Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Scott Lloyd

    The Name of the Church

    I view it quite differently. I see “the Lord has impressed upon my mind” as being unambiguously, unequivocally a recounting of divine revelation. And President does not have the same meaning as prophet. All members of the Quorum of the Twelve and all First Presidency members are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. President denotes a specific office held by one having all priesthood keys and the authority to delegate. Also, holding the authority to speak to the Church at large on behalf of the Lord. To put it concisely, all who have been president of the Church were prophets at the time, but not all prophets are or will be president of the Church. Like all dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs.
  3. JarMan

    The State of Mormon Apologetics

    What if Joseph had “miraculously” pulled a rabbit out of the hat? We would be much less impressed. Anyone now can find how this trick works on YouTube. Descriptions of the dictation process always seem to involve the scribe situated on the other side of a table or the witnesses to the process on the other side of the room…just like the rabbit trick. (Go look up how it’s done.) Isn’t it possible Joseph had mastered some sort of slight of hand trick to make it appear he was reading text off the seer stone in his hat when he was really reading from a manuscript somewhere in his view?
  4. Someone changing their position later is not evidence than they didn't hold a different position prior to changing it. You're trying to harmonize based on the latest statement, but the statements don't harmonize. Brigham Young believed different things at different times. It may seem hard to believe, but at one point in his life he was even opposed to polygamy.
  5. Gray

    LDSSA kicked-Off U of Iowa campus

    Why assume that someone is an activist simply because they are not a Christian fundamentalist?
  6. He has every right to be bigoted against any group he wishes. That's a different question than of his breaking the law in how he operates his business.
  7. blueglass

    The Name of the Church

    This line in the official statement is completely wrong. Embarrassing this statement was not vetted, or checked with historians. "Mormonism, is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, of which I myself am not ashamed." - Joseph Smith Jr. Letter to James Arlington Bennet, 8-Sept 1842. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-james-arlington-bennet-8-september-1842/1
  8. Gray

    The Name of the Church

    I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, yes I am! And if you want to study a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I’m a living specimen. Maybe you think I’m just like anybody else you see, But trust in my word, You’ll quickly observe, I’m different as can be! Doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
  9. cinepro

    The Name of the Church

    Actually, we're calling it the "Law of Jehovah" now.
  10. Tacenda

    The Name of the Church

    Which brings to mind Elder Bednar's comment that there are no homosexuals in the church.
  11. Tacenda

    The Name of the Church

    Way to avoid Cinepro's comment, with which I feel the same, it's difficult to see Pres. Nelson not commenting on more pressing things. But I'm not him.
  12. Today
  13. carbon dioxide

    The Name of the Church

    I am still going to use the terms "Mormon" and "LDS Church". Nelson is correct that these are not the official names of the church and at least in public documents and journalists should refer to the official name of the Church at the beginning and use a shorter alternate thereafter but I think is most private conversations, it is easier and simpler to use a very short version. I just takes too long to say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints" over and over and over again. We should not however spend a lot of time correcting non-members who use the word "Mormon". I knew a chatter in Paltalk years ago who was very big on this issue. He refused to use "Mormon" and anyone who would say "Mormon Church" he would respond in ways like "I don't know of any Mormon Church" and so forth. It would lead to long arguments which was a waste of time. We should not get so caught up in the official name of the Church that it leads to distractions and needless headaches.
  14. And what do you label your petty and vindictiveness? Not to mention that you were the one who came out swinging. Putting aside the fact that you were dead wrong, including the name, which took you multiple posts to admit....that my telling you how unimpressed I was with a few of the people there is off limits is the best part. Like I said, the entitlement never ceases to amaze me. It's not so fun when we do talk back on this board, is it?
  15. jkwilliams

    Gospel Essays in the Curriculum

    Sounds like things vary by ward and stake. Thanks, everyone, for the responses.
  16. CV75

    The Name of the Church

    He focuses on the small things too, including you!
  17. mfbukowski

    The State of Mormon Apologetics

    I thought I would never say this, but it seems "a miracle" is the only explanation. Unless Joseph had a cell phone in the hat. Is there other evidence that Joseph had a "prodigious memory"? A tiny percentage of the population has such a memory. I knew a person who had memorized the standard works. http://mentalfloss.com/article/72434/9-facts-about-people-who-remember-everything-about-their-lives But that still does not explain the origin of the manuscript in Middle English.
  18. CV75

    Gospel Essays in the Curriculum

    It seems you were told wrong.
  19. Thinking

    The Name of the Church

    Does this mean changing all the headlines? Mormons Around the World
  20. champatsch

    The State of Mormon Apologetics

    This can be answered in at least two ways. One is to ignore dictation evidence, and allow that others could have produced the text. That sounds like what you want. But that's highly unlikely. Another is to give the Michael Morse answer of 1879, as recorded in an RLDS periodical.   He further states that when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation.  The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph’s placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribe — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.  Bro. Cadwell enquired as to whether Joseph was sufficiently intelligent and talented to compose and dictate of his own ability the matter written down by the scribes. To this Mr. Morse replied with decided emphasis, No. He said he then was not at all learned, yet was confident he had more learning than Joseph then had.  Bro. Cadwell enquired how he (Morse) accounted for Joseph’s dictating the Book of Mormon in the manner he had described. To this he replied he did not know. He said it was a strange piece of work, and he had thought that Joseph might have found the writings of some good man and, committing them to memory, recited them to his scribes from time to time.  We suggested that if this were true, Joseph must have had a prodigious memory — a memory that could be had only by miraculous endowment. To this Mr. Morse replied that he, of course, did not know as to how Joseph was enabled to furnish the matter he dictated. Morse couldn't ignore the dictation evidence since he witnessed the dictation multiple times. Morse didn't indicate that Joseph was reading from another manuscript. Morse didn't think Joseph could have come up with it all by himself, that he must have memorized it. When pressed on the unlikelihood of memorization, Morse just said that he didn't know how Joseph did it. But if we ignore the dictation evidence, then we would posit a team of Oxbridge scholars working in the early 1800s. Theologians, philologists. In terms of form and structure, they would have needed to identify a variety of non-biblical archaic features that they wanted to incorporate in the text, but not to the point of parody. Some of these are subtle, like personal relative pronoun patterns. Some of these are obscure types of usage, such as "of which hath been spoken". The scholars would have also allowed themselves to be slightly innovative and creative in what they chose to use lexically and syntactically, but guided by attested usage. They also would have injected a few modern elements and patterns, such as auxiliary selection with unaccusative past participles. How about a translation? Yes, it's not unreasonable to think, assuming arguendo what you state above, that it could have been a translation by scholars of something written in Latin or another language. The verb complementation of the text is heavily finite, which is unlike English and like many other languages. As I've said before, speculation allows us to think that it could have been formulated/translated much earlier than 1829 and reworked. Or it could have been formulated/translated in the 1800s. An 1829 philologist needed to know a lot of obscure usage (less-common earlier English). For example, the philologist would have known "more part" phraseology, and perhaps even "the more parts", but "a more part" would have come from knowledge of Fabyan's Chronicle or a few other more obscure writings, or lucky coincidence. "Of which hath been spoken" language (10 times in the Book of Mormon) doesn't occur in any famous writings that I've seen. Maybe Poole's Annotations on the Holy Bible, which has "of whom already hath been spoken" in an Ezekiel 47:3 note, was the most frequently re-issued text with an example of this language. Do you see the difficulty?
  21. Thinking

    The Name of the Church

    I haven't read all of the 350+ replies before this post, so It's possible that somebody has already mentioned this. If so, I apologize. This announcement seems to be something that would be part of the Law of Moses.
  22. The name of FAIR was changed to FairMormon. The " they" refers to the discussion board and the Support Board, not FAIR/FairMormon. So when you say "FAIR board", especially "old FAIR board", it appears you are talking about the orginal version of this discussion board of around 2005, especially since there have been no boards associated with FM since the 2014? 15? Support Board (and likely won't be as the format just doesn't work for the style of interaction we desire, which is to inform and support positive movement towards faith, not debate), so the Support Board is the "new board" in the context of FAIR / FairMormon, It is much clearer what you are talking about if you use the appropriate names that indicate the time period you are referring to, If you mix up the names, there have been complaints about the original FAIR debate board that sound the same as the current litany so such cannot identify the time in and of themselves (I suspect the same complaints will occur as long into the future as FM in any of it variations exist), thus the complaints themselves do not identify the time period, so it is confusing. ------- The Support Board ended up " function[ing] like any other discussion board" because there was a small group of posters who came to the board and insisted in turning it into a playground for themselves that was just like every other discussion board out there and who resisted our attempts to try and keep it on mission. Therefore it was discontinued since there were plenty of discussion boards out there already filling that need and we saw no reason to waste our resources on someone else's entertainment, when they could have started their own if they wanted it so bad and funded and supervised it themselves.
  23. Bill "Papa" Lee

    A constant environment of change, what to do?

    I understand your comment, my brother in the Gospel. My greatest desire for you, is for you to return, no matter the Ward. But I only wish you to feel welcome, and find the faith you once had. I was blessed for my entire life to have a 'perfect knowledge" of the existence of God, and Jesus Christ as his son. This "perfect knowledge ", lead me to becoming a "preacher" from 18-20, before reading the Book of Mormon. A book I found quite by accident, or maybe by the design by a loving God. Before befoe then I only "preached", for lack of a better term in Baptist Churches, the Church in which I was raised. Either way, I am not guessing about the existence of God, but as I have stated, I known always with a "perfect knowledge". However I still have to exercise faith about many other things. But getting back to the thread title, and topic, it is hard to keep adjusting to new Wards and boundaries. Our last change was a name change, and new boundaries just three months apart, which lead to a very, very large membership. So now, I went to knowing barely half of our Ward, to not knowing almost 3/4 of our Ward.
  24. CA Steve

    The Name of the Church

    Does this mean we have to start calling them Anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That's going to mess up some people's tag line. 😎
  25. Atheist Mormon

    The reasons for the flood

    We read the same thing and reach different conclusions, it's fine with me.
  26. california boy

    The Name of the Church

    Purely from a marketing and branding point of view, every exception that is made weakens the chance of this succeeding even among church members
  1. Load more activity
×