Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Vancouver BC

Recent Profile Visitors

2,767 profile views

Freedom's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. Yes, good example. It is a complex combination of proper translation and cultural understanding of the intended audience
  2. thanks. but ultimately whether it is rendered a beginning or the beginning (be both ever so incorrect) is doctrinally irrelevant to the intended message that the story is about the gods organizing a sacred place for his children to dwell.
  3. my understanding is that the definitive article we translate as 'the' shows up as a prefix for a word, transliterated as 'ha'. So if 'ha' is not present, we would use 'a' rather than 'the'. Someone sent me a youtube video where the poster stated that Genesis 1:1 does not have this prefix which means it should be translated as 'in a beginning'. The Masoretic text of the Leningrad codex does not have the prefix, but the Samaritan Pentateuch does have it. I have a translation where it is rendered 'beginning of when God created' which suggests that 'the' is not required to denote that it is referring to a specific creation. Of course, the text is liturgical and it meant to teach a doctrine rather than history so it is quite irrelevant. But just looking for some insights.
  4. when the change was made, we were promised all sourts of scholarship from members and non members. What we have is one Journal edition and a few books. Not the promised monthly supply of scholarship accessible to the members. We do not need another book publisher of a few random books, this just makes them redundant.
  5. Other than a Book of Mormon series, has the Maxwell Institute produced anything? I was expecting a new journal, new articles, new something. But for years it seems to have become much ado about nothing. Does it have any relevance anymore?
  6. thanks, I just put that in.
  7. Nibley was a different type of scholar, he was an NOT expert in American history, he researched ancient texts. If this critic claims Bushman, who was the chair of the joseph Smith papers project tasked with gathering and studying primary sources, did not use original sourced then he did not read the book or look at the foot notes.
  8. Bad parents punish, good parents give natural consequences and opportunities to improve, days without end. In some way, if we do not take advantage of the atonement in this life, there will be some sort of consequence before the resurrection. all we know is that the so-called wicked will go to the spirit world where they will be minister to by the so-called righteous. In the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. In the end, we will go where we are happy. not everyone will be happy living the lifestyle of the celestial kingdom. What one sees as hell, another sees as heaven. I know I would be very unhappy if I had to become a surgeon or a professional mountain climber. that would be hell to me. If a surgeon or mountain climber were compelled to do my job, they would likewise perceive it to be hell. so those who will not live by gods law will have their options limited but since they are not willing to live the standards of the celestial kingdom (a lifestyle that is required to enjoy its glory) they would be perfectly happy to live without it.
  9. hell is not a place. Hell is a state of being. Being damned means being blocked. Giving is a specific location is a very temporal and mortal perspective. We will choose to damn ourselves. Hell for one is heaven for another. A loving god would never banish a child to 'hell'. Some simply will not want to enjoy the wonders of a celestial existence. The earth will be perfected and will become a source of knowledge, but to suppose the righteous live in houses on a planet the way we exist today and the wicked will live on some black planet galaxies away is small thinking.
  10. I do not believe this passage refers in any way to passing the bread and wine. It does not indicate in anyway how the sacrament got distributed, likely because it did not occur to the author that this mattered. We have imposed passing onto the ordinance but this action was likely never part of the ordinance.
  11. I suspect that this is just one of those polices that has been done for a very long time and the brethren are now pondering and seeking revelation. the first presidency determine how doctrine is interpreted and put into practice, but we need to distinguish between doctrine and how doctrine is applied at any given time. The policy manual currently dictates that only a priesthood holder can prepare and pass the sacrament but policy changes as the brethren are made aware of doctrinal incongruities. I am quite confident that this current interpretation is discussed and taken to God. when God sees fit, he will allow the church to make adjustments.
  12. I think the doctrine is clear. Administering must be done by a priest or elder. Since deacons pass the sacrament, passing is not part of administering the sacrament.
  13. giver to who? the priest gives it to a deacon, a deacon gives it to a woman who then gives it to her child. You are creating doctrines where none exist. The priesthood administers the sacrament. Full stop. deacons do not have the authority to administer the sacrament.
  14. not getting your point. Are you suggesting that 12 men delivered the sacrament to a thousand people? We do not have a priesthood holder 'give it to the people' today. The hand it to the first person on a row and then it is 'given to the people' one by one by children and women.
  15. so have two women counting the cash. On reality, does anybody pay tithing in cash anymore?
  • Create New...