All Activity

I was talking about what we have and why the idea doesn't work. My hypothetical of a manuscript in a palmyra house is similar to your hypothetical set of plates that didn't disappear. People would now be able to ignore the supernatural and thus non-member scholars would feel comfortable discussing it. But the current state requires supernatural acceptance which precludes serious study, not because the Book of Mormon is obviously fake but because any study must accept the supernatural.

This is interesting. I watched Jordan’s interview and caught his comment re bad Mormon. I thought it was a dumb thing to say. This can’t help the church’s case i imagine: https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/new-filing-mormon-stories-lawsuit-rhoslc-lds-church/amp/

Well, no. I've provided an assessment of evidence that has been publicly disclosed, and then applied broad principles and rules of evidence. My guesses, such as why the prosecutor may have not brought charges 2 years ago, and why these charges face some evidentiary hurdles, have been quite broad. I can appreciate that, but I'm not a part of it. I'm not here to socialize (as in "to spend time with other people for fun"). I'm here to discuss topics pertinent to the Church. When the topic of "social engagement" is about legal issues, the rules by which such issues are going to be resolved ought to be part of the discussion. This is particularly so when we have participants throwing rhetorical Molotov Cocktails for failing to act like we are in some sort of Struggle Session in which we all must be vitriolic and performative, or else we'll be denounced in terrible ways. I'm providing educations guesses and commentary, that's all. I'd like to do so without digressions into ad hominem and other logical fallacies. I guess we see this board in different ways. For me, it's a discussion board. I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects. I'm not here for "fun." I'm also not here to talk into an Echo Chamber. A few years back I had a good friend in my neighborhood whose FB posts started to pop up whenever I logged on (which was sporadic). At the time I assumed she was "sharing" her posts with me (I don't know how FB's algorithms work in terms of showing me content), so I started to read her posts. As it turns out, she was talking about some topics in which I was interested, so I began to add comments to some of her posts. Later, she started posting items that were political in nature. I responded, again thinking that she was sharing/sending these posts to me. I asked her questions mostly, but I did disagree with some of her more strident comments (I did so respectfully and mildly). After 2-3 such interactions, she sent me a private stating that when she posted "political" stuff on FB, she does so with the expectation that her friends will either agree with her or remain silent, and she asked that I not post further comments responding to her posts. I apologized and stopped. I did not know that this was her expectation, but I respected it. This board is not like that (for me, anyway). The news item here is about a young woman making allegations of rape. My comments here have been to discuss those allegations, which discussion should - in my view - be sober and reasoned. To me, sexual assault of any sort is terrible and evil. That's the starting point, even axiomatic and tautological, so there really ought not be a need for us to participate in some sort of Struggle Session in which we rend our cloths and publicly proclaim outrage about sexual assault. We're not in China during the Cultural Revolution. We're not in North Korea either, with its Saenghwal Chonghwa nonsense. I think it is wrong to publicly accuse another person of horrendous things without cause, as @SeekingUnderstanding has done in this thread over and over. I have said nothing to condone or excuse any form of sexual abuse, but he is publicly accusing me of "defending the rapists" and "defending ... rape culture." This is a small message board, and overwrought libels from @SeekingUnderstanding are nothing new. But I think his vitriol is impeding what ought to be a serious and measures discussion of a difficult topic. Thanks, -Smac

I disagree with this in principle. For example, if we dialed up the strength of the evidence (e.g. the alleged plates weren't taken away by an alleged angel, and the plates objectively looked like an authentic Mayan codex, and the translation of the Mayan characters turned out to be the Book of Mormon), nobody would deny that the BoM is an authentic Mayan codex that was translated correctly. Maybe this would imply it was translated by the gift and power of God, or maybe it would imply that Joseph Smith had some sort of gift that allowed him to translate such things as a savant, or maybe it would imply that somebody who knew Mayan was in on it in the conspiracy. Ultimately, science is based on methodological empiricism. If the empirical evidence points to the gift-and-power-of-God hypothesis, then so be it. The reality is that the evidence across all of science points to naturalism.

YES. I'm skeptical of that, frankly. We all attempt to persuade people to our point of view. You do that all the time on this board. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. The concern arises when there is secrecy and subversion involved. The missionaries don't do that at all, let alone "exactly." YES. Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" You: "YES." I don't believe you. What does that have to do with you as a missionary receiving specific instruction to "subvert" parents of minor children? What does that have to do with you as a missionary receiving specific instruction to "subvert" parents of minor children? It's news to me. And I think it's patently false, or else a gross mischaracterization. Mission presidents and others in positions of authority over Latter-day Saint missionaries told those missionaries to "encourag{e} newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" Yeah, not buying that at all. I have never heard of missionaries receiving instruction to subvert the efforts of parents to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction. Parent permission or notifying parents of non members was never a part of these recruitment type activities. Well, I guess I'll need to ask around as to RMs' experiences of yesteryear. Missionaries in Taiwan ('93 to '95) met with teenagers here and there, but never against the wishes of their parents. And baptism required parental consent. My understanding is that mission leadership guidelines encourage involving parents or families and being transparent about gospel instruction given to underage youth whenever possible. Meanwhile, you are here claiming that missionaries receive instruction to subvert the efforts of parents to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction. I find that claim incredible (as in lacking credibility). I just don't believe it. I think you are playing dumb. The missionary program has always been designed to lead people including they youth away from their current church. Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?" You: "YES." I don't believe you. Then you belong to the wrong church because this effort to lead people including youth away from their current churches is still front and centter in the missionary program including using social media with no effort to first ask parents if it is ok that missionaries contact their youth. Utter bilge. The Church does not teach its missionaries to subvert parents. Thanks, -Smac

Since I can't give you an upvote on your post, I am reposting it here. You basically have it correct. Mormons believe that the church that Jesus established was taken from the earth, the heavens were sealed, there were no saving ordinances performed with proper authority. While there were people who identified as Christian, they were in no way members of Christ's church. Mormons are taught that other creeds that teach about Christ were corrupt and an abomination to God. They believe through Joseph Smith, that the true church was reestablished. From Joseph Smiths history You're being gaslighted.

There is a fundamental difference here that precludes understanding. My opinion is that Smac speaks from a position of proving that his point of view will be court passable. The large majority here, in contrast, are here to primarily socialize. The rules of social engagement are vastly different than the rules of court engagement. Smac wins at legal observances. The rest win at being safe friendships and engaging in social ineractions in ways that foster vulnerabilities and intimacy. No one is wrong unless you think you’re even playing the same sport. 🧨

Jana Riess published an article referencing this news release by the church newsroom on the same day as Pew released their survey results. The press release doesn't officially mention Pew in the text, though the filename of the cover picture is "pew statement." https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/measuring-what-matters-people-behind-numbers

That makes sense. Thanks.

Yo, chill out. I was merely pointing out that I did not know when and precisely why Mormons began using "sacrament" exclusively for communion.

YES. That is exactly what missionaries do. YES. We were told to ask new member to give us a referral or invite their family members over for a discussion so they too could become members. The youth were also encouraged to invite their friends to church activities. Sometimes we as missionaries would help set up those activities and attend the events as a way to introduce the gospel to their friends. I don't think this is news to any active member of the church. It wasn't just on my mission that youth were encouraged to bring their friends to church activities, it has always been a part of how the church operates, at least out of the Utah bubble. Are you seriously telling me you have never heard of this kind of behavior????? The exact same thing of trying to lead people including youth away from their current church and get them baptized into the LDS church. Parent permission or notifying parents of non members was never a part of these recruitment type activities. I think you are playing dumb. The missionary program has always been designed to lead people including they youth away from their current church. Then you belong to the wrong church because this effort to lead people including youth away from their current churches is still front and centter in the missionary program including using social media with no effort to first ask parents if it is ok that missionaries contact their youth.

English isn't arguing with me. You are. This isn't Army of Darkness with the final word of the incantation "Klaatu Barad Nikto" being pronounced incorrectly and then all hell breaks out.

Belgium has a good reputation for chocolate.

Since you are bringing it up, you are saying you have worked with rape victims as an attorney. Yes. I also had several experiences in working with victims of sexual abuse while serving as my ward's bishop. No. The victim of a crime is typically not "represented" in criminal proceedings. None of the instances of which I speak involved the victim filing a civil suit, so I did not represent them in that capacity either. I did "represent" one victim in relation to criminal proceedings, but only in communications with the prosecutor (who declined to press charges, despite substantial forensic and circumstantial evidence). I have a friend who had been publicly accused (on social media) of rape. However, both he and the accuser did not live in Utah, so I could not represent him. I did, however, help him in his preparation and efforts to find an attorney in his state, and I also worked with him on assessing the remedy (the accuser withdrew her accusation and agreed to not publicly accuse him again). The allegations are playing out in a legal arena, so it makes sense to assess them in a legal lens. For example, you seem to be presupposing the guilt of the individuals, even after discussion of evidence that seems to militate toward exculpating those individuals. You are also using highly charged and inflammatory language, even to the point where you publicly and repeatedly accuse me of "defending the rapists" and "defending ... rape culture." And you said these things despite my unequivocal condemnation of sexual abuse of any kind. This sort of vitriolic rhetoric does not advance the discussion, and even diminishes the seriousness with which this topic should be treated. I agree. I have been discussing the evidence publicized to date. I think it creates plenty of room for reasonable doubt as to the rape allegations. And not just reasonable doubt, but substantial doubt. I'm not even sure Jane Doe could get a civil claim - which is based on the "preponderance of evidence" standards - across the finish line. Her own statements have, I think, damaged her credibility. You seem to presuppose that she was raped. And your presupposition appears to be based entirely on two things: the accuser is a woman, and the accuser has said she was raped. Again, if Jane Doe had publicly - and falsely - accused you of sexual assault, I think you would object to the sort of rush to judgment against you as you have demonstrated to the young men described in the news items. Yes, if only we could talk about the rape of our daughters, sisters, wives, friends and family with dispassion. That's the ideal we should all strive for. More histrionics. I am in favor of "reasoned and circumspect discussion" about "serious" topics. I am surprised you respond to this with snide sarcasm. I have done nothing of the sort. Here is what I have said: "A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law." "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general." "To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity." "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something." "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling." "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}." Your hostility is overriding your capacity to have a reasoned discussion, and to accurately characterize others' statements. I hope you can set that aside. Again: The text messages are revolting, but must they be read as an announcement of sexual assault? Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure. They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity. However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised? Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?" I have done nothing of the sort. Again: 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. That's not to say "rape culture" has never existed. The antebellum South had rape culture relative to black women. South Africa faces a severe, institutionalized crisis of sexual violence and pervasive rape culture, characterized by deeply rooted patriarchal norms, extreme gender-based violence, and systemic failures in justice and policing. Botswana, Lesotho, and Eswatini repeatedly sit at or above South Africa in UNODC-style recorded rape rates (often 75–95 per 100,000). The pattern is regional, not unique to one state: high violence, weak deterrence, and similar entitlement norms. Papua New Guinea. Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Afghanistan. Historically, we have seen sexual assault as part of wartime atrocities, slavery, and so on. Again, I don't think this sentiment ("normalizing" sexual assault) is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society. Again, I think we need to have sober and reasoned and decorous discussions about difficult topics such as this. Your endless ad hominems and appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies are impeding this. I hope you can set these tendencies aside. This is just the latest version of "what was she wearing" so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. "She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped." Again: "A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law." "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general." "To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity." "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something." "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling." "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}." I can question the legitimacy of imputing "rape culture" onto American society in 2026 and condemn Hookup Culture and condemn sexual assault in every respect. Again, under other circumstances I might take exception to being publicly libeled as you do here. But your endless vitriol just makes you seem like an unreasonable and hysterical and unserious person. You are outraged that sexual assault happens. So am I, but we don't need to endlessly advertise our personal emotions. Nor do we need to tear others down for not matching the decibel level of your public expressions of your own outrage. At this point, your ad hominems are starting to look like virtue-signaling. Anyone who does not match your public vitriol is a rape apologist? That's absurd. It is, or should be, beneath you. Who cares? People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it. I respectfully disagree. When we as a society cheapen the sexual act, we increase the likelihood that some of us will not treat it with the gravity it deserves. Hookup culture can feed the conditions people call rape culture mainly by blurring consent and rewarding pressure, not by explicitly declaring rape acceptable. In a script where sex is expected after a party, a match, or going home together, refusal is easier to treat as a negotiable obstacle than as a stop. Alcohol is built into that script (and drugs, and both are prevalent in the Greek System). Intoxication weakens the ability to consent, muddies memory, and gives offenders a ready excuse (“she was into it”). Campus and survey research consistently finds that a large share of sexual assaults happen in exactly these settings: acquaintances, parties, heavy drinking, and little or no verbal agreement. Status incentives make it worse. Where casual sex is treated as proof of desirability, especially for young men, some learn to push past hesitation, isolate a partner, or keep going after a soft no. That is entitlement in practice: sex is framed as something owed once the interaction has reached a certain stage. Ambiguous non-verbal cues then get read in the pursuer’s favor, and regretted or pressured sex is later minimized as a misunderstanding. The link is partial. High-rape societies have existed without dating apps or campus parties, and most hookups are not assaults. The contribution is, nevertheless, specific: norms that make sex the default, alcohol the lubricant, and a clear no socially costly create more encounters in which coercion is easy to commit and easy to deny. Thanks, -Smac

I bet it is influence from Rigdon and his group. Campbellites used the term "ordinances" instead of "sacraments". (https://www.bobcornwall.com/2017/12/the-disciples-of-christ-and-sacraments.html talk a bit about this). Along with D&C 20 specifically using sacrament for the communion and Campbellites using ordinances for baptism and communion and then needing a word for what happens in the temple, it seems like a natural language evolution.

The problem with the "If there were any serious and convince evidence, academic non-Mormons would treat the subject seriously" is that the Book of Mormon requires a belief that Joseph Smith translated it with the power of God. If it really is what it purports to be (an ancient history of Native Americans or even an ancient history of some people somewhere on the planet), then how did it go through Joseph Smith? The fact that its provenance is through Joseph Smith is the reason why no academic non-Mormon will treat it seriously. If, instead, an old manuscript had been found in a Palmyra house that was the text of the Book of Mormon, it could be treated seriously. Because its provenance is no longer supernatural. We could discuss whether it was entirely made up or whether who ever wrote it had access to Native American stories and so it is somewhat based on historical fact or the person had actually found a real codex and somehow figured out how to translate it. It would probably have started out as entirely made up, but I lean on the side that as more and more discoveries of ancient America were found, scholars would lean more towards someone who had access to stories/myths. There's even a book that someone recently wrote that tries to say that Joseph Smith somehow had access to Native American myths and incorporated it into the Book of Mormon.

I didn't miss the point. You're just trying to belabor some point, and I'm not entire sure which one, to be honest. I know it's synonymous with "ordinance" or "ritual". The Catholics call several things "sacraments," including baptism, the Eucharist, marriage, and so on. We just use the word to mean that one thing, what others call the Eurcharist. Are you going to argue that it's wrong? You want more precision or something? I thought you were denigrating things taken too precisely as "incantations." Shall we exchange pedantry over all this? I was simply explaining where that came from. Like you asked in your little parenthetical. But it appears it was a rhetorical question, and you weren't interested in an answer.

Since you are bringing it up, are you aaying you have worked with rape victims as an attorney? Representing them in court? I thought you were a property law kind of guy. Or perhaps your clients are the ones accused of rape? I think you pay entirely too much attention to what can be proved in a court of law to the evidentiary standard there. The reasonable doubt standard is a high bar to clear and rightfully so. It means that many many guilty people will also go free to avoid unjust imprisonment. It's not the standard by which people do or should live their lives when interacting with others. Yes, if only we could talk about the rape of our daughters, sisters, wives, friends and family with dispassion. That's the ideal we should all strive for. Yet you defend the text thread, and the men accused. The text thread ignores the consent of the woman and offers for free what is not theirs to offer. You claim rape culture doesn't exist, and you condone it with the same breath when you defend the text thread. This is just the latest version of "what was she wearing" so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. "She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped." Who cares? People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it.

Let me just add that so much of Mormonism is built on misreadings of scripture due to not understand the historical and linguistic context they were first given in--which I assume is the reason for the question posed in the OP.

If that works for you, then cool. One of my greatest nightmares is dying and discovering that the universe is controlled by a deity who demands that a ritual be performed using exact English phrases in order to not suffer eternally.

If a responsible person received such a text, would their first thought be “hey, it’s not unusual for a young woman to consent to having random sex with multiple guys when she is sober and capable of consent, so I can ignore the possibility that she has taken or been given drugs or drink and therefore is not truly capable of consenting. Therefore, there is no need for me to go talk to her to make sure she is coherent”. I'm not sure anyone here is discussing "responsible people." Greek System hedonism and Hookup Culture are terrible things, and those who participate in them are debasing themselves and others, including by participating in and accommodating and normalizing sexual licentiousness. Sooner or later - often sooner - such depravities will lead to instances of nonconsensual sex, sexual violence, ambiguities about these, etc. So the point I am raising is less about what "responsible people" should do, and more about what result we may see from the factual allegations and evidence in view. The text messages are evidence to be used in legal proceedings, and are governed by Rules of Evidence. These rules are essential in court, but they also have utility in everyday discussions about legal issues as well. Again: Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault? Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure. They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. Do you agree or disagree? Thanks, -Smac

I have had a number of experiences as an attorney working with rape allegations. I suspect you have not. I also think you do not give much consideration to the legal aspects of this issue. I think you would do better if you did pay some attention to that, and spend less time on ad hominem, appeals to outrage/emotion, and other logical fallacies. Every single person in that text thread was at a place where a woman’s consent was treated as inconsequential and secondary to a man’s desire. It’s exhibit ‘A’ in rape culture. You did not answer my question. I would hope we could have a reasoned discussion, with fewer histrionics and logical fallacies. Yes. In what way? Social opprobrium? Legal consequences? Jail time? Yes. The fact that you don’t see them as such means you are part of the rape culture problem. I hope you can set aside the histrionics in favor of a reasoned and circumspect discussion. This is a serious discussion, and deserves more decorum and less of histrionics and logical fallacies you keep presenting. That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath. I could only wish your views weren’t the prevailing ones in American society. Your histrionics and endless ad hominems are diminishing the seriousness and decorum with which this topic should be discussed. I hope you can set these things aside. 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. I can say that and still utterly condemn any sort of sexual abuse/assault. In contrast, Hookup Culture is, I think, both clearly in existence, and is pervasive through much of society, and it has a substantial role to play in creating grounds in which some people can normalize, trivialize or excuse sexual violence. Do you think "Hookup Culture" is a thing? Thanks, -Smac

If a responsible person received such a text, would their first thought be “hey, it’s not unusual for a young woman to consent to having random sex with multiple guys when she is sober and capable of consent, so I can ignore the possibility that she has taken or been given drugs or drink and therefore is not truly capable of consenting. Therefore, there is no need for me to go talk to her to make sure she is coherent”. Or perhaps it would be “looking at what’s going on here and knowing of what has happened in similar circumstances in the past, these texts are red flags, I better go make sure she is both capable of consent and not under pressure to consent and if not, call 911 for paramedics and maybe cops”. Or maybe “not my party, not involved, I will just pretend nothing is happening.”

That’s because you break apart posts to an extent where you lose the forest for the trees. That’s because you, as you have demonstrated over and over in threads like these, don’t have the foggiest idea how sexual assault normally occurs, is reported and treated. This is despite the repeated kind efforts of women in these threads trying to educate you. Every single person in that text thread was at a place where a woman’s consent was treated as inconsequential and secondary to a man’s desire. It’s exhibit ‘A’ in rape culture. Yes. Yes. The fact that you don’t see them as such means you are part of the rape culture problem. And if I was involved in an incident with this much supporting evidence, I deserve everything I get. Sure. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath. I could only wish your views weren’t the prevailing ones in American society. I don’t care who people decide to have sex with and I think blaming hookup culture for rape is rape culture exhibit ‘B’.

Swaying God's will? Hmm. Okay. I don't think it's about swaying God's will as much as it is about aligning my own will with His. Since God has given me everything I have (save one thing), the only thing I have left to give back to Him that He did not give me in the first place is my will. And if He tells me I need to have a specific ordinance performed in a particular way in order to do that, that seems like rather a small price to pay given what He will give me in return. As the Lord asked Abraham, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" (Genesis 18:14).