Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Peppermint Patty

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Peppermint Patty

  1. The Bible was never meant to be taken as a completely historical or literal account by it's writers, but rather as an amalgamation of folk traditions, symbolism, parables, lessons, teachings and warnings.  The ancient Hebrews understood this about scripture.

    It must be remembered that scripture (in most world religions) is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith, and not a book of history or science.

    The BoM is no different in that it contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and man.

    Just like the Bible, the BoM is a religious book, not a completely historical document, which is readily apparent from numerous parts in both content and context.

  2. 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

     For all we know it may have already done so by dissuading people in gay marriages to demand baby blessings or baptism for the children in their custody. 

    If this policy was crafted to dissuade people from wanting baby blessings or wanting children in their custody to be baptized, then I'm pretty sure the Savior would take issue.

  3. 2 hours ago, theplains said:

    If the Book of Mormon is non-historical, much of what is printed in LDS Church manuals and spoken of in Conferences
    will have to be disavowed.  Any book can be considered to have 'real power' if it changes one's life; even one that speaks
    of the lost city of Atlantis or aliens helping to build the great pyramids of Egypt.


    Jim, I don't know if much would have to be disavowed. Just look at the Book of Abraham for examples and parallels. The main difference between the BoA and the BoM is that we have the papyri, but we no longer have the plates.  I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest the plates could have served as sort of a catalyst for inspiration to Joseph much the same way the papyri did for the BoA.  You seldom see members of the Church today claiming that the BoA is exactly what Joseph claimed it was, like they do with the BoM. This wasn't the case for a large part of our history.

    Also, I think many members don't feel a necessity that they must believe in a historical BoM.  For many, they don't need an alternative explanation of how the BoM came to be.  Many just have faith that it's God's word, and don't worry or care if it's historical or not. I've seen this with many members, and I think it's growing.

  4. 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:


    Those who view the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" still must deal with the hard fact that their position is not logically coherent, as the book itself does not purport to be fictional and the account of its coming forth is not presented as fiction.

    Furthermore, I can't conceive anyone ever being allowed to propound an "inspired fiction" theory in any sort of official Church venue. It is, quite simply, at odds with the position of the Church.


    If I were teaching, say, a Sunday School gospel doctrine class (which I have done in the past for many years), I would not abide advocacy in my classroom of any notion that the Book of Mormon is anything other than what it purports to be.

    Sorry if that makes me sound intolerant or narrow to you, but as a Sunday School teacher, I would be committed to upholding the official teachings of the Church.


    Asserting a historical view of the BoM from a believing perspective might be difficult to understand for some, because of the way they define believing and faithful.  I think Mormons who have an nonhistorical view do not  approach the issue from the perspective as many others define it. In the same way that someone who grows up believing that the earth is 6000 years old, blacks were less valiant, the American Indians were the literal descendants or that there was a literal flood and that Noah's ark really existed but then learns scientific and historical information and has to construct a new narrative and self-understanding about these stories in the Bible, many Mormons have come to realize that the Book of Mormon history is of a similar character.

    The Church would not fail if it gave up BoM historicity or developed new approaches to scripture.  No religion has ever stayed completely pure to its founder's ideals, including our Church. Just look at all the changes in the last few years with the Book of Abraham, Essays and the Book of Mormon Introduction Page.  All religions develop over time, especially if the religion truly belongs to God and the community.  Succesful and vibrant religions as a whole must also live in the present to shape itself in ways consistent with evolving and traditional beliefs, needs and structures.


    I hope this made sense.

  5. Professor Peterson posted some interesing information about Grant Hardy's recent FAIR presentation.

    From what I can gather, Brother Hardy talked about members not needing to believe in a historical Book of Mormon in order to have saving faith.

    Can anyone who was in attendance elaborate further on Brother Hardy's presentation?

    This sounds like it was a very interesting presentation. Any idea when the transcript will be available? 

  6. 1 hour ago, JAHS said:

    If this is really still happening now, church authorities need to be made aware of it and come down hard on those mission presidents who allow or ignore it.

    Elder Oaks was made aware of this behavior several years ago and even held a special conference for Mission Presidents:  http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-podcast-001-kiddie-bapsmy-mission-experience-in-guatemala/

    It sounds like another special conference might be needed.

  7. 13 minutes ago, Thinking said:

    If we accept a mean generation length of 35 years and recognize that nearly all generation lengths would be between 15 and 55 years, using the 68-95-99.7 rule, the standard deviation of the generation length would be about 6.67. This assumes the distribution is approximately normal, which is reasonable.

    The probability that a sample of 19 generations would have a mean generation length that far above 35 would be

    P(z > (50-35)/(6.67/sqrt19)) = P(z > 9.8) = 5.6x10-23 or 0.000000000000000000000056

    So, you're saying there could still be a chance?

  8. I found this article that's relevant to life expectancy. A team of over 50 researchers studied approximately 12500 (more than half pre-Columbian) skeletal remains from 65 sites in North and South America going back thousands of years. They found that the average life expectancy was around 35 years. 


  9. 1 hour ago, cinepro said:

    I guess I'm a little confused about how you define the term.  When John Dehlin (an ex-LDS gadfly who, as far as I can tell, has never made a claim of divine inspiration) made a prediction about what the Church may or may not do in the next 40 years, you described it as a "prophesy", and felt like the claim was so important and well-defined that it should be tracked in a public and precise manner (including with a follow up thread).

    But when a man who does publicly proclaim himself to be a "Prophet, seer and revelator" makes a prediction about the future, that is neither a "prophesy" nor worthy of tracking with the constant reminder of a countdown clock.

    I guess that mike seem consistent and logical to some people, but I'm just not seeing why the former would merit so much more attention than the latter. 

    I agree. That does seem a little inconsistent.

    Scott, I hope you respond. I would like to see some clarification.  Thanks

  10. 9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

    Women make up ~ half the population, so the result of the change should be very large and sustained (not merely a temporary "surge" attributable to 18 year-old men signing up).  I'm not saying it should have exactly doubled, since there were some women serving already.  But certainly more than 29%.




    Actually women now make up over 60% of the church membership. If this trend continues, it won't be long until we make up 70%

  11. I think one's opinon of it probably hinges on whether the person who cooks it knows what he's doing.  Whenever I've had it, the people cooking it have known what they're doing. :)


    It certainly depends on how mutton is cooked. If cooked right, it can be one of the best tasting meats. If cooked poorly, it can taste gamey and be very tough. 

  12. My sister-in-law just emailed me three different second hand accounts of dog sacrifice and Joseph Smith.  I've never heard anything like this before and it sure feels like some made up anti-Mormon accusations to me.


    Can someone with more light and knowledge help me out on this?  Is this real or bogus? Have these accounts been debunked before?


    -In the time of their digging for money and not finding it attainable, Joe Smith told them there was a charm on the pots of money, and if some animal was killed and the blood sprinkled around the place, then they could get it. So they killed a dog, and tried this method of obtaining the precious metal; but again money was scarce in those diggings. Still, they dug and dug, but never came to the precious treasure. Alas! how vivid was the expectation when the blood of poor Tray was used to take off the charm, and after all to find their mistake. Emily Coburn, in Emily M. Austin, Mormonism; or, Life Among the Mormons, 1882, pp. 32-33


    -Hiel Lewis affirmed that Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the same enchanting spirit that directed Smith to make dog sacrifices. Dr. Quinn wrote, "A cousin of Smith's wife Emma reported that Smith 'translated the book of Mormon by means of the same peep stone, and under the same inspiration that directed his enchantments and dog sacrifices; it was all by the same spirit' (H. Lewis 1879)" (Quinn, 1987 edition, p. 144).

    -Justice Joel King Noble, who tried Smith in an 1830 trial in Colesville, N.Y., related in a letter that when Joe Smith and others were digging "for a Chest of money," they acquired a black dog and offered it as "a sacrafise [blo]od Sprinkled prayer made at the time (no money obtained) the above Sworn to on trial. . . ." (Letter of Justice Noble, dated March 8, 1842, photographically reproduced in Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials," p. 134

  • Create New...