Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Stargazer

Contributor
  • Posts

    11,957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stargazer

  1. I thought this was interesting.

    Wikipedia is one of my go-to sources for information about practically everything. A day I have not ventured to the site is a day of great rarity. I have also created articles and frequently edit existing articles on Wikipedia. Articles about The Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints and related topics have tended to attract the attentions of anti-LDS editors, though this may have abated in recent years. But still, I was surprised to discover an article about a Book of Mormon topic appear on Wikipedia's front page, of all places, in the Did you know... section. This is from the 28 March 2024 front page.

    Which led me to read the article in question. It is here: Morianton's maid servant.

    Here is how it appeared on the day in question (the front page changes daily, so it won't be there very long).

    ZppZqo4.png

  2. 9 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

    Yes, thank you, and I understand how to break up a post. However, I can't find a way to quote just a part of a post.

    I'm using an Opera browser on an old Android phone. If I long press a word, the quote dialog box will pop up. If I attempt to move the selection to include more words, it includes everything from that word to the bottom of the page, and the dialog box goes away. 😒

    I was curious if that feature wasn't working in Opera, so Installed it on my Android phone and it did work for me. See the screenshot... Once I long-pressed a word I was able to move the blue markers in order to highlight some text. Is there something wrong with your phone?

    https://imgur.com/a/DDGglCrR38FpGh.jpeg

    9 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

    I did think of a workaround, though, just now... thanks in part to your suggestion ❤️

     

    I selected "Alternatively" from your post, and then quoted it. Then I selected everything from that word to the bottom of the page, copied and pasted it into a text editor. Then I could more easily select the rest of the post I wanted to quote, as above. It's kind of cumbersome, but it is technically possible! 😀

     

    Have a good one! 🤗

    If the workaround does the trick, that's good. 

  3. There's a YouTube livestream about this case on Nate the Lawyer's YT channel. The church has been mentioned in connection with the mess. Some people the live chat have said that the "church is complicit" because anyone watching Ruby's videos should have seen there was something wrong there.

    I am not sure if the current livestream will have the same Url as the finally posted video.

    The video description says it's discussing:

    "Convicted YouTuber Ruby Franke Case Drop Among nearly 17 gigabytes of data released are body cam videos, photos, audio interviews, eyewitness statements, and even copies of a journal highlighting the thought processes of Jodi Hildebrandt and Ruby Franke as they punished the children for “Satanic choices.”

    Here's the link as I see it right now: 

    EDITED TO ADD: If you saw this after the livestream ended you would have seen that the video wasn't available. I've deleted the link now, but if/when the livestream gets posted for viewing "deadstream" (LOL), I'll try to post the link in this thread.

     

  4. 36 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

    Thanks for your post ❤️ I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, though.

     

    You had written (I can't seem to get the built-in quoting system to work on my browser):

    For a hint about using one aspect of the quoting system, see my post which contains a screen capture video of how to break up a quote so as to answer portions of a post separated from the entire post.

    Alternatively, if you use your mouse to highlight a portion of a post, it will pop up a little dialog inviting you to create a post quoting the highlighted text.

    36 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

    "But the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, are more than just that still small voice."

    And I responded with:

    "Okay... and the translation of the Bible?"

     

    Now, if the translation of the Book of Mormon, and the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are more than just the still small voice, is the translation of the Bible also more than just the still small voice? If so, then the answer to the OP would appear to be No, if I'm following you correctly 🙂

    Yes, sorry I wasn't clear.

    Quote

    Can one use the little voice to correctly translate the Bible?

    My answer is: No.

    Although one could gain an understanding of less-than-clear or ambiguous passages thereby.

    All current modern translations of the Bible could be called workmanlike in their intent and outcome, and it is certainly likely that there may be instances of the still small voice guiding the translation process. At times the results may be specifically directed toward a particular group's biases. For example, the New World Translation published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (aka the Jehovah's Witnesses).

    But the only way to obtain a Bible that is more than just the still small voice would be for an actual prophet to produce one. And that appears to be something we'll be waiting on the end times for, the JST notwithstanding.

  5. 49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

    However, there is another German version (from Hermann Menge) that was published in 1939, and will be the officially preferred LDS version when they finish harmonizing it.

    Here I'm trying to remember who it is on this forum who is one of those who is working to bringing the Menge translation to the Church for German-speaking members. Menge's translation is being used as the basis for German in the Church because of two reasons (as I understand it): 

    1. The Menge translation has gone into the public domain
    2. It doesn't contain any objectional doctrine (i.e. bad translation, or false doctrine).
  6. On 3/20/2024 at 9:37 PM, Leaf474 said:

     

    On 3/20/2024 at 12:32 AM, Stargazer said:

    It's possible that understanding the intent of a passage of scripture could be an instance of the "little voice."

    Okay, the still small voice could give you the intent of a passage of scripture. 

    Oh, absolutely!

    On 3/20/2024 at 9:37 PM, Leaf474 said:

     

    On 3/20/2024 at 12:32 AM, Stargazer said:

    But the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, are more than just that still small voice. 

    Okay... and the translation of the Bible?

    The Bible, in its King James form (which is what I am most familiar with) is one of the greatest examples of literature in the world. I love it. 

    As far as the accuracy of its translation, I am not sure what to tell you. Joseph Smith went through the entire Old and New Testaments (KJV version) making changes to the wording to more accurately reflect God's intent. But while it is called the Joseph Smith Translation (frequently cited as JST) it is by no means a translation in the usual understanding of the word. Mainly because he did not translate it by conventional means from the original texts.  Which of course he didn't have and couldn't conventionally read anyway. Joseph's intent was not to provide a translation, but to remove errors and correct omissions. It's very possible that some of the errors were actually in the original texts (that we won't ever get) and some of the omissions weren't in the original texts in the first place. Not to dwell too much on it, the JST/IV was intended to restore what Joseph described as "many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (emphasis added). I should point out that we don't regard the JST as canon (nor does the CoJCoLDS own the copyright). It is considered somewhat persuasive, however. Joseph never completed his work on it.

    I would have to say that Bible, as we have it, is probably fairly reliable in translation. Not being a scholar of ancient languages myself, I can only comment upon what others whom I trust have said regarding this. And I find oddities when comparing translations.

    For example, in the King James Version for Isaiah 28:10 we find this (note carefully the italicized words -- they will be important in a moment):

    For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

    This happens to be a favorite passage amongst LDS. But then we run into the same verse in an important German translation, the Einheitsübersetzung (or Unity Translation) used by the Roman Catholics in German-speaking countries. This version was also used as the preferred translation by the LDS in such countries (for some reason I don't understand). Here's what it says:

    Ja, zaw lazaw, zaw lazaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, hier ein wenig, dort ein wenig.

    Do you see the proglem? Since I don't know if you understand German (I do, from my mission experience), here's my translation:

    Yes, zaw lazaw, zaw lazaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, here a little, there a little.

    The italicized gibberish words here apparently occur in the original text, and are interpreted to be taken as the kind of speech someone might utter under the influence of having partaken too deeply in "adult beverages." From whence do the KJV translators get "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;"??? 

    And don't go chasing down Martin Luther's translation of the Bible expecting to see anything better, because the same gibberish occurs there, too. Word for word, because those are the transliterated words from the original Ancient Hebrew (or Aramaic, for all I know). Apparently.

    However, there is another German version (from Hermann Menge) that was published in 1939, and will be the officially preferred LDS version when they finish harmonizing it. The same verse in Menge's version is as follows:

    Da heißt’s immer: ‘Tu du dies, tu du das! Mach mal dies, mach mal das! Hier ein bißchen, da ein bißchen!’”

    Now isn't that interesting? Again, my translation:

    So it's always said: "Do this, do that! Make this, make that! Here a little, there a little!"

    Google Translate gives it a bit differently: 

    It’s always like, ‘If you do this, you do that! Do this, do that! A little here, a little there!”

    I'm not sure Google has it correctly. The two different words "tu" and "mach" can both be taken as "do" as in "do this", but while "mach" is closer to English "make," it can also be used in the same way as English "do." As in "Mach schnell!" = "Do it quickly!" 

    I also had a look at the same passage in Spanish (which I can read a little).

    Porque mandamiento sobre mandamiento, amandato tras mandato, línea sobre línea, línea sobre línea, un poquito allí, otro poquito allá;

    Not sure which version this is in Spanish. But Google Translate gives it as follows:

    Because commandment upon commandment, command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, a little there, a little there;

    Now I ask you, in examining this verse in three languages, what do you think of the correctness of the Bible's translation? Is that verse's translation correctest in the King James, Unity/Luther, Menge, or Spanish translation?

    If you want a possibly jarring experience, read Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It didn't jar me, because what Ehrman wrote was pretty much the LDS viewpoint on the Bible in the first place. But for some Evangelicals it was a hard pill to swallow, especially for those who were of the Biblical Inerrancy persuasion.

    But all this aside, I think we can agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, and Christ alone is the source of our redemption.

     

     

     

     

  7. On 3/20/2024 at 5:27 PM, Teancum said:

    Have you read any of Ehrman's books?

    Oh, yes. It's been a while, though. Misquoting Jesus for one. I read it years ago, but my print copy is about 4,000 miles away from where I mostly live. I have Jesus, Interrupted, on Kindle, which I've been trying to get around to reading, but haven't managed it so far.

    In my opinion he is a brilliant scholar and well worth reading, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions. Don't ask me which ones I disagree with, I beg of you, because I don't remember! 🤪

  8. 1 hour ago, Calm said:

    I vaguely remember contributors as those who got permission to post in a substance only (no chit chat or rambling like I normally do) side forum we had for awhile.  It was to make the time investment for more academic posters less burdensome by removing the casual defender or critic and the babblers.  Didn’t really work that well.  If you didn’t have a conversation you wanted to contribute to, most likely there was no need to actually ask to be made a contributor.  I remember wanting to ask questions to clarify some weighty ideas, not sure I contributed anything myself of academic substance.

    At this point, there is no meaning to it unless I missed it.

    That forum was indeed for the elite posters to post substantive posts in. I received that status, too, but could never come up with anything I felt was substantive enough. Nice idea in theory, but not in practice. Like a lot of nice ideas.

  9. 21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

    It disturbed me at first, I thought I wasn't staying logged in, I remember thinking an explanation needed to be clearly posted. Its automatic after 25 posts, assuming those posts aren't clearly spam, trolling, obscene or a solicitation.

    Spam GIFs | Tenor

    Would you like to join my multi-level marketing program? 😄 

  10. 12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

    I think that this is highly illustrative of part of the problem that we deal with when we talk about texts, reading and translation. Once you write something, and put it out there, it is out there. It has to be interpreted. This is as true of a statement made on a forum as it is of an ancient text. What Stargazer wrote was this:

    Let's be clear that when I interpret this, I am not putting words in his mouth - I am simply interpreting the message that I read. And everything that I wrote above about the biblical text and reading that text applies just as much to a message written here. When Stargazer writes that this is "the most egregious example" what that means is that all other possible examples are less egregious. Yet, there is no evidence that this is remotely accurate. And as Clines would suggest, there is a lot of evidence that can be used to argue that this is in fact not true at all. For us to believe that this is as bad as it gets (the definition of egregious is: "outstandingly bad; shocking.") is to suggest that everything else is not so bad. And yet, as Clines would argue, this sort of claim bolsters the text that we have against the evidence that the text provides of its own inconsistency. Which is what I suggested in my post.

    It is my opinion that it is the "most egregious" in a sea of egregiosity. And it's entirely possible, I feel, that all other examples are, in fact, less egregious. But still egregious. Would you prefer that I had written "one of the most egregious" instead? But maybe the Johannine Comma is the most egregious -- simply because it is the most obvious (to me, at least). Your mileage may vary, as they say. 

    By the way, the definition of egregious has changed over time. Archaically, it used to signify "remarkably good." And the way English goes, it may mean that again, if the evolution of "sick" teaches us anything.

    12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

    And yet, the challenge here is that all scripture displays these same problems. The question is, on what basis would you argue that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price are somehow more reliable than the Bible? On the basis of Brigham Young's statement, we could clearly argue that if they were revealed again today, they would be substantially different.

    I completely agree with Brother Brigham. This is because God addresses the concerns of His children in their time and their language, not someone else's. The Book of Mormon seems to have been given in a form that was consistent with the expectations of those who received it at the time. Would God have given the text today exactly the way He gave it then? I should think not.

    I said the BoM, PoGP/Moses/Abraham, and D&C are more reliable than the Bible, not that they are perfect

    On what basis do I argue that the modern-day revealed canon is more reliable than the Bible? I say so because of the method of their delivery -- which was through a modern-day prophet whom I believe was guided directly by God. They are not at all like the Old and New Testaments, which besides having been originally given in languages we may no longer fully understand, were then transmitted via potentially problematic routes prone to mistransmission, and finally translated by fallible men who may in many cases have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, but who were translating to be supportive of their belief in a number of apostate doctrines -- which is why we got the Johannine Comma, to hark back to my old point.

    12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

    What do we do with the textual history of the D&C which shows a history of changes to the text that occur within a relatively short period of time? What do we think of the missing first two chapters of Mosiah? Or the question of whether or not the Words of Mormon contain parts from the end of that second chapter of Mosiah that didn't disappear with the rest of the first two chapters? How should we consider the idea that the "sticks of Ezekiel" is an interpolation in Section 27 of the D&C, added to the original revelation (provided in 1830), on the basis of a suggestion made by William Phelps in 1831 - a suggestion which we generally recognize as terribly flawed and based on a poor understanding provided by the King James text? One of the things that I am personally quite certain of is that if the Book of Mormon were to be retranslated today (as Brigham Young suggested), it would not be so tightly connected to the language of the King James version of the Bible.

    Having read Don Bradley's "The Lost 116 Pages" I am unsurprised that Mosiah is missing its first two chapters. And am unconcerned "whether or not the Words of Mormon contain parts from the end of that second chapter of Mosiah that didn't disappear with the rest of the first two chapters".  As I said, due to entirely predicted contrary events, the text of the Book of Mormon has some issues, but these "mistakes of men" do not substantially detract from its reliability. In my opinion, at least, it's far more reliable than the Bible. The same applies to the rest of our modern canon of scripture. 

    What is the Old Testament? It is said by some that the Pentateuch was a traditional story created and handed down orally until it was written down at some unknown time, by one or more unknown people. Who came up with it? Moses? And who was Moses? A real man, or a placeholder for an unknown man or group of men? When was it written down? Who wrote it? Nobody knows. Was what they wrote down exactly word for word what the oral tradition contained? How many versions of the thing existed (surely not everyone transmitting it orally over centuries got every single word absolutely correct, or failed to include some things, or added extras not in the original)? And then we have the histories. Who wrote those things down? And then we have the prophets. Probably more reliable, as they seem to me, at least, to have been written contemporaneously with the utterances of the prophets involved.. And may have survived mostly intact.

    What is the New Testament? It is three synoptic and one non-synoptic stories of the ministry of Jesus, along with with a book of history (Acts), followed by several epistles and one apocalypse. When were they written? Who wrote them? We don't actually know, do we? Though we can make some pretty good estimations. Can they be trusted to be pure unadulterated truth? Bart Ehrman expected a single, inerrant and consistently constructed figurative airplane, but lost his faith when he discovered to his dismay that it was, to use my earlier phrase, "a bucket of bolts flying in formation."

    And yes, I'm using overdramatized imagery.

    12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

    On the issue of reading with the spirit, I don't have any major disagreements with you. But I will stand by my comments that that this push for what we might consider the original or authoritative text is ultimately meaningless - both in the impossibility of the task of trying to recover something to a standard we wouldn't be able to recognize in its entirety and by the problem of the gap between us as readers and the intended original audience of the texts. It is this gap that Brigham Young is referring to. Our only real alternative is what Nephi suggests in his likening strategy - and this is something he not only tells us, but also provides us with examples.

    When you argue that you are seeking clarification of the Biblical text through modern scripture, it is this strategy of Nephi's that you are using. But we should never confuse this with returning to some original meaning of the text - which no application of modern scripture can ever give us.

    And I am not confusing that strategy with returning to the original meaning of the text. I'm pretty sure we'll never see the original meaning of the text in this life.

  11. On 3/10/2024 at 6:45 AM, smac97 said:

    Mine is not a categorical dislike.  It's more of an aversion to its overuse or misuse as a "throwaway intensifier" (hence the qualification in my previous statement: "I wonder if 'I know' declarations in the Church are also sometimes being used as a 'throwaway intensifier...'").

    By way of example, this year I will be celebrating my 28th anniversary of being married to a wonderful woman.  I feel quite at ease declaring that I know that I love her, and that she loves me.  That's not an affectation or a "throwaway intensifier."  It would feel odd for me to say "I believe that my wife loves me," or "I hope she loves me."  At this point in my life, I know it.

    Are there Latter-day Saints who can comfortably - and accurately - say that they "know" that God lives?  That Jesus Christ is His son?  Yes, I think so.  I also think there are plenty of Latter-day Saints who make declarations of "knowing," when perhaps "believing" is a bit more apt.

    No.  I haven't really taken a poll, but I think most Latter-day Saints, if specifically asked about whether "I know" declarations in testimonies are declarations of sure knowledge or of strong belief, most would point to the latter.

    Well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

    To some extent, you are probably correct.  But it's a mixed bag, as I think there are Latter-day Saints who, in declaring "I know," intend it to be construed as a statement of knowledge transcending strong belief, whereas others may be using it as more of a "throwaway intensifier.  Latter-day Saints aren't really unique in having a fuzzy boundary between things we "know" and things about which we feel very strongly and confidently.

    The one right before he died?  Isn't it possible that he had obtained "knowledge" at that point?  In this 1972 talk, he stated

    "I have a perfect knowledge."  I can't say that.  But I don't think I can assert that nobody else can say it either.

    Not sure what you are referencing here.

    I think so.  Consider, for example, this April 2013 General Conference talk by Elder Holland:

    "I hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. I told him with all the fervor of my soul that belief is a precious word, an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for 'only believing.'"

    Alma 32 is frequently discussed in the Church, and I am glad of that.  It does an excellent job of reminding us that faith "{is} not a perfect knowledge," and that we "cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge" (Alma 32:26).

    Elder Holland continues:

    I think Elder Holland was situated here to use "I know" advisedly and with particularized intent.  

    Well, there are plenty of references to "perfect knowledge" in the scriptures and in General Conference talks.  If there is perfect knowledge, then there must also be imperfect knowledge.  Can a person say "I know" in that context, and have it be substantially accurate and true?

    As for "official sources," see this 1991 talk by Elder Maxwell:

    And these 1994 remarks, also by Elder Maxwell:

    And these 1972 remarks by Elder Joseph Anderson:

    And these 2016 remarks by Elder W. Mark Bassett:

    And these 1973 remarks by Elder Hartman Rector, Jr.

    "{R}eal faith lets a man act as if he knows it is true when he really doesn’t."

    And these 2010 remarks by Bishop Richard C. Edgley:

    "{W}hen we choose faith and then nurture that faith to a perfect knowledge of the things of the Lord, then we use the words 'I testify' or 'I know.'"

    Getting to this thread very, very late. And jumping in before reading it to its current completion. 

    On 3/10/2024 at 6:45 AM, smac97 said:

    I am also curious what other Latter-day Saints here think on this topic.

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    I am well past the point of mere belief, but not yet to perfect knowledge, as Elder McConkie used the term. If I were to stand in testimony meeting and say "I believe" instead of "I know," I would feel like I were betraying the Holt Ghost, who has testified to me over and over again that these things are true:

    God lives; Jesus is The Christ; the Church is true; Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God; and Russell M. Nelson is a prophet today.

  12. 42 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

    in any meaningful way isn't really possible. And this is true no matter how we define the word 'correctly'. @Stargazer's concerns about transmission may be true, but ultimately are unhelpful, since we have no way of discovering what we do not know. To call the Johanine Comma the most egregious problem of transmission is really to accept the idea that the text is largely intact.

    With due respect, my mention of the Johannine Comma did not constitute an acceptance of the idea that the text is largely intact. I cited it as an obvious example. If you recall, I wrote about Bart Ehrman's loss of faith discovering that the New Testament was essentially a bucket of bolts flying in formation. LOL. You shouldn't try to put words in my mouth. Again.

    It is not entirely true that knowledge of the unreliability of scriptural transmission is unhelpful. On the contrary, that knowledge is what leads me to seek better clarification by study of more reliable scripture, such as found in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. And I'd add to that the clarification that I have received from time to time upon prayerfully seeking after inspiration via the Holy Spirit, as Peter urges in 2 Peter 1:

    19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
    20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

  13. 2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

    Right, I think that's talked about in the link in the OP 🙂

    Sorry, didn't read it.

    2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

    So... Can one use the little voice to do that?

    Not sure where you're going with this, but the "little voice" isn't there to translate the scriptures. That is something a bit more involved, as it were.

    Here's some examples of the "little voice":

    • An LDS US soldier in WW2 found a hand-cranked phonograph while clearing a building of enemy soldiers in France. He went back to it after making sure that the building was clear, and was about to crank the phonograph in order to hear the music record that was mounted. But as he reached for it, he "heard" a voice say "Don't!" He hesitated for a moment, and then reached out again. Again came the voice: "Don't!" He decided there was a reason for what he "heard" and so he carefully checked out the machine, discovering that it had been set with explosives that would go off when the crank was turned.
    • A brother in a stake in Washington state received a strong impression that he was going to be called to be the next bishop of his ward. Since the stake president lived in his ward, he decided to see if he could be less visible by spending more Sundays over the summer with him and his family frequently attending another ward out on the coast where they owned a holiday cottage. It didn't matter, he was called anyway. The morning he was sustained, the ward clerk showed up late for bishopric meeting, and when he learned that the bishopric members had not discussed anything because they had learned they were to be released that day, the clerk headed to the chapel to get ready for the meeting. As he walked down the hallway, he saw that one of the classrooms had its light on. He thought to himself that he should turn the light off, when a "lilttle voice" said to him "The new bishop is in that room." When he poked his head in the doorway, he saw a man he knew, and they exchanged greetings. That man was sustained as the new bishop about a half-hour later.
    • A brother and his wife woke up one morning having both had a dream that he was to be called to be the stake patriarch. A few days later they were called to visit with the stake president, who proceeded to issue the call, but for them to give it some thought before accepting it. They replied that they could already give their answer, citing what they had been told in their dreams.
    • A brother was sitting with his wife in a joint Relief Society/Priesthood meeting during a ward conference. They were sitting in the overflow, with about 150 adults (or more) in the chapel alone, with more in the cultural hall. The brother suddenly got the distinct impression that the stake presidency counselor was going to call him up to speak to the matter that the counselor was then addressing. But the meeting finished without this happening. Chalking it up to his own imagination, he shrugged and went out to the foyer after the meeting. In amongst the rest of the crowd of people who were moving to leave the building, since the day's meetings were over, he happened to run into the stake presidency counselor. After shaking hands, the counselor said to the brother that he had thought to call him up to the stand to bear testimony of what he had been talking about, but had decided to spare him after all. The brother said "You should have! I was told you were going to do it, so I was marshalling my thoughts to speak in support of what you were telling us!" 
    • Rather a long time ago, after the crucifixion of Christ, and the same day as his resurrection, Cleopas and another brother were walking towards Emmaus when they were joined by a man who upon inquiring what they had been discussing, told him of the rumor they had heard that the executed Jesus had been resurrected, and that they discounted the tale. This fellow rebuked them for their disbelief, explaining why the story was likely true. They invited him to eat with them, and when he broke the bread they recognized him as the risen Christ, whereupon he vanished from their sight. "And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" That burning is another form of the "little voice".
    • Even more anciently this was the still, small voice that Elijah heard as documented in 1 Kings 19. 

    It's possible that understanding the intent of a passage of scripture could be an instance of the "little voice." But the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, are more than just that still small voice. 

  14. On 2/9/2024 at 7:52 PM, webbles said:

    In the US, as long as the FDIC and NCUA are still solvent, your money in the bank should be ok (up to $250,000 per person).

    In a huge banking crisis affecting all or most banks, the government would have to print so much money to cover FDIC and NCUA obligations that it would cause extreme inflation, and possibly even hyperinflation. In that case FDIC and NCUA would fail. Because they are only capable of handling a certain number of large banks going insolvent. 

    The key words are "still solvent." 

  15. On 2/9/2024 at 7:37 PM, Tacenda said:

    Recently watched a Tic Tok with a man saying to have cash on hand & a 3 month supply of food because soon the banks are shutting down all over the US or maybe the world too and some have already. I did wonder about needing cash after making my husband take all his cash from a hiding place in the house and depositing it back in the bank. He was hoarding it for a while there. Because of thinking the banks will shut down. Now I'm thinking he does need cash at home too, but how much not sure.

    It is a good thing to have cash on hand, but fiat money isn't the only kind of "cash" that should be kept. Fiat money can become worthless overnight if circumstances go certain ways. This is because governments have been known to panic and print money like there is no tomorrow, resulting in runaway inflation so bad one would have to carry money in a wheelbarrow to buy bread. It's called hyperinflation, and it's happened before. For this reason, other commodities such as gold and silver coins can serve as hedges against this kind of thing. But in extreme circumstances, even precious metals could become worthless. For this reason, some preppers store essential commodities as trade items, including storable food, ammunition, and other things likely to go into serious shortage due to widespread disruptions because of breakdowns in transportation networks, etc.

     

  16. On 3/13/2024 at 7:58 PM, MustardSeed said:

    My husband is totally into AI right now. I don’t know enough about it to know how AI might be used by the church?

    I have a huge degree of suspicion when it comes to AI. 

    Reason: I am a retired computer programmer (though I still write code for my own purposes). I am very much aware that software is a result of those who designed it, as expressed by those who wrote the code (both backend and frontend -- as well as middleware). I'm old enough to remember one of the earliest attempts at AI, which was called "Eliza". I shan't try to describe it, so if you're unfamiliar, check it out HERE.

    The danger with software such as Eliza is that some people gave it more credibility than it may deserve. Some AI may approach the boundary of being able to pass a "Turing test." When that day comes (if it isn't here already), we may end up following a programmed path ourselves. A path programmed by those who have motives contrary to what we would have otherwise chosen.

    The recent Google AI controversy is an example of why we should be very careful in trusting AI. 

     

  17. 1 hour ago, Nofear said:

    I'm not sure what you think my background is. I'm not going to appeal to me being an authority. I could link you dozens of relatively recent articles from Science, Nature, Scientific American, etc. But, I'm also not that motivated. People on the internets are wrong all the time (myself included). I've given you rational and reason and linked some things. If that wasn't enough to persuade you to extrospectively challenge your current worldview… shrug. I can still agree with you elsewhere. :)

    LOL, I can find both support and opposition for any positions you or I might advocate. I've linked to things as well. I assume you're just like me: an amateur who is persuaded by one set of authorities in opposition to others.

    But like the authorities we most support, we may later that find that we are wrong, partly wrong, or fully correct.

    Things are far from settled. But the game is afoot, and it will be fun watching it unfold. I'm happy just watching it!

    And I can cheerfully agree to disagree.

    😀 

  18. As far as the "translated correctly" thing, I believe that one needs to add "transmitted correctly" to the occasion. 

    Prominent scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman changed from being a believing evangelical Christian to an agnostic atheist after discovering that, contrary to his belief in biblical inerrancy, "...we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text [...] If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn't he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?" (from an article HERE).

    The point here is that if a false text is transmitted, no amount of correct translation is going to produce true scripture.

    The most egregious example of additional text that appears to be added much later than the original text is the Johannine Comma, which occurs in 1 John 5:7–8. 

    7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

    The comma is the part in red above. It is absent from almost all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament along with being totally absent in the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. The passage first appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Some modern translations of the scriptures do not include the comma, due to its apparent spurious nature. It seems clear that someone added these words in order to reinforce an apostate doctrine of the Trinity. <- I am sorry if that offends anyone.

    And the question then leaps out: What else has been changed in order to promote false doctrines? Or removed in order to eliminate truths that were uncomfortable?

    Personally, I feel that the New Testament we have today is largely correctly transmitted. And where there are errors, modern revelation does address them. Dr. Ehrman's concerns notwithstanding, we have a more sure word of prophecy.

     

     

  19. 3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

    Laws and theories are describing two different things. A law describes what occurs. A theory attempts to explain why. For example, a "law of gravity" simply describes the attraction and observable effects between two bodies of mass. A "theory of gravity" attempts to explain why the observed attraction occurs.

    I was going to object to this, but upon further reflection and reading, I stand corrected. Sorry, @The Nehor.

  20. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

    Yes, but you have to be careful of the word “theory”. Theory is simultaneously the highest level any scientific “rule” for the universe can reach (theory of gravity for example) can reach but can also mean that weird fringe idea half a dozen people hold. Saying evolution is only a theory sounds demeaning until you recognize that there isn’t some higher level it can be promoted to.

    But there is a higher level a theory can be promoted to. That higher level is called a "Law." For example, the laws of thermodynamics are not mere theories, but they were theories at some point. In 1824 French engineer Sadi Carnot proposed a theory of heat that eventually became the second law of thermodynamics. Carnot is sometimes called the "Father of Thermodynamics." Newton's theory of gravitation was eventually "promoted" to a law.

    I'm not saying that a scientific law could not be "demoted." Obviously, Newton's theory has been demoted due to general relativity. Although for nearly all practical purposes it remains universally useful. Will the laws of thermodynamics ever be demoted? Who can say? But I doubt it.

×
×
  • Create New...