Stargazer

And then you have to consider the biases of the people conducting the study! Double blind would not be enough. Maybe triple blind?

I will admit to existing bias as to people I've seen operate already, so I can be a little hypocritical about this. But I do know how to suppress my biases even when reading/listening to people I have previously decided are best taken with a (large) grain of salt, because nobody is wrong all the time. That's true, but I am also aware that others-taught are not immune to taking their own selves too seriously. There are plenty of historical examples of this from world-famous scientists and engineers. And world-famous military strategists, theologians and philosophers, too. There's a semi-famous engineering example of an NYC skyscraper that had a hidden flaw and could have collapsed within just a few years after completion. When the engineer discovered the flaw (uncovered by an engineering student), he briefly considered suicide to be able to stop worrying about the problem. It's an interesting story:

Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't look the author in the mouth as if he or she were a horse, and judged instead based on the content? Nah.

Of course! I've written a couple and edit/published another, so I should know. The Bones of My People - attributed author is my late mother-in-law (died in 2004), but I ghost-wrote it from a transcript of an audio tape recorded by one of my sisters-in-law (no longer in print) Bramber Castle and the Rise and Fall of the House of Braose - I can see this castle from my backyard Yesterday's Sandhills - written by my late sister-in-law, but edited and published by me (no longer in print)

I thought so. No doubt Mr. McGuire thinks it's a load of rubbish. If he read it. Or maybe even if he didn't.

I'd say that your friend who left the church because the apostles were men of means and not "humble followers of Christ" was rather deluded as well. The idea that a rich person cannot be humble is a little cracked, as far as I can see. Of course rich people can be proud and selfish. But I've known poor men who were so jacked up in their own minds that nobody could tell them anything, and I've known rich men whom you wouldn't know were rich because they just didn't put on airs. I had a bishop once who was a multimillionaire, and also one of the most humble men I knew, and genuinely Christlike. The Apostle Peter was not some poor uneducated mendicant, he was apparently a businessman running a successful fishing business along with other members of his family. And let's not leave out the tax collector, Matthew, who was probably doing pretty well for himself, even if he wasn't corrupt like some others of his profession.

Maybe you should take this a little less seriously. The "associate professor" thing is obviously intended as somewhat of a joke -- probably assigned the title by the jokester Cardon, and not self-assumed. And he doesn't claim to be a "full professor." He does have a lot of knowledge regarding the Apocrypha, so much so that he wrote a book about correspondences between apocryphal works and the Book of Mormon. Unaccredited people with large amounts of knowledge gained by self-study sometimes get assigned "courtesy titles" by media figures or other kinds of pundits. Some examples: Elvis Presley - the King of Rock and Roll TIna Turner - the Queen of Rock and Roll John Wayne - the Duke Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington Adam Reader - the Professor of Rock - in his case, self-assigned as a trade name. To be fair, he does know a lot about the subject. I do wonder, are there any universities offering courses in Rock and Roll that have a department that would require hiring a professor to chair it? Asking for a friend... Bill Nye - the Science Guy - but his BS degree is in mechanical engineering, not science I am a retired software developer. I'm also an Army veteran. I once worked with a project leader, seriously a fine chap, who insisted upon calling me "Sergeant Major" even though I rose never higher than a three striper, a mere buck sergeant. Should I have been offended on behalf of my old fellow soldier, who stayed in the service after I left, and actually did rise to the rank of Command Sergeant Major? My project leader was actually a retired lieutenant colonel, and I liked to annoy him by calling him General. Payback!

Probably not. Maybe MembersOfTheChurchOfJesusChristOfLatterDaySaintsDialogueAndDiscussionBoard.org -- a bit long, but... I checked, and MDDB.org is taken, but not being used. Some domain squatter owns it, and no doubt hopes to make some cheddar on it.

Great! I enjoyed that!

Oh, yes. But I have to go back to the US for a few weeks to take care of business. Not looking forward to it. I shall persevere...

The fuel mileage on that one is a tad pricey, but it has the best road-safety rating in the world. As long as you stay on the road, that is.

As a subscriber with David Alexander, a recent convert from evangelical Christianity with a prolific pro-LDS YouTube channel, I noticed today his response to an article that appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune, discussing the Church's effort to enforce the "Mormon" trademark. The targets include "Mormon Stories" and "Radio Free Mormon". Here's the link to the Trib article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/12/08/lds-church-pressures-mormon/ Of course, the Trib's website won't let you read the article without being a subscriber (i.e. there's a paywall), and not being willing to pay for it, I haven't read it myself. But Alexander does discuss the issue in this YouTube video: HOORAY! CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS PRESSURES "MORMON STORIES" TYPES TO "REBRAND"! As usual, the comment section of the video is quite interesting. From what little I've seen, John Dehlin is resisting the rebrand, but Bill Reel seems to be intending to comply. Apparently, the Church's intellectual property department is also talking to pro- or neutral-sources about their use of "Mormon." A commenter in the David Alexander video writes that they listen to a pro-LDS podcast that also received a letter. The comment is: So will Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Forum have to change its name? A question for @Nemesis.

Fair enough.

Ah! Poptart is back! You been absent a while, so how's things, guy?

Oh! The pedantry!

I've been thinking about that. I am a small YouTube creator (my channel, A Yank in Sussex, is tiny, just 1.18k subscribers) and I do virtually nothing to promote the channel. And it's taken me 6 years to get as big as it is. Of course, my topic is so niche that even if I had heavily promoted it, it's doubtful it would have gotten much larger than it is. I am "this close" to monetizing it, but I've been "that close" for about a year now. Even then, if it finally crossed the threshhold, I think the channel might make me about $2 a month, tops. It's more a hobby than anything else. What I do is not highly beneficial to anyone, not even myself, except for my enjoyment in making the videos. But is Jacob chasing clicks in order to "monetize his Church membership" or is he chasing clicks in order to promote and defend the Church. You don't have a high opinion of his apologetic efforts, and that's fair (you're entitled to your opinion). But I've been watching his Thoughtful Faith channel for some time and I am very impressed with his efforts. I think he does a fair amount of good. If in the process of doing that good, isn't it fair that he makes some money doing it? If he didn't "chase clicks" then maybe you wouldn't be calling it monetizing his Church membership, but would his channel have grown to almost 63k subscribers? And wouldn't he be much less effective without those subs, clicks, and views?

You might as well. I do it all the time, too. With my memory, sometimes I have completely forgotten I responded in a thread, and try to respond again with the same thoughts, or more concerning, completely opposite thoughts!

Thoughtful Faith has responded to a video interviewing a former LDS member and former bishop who lost his faith. The original video appeared on a channel with over 6 million subscribers, so it would have some impact. When I saw the video, I thought of @ttribe, who had some issues with Jacob Hansen, who narrates this answer to that video, wherein he posted: Here's the video:

There's a varied set of co-hosts, with Cardon Ellis being the only common personage. The channel is a mixed bag. As for trust, "prove all things," as Paul said. I've found some things presented on Ward Radio that has been of use to me. Like Calm said, seems sometimes more like a high school frat party than presentation of serious material. For more serious stuff I prefer Thoughtful Faith, which is mainly Jacob Hanson (he's also in many WR videos), and which is less sophomoric in presentation. Thoughtful Faith has a neat package of material intended for missionaries, consisting of "curated content specific for missionaries (or prospective missionaries) to help them better answer questions, resolve concerns and achieve their goal to invite others to come unto Christ." It's available at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JrYitXbD42qfg1ROuIHzH2rUo8bJX3B1?usp=drive_link

Forgot...butter? How could you! 😵

You and I are probably not the target audience. I prefer talking heads, to be honest. Give me that straight stuff and I'm happy.

True! But one of the things that convinces me that there must be more than one degree in the Celestial Kingdom is that exaltation must require celestial marriage -- if not, then there will be exalted beings (i.e. single Gods and single Goddesses) who create spirits from intelligences without a partner. And those who happen to be single and female, the Goddesses in those cases, would set the Lord's prayer to start out "Our Mother who art in Heaven..." Or maybe She reveals Herself (falsely) as male, and insists Her spirit children call her Father. It makes no logical sense for an exalted being to be without a partner. If an exalted being can be either single or married, or, in other words, you don't need a partner, why bother with partners at all? It breaks the algorithm, in my humble opinion. So, DC 131:1-4 makes perfect sense to me.

I agree. But picking and choosing which ones we prefer, as opposed to which ones are true, as if there was a cafeteria somewhere, could be mighty shortsighted. As for Adam-God, I don't know if you've ever watched the Ward Radio YouTube channel, but they were discussing this the other month. If you're not familiar with Ward Radio, I have to warn you that it tries be entertaining as well as thoughtful, so be prepared for some cringy presentation (at least in my opinion). Oh, and by the way, one of the presenters in this episode, Austin Falter, in his youth, was an old home-teaching companion of mine. Great kid.

Needs a little more salt.

I guess I'm a little skeptical that to be true something needs to be stated more than once.