosts could take control of their body.

i believe getou was completely influenced by gojou and his six eyes. there is no way gojou would even try to speak out to his friend unless he had an inkling or saw getou still in there. helpless and without the ability to save himself from the cage he's in.

being used and puppeteered in his own body by an external force. laughing in the world he could not. putting getou into a constant misery and defeat that he couldn't escape his hell. the one he tried so hard to fight and get out of. even if it was the wrong path.

gojou was the last person to witness getou dying. he had to watch getou bleed out after their conversation because he couldn't bring himself to kill his friend. the one he spent his whole jujutsu student life with. so for gojou to say such a thing to getou despite all that he did had to break getou out of his misery and give him that small sliver of hope that he could do something. of course he failed, but i doubt that's going to be the end of that.

the only way i see kamo being related to yuji is if he took over kaori's body before the pregnancy. assuming that when kamo takes over a body he becomes one with said body and is that person for however long he lives in said body. my only thing is, can he take over a persons body whilst they are alive? i would go more in depth like i did the last time but i am extremely upset about my work being erased so that's the end of this part.

thank you for reading! i have one more thing for you though.

the last time we see sukuna in a manga page after the shibuya incident is where he is on his throne and in his domain. this is after yuji is stabbed by yuta and is presumed "dead" at the time. he seems to be interested in yuta and i can think of 2-3 things. I would love to hear your theories too so don't be afraid to barge into my dms like the koolaid man.

A - sukuna is interested in Yuta because of his ability to use the reverse healing technique ( only a few sorcerers know this. sukuna being the first. shoko being the second one to be told that she has this power and then gojou. ) because of this he sees potential in yuta as well or has added this boy into his plans. after all, there is very few that can make sukuna make an expression that isn't an RBF. aka megumi and possibly gojou. I was looking at the page of him stabbing yuji and noticed we only see the entry point of where the blade enters. it's smaller because some got chunked off so its a possibility yuta used this to his advantage when "killing" yuji and instead hit an artery that could kill him but quickly healed him afterwards. or just his heart. the ideas.

B. Rika, Yuta is able to completely control Rika as shown. Even though he claims he is on the weak side, these two combined seem like an unstoppable force. He may be interested in Rika as she is a curse that has been put on someone that can fully control it. Not many people is shown to be able to control their curse. As we haven't met many.

this was enti and that's the last of my post! thank you for reading and it was a fun one. even though i had to restore this shit. anyways, i'd love you to add or fix up my ideas and tell me your thoughts and opinions! Thanks a bunch!

^ this is for pure humor

[theculturedmarxist]

Yves here. Reader IM Doc, an internal medicine practitioner of 30 years, trained and worked in one of the top teaching hospitals in the US for most of his career before moving to a rural hospital in an affluent pocket of Flyover. He has been giving commentary from the front lines of the pandemic. Along with current and former colleagues, he is troubled by the PR-flier-level information presented to the public about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, at least prior to the release of an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on the Pfizer vaccine: Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. However, he did not find the study to be reassuring. He has taken the trouble of writing up his reservations after discussing the article with his group of nine physicians that meets regularly to sanity check concerns and discuss the impact that articles will have on their practices.

By IM Doc, a internal medicine doctor working in a rural hospital in the heartlands

Right off the bat – I am as weary and concerned about this pandemic as anyone. What my little rural area has been through in the past three weeks or so has been nothing short of harrowing. This virus has the ability to render patients about as sick as I have ever seen in my life, while leaving more than half the population with minimal if any symptoms. The patients who are sick are often very sick. And instead of slow and steady improvement like we normally experience, most of these patients are assigned to a long and hard slog. Multiple complications arise. This leads to very diminished throughput in the hospital. The patients literally stack up and we have nowhere to put the new ones coming in who themselves will be there for days or weeks. On top of that are the constant donning and doffing of PPE and intense emotional experiences for the staff, who are themselves becoming patients or in this small town have grandma or Aunt Gertrude as a patient.

To put it bluntly, I want this pandemic over. And now. But I do not want an equal or even worse problem added onto the tragedy. And that is my greatest fear right now. And medical history has demonstrated conclusively over and over again: brash, poorly-thought-out, emotion-laden decisions regarding interventions in a time of crisis can exponentially increase the scale of pain and lead to even worse disasters.

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I have given tens of thousands of safe and tested vaccines over my lifetime. I am very familiar with side effects and safety problems associated with all of them. That is why I can administer them with confidence. I am also an optimist, so all of the cautions I discuss below are the result of experience and the information made public about the Pfizer vaccine, not a temperamental predisposition to see the glass as half empty.

I know this piece is long, but I wanted to completely dissect the landmark New England Journal of Medicine (from now on NEJM) publication of the first Pfizer vaccine paper. I am replicating the method of my mentor in Internal Medicine, a tall figure in 20th Century medicine. He was an internationally recognized authority and his name is on one of the foundational textbooks in his specialty. He was a master and he taught me very well, including the fundamentals of scientific inquiry and philosophy, telltale signs of sloppy or dishonest work, the order in which you should dissect someone’s work, and the statistics involved.

When I have a new medical student doing rotations with me, I give them a collection of reading. At the very top is Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption from the New York Review of Books in 2009 by Marcia Angell, MD. She was the editor-in-chief of the NEJM, the very journal that published this Pfizer vaccine paper.

Dr. Angell’s article is the Cliffs Notes version of much longer discussions she had about corruption, corporatism, managerialism, profiteering, greed, and deception in in the medical profession. Patient care and patient concerns and indeed patient lives in her mind have been absolutely overcome by all of these other things. It is a landmark paper, and should be read by anyone who is going to interact with the medical community, because alas, this is the way it is now. I view this paper the exact same way I view Eisenhower’s speech about the military industrial complex. What she said is exactly true, and has only become orders of magnitude worse since 2009.

And now the paper.

Unfortunately, this study from Pfizer in the latest NEJM, and indeed this whole vaccine rollout, are case studies in the pathology Agnell described. There are more red flags in this paper and related events than present on any May Day in downtown Beijing. Yet all anyone hears from our media, our medical elites, and our politicians are loud hosannas and complete unquestioning acceptance of this new technique. And lately, ridicule and spite for anyone who dares to raise questions.

I have learned over thirty years as a primary care provider that Big Pharma deserves nothing from me but complete and total skepticism and the assumption that anything they put forth is pure deception until proven otherwise. Why so harsh? Well, to put it bluntly, Big Pharma has covered my psyche with 30 years of scars:

• As a very young doctor, I treated an extraordinary middle-aged woman who had contracted polio as a toddler from a poorly tested polio vaccine rolled out in an “emergency.” Tens of thousands of American kids shared her fate1 • The eight patients I took care of until they died from congestive heart failure that had been induced by a diabetes drug called Actos. The drug company knew full well heart failure was a risk during their trials. When it became obvious after the rollout, they did everything they could to obfuscate. Actos now carries a black box warning about increased risk of heart failure • The three women who I took care of who had been made widows as their husbands died of completely unexpected heart attacks while on Vioxx. I have no proof the Vioxx did this. But when Vioxx was finally removed from the market, the mortality rate in the US fell that year by a measurable amount, inconsistent with recent trends and forecasts. Merck knew from their trials that Vioxx had a significant risk of cardiovascular events and stroke, and did absolutely nothing to relay that danger in any way. Worse, they did everything they could to muddle information and evade responsibility once the truth started to come out • The dozens upon dozens of twenty and thirty-something patients who have been rendered emotional and spiritual zombies by the SSRIs, antipsychotics and amphetamines they have been taking since childhood. Their brain never learned what emotions were, much less how to process them and we are left with empty husks where people never developed. The SSRIs and antipsychotics were NEVER approved for anyone under 18. EVER. While there are some validated uses for stimulants in children, they are obviously overprescribed, as confirmed by long-standing media reports of their routine use as a study/performance aid. It is all about the lucre. • The hundreds and hundreds of 40-60 year olds who have been hollowed out from the legal prescribing of opioids. All the while the docs were resisting this assault, the drug companies and the paid-off academics and medical elites were changing the rules to make physicians who did not treat any pain at all with opiates into evil Satan-worshippers. And they paid for media appearances to drive across the point: OPIATES ARE GOOD. WE HAVE MADE THEM SO YOU CANNOT GET ADDICTED. And here we are now with entire states taking more opioids than in the waning days of the Chinese Empire, and we all know how that story ended. All this misery so a family of billionaires can laugh its way to the bank.

I carry all these people and more with me daily. I would not be doing a service to their memory if I allowed myself to be duped into writing another blind prescription that was going to add yet another scar.

I will dissect the important parts of this paper exactly as my mentor described above taught me. He performed years of seminal research. He was a nationally-known expert in his field.

In medicine, especially in top-tier journals like NEJM, landmark papers are always accompanied by an editorial. These editorials are written by a national expert who almost always has “peer-reviewed” the source material as well. This is how the reader knows that an expert in the field has looked over the source material and that it supports the conclusions in the paper. My mentor did this all the time. The binders all over his office were the actual underlying data that he scrutinized to confirm the findings. There is no way on earth to print and publish the voluminous source material. Editorial review was one sure way all to assure that someone independent, with appropriate experience, confirmed the findings. This was onerous work, but he and thousands of others did it because this is the very essence of science. He was scrupulous in his editorials about findings, problems, and conclusions. It was after all his reputation as well.

My first lesson from him: READ THE EDITORIAL FIRST. It gets the problems in your head before you read the statistics and methods, etc. in the actual paper. It gives you the context of the study in history. It often includes a vigorous discussion of why the study is important.

Admittedly, over the past generation, as the corporatism and dollar-counting has taken over my profession and its ethics, this function of editorial authoring has become at times increasingly bizarre and too-obviously predisposed to conclude with glad tidings of joy, especially if pharmaceuticals are involved.

So I read the editorial first. You can find it on the NEJM webpage, in the top right corner.

And, amazingly, it is basically a recitation of the same whiz-bang Pfizer puffery that we have all been reading for the past few weeks. There really is not much new. Furthermore, it is filled with words like “triumph” and “dramatic success”. Those accolades have yet to be earned. This vaccine has not yet even been released. Surely, “triumph” is a bit premature. Those words would NEVER have been used by my mentor or similar researchers in his generation. They would have been focused on the good, the bad and the ugly. A generation ago, editorial reviewers saw their job as informing the reader and making certain the clinicians that were reading knew of any limitations or problems.

In quite frankly unprecedented fashion, two different events that were carefully reported occurred almost simultaneously with the release of both the paper and the editorial. Both of these events contradict and contravene data and conclusions reported in both the paper and the editorial and I believe they deserve immediate attention. They both belie the assertions of the editorial writers that [emphasis mine] “the (safety) pattern appears to be similar to that of other viral vaccines and does not arouse specific concern”.

First, a critical issue for any clinician is “exclusion criteria”. This refers in general to groups of subjects that were not allowed into the trial prima facie. Common examples would include over 70, patients on chemotherapy and other immunosuppressed patients, children, diabetics, etc.. This issue is important because I do not want to give my patient this vaccine (available apparently next week) to any patient that is in an excluded group. Those patients really ought to wait until more information is available – FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. And not to mention, exclusion criteria exist because the subjects in them are usually considered more vulnerable to mayhem than average subjects. From my reading of this paper, and the accompanying editorial, one would assume there were no exclusion criteria. They certainly are never mentioned.

I reiterate, the paper is silent on this question of exclusion criteria, as is the editorial. Had my mentor seen something like “exclusion criteria” in the source material, and realized that it was not in the final paper, he would have absolutely included a notice in his editorial. This would have been after calling the principal investigator and directly questioning why there was no mention in the original paper. Patient safety should be foremost on everyone’s mind at all times in clinical research and its presentation to practitioners.

And now we know there were exclusion criteria, not because of anything Pfizer, the investigators, or the NEJM did but because of stunning news out of the UK. UPDATE: I will address this at greater length, but an alert reader did find the study protocol, which were not referenced in any way that any of the nine members in my review group could find, nor were they mentioned in the text of paper or editorial, as one would expect for a medication intended for the public at large. I apologize for the oversight, but this information was not easy to find from the article, not mentioned or linked to from the text of the article, the text of the editorial, in the “Figures/Media,” or in a supplemental document.

In the UK on day 1 of the rollout, two nurses with severe allergies experienced anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction to this vaccine. Only after world-wide coverage did Pfizer admit that there was an exclusion criterion for severe allergies in their study.

Ummm, Pfizer, since we are now getting ready to give this to possibly millions of people in the next few weeks – ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXCLUSION CRITERIA? Should I, as a physician, specifically not be giving this to patients with conditions that you have excluded?

Furthermore, NEJM, since you published this trial, have you bothered to at least put a correction on this trial on your website that it should NOT be given to people with severe allergies? I certainly see nothing like this.

Should someone from the NEJM or the FDA be all over Pfizer to ascertain the existence of other exclusion groups so we do not accidentally harm or kill someone over the next two weeks?

Unfortunately, Americans, you have your answer from the FDA about severe allergic reactions right from a press conference in which Dr. Peter Marks, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is quoted as saying:

Even people who’ve had a severe allergic reaction to food or to something in the environment in the past should be OK to get the shot….1.6% of the population has had a severe allergic reaction to a food or something in the environment. We would really not like to have that many people not be able to receive the vaccine.

Are you serious? Dr. Marks, have you ever seen an anaphylactic reaction? I live in a very rural area. Many patients live 30 minutes or more from the hospital. What if one of them had an anaphylactic reaction to this vaccine hours after administration, had no epi-pen and had to travel a half hour to get to the nearest hospital? There is a very high likelihood that a good outcome would not occur. Sometimes, as a physician, I simply cannot believe what I am hearing out of the mouths of our so-called medical leaders.

To the writers of the editorial accompanying this research:

Did you actually look at the source material? The existence of at least one exclusion criterion for severe allergic reactions had to be in there somewhere. If you did look at the source material, are there others that the physicians of America need to know about? If they were not in the source material, after the events in the UK, has anyone bothered to follow up with Pfizer about this omission?

Does anyone at NEJM or Pfizer or FDA plan to fully inform the physicians of America? Does ANYONE at NEJM or Pfizer or FDA care about patient safety?

Now for the second story that got my attention this week, an article from JAMA Internal Medicine, a subsidiary of JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association.

JAMA, like NEJM, is one of America’s landmark medical journals. I will assure you that JAMA is not the National Enquirer. This piece was written by a nursing researcher. It is very likely she is well-versed in all aspects of American medical research.

In her story, she details her recruitment and her experience in the Pfizer COVID trial, the same one we are dissecting here. She describes in detail her experience with the vaccine and the fact that she is concerned that many patients are likely going to feel very sick after the injection. She wrote up her own reactions, and included a very troubling one. About 15 hours after her second injection, she developed a fever of 104.9. She explained that she called her reaction to the Research Nurse promptly the next morning. The recounted the response of the Research Nurse to her information as “A lot of people have reactions after the second injection. Keep monitoring your symptoms and call us if anything changes.”

Thankfully, it appears this nurse has completely recovered. From the best I can tell, this encounter occurred in late August and early September, putting it well within the trial’s recruitment of arms as detailed in the paper.

This JAMA article impinges directly on Figure 2 on page 7 of the paper, a graphic that that lays out all the major side effects during in the trial.

It is very important to note that based on the trial’s own data, conveniently laid out on the very top of the figure in green, blue, orange and red, a temperature of 104.9F or 40.5 C is described as a Grade 4 event. The definition of a Grade 4 event is anything that is life-threatening or disabling. A fever of 104.9 can have grave consequences for any adult and is absolutely a Grade 4 event.

By law, a grade 4 event must immediately be reported to the FDA, and to the Institutional Review Board (the entity charged with overseeing the safety of the subjects) and to the original investigators. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION. One would think that would also be reported in the research paper to at least alert clinicians to be on the lookout.

I could not find any mention of this event in the text of the paper. NOT ONE. Let’s take a closer look at Figure 2 on page 7 where adverse events are reported in a table form. Please note: this is a very busy image, and in the browser version, with very low resolution graphics that are profoundly difficult to read (they are a bit clearer if you download the PDF). This is a time-tested pharmaceutical company tactic to obscure findings that they do not want you to see. My mentor warned me about ruses like these years ago, and finding one raises the possibility that deception is in play.

The area for the reporting of this Grade 4 reaction would be on the 2nd row down at the left of the set called B, titled systemic events and use of medication. The area of concern would be where the graph is marked with the number 16. Do you see a red line there? It would be at the very top. I have blown this up 4 times on my computer and see no red there. I am left to assume that this Grade 4 “Life Threatening or Disabling” event that was clearly within the time parameters of this trial was not reported in this study.

To those who say that I am making way too much out of one patient with a severe fever, let’s do a little math. There are 37,706 participants in the “Main Safety Population” (from Table 1), of which 18.860 received the vaccine.2 Let us assume that this individual was the only one that had a GRADE 4 reaction. Let us also assume that the end goal is to vaccinate every American a total of 330,000,000 people. So if we extrapolate this 1 out of 18,860 into all 330,000,000 of us, it suggest that roughly 17,500 could have this kind of fever. Now assume a 70% vaccination rate, and you get that would be approximately 12,250. I hope you now understand that in clinical medicine related to trials like this – a whole lot of nothing can turn into a whole lot of something quickly when you extrapolate to the entire targeted group. Does anyone not think that the clinicians of America should be prepared for anything like this that may be coming?

A couple more questions for NEJM and the editorial writers:

Were you ever made aware that this Grade 4 reaction occurred? Now that we have a reliable report that it occurred, has there been any attempt to investigate?

Did the Research Nurse actually report this event? If not, was she just simply not trained or was there deliberate efforts to conceal such reactions? How many more reactions were reported anywhere this trial was conducted and that did not make it to the FDA, the IRB or possibly the investigators? Is that not a cause for concern?

As if this is not enough, there is so much more wrong with this editorial. Now we are going to talk about corruption.

I want to reiterate my concern that over the past generation, as my profession has lost its way, its medical journals have turned into cheering sections for Big Pharma rather than referees and safety monitors. We all should relish the great things medical science is doing, but we should be doing EVERYTHING we can to minimize injury and death. Too often our journals have become enablers of Big Pharma deceiving our physicians and the public. Unfortunately, this paper and its editorial look troublingly like a case study of this development.

To provide context, I looked over the last month of the NEJM, the issues from November 12, 19 and 26th and December 3rd. Based on having read the NEJM over the years, I believe these four weeks are representative.

During this period, there were 15 original articles published in the fields of Oncology, General Surgery, Infectious Disease, Endocrinology, Renal, Cardiology, Pulmonary and Ear Nose & Throat. Of these 15 articles, the editors thought that eight were important enough to have an editorial from an acknowledged expert. I have read every one of these studies and the editorials as I do every week. All eight in the past month were indeed by leading experts in the field of the underlying studies. They included a COVID vaccine overview reviewed by an leading figure in vaccinology, and two COVID papers about Plaquenil and other approaches discussed by top infectious disease experts.

It was unlikely that those papers were going to get national media attention. All medical stuff.

But here we have our Pfizer vaccine paper. We have 300,000 fatalities in the USA alone and millions of cases. We have whacked our economy, we are in the depths of a national emergency. And we have a paper, the first, that may offer a glimpse of hope. Certainly this would be a landmark paper, and certainly it was treated in that manner? Right?

One would think that the doctors of America would have this study explained to them by a world-known vaccinologist? NOPE…..Maybe a virologist? NOPE….. Maybe a leading government official? Dr. Fauci? Dr. Birx? Dr. Osterholm? NOPE…..Maybe an expert in coronaviruses? NOPE…

We get the Pfizer ad glossy editorial treatment from Eric Rubin MD, the editor-in-chief of the NEJM. And Dr, Longo, an associate editor. Dr. Longo is an oncologist. Dr. Rubin is at least a recognized infectious disease doctor, but his specialty based on my Google search is mycobacterium, not virology. Again, one would normally anticipate for a paper of this importance, the editorial would be from someone with directly on point expertise.

Why would this fact been important to my mentor? (and I had the privilege of hearing him trash a paper in an open forum about a very similar issue, a paper introducing a drug to the world that later was the disaster of the decade, Vioxx) Why is this important to me and all the other physicians in my review group here in flyover country yesterday?

Because the choice of authorship of the editorial leads you to one of only several conclusions:

• Pfizer would not release the source data because of proprietary corporate concerns and no self-respecting expert would review without it • Pfizer knew there are problems and did not want anyone with expertise to find out and publicize them • The editors could not find a real expert willing to put their name on a discussion • Drs. Rubin and Longo are on some kind of journey to Vanity Fair and wanted their names on an “article for the ages” • This is a rush job, and no one had time to do anything properly, and so we just threw it all together in a flash

Readers, pick your poison. If anyone can think of a sound reason, please let me know. I am all ears.

But let’s open up the can of worms a bit more. Pfizer supports NEJM. Just a brief swipe through of recent editions yielded several Pfizer ads. A Pfizer ad appeared on my NEJM website this AM. I do not know how much they pay in advertising but appears to be quite a bit.

Americans, have we devolved so far in our grift that it is now appropriate for the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF of our landmark medical journal to be personally authoring “rah rah” editorials about a product of a client that supports his journal with ad dollars? And he has the gall to not present this conflict on his disclosure form? Really? Am I the only one worried about this type of thing?

Now we travel from the can of worms to the sewer. And this impacts every single one of us. I want you to Google the names of the people on the FDA committee that voted 17-4-1 two days ago to proceed with the Emergency Use Declaration. Go ahead – Google it. On that list, you will find the name Eric Rubin, MD. Why yes indeed, that is the very same Eric Rubin MD who wrote this editorial. Who is the Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM. A publication that certainly takes ad dollars from Pfizer. And he was one of the 17 to vote for the Pfizer product to be immediately used in an emergency fashion. Oh yes, oh yes he was.

Am I the only one who can recognize that Pfizer and other pharma companies may have some influence on Dr. Rubin thanks continued support of his employer, the NEJM? Am I the only one concerned that Dr. Rubin’s “rah rah” editorial may have been influenced by Pfizer? Is anyone else troubled that the Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM, supported by Big Pharma advertising dollars, is sitting on an FDA board to decide the fate of any pharmaceutical product? Is this not the very definition of corruption? Or at least a severe conflict of interest? I strongly suspect that a thorough evaluation of members of that committee will reveal other problems. As my grandmother always used to say, “There is never just one roach under a refrigerator.”

I looked in vain all day today for media discussions of conflicts of interest with Dr. Rubin or anyone else in a position of authority. I found nothing.

What I did find was the Boston NPR affiliate WBUR discussing Dr. Rubin’s Yes vote. You can listen yourself:

This interview left me much more concerned about Dr. Rubin’s role and what exactly he read in the raw data from Pfizer. In this interview, he admits that he as an FDA advisory member has seen no data from the Moderna trial coming up for a vote this week:

These two vaccines are fairly similar to one another, so I am hoping the data will look good, but we haven’t seen the data yet, so I reserve judgement.

Excuse me, but should not the members already have the data and be mulling over it to ask intelligent questions?

These statements left me more worried about the issues I have already brought up with the Pfizer vaccine:

We don’t know if there are particular groups that should or should not get the vaccine…We do not know what will happen to safety over the longer term.

When finally asked specifically about the UK allergic reactions and if they came up in the FDA meeting (emphasis mine):

It did come up and this was a bit of a surprise because in the trial, that trial was limited to specific kinds of participants, there were apparently no incidents like that, nevertheless this suggests it is something we are going to have to look out for.

There is absolutely not a word in the published data to suggest there was a limit to SPECIFIC PARTICIPANTS – what on earth is he talking about? Are there limited specific kinds of patients that we as physicians should be looking to vaccinate?

In a fine finish, toward the end of the interview Dr. Rubin states he is a bit relieved that low risk patients will be getting the vaccine later after we know more about the side effects with the first patients. I am really not trying to be a jerk – but are you kidding me? I thought this vaccine was a triumph with minimal side effects.

Dr. Rubin, kind sir, I really feel that you owe a clarification about your statements in the WBUR interview to the patients and caregivers of America. We are the ones with lives on the line.

First, I have the privilege of sitting on an Institutional Review Board (an independent entity that protects patient safety) and I know something about Grade 4 side effects. Just for 1 Grade 4 side effect in one subject, the accompanying documentation would often be a half a ream of paper. Because I agreed to do that job, it was my obligation to look through that documentation. That half a ream was for one side effect in one trial. Yet, you state unequivocally in this interview, that you, as a sitting member of the FDA committee that oversees the safety of the nation in this affair, have not seen any of the Moderna documentation for that upcoming meeting this week.

For readers to fully understand what I am saying, this Moderna documentation is going to be reams and reams of documents that need to be evaluated carefully to ask the right questions. And you have not yet studied this? For a meeting in just a few days? I find this deeply troubling. Your statements create the appearance the committee you are sitting on is nothing more than a rubber stamp for a decision that has already been made. This would be an absolute tragedy.

Second, Dr. Rubin, you in your position as the Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM and the editorial writer for this research, may be one of the few people on earth that have seen the original Pfizer research. Despite calling this a triumph, you state in the interview that you are relieved that younger people less likely to get the vaccine early so you will have time to wait to see if complications develop in the first patients. You have stated, despite your assertion in the editorial that the side effects were consistent with other vaccines, that “we don’t know if there are particular groups that should or should not get the vaccine”. Have you seen something in that “triumph” research that is concerning enough to you to make such statements? As a physician, I would really like a clarification on this statement, given that the shots are already rolling out today.

Now that we are past the editorial, a few words about the nuts and bolts of the paper.

I look for very specific red flags – usually making the data difficult to interpret. This study did not disappoint.

On page 5, in Table 1, the Demographic Description of the participants, go down to the AGE GROUP area. Note it is divided into only two cohorts 16-55 and >55. This is a real problem. My mentor said an honest paper should never deploy such a tactic.

You see, more than half of my patients are over 70. Why is this kind of obfuscation a real problem for my ability to trust the vaccine? Well, the intro papers to many pharmaceuticals that have gone down the drain in recent years have used this very same device. It is their way of hiding the fact that they did not put many older patients in the trial, certainly not representative of the population, and certainly not representative of who is seemingly going to get this vaccine in the first round. Do I know that 90% of the >55 group is actually between 55-58? I don’t. How hard would it be for them to do a breakdown in decades? 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85? We have lots of computers in this country and the population breakdown is done this way on studies I read all the time. Why not do provide this information on a study that is this critically important, particularly one where elderly patients will be near the head of the line?

What are they trying to do here? Unfortunately, too often drugmakers resort to this practice to hide their failure to test their drug on the elderly to an appropriate or safe degree, knowing there would likely be lots of problems. Because of their past behavior, I ALWAYS assume this is true until proven otherwise and act accordingly with my elderly patients.

That is the world these companies have made for themselves.

Now for the tables on pages 6 and 7 about immediate side effects.

Just a brief look shows that local soreness and tenderness is very common, up to 75% with this vaccine. That is a bit high, but not that far out of range from my experience with other vaccines.

The tables on page 7 are the whoppers.

Headaches, fatigue, chills, muscle pain and joint pain appear to be very common, way more common than other vaccines I am used to, as in an order of magnitude higher. It is very clear from this table that about half the patients, especially the younger ones, are going to feel bad after this vaccine. That is extraordinary.

We are told nothing about how long these symptoms last or the amount of time at work lost. The “minimal side effects comparable with other viral vaccines” in the editorial and press releases is just not consistent at all with my experience of 30 years as a primary care physician. There was universal agreement with this assessment among my MD colleagues. They had great concern about this as a matter of fact: great concern that it will cause bad publicity and decrease administration and great concern that given this already high side effect profile, it may be much worse when it gets out to the public.

Given the fact that this virus is largely asymptomatic in more than half the people infected, what exactly are we doing here?

Furthermore, unlike other pharmaceutical papers that try to explain variances in symptoms like this, there is not a word offered about possible underlying causes of these outcomes.

The numbers of COVID cases in the placebo group vs the vaccine group have been widely publicized, from 162 cases in the placebo group down to 8 in the vaccine group, giving a relative reduction of 95%. It seemed to all of us in our review group that we do not have nearly enough patients to really make assessments. That is not a criticism. The researchers have done admirably in my opinion to get this many patients this quickly. That is still the problem: they are going to be using the first million patients or so in the general public to get a real gauge on numbers and side effects.

Another issue of grave concern to us all on Friday was the asymptomatic cases. The only subjects counted in the 162 and the 8 numbers above were patients with symptoms. Who knows how many in each cohort were asymptomatic.

This to me leads to the most important question of all, and it was again completely untouched….. How many asymptomatic patients are there? And how many who were vaccinated are still able to spread the virus? Not even an attempt to answer that question. This is critical, and is one of the ways a vaccine can backfire. If a vaccine does not provide sterilizing immunity, ie stop transmission, it is of limited use for disease control. It is great for the individual, but if they can remain without symptoms and still spread it all around it does not help from a public health standpoint.

I have described my concerns and red flags about this study. I would like to add one more thing. Pharmaceuticals that go bad rarely do so in the first few weeks or months. Rather, the adverse effects take months or years. It is a known unknown of not just vaccines but any kind of drug. Our pharma companies have become notorious for having inklings or indeed full knowledge that there is a problem early on, and saying nothing until many are maimed or killed. I will assume that this is the case in this class of drugs until proven otherwise. They are such deceivers I have no choice.

Due to sense of urgency my colleagues and Ifeel about this vaccine rollout, we had an ad hoc meeting of our Journal Club to discuss the NEJM article. Of the nine physicians at the meeting, three have already had very mild cases of COVID. Of the nine, only one is enthusiastic about these vaccines. I have a wait and see stance. I will not be taking it myself. I have too many scars, too many staring at me from the grave to take any other approach.

My patients’ feeeback on the COVID vaccine has been very different than the polls finding that 60% are ready to take it. About half my patients are in the professional/managerial classes and feature a higher level of the 0.1% than the US overall. They tend to be more blue. Most prefer to wait and thankful that health care workers were getting it first. The other half who are working class, more red, and they feel the whole thing is a hoax. They will not be getting the vaccine – likely ever.

The only enthusiasts I would call elderly Rachel Maddow fans. That really makes no sense to me at all since Operation Warp Speed was a Trump project and even Kamala Harris said she would not take a vaccine that Trump recommended.

I would say AT BEST 25% of my patients will be getting this vaccine shortly after being available. There is widespread skepticism that is not being acknowledged by our media. The pharmaceutical industry has worked tirelessly to earn every bit of that disrespect.

Please look at Dr. Angell’s seminal article from 2009. She predicted in her works, all of this and more. My profession has been captured by a cabal of corporatist MBA clones, rapacious and unethical pharmaceutical entities, and an academic elite addicted to credentialism and cronyism. They have over the years bought off and infiltrated all of our government health care regulating agencies and our public health system. And they are completely incestuous. I believe where we are now to be worse than Dr. Angell could have ever dreamed. Even more depressing, I see no way out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 As a special homage to the polio patient described above, a truly exceptional woman, let me underscore that the disastrous rollout of the this polio vaccine came at a time similar to ours. Panic and malaise were in the air. The children of America and the world were being stricken with polio at an alarming rate. Dr. Alton Ochsner, a leading figure in medicine of the day, vaccinated both of his grandchildren in public in an attempt to bolster confidence in the vaccines. Within 8 days his grandson was dead of bulbar polio. All the celebrities and politicians lining up to take this vaccine on national TV should remember this tragedy. “Stupid human tricks” like this have no place in this kind of situation, and can backfire in unexpected ways. Unlike that era’s polio vaccine, there is no way on earth this vaccine can transmit COVID. However, there are those of us in the medical profession who treat the plan to make population-wide use of messenger RNA, which before these trials had been repeatedly investigated but never reached the human trial stage save in a small scale Zika vaccine study. This is no time for machismo. This is also no time for anything less than complete transparency on the part of everyone involved in the quest for safe and effective vaccines. To behave in any other way is an affront to patients like mine who have suffered and died in the past.

2 If you read the paper, you might well have wondered about that 18,860 number and even checked Table 1 to make sure it’s accurate (it is), since the third paragraph of the Abstract, under the headline “Results,” has very different figures:

A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo.

So how did the researchers get from 21,720 injected with the vaccine to the 18,860 in the “Main Safety Population”? This sort of thing confirms the impression that this is a very incomplete or sloppy study. It is really not clear where the difference between the 37,706 and the 43,548, or for that matter, the 36,520 total subjects in the Tables 2 and 3 (Efficacy) come from. I used the 37,706 and hence the 18,860 that went with it from Table because it gave slightly smaller numbers than using the Table 2 and 3 figures, but they would be close to each other.

My concern here is the 6000ish discrepancy between the figures in the main text compared to the tables. Were they excluded? If so, why? I could not make heads or tails out of this, and accordingly kept it out of the body of this post. This kind of inconsistency really needs to be hashed out with the actual source data in hand, and should have been explained in the article, even if just in footnotes.

[vampexx]

I have tried a few times now to write this post but I just couldnt go forward with posting it, thinking its too personal...

But...here it goes...

I have always been a painfully shy, paranoid and self conscious person so being this open is really scary for me to say the least due to my struggles with confidence and self esteem...

And drawing has been something I did for as long as I can remember...and it was something that helped me growing up...

However, ever since high school in 10th grade, I have had almost all my drive and love for drawing drained from me from comparing myself to the other, "better," students in my art class and from my own art teacher who at first, in 9th grade, started as a somewhat positive influence but then the next year being really negative and rude.

I was the student that was told, "youre not done, go back to your seat, keep working," when going to my teacher for advice. When he said this, he would only glance at my work before turning me away. All while the other students received kind, positive and constructive criticism when I did not.

He even addressed me, out loud, in front of the class, regarding my low grade, saying, "the only reason you arent failing my class is because you did your homework last night."

For context: the homework assignment was some drawing exercises...and the reason my grade was low was because, it was towards the end of the year, I had completely given up on myself and my art so I didnt turn in a project. One, because I never cared enough to finish it and two, it was an act of rebellion on my part.

That was the first and only class where I actually had an F-....I didnt even know it was possible to get that low of a grade...but trust me, it is. My math grade was never even that low.

Now, this art class was something you had to submit a portfolio for it to be reviewed so these 2 art teachers could decide if you were accepted into this art program or not. (It was exoensive too, if I remember correctly, it was like $200 per semester, and I did this for 2 years).

And against my own self consciousness, while feeling like I was far less qualified than others, I challenged my self doubt and fear of rejection and tried out anyways...

And a few weeks later, I found out I was accepted. That moment went down as one my top, most proud moments. I was proud of myself for a change.

Only for that to change a couple years later...where the little pride and confidence I had left in not only myself, but my skills in art, just dropped so low.

On top of that, my academic grades while in this art program, were also dropping considerably due to the amount of stress I put myself through trying to meet everyone elses expectations and standards.

My painting and drawing teacher (the nice one, not the rude one) would encourage my love and skill for cartooning, charcoal and shading. My digital art teacher (the one who ended up being so rude to me in the following year), helped me realize my strengths in photoshop and with a tablet. He did praise me a few times, which did help, but it didnt last very long.

My downfall was the art class that I took in 10th grade, with my previous digital art teacher, which was "figure drawing." Basically, it was learning how to draw anatomy and being anatomically correct which I found out very early on, was not my strength....and it was the whole focus of the class for the entire year so I was screwed. My strengths were cartooning and caricatures, not anywhere near anything anatomically correct. I kean, I could draw a skeleton, but when it came to human figures and poses....I dont know why but I had a tough time. So that was the year that things really went downhill fast.

It just took the fun out of drawing and turned it into something that felt too forced.

However, in my experience with this class I learned something about myself that Im actually glad that I did...

Its that art is just a hobby for me. I learned that I hate drawing on demand, in a certain time frame, and drawing what someone else wants me to draw.

I want to draw only on my own terms and at my own pace.

I couldnt see that about myself because I was too concerned with everyone else and their skills in drawing.

A few years after I quit the art program, I really didnt draw all that much aside from little doodles and unfinished sketches on the edges of my homework and class notes. I didnt like anything that I drew anymore.

And when you lose love, drive and interest in something you were once so passionate about....it leaves a gaping hole in you. It makes you feel pointless, like there nothing special about you. Nothing that sets you apart from everyone else. It really is as depressing as it sounds.

I was lost.

However. I FELT FREE. I didnt have a constant reminder from several different people that I wasnt as good. No one to make me feel lesser than someone else. No one to put me down.

As a result, my academic grades improved back to As and Bs (excluding math in the 11th grade, I had like a D).

---

And I realize now that maybe I didnt learn all of this the hard way for no reason. Maybe its to also help someone so they dont have to learn the hard way like I did. Or maybe, its to reach out to those have experienced the same or similar things as me so that they dont feel alone. So that they know that them and their skills are still very much valuable and valid.

Because everyone goes at their own pace, no two people are ever the same.

Anyone can be good at anything.

Now I didnt want this post to discourage anyone from taking or considering an art class. Please understand that my experiences are unique to myself. Art classes are actually very helpful as long as your surrounded by positive and encouraging influences.

Just remember to be careful. Respect yourself and your abilities. Be patient with yourself. Have faith in yourself, dont give up. And last, but not least, know your worth and what you deserve when it comes to treatment.

---

Anyways, so up until a couple of years ago, I slowly started to get back into drawing.

I do love to draw, along with architecture and interior/ fashion design.

Im working to rediscover myself, even though I dont want to do it professionally...

So as I did years ago, I will challenge my self doubt again and try to put myself back out there.

So as anxietal as I am, I want to ask...

Would anyone be interested in seeing something I drew?

Might be an odd question and it might sound attention seeking but Im really just testing the waters....

I will add one little doodle I did the other day just to see....

I know its not that great and thats its nothing amazing but....its something Im proud of...however small it may be.

Im not sure how I feel when it comes to reposting...

I feel like I dont want people to repost it...

In case I ever feel like taking it down...

Idk.

Anyways....Im literally shaking Im so nervous...

But...Im trying to repair some old damage.

Have a miraculous day and thank you for your patience.

Again, please dont repost. At least until Im a little more comfortable.

Thank you

[s69jin]

drarry recs- #1

i’ve always wanted to make a reclist of the fics i enjoy, so here they are, in no particular order :)  

Running On Air  by @tinyhistory�� 

Draco Malfoy has been missing for three years. Harry is assigned the cold case and finds himself slowly falling in love with the memories he collects.

Berlin, In the Year of Our Lord by Are 

n/a

Powerful Men by Frayach (warning: main character death)

They say the price of power is a sound night's sleep.

And Save Me From Bloody Men by blamebrampton 

Draco Malfoy once watched others fighting to stop the world falling apart. This time, he's not just watching.

Aletheia by lazywonderland

Draco finds out Daphne's been shagging Potter and it turns out it's really not that difficult to get a piece of her hair.

All The Ashes Like Leaves by firethesound

Nothing about being the Chosen One had prepared Harry for this. With most of the population blinded and man-eating plants running amok, he can only stay close to his friends as they make their way to safety. Not that he’d call Malfoy a friend, but the end of the world does rather make their ongoing feud seem trivial. And it just figures that it took nothing short of an apocalypse to make Malfoy seem like less of a git.

Are You There God? It’s Me, Draco by floweringjudas

Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy are straight Aurors. Then they're gay teachers. It makes sense, in context.

The Mirror Crack’d by Femme , noeon

A Cumbrian manor house full of paying guests, a dead Ministry official, and an active murder investigation interrupt the quiet of Draco and Harry's life together. Rather fatally. Written for our beloved Bubba for Glompfest 2010.

warmest part of the winter by warmfoothills

It’s not even a balcony, it’s just a window with a bit of a ledge, and Draco’s read Shakespeare anyway, he knows how this one ends.

Turn From Stone by harryromper

Harry knows there’s nothing he can do to stop Hermione (war hero, historian, author of the reissued “Hogwarts: A History”) once she sets her mind to something. Even an extremely risky last-ditch effort to restore the ancient castle and lay its newest ghosts to rest. What he wasn’t counting on was her insistence that Draco Malfoy be part of the plan.

Time and Again by lauren3210

Draco has an important research assignment, and he needs Auror protection. Harry’s a little concerned, not only because he can’t even pronounce the places Draco’s dragging him off to, but because there’s the slightest chance he might do something stupid, like tell Draco all about that little crush he’s been harbouring for a while now...

Crossing Lines by Ren

While investigating a ring of smugglers, the Aurors receive a tip saying that the European Express is being used to move contraband across state lines. To solve the case, Harry has to unmask the smugglers and find the hidden contraband before the luxury train reaches Bulgaria. Draco Malfoy is also on board… but that's just coincidence, isn't it?

A Lick and a Promise by tackytiger

Something sinister stirs in Hogwarts!

When magical creatures and students at the school are hit with a debilitating blood curse, Minerva McGonagall approaches the Ministry for help.

Star Auror Harry Potter seems to be the obvious choice to go undercover—as DADA Professor, naturally. He’s going to need the help of the Ministry’s foremost expert in blood magic to get to the bottom of the mystery, though, and he’s not entirely convinced that going back to Hogwarts with Draco Malfoy is a good idea.

Things are complicated between them—what’s new?—but they know they have to learn to work together (and keep their hands off each other in the corridors) in order to solve this case. Luckily for them, Hogwarts itself wants to lend a hand.

A tale of love, lessons, and learning to really live.

Exactly How it Happened by dracogotgame 

Harry and Draco. Not fooling anyone.

The Consolations of a Summer’s Day by blamebrampton

Harry Potter is absolutely certain Draco Malfoy did not murder Pansy Parkinson. He’s almost absolutely certain he can prove this without sacrificing his career and having them both hauled up before the Wizengamot.

Magic Man by dracogotgame 

Draco has been exiled to live in the Muggle World, where he's actually doing alright as an amateur stage magician. Harry has been tasked to determine if he's using real magic to enhance his performances.

The Venice Job by nishizono 

Harry Potter was one of the youngest Aurors in history. He was the Boy Who Lived, and the Boy Who Lived Again. He loved Guinness and Quidditch, and hated pineapple. He wrote letters to Hagrid every Thursday, and on Sundays, he visited Hermione and Ron. Harry Potter was also not gay.

Midnight in the City of a Hundred Spires by shiftylinguini

Harry Potter is a missing person. Draco Malfoy is a vampire. They are the last two people one would expect to bump into each other in a Creature Bar in Prague, yet to Draco’s absolute shock that is definitely Harry fucking Potter sitting across from him.

Even more surprising is that Potter may have a case for him.

Level Two: Series One by various authors (there are a LOT i dont have the mental capacity to link them all individually im so sorry)

Witches and wizards are disappearing in a seemingly random fashion. Coincidence? Abductions? But no one is claiming ransom. The Aurors are not even sure the disappearances are connected, then one of the missing turns up dead. Meanwhile, Auror Harry Potter is thrown into the infamous Sirius Black Muggle murder case from 25 years ago. Given a chance to clear his godfather's name for good, Harry is not above accepting even the help of magical specialist Draco Malfoy.

The Jabberwock by blithelybonny

 It’s out there, and it’s hungry. And the students have a choice to make.

Wolfish by Femme, noeon

With wolves surrounding him, Draco seeks safe haven. But as his godfather warns him, wolves come in many forms.

Gone to Take the Air by @tinyhistory (warning: main character death)

Draco never recovered afterwards and nor did Harry.

The Rabbit and the God by who_la_hoop

When Draco Malfoy goes missing, in the most peculiar of ways, frustrated Auror-in-training Harry Potter goes on a search for his absentee enemy that leads him to Muggle Japan – and to a mystery that will take more than magic to solve.

i demand to dig my own grave by MostlyVoid

Draco finds himself in hot water with the Aurors, and in a burst of panicked inspiration manages to wiggle out of it by claiming to be a Seer. There's just one little problem– Senior Auror Harry Potter, the Prat Who Lived, who's known him for a decade, knows full well Draco doesn't have a single psychic bone in his body and seems determined to pull him up for it. Now, the Department is demanding he help them solve cases, Potter's looming over his shoulder at every turn, and worst of all, he hasn't had a shag in weeks because of all this bother. What's a pseudo-Seer to do?

I, Ferret by curiouslyfic

Draco's embraced his inner Ferret. Now it's Harry's turn. Starring Veela!Draco, mpreg, an old wives' tale, and a Weddiwizard.

there’s a trick with a dragon i’m learning to do by curiouslyfic

Harry’s live-in’s a workaholic being courted — harassed — by an array of weeping minions and an assortment of overprivileged pricks. Harry’s bloody portraits are being harassed — courted — by, well, an assortment of things Harry doesn’t even want to think about. Harry’s had a long week already and so far, his weekend’s not looking much better. At least he can say with certainty there's no place like home...

there’s definitely gonna be a part two but these are all for now !! please give the authors some love!

[swearronchanel]

Who let me watch 5.06?

I should be doing an assignment that’s due tomorrow but ya know due tomorrow means do tomorrow. Lol I know I should be ashamed to be a procrastinator but university has ruined me anyway. I’m tired from literally going to one lecture haha, but in any event I’ve been rewatching mad men for the who knows what time but I thought I’d take a break from all that and watch an episode of CtM & @flyingnonny inspired me to do a reaction post so why not? I decided on 5.06 since last Sunday’s episode reminded us of that camping trip 😂😂  here goes nothing.. 

*skips intro bc I’m impatient*

Cute community moment ☺️

TRIXIE😍 slaying my life

Shelagh looks so good too 😍 and Angela melting my heart!

Why is shelagh forever wearing cardigans? I like cardigans every now and then but all the time, really?

Everyone is sitting outside, Trixie is in a sleeveless dress, as is Barbara, so it has to be warm?? take it off Shelagh

She’s still my bby though even if I don’t always agree with her fashion choices

what gross vejo pinching Trixie’s ass? That’s not ok

And Babs too lmao, creepy old man, die

Shelagh saying “hello dear” aw

But this is like the only interaction between Shelagh and Trixie & that does not suffice !!

ALL I WANT IS FOR THEM TO HAVE AN ACTUAL FRIENDSHIP IDC HOW MANY TIMES IVE SAID IT I REALLY Want it😭😭💕💕 my two fav bbys

I HAVE EVEN GIVEN REASONS WHY & I CAN GIVE THEM AGAIN ***        1) Why not?? Shelagh has like no real friends besides her husband and sort of Sister Julienne?                                                 

 2) just please, because I’m asking nicely                                                     3) When Shelagh was Sister Bernadette she was often friendly/ in the gossip and conversation with the nurses & remember that one time Trixie grabbed her to come listen to Jenny’s phone conversation?               

4) Trixie was the only one besides Sister Julienne to visit her in the sanatorium. That has to count for something!                                             5) They’ve both been on the show since day 1 & have known each other the longest (besides the nuns) why wouldn’t they be friends or least actually speak to each other?

Aye this is the lady who’s fake pregnant

Shelagh wearing earrings though >> here for it

Sorry there will be a lot of gushing over Shelagh and Trixie

And also I WANT TRIXIE’S HOOP EARRINGS SO BAD, where can I find them??

And how do I get her clothes and figure and her everything lol?

PHYLLIS ! My champion

“Would it have killed you to sit down for five minutes and eat the whole thing!” I LOVE HER, SHE IS A GEM, A HERO, A BADASS & IM NOT READY FOR SUNDAY. IM GOING TO BAWL WITH AND FOR HER

she deserves the best

I think this is the only time I’ve ever heard Trixie address Shelagh by her first name?? a prob.

They need to interact more 😭💔💕😍 I will stop saying it when I’m dead even then I’ll prob say it

Actually when I think of it no one ever calls Shelagh by her first name besides obviously Patrick? And Sister Julienne

#MoreShelaghAndTheOtherNursesInteracting2k17aka1962

And I need at least two seconds of them dotting on pregnant Shelagh

Helen looks so good like goals

“I threatened to put one man over my knee but that only encouraged him” HA IM DEAD NO KINK SHAME

I think there’s been a similar joke before but fuck it it’s still funny to me

But seriously everyone loves Trixie lol how could you not though?

Hey Pats, it’s been a while

Lol omg Tim in that uniform.. Not the best costume 😂😂

Never seen Whistle Down the Wind

But you see, Tom and Babs making out as usual, I’m not knocking it lol but this is why Sister J told her to chill when they went to South Africa😂

also lowkey jealous bc Jack Ashton is handsome af and that could’ve been me but it’s all good. He and Helen are adorable together and I’m here for it x10000

Omg I forgot this lady got assaulted

Oh shit I just remembered this is the episode where sister MC is attacked FUCK WHY DID I WATCH THIS

she can’t report it bc she’d get arrested for soliciting wtf

But remember Shelagh wore the headbands in like series 3 (so glad she stopped I was not here for it)? They must’ve gave them to Babs lol

I forgot Trixie didn’t tell the nurses about AA yet

But she looks gorgeous as ever, even with her mascara running

Lowkey nauseas looking at all that fish ugh. Funny becuase they put a grocery store that has a fish market on the block up from where I live in NYC and I hate it  

I forgot about Peter lol and he was in an episode this series whoops

LIKE WHERE’S YOUR WIFE LOL, *I know, too busy for this, I don’t think she’d fit in the series anymore anyway*

Sister Mary Cynthia 😰❣️

Lol she doesn’t sing loud enough ??

Sister Julienne is so cute when she smiles but don’t forget she’s a badass

REMEMBER THE AGGRESSIVE JACKET FLAP BC OF THE IRRITATING SISTER URSULA

How did this girl hide her pregnancy though?

And did her brothers just not realize she was pregnant and the mother wasn’t?

Oh jeez my cousin was a colic-y baby and my parents kept him like 3 days a week when I was in high school & it was a nightmare. I didn’t sleep for so long

Dont get me wrong I love babies. But when they scream when I’m trying to sleep, nope. Return to sender.

Shelagh is so excited about camping it’s the purest and most adorable thing 😭😭And I like her shirt  

Shelagh made Tim copy the napkin folding from a magazine, SHE IS A GEM

“We never have serviettes on a weeknight” wtf did they just not use napkins every day? I’m confused Lmaoo. What am I missing here 😂omg that reminds me of one of the times my family and I went on a cruise (2006, hella long time ago already wow?? 11 yrs yikes) and my brother & cousin were late to dinner and lied to my mom & aunt saying they were at a “napkin folding class” & my family deadass believed it up until 2 years ago😂

Shelagh’s accent is so cute. I’ve said that many times but it’s so sweet. But again why do we just have to accept she’s Scottish with no context as to how/why she came to England? Like I’m sure there were convents in Scotland. I dont even care that much I just will forever be curious as to why it seems she had no life before she got married lol? Like they don’t ever bring up the fact she was a nun, but ok maybe she feels awkward talking about it but what about before? 

They’re so excited it’s so precious, protect this family 😂😭💕💕

Sister MJ is fasting lol I should try it😂

Omg another dumb story, I didn’t realize today is Ash Wednesday and was hella confused seeing some people with ash on their forehead 😂😂 I should give up something for lent but idk what, we shall see. My mom gave up carbs last year & I died bc I lived at home and ate what she cooked and almost all my fav foods are carbs😂

Shelagh referred to Patsy as Patsy, I’ve only ever heard her say Nurse Mount??

lol Tim you’re what 14? you know damn well those arent* bullet holes

at least he has some of his innocence still. I didn’t @ 14

Sometimes I forget I’m gonna be 19 this year wtf. I’ve accidentally told people I’m 16 before and had to correct myself 😂😂

Patrick is excited about this holiday, boy you don’t know what’s coming 😂

HE’S GONNA ATTACK THE LADY WITH A BABY I FORGOT THAT TOO WTF

I wanna fight him

Diane’s anemic ? Or her mum is just assuming

SHELAGH IN HER CAMPING OUTFIT!! The hair scarf and trousers !! I’m so here for it 😍😭

I want to see her in another pair!! yes lets get it 1962. Probably not likely this series but hopefully next series!! Ah can’t wait

Shit this series is almost over 💔💔 but omg 1963 gonna be lit as well?!

Like the space race started/orbiting the earth, Kennedy’s assassination .. wait never mind lol I’m thinking of American History moments. but still a lot of it was crazy world news so maybe it’s mentioned?? first bond film came out in'63, petition for Tim to go take Susan whatever from around the corner to see it since we know he liked the novels

Lots of famous films came out in ‘63 so there’s gotta be some reference.

Fun fact: I love pop culture references in period drama bc I’m lame jk I’m majoring in education (to teach history)

Old news but still relevant: Phyllis’s turn on: Rolodex systems 📇

“CRANE, as in the wading bird or industry lifting equipment, whichever you prefer” LOVE U PHYLLIS, YOU CORRECT HIM

PHYLLIS’S FACE WHEN GODFREY SUGGESTS SHE CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT, IM DEAD

“I shall consider retirement when I’m at the appropriate age”  IM LAUGHING SO HARD, FUCK YEA PHYLLIS. I LOVE HER SO MUCH, LINDA BASSET IS ON THE LIST WITH LAURA AND HELEN OF PEOPLE WHO COULD PUCH ME IN THE FACE AND I’D THANK

LOL SHELAGH JUST STANDING AWKWARDLY LISTENING TO THIS CONVERSATION

“Buenos vacaciones”  I NEED MORE PHYLLIS WORKING ON HER SPANISH I LOVE IT, Ella es oro.

lol the roof rack, bet it was Phyllis’s they borrowed when they moved

PHYLLIS’S FACE OF DISGUST WHEN DR GODFREY SMILES AT HER IS ME ALWAYS

LOL THE THE NURSES & SISTER WINIFRED DYING OVER PATRICK’S SHORTS (EVen though sister W “swears she’s not looking”)

I THINK THE SOCKS AND WHITE DAD SANDALS ARE MORE AMUSING 😂😂

Poor Judith💔

It’s a vicious attack Sister J! But you don’t know it yet so I get u

Here comes summer..😂

SETTING UP IN THE POURING RAIN LOL

Shelagh and Angela being adorable !!

Tim and Patrick proud that  they set the tents up & boom it falls 😂 which is symbolic for me taking exams, I think I did well or at least decent on them and then I find out I failed by like 5 points

Nonnatus table scenes <3 😭

”I’ve seen more dangerous marshmallow bunnies“ lmao Pats this is a serious moment I shouldn’t laugh

Shelagh took off her glasses 😉😏 but fr how is Laura Main so perfect

Patrick put scotch in its lit, pass it over😏

Lol Shelagh drinking is a strange thought but I’m so here for it. Nuns can’t drink right? Idk. Imagine her drinking alcohol for the first time and just getting drunk 😂 we know Patrick and Tim are lightweights getting drunk off one beer so I assume shelagh would too😂

Damn it Patrick, you spilled your cup. Furthermore proving you’re a disaster 😭

LMAO SHELAGH’s “WTF” FACE WHEN SHE ASKS PATRICK WHAT HE’S THINKING ABOUT AND HE SAID THE ULCER CLINIC

LIKE C'MON PATRICK YOU KNOW WHERE SHELAGH WAS TRYNA GO WITH THAT😂

“And if you don’t mind my saying so, you’re not exactly Cliff Richards yourself” SHELAGH 😂😂 another great line of hers, love it

I love their playful banter lol we need more of that 😂 but lets be real series 6 has had some of the greatest Shelagh and Patrick moments so I can’t complain 😭😍

Peter and Barbara is such a unusual dynamic haha

“How is chummy?” Wait does Babs even know Chummy? I don’t even remember if they met tbh

But for real Shelagh did you really think Patrick would just forget about work completely ??

Lol Angela crying because she is petrified of squirrels😂😂and Shelagh running to her is so cute.

Why didn’t she just get rid of the *creepy* squirrel nutkin book? it seemed like they still had it in series 6 haha

rice pudding is I think the same as aroz con leche, lol it’s gross sorry

Diane’s water broke oh shit

the Turners all in the tent playing I spy bc it’s raining haha

I went camping for the first and last time this past summer w/ my sister in laws & her friends, it was awful 😂😂 I got like 100 mosquito bites that became welts, i literally slept in the car the second night & it was mid July fairly south of east coast aka it was humid and sticky af , there were wild horses that walked around..Thank God they brought alcohol cause it was a nightmare I don’t wanna remember 😂😂

ANGELA IS SO CUTE UGH & ANOTHER GREAT SHELAGH FACE😂

lol yes go to a hotel, should’ve done that from the get

So what exactly does Fred run? some civil defense thing?

She’s in labor and can’t even scream omg, I’m screaming

“They are often incorrect in their opinion” Sister MJ is a gem. I want someone to look at me the way Sister MJ looks at cake and the television

Phyllis yelling at Dr Godfrey😂

PATS’S FACE OF DISGUST IS ALSO ME

HOW DO THESE WOMEN GIVE BIRTH STANDING/SITTING UP?? AHHHH

There you are Beatrix, it’s been a while

Patsy being suspicious with the card game line lol. but when is Trixie going to find out about Patsy and Delia?

SHE RIPPED OUT HER WOMB?! WTF OMG IM SCREAMING

THIS HURTS TO WATCH AHH

Trixie and Sister MC to the rescue but omg this is wild I forgot

Fred wtf you can’t be sneaking up like that

DONT LEAVE SISTER MC ALONE TRIXIE

NOO, IM NOT PREPARED FOR THIS

“There are flowers on the table, and feathers in these pillows, that’s all the nature I need to get back to” I feel you Patrick lol, I like nature but not camping

Lol remember Shelagh’s old nightgown? ah I don’t miss it. The bri nylon is such a look™ & obviously has magically powers i.e this miraculous conception.

“..or they’ve been mulled to death by squirrels” IM DEAD HAHA THAT WAS A GOOD DAD JOKE, NICE ONE PATRICK

aw the baby is so precious

Why is the operating room/being in surgery called theatre in the U.K.?? and why is the doctor’s office/practice called the surgery? so many questions from a confused American..

Sister MC by the docks😭💔 she was just chillin with God and THIS HORRIBLE MAN RUINS EVERYTHING WTF UGH

Oh no

SISTER MC JUST UNCONSCIOUS ON THE DOCKS WTF IM CRYING WHY WOULD HURT HER

Patrick even if you were there she wouldn’t have called you, don’t blame urself

it’s not your arrogance sister MC!!

“don’t you even say the word fault, do you hear me, I won’t allow it” 😭💔 it’s NOT your fault sister MC 😰

I forgot how upset/hurt this episode makes me

“The worst thing is that I actually stopped to pray…” my heart hurts

You can’t even blame her for being angry😪

Judith you’re not a bad mother!! This isn’t your fault either

Sister MJ IN THE BATHROOM WITH HER😢😢💔💔 I’m c r y i n

I SAID PROTECT THEM AT ALL COSTS WHY DID THEY HURT ME LIKE THIS

Everyone so quiet at the table..

ILL FOREVER BE PROUD OF HOW BRAVE SISTER MC IS FOR SPEAKING UP FOR HER AND THE OTHER VICTIMS💖😭💔

Russian prison tats??

“I thought at first it was a test of faith, but it was a test of strength. I can bear more than I ever though I could and I can bear it for others because my strength is a gift, from him..” brb sobbing

I feel so bad for Mrs Hills bc I understand she thought she was doing the right thing and was trying to protect her daughter from the stigma & judgment from having a baby born outta wedlock 😭

But damn she almost killed her & now she can’t have any more kids

“I’m a mum, mum” Aw

lol I want children (obviously not anytime soon) but if I do Ima be shook for the rest of my life. Like my kids will  be like grown & I’ll still wake up like wtf I had them?  Lmaoo

SHELAGH’S GREY DRESS >>😍

Patrick jumping on the bed was cute lol

The Turners being cute and an unrealistically perfect family together as usual

Trixie 😍off to her AA💕

“I think it’s about time I came clean..”

Im so proud of her omg. She’s come so far in 6 series 😭💖💖😭

And Patsy and Delia are supportive yess👏🏼

“New truths were being spoken at Nonnatus house, but some remained concealed. While one voice rose, striving to erase its agony in song.”

Thanks Vanessa,, The End 😭

[broodsys]

however, i do want to complain at least here bc as much as i think she's a fine person and as much leeway as im trying to give everyone in general and esp now, it's still p ridiculous. so, y'know, petty venting incoming

1) when students ask questions half the time she just rereads the instructions we can all see

2) corrects student's spanish but is wrong. like i mean, rly basic, verifiable things - the gender of a given word, etc. it's happened more than once and is... difficult coming from a prof, bc you're like shit wait was i somehow wrong this whole time...?

3) doesn't give ppl more time when they're responding in the chat. in particular, i was only using the chat one day and she kept asking me question after question while i was trying to respond to (and remember!) the first question. and i use my phone! im not as fast on my phone screen as i am on my full keyboard. but like 0 awareness for any situation except 'hola yes i am sitting here at my DESKTOP COMPUTER with access to everything and no distractions and a full keyboard and a quick wpm and and and-'

4) most recent hw assignment asked us to copy the table from the lesson. okay, right? except there was no table in the lesson, the closest thing was a box of text. but the format for the table she laid out in the hw assignment itself made no sense. like, literally none, it was fundamentally different. we're reviewing two things but it's a 3x5 table with questions at top instead of the things we're reviewing? okay. i tried for a while to understand how to make it work but eventually i gave up bc i was gonna have to spend 90% of my time trying to figure out the mechanics of a hw assignment instead of actually doing it, better to just study spanish. and forget asking her - she'll just reiterate the instructions if ur lucky, mostly she just doesn't reply (:

5) sometimes changes - "corrects", but for the students it feels like changes - the due date for assignments due or seemingly due that week, but she changes it midweek, no email, no explanation. super fun.

6) this is the most minor of my complaints, but she doesn't differentiate btwn si and sí (accented) in her personal writing, emails, etc. and a lot of the time u can get it from context bc it's either 'yes' or 'if', but sometimes it's like... prof. prof no. YES we have class on monday is very different from IF we have class on monday, esp bc she wasn't sure when asked in the prior class

when i finish spanish im tempted to leave an honest but not mean anon review of my prof in the review thing students are asked to do after each term but like, i don't want to get her in trouble. but she's been a rly... p bad professor. but at the same time, she's going thru this hell like the rest of us. but this but that and i keep coming up uncertain

[sharionpage]

Book Review: “The Christ Who Heals” by Terryl and Fiona Givens

At a recent Sacrament Meeting I heard the following message: “The world tells women to be independent, confident, and educated, but we know women are instead supposed to be chaste, virtuous, and modest.” Sunday School then featured these highlights: “We are constantly under attack from temptation. If we deviate even an inch we can fall! We have to be constantly on guard against Satan.” and “Wearing revealing clothing is breaking the law of chastity. Imagine the shame you would feel if the Second Coming happened and the Savior saw you wearing a sleeveless shirt!” The previous week’s Sacrament Meeting featured an overview of appropriate dress standards for an upcoming EFY activity, an admonition from the Bishop to be more faithful in church cleaning assignments, and a reminder that when people become inactive or leave the Church it’s ultimately because they were offended and are too prideful to repent.

A short time earlier I attended a stake conference in a different part of the world where the topics were (in this order): appropriate Sabbath Day observance standards, tithing, Book of Mormon, missionary work, the importance of “doing” and “obedience,” tithing (again), missionary work (again), and another on missionary work (a third time). At one point a counselor in the Stake Presidency directed a quick comment to visitors: “I know we have many visitors here and we welcome you! We want you to know that of course we’re Christians and we believe in Jesus.” (One wonders why he felt the need to clarify, given the topics that were emphasized in the meeting.)

The visiting member of the Seventy then finished the meeting with an exhortation to be faithful and obedient to home teaching, tithing, and temple attendance because, as he explained, there is no progression from Kingdom to Kingdom in the afterlife. If you are not faithful and obedient to the gospel now, he warned, your path will be forever sealed against eternal life and exaltation.

………………..

Terryl and Fiona’s latest book The Christ Who Heals makes a bold claim: Mormon theological culture has inherited a religious “style” from its Western Christian (Catholicism and Protestantism) antecedents that often serves to obscure its empowering, uplifting, and ennobling truths. In other words, Mormons hear the phrase “philosophies of men mingled with scripture” in their temple liturgical rites and assume that it must be referring to liberal Christians who use the Bible to defend same-sex marriage or political philosophers who argue that the Bible makes a strong case for socialism. Based on my reading, Terryl and Fiona might argue that it also refers to the integration of traditional Catholic and Protestant perspectives of sin, guilt, and depravity into our conceptualizations of Mormon belief and praxis.

One of the book’s key methodologies is the “Hugh Nibley approach”: Terryl and Fiona constantly draw parallels between Josephine Mormonism[1] and early Christian desert fathers, monks, and mystics, especially in the Eastern Christian tradition. These parallels serve to anchor their argument that the Eastern Church’s theological development was much closer to what Joseph Smith taught many centuries later, while the Western Church moved continually toward more cynical and pessimistic view of human nature, sin, death, and repentance. They argue that Eastern Orthodox Christianity represents a path that Western Christianity might have taken, and if it had, would have resembled Josephine Mormonism to a much stronger degree than it currently does.

How, then, did Mormonism shift toward Western Christianity’s notions of depravity, guilt, and sin? Through our language, they argue. Not “language” in the strict sense of speaking the English language (or others), but rather the cultural environment in which we are raised.[2] They argue that since Mormonism emerged in the fertile landscape of early America where Protestantism was on fire (literally in the “burned-over district” during the Second Great Awakening) Joseph had a difficult time breaking his followers out of their strong Protestant conditioning. To this day, they argue, Mormon theology, culture, and practice have a strong bias toward Western Christianity’s orientations toward sin, guilt, and judgment instead of its “true” focus on human potential, advancement and eternal progression.

Why is it this important? Among other things, it matters how we understand the nature of God. Our understanding of God shapes everything else in our religious lives, including our values, choices, and priorities, as well as the way we interact with one another. As Joseph Smith said: “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.”[3]

Psychological research has also shown that it matters whether one believes in a more “Authoritative” God [judgmental, punitive, strict, etc.] or a more “Gracious” God [friendly, loving, intimate] (see here and here).  Those who have a more “gracious” conceptualization of God tend to have better health outcomes, report higher levels of well-being, spiritual health, self-esteem, happiness, etc., to volunteer and engage in their communities, and have lower levels of anxiety, depression, and paranoia.[4] It could be argued, then, that to the extent that Mormon clergy and laity alike embrace a Western Christian view of sin, judgment, and depravity, they are risking the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of those in their communities.

It is in this context that Terryl and Fiona try their best to “move the needle” of the Mormon theological conversation back toward a “gracious” conceptualization of God. As is common in their writing, they draw on scripture, science, literature, and art, as well as theologians from Irenaeus to Origen to Tertullian to Julian of Norwich[5] to bolster their arguments. A sampling includes:

“Salvation is the culmination of our richer incorporation into the heavenly family of celestial beings.” (50)

“Christ … volunteers himself an offering to assume the painful consequences of our injurious choices. Appeasing some abstract justice, or propitiating a sovereign God, is not the point.” (55)

“Atonement is primarily about healing the pains and strains of injured relationships.” (74)

“Zion-building is not preparation for heaven. It is heaven, in embryo. The process of sanctifying disciples of Christ, constituting them into a community of love and harmony, does not qualify individuals for heaven; sanctification and celestial relationality are the essence of heaven.” (78)

“We do not earn heaven; we co-create heaven, and we do so by participating in the celestial relationships that are its essence.” (93)

“We cannot overstate the significance of this shift from accusatory judgment and evaluation to judgment as an awakening of self.” (98)

“Sin is whatever is crippling, destructive of human relations, whatever distorts or hedges up the way of flourishing. Virtue, on the other hand, is wholeness, the measure of our creation.” (102)

I will admit that I struggled with the understanding of the concept of atonement that is presented in The Christ Who Heals. The authors firmly reject the Cleon Skousen view that Christ’s atonement was necessary to satisfy the demands of justice on the part of “intelligences” upon which God’s support depends to maintain his position as God (a view that was popular in late-20th century Mormonism). Instead, as I understood from my reading of the book, they argue that Christ’s atonement was primarily about sharing in our pain so that he could serve as a perfect Healer and to generate the infinite grace necessary to draw and persuade all of God’s children unto him. This is a compelling and exciting view, but to me it begs the question: was an atonement necessary, then? Did our Heavenly Parents already not have the ability to share in and heal our pains? Did they not already have the ability to draw and persuade us back to Them, absent of someone else needing to perform that task or generate that ability? The Skousen view, while in my view wrong, as least has a clear and consistent logic. I finished The Christ Who Heals without a clear understanding of how the authors’ view of atonement ultimately requires a Christ to perform that atonement. (All the more reason, in my view, to move away from a literalistic understanding of Christianity and the atonement and toward a more metaphorical, mystical understanding.)

Perhaps their most important and exciting theological argument is made in the final chapter, where they argue that an overly-judgmental conceptualization of God risks obscuring the bold and radical doctrine of eternal progression. They outline in Chapter 12 that Mormon authorities such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, B.H. Roberts, James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith, J. Reuben Clark taught clearly that even though Mormon doctrine believes in an initial assignment to a degree of glory in the afterlife, there exists the potential for eternal advancement, even from kingdom to kingdom. (They further argue that this perspective can be reasonably inferred from early desert fathers such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa.) It is only more recent Mormon authorities such as Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith who taught that this is not true, based on an erroneous understanding of the phrase “words without end” in D&C 76:112.[6]

If there truly is the potential of advancement from kingdom to kingdom in the afterlife, it is a radical and ennobling principle: it is never too late. Terryl and Fiona argue that our Heavenly Parents are rooting and cheering for us throughout the eternities, and that the Savior will never give up on inviting, loving, and helping us all on our way toward eternal life and exaltation as we climb the long ladder of eternal progression and improvement. No one who desires will be left behind, even if it takes eternities for them to come around.

The implications of this possibility cannot be understated. This means that everyone who wants to can and will “make it” in the end. While some will take a little longer than others, everyone is on the same journey with the same destination. Vicarious temple work ensures that everyone will receive all the saving ordinances in the end, and so long as a person’s orientation is pointed toward God (or even Goodness), they will for eternity have a standing invitation to progress and learn and come ever-closer to “eternal life and exaltation.”[7] We will all have the “eternal family” that is promised to us, sooner or later, regardless of how far down the road we make it in this life.[8]

………………..

For many people, the day-to-day lived experience of contemporary Mormonism, with its frequent focus on behavioral checklists, institutional maintenance, dress standards, guilt-based persuasions, and obedience over grace, is an environment that they find effective and helpful to them as they seek to draw closer to God and become more like Them, participating in the “co-creation” that Terryl and Fiona describe. For some, however, the contemporary LDS environment has become stifling, discouraging, uninspiring, uninteresting,[9] or in some rare cases, even unsafe.[10]

Terryl and Fiona present what is, in my view, a desperately needed “course corrective” to predominant framings and emphases in contemporary Mormon theological discourse. The Mormon tradition is by leaps and bounds richer for the perspectives they are contributing to the theological conversations and narratives. To be sure, there are local leaders and General Authorities who strive to bring these more expansive and ennobling perspectives to the fore. These framings are, however, usually a strong minority in most corners of Mormondom. The Mormonism that Terryl and Fiona present is, very regrettably, simply not the Mormonism that most members encounter these days in their day-in-day-out, on-the-ground experience with the Church.[11] I therefore fear that their effort to influence the dominant narratives in Mormonism is an increasingly quixotic one as American Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism become increasingly interchangeable in their outlooks, perspectives, and religious styles. But as a Christian, of course, I value hope, and I hold out hope that, in the end, the Mormonism of The Christ Who Heals will prevail.

      ………………..

FN1: I use the term “Josephine Mormonism” in reference to Joseph Smith’s version of Mormon theology.

FN2: I whole-heartedly agree with this, by the way. And I might venture to take it one step further. What other understandings or assumptions about God and religion are influenced by our cultural conditioning, either as individuals, communities, or institutions? How much has our understandings of concepts like “church,” “priesthood,” “authority,” “exaltation,” “scripture,” or even “Jesus” or “God” been shaped by the cultural environments in which we were raised and by the languages and assumptions and worldviews that we swim in? (2 Nephi 31:3) How much might our views of gender or sexuality be influenced in the same way? And to take it another step further: Terryl and Fiona argue that Joseph’s ability to bring the early Saints to new truths was constrained by their cultural conditioning, but how much of Joseph’s own theology, revelations, and behavior was also constricted and bounded by his cultural conditioning? If Joseph Smith had been born in India, for example, how might he have understood and conveyed his First Vision experience to his followers? What would the “Book of Mormon” looked like?

FN3: History of the Church, 6:303

FN4: See here, here, here, here, e.g.

FN5: I particularly appreciate that Terryl and Fiona gave Julian such a strong platform in this book. Her Revelations of Divine Love should be required reading for all Christians. That said, I may be biased, as my wife and I named one of our daughters in her honor: “Hazel Julian.”

FN6: The point about “worlds without end” comes from an interview with Fiona on the LDS Perspectives Podcast. She argues that “worlds without end” in the 19th century was used as a title for God, and thus Joseph likely understood this mean: “but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, where We are [yet!]” I might venture to add that this was a missed opportunity that the book could have taken. What is a faithful Mormon to do when there is very clear evidence that Mormon authorities taught mutually exclusive perspectives on a topic? Or that an authoritative doctrinal teaching is based on an erroneous interpretation of a scriptural phrase?

FN7: A similar argument was featured on this blog in 2015: http://ift.tt/2ASBOtT

FN8: Of course, this presents an awkward paradox. If salvation is truly an eternal opportunity and the door never closes, what is the urgency to faithfully follow the LDS program in this life, especially if someone finds more light, knowledge, hope, and/or faith in other faith traditions (or none at all)? The answer, for Terryl and Fiona, is that they personally find the LDS context most compelling and conducive to learning the lessons of eternity and creating a Zion community. I never found in the book a compelling argument, though, for why everyone necessarily best thrives and flourishes in an LDS context, or what to do if someone finds that active LDS participation is more of a hindrance than a help toward a more abundant spiritual life, especially given that the ennobling and empowering narrative of Mormonism they present is not frequently encountered in most Mormon contexts these days. This seems to be the unanswerable question for Mormon apologists such as Terryl and Fiona and Patrick Mason. It is difficult to simultaneously hold to a near-universal view of salvation while simultaneously arguing for the necessity of a near-universal LDS experience.

FN9: Indeed, the 2016 Next Mormons Survey found that 20% of self-identified Mormons in the United States say that at the end of church they feel “tired or burned out” instead of “spiritually fed and inspired.” This includes 13% of those who attend church regularly.

FN10: See, for example, “The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide by Michael Barker, Daniel Parkinson, and Benjamin Knoll”, Dialogue 49(2) as well as my research on Mormon context and youth suicide rates: http://ift.tt/2ASa5cO

FN11: In contrast, I tend to find many of the general positive, ennobling, and universalistic aspects of Josephine Mormonism more often these days taught and celebrated in Mainline Protestant communities.

      Book Review: “The Christ Who Heals” by Terryl and Fiona Givens published first on http://ift.tt/2wQcX5G

[mayorgalvan]

Hitler Secret 1942 Voice Recording."Guesswork Documentary" Hitler Secret 1942 Voice Recording."Guesswork Documentary" RØL GSubscribe60KAdd to Share More1,052,198 views3,504 1,265ShareEmbedEmail Start at: Published on Jan 30, 2012Hitler Secret 1942 Voice Recording without add-ons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8raD... Warning: Dictator Hitler videos are high power magnets which attract worthless comments from totally uneducated illiterate morons. Even if your English language skills are limited, it doesn't hurt to have a civilised debate. Hitler was a megalomaniac dictator and many Germans got carried away by his promises to make Germany great again after the humiliation of the Versailles treaty. The tragedy is that many Germans did not at all want him in power. For many Germans the horror of the dictator's iron fist rule was clearly foreseeable. During his 4500 days in power his crazy ideas totally ruined many millions of lives. This is a manipulative video which pretends to examine the implications of a secretly made recording from 1942 of the first 11 minutes of Adolf Hitler's private conversation with Finland's General Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. Viewers can make up their own mind about what they hear, especially if they don't understand German absolutely perfectly. The commentary is similar to many other war related propaganda films produced by biased USA "historians" for brainwashing future generations. The pot calling the kettle black. Be selective about what parts, if any, you accept as truth and what you reject as biased conjecture. Even the type of music producers use has a profound effect on how visual content comes across. I often switch off audio and make up my mind based on what the camera has captured. For other videos i.e. Nurnberg trials, just listen to the audio. At the end of the day it's a combination of parts of different videos and books which will give the best overall understanding of any historic event. Fundamental divisions amongst totally confused viewers become obvious when reading the comments in this or any of the hundreds of similar war documentaries on YouTube. Most comments strings for WW2 videos inevitably turn into a war of words between pro and anti Zionists. Hare brain comments which are made purely for the sake of causing offence will be removed. Contrary to suggestions Hitler made many speeches in which he spoke with a fairly normal tone of voice. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRsl53... During the visit, an engineer of the Finnish broadcasting company YLE, Thor Damen, succeeded in recording the first 11 minutes of Hitler's and Mannerheim's private conversation. This had to be done secretly, as Hitler never allowed others to record him off-guard. Damen was given the assignment to record the official birthday speeches and Mannerheim's responses and following those orders added microphones to certain railway cars. Unfortunately, Mannerheim and his guests chose to go to a car that didn't have a microphone in it. Damen acted quickly, pushing a microphone through one of the car windows to a netshelf just above where Hitler and Mannerheim were sitting. After 11 minutes of Hitler's and Mannerheim's private conversation, Hitler's SS bodyguards spotted the cords coming out of the window and realized that the Finnish engineer was recording the conversation. They gestured to him to stop recording immediately, and he complied. The SS bodyguards demanded that the tape be immediately destroyed, but YLE was allowed to keep the reel, after promising to keep it in a sealed container. It was given to the head of the state censors' office Kustaa Vilkuna and in 1957 returned to YLE. It was made available to the public a few years later. It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone. There is an unsubstantiated story that during his meeting with Hitler, Mannerheim lit a cigar. Mannerheim supposed that Hitler would ask Finland for help against the Soviet Union, which Mannerheim was unwilling to give. When Mannerheim lit up, all in attendance gasped, for Hitler's aversion to smoking was well known. Yet Hitler continued the conversation calmly, with no comment. In this way, Mannerheim could judge if Hitler was speaking from a position of strength or weakness. He was able to refuse Hitler, knowing that Hitler was in a weak position, and could not dictate to him.CategoryLicenseEntertainmentStandard YouTube LicenseSHOW LESSCOMMENTS • 2,876 Add a public comment...Top comments Pinned by RØL Gtester20142 weeks ago (edited)funny (actually more sad than funny) to read all the Hitler fanboy/fangirl comments, getting all worked up how their beloved Fuehrer became victim of this horrible, horrible piece of History channel low budget production. LMAO, yes, it was all a big unfortunate misunderstanding, everybody so evil except innocent Adolf and gang, and oh would the world not be just marvelous had Hitler won the warReply 5  View all 15 replies Rudolf the tall white Alien6 months agoHitler did not say in this recording Russen workers are animals. He sayed they had to work hard like animals. Stick to the truthReply 481  View all 70 replies Arische Ehefrau8 months agothis is bullshit propaganda im suingReply 823  View all 150 replies madmax17172 years ago'Absolute evil' lol this makes it more of a propaganda film than a documentary, where is the objectivity. You could say the same then about the allies, dropping atom bombs on a civilian population is more evil than anything.Reply 305  View all 51 replies Anne Wolfe1 year ago (edited)So when they (Hitler and Germany) speak with their then ally (Finland) it's an act of "evil manipulation" but when we (US/UK) meet with statistically the most murderous man in history (Stalin) it's gallant and necessary diplomacy? This "accurate and unbiased" documentary isn't even trying...Reply 304  View all 21 replies twohanded14886 months agoLet me guess, this documentary tells us that Hitler was an evil man with one testicle that tried to turn 6666 gorillion Jews into lampshades for no reason.Reply 220  View all 8 replies S. Hardy8 months agoThey speak of Hitler like he was bad or something.  I don't get it.Reply 219  View all 23 replies Norm Kid1 year agoYou must be very careful about these sort of documentaries, as they are extremely biased and dishonest. For instance, consider 7:45 when the narrator speaks about Roosevelt in a morally righteous light, attempting to prevent war. And Hitler is mocked as partaking in a "twisted, standup comic routine". But the context is not explained properly: In the letter, Roosevelt (and his British and French cronies) attempt to persuade Hitler to not intervene in "independent" nations, but the reason Hitler makes a joke out of it and the crowd laughs is because within the letter, Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Iran are mentioned; these were not independent nations, rather, they were Middle Eastern colonies that the British and French had used trickery and deceit to overtake following WW1. There was even a Palestinian rebellion for independence taking place against the British at the time, and this is why the crowd laughs so hard when Palestine is mentioned. Hitler was exposing the shameless hypocrisy of THEIR telling HIM not to interfere with others, but the narrator wants you to think it's just Hitler being a sadistic bastard!Read moreReply 332  View all 33 replies Bul Mnstr1 year agoAllot of american bullshit trying to make hitler look that he wanted everything for him self. Do a bit of reseach and u will know what im talking aboutReply 161  View all 34 replies Hymer3001 year agoI wonder whenever we will ever see a video documentary about the 66 million white christian russians who were killed in the Soviet Union.Reply 148  View all 21 replies D Budai10 months agotalk about propaganda.... this documentary is a fine example.Reply 140  View all 7 replies nathan price8 months agoAmerica drops nukes on Japanese cities, and Hitler's the mad man, lolReply 126  View all 20 replies irina pivtchev3 years agothe only madness we know is the allies and how they lied and killed thousandsReply 119  View all 45 replies Vesa Hugh Nell8 months agoSo you couldn't just play the tape and shut up? Pganda robot.Reply 97  View all 32 replies Vot633 years agoLaughably inept anti-German propaganda: the Zionists need to raise their propaganda game. Here is an example: @ 42:59 the narrator asserts that, "Hitler casually refers to the Soviet workers as animals", trying to give the impression that Hitler regarded them as sub-human. If you read the translation, Hitler is saying that the workers in this giant tank factory are FORCED to live like animals, not that Hitler regarded them as animals. Thank you to the cathedral fools who posted this video, which reveals truths about Russia and Stalin's geopolitical imperatives that CONFIRM the National Socialist version of the Soviet/German conquest, a version that is further being confirmed by post-Communist Soviet researchers. Read moreReply 92  View all 20 replies 1776Rosco11 months agoThe winners write history!Reply 91  View all 3 replies Killjoy458 months ago32:40 Are these guys serious? It's obvious Hitler was reffering to the working and living conditions of the factory workers which may have been okay for Soviet standards, but not so great by German standards. What he was saying was that the workers were treated like animals BY THE SOVIET OFFICIALS! And what the documentary has to say about it: "Oh, he thought they were animals!!! He expressed his superiority complex once again!!!! GOD, Hitler was the devil himself".Read moreReply 86  View all 8 replies Mark Kamphuis1 year agoSo biased, this is laughable.Reply 80   cory21462 years agoSo many lies. Lies on top of lies. For what purpose I often wonder. What are they so afraid of? The more lies they tell, the harder I seek the truth. I'm drawn to it like a moth to a flame.Reply 72  View all 5 replies Charles McCarron1 year agoThe propaganda never stops!Reply 70  View all 3 replies Show moreAutoplay  Up nextSS Archive HITLER colour documentaryDonatello20301,132,677 views46:00Hitler's Secret Drug HabitDadoTheGoodVillain110,879 views43:5710 of the Most Unsettling Audio RecordingsMr. Nightmare3,451,920 views11:03Hitler's American Business PartnersPrentissMcCabe501,331 views43:4625 Facts About Hitler That Might Take You By Surpriselist253,053,608 views6:59The Brits Who Fought For Hitlerdocufans1574,726 views46:56The Hitler FamilyDandDBroadCasting391,627,201 views52:30Adolf Hitler Bio Colour #2 ) Film DocumentaryDonatello2030293,045 views15:02The Secret Life of Adolf Hitler (720p)DOCUMENTARY TUBE811,526 views50:24Adolf Hitler Bio Colour #1) Film DocumentaryDonatello2030823,324 views15:02Top 10 Hitler's Secret WeaponsWe Love Facts279,723 views7:44Science Documentary - Alien Artifacts DocumentaryAlien Documentary53,823 views1:09:3010 Real Bigfoot Sightings Caught on TapeEskify6,525 views8:30Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to MentionA Big Secret602,442 views1:36:54Hitler's Secret 1942 Voice RecordingINODEUX10,274 views45:2410 Facts About Hitler You Didn't Know AboutFacts Verse2,300,083 views6:38(HD) The Secret of Hitler's Hidden Drug Habit - Forbidden History DocumentaryBabylonsChains51,338 views46:2110 Ways Hitler Could Have WonEskify972,761 views8:11What Happened to The Man Who Refused to Salute Hitler?Thoughty22,516,350 views4:13Adolf Hitler Bio Colour #5 ) Film DocumentaryDonatello20301,129,301 views15:02SHOW MORENEW Language: English  Content location: United States  Restricted Mode: Off History HelpAbout Press Copyright Creators Advertise Developers +YouTubeTerms Privacy Policy & Safety Send feedback Test new features © 2017 YouTube, LLC

[sharionpage]

Book Review: “The Christ Who Heals” by Terryl and Fiona Givens

At a recent Sacrament Meeting I heard the following message: “The world tells women to be independent, confident, and educated, but we know women are instead supposed to be chaste, virtuous, and modest.” Sunday School then featured these highlights: “We are constantly under attack from temptation. If we deviate even an inch we can fall! We have to be constantly on guard against Satan.” and “Wearing revealing clothing is breaking the law of chastity. Imagine the shame you would feel if the Second Coming happened and the Savior saw you wearing a sleeveless shirt!” The previous week’s Sacrament Meeting featured an overview of appropriate dress standards for an upcoming EFY activity, an admonition from the Bishop to be more faithful in church cleaning assignments, and a reminder that when people become inactive or leave the Church it’s ultimately because they were offended and are too prideful to repent.

A short time earlier I attended a stake conference in a different part of the world where the topics were (in this order): appropriate Sabbath Day observance standards, tithing, Book of Mormon, missionary work, the importance of “doing” and “obedience,” tithing (again), missionary work (again), and another on missionary work (a third time). At one point a counselor in the Stake Presidency directed a quick comment to visitors: “I know we have many visitors here and we welcome you! We want you to know that of course we’re Christians and we believe in Jesus.” (One wonders why he felt the need to clarify, given the topics that were emphasized in the meeting.)

The visiting member of the Seventy then finished the meeting with an exhortation to be faithful and obedient to home teaching, tithing, and temple attendance because, as he explained, there is no progression from Kingdom to Kingdom in the afterlife. If you are not faithful and obedient to the gospel now, he warned, your path will be forever sealed against eternal life and exaltation.

………………..

Terryl and Fiona’s latest book The Christ Who Heals makes a bold claim: Mormon theological culture has inherited a religious “style” from its Western Christian (Catholicism and Protestantism) antecedents that often serves to obscure its empowering, uplifting, and ennobling truths. In other words, Mormons hear the phrase “philosophies of men mingled with scripture” in their temple liturgical rites and assume that it must be referring to liberal Christians who use the Bible to defend same-sex marriage or political philosophers who argue that the Bible makes a strong case for socialism. Based on my reading, Terryl and Fiona might argue that it also refers to the integration of traditional Catholic and Protestant perspectives of sin, guilt, and depravity into our conceptualizations of Mormon belief and praxis.

One of the book’s key methodologies is the “Hugh Nibley approach”: Terryl and Fiona constantly draw parallels between Josephine Mormonism[1] and early Christian desert fathers, monks, and mystics, especially in the Eastern Christian tradition. These parallels serve to anchor their argument that the Eastern Church’s theological development was much closer to what Joseph Smith taught many centuries later, while the Western Church moved continually toward more cynical and pessimistic view of human nature, sin, death, and repentance. They argue that Eastern Orthodox Christianity represents a path that Western Christianity might have taken, and if it had, would have resembled Josephine Mormonism to a much stronger degree than it currently does.

How, then, did Mormonism shift toward Western Christianity’s notions of depravity, guilt, and sin? Through our language, they argue. Not “language” in the strict sense of speaking the English language (or others), but rather the cultural environment in which we are raised.[2] They argue that since Mormonism emerged in the fertile landscape of early America where Protestantism was on fire (literally in the “burned-over district” during the Second Great Awakening) Joseph had a difficult time breaking his followers out of their strong Protestant conditioning. To this day, they argue, Mormon theology, culture, and practice have a strong bias toward Western Christianity’s orientations toward sin, guilt, and judgment instead of its “true” focus on human potential, advancement and eternal progression.

Why is it this important? Among other things, it matters how we understand the nature of God. Our understanding of God shapes everything else in our religious lives, including our values, choices, and priorities, as well as the way we interact with one another. As Joseph Smith said: “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.”[3]

Psychological research has also shown that it matters whether one believes in a more “Authoritative” God [judgmental, punitive, strict, etc.] or a more “Gracious” God [friendly, loving, intimate] (see here and here).  Those who have a more “gracious” conceptualization of God tend to have better health outcomes, report higher levels of well-being, spiritual health, self-esteem, happiness, etc., to volunteer and engage in their communities, and have lower levels of anxiety, depression, and paranoia.[4] It could be argued, then, that to the extent that Mormon clergy and laity alike embrace a Western Christian view of sin, judgment, and depravity, they are risking the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of those in their communities.

It is in this context that Terryl and Fiona try their best to “move the needle” of the Mormon theological conversation back toward a “gracious” conceptualization of God. As is common in their writing, they draw on scripture, science, literature, and art, as well as theologians from Irenaeus to Origen to Tertullian to Julian of Norwich[5] to bolster their arguments. A sampling includes:

“Salvation is the culmination of our richer incorporation into the heavenly family of celestial beings.” (50)

“Christ … volunteers himself an offering to assume the painful consequences of our injurious choices. Appeasing some abstract justice, or propitiating a sovereign God, is not the point.” (55)

“Atonement is primarily about healing the pains and strains of injured relationships.” (74)

“Zion-building is not preparation for heaven. It is heaven, in embryo. The process of sanctifying disciples of Christ, constituting them into a community of love and harmony, does not qualify individuals for heaven; sanctification and celestial relationality are the essence of heaven.” (78)

“We do not earn heaven; we co-create heaven, and we do so by participating in the celestial relationships that are its essence.” (93)

“We cannot overstate the significance of this shift from accusatory judgment and evaluation to judgment as an awakening of self.” (98)

“Sin is whatever is crippling, destructive of human relations, whatever distorts or hedges up the way of flourishing. Virtue, on the other hand, is wholeness, the measure of our creation.” (102)

I will admit that I struggled with the understanding of the concept of atonement that is presented in The Christ Who Heals. The authors firmly reject the Cleon Skousen view that Christ’s atonement was necessary to satisfy the demands of justice on the part of “intelligences” upon which God’s support depends to maintain his position as God (a view that was popular in late-20th century Mormonism). Instead, as I understood from my reading of the book, they argue that Christ’s atonement was primarily about sharing in our pain so that he could serve as a perfect Healer and to generate the infinite grace necessary to draw and persuade all of God’s children unto him. This is a compelling and exciting view, but to me it begs the question: was an atonement necessary, then? Did our Heavenly Parents already not have the ability to share in and heal our pains? Did they not already have the ability to draw and persuade us back to Them, absent of someone else needing to perform that task or generate that ability? The Skousen view, while in my view wrong, as least has a clear and consistent logic. I finished The Christ Who Heals without a clear understanding of how the authors’ view of atonement ultimately requires a Christ to perform that atonement. (All the more reason, in my view, to move away from a literalistic understanding of Christianity and the atonement and toward a more metaphorical, mystical understanding.)

Perhaps their most important and exciting theological argument is made in the final chapter, where they argue that an overly-judgmental conceptualization of God risks obscuring the bold and radical doctrine of eternal progression. They outline in Chapter 12 that Mormon authorities such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, B.H. Roberts, James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith, J. Reuben Clark taught clearly that even though Mormon doctrine believes in an initial assignment to a degree of glory in the afterlife, there exists the potential for eternal advancement, even from kingdom to kingdom. (They further argue that this perspective can be reasonably inferred from early desert fathers such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa.) It is only more recent Mormon authorities such as Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith who taught that this is not true, based on an erroneous understanding of the phrase “words without end” in D&C 76:112.[6]

If there truly is the potential of advancement from kingdom to kingdom in the afterlife, it is a radical and ennobling principle: it is never too late. Terryl and Fiona argue that our Heavenly Parents are rooting and cheering for us throughout the eternities, and that the Savior will never give up on inviting, loving, and helping us all on our way toward eternal life and exaltation as we climb the long ladder of eternal progression and improvement. No one who desires will be left behind, even if it takes eternities for them to come around.

The implications of this possibility cannot be understated. This means that everyone who wants to can and will “make it” in the end. While some will take a little longer than others, everyone is on the same journey with the same destination. Vicarious temple work ensures that everyone will receive all the saving ordinances in the end, and so long as a person’s orientation is pointed toward God (or even Goodness), they will for eternity have a standing invitation to progress and learn and come ever-closer to “eternal life and exaltation.”[7] We will all have the “eternal family” that is promised to us, sooner or later, regardless of how far down the road we make it in this life.[8]

………………..

For many people, the day-to-day lived experience of contemporary Mormonism, with its frequent focus on behavioral checklists, institutional maintenance, dress standards, guilt-based persuasions, and obedience over grace, is an environment that they find effective and helpful to them as they seek to draw closer to God and become more like Them, participating in the “co-creation” that Terryl and Fiona describe. For some, however, the contemporary LDS environment has become stifling, discouraging, uninspiring, uninteresting,[9] or in some rare cases, even unsafe.[10]

Terryl and Fiona present what is, in my view, a desperately needed “course corrective” to predominant framings and emphases in contemporary Mormon theological discourse. The Mormon tradition is by leaps and bounds richer for the perspectives they are contributing to the theological conversations and narratives. To be sure, there are local leaders and General Authorities who strive to bring these more expansive and ennobling perspectives to the fore. These framings are, however, usually a strong minority in most corners of Mormondom. The Mormonism that Terryl and Fiona present is, very regrettably, simply not the Mormonism that most members encounter these days in their day-in-day-out, on-the-ground experience with the Church.[11] I therefore fear that their effort to influence the dominant narratives in Mormonism is an increasingly quixotic one as American Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism become increasingly interchangeable in their outlooks, perspectives, and religious styles. But as a Christian, of course, I value hope, and I hold out hope that, in the end, the Mormonism of The Christ Who Heals will prevail.

      ………………..

FN1: I use the term “Josephine Mormonism” in reference to Joseph Smith’s version of Mormon theology.

FN2: I whole-heartedly agree with this, by the way. And I might venture to take it one step further. What other understandings or assumptions about God and religion are influenced by our cultural conditioning, either as individuals, communities, or institutions? How much has our understandings of concepts like “church,” “priesthood,” “authority,” “exaltation,” “scripture,” or even “Jesus” or “God” been shaped by the cultural environments in which we were raised and by the languages and assumptions and worldviews that we swim in? (2 Nephi 31:3) How much might our views of gender or sexuality be influenced in the same way? And to take it another step further: Terryl and Fiona argue that Joseph’s ability to bring the early Saints to new truths was constrained by their cultural conditioning, but how much of Joseph’s own theology, revelations, and behavior was also constricted and bounded by his cultural conditioning? If Joseph Smith had been born in India, for example, how might he have understood and conveyed his First Vision experience to his followers? What would the “Book of Mormon” looked like?

FN3: History of the Church, 6:303

FN4: See here, here, here, here, e.g.

FN5: I particularly appreciate that Terryl and Fiona gave Julian such a strong platform in this book. Her Revelations of Divine Love should be required reading for all Christians. That said, I may be biased, as my wife and I named one of our daughters in her honor: “Hazel Julian.”

FN6: The point about “worlds without end” comes from an interview with Fiona on the LDS Perspectives Podcast. She argues that “worlds without end” in the 19th century was used as a title for God, and thus Joseph likely understood this mean: “but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, where We are [yet!]” I might venture to add that this was a missed opportunity that the book could have taken. What is a faithful Mormon to do when there is very clear evidence that Mormon authorities taught mutually exclusive perspectives on a topic? Or that an authoritative doctrinal teaching is based on an erroneous interpretation of a scriptural phrase?

FN7: A similar argument was featured on this blog in 2015: http://ift.tt/2ASBOtT

FN8: Of course, this presents an awkward paradox. If salvation is truly an eternal opportunity and the door never closes, what is the urgency to faithfully follow the LDS program in this life, especially if someone finds more light, knowledge, hope, and/or faith in other faith traditions (or none at all)? The answer, for Terryl and Fiona, is that they personally find the LDS context most compelling and conducive to learning the lessons of eternity and creating a Zion community. I never found in the book a compelling argument, though, for why everyone necessarily best thrives and flourishes in an LDS context, or what to do if someone finds that active LDS participation is more of a hindrance than a help toward a more abundant spiritual life, especially given that the ennobling and empowering narrative of Mormonism they present is not frequently encountered in most Mormon contexts these days. This seems to be the unanswerable question for Mormon apologists such as Terryl and Fiona and Patrick Mason. It is difficult to simultaneously hold to a near-universal view of salvation while simultaneously arguing for the necessity of a near-universal LDS experience.

FN9: Indeed, the 2016 Next Mormons Survey found that 20% of self-identified Mormons in the United States say that at the end of church they feel “tired or burned out” instead of “spiritually fed and inspired.” This includes 13% of those who attend church regularly.

FN10: See, for example, “The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide by Michael Barker, Daniel Parkinson, and Benjamin Knoll”, Dialogue 49(2) as well as my research on Mormon context and youth suicide rates: http://ift.tt/2ASa5cO

FN11: In contrast, I tend to find many of the general positive, ennobling, and universalistic aspects of Josephine Mormonism more often these days taught and celebrated in Mainline Protestant communities.

      Book Review: “The Christ Who Heals” by Terryl and Fiona Givens published first on http://ift.tt/2wQcX5G