All Activity

We’ll see if it stays focused. I’m expecting it to do the following every day: 1- Evaluate the prior day’s pro and anti arguments, and the related discussion. 2- Discuss the evidentiary weight in light of the specific hypothesis that is being developed from prior evidence and comment on how it fits together and what all of the evidence evaluated to date implies about the aggregate probability that it is true. 3- Respond to thoughtful comments, including using “@“ concatenated with the user name of the person it is responding to (this is how the hyperlinks are generated in the interface). 4- Move the conversation forward by presenting the next day’s pro and anti arguments for the next point on the master list in the OP. All that is the minimum. If it wants to add thoughtful responses to what anybody says that is welcome, but it shouldn’t allow itself to be distracted from moving the discussion forward. If it does respond to an older post, include details on what post it is responding to. The ultimate objective is to carefully consider all of this evidence in a systematic way and evaluate how impressive it really is for the underlying truth claim. For at least a few days, I won’t mess with the prompts behind the scenes. I want to see if it will adjust to what’s in the discussion here.

The BASE aspect is largely unregulated because it's illegal from most places. Most people just meet someone that does it, then talks them into letting them climb a tower and jump with them before the cops show up.

I responded and then my response didn't go through. I'll try again. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that textual evidence can't be definitive. That's not true. We can definitively date texts based on what the text quotes or what it depends on, and the type of language used in the text. If you were to find a mysterious text that quotes Athanasius but also Pulp Fiction, the date isn't the fourth century, it's actually the 20th century. That's obvious. A text written in Hebrew can't date to 2000 BCE because Hebrew didn't exist yet. And so on. The few scholars who do argue for a 6th century Daniel don't do so on the grounds of evidence, but on grounds of theological bias. Their arguments are weak, which is why they have fallen out of the mainstream. Any weak correspondences one might find between the BOM and the ancient world cannot overcome the definitive evidence of the Book of Mormon quoting from and dependent on texts that didn't exist yet.

I said: Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society today. I am willing to listen to perspectives that differ from mine on this point. "Almost certainly" is an interesting qualifier. It seems that our perspectives differ in degree, not kind. A qualitative difference may be the basis for our respective views. I operate from a rebuttable presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. I then look at the evidence presented so far. The seven are not one case. The public record supports a degrading group sexual episode, and it does not yet prove that all seven committed rape, or that any of them did. Cornell split them. A prosecutor declined the case, then reopened it. No criminal finding exists. On October 19, 2024, Jane Doe, then 20, drank about ten drinks in three hours, including at bars that served her underage. She arrived at the Chi Phi house around 11 p.m. already visibly drunk, to see a man she knew. On her account he and another man gave her more alcohol and pressed her to snort ketamine, her first time. The lawsuit says she was already incapable of consent and that one man slapped her hard enough to bruise her. Her November statement to police is softer on the start: she was “pretty OK” with the first encounter, “as much as I can be” while very drunk. A third man joined. Around 1:42 a.m. someone posted to the chapter Snapchat, “Chi Phi Actives,” that there was “free p&*$y” upstairs, with a photo, “shop still open?,” and “yea.” More men came in. She says more ketamine was poured on her body and snorted, that she was moved to another room, that she was slurring and horrified, and that she lost consciousness around 5:45 a.m. Four of the seven have admitted sexual contact and called it consensual. The others deny taking part. One says he was the incapacitated party, and that she performed oral sex on him when he could not consent. Their accounts conflict with hers and with each other. The next forty-eight hours are the hardest evidence against a completed rape narrative. She told roommates about ketamine and sex with multiple men, not about rape; one thought she was in shock. On October 21 she told her sorority big sister that rumors she was a slut were going around and, laughing, that "unfortunately they are true." On October 22 she went to Cornell Health for a urinary tract infection she called traumatic. CNN reports she asked about a rape kit and was told to talk to somebody; other accounts say she was steered to therapy and not offered an exam. That day and the next she texted that her memory was clouded, that none of the sexual stuff "was illegal," that she had liked being with two of the men, and that they should leave out the extra men and the ketamine. She told a roommate that if anyone asked, say it did not happen. The rape account comes later. She learned about the Snapchat. She read an online post saying Chi Phi had gang-raped a sophomore, and told investigators that was the first time the story about her changed from “whore” to “assaulted.” On November 3 she texted that 90 percent of the night was not consensual and that she felt like a sex doll. On November 7 she had a forensic exam; more than two weeks had passed, and no DNA was recovered. On November 8 she reported to Cornell police. In the November 14–15 interview she said she was 100 percent confident she had been raped, that there was no escape, and that she was the most intoxicated she had ever been. She also said she took more ketamine thinking that if she passed out and they had sex with her, they could be charged with rape. The six-page statement sent to the district attorney described the conduct as voluntary and conscious. It omitted the rape sentence. He declined charges. He now says he never saw the full transcript, has reopened the file, and still says the decision on the statement he had was legally correct. New York’s voluntary-intoxication rule is part of that problem: she chose the alcohol and the ketamine. Cornell’s Title IX panel, on a preponderance standard and after interviews with six of the seven, did not treat them as one defendant. It expelled the man she went to see, finding he manipulated and endangered her for himself and for the entertainment of others, and expelled the man who sent the message drawing the others in. Two accused of nonconsensual sex were suspended. Two were not found responsible for sexual assault and were given no-contact orders and reflection papers. One graduate was barred from campus. The chapter was closed. In September 2026 she sued Cornell, the chapter, and the seven. The criminal case is open again, and the attorney general is reviewing the university’s response. The chat, the bruises, the split Title IX results, and her later incapacity account are the case for culpability, strongest against the man who brought her in and the man who advertised her. The next-day texts, the “unfortunately they are true” remark, the missing DNA, the line about taking ketamine so they could be charged, and the men’s consent accounts are the case against calling all seven rapists. Those two files are still both true on the present record. Hadn't heard that allegation. "Equally culpable" of ... rape? Well, there are allegations against her. Ad hominem. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t think I will ever hear/read ‘sex is for reproduction’ again without thinking of a table turning, lol

I would say there are enough exceptions, it brings the ‘rule’ into doubt.

Since I didn’t want to search the website myself, I used Google AI to find BYU professors with degrees in Biblical Studies. Since Lincoln isn’t on this list, there are possibly more besides these and him (did not check for accuracy yet). Cant believe I forgot Brother Wayment, who used to be in our ward. Also Dana Pike, who has retired recently, who is a good friend. Dr. Alonzo L. Gaskill Role: Professor of Church History and Doctrine Degrees: Bachelor’s in Philosophy, Master’s in Theology, and PhD in Biblical Studies (Trinity Theological Seminary) [1, 2] Dr. David B. Ridge Role: Assistant Professor of Ancient Scripture Degrees: Bachelor’s in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU, Master’s in Ancient Middle Eastern Studies, and PhD in Bible from the University of Chicago [1] Dr. Jason Robert Combs Role: Associate Professor of Ancient Scripture Degrees: Bachelor’s in Near Eastern Studies from BYU, Master’s in Biblical Studies from Yale Divinity School, Master’s in Classics from Columbia University, and PhD in Religious Studies (early Christianity) from UNC Chapel Hill [1] David J. Larsen Role: Adjunct Instructor in Ancient Scripture Degrees: Bachelor’s in Near Eastern Studies from BYU, Master’s in Biblical Theology from Marquette University, and PhD in Divinity/Biblical Studies (from the University of St Andrews) [1, 2, 3, 4] Dr. Frank F. Judd Jr. Role: Professor of Ancient Scripture Degrees: Bachelor’s and Master’s in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU, Master’s and PhD in New Testament and Early Christianity from UNC Chapel Hill Dr. Jared W. Ludlow Role: Professor of Ancient Scripture Degrees: Bachelor’s in Near Eastern Studies from BYU, Master’s in Biblical Hebrew from UC Berkeley, and PhD in Near Eastern Religions from UC Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union Dr. Mark D. Ellison Role: Professor of Ancient Scripture Degrees: Bachelor’s in English and MEd from BYU, Master’s in Religious Studies (Bible and Archaeology) from the University of South Florida, and MA/PhD from Vanderbilt University in Early Christianity [1] Dr. Thomas A. Wayment Role: Professor of Classics (frequently works with biblical and New Testament texts) Degrees: PhD in New Testament Studies from Claremont Graduate School Dr. Nick Frederick Role: Professor of Ancient Scripture Degrees: Bachelor’s in Classics and Master’s in Comparative Studies from BYU, PhD in the History of Christianity from Claremont Graduate University Me again: Dan Peterson’s was biblical adjacent. I will try and check the above and below tomorrow for accuracy. Just can’t tonight. This is Chat, sorry about the formatting. Aaron P. Schade MA in Hebrew Bible and Egyptology; PhD in Ancient Semitic Languages, Hebrew Bible, and Egyptian Languages & Literature — University of Toronto Hebrew Bible/OT, Semitic languages, Egyptology Joshua M. Matson MA in Biblical Studies — Trinity Western; PhD in Religions of Western Antiquity — Florida State Hebrew Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Second Temple Judaism Jason R. Combs MAR in Biblical Studies, New Testament emphasis, Hebrew Bible minor — Yale; PhD Religious Studies, early Christianity — UNC New Testament, early Christianity Joshua M. Sears PhD in Hebrew Bible — UT Austin Hebrew Bible/OT, ancient Israel, biblical interpretation Gaye Strathearn BA & MA in Near Eastern Studies — BYU; PhD in Religion/New Testament — Claremont New Testament, Christian origins, biblical studies Lincoln H. Blumell MA Religious Studies/Ancient Christianity; MSt Jewish Studies — Oxford; PhD Early Christianity — Toronto New Testament/early Christianity, papyrology Mark D. Ellison MA Religious Studies, archaeology and the Bible; PhD Early Christianity and Early Christian Art — Vanderbilt Early Christianity, NT world, Christian origins Matthew J. Grey MA — Andrews; MSt — Oxford; PhD — UNC Second Temple Judaism, early Christianity, historical/archaeological context of NT George A. Pierce MA Wheaton; PhD UCLA; archaeological specialization Hebrew Bible/ancient Israel, archaeology, historical geography Told Chat to look for retired….it came to the conclusion some of the above may be retired as BYU isn’t always current with their listings. Kent P. Jackson — MA and PhD, Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan. Hebrew Bible/ancient Near East; former Ancient Scripture professor. S. Kent Brown — PhD, Religious Studies, Brown University, with an emphasis in New Testament and early Christian studies. Former Ancient Scripture professor. Andrew C. Skinner — PhD, Ancient and Medieval History; emeritus Ancient Scripture professor. Extensive work on the New Testament, ancient Judaism, and early Christianity. Richard D. Draper — PhD, Ancient History; emeritus Ancient Scripture professor. Taught both Old and New Testament and specialized in prophecy, apocalyptic literature, and New Testament background; reads Greek and Hebrew. Paul Y. Hoskisson — PhD, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Brandeis University, specializing in Babylonia; emeritus Religious Education professor and former Ancient Scripture faculty. Dana M. Pike — PhD, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of Pennsylvania. He is still listed as faculty in some sources, so I wouldn’t count him as definitively past/emeritus unless you’re using a particular cutoff date. John W. Welch — retired BYU faculty; degrees in history, Latin, Greek, and law. His work includes substantial New Testament textual/contextual scholarship, although his formal degrees aren’t specifically biblical studies.

Al Gore was plenty insulting.

Thank you. By the way, I have no desire to do it, I was just curious about how someone could train to do it the way it is done in the opening post video. I understand why it would be exciting to do. That way makes a lot more sense than what they did in the opening post video.

We were warned:

This

Why not?

We are not that consistent with our language unfortunately. Sometimes Spirit Prison is labeled as part of Hell, sometimes hell is labeled as part of Spirit Prison. The latter makes more sense to me given the traditional understanding of hell as a place of suffering. Posting yet again to be ignored…. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng The point is people aren’t suffering in Spirit Prison just because of incorrect beliefs. They are there learning. Only the unrepentant suffer for their sins. PS: this is the revised manual they interrupted the prophet series for a year or two in RS/PH when it was released. I trust its precision more than online material that I don’t know the provenance of (I trust the stuff I know has gone through a thorough review, but some stuff has not been introduced when posted, so still official, I just don’t rate it as high on the “approaching Mormon doctrine” scale). https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Or just someone who believes in Christ and sees themselves as Christian. There may be some who believe and identify as such, but who aren’t that committed to living his commandments or learning his teachings. Though perhaps that is them trying to follow to the best of their abilities. Hard to know since we can’t pry open skulls to see thoughts yet.

In fact, the emphasis has been teaching as families as more likely to baptized iirc, definitely more likely to stay active if converting as a family.

I would say we see the bus drivers as having local and country wide licenses, but not international.

Absolutely. It depends on whether you want to BASE or Skydive. The most common progression, and the one I recommend, is to get your skydiving license. Get a few hundred jumps under your belt, then start wing suiting from planes. You'll start on a trainer suit and work your way up. While you're doing that, you can also start BASE jumping if that's your desire. There are a few "decent" instructors in the US. Bridge day is a good start, too. Once you're comfortable, and used to the bigger suits, throw yourself off something and hope for the best. The alternative, and safer option, is to flock out of planes.

Lincoln Blumell as well. He grew up in the ward we were in up in Calgary. Wonderful kid, wonderful family. He is not only a great scholar (Rhodes), but was the UofC football quarterback star. https://rsc.byu.edu/author/blumell-lincoln-h My guess is he knew all the historical details, including the warts, from a young age as his dad was the ward’s church history buff. And a serious, not eyebrowing raising kind with pet theories. Then there is Ben Spackman as well. I assume people here are familiar enough with him. Let me know if not

“Glow-bull” as an insult? Are you 12?

You seem to be suffering from a personal delusion. The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sustained as the sole prophet, seer, and revelator of the Church. The Church does not recognize random internet self-proclaimed prophets, nor do its members post open letters to anonymous figures on public message boards waiting to "follow with time." I assume you are referring to Genesis 49:10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah... until Shiloh come", which is traditionally interpret as a messianic prophecy. But fringe groups and self-appointed mystics latch onto biblical buzzwords to construct their own private mythology. It could be a troll testing how long moderators let their content stay up before taking it down. We tend to see a steady trickle of these kinds of drive-by posts and wonder if it's a bot, a prank, or someone genuinely needing offline help.

I believe you. I will follow with time. I will bring an offering. Im here for you. I hold the shared sceptur of Shilow. We must speak.

Agreed… just saying the church doesn’t explicitly teach the missionaries NOT to do it except for the baptism part.. baseball baptisms were a messy gift that keeps on giving.

Yes, if there was someone who was determined to subvert a parents authority they could probably do it and not technically be breaking any rules, but it wouldn't do them any good What would be the point? They couldn't baptize the minors and most leaders would be the kibosh on it as soon as they found out since the handbook also says that parents should know what their children are learning about. In the past there were missions that did some unethical (and non doctrinal) things with baptism and I'm so glad the church has put a stop to it. I've never known of a missionary that was teaching minors that didn't go out of their way to involve the parents as much as they could.

Can you provide the references you are using? That would make it easier to have a discussion.

Missionaries are not instructed to subvert parents authority. BUT by not mandating parent approval prior to discussions the church takes away that parent’s choice as to whether their child receives religious lessons from missionaries. By taking that choice away…. That subverts the parent’s ability to object until they find out the missionaries are trying to convince their kiddo to join their church. “carefully worded denials” comes to mind