Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. I'm interested in hearing it, if you'd like to post it or PM me. I agree, the Three Nephites and John the Beloved are extremely special cases, and though it's cliche to attribute events to them no doubt they have done the will of the Lord throughout the past 2000 years, through ministering to individuals and keeping the flame alive or operating in the background of world affairs. Under the circumstances, I wonder if their authority somehow stood in place of Peter's, or perhaps they served as intermediaries connecting the Old World Presidency with the New World Church. Might of
  2. Oh crap. My dad already thinks that the Church's not holding weekly services is disobeying Matthew 10:28: When he gets wind of this I'm going to have to talk him down again...
  3. Deutero-Isaiah is dealt with pretty easily under your theory. From the looks of Christ's quotations in the New Testament, when He quotes the vernacular scripture, it becomes clear that Christ is not as concerned with pure urtexts as He is with communicating through recognizable means. I'm with Ostler's Modern Expansion for the most part, but I don't think the expanded parts had to come from Joseph, necessarily. Also, when it comes to "settled science", Holmes Rolston III has it right: "The religion that is married to science today will be a widow tomorrow. ... But the religion that is di
  4. I don't know about his views on the book and I haven't heard anything about a new edition, but this past May PQ Mason published a piece and a sat down for a follow-up conversation with FaithMatters. It might serve as a bit of a snapshot into his current thinking.
  5. Interesting. Would this necessitate contact between St Peter and the Nephite Twelve, since Peter held the keys of a priesthood operative among the Nephites? I suppose the Three Nephites with their practical superpowers could work as intermediaries if need be, but ThreeNephites-ex-machina always seems farfetched. Edit: Actually, now that I mention it, the Nephite Twelve were in something of a different situation as three of them were effectively elevated to the status of ministering angel before the divine throne. Normal procedure may not have applied in their case.
  6. Ezra Taft Benson brought the Church's attention back to the Book of Mormon, declaring that the Church was under condemnation for neglecting it. As a matter of fact, I don't think that condemnation has ever been rescinded, so we still have work to do.
  7. I agree, there is much to learn about the dynamics. One of the things we have to do is come to a firm definition of systemic racism and what constitutes it. It seems somewhat in flux right now and that makes causal attribution difficult. It muddies the discourse up a bit as well. I obviously haven't had time to check out the whole study yet, I'll get to it. My major concern right now is that our current national discourse hinges entirely on racial identity, and this is unhealthy for a republic. A pluralistic society, by necessity, has to organize along non-racial lines, or else you get d
  8. I call it the "Alma the Younger effect."
  9. I would say that the systemic problems that we see today, which contribute to the discrepancies in wellbeing between racial groups, are primarily the result of poverty. African-Americans have historically been denied many opportunities to amass generational wealth, real property, education, and other opportunities and assets. I think a more fruitful approach would be attacking poverty, the "supply side" of the systemic disparities. I don't know how close I'm teetering to breaking the "no politics rule", so I won't go in depth into specific policy solutions or ideas here. But I do think depicti
  10. The problem with his credibility is not that he's wondering why. Calm is doing the wondering, about Hauglid's emotional baggage. That's where the problem lies. Hauglid veered away from dispassionate scholastic analysis when he denounced the work of Gee and Muhlestein as "abhorrent";.
  11. Disagreement on principle is borderline offensive? That's a bad sign. Furthermore, you are assuming something that is never safe in questions of policy: that someone who looks at the same data is guaranteed to come to the same conclusions as you. Sometimes it really isn't a matter of "educated vs. ignorant" but instead of sincere disagreement on principles. We've all been condescended to in these precise words many times by now. It doesn't bear repeating.
  12. With respect, this is a conflict between definitions. "Naive and juvenile" people aren't going to acclaim the definition you advocate just because they are called naive and juvenile. Ahab seems to hold "violence" as primarily a physical phenomenon. Why should he change his mind?
  13. This is exactly correct. The current "conversation" on racism and racist behavior says that racism is in the eye of the beholder but ought to be punished as an offense against the wider society. Responsible rulemaking in such an environment is a minefield.
  14. It didn't seem particularly crazy to me. I thought it was a good talk. What individual persons may consider to be crazy has little bearing on the intentions of the great Thou, especially when His action is directed as a specific lesson for a specific recipient. After all, if not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice, why not a gnat? I see nothing wrong with Elder Gay feeling bad about killing a gnat, and God using it to communicate with him.
  15. Depends on the sample size of the language you're comparing to. If you're comparing a few invented characters to a whole language, then yeah. If you're just comparing two small samples (which constitute all you have of either language), then correspondences become more significant and the likelihood of trivial correspondence decreases. Our situation is the latter. The geographic and temporal correspondence narrows the probability still further.
  16. So, then, we know that Joseph Smith was aware of and involved with the production of the Alphabets, but his "creative input" (so to speak) and general responsibility for the project is undefined?
  17. How much was in Smith's handwriting? A scattered word here and there? A signature? Or was he doing full entries and/or paragraph-length text?
  18. I hear that and I think it is a valid approach. My thought is that the content of the Book of Abraham was given as a temple primer, preparing and instructing Joseph and the Saints in things they would need for temple purposes. The contents of the papyri served effectively the same purpose as temple ordinances for Egyptians, ie liturgical access to the presence of Deity. That and Pyle's notes about Facsimile 1 make me think that the story of the papyri as presently told is too simple. However, I do think you are right, his revelations can be legitimate even if it was the goshdarn wallpaper in t
  19. @Robert F. Smith has it pretty much in the right. My thinking is that we don't know enough to authoritatively declare a relationship between glyphs and texts. Did the English text make it to paper first, or the glyphs? Was it a glossalalia as Manu Padro suggests, a fraud, a cipher-key, or some other production? In my experience the field of possibilities is artificially narrowed by commentators in the name of almighty "parsimony", when the circumstances at hand do not justify such absolute conclusions.
  20. I don't believe in a missing scroll containing the Book of Abraham. Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith reported that, per their calculations, the Scroll of Hor is missing ~2 feet on the interior end. Here's the famous Dialogue article, the very same that serves as the gravestone for Gee's theory in the minds of many: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N04_413.pdf On page 36: I think it's possible that the Book of Abraham is an expansion of non-extant material from that section or mnemonic material through the scroll. I don't believe that th
  21. Oh, certainly. Jettisoning the Book of Abraham is not a live option for me, nor does it appear to be so for the Church. I still think it's ultimately related to the papyri; the rise of Gee's missing-papyrus theory prompted John Tvedtenes to abandon a investigation into the possibility of papyri-as-mnemonic-device which could have been fruitful and ought to be revisited. The BoA could also be an expansion of the anomalous Facsimile 1 or non-extant elements on the ~2 feet of missing scroll. Furthermore, since both the BoA and Book of Breathings serve as soteriological instruction manuals, a subs
  22. I could do "Deep Weirdness with OGHoosier", but I'm not fond of podcasts or Youtube videos as informative media, so I'll have to refrain from making one myself I didn't mean "deep weirdness" in a derogatory sense, far from it. The papyri don't give a straightforward Book of Abraham text, obviously, but the vignette that became Facsimile 1 also appears to defy conventional expectations coming from the other direction. It's anomalous and that beckons to me.
  23. I dunno. I find it compelling. That said, I also think there's more to the papyri that we have than meets the eye. I'm not sure about Pyle's length conclusions - he disagrees with both Gee and Cook/Smith and doesn't provide his methodology here. I've asked about that, we'll see what he says. But I think his notes about Facsimile 1 are interesting and betray some deeper weirdness that conventional explanations of the vignette don't include.
  • Create New...