Calm

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.

Love this….and kind of what to see it now to see if you are too critical of yourself here. With a name like Macdonald….surely a skirt should be the perfect attire for you.

I second this conclusion, lol

I remember them doing training when I was young, but don’t know if that was before the 3 hr block or not (which apparently happened in 1980 (according to Chat), which is the year I got married. I thought it was maybe 72 or 74, when I was in high school. Chat says I might be remembering being a part of a pilot program or it may be that my BYU experience is coloring my home ward as their meetings were closer together even if still split. It even had a schedule for one branch from someone’s online autobiography that sounded familiar: 8:00–9:00 a.m. — Priesthood 9:30–11:00 a.m. — Sunday School 1:00–2:15 p.m. — Sacrament meeting 2:30–4:00 p.m. — Choir practice Evening — Fireside (optional) I do remember being frustrated because the cafeteria only served two meals on Sunday and if a late afternoon meeting ran late, you might miss the meal. The vending machines were always empty by Sunday evening except for the gross stuff. I had nightmares for decades afterwards of getting to the cafeteria only to find out it was closed, out of food, or I didn’t have my meal card.

To me the only way it works is if Joseph was chosen as the front man by someone who had money and skills…and considering Joseph’s age when rumors are said to have first started, I am bewildered why they chose him.

Where would he get the money to do so? It seems to me this theory backfires as if it was easy enough for Joseph to get a hold of tinplate and paint it, it would also be easily recognizable by the witnesses.

Just clarifying so I am sure I am following your thought, are you suggesting they would likely have had at least some of the manufactured tinplate goods the peddlers would bring around even if they didn’t use tinplate sheets themselves for whatever. Like for lanterns or coffee pots? (I saw pictures of these) If so, it does seem they would be very familiar with the material if the items were in every day use. From what I am reading, the common tinplate household items were often painted and I wouldn’t be surprised if painting it to look like gold was common given how much fake gold is used in home decor these days. But maybe they had better taste. 😛 Whatever the color, seems like they would be likely familiar with painted tinplate as well.

This one is an exception if so because iirc I heard the analysis there was no doctrinal reason for women to be excluded from SS leadership positions, just tradition and policy that could easily be changed even before it was first mentioned on this board eons ago. Other exceptions (though now I am coming up with these I am wondering if it’s truly much of an exception I don’t remember the age of missionaries or temple workers being taught as revelation nor doctrine nor the other restrictions on missionary and temple work. Also taught as policy and not revelation iirc, the beard and short hair thing, dress codes, etc….though I have heard many say the overall design of the garment was revelation, though Thomas Alexander in a book I have purged and now regret doing so spoke of the design for the last century as something studied out, not revealed. I am pretty sure several things on the original garments were also presented by him as done more for practical reasons than doctrinal ones. So I find the “almost always” as probably an overstatement, though many have been treated that way.

Not until you define what counts as revelation for you as I don’t want to waste my time.

And we have female teachers and leaders just in case this is confusing. There are, however, gendered leadership roles that do not require Priesthood, such as only women are the presidencies/advisors for Relief Society (the adult women’s auxiliary), Young Women’s (female 12-17), and Primary (children under 12) and men as formerly presidencies of Sunday School (now can be either all male or all female). There are quite a few male only callings that require someone who holds the Priesthood, such as in the Bishopric (the presidency of the congregation) and Elders Quorum (the male only auxiliary). The significant difference in leadership callings is not so much the numbers, but the level of responsibility. The bishop ultimately is the decision maker for the ward (congregation) as even if leaders tell the bishop who they want the teachers to be for their group, it is the bishop who chooses them (I can see the logic of this requirement because members may have reasons they can’t serve they don’t want to be made public or a member may be needed to serve in another calling). The bishop decides on the amount of budget for each group, who is considered eligible to participate fully in our ordinances, how much welfare is to be given to those in need, etc. The Bishopric is also the most visible to all the ward as they sit up front on the stand each Sunday for Sacrament Meeting, directing the meeting and everyone attends this meeting while the other leaders only preside over their group’s meetings. Many men may never have any interaction with the female leaders, especially if single or childless; many women won’t need to interact with the Elders Quorum leaders, though more likely to as men are assigned as ministers to single women as well as families though women are only assigned as ministers to other women (ministers are somewhat like assigned friends, they are supposed to keep an eye on the person or family to ensure needs are met as well as being supportive over all, they used to teach lessons and supposed to visit each month, but that has been set aside in favour of developing a more natural relationship).

But they are reporting Strang’s spiritual experience are they not, not their own besides perhaps what they believed was a spiritual confirmation of Strang’s testimony? Their faith in Strang may have been actual feelings they interpreted as a spiritual witness, a trust based on reasons we are not aware of, a transfer of faith of Joseph Smith to Strang because they believed the letter, or something else. The miracle for them is the fulfillment of Strang’s vision in their eyes, not a personal vision. But to us, their personal experience doesn’t involve anything supernatural. Now if we were talking about Strang…yes, the supernatural is directly involved in his story. His story is parallel imo to Joseph’s. Not dismissing their testimony as nothing like occurred with Joseph, just seems more comparable to the 8 witnesses even if they didn’t see Joseph dig up the plates, but just heard his story and not that comparable to the 3 and Mary Whitmer, all who stated they saw an angel themselves, correct? Now if they had a vision themselves of the angel telling Strang where to dig, that would indeed be very comparable in my view.

I never studied hallucinogenics. Is there a way to ensure those participating experience much the same thing.

But he lacks a crucial element, all the shared experiences with others were reported as mundane, not involving the divine, were they not? Nothing comparable to the 3 witnesses or Mary Whitmer? added: a good summary of differences imo from Peterson’s comments at the Lehi’s library link below: