Calm

Me too. There is a problem of who is going to be able to ensure the youth are taught what is needed to be taught though. There are some things common between us and the distant past. Apparently telling people what they want to hear is an age old manipulation technique.

There must be interpretation going on as how else can we convey internal experiences to others? Our choices on what is important in such as well as the commentary that is attached to what we remember of those experiences…I have no problem with labeling that speculation. But I am comfortable with describing much of my own internal experiences as my speculation about what my feelings mean, etc. And certainly anything I assume about others’ experiences is going to be speculation, hoping we share enough language in common to communicate…but everyone likely has a different understanding of any particular word based on how they and others have used it in communication over their lifetime. I have been wrong before about how I have felt and why because I put the wrong label on my internal experience or couldn’t even find a label that felt right to me and will no doubt be wrong again. I also have no problem labeling much of what prophets and church leaders describe as their personal experiences as speculation. It’s never going to be spot on to what they received when we only have so many words to describe the range of human internal experiences. Having said that, I doubt that Elder Oaks was as expansive in his application of “speculation” when it comes to human communication. I highly doubt he would accept it could be applicable to any scripture or teaching of Joseph, for example, interaction with the divine, while I have no problem labeling Joseph’s comments as such. You probably know the book/video, Flatland. I find that very useful in framing human communication and what we might be trying to communicate from our experience with the divine and even mundane internal experiences that are never just about the here and now, but reach back into the past and anticipate the future. My guess is the divine is much more than just one dimension level about the mundane world (speaking metaphorically). Mortals lack the perceptual and conceptual context to comprehend the divine, imo. How could we interact equally with someone fully aware of not only eternities past and eternities to come, but the vastness of at least our universe and possibly much more. So many layers we cannot perceive in their experience. With their likely control over their body and surroundings, we probably can’t even grasp the true extent of their physical form, but focus on what we are familiar with. I would not be the least surprised if what someone sees in a vision or receives in more complicated inspiration at times is only how their brain tries to process the unprocessable with God and the Spirit nudging us towards certain familiar ideas, senses, experiences so we can correlate what would otherwise appear to us as one massive jumble of too much contextless information into something we can swallow and digest mentally and emotionally as well as spiritually. I think there is a very good reason “the ineffable” is often linked with the divine.

I tried with Chat, the closest it got was his 2019 conference talk Trust in the Lord. Did he specifically refer to NDEs? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks?lang=eng Added: Good thing I checked as Chat said he didn’t refer to NDEs, but he did.

I think it needs to start with individuals who are willing to look at themselves as not the center of the world. World peace won’t happen until the men who push the buttons, send the planes and bombs and orders to kill either aren’t in power or have their hearts changed, imo. But we can have pockets of peace and maybe even the majority of the world could have peace if intelligent people are at the helm of countries where people have a vote, leaders who actually know how different economies and cultures/communities work or trust people who do and how to work with those who are different than them towards mutual goals and are willing to do so.

Too easy to find contradictory info of that interpretation. Who would believe a lie like that would work and not backfire?

They need to lose the label if so

The video shows up on my iPad, but not on my phone. If you want to view the video, which is worth it, imo, even if he doesn’t have the best delivery, do a search on ‘Brent Scharffs, byu professor, speaks at UN’. Probably could leave out the byu part.

This may turn instantly political…not even sure how to avoid it except perhaps try to discuss in generic terms. I don’t personally care if it does go political as always curious about people’s views, but board rules and all. So please pause and think about your post and ask yourself “is there something I need to delete or phrase differently to stay in line with board rules” before hitting the submit button. ———— https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/03/14/peace-faith-un-byu/ (not using the quote box here so the bold, which I believe is an essential observation, can be easily seen) “For the past decade, BYU’s center has been focused on the idea of human dignity in international policy. One of its major projects is the “Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere,” a document intended to establish a global framework for protecting human dignity. The effort has also included a proposal to create a United Nations “Human Dignity Day,” envisioned as a complement to Human Rights Day, observed annually on Dec. 10. An important partner in this work has been Muhammadou Kah, Gambian ambassador to Geneva and an academic, who had invited Scharffs to Geneva. In front of representatives from nearly half of the world’s countries, Scharffs spoke about the role human dignity plays in building a “culture of peace,” engaging with religious actors and confronting the main obstacle to peace: “people or interests who do not want peace.” [******] He also quoted President Russell M. Nelson, late president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who called on church members to be peacemakers in the world.” Do religious leaders often get quoted at these kinds of things? I admit to squirming a bit when I heard the intro to the quote as it suddenly turned into a conference talk for me. excerpts: I love, love, love what he says about human dignity. It resonates with me much more than “human rights” do. Interesting subtopic of AI: Back to the bold: I think this should be at the beginning of any politica discussion or maybe even anything that involves a debate, contrary opinions and ideas: Video of part of his talk, if someone has a more complete one, please post: ******Amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen

Commandments and doctrine that are binding (we will be held accountable for them if we are taught such) is the nuance here, imo. We believe the Constitution was inspired (parts I agree), the scriptures teach that God is revealed through the world. I have heard that scientists and others receive revelation in service of making things better for humanity (the benzene rings in the form of the ouroborus daydream has always made me go ‘hmmm’, but blast it, it may be an embellishment). If so, there is a lot of revelation for the world that goes through different conduits than prophets.

Curses aren’t in the same category as commandments or blessings, imo, if the idea more punishment and condemnation than showing a pathway forward. That’s like responding to a complaint that parents shouldn’t spank their children with ‘why should they reward children for good behaviour’ or ‘why bother teaching kids at all’. (Not saying the difference automatically renders curses useless or worse, though I wonder….)

There are others who managed without quite successfully. Ellen G. White claimed visions and produced extensive spiritual writings with no physical “props”. The Seventh Day Adventist Faith is still going strong. Then there is, of course, Muhammad and the Qur’an. Had to have help with these as my memory buried them too deeply, just knew there were more out there (I only asked for well known, established and respected faiths, no doubt there are others that are smaller or more fringe)… George Fox who founded the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) used personal revelation (also referring to established scripture) to preach his teachings.. Bahá’u’lláh, founder of the Baháʼí Faith, claimed divine revelation and produced extensive scriptures.

This has been my impression as well.

Mindreading, not insight, and imo not terribly accurate. It could be as easily speculated that you keep posting these kinds of comments because you have a nagging fear the Book of Mormon is not true (which I don’t believe but it’s not an uncommon reaction to aggressively defend when doubting, so I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did think this is exactly why you are trying so hard to make it look like these posters are secret believers in their hearts). Such speculation is worthless. I think most, if not all, from the way they have expressed themselves over the years are interested in how belief is formed and held including how it happened with themselves in the past as well as perhaps fascinated by the story of it all, just like many post on true crime or unsolved mysteries websites. One can be either or both of these things without worrying if they were wrong.

How often was the Ark brought out to show people? The tablets inside them?

Which were also put aside and never shown publicly iirc, placed in the Ark as signifying their importance and sacredness. I wanted to be sure my memory was correct that the tablets were never taken out and displayed, but am lazy today so just used AI, asking “what happened to the tablets”. The answer somewhat amused me for being so close to what I was thinking, so posting here: ”According to biblical tradition, the two stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, which was housed in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. They were never shown to the public after being placed in the Ark, serving as a hidden, sacred witness.”

Isn’t this speculation as well? Why couldn’t it be that Joseph was so impressed with the sacredness of the plates that prophets had devoted their lives to making and protecting when he found he could receive the text without them he put them aside for special occasions like a beloved set of silverware my Grandmother had? This is, of course, speculation, but as insightful imo as your attempt. I actually agree with what smac in the post before this one outlines as the purpose as the text itself (as smac points out) states its purpose as convincing others of the truth it teaches…so why is it hard to believe that the plates’ own physical presence exists primarily for that same purpose? I also believe there were other purposes, as have listed in this thread and elsewhere, some more grounded than others. added again: the states convincing purpose was never presented as to convince experts and scientists or to convince by providing tested scientific proof, btw, so the removal of the plates so they couldn’t undergo such does not negate its purpose to convince.

Just so it’s clear, I am a believer the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, even if I believe the text of the plates is probably not completely parallel to what is in the current text. I first wrote “firm believer” but I am flexible over what the text is, though firmly believe it’s inspired and is anchored in history at the very least as much as the Bible. I just see religious texts as different than historical ones as they serve a different purpose and I am open to God allowing his prophets to shape narratives to teach principles, etc. But I love to come up with stories and solve puzzles and look at things from different angles and this challenge was issued once too often, lol. (I am not saying I answered the challenge, I am just addressing the significance of it imo).

I found it easiest and most rewarding to shred as I went, but then it was all dumped at my house, so no big rush to get it done. I am still finding documents that got missed or put aside because maybe we might need them from 2014 when Dad passed and then 2020 when Mom did. It was a mentally exhausting effort, but very satisfying when done (well, almost as there are a few things I am debating on saving for family history).

The question is how much speculation is involved. There are plenty of events without coherent explanations out there if one excludes much speculation. I don’t know how an ancestor got from Germany to Scotland not long before Joseph was born. We can’t find the likely shipping records and if he told the details to anyone and they wrote it down, those records are lost. I could speculate he traveled under an assumed name to avoid bigotry (he was a Jew), that’s a coherent story but pure speculation. I could speculate Joseph got hooked up with a family of a long line of scholars whose scholarly conquistador ancestor was secretly given a set of golden metal plates by a native who trusted him. Worried they would be melted down by others if the plates were discovered, he hid them in his private belongings and took them back to Spain…and then moved north to England where no one knew he had ever left Europe. The native also had told him the story of the plates and the scholar decided to create an uplifting text that would inspire people based on some of the context of that story as redemption for being involved in the horrors of conquest. He worked all of his life on it and when dying, still unsatisfied it would do, he passed the effort along with the plates and other keepsakes on to his son with instructions to carry on the work until there came a time and place where not only it was good enough, but new scripture would be accepted and not destroyed as heretical. Several generations later, it was still a closely held secret project of the eldest son of this now completely Anglicized family and when it looked like America was a prime ground for presenting new scripture, the current scholar took the book that had been written secretly for centuries by multiple skilled authors along with the ancient golden plates overseas to New York, where he found a charismatic young man who he visited secretly for several years to train…Joseph, of course. Shortly after the scholar turned over the plates, heirlooms, and final manuscript to this young man, he suddenly took ill and died, leaving all of his family’s long work in this young man’s hands….who decides to go for it on his own and see if he could convince others since all the work was done, relying on a good memory and notes he hid away and destroyed once used. Joseph had been cautioned about revealing too much too soon and he kept to the plan. Once the text was dictated and it looked like he was successful in convincing others it was revelation, he tried his hand at producing witnesses. The eight were no problem since he had actual ancient plates for them to testify to. Didn’t even have to be covered. The three witnesses he wanted to take it to the next level were a bit more difficult, but since they knew him well enough to know he couldn’t have produced the text himself and certainly not the plates, they believed his story they were revealed to him by an angel and agreed to claim an angel had appeared to them as well to increase the appeal…how else would Joseph have produced such a massive, intelligent, inspiring work except with God’s help? So what was wrong with exaggerating just a bit? They kept to their story over the years and even when dying because of the humiliation they would experience and the destruction of any legacy they had if they acknowledged they lied, even if sincere in faith and love for humanity in their reasons. Joseph was about to invite scholars to actually view the plates (he had been told no one would be able to translate them for at least many years and even if they could, how would they explain that Joseph knew so much of the story even if much was also wrong?) when a brother of the scholar showed up having been informed of the plan in the will of the scholar. He didn’t like what Joseph was setting up much and so insisted on taking the plates and other heirlooms back to England or he would expose Joseph. Out of respect for his brother, he kept quiet though since Joseph gave everything back. Figured Joseph would fail eventually without plates to point to, so left it there as less likely to expose his dead brother to gossip and accusations. On the way back to England the ship sunk and the plates and all knowledge of them of anyone but Joseph were forever lost. This narrative is purely secular, it accounts for the inconsistency of English language that spans centuries of usage. It provides real plates for the witnesses and a solid reason for the Three to go along with what they saw as stretching the truth a bit. It even explains the parts that fit in Central America since the original scholar was given a detailed story that had been passed down over ages by someone who lived there that he adapted. Of course it’s speculation, so what good does it do even if it’s a coherent and rational alternative explanation that is within the realm of possibility even if one excludes the divine? Why do you assume there would be documentation or other empirical evidence if the Book of Mormon was a fraud? It’s possible not all conspiracies fail, not all secrets are exposed. Certainly there are some events and works of the not so distant past there is little physical evidence for even though we are certain they took place or exist even if there are others that we do. Are you surprised if there is no coherent explanation that can’t be dismissed as too speculative for such things? There are many coherent stories of the Fate of the Princes in the Tower and yet we have no evidence of how, when, and by whom they were killed…assuming they were killed that is. What the heck happened with the Mary Celeste? No one theory cleanly explains everything known. Chat pointed me to a Dyatlov Pass Incident where there is tons of data and theories, but so far no theory explains all the details. As far as texts….they are unsure how the Ossian Poems were created though they are certain it’s not how Macpherson claimed (ancient Gaelic texts of a 3rd century bard of long, epic poems by the name of Ossian he translated). Apparently some authentic fragments of old poetry and folklore are included with the fabrication even…maybe, likely. Interesting details on what is and isn’t known, what can be explained and what can’t from lack of evidence there. I don’t think it’s that unusual not to have full coherent, rational explanations for past historical incidents. Maybe much less likely today with all the CCTVs, cell phones, cameras, documents, etc around, but the 1820s and 30s were far different. Human behaviour can be pretty complicated and unclear even when not intentionally trying to hide details. If intentionally trying to hide stuff, it should hardly be surprising sometimes people won’t be able to explain things. You need data to formulate theories to be tested. If someone destroyed or removed some of that data and much of the rest is lost to time, how do you put a non speculative theory together? And if it’s speculative, what good is it as part of a discussion of evidence, especially empirical evidence? This doesn’t mean that critics should be able to just dismiss the discussion with “no such thing as angels” imo, but to put the full responsibility for the lack of a coherent alternative explanation on critics rather than on Joseph who hid what he was doing and lied if it was a fraud seems odd to me.

But that is understandable because so little is known about the plates from a naturalistic context, such as where they were found, what they are made of, etc. Things that are supplied by the narrative that goes with it, but require a prior acceptance of divine involvement…which instantly negates a naturalistic explanation. Once you exclude the details connected to divine intervention, there’s not much left to work with. And Analytics is right if Joseph was misrepresenting actual events that it’s Joseph himself that created the problem of too little information given. However, if Joseph is telling the truth, it’s not like it was his choice. His preference it seems to me according to him would be to be able to show the plates to everyone. Of course saying this while refusing to do so fits the naturalistic narrative of a fraud, pious or not. It’s not a situation that can be decided imo purely on the ‘obvious facts’ if one honestly accepts the possibility that there could be supernatural involvement, but won’t accept Joseph’s explanations without more empirical confirmation. To me requiring a developed, coherent mundane narrative for the plates is requiring someone to speculate way too much, which allows the defender to dismiss the explanation as not founded on facts. It’s a no win situation for the critic. And it’s not the critic who set up the limitations, so the lack of a coherent explanation shouldn’t, imo, be dumped on the critics. It is just a characteristic built into the provided narrative with the removal of the plates. I am not saying this means critics should be given a pass. They need to recognize that their assumption the production was purely naturalistic and Joseph’s story not forthcoming is an inherently weak position, explaining little, imo, even if that’s not on them. There is little reason, imo, for a defender to be impressed. Unless one assumes that there is no supernatural involved, which is arguing with the conclusion already determined, it is not a superior position to hold.

(added: Irrelevant aside I probably should delete as distracting from the actual topic now I have caught up with the thread…but that means an empty space, which looks off to me, so will leave it to be completely ignored as it should be.) My experience is the most errors I experience with Chat are in the calculations. It often gets which number is bigger wrong, doesn’t divide correctly, and even adds things up ‘creatively’. Even the simple stuff like halving a recipe. I always doublecheck numbers now if it matters. Maybe because the research I do is pretty basic these days. It hasn’t made up sources yet for me, but it’s made unfounded claims about what ‘people say’. I have no clue how more professional AI acts as I am too cheap. Saying that I still use it to estimate stuff, just never assume it’s right or even close, though often lazy enough to act like it is.

There are quite a number of them. An easy way to collect and see which ones you would like to use is to use Chat. Just ask for “scriptures about victory over death through Christ”. I would post my results, but formatting is weird on my phone. Just make sure to doublecheck them as Chat can make stuff up, though in this case there are a number so I don’t know why it would…though I don’t know why it does make things up in the first place. I assume it happens when there isn’t something that it can recognize as useful, so it makes its own. If you don’t want to use Chat, goggle will likely do as good of a job. You can also use LDS online scriptures and just limit it to the New Testament, but their search function hasn’t earned my respect yet (Chat is quite useful as long as you understand its limits…always check its math in recipes, comparisons, and such; for example, I asked it for a capsule version of a saltstick chew I am using with good results but it is way too sweet, like candy and it gave me one that had 4 times as much sodium with the advice to take at least twice as many, which would have given me at least 8 times as much sodium as I need).

Chat came up with three no milk based ensure type drinks, but check with the doctors. Another option might be infant formulas that are not milk based. I don’t know which would be cheaper or better in the long run. I have no experience with this as my mother never lost her appetite nor have I taken care of anyone who wouldn’t eat something (my daughter has a very restricted diet due to nausea that we can’t figure out the cause of (migraines, GI, diabetes, fibro…take your pick, but likely a combination), but weight isn’t an issue even if nutrition is. It’s very frustrating wanting to help someone who just can’t accept your help for some reason. Kate Farms (pea protein–based, very widely used in hospitals) Orgain Nutrition Shakes (plant-based versions) Nestlé Compleat Plant-Based Also if she isn’t drinking enough she could be dehydrated which will make it harder for her to think (some apparent dementia is actually dehydration). I have a hard time drinking lots of water. It makes my head feeel full. That. And a few other things indicate I am very sensitive to electrolyte shifts,, so I have started using saltsttick fast chews throughout the day and my head feels enter and it’s easier to drink more. I went very lowsallt when I was misdiagnosed with Ménière’s disease, but have had minor issues with drinking more than a cup of water every hour or so since a teen. chat’s protocol for dehydration: If she’s struggling: Step 1 — stabilize hydration Small sips every 5–10 minutes Use Pedialyte or diluted version Step 2 — once tolerated Alternate: electrolyte drink calorie drink (plant shake or smoothie) Step 3 — combine if possible Add a pinch of salt + a little sugar to a smoothie → improves absorption Electrolyte powders are probably the most practical, but be careful not to overuse them. Seriously, talk to a doctor about this or better, a doctor referred dietitian who specializes in older clients.

So do you see Joseph accomplishing this on his own or someone else?

I think the scripture can be treated as the writer’s opinion as there is “I want”, “I do not permit” in the chapter rather than “the Lord has instructed me to….” I think those he was in authority should take his opinion into account, but if he was the only authority at the time teaching this and it is not confirmed by revelation, ancient or modern, why would we be tied to a personal policy? Though I should mention that apparently scholars view the language of “I do not permit” as the writer emphasizing authority rather than how we would view it today, so I am okay with being told I am mistaken here. That still leaves the question if Paul ever has the authority to dictate policy for the whole church and if this even is Paul and not someone trying to use Paul as a cover for his own teachings because this anonymous writer wants to impress and influence people. Paul was not the president of the Church meant to create policy for the entire Church of his day according to LDS interpretation of the New Testament. Add to that scholarship that suggests that Timothy wasn’t even written by Paul, but by a later follower of his who may not have even been called to lead anything in the Church, but wanted his opinion out there as gospel…it takes away substantially imo from the need to view this as true revelation and doctrine, imo. If this was not actual scripture in the sense of from those authorized to dictate doctrine for the faith, it wouldn’t have applied to the Saints in the past either…and there is evidence that it didn’t according to Paul himself imo (referring to women who are mentioned as contributing to the community in ways that suggests they taught, such as Junia described by Paul—who is believed to have actually written Romans iirc, unlike Timothy by biblical scholars—as an apostle). I think therefore Joseph Smith and modern prophets superseded those iffy instructions where they have given women authority to speak and teach in church and to lead others, including men, whether it’s based on policy or revelation.