Jump to content

churchistrue

Members
  • Content count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

247 Excellent

About churchistrue

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

724 profile views
  1. I bring up the age of the video as a hope that this is ancient thinking and we have moved forward. Most bishops are in their 40's and 50's. The way this bishop is thinking and acting in this video is representative of the overly conservative baby boomer age group, and hopefully the damage they've done in the church is ending.
  2. It doesn't reflect entitlement to me. It reflects courage and desire to repent that she confessed at all.
  3. I don't like this at all. Based on the clothes and Aaron Eckhart's age, this must be about at least 25 years old. It's dated 2012 on the church's website. I hope they remove it. And I hope we're more evolved 25 years later. A bishop should think really, really seriously about messing with someone's marriage when they're that deep into the planning stage. Public humiliation like that stays with someone a long time. Maybe a lifetime. Parents should also counsel their children not to be stupid with the bishop. So, you've got three stupid people here. The girl's parents. The girl. And the bishop.
  4. Youth trek historical accuracy

    Yes but I don't think the solution for that is to try to eliminate everything non historical. We wouldn't have much left.
  5. Youth trek historical accuracy

    My initial thought is "why try to make it historically accurate?" Our stories are our stories. It doesn't matter if they are historical.
  6. No unfortunately. Hoping the Wheatley Institute eventually publishes the presentations. Many were excellent, especially Terryl Givens and Adam Miller. Though I saw Ralph Hancock in n attendance, and I'm sure he'll disagree.
  7. I'm interested on the thoughts here on this. Did any of you attend Stephen Robinson's talk on grace at BYU last week? I loved it. In his book, originally, he made the argument that 2 Ne 25:33 "after all we can do" should be read "apart from what we can do" implying a full reliance on grace and regarding "all that we can do" with a bit of sarcasm (sarcasm is the wrong word but you get the point I think--it's trying to demean the concept of all we can do). I've been a big fan of Stephen Robinson, but I've only been half way convinced he is right on that. "Right" not meaning doctrinally correct, but "right" meaning that is what the original author intended. After all, Nephi was big on works. But in this talk last week, he brought up Alma 24:11 where Ammon uses a similar phrase "all we could do" and in this case it's obvious he's using "all we could do" in that way. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/stephen-robinson-on-mormon-doctrine-of-grace/ He said he's tried for years to get the brethren to add a footnote to that to reference Alma 24:11. "Instead we have a footnote to James. I think that’s the most egregious example in the scriptures of manipulating doctrine by footnote." hah. Classic Stephen Robinson. Love that man. Couple questions here that I think are very interesting. 1. Do you think Robinson is right that the original author of 2 Ne 25:33 meant it that way, and thus would be extremely frustrated at the way most LDS have interpreted it. 2. Is this important for BOM authorship analysis? ie the idea that we have intertextuality in the text that seems obvious now, yet no one seems to have noticed for 150 years.
  8. Thanks. Where did he respond? I didn't see that.
  9. I think both would probably be important. If the "more prevalent" was significant. For example, If you wrote a few sentences full of slang from very recent times, but each one of these vocabulary and phrase existed previously, just with much less frequency, that would be relevant to consider in determining if that was from 1950 or 2017.
  10. Should BYU Drop its Football Program?

    As an alum and die hard fan for many years, I would have to say, if we keep losing like this, go ahead and take us out of our misery. Without big conference affiliation, the future looks bleak.
  11. I think the reason it could be important is to somehow come up with some sort of probability model to determine what is most likely. What I hear you saying is that you have ruled out the possibility of 19c authorship, so it matters not how improbable any other points are for 16c authorship. I think where stemelbow and I have gone in this thread with this line of questioning is to determine if there are 19c aspects that line up to point making 16c authorship improbable. And how improbable? And how extensive? I don't know if this is the case. I haven't done the study. But if there is extensive and overwhelming evidence of 19c authorship, that could get to a point where it overrides the low probability of a 19c author properly using the 16c grammar such that 19c authorship becomes the more plausible theory. Do you see a possibility of these 19c aspects reaching that level? 19c implausibility: using the 16c grammar and vocabularly correctly 16c implausibility: lots of 19c stuff in it Could the 19c stuff ever get to be so overwhelming, we accept the 16c grammar implausibility?
  12. Why Lead Lehi to the New World?

    I honestly never thought of this. Mind blown.
  13. I hope I don't suddenly have several posts. I'm struggling with the editor. Quick question. "State" or "state of". Have you guys done a deep dive on that? When I did my computer study, I divided what I call S Voice and N Voice. Assume just the first half of large plates Mosiah through Helaman for now, which is where this distinction is trongest. S Voice = first person sermons of King Benjamin, Alma, Abinadi. N Voice = third person narrative, mostly Mormon. There were a lot of differences between the two but "state of" was one of the most remarkable. Very high frequency in S Voice and low or nonexistent in N Voice. "State of" appears to be another one of those phrases that is very heavily late 18c/early 19c. "State of" seems to be deeply integrated into the meaning and purpose of the text and wouldn't be something that could be a later add-on. Thoughts?
  14. Thanks. I don't buy all this. But everything you and Royal say, I find thoroughly fascinating. Thanks for answering.
  15. I think Royal threw out a theory once that it's a 16c translation that was "massaged" or updated for a 19c audience or something like that. But I think he's backed off that a little maybe. I guess my understanding of their theory would be that the example I suggested would be damning to the theory or force a different view. ie maybe a few instances of vocabulary or phrasing could change but not that widespread. But I don't know exactly. That's why I ask.
×