Jump to content

webbles

Members
  • Content Count

    665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by webbles

  1. I think there is a large difference between decriminalizing an act and sanctioning an act. I don't think there were any protests from the church around the "Lawence v Texas" court case and this law change is similar to that. I'm not even sure if the church submitted an amicus curiae brief.
  2. Yeah, Pride and Prejudice is fictional but it is a novel that I know enough of to come up with the analogy. And yes, it is an inference. It is also an inference to say that all the Book of Mormon people are Lehites, Mulekites, or Jaredites because there isn't anything that explicitly states that those are the only three groups. Since you can be a Jew without being a literal descendant of Israel, that verse doesn't tell us anything about lineage or geographical location. Considering that the Book of Mormon states that all were converted after the coming of Christ (4 Nephi 1:2), I
  3. This is what I mean by it being outside the text. I know the conversation has gone by but I wanted to respond to this. When I said "point to a single verse", that meant I couldn't just pull up one verse to show it. But I could point to a lot of verses that indicate that there were "others". It is kind of like dating "Pride and Prejudice". "Pride and Prejudice" doesn't have a date in it so you can't point to a single statement or paragraph and say when it might have happened. But using different parts of the book (wars, places, moneys, etc), you can give it a pretty narrow da
  4. As I said, "It just isn't as obvious as the Lehites, Mulekites, and Jaredites." I can't point to a single verse that refers to the "others". https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/did-others-influence-book-of-mormon-peoples has a few examples of what I'm talking about. I also respect that you don't see "others" in the Book of Mormon. It isn't meant to be a genealogical analysis of the peopling of the Americas.
  5. I think this basically boils down to: you don't see "others" in the Book of Mormon while I do. So to me, the "others" is not outside of the text. It is inside the text. It just isn't as obvious as the Lehites, Mulekites, and Jaredites. I do believe the Book of Mormon supports the existence of "others". And since "others" are in the Book of Mormon, I believe that Mormon would call Native Americans "Lamanites" because they are according to his definition.
  6. Textually, the Book of Mormon only mentions those three. But it doesn't limit to those three. By circa 200AD (4 Nephi 1:36-38), Nephite meant believer and Lamanite meant unbeliever. It no longer meant descendant. It had no lineage aspect to it anymore. So if there were other groups, then those that believed in Christ were Nephites (whether they were Jaredites, Lehites, Mulekites, etc) and everyone else on the entire American continent were Lamanites. Calling the Native Americans "Lamanites" is perfectly acceptable whatever their lineage. They were non-believers and lived in the
  7. Nephi is writing that verse and he doesn't yet know about the Mulekites or Jaredites. So we can't take that verse to mean that only the Lehites get the land (since the Book of Mormon directly contradicts that). The verse then means that it is shown to who those chosen by the Lord. Which could mean that the Lord only chose the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites or it could mean that He chose many more groups of people. As for why these other groups aren't mentioned explicitly in the Book of Mormon, it could be because the Lehites either never met them, they weren't important to the story (Mu
  8. We probably don't have any Neanderthal forefathers. No Y line has been linked back to Neanderthals so it is speculated that relationships between male Neanderthals and female Humans were infertile.
  9. A similar situation is Ghengis Khan. We know he existed and he is less than 1000 years old. We even know people who are direct descendants of him. But we don't know what his DNA is nor can we determine if you are descendant of him just by using DNA. We don't even know what his Y haplogroup is (direct patrilineal line). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan.
  10. Well, except for Viking interaction with America that was hundreds of years before Columbus. And of course all of the other non-LDS theories that you'll find online (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories)
  11. Just to point out, but the reason why Geneticists were able to find Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA is because they have original Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA to work with. If they didn't have the original DNA, they wouldn't have been able to tell if any part of the DNA that is in modern humans come from Denisovans or Neanderthals. It's kind of the same problem with the Book of Mormon. If we had the actual DNA of Lehi, then we could tell if he was actually in the Americas. But we don't have the actual DNA. So we are just guessing that his DNA is going to look like other Middle Eastern
  12. I don't understand this. I personally save a lot of money from my paychecks automatically. I save a lot more money than I give out to charity. Why? Because I want to ensure that I can continue to be helpful to my family and those around me. If I have problems in the future, I can fall back on my savings. When I become unable to do work, I can fallback on my savings and not be a hindrance to those around me. With the church, I would expect them to also be saving a lot of money. I want my kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, grandnieces, grandnephews, neighbors, etc to be able to access
  13. Another thing, the article has made a comparison with the Gates Foundation and some have mentioned how much it spends. I think comparing the Gates foundation to the church is incorrect. The Gates foundation is trying to spend all of its money. Its goal is to be completely broke within 20 years of Bill and Melinda Gates death. So of course the Gates foundation is spending a lot more money. The church, on the other hand, wants to last till the end of the world so it needs a lot more money invested.
  14. I don't see where they allege that the return is $7B. I see where it says that the church accepts $7B in donations, though. Maybe that is what you see. Also, my calculations were off. Take a look at my post where I compare the numbers between the church and Harvard. $100B would require more than 7% return to get $6B in annual payments and most likely, the church would not be getting those returns just like Harvard isn't getting those returns.
  15. I'm not saying the church is spending $6B from the investment. The article says that the church takes in $7B in donations and spends $6B with the extra $1B going to the investment. So the church spends $6B. If the church stopped taking in donations, it would have to start spending from the $100B endowment and that is where the comparison with the Harvard endowment is useful in determining how much the church needs to have invested before it can live off of the investment. And $100B is not enough.
  16. The analogy was meant to show how much money the church needs in its endowment to equal what Harvard is doing. Harvard is spending 4.6% of its endowment and still is going to run out of money unless they increase their endowment. If the church stopped taking in any donations and lived solely on their endowment, they would run out of money even faster because they would spend 6% of their endowment. $100B sounds large but since the church is spending $6B a year, it isn't large enough to last forever.
  17. If we compare the church's fund against the Harvard University endowment, it shows that the church needs more money to be equal to Harvard. In 2018, Harvard had $39.2B in its fund and spent $1.8B. That shows them spending 4.6% of their investment. The church is spending $6B and had $100B in investment. So the church is spending more than Harvard. To be equal, the church needs $130B in investment. And $130B probably isn't enough. According to Washington Post and CNBC, Harvard needs to achieve a 7% return on investment with their current spending rate and a 2% inflation. In the last
  18. I'd argue a little against the bolded. I think this shows that the church is almost to that point but not yet. According to the article, the church spends over $6 billion a year. Their investments, then, need to return $6B a year to prevent eating into capital. With $100B, that's a 6% rate which is pretty close to an average return from the stock market. So, if the church stopped building churches, temples, etc, then the church might be able to last on the savings without anymore donations. But since the church is still growing, its spending is going to go up and so it needs more inv
  19. I think he meant coffee with oaxaca chocolate. Because I've never heard of a ban of just oaxaca chocolate by itself.
  20. Isn't there a story of Martin switching the seer stone to test Joseph and Joseph recognizes the problem when he doesn't see anything in the stone? Maybe the person who took the manuscript was planning on convincing Martin to "test" Joseph to make sure he really was translating.
×
×
  • Create New...