Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cinepro

  1. 42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

    I clicked on the link and it took me directly to the post by “SmallAxe” whom I presumed was Dan Vogel, as that’s where the link led. Is that not the case?

    It is extremely confusing to find, but if you CTRL+F and search for "Dan Vogel", you'll find the posts quite a way down the comments.  But if you go straight to them, you'll miss an edifying exchange between the shining stars of apologetics and the gadflies from the other board.

  2. On my mission, we had a saying:

    "Trust in God, but always lock your bike."


    I think it would be prudent for the current leadership to adapt it with this approach:

    "Trust the Church will never go away, but lead it as if it could."


    As for the Church changing its views on the historicity of The Book of Mormon or the ability of God to tolerate homosexual sex, I hope it never changes.  I hope 100 years from now, LDS leaders are just as firm in their insistence on these topics as they are today.  Even if it turns the Church into a tiny group of historically delusional, homophobic managers of a massive investment portfolio*, I hope they never waver.


    *Paraphrase of how the world might see them one day, not my own personal views.


    • Like 1
  3. 3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

    So you're saying that our leaders are pretending to be led by God?

    If that's what you're saying that sounds like a pretty serious charge to be leveling by one who wasn't a participant or witness to the events.

    No.  I'm saying that having fallible leaders means having leaders that sometimes honestly believe they are being led by God, but are mistaken.

    And believing that leaders are fallible means being able to identify something as a probable mistake without impugning their integrity or character.

    This is only a problem if someone believes the leaders are infallible.  Of course I've been told for decades that this would never be the case in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to test whether that is true or not.

    • Like 2
  4. 17 hours ago, longview said:

    Dr. Tour has a very strong background in many areas of hard science.  The more we learn about the complexity of the cell, the more lame the current "narrative" becomes.  He knows there are academics who will punish any professional who do not toe the line in supporting the politically correct "narrative".


    I haven't really kept up to speed on this, so can you explain what you mean by "current narrative"?  What is this "narrative" that one must support or otherwise risk punishment, and who are the scientists that are doing the punishing (what are their names)? 

    Can you provide an example of a scientist that didn't toe the line and got punished?

    • Like 3
  5. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

    A lot of rumors about changes to missions (many of them contradictory) due to significant increase in rate of missionaries going home. Most common one is shortening mission but I really do not see how that would help. Missionaries who come home rarely come home after 18 months out. One rumor I have heard I like is mandatory missionary training before you go out. It exists in many stakes and wards but is not required.

    My daughter is on a mission right now, and apparently the Elders just go nuts with expectations of a change to 18 month missions before each conference.

    • Like 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Ahab said:

    Since this next one will be the October conference I'm hoping I will get a stronger sense of the spirit of Christmas that will carry me through the end of the year, at least, if not until the April conference.


    Personally, I'm hoping for a spooky talk. 

    Maybe something about a ghost?

  7. 16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

    Are you suggesting that the Church is facing financial difficulties in completing temples? Despite having previously estimated the ROI of its presumed $32,000,000,000 stock portfolio?

    I feel confident that any 'backlog' is not a result of financial limitations.

    Even with money, building and planning takes time.  I've got a friend who has been trying to build his dream house for years, and trust me, he's got the money, but the permitting and other factors would be going a lot more smoothly if his plans were smaller and more manageable.

    • Like 2
  8. On 9/5/2019 at 11:11 AM, mgy401 said:

    . . . which is why he also referred to Columbus in the same talk; since we all know how Columbus’ voyages and discoveries were focused on the land that is now the United States of America . . . ;) 

    I agree it is a misnomer.  But as always, the argument for fallible leaders that don't know what they're talking about is a sure way to win the battle but lose the war.

  9. 5 minutes ago, Calm said:

     This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

    I love the words "misunderstanding" and "speculative." 


    What if instead of using the word "get", we say "preside"?  That's much more elegant.  And what if instead of "planets" we say "worlds and kingdoms"?  That just seems more celestial.

    If we accept those synonyms, then we get this:



    When the Father offers us everlasting life, He is saying in essence, ‘If you choose to follow My Son—if your desire is really to become more like Him—then in time you may live as We live, and preside over worlds and kingdoms as We do.’” 

    2018 Christmas Devotional

    (Emphasis added)

    So is this just a speculative misunderstanding on President Nelson's part?

  10. 11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

    Actually the work moves ahead regardless of how many baptisms occur.  The goal is to present the gospel to as many as we can.  If people reject it, the missionary work for that person is a success.  The person who rejected the gospel has had a chance.  The work is done for that person.  It in a good way for that person but its done.

    My daughter is on a mission right now, and apparently her mission president did not get that memo.

    • Like 1
  11. 20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

    Typically those bearing witness are doing so to the big items that were revealed not every nuance of the presentation. It's rather easy to assume he had revealed to him the destructions of the Jaredites and so forth but not a nuanced revelation on Book of Mormon geography. Thus he followed the then common view of location. I'm not sure unless he explicitly claims geography is revealed that we should take that as his revelation rather than the key things focused on.

    The location of the events isn't a "nuance" of the talk.  It's the point of the entire talk.  It was 1976, and he was talking about how everything in the Book of Mormon is focused on the land that is now the United States of America.

  12. 22 hours ago, JAHS said:

    There is no doubt that all the records Mormon used to compile his abridged set of plates are hidden in a hill called Cumorah, close to where most of the history took place. But did Moroni hide the plates his father gave him in the same hill 35 years later? Or did he hide them in a different hill thousands of miles away that we now also perhaps wrongly call Cumorah? 

    Well, this is awkward.

    In 1976, Marion G. Romney (second counselor in the First Presidency), perhaps in a fit of patriotic fervor, stood in Conference and proclaimed this to the world:



    In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.


    This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’.

    So, that's not too bad.  We can chalk that up to mistaken assumptions and cultural influence on his understanding of Book of Mormon geography.

    But then he closes with this:


    Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come.

    So, what is the value of a "personal witness" borne by a member of the First Presidency in General Conference?  What level of confidence should we have in something that is so witnessed, compared to, say, someone just standing up and making up a bunch of stuff based on what he was told while he was growing up?

    • Like 1
  13. 1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

    Well Moroni at minimum if he spoke English to Joseph Smith. A few people have speculated that as a theory. I personally find that extremely speculative. After all in theory anyone could learn both languages. The bigger issue is why on earth they'd translate the way the text is translated if they could have done a more normal style of translation.

    Resurrected Moroni doesn't really fit the definition of "human," since the implication was that it was a mortal, fallible human just doing his best to translate between two languages that he spoke.  Resurrected beings would presumably have a perfect knowledge of both languages so that doesn't really solve the problem at hand.

    Otherwise, Robert's statement would just as well apply to God himself (since God would be a "human" under that definition), and he would only be saying that a humanoid supernatural being did it as opposed to a goat or lizard or something, which I don't think anyone had suggested.

  14. So it looks like John Gee isn't impressed with the Joseph Smith Papers volume on The Book of Abraham:


    Abstract: Volume 4 of the Revelations and Translations series of the Joseph Smith Papers does not live up to the standards set in previous volumes. While the production values are still top notch, the actual content is substandard. Errors fill the volume, including upside-down photographs and numerous transcription errors beyond the more than two hundred places where the editors admitted they could not read the documents. For this particular volume, producing it incorrectly is arguably worse than not producing it at all.


    If Gee's criticisms are true, it is unfortunate that more care wasn't taken.  But it's also possible his approach was affected by the differences in attitude between him and the editors of the volume regarding The Book of Abraham. 

    It will be interesting to see how this develops...

    • Like 1
  15. 6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

    What if it was something like that? I'm trying to think of a model that would allow for all anachronisms yet still be inspired. What if the "translation" process was something like that and started in 1823. What if during this time Joseph simply received vague impressions, sort of like a non-linear dream, or flashbacks piecing things together from old memories. 

    Then, the dictation process came in the 85 days while Joseph was locked on with the seer stone, pulling all the translation from his own brain he had been working on, and refined by the Holy Ghost in the moment to know what to include and exclude and maybe even at times the Holy Ghost completely overrode him and put words on the seer stone he hadn't even though of previously.

    Whatever works for you, I guess.

    Of course, one could wonder why you're limiting yourself to models that are "still inspired"?  What would happen if you opened up your search to look at models that includes those that aren't "inspired"?

  16. In the end, I think the best (and inevitable) thing for the Church to do is this.

    Pretend that there is no discernment or inspiration with callings.  While there may be times when a leader feels that there is some discernment or inspiration happening, pretend that every calling is being made based solely on the mental faculties and knowledge of those making the call. 

    This means background checks, training, but most of all, the public acknowledgement to the members that this is how things are being done.  The ideas about a "gift of discernment" will go the way of the gift of "speaking in tongues."  A hundred years from now, scholars will say "Hey, did you know that LDS leaders used to think that God was telling them who to call to positions instead of them just figuring it out themselves" and people will say "Huh, that's weird.  I wonder why they thought that?"

    Once the leaders stop thinking they can read minds (they can't) and the members stop expecting them to (they should), things will get much better.  Not that we won't still have sexual deviants called as Bishops and Nursery leaders, but when it happens, people just won't be so surprised.  Because that's just what happens, no matter how careful you are.

    • Like 2
  • Create New...