cinepro

While those stories probably have some value in boosting the spirits of existing members, I just enjoy how upset they make exMos.

On 8/14/2023 at 4:02 AM, Sara H said:

 Is he a polygamous, though?

I firmly believe that when I die, I will receive a heavenly reward roughly equivalent to $1 billion.

Am I a "billionaire"?

On 11/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, OGHoosier said:

I'm referring more generally to divine hiddenness - in other words, the hiddenness of God from casual observation or direct proof. This seems to be the way God works, and I likewise accept philosophical arguments by Travis Dumsday et. al. that it is necessary.

 

There is, of course, another explanation for why there isn't any "direct proof"...

The oddest thing about all this to me is that the debate could easily be resolved with a 20-second revelation. RMN could announce his dozen temples at the next conference, and then add "Oh, and thus saith the Lord, the ancient city of Zarahemla was in the location now known as XYZ." It would be no different than God letting us know that Adam dwelt in the place now known as Spring Hill, Missouri.

If the Book of Mormon is describing real people, places and events, then that means Zarahemla (and other Book of Mormon locations) existed in a single location. And even with changes in topography, that location could be approximated against modern geography.

This has practical application because, since the Book of Mormon locations could only have existed in one place, every proposed geography (except one at the most) is wrong. So any amount of time and money that someone spends on the wrong geography is wasted, and is spent promoting error and falsehood. It isn't enough to say "we don't know where the geography is", because that still doesn't negate the fact that people are wasting time and money on false geographies when the knowledge could be easily shared (and God has shared similar knowledge, canonically, with past prophets.)

On 8/7/2022 at 6:35 PM, Calm said:

I think enough people still think that way that saying at the beginning the way they teach evolution does not conflict and then just teaching it normally demonstrates it doesn’t.  Even better would be make it clear evolution itself does not conflict, the Church has no official position on evolution in fact and there is a topic on the Church’s website or a church packet if necessary available on evolution in the HBL library if anyone wants to study it in more detail, assuming it is still there. Perhaps though it has been replaced by the webpage:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng

Please explain what you think it means for the Earth to be "paradisiacal", and how this is compatible with the idea of evolutionary creation, which involves countless generations of birth/death in order to work. If there was birth/death and evolution going on, how was it different than the Earth after the fall?

On 8/7/2022 at 1:33 PM, InCognitus said:

The "paradisiacal creation" is a stage in God's plan.  And I'll quote from OGHoosier's post directly here (the post I referenced in my linked post), since he uses the same language:

 

The "paradisiacal creation" is referring to the state of the planet Earth when it was created, before the Fall of Adam.

Please explain what you think it means for the Earth to be "paradisiacal", and how this is compatible with the idea of evolutionary creation, which involves countless generations of birth/death in order to work.

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This instinct is definitely what we need more of in the world though. If something seems too perfect to us, we should be extra skeptical not less. 

I mean, you have a (future and assumed humorless) Prophet who said exactly what Pogi wanted him to say, and was cited by Millett. But then you have a footnote of him saying "Hey, I was just kidding about that. Don't listen to me!"  I'm still surprised on several different levels.

Wouldn't the logical instinct be to take out the confusing joke in the first place?

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I spent $10 on the ebook and the quote came with a footnote to make the irony clearer. 

 

Footnote:

Yet again FAIR should be ashamed of themselves for hosting this quote wrested from context. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood#Joseph_Fielding_Smith_.281942.29:_.22Oh.2C_no.2C_it_will_not_be_literal_fire_any_more_than_it_was_literal_water_that_covered_the_earth_in_the_flood.22

Okay, I thought you were making that up because the wording was too perfect (and casual), and honestly, it sounded like something I would have made up. So I bought the ebook because I was too embarrassed to ask.

It's legit! (But I did think it was really suspicious that Joseph Fielding Smith would have ever said anything like that. I mean, seriously. It's Joseph Fielding Smith.)

9 hours ago, pogi said:

John A Widstoe:

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Signs of the Times, 41:

 

Widstoe's quote still demands a global flood that covered the entire Earth. He only suggests the depth might not have been uniform over the entire planet. Here's is what else he said, right after the part you quoted. Odd that you left it out.
 

Quote

Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley. The great floods that have often occurred there make the description in Genesis seem very reasonable indeed. And if the historian saw the flood there, it is not unlikely that the waters covered the highest points or peaks, for there the mountains are but hills.

  Great floods have visited the earth. That has been amply proved. For example, Professor C. Leonard Woolley, studying through excavations the ancient history of Mesopotamia, has found indisputable evidences of a flood in the neighborhood of Abraham's ancestral city of Ur. Whether that flood is the great flood of Genesis is not certain, for we do not know whether at that time the children of Adam had spread from their original home in what is now America into the lands now denominated Asia. (Woolley, The Sumerians)

  Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D. & C. 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331).

  Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed. (Evidences and Reconciliations, Widstoe (Emphasis added))

And just so I'm clear, you think JFS didn't believe in a literal, global flood, even though he said this:
 

Quote

Noah received a dispensation of warning when the whole world had fallen into apostasy, and he was commanded to build the ark in which he and his family were saved from the flood, while all the rest of the world perished. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1)

And this...?
 

Quote

Now a word as to the reason for the Flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol .2)

Hey, are we still talking about the Church and the Flood?

There are a lot of things that impress me about the Church, but if Noah's flood wasn't a planet-wide event that left only eight people alive on the entire planet, then I'm impressed at how consistently wrong about this the Church has been.

Here is a collection of teachings from Church leaders, curriculum and official publications that teach a literal global flood. I searched for any quotes that even acknowledge the possibility of a limited or metaphorical flood, but couldn't find a single one. If anyone knows of any, please let me know.

 

Quote

Is not today much like Noah’s day when the population of the earth was wiped out in the flood and but eight righteous souls were spared?   Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place.

Elder Mark Petersen, “Follow the Prophets”.  October 1981 General Conference

 

The Lord further indicated that all flesh was corrupt in those days, and so he brought forth the flood and destroyed all flesh except Noah and his family. Therefore, we are all descendants of righteous Noah. But the family concept is under very serious attack today all over the world.

Elder Hartman Rector, Jr., “Turning the Hearts”. April 1981 General Conference.

 

There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only “eight souls were saved” (1 Pet. 3:20).

President Gordon B. Hinckley, “If Ye Are Prepared, Ye Shall Not Fear”. October 2005 General Conference.

Another one was Noah, who was chosen to be the second father of the human race here on earth, after the flood.

Elder William Bennett, “Covenants and Blessings”. October 1975 General Conference.

 

Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” (Moses 7:33) that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water.

Jeffry R. Holland, “A Promised Land”. Ensign, June 1976.

Here is what college-age LDS students are taught in the Church published curriculum of the Church Educational System (including Institute and BYU classes):

(4-15) Genesis 7:19. How Could the Flood Cover the Entire Earth, Including Mountains? What Was the Significance of This Immersion?

“I would like to know by what known law the immersion of the globe could be accomplished. It is explained here in a few words: ‘The windows of heaven were opened’ that is, the waters that exist throughout the space surrounding the earth from whence come these clouds from which the rain descends. That was one cause. Another cause was  ‘the fountains of the great deep were broken up’—that is something beyond the oceans, something outside of the seas, some reservoirs of which we  have no knowledge, were made to contribute to this event, and the waters were let loose by the hand and by the power of God; for God said He would bring  a flood upon the earth and He brought it, but He  had to let loose the fountains of the great deep, and pour out the waters from there, and when the flood commenced to subside, we are told ‘that the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained, and the waters returned from off the earth.’ Where did they go to? From whence they came. Now, I will show you something else on the back of that. Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the question is—How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells that ‘all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.’ That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.” (John Taylor in Journal of Discourses, 26:74–75.)

Orson Pratt declared:
“The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and all things sinful upon the face of the earth were washed away. As it came forth  from the ocean floor, like the new-born child, it was innocent; it rose to newness of life. It was its second  birth from the womb of mighty waters—a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed with all the  innocence of this first creation.” (In Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:20.)

“The earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides
the law of its creation, has been baptized with water will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and
by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (Brigham Young, in Smith, Answers to Gospel
Questions, 4:20).

Here is what is taught to adult members of the Church in their Church Sunday School classes:

b. Genesis 7:11–24; 8; 9:8–17. It rains for 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:11–12). All people and creatures that are not on the ark die, and the waters cover the earth for 150 days (Genesis 7:13–24). When the waters recede, Noah, his family, and the animals leave the ark (Genesis 8:1–19), and Noah offers sacrifice to the Lord (Genesis 8:20–22). The Lord establishes his covenant with Noah and sets the rainbow as a token of the covenant (Genesis 9:8–17; note that the Joseph Smith Translation of verse 15 states that the covenant was between God and Noah, not between God and every living creature).

More quotes, little ambiguity.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

Donald Parry, “The Flood and the Tower of Babel”.  Ensign, January 1998

Following the Flood, Noah and his three sons and their wives received a calling much like that given to Adam and Eve. They were commanded to “multiply and replenish the earth,” which would fulfill a prophecy made by Methuselah “that from [Noah’s] loins should spring all the kingdoms of the earth” (Moses 8:3). As the Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “Noah was born to save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood.” 11 Noah fulfilled his specific calling just as Adam and Eve did in opening earth life and as the Savior did in redeeming earth life.

• The Flood covered the whole earth (see Gen. 7:19–23).

Joseph B. Romney, “Noah, The Great Preacher of Righteousness”.  Ensign, February 1998

 

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes. Yet the story is regarded skeptically today in our secular world. Most current geology texts ignore the Flood, ridicule it, or use it as an example of prescientific superstition.

Consequently, Latter-day Saints and other Christians sometimes find the apparent conflict between their faith in the scriptures and their education puzzling. The account of Noah’s flood is a typical illustration of the differences which occur between scriptural information and modern secular teachings about the history of the world.

F. Kent Nielsen, “The Gospel and the Scientific View: How the Earth Came to Be”. Ensign, September 1980

In prayer Noah asked the Lord never to destroy the earth again with flood. Noah’s prayer was answered; the Lord promised Noah that He would never again destroy the entire earth by flood. From that time forth the rainbow would be a symbol of that promise.

“Noah and the Ark”. Liahona, September 1984

These people were so wicked that they were no longer allowed to pollute the earth by their presence on it or to bring innocent spirits into its decadent environment. The Lord decreed that all living things would be destroyed by flood, with the exception of a faithful few who would be spared so that God could begin anew his creative work and reestablish his covenant among men.

Kent P. Jackson, “An Age of Contrasts: From Adam to Abraham”. Ensign, February 1986.

According to the Old Testament, Noah found favor with the Lord and was commanded to build an ark to preserve human and animal life during the Flood (see Gen. 5–9).

Rex C. Reeve Jr., “A Latter-day Testament of Biblical Truth”. Ensign, January 2001.

The history of the peopling of the earth is really a history of the scattering of the descendants of Noah, who is sometimes referred to as the “second father of mankind.” This general scattering began soon after the Flood when the sons of Noah and their children began to spread forth “in their lands, … after their nations” (see Gen. 10:5, 20, 31) and was greatly accelerated at the time of the Tower of Babel, when the Lord confounded the people’s language and did “scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” (Gen. 11:9.)

Lane Johnson, “Who and Where are the Lamanites?”. Ensign, December 1975.

Is not today much like Noah’s day, when the population of the earth was wiped out in the Flood and but eight souls were saved? (see Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:20).

Elder David E. Sorensen, “Preisthood, Agency and Black Power”. Ensign, September 2007.

*This is a bonus one.  Proponents of a “Limited Flood” have to explain what, exactly, God was covenanting with Noah.  No more local floods?  And what about all the other people living all over the world?

The Lord made a covenant with Noah, and the rainbow became the token of that eternal covenant with all mankind. (See Gen. 9:13.)

Elder Howard W. Hunter, “Commitment to God”. October 1981 Conference.

On 7/26/2022 at 4:34 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

Based on the points he's mentioned following that section, he's clearly talking about human progression. Given that we have no doctrine on plants or animals needing an atonement (since we have no evidence of them being able to sin), I have no need to lock myself in to making human death and mortality (in a doctrinal sense) mean the same thing as anything else.

 

But as recently as 2019, this is what the Church was teaching in the Liahona:

 

Quote

“This first temporal creation of all things … was paradisiacal in nature.”² Immediately after the Creation, nothing was mortal or subject to death.³

What do you think they mean by "nothing was mortal or subject to death"?

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

President Nelson is simply recounting the components of the plan of God, and that could be explained as described in the post here.  

Why do you suppose President Nelson would allow the publication of the new church essay on Organic Evolution as linked in the opening post, which leaves open the possibility of evolution, if he taught against evolution?

What do you think it means when RMN says it was a "paradisiacal creation", and that the planet was "paradisiacal"?

It's not a very common word; we most usually hear it in Article of Faith 10, where we state that the Earth will be "renewed" and recieve its "paradisiacal glory."

Do you believe that in this pardisiacal state, there will continue to be mortal death and evolutionary change? What is the difference between the current state of the planet and a "paradisiacal" state?

The "Organic Evolution" essay doesn't actually say anything that resolves the contradiction between basic LDS doctrines of the creation (and fall) and the theory of evolution. It certainly doesn't say "God used evolution to create the different forms of life on this planet" or "there were pre-Adamites and countless generations of birth and death before the Fall". It's reiterating the Church's desperate detante. Church leaders understand many members find rejecting the theory of evolution untenable, but also find rejecting the Church untenable. So they continue to teach things about a "paradisiacal creation" and "death" coming into the "world" via the fall of Adam, but then say "it's okay to believe in evolution". And as long as no one asks too many questions, people come up with extremely creative word redefinitions (and ignore what they can't redefine) to convince themselves that it all works.

But it doesn't. Sorry. And as shown by that Liahona article, the Church hasn't really gotten much better about this. If there was no physical death on the planet before Adam's fall, then there was no evolution by natural selection. If there was physical death on the planet, then the world didn't need to "fall." It was already fallen.

I'm not suggesting there aren't tons of members of the Church who believe in evolution (especially since I'm a member and absolutely believe in evolution, along with a mythical Adam and Eve), and surveys seem to suggest at least 40% do (with 50% not). I'm just questioning the idea that there is any debate between current leaders and past leaders over the scriptures/teachings/doctrines that totally contradict the theory of evolution.

10 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

You seem to be using a form of creation that was instantaneous. All your quotes talk about after the creation not during. It's pretty clear from the accounts of the creation we have that the creation wasn't finished until after Adam was placed in the garden, and given the usage of seventh day in the creation accounts, the day of rest was part of it too. So anything until at least that point isn't dictated by "immediately after the creation".

Don't worry about the form of creation I'm using. Explain to me your theory of creation that involves some form of organic evolution but doesn't directly contradict RMN's statement that:
 

Quote

The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God.¹² Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.

If you are theorizing a period of "creation" in which there was evolution and mortality, and death was a part of that evolutionary process, in what way could it be said that mortality and death hadn't already "come into the world"? Specifically, what do you think it means when RMN teaches that it was a paradisiacal planet when it was created?

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I'm not sure what that quote has to do with evolution.

Same question as above.
 

Quote

The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God.¹² Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.

Can you explain your theory of creation (and understanding of the word "paradisiacal") in a way that evolution would be possible on a "paradisiacal" planet that had no mortality or death on it?

For those wondering what the Church has published recently on the subject:

The Fall and Renewal of Humankind—and the Earth (Liahona, August 2019)

Quote

“This first temporal creation of all things … was paradisiacal in nature.”² Immediately after the Creation, nothing was mortal or subject to death.³

Quote

“The earth itself fell under the curse incident to the fall of [Adam and Eve], and … even as man shall be redeemed so shall the earth be regenerated.”⁴

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think you need to read some of the earlier posts in this thread related to some of the questions posed by evolution in relation to what is said in the scriptures.  There's nothing in the quote you provided from President Nelson that would exclude the possibility of evolution.

Nelson says this:

Quote

The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God

Explain to me how evolution is possible on a planet that is created in a "paradisiacal" state. Maybe share your understanding of what "paradisiacal" means first.

On 7/24/2022 at 6:26 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

Your quote negates the possibility of evolution for Adam and Eve. Doesn't say anything about anything or anyone apart from Adam and Eve.

Uh, okay. Here's another quote. Does this one allow for evolution on the planet outside of Adam and Eve?
 

Quote

The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God.¹² Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.¹³ Immortality and the possibility of eternal life were provided by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.¹⁴ The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were planned long before the actual work of the Creation began.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2000/05/the-creation?lang=eng

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I think that is one big difference between President Nelson who gives room for others to believe in evolution and previous prophets who simply taught it as absolute and indisputable false doctrine.  I was responding to the following post which wasn't about President Nelson's personal beliefs:

 

You used the word "debate" when describing the "old" prophets and the "new" ones. Nelson being the Prophet, where are you seeing any "debate" with what was said by JFS or other anti-evolution prophets?

I'm also curious about your classification of a belief as being a "personal one". What other kind of belief is there? Aren't all of President Nelson's (and everyone else's beliefs) "personal"? Describe what President Nelson would say about evolution if it wasn't "personal" but was some other kind of belief.

On 6/21/2022 at 6:46 AM, pogi said:

If only!  There will still remain the debate between more fundamentalist believers who think old prophets are more authoritative than modern ones and will simply dismiss this as a further unfortunate greying of absolute truths taught by old prophets.  

What has our new prophet said that would contradict anything said by the "old" prophets? President Nelson has been pretty clear about his thoughts, and I'm not seeing a lot of disagreement. The guy really doesn't believe in any sort of creation by evolution.

 

Quote

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It’s interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Forum: Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2007/05/16/in-focus-mormonism-in-modern-america/

Quote

Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a “big bang” that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.

To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I believe all of those scriptures that pertain to the creation of man. But the decision to believe is a spiritual one, not made solely by an understanding of things physical, for we read that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14.)

It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved. By the Spirit, we perceive the truer and more believable wisdom of God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/01/the-magnificence-of-man?lang=eng

Nelson also believes that the Eve "rib" story is literal (in contradiction to President Kimball )

 

Quote

From the rib of Adam, Eve was formed (see Gen. 2:22; Moses 3:22; Abr. 5:16). Interesting to me is the fact that animals fashioned by our Creator, such as dogs and cats, have thirteen pairs of ribs, but the human being has one less with only twelve. I presume another bone could have been used, but the rib, coming as it does from the side, seems to denote partnership. The rib signifies neither dominion nor subservience, but a lateral relationship as partners, to work and to live, side by side.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/11/lessons-from-eve?lang=eng

Nelson also believes in a physical state for Adam and Eve that negates the possibility of a creation by evolution:

 

Quote

Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”⁷ The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well.⁸ They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1996/11/the-atonement?lang=eng

On 5/17/2022 at 6:34 AM, jkwilliams said:

Did Joseph Smith ever say he was translating otherwise? Just curious.

That's an interesting question. I remembered hearing the JS studied Hebrew, but it looks like it went a bit beyond that.

 

Quote

During his prophetic career, Joseph Smith spent considerable time and effort towards the study of both modern and ancient languages. Historical evidence indicates that Joseph studied, or at least expressed interest in studying, Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian, Latin, and German. Although his study of these languages was evidently limited, and although he never became proficient in these languages, Joseph Smith nevertheless employed his understanding of these languages in his doctrinal discourses that in many instances led him to formulate creative theological innovations. Although he wasn’t a skilled linguist, and his understanding of some of these languages (particularly Hebrew and Egyptian) was highly idiosyncratic, the true value in Joseph’s study of languages was that it catalyzed inspiration that led him to elucidate prophetic insight.

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=15384

If Joseph Smith spent time studying all those languages, he obviously recognized that there was some sort of regular translation to be done.

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

And that seems like an easy enough question to answer. If Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here, certainly it ought to be easy to point out this same phenomenon happening in other places where Mormonism exists: say, in Brazil, for example.

I have to admit I really feel out of the loop on a lot of this, since I don't live in Utah and I (apparently) don't ever roam the same corners of the internet as "Deznat". It seems to be another one of those things where extremism in the Church is ever-present and prevalent to some people, but it just leaves me scratching my head.

Take the Jan 6 insurrection/riot. Some critics have pointed to there being some LDS people in the crowd as being evidence of the Church "breeding" this kind of extremist violence. Certainly, cosplay Moroni guy doesn't help the optics. But from the estimated 2,000 - 2,500 rioters, and the 800 who have been charged, how many were LDS? I have no idea. 20? 50? 100?

Then consider how many adult men are in the LDS Church in the United States. There are 12,000 wards, so estimate how many active, adult men are in an average ward. I would guess 40, but insert your own number here. So with my estimate, there would be about 480,000 active adult LDS men in the US, and 100(?) participated in the capitol riot. How many are associated with "DezNat"? I have no idea, but is it more than 100? 1,000?

The point being, if it's the Church's purpose to create extremism and violence (or we're going to argue that extremism is simply a bi-product that is concerning enough to warrant a Hulu miniseries), this would have to be chalked up as one of the things at which the Church is massively and totally failing.

I mean, if my experience in EQ was any indication, the Church could barely muster enough energy in its men to home teach a couple times a year, or even come to Church regularly. Over-zealousness was not something that seemed to be a big problem.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

How is that different than the Church portraying it's history to the world and it's members in a way that the members back then wouldn't recognize?  Do you think Emma would be surprised at how the Church throughout its history portrayed how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon?  Do you think she would be saying, hey wait a minute, where did this narrative come from? That is nothing like how he translated the Book of Mormon.

Edit:  I should have read a little further.  I see that HJW asked the same question.

Well, historical inaccuracies like that also bug me.

But if we're saying that UTBOH is on par with ham-fisted Church propaganda videos in its accuracy, tone, and intent (not to mention the quality of the acting and writing), I guess...I agree?

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

I continue to be somewhat critical of the characterizations in UtBoH, but I don't think this comparison is a good one. A documentary is very different from a show that is specifically designed to be a drama.

If you recall, the documentary had lots of recreations, with actors and sets and costumes depicting Hofmann and his associates. Those are the scenes I was referring to. Granted, I don't think there was much dialogue, and it's hard to over-do a couple guys in an MR2 going out to the desert to shoot Uzis.