Jump to content

churchistrue

Members
  • Content Count

    556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

362 Excellent

About churchistrue

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,267 profile views
  1. If someone claims to be a Christian, I think you should call them a Christian.
  2. I posted this in the conference thread. I have some charts and other insights on this. https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/lds-membership-statistics-2019/
  3. Here's my annual post with charts and numbers from the membership report. https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/lds-membership-statistics-2019/
  4. Mission calls always state the mission term length. Or at least always have in the past. I've heard this rumor dozens of times now, but I've yet to see a screenshot, and it's always a friend's nephew or something that has received the call.
  5. I like the name "LDS Christians". Let's go with it.
  6. Thanks for the info. And sorry for the quick trigger finger in my unfair response to Brant. Blame it on flashbacks from bad interactions with the faithful on this board and other forums from my critical phase 10 years ago. I know the questions in the OP were very broad. I'm down to one question I'm trying to understand better. Book of Mormon prophets before the time of Christ understood the gospel of Christ (fall, atonement, baptism, Jesus Christ to be born as Son of God, etc) due to visions and angelic visits where they were taught the plan of salvation. According to the BOM and the JST (and to some degree other conservative Protestant churches), prophets in the old world knew the same doctrines, presumably by the same method. Adam, Moses, Enoch, Zenos and Zenock of the BOM, Isaiah, etc, even though we don’t see this in the OT text. The traditional LDS view is that this is due to “plain and precious” parts removed from the OT, but modern scholarship seems to suggest that’s implausible. What's the "informed and faithful" view on this issue?
  7. No, it does not come as a surprise at all, that this announcement would come on April 1.
  8. You're right. And thanks for the reply, Brant.
  9. If you ever wonder why FairMormon types get a reputation for obfuscating, this would be an example. I don't think what I ask is confusing. I think with even the slightest amount of attempt at mutual understanding and cooperation, you would understand that the views scholars have of Documentary Hypothesis greatly affect things like historicity and other things that interest LDS, which I attempted to summarize in the bullet points. That's what I'm trying to understand. If Moses received revelation and wrote Genesis exactly how we have it, it would mean something totally different, in terms of historicity and these other questions, than if the Bible was written centuries later from different sources that don't appear very cohesive without a clear claim to revelation.
  10. What is the current consensus among mainstream LDS Apologist types. I know that's not a monolithic group, but I'm trying to understand the best consensus of say, the main faithful voices from this board, FairMormon, and BOM Central. What's the take on the OT Documentary Hypothesis? I'm not asking for the sake of the Deutero Isaiah or Daniel issues in BOM. I think I understand that position. But what about general issues like: --the different sources seem to represent different theology and understanding of God --the prehistory Gen 1-11 not appearing to have much grounding in historical reality --evidence against the Exodus, the wandering in wilderness, and conquest of Canaan, at least in terms of scope defined in Bible --the general pattern not seeming to fit the LDS traditional understanding of clearly revealed doctrine, priesthood authority, combined with apostasy/restoration and better fitting a pattern of a gradual evolution of doctrines and practices that only really seem to crystallize very late in the process, ie not much before King David era
  11. It would be fascinating. But I don't know that it would necessarily be faith harming. Why would you assume that, just curious. I would assume they would tell the story of Lehi, Nephi, up to the point of King Benjamin with the same feeling we get in Mosiah-Alma, where Moroni is narrating and occasionally cutting away to sermons and other long quotes related to visions or whatever. If they were much different than that, it might tell us something about what Oliver contributed, possibly. But I don't perceive anything that would be difficult for LDS, unless the content was goofy and included a lot more anachronisms or something, which I wouldn't assume.
  12. Related but tangential issue. I think people are mistaken to just take the assumption given to us by the BOM on the large plates and small plates and run with it without testing it. We say the large plates were more historical and the small plates were more scriptural and religious. Yet, when you look at the actual content, it's not that much different. If you exclude the large blocks of Isaiah, the large and small plates are pretty similar in terms of being a narrative with spliced in sermons/visions/letters. The main difference is that the large plates are written in third person due to being abridged by Moroni while the small plates are written in first person. But the aspect that one is historical and one is religious/spiritual is over exaggerated, because we seem to be taking what the BOM says about itself too seriously in this case. Vogel makes this mistake a lot, imho.
  13. Random question. Is there a message board forum where FM members hang out, if not this one? I'd like to interact more with FM types.
  14. Doesn't seem odd or that repetition would make it boring. They're in seminary five days a week, adding one more day at Church is not that much to add, and having it be from a different teacher and different perspective (ie church vs school) only adds to the experience, I think. Ditto for the hour spent in the home.
  15. I think this is overstated. I've heard that reference before, and I think it's a reference to total chapters as percent of total. As % of words, including Isaiah and the Matthew/Malachi chapter long blocks, it's less than 7% of the total BOM word count. If you throw in all the verse length quotes, you go up a little but not much. The intertextuality, like random phrases of "inherit the kingdom of God", things like that, that adds a lot, but I don't think it's a fair comparison, because there is still a substantial creative effort in including a phrase from KJV into what you're saying in the rest of the verse. Compared to no creative effort when copy/pasting large blocks. I think it's the creative effort that one is trying to get at when looking at that X%.
×
×
  • Create New...