The malnourished and badly bruised son of a parenting advice YouTuber politely asks a neighbor to take him to the nearest police station in newly released video from the day his mother and her business partner were arrested on child abuse charges in southern Utah.

The 12-year-old son of Ruby Franke, a mother of six who dispensed advice to millions via a popular YouTube channel, had escaped through a window and approached several nearby homes until someone answered the door, according to documents released Friday by the Washington County Attorney’s office.

Crime scene photos, body camera video and interrogation tapes were released a month after Franke and business partner Jodi Hildebrandt, a mental health counselor, were each sentenced to up to 30 years in prison. A police investigation determined religious extremism motivated the women to inflict horrific abuse on Franke’s children, Washington County Attorney Eric Clarke announced Friday.

“The women appeared to fully believe that the abuse they inflicted was necessary to teach the children how to properly repent for imagined ‘sins’ and to cast the evil spirits out of their bodies,” Clarke said.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Give Deuteronomy 21:18-21 a check. Abridged version for you: unruly children should be stoned. What she did is biblically justified. You’ll also find some “fun” stuff that should guide her actions in Exodus 21:15-17 and Psalm 137:8-9.

    Of course, someone could play that game that Christian denominations love to play - where you redefine the canon for to include/exclude books based on which actions you want to justify. But that’s from the Pentateuch, so kind of hard to brush off. Why is this disgusting shit there on first place?

    In the meantime, the Satanists actually have rules to act with compassion and to not harm children. Yup.

    Edit: turns out she isn’t even a Christian, she’s a Mormon. I guessed she was a Protestant Christian from your message.

    Christians also love to play the “that group there is not Christian, even if they follow the Bible and call themselves Christians”. I see this fairly often here… except that it’s towards Protestants (that, acc. to the local mindset, includes Mormons, for the annoyance of both).

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh boy! Bible verses taken out of context! Let’s look into these, shall we?

      Deuteronomy was about preparing Israel for the coming of Messiah. It’s not a command for today’s Christian people. Same with Exodus. They exist as historical record.

      Psalm 137 is lamenting what Babylon did to Israel. It was an eye for an eye rhetoric, as the Babylonians had murdered their children. Again, Psalms aren’t prescriptions. They’re songs written by a Jewish king.

      Mormons aren’t Christian. They reject the Trinity for a start and have additional scripture, just like Islam with their Qur’an or Jehovah’s witnesses with the Watchtower publications.

      • BaldProphet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ah yes, the continuously exhausting tradition of Christians who believe in one doctrine introduced hundreds of years after the death of Jesus Christ (trinitarianism) denying the beliefs of Christians who believe in other doctrines introduced after the death of Jesus Christ.

        Our beliefs have much more in common than you think.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The trinity is literally in the Bible and Jesus Himself literally referenced it.

          • BaldProphet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The concept of the trinity defined by the Nicene Creed is vastly elaborated compared to the verses in the New Testament that refer to it. At the same time, there are several instances where the trinitarian view of God is nonsensical, such as when the Father announces His acceptance of Jesus’ baptism, or the numerous times Jesus stated that He was “returning” to “His Father”. How would a single being return to Himself? Why would He engage in ventriloquism at the scene of His baptism?

            Regardless, we both believe in Jesus Christ, even if we believe in different things about Him. We are therefore both Christians.

            • Flax@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              What you described the trinity as being was Modalism, which the Nicene creed doesn’t teach. The definition of the trinity is in the Athanasian Creed.

              To lay what the Bible clearly teaches:

              There is one God. Jesus is God. Jesus always existed. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is referenced in both testaments. The Father is God. The Father always existed. Jesus prays to the Father. The Father and the Holy spirit are both present alongside each other at Jesus’ baptism. Jesus flat out equates the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together when talking of Baptism.

              God is above creation and our laws. We only understand our unitarian nature - that we can only be in one place at one time. Just like how we being three dimensional creatures can only relate to three dimensions. So it wouldn’t make sense for God to abide by our laws, but to be manifest in three persons spanning time and space and the laws of this universe.

              • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                There is one God. Jesus is God. Jesus always existed. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is referenced in both testaments. The Father is God. The Father always existed. Jesus prays to the Father. The Father and the Holy spirit are both present alongside each other at Jesus’ baptism. Jesus flat out equates the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together when talking of Baptism.

                This is exactly the same doctrine as the Godhead. God the Father is God. God the Son, Jesus Christ, is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Three together in unity, all present during the baptism of Christ. All eternal.

                I don’t see a disagreement here.

                • Flax@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  No it isn’t, Mormons believe in three gods and that the father was once a human like us.

                  God “was once as one of us” and “all the spirits that God ever sent into the world” were likewise “susceptible of enlargement.” Joseph Smith preached that long before the world was formed, God found “himself in the midst” of these beings and “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”

                  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng&id=p18#p18

                  But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.

                  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng&id=p2#p2

                  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Okay, but you’re talking about an entirely different doctrine now: Deification.

                    Regardless, I consider myself a Christian because I worship Jesus Christ. Every religious service or act I have ever participated in has been done in His name. The most significant doctrines I believe in were preached by Him.

                    I find the idea that because I don’t believe in the Athanasian Creed I am therefore not a Christian to be absurd and impossible to support authoritatively. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion on this matter.

                    I reject your opinion entirely.

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        So you’re claiming that there is a context where beating children to death with rocks is a good thing? As a humanist, I’m glad I don’t have to make desperate excuses for those kinds of doctrines. Are you suggesting that the Old Testament is not the word of your god? Because if so, we would agree.

        The Old Testament isn’t just a historical record for your religion. It is the moral foundation upon which your entire belief system is based. If the old Testament is a weak, rotten, crumbling, amoral structure, then all of Christendom never had legs to stand upon.

        And it is.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Didn’t say it was a good thing. Description, not prescription. King David was angry, generally this falls under “imprecatory psalms”. Basically nobody in the Bible was perfect apart from Jesus which is the whole point. Selfish laws are given and screwed up things happen. Saying the Old Testament is a literal word of God is unfortunately an oversimplification which even some Christians don’t pay too much attention to as they should. It’s a historical record of God’s people. Sure there are good lessons and things to learn in there, and it demonstrates why we needed Jesus. But basically everyone has some form of shortcoming apart from Jesus. It’s there for honesty (criteria of embarrassment) rather than for flat out glorification.

          Christianity is hinged primarily on the Life, death and most importantly - resurrection of Jesus Christ. When God became incarnate as a man and lived the perfect life to die a death we all deserved.

          • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Then the word of your god is imperfect. Especially so for corrupting the moral behavior of humanity for some 4000 years. Had your scriptures condemned slavery, genocide, child sacrifice, torture, rape, and war from the beginning, your religion could hold the high ground. But it condoned it instead, just like all the other religions. Just like the bloodthirsty kings and greedy priests who made it up in the first place to justify their lusts. Just like Christians have always used it to oppress others and enrich themselves.

            Seriously though, you ought to read your Bible. And while you do, I dare you to ponder these questions:

            “How would I know whether this is the word of God, or if Satan wrote it pretending to be God? If Satan wrote it, how could it be any worse? If God wrote it, why isn’t it any better?”

            • Flax@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              You basically just skipped over what I said, because the Bible is not literally the word of God. The old testament was the compilation of scriptures that the second temple Jews used in the time of Jesus that Jesus mentioned, and the New Testament were all written first generation/apostolic accounts of Jesus and theology. So of course there’s going to be descriptions of evil, compromises made with evil to fulfill the greater picture, concessions, etc. Even Jesus made this clear about Old Testament law:

              ‭Matthew 19:8 ESV‬ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

              So when it came to laws regarding Israel, they had to have laws to prevent immorality from leaking in and also have laws about keeping slaves as taking slaves was normal in that society. But it is worth mentioning that the slaves were treated better in comparison. Israel could barely behave with these concessions nevermind without. And in the grand scheme of things, you’re forgetting this is a finite life compared with infinity.

              Heck. People nowadays cannot even obey Jesus’ “do not divorce your wife” law. We still need framework to compromise with that.

              • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                I’m glad you agree that it literally is not the word of god. But it is a book which condones all those things I listed before, which means that it also is not a book of morality or wisdom. Any book which says that it’s ok to kill, enslave, and rape children, or to beat people to death with rocks for who they love may, indeed must, be completely distrusted in every way by a modern reader. At best it is a collection of unreliable historical texts by ignorant, backward, corrupt leaders of an ancient world.

                But that leaves you with the problem of believing that these people got it right when it comes to the existence of the god you worship today. It further leaves you with the problem of the history of your religion being one of ruthless adherence to the worst teachings of the Old Testament. Whereas the modern interpretation of a kind, gentle, loving Christianity is a totally modern fiction meant to erase the crimes of European colonialism.

                I’m astounded that you’d try to convince anyone that slavery is something you can handwave away. The fact that your religion ever condoned it ought to be considered proof that you’ve been tricked into devil worship the whole time.

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Oh boy! Bible verses taken out of context! Let’s look into these, shall we?

        I take contextual analysis for granted because it’s what you’re expected to do with any sort of text, but including it here would be verbose.

        Deuteronomy was about preparing Israel for the coming of Messiah. It’s not a command for today’s Christian people. Same with Exodus. They exist as historical record.

        Let’s add more context then: Matthew 24 (in special 24:37-39) and plenty other parts of the Four Evangelia claim that Jesus is coming back (something that Mormons stick to), while Matthew 5:17 justifies enforcement of the Pentateuch laws. And yes, you should look at the context of those too, not that it’ll change much.

        What do you get, in the big picture? That that law is still valid, specially with some Always-Imminent® second coming happening. What she’s doing is biblically justified - she’s enforcing an old but still valid law, that is about preparing Israel for the coming of the alleged anointed/saviour, for the event of his second coming.

        …or alternatively that the bible is a bunch of bollocks, and even when read correctly (i.e. with context being taken into account) you’ll get it prescribing shitty things, that no decent human being would follow in 2024.

        Side note: the Deuteronomy isn’t expected to be treated solely as a historical record. @Olhonestjim@lemmy.world already handled it.

        Mormons aren’t Christian. They reject the Trinity

        Under the exact same reasoning, most Protestants aren’t Christians either.

        The scriptures part is messy. The bible that one Christian group follows may or may not coincide with the one that another follows.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Matthew 5:17 is showing that Jesus fulfills them and brings them to realisation. Not enforcing them.

          Protestants don’t reject the Trinity?

          • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Matthew 5:17 is showing that Jesus fulfills them and brings them to realisation. Not enforcing them.

            That interpretation of “no enforcement” is clearly an ad hoc not justified by the text. Here’s same excerpt in two other languages, for reference:

            • [Koine] μη νομισητε οτι ηλθον καταλυσαι τον νομον η τους προφητας ουκ ηλθον καταλυσαι αλλα πληρωσαι
            • [Vulgata] Nolite putare quoniam veni solvere legem aut prophetas: non veni solvere, sed adimplere.

            In both you see the usage of verbs that convey “finishing it”, “completing it”, “making it full”, as if the older laws were an incomplete set, and whatever Jesus was preaching was in addition to them. (The English translation as “fulfil” is rather accurate.) It clearly implies that the old laws are still valid, alongside the new ones; and thus should be enforced alongside them.

            The Latin usage of adimpleo also conveys “I carry out [something]”; it’s specially relevant here because, if the implication of “carrying out the old laws” was to be avoided, the translator would’ve used compleo (non ueni soluere, sed complere) instead.

            Also look at the rest of the excerpt, including the two following versicles. Your interpretation makes no sense in the light of what 5:18 and 5:19 say:

            • [KJV] [17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

            What is the text saying? “My laws are in addition to the old laws. Don’t break the old laws, not even a little one, or you won’t go to Heaven”.

            Protestants don’t reject the Trinity?

            The reason why I say “under the same reasoning, most Protestants aren’t Christians either” is that they reject some nihilogical theological concept that some other group that considers themselves Christian accepts.

            That said some Pentecostal churches do reject it. Example here

            • Flax@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Jesus was the fulfillment of the old laws as they were in preparation of His coming. And it depends what law Jesus was referring to. In John 8 He literally stopped a stoning which would have been justified under said law.

              As Jesus said: ‭Matthew 22:37-40 ESV‬

              [37] And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

              and St Paul also wrote about this:

              ‭Galatians 3:15-29 ESV‬

              [15] To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. [16] Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. [17] This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. [18] For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. [19] Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. [20] Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. [21] Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. [22] But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [23] Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. [24] So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

              Christianity - The Gospel is Good News. As we are free from this law through Christ. And we can be freed from our sin.

              Catholics and Orthodox, despite being ecclesiastical, still recognise Protestants as Christians even if lesser Christians. Oneness pentecostals aren’t considered Christians either. Denying the trinity is weirdly enough the first sign of being a cult.

              • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Those excerpts from John and Galatians outright contradict Matthew 5. They simply show that the Bible contradicts itself.

                Addressing specifically the text in ‭Matthew 22:37-40: it does not contradict that the old laws should be still enforced. It simply emphasises the new laws.

                A simple explanation is that Matthew (if he’s a historical figure) took seriously the old laws, and John (ditto) didn’t. So they made their character (regardless of being based on some historical figure or not) say different stuff in each of their books.

                This shouldn’t be any surprise for anyone who, unlike Christians, doesn’t adopt the superstition of a self-consistent Bible.

                Catholics and Orthodox, despite being ecclesiastical, still recognise Protestants as Christians even if lesser Christians.

                The church? Maybe. People? It depends. I’ve seen over and over and over the Catholics here saying that Protestants are not Christians, and putting them on the same “bag” as Muslims an Jews.

                That pops up specially often when some Protestant church gets on the news due to corruption.

                • Flax@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  So the first the Bible is saying something you want it to say to make the argument “Christianity bad”, and whenever teaching has context provided and is elaborated on further on in the scripture, then it’s a “contradiction”.

                  Got it.

                  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I am highlighting that her disgusting and despicable behaviour is justified by the Bible, even if you dislike it (as a moral person should).

                    You can justify a lot of immoral shit through the Bible simply because it’s self-contradictory - if excerpt A says “do it” and excerpt B says “don’t do it”, you simply pick one and try to justify the other in the light of the one that you picked!

                    Historical context, textual context, versions, even which books should be canon… ultimately those are just the means that Christians use to fool themselves as justified in their actions, and to pretend that there’s no contradiction there. Not just on an individual level, but also in a church level, often forming new factions (oopsie “denominations”) based on which excerpt you should follow by the letter and which you should bullshit your way out of.

                    That might reach specially hilarious levels with the Mor[m]ons, but note - what they’re doing is nothing but what other Christian groups have been already doing since the Ancient Age. Including picking which books to consider canon.