Calm

Last time I checked, which was years ago l admitt, I couldn’t find a free version online. And I adore my edition that requires a magnifying glass (it even has a little drawer for the glass). It would be like cheating. 😛 I recognized all those issues with Webster’s, but since all I am aiming for is for people to break out of the “plain reading” trap generally speaking, to on occasion think about how Joseph might have understood it reading it with his vocabulary of his century as opposed to ours, not dealing with much else typically, I only need a substantive alternative contemporary to Joseph definition. Webster’s is generally sufficient for my needs. If I need more, it’s Oxford. I am not a linguist and usually leave the technical discussion on the BoM to those with more training except for asking questions, so that need only pops up now and again. Is the link you used the best (only?) source for Oxford online? It would actually be nice to have an alternative since mine is 40 years old. We do get into debates over definitions in my home, so being able to pull out an authoritative up to date source that includes archaic versions is always a plus for me…still a phone lacks the gravitas of a massive text one can barely pick up (it makes a great doorstop when moving as well, much better for the floor and door than a rock). That link was rather confusing at a glance, got to get used to the formatting I guess.

Isn’t the Lord or someone he directed a different “someone” than Joseph?

Why not Mary first and then Peter anticipating he deserved a visit too? I am assuming the theory is contagion and exaggeration (as in multiple people sharing alleged visions).

Webster’s 1828 is full of gaps as should be obvious from the limited number of entries. As I understand it, it was never intended to be comprehensive, but rather to help standardize English, thus giving preference to more educated forms and useful scientific, legal, religious, etc terms. I love Oxford, but dragging out the magnifying glass and typing in the possible entries to post on this board is annoying. I find Webster’s useful enough most of the time for my purpose. I use Webster’s 1828 not to establish definite meaning, but to show plausible alternative meanings, in this case “quarters” possibly referring to “a particular region” of indeterminate size rather than a specified expansive area. Iow, we don’t need to be locked into one so-called “plain reading” (a very, very overused term imo) that is even often based on 20th century usage, not on Joseph’s time period, which one would expect would be the most common source of words if he was the sole author/creator of the text. Webster’s shows even from a naturalistic interpretation of the text, it doesn’t require a hemispheric reading. —— Back to your comments, perhaps I have misunderstood your theory or conflated it with others’, but I understood you see the text covering a range of times, not just a one and done translation from a particular moment when EModE was dominant that is then given to Joseph in some way. You have pointed out words that were prominent and then falling out of usage from different centuries, for example, iirc. So to help clarify your theory for me, could you answer these questions: Do you see Joseph as having no input into word choice, but simply transmitting someone else’s translation? Do you see the language of the dictated text limited to a certain time period? If so, what is the range of that period?

Thank you for answering, normally I would give a rep point, but there’s not really a neutral one and I definitely don’t agree with “too many lies”.

In this I strongly disagree as no one should be required to label oneself as belonging to a faith community when one doesn’t have that faith even if still on the books. It’s just wrong. It’s not a genetic or legal status like citizenship, it’s a voluntary association. If you haven’t resigned because you see that record as meaningless, all the more reason not to use “our”. If you haven’t resigned because of family blowback, I feel bad for you….sincerely. Not being able to be who you are because of others’ expectations, not great. I have had to play that game with my health and stuff at times as I don’t want to be fussed over, given advice that’s irrelevant or worse, or made a project (pretend I am having fun and want to be at a family gathering, for example). I think it would be much harder with a faith because at least I feel decent much of the time and have some extroverted tendencies, so it’s not a complete mask. In addition to the wrongness of it, your use of “our own prophets” makes it appear like you are attempting to position yourself as somehow more credible or somehow having a more substantial status as an insider. I have seen too many people act this way in my life (not just with trying to appear more ‘Mormon’). It’s disconcerting and makes you look deceptive to me. There is no requirement on the board that prevents you from calling yourself an exmormon if that is how you see yourself no matter what anyone else thinks. A name on a paper doesn’t make you LDS in identity. Membership numbers need to be tracked somehow. Decisions need to be made to meet people’s needs, including supporting rectivation efforts, so I don’t see a problem with the Church using those numbers, especially since if someone doesn’t want to be counted, one can contact SL easy enough to get removed, but membership is a different issue than identity. Making claims with absolute numbers as if all are believers is highly problematic though I don’t think there is inherent issues with looking at trends (speed of numbers going up or down).

Considering you think LDS leaders/prophets are consistent liars and have been since the beginning if I remember correctly, why are you identifying with them? Not saying you can’t, just seems very inconsistent with your stated views which come across as condemning and even disdainful of the organization and its leadership.

Being more open doesn’t mean you will actually accept it. Will you ever accept such a claim as truth, really happening?

This seems quite consistent with the ancient Israelite and Jewish practices indicating membership in the community, including converts...though we don’t use circumcision as an indicator of membership for males. There is a ritual immersion which symbolizes rebirth and entry into the faith community. (Obviously Jewish membership would not be seen as accepting the Christian faith in any way…) There is no difference in membership in the community seen between someone born Jewish and those who convert just as there is no difference between those born of a Jewish mother no matter the status of the father as I mention in an above post (that Analytics hasn’t responded to yet and I wish he really would as I am interested in exactly how he views meaningfully and if different from past and current Jewish and LDS practices (seemingly the most relevant cultures we have access to in order to understand Nephite and Lamanite POVs plus doctrinal interpretation of what descent is according to God in the LDS context). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.58b.9?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

So you do agree it’s a workable monetary system? (Seems like that needs to be the first step as why bother arguing about where it is found if you think it’s unrealistic in the first place.)

Since you believe the Church has a truth problem according to your posts, why are you demanding quotes that say it explicitly when you will just call them lies anyway? But that only partially answers my question, so let me restate it. Is there any circumstance where you would accept someone’s claim they saw Christ and not think it was a lie or a delusion? There are basically two questions there… Do you even believe Christ exists or any deity? If you believe there is a Deity, do you believe they would ever show themselves to mortals?

Would you believe anyone who claimed this?

Chinese currency involved weights with different names for different sizes in my understanding. Tael was the standard size of a silver ingot, though it varied by region and time period. Not sure exactly how it works as I have just seen it used in historical dramas from Google: Tael (兩 - Liang): The primary weight unit. Mace (錢 - Qián): 1/10 of a tael, which is roughly 3.78 grams. Candareen (分 - Fēn): 1/100 of a tael. Silver Sycees (Ingots): While a tael is a weight, it was often cast into larger, non-standardized ingots often weighing 1, 5, 10, or 50 taels.

I think it might become a test of worthiness for way too many. It already has if I understand the followers of John Pontius (and I heard unfortunate things about some who claimed they did as well as many who thought they had somehow failed because they hadn’t). We have a hard enough time with other things (missions, children, church callings). If this became the expected standard of confirming one’s worthiness in God’s eyes, the typical endpoint of the mortal part of spiritual growth….ach!

Written by anyone who had studied ancient currency? Or by people who assumed it worked like it does now? Understandably so as it’s been going that way for a long, long time.

Why would ancient Lamanites care about DNA when they had no awareness of it? Lineage was about who you belonged to, what family you were part of, not what percentage of their DNA you carried. If they did come from Israel, it makes sense to look at how lineage was determined to see what would be meaningful. In rabbical times Jewish ethnicity was determined primarily through the matrilineal line (a convert would also be considered fully Jewish I believe). If a Jewish woman married a nonjewish man, all her children would be considered Jewish. If her daughters married nonjewish men, all their children were considered to be Jewish. And so on. No matter how diluted the genetics for, since it reset every generation with the children being considered fully Jewish no matter the ethnicity of the father, no doubt there are many who are Jewish who have no definable Jewish DNA. They have in fact found the DNA of Jewish populations tend to reflect the local genetic profiles. Are you saying these Jewish descendants are not actually meaningfully Jewish after all, even though the ethnic community defines them as Jewish? https://www.jewishboston.com/read/ive-heard-that-judaism-is-passed-down-through-the-mother-is-it-true-does-it-matter/ “According to traditional Jewish law, a person’s Jewish status is passed down through the mother. It is perhaps worth noting that in the biblical period, evidence points toward the custom of patrilineal descent, where children received their Israelite and tribal affiliation through their fathers. Patrilineal descent continues to be the practice of the community of Karaite Jews, whose Jewish legal framework differs significantly from rabbinic law and practice.” If Nephites and Lamanites followed the patrilineal descent tradition, then it wouldn’t matter what ethnicity the mother was, only the father. However, even with that one is viewed as meaningfully Jewish as far as I am aware with all that means as far as heritage if one goes through the conversion process, so no DNA needed to tie into the covenant that God has with Israel according to Jewish tradition and law. Doesn’t matter what genetics you have if you are accepted as a member of the community. There are Jewish communities who accept either parent for descent lineage claims, so might have even happened in the past.

And weights that are assigned certain sizes like Chinese taels have the same advantages without being coins if I understand your point.

This question itself is going to push it to assume it is possible to evaluate in this way.

I haven’t read all of his recent posts, so that might explain my confusion.

I am missing where marineland is teaching a lesson. To whom on what?

Why not a more recent event (2nd mill) shifted to an earlier time period (3rd mil) either purposefully or not? btw, what biblical timeline are you using for this, traditional modern (Usher?) or one based on modern scholarship trying to match to confirmed events or something else?

And you were right.

Iow, the same question we have to ask ourselves in the here and now when expected blessings don’t appear as expected….

“Restored” meaning what in your own personal perspective? I admit to being confused at times because I get mixed up on your premises, underlying assumptions. I know they have changed over time and I may be not updating enough. “Mormons” aren’t monolithic enough for me to trust guessing…look at me, lol. If you have a summary of your approach on your Urtext site, that probably works. When my brain clears up, I may get this book as it’s a tenth of what the other book I wanted on the subject: https://www.ivpress.com/the-lost-world-of-the-flood The contents look dreamy. Part I: Method: Perspectives on Interpretation Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document Proposition 2: Genesis 1–11 Makes Claims About Real Events Proposition 3: Genesis Uses Rhetorical Devices Proposition 4: The Bible Uses Hyperbole to Describe Historical Events Proposition 5: Genesis Appropriately Presents a Hyperbolic Account of the Flood Proposition 6: Genesis Depicts the Flood as a Global Event Part II: Background: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Proposition 7: Ancient Mesopotamia Also Has Stories of a Worldwide Flood Proposition 8: The Biblical Flood Story Shares Similarities and Differences with Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts Part III: Text: Understanding the Biblical Text Literarily and Theologically Proposition 9: A Local Cataclysmic Flood Is Intentionally Described as a Global Flood for Rhetorical Purposes Proposition 10: The Flood Account Is Part of a Sequence of Sin and Judgment Serving as Backstory for the Covenant Proposition 11: The Theological History Is Focused on the Issue of Divine Presence, the Establishment of Order, and How Order Is Undermined Proposition 12: The “Sons of God” Episode Is Not Only a Prelude to the Flood; It Is the Narrative Sequel to Cain and Abel Proposition 13: The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) Is an Appropriate Conclusion to the Primeval Narrative

So if we assume there was actually a Moroni writing in 400ish AD/CE (which do you prefer?) something like what we have now, what does the above imply for you on how Moroni views both the continent and the local area of settlement of the Jaredites at the time they first land? Other groups somewhere, maybe within a few days travel, maybe closer, maybe further? No one at all? How did he possibly understand what he wrote?