Jump to content

Button Gwinnett

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About Button Gwinnett

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ogden, Utah
  1. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Nope caffeinated coffee is the issue not coffee
  2. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Ah, yes they can
  3. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Sorry but I disagree. A member can and will receive their temple recommend even if they drink caffeine free coffee. So drinking "coffee" is NOT the issue. And as I stated earlier, you can drink Hot beverages such as hot herbal teas or hot chocolate and still receive your recommend. So "HOT" is not the issue. And you can drink caffeinated soft drinks so "Caffeine" is Not the issue. It seems that ONLY when you combine Caffeine to Coffee ,either hot or cold, are you in violation to the Word of wisdom. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that if one were to combine their Caffeine free coffee with a caffeinated cola that that combination would be OK, Which frankly makes zero sense with the exception that it make LDS people peculiar which may be the only point of the ban. I second the obesity problem among the Saints, Why people are allowed to gain immense amounts of unhealthy weight and still qualify for a TR while the healthy coffee drinker is banned from temple attendance is beyond me. Am I sounding like a rebel? Sorry. But this aspect of the WoW make no sense and the church ahs provided no logical answer or explanation except to trust and obey, but the entire WoW seems opportunistic and illogical and I can't imagine God being this illogical and nebulous. Did I say to much? I know I'm grandstanding.
  4. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Never heard of birch beer, where did you serve your mission?
  5. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Funny you specifically mention Dr. Pepper. Dr Pepper was my "entry drug" I had lived my entire life caffeine free through my mid 20's, then in a moment of weakness I had a Dr Pepper. I can't even explain why I had that rebellious moment and broke what I then believed was the WoW but after that dam broke I was off the wagon. From then through to today I have been a cold caffeine drinker of Diet Coke and the like.
  6. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    Thanks for sharing, my friend claims to have already read Lindsey's blog and was not convince by Lunds counter arguments
  7. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    So caffeine free coffee hot or cold is ok while caffeinated coffee hot or cold is not, cold drinks whether caffeinated or not are ok. So it's not the temperature, nor the caffeine, nor that it's coffee, I'm so confused. Can someone make sense of why caffeinated coffee is forbidden again? And if someone combines a hot caffeine free coffee with their caffeinated soda does that then make the beverage prohibited?
  8. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    Update: I had lunch today with my friend and passed along the links provided. He was aware of and claimed that he had read Lindsey's apologetics already. This is the essence of what he said. #1 he believes that the evidence supports the Biblical Scholars, so any explanation that requires him to believe that the long ending was original to Mark, at least for him, is a non starter. #2. Because this is his starting place, I offered him my personal point of view that Joseph was probably just being led by the spirit to add these words, his replied by saying And make it look like Jesus said them to Mormon? I had to admit that that doesn't make any sense either. He added that what I was saying is that Joseph just wrote the book himself, how is that any different from him just making it up. #3 He admitted that his testimony is in shatters, he's hanging on for family considerations and societal expectations only. (I didn't know it was this bad) #4 he said that if this was the only problem that he might be able to over look it but he said his list is long and full of unresolved questions. #5 he claimed that much of LDS apologetic solutions require him to suspend all logic and ignore counter evidence to maintain belief. I asked him to give me an example and he mentioned the seer stones. I had to agree with him on this one, as this is one of my issues as well, so I understand that it takes a huge leap of faith and a suspension of logic to believe that rocks dug from a well could do what is now being claimed. I'm not going to de rail my own thread but I'd love to know how others have managed that leap of faith some day. He is deep in the closet, is active , holds a TR and a calling that no longer requires mental conflicts. My fear is that he has slipped into that place where his faith will be irretrievable. I suggested that he show up here since this board has several individuals much more versed in these things then me. He said he'd think about it. One last thing. He did say that he appreciated our friendship and that at least with me he could be real. He also told me that he doesn't see himself leaving the church although the thought has crossed his mind but that he see that as a drastic move, he's much more likely to just become a back bencher. Any way that's my report. His boat is taking on water but I don't think it'll sink at least I hope not.
  9. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    In my personal research on the Long Ending in Mark, In addition of the fact that the long ending is not found in the earliest codex's of mark, the use of words and combination of words not found in any other part of mark also strongly suggest that it is a late addition. So the fact that it wasn't in the earliest codex's is NOT the only evidence to support it being a late addition to Mark and not original to this Gospel.
  10. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    My understanding is that there is a consensus in the Biblical Scholarship arena. The Long Mark ending is an addition after the fact and took place in the 2nd century AD. That it is found in the BoM is what is creating this problem. How did it make its way into the BoM?
  11. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    Each translation theory has its own problems and creates is own set of spin off problems. if we go with a tight translation as many profess, or with a loose translation which also has problems and spin off problems. (if I had time I could insert multiple problems for both of these) there are problems unique to that method of translation. I don't even dare share these with my friend it would be too much. for him to handle.
  12. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    While I haven't gone as far as you have to maintain belief, I do feel comfortable with my earlier solution to this problem, that Joseph expanded off of the Bible and evangelized Moroni's and Mormon's sermon by adding these biblical passages.
  13. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    Yes I get this and while I believe that we must let the Book of Mormon speak for itself, I hate that we have to depend on Lund's assertions which run against the prevailing Biblical scholarship. Again its us against the world or so it seems. We keep offering these ever shrinking safe harbors for belief to be maintained but its getting harder and harder to maintain belief in when so much of the prevailing scholarship is running against us. I fear for my friend and fear that he and his family are on the brink of losing all faith and hope in the church and its claims. I know for a fact, from our past conversation that he is clinging to belief by the thinnest of hope and remains only out of family considerations. This is a good man and past fellow member of our stakes high council. I have been able to provide satisfactory answers to some of his questions but on others there are answers but none of them seem to be satisfying.
  14. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    Thanks and I will pass this along. From a brief review of this link it appear that the author is taking the Biblical Scholars are wrong approach that I mentioned in my OP. As I stated earlier this is not the most satisfactory answer to dilemma since it puts Mormonism against Biblical scholarship.
  15. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    A Facebook friend of mine has reached out to me seeking answers to a question that he read on a FB post made by Bill Reel. (out of respect I won't cross copy his post) While I have my own ideas on how this might have happened which I'll post below*, Bill does make a compelling argument asking how Mark's words found there way into Morori's mouth and were then written in the Book of Mormon some 400 years after Mark wrote them in his book. But the plot thickens even more. Our earliest and most reliable codex's of Mark don't have these verses in them, suggesting that they were late additions added to Mark's Gospel by scribes 2 centuries after the fact and were never even words written by the author of this Gospel we call Mark. Here are the 2 verses that (highlighted) are word for word the same and yet Biblical scholars have determined that these words were late additions to the Bible and could not have possibly been written by the author we call Mark. So I'm curious how others see this dilemma or is there some easy explanation that I am not familiar with. I told my friend I would get back with him with an explanation to satisfactorily resolve his doubts that this post has created. I should add that this friend has been struggling for several months so this is just another piece of straw upon the back of the camel. So this is my explanation, but I'm interested in other ideas. I believe in cutting strait the what I believe is the most logical answer. *I believe that Joseph copied/quoted this verse directly from his family Bible. During the translation process perhaps in a moment of feeling the spirit he began to evangelize upon the words of Moroni and expand upon what he was translating. To me this is the most likely answer. I don't believe that Moroni transported himself across the world to some Catholic monastery where he peeked over the shoulder of some monk/scribe in the act of transcribing the Bible and adding those words as some have suggested. And I can't see God putting the words of a monk into Moroni's mind to put down on Gold Plates and then have him attribute as the words from Jesus's own mouth. The other logical answer is that the Biblical scholars are wrong and that Mark did in fact write the longer ending to his Gospel and that it being in Morioni's version supports this conclusion and that some how evil men removed it. This answer is not at all satisfactory to me it requires too many moving parts and flies in the face of modern Biblical scholarship. It also requires an explanation in how it found its way into Mormon 9:22-24 some 400 years after Mark had written it. It just requires too much supernatural gymnastics for my tastes. So what say you?