consiglieri Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So you do not only stereotype people, you also mind read what your imaginary people are thinking. What do you think black people think about? Got any theories on that one? Clearly they don't think like US. I would caution against determining for others what certain classes of people think, based on your prejudices. The fact that no one here took your bait makes it obvious that you were in error about the meaning from the beginning. It is actually suggestive that the Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon paradigm is correct. And I would be much more confident predicting what a black person would think if I had spent 38-years being one.
cinepro Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The reason for that is clear: we are instructed to teach from the manuals and we do. Good for us. And also, good for us, is that each of us knows we have our own interpretations as guided by personal testimony. = Internet Mormon (And this = Chapel Mormon) Edited February 20, 2016 by cinepro
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, consiglieri said: It is actually suggestive that the Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon paradigm is correct. And I would be much more confident predicting what a black person would think if I had spent 38-years being one. The only thing it suggests is that you are taking your own benighted gullibility (before you became a born-again cynic and hostile critic of Mormonism) and projecting it on others. You really think folks attending or tuned in to that broadcast didn't understand what Sister Nelson was driving at and took what she said literally? This is amazing to me. I am strongly tempted to think you are trying to have us all on, but you seem so serious about this. Edited February 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 3
consiglieri Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The only thing it suggests is that you are taking your own benighted gullibility (before you became a born-again cynic and hostile critic of Mormonism) and projecting it on others. You really think folks attending or tuned in to that broadcast didn't understand what Sister Nelson was driving at and took what she said literally? This is amazing to me. I strongly tempted to think you are trying to have us all on, but you seem so serious about this. = Internet Mormon
mfbukowski Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The only thing it suggests is that you are taking your own benighted gullibility (before you became a born-again cynic and hostile critic of Mormonism) and projecting it on others. You really think folks attending or tuned in to that broadcast didn't understand what Sister Nelson was driving at and took what she said literally? This is amazing to me. I strongly tempted to think you are trying to have us all on, but you seem so serious about this. And then he calls you an internet Mormon He is actually begging the question. Anyone who answers him is an "internet Mormon" by definition because he asked the question on the internet. He can't be wrong because his only sample is drawn from a group which he selects which automatically proves him right. Totally circular. Sigh. Edited February 20, 2016 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 2 hours ago, cinepro said: = Internet Mormon (And this = Chapel Mormon) Well there goes your distinction then because I am a chapel Mormon by that definition I acknowledge the church's right to give one the authority and trust to teach in its classes and therefore I use the church materials. So I guess that makes Consig wrong automatically Here you have a chapel Mormon who sees this issue as a non- issue because of course Adam was not going to literally appear. Thread over. 2
volgadon Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: = Internet Mormon Chapel Mormons have a significant online presence, have you seen any of them interpret her remarks like you did? 2
mfbukowski Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Oh no- everyone knows that chapel Mormons are too ignorant to even operate a mouse. They just know how to set traps for them. Passenger pigeons work fine after all. Gotta get out there and hook up the horse so I can plow the south 40. Why I even got a telegram the other day! Most Mormons don't even know what a computer is, after all. No smart phones- just the dial kind. Some still have party lines and have to ring up the operator. We's not edujumacated like him. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 On February 17, 2016 at 9:09 AM, MDalby said: Saturday, 19.—This morning we struck our tents and formed a line of march, crossing Grand River at the mouth of Honey Creek and Nelson's Ferry. Grand River is a large, beautiful, deep and rapid stream, during the high waters of Spring, and will undoubtedly admit of navigation by steamboat and other water craft. At the mouth of Honey Creek is a good landing. We pursued our course up the river, mostly through timber, for about eighteen miles, when we arrived at Colonel Lyman Wight's home. He lives at the foot of Tower Hill (a name I gave the place in consequence of the remains of an old Nephite altar or tower that stood there), where we camped for the Sabbath. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Page 35) I think the correct description would be "Nephitish" Nephitish could be open to interpretation and mean a lot of different things. Alex Baugh theorizes it was just an early Mormon way of saying Indian or ancient American alter as the indigenous inhabitants were descended from Lehi's colony.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 On 19/2/2016 at 11:25 AM, consiglieri said: Chapel Mormons, you see, would take Wendy's comments exactly the way they were intended--and believe that Jesus had really already appeared to large groups of the faithful as part of his Second Coming. I'm calling shenanigans on this bogus claim. Can you produce a single 'chapel Mormon' -- other than those who clearly exist in your head -- who heard Sis Nelson's comments and reached this conclusion? 4
consiglieri Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 13 hours ago, mfbukowski said: He is actually begging the question. Anyone who answers him is an "internet Mormon" by definition because he asked the question on the internet. He can't be wrong because his only sample is drawn from a group which he selects which automatically proves him right. Totally circular. Not so, mi amigo. If anybody on this board had believed Wendy Nelson was referring to an actual literal appearance of the real Jesus, that would tend to disprove my theory. But so far, I have seen no takers.
volgadon Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 As Consiglieri has ignored three requests, let's take a look at "chapel Mormon" sources. http://purposedrivenmotherhood.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-checklist-of-15-action-items-and-20.html?m=1 Not an "internet Mormon," not with a title like purpose driven motherhood, and the recommendation to print the quotes in order to mark and ponder them. The author introduces sister Nelson's quite with the following remark: "Imagine that the Savior has already come -- what would you make time to do now?" 3
consiglieri Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 25 minutes ago, volgadon said: As Consiglieri has ignored three requests, let's take a look at "chapel Mormon" sources. http://purposedrivenmotherhood.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-checklist-of-15-action-items-and-20.html?m=1 Not an "internet Mormon," not with a title like purpose driven motherhood, and the recommendation to print the quotes in order to mark and ponder them. The author introduces sister Nelson's quite with the following remark: "Imagine that the Savior has already come -- what would you make time to do now?" I'll see you that, Volgadon, and raise you this! Quote What if you learned that the Savior had already returned to this earth; that He, as part of His Second Coming, had already met with some of His true followers in several marvelous, large gatherings. Gathering about which the world, including CNN and the blogsphere knew nothing. If you found out that the Savior was already on the earth what would you desperately want to do today. What would you be wiling and ready to do tomorrow? This was her CONCLUDING QUESTION. I believe she's saying this because it may very well be true. The Second Coming has begun. It's not an "event"...it's a process. The Lord could well have already met with the First Presidency...several times. If it has begun, then you may actually want to start feeling desperate about being prepared to meet him and what HAS to happen BEFORE you meet Him. Her point, though, may be that you must not wait to hear it on the news that it's time to prepare. You won't hear it there. If you wait for that, you will miss it. Assume that His Second Coming has already begun....start preparing. Feel desperate, for if you are just starting, you must know the deadline is fast approaching. It reminds me of the talk "Lay Up and Store" where in his parable, he tried to cram for the exam, but it was too late. He failed miserably! This would be a good time to review that talk! http://toguideusintheselatterdays.blogspot.com/
volgadon Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 16 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I'll see you that, Volgadon, and raise you this! http://toguideusintheselatterdays.blogspot.com/ See, that wasn't too hard, was it? Note that even here the poster acknowledges that her point might not be about an actual visit. 3
volgadon Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 https://astheangelsofgod.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/what-would-you-desperately-want-to-do-today/ 1
volgadon Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 The interesting thing is that sister Nelson's quote is barely discussed in supposed "chapel Mormon" circles. 1
MDalby Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 I keep checking this thread to see if there is info of any value but the thread sure has digressed.
rongo Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 16 minutes ago, MDalby said: I keep checking this thread to see if there is info of any value but the thread sure has digressed. Thanks, consig'! I suspect that's what he actually wants. Not really to help us knuckle-draggin', uni-browed simpletons to more light and knowledge, as he affects, but simply to stir the pot and use drive-by quips.
bcuzbcuz Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: I'll see you that, Volgadon, and raise you this! http://toguideusintheselatterdays.blogspot.com/ If the second coming is a process already started (Joseph certainly felt the end was nigh and he had multiple visits with Christ) then this is a process that is soon into it's second century. The end isn't nigh, it's more like a yawn.
Calm Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 From the link: Quote This was her CONCLUDING QUESTION. I believe she's saying this because it may very well be true. The Second Coming has begun. It's not an "event"...it's a process. The Lord could well have already met with the First Presidency...several times. If it has begun, then you may actually want to start feeling desperate about being prepared to meet him and what HAS to happen BEFORE you meet Him. Her point, though, may be that you must not wait to hear it on the news that it's time to prepare. You won't hear it there. If you wait for that, you will miss it. Assume that His Second Coming has already begun....start preparing. Feel desperate, for if you are just starting, you must know the deadline is fast approaching. It reminds me of the talk "Lay Up and Store" where in his parable, he tried to cram for the exam, but it was too late. He failed miserably! This would be a good time to review that talk! Still don't seen anything in there indicating that this person believes "He, as part of His Second Coming, had already met with some of His true followers in several marvelous, large gatherings". I don't think three individuals counts for "large gatherings". 2
Calm Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, volgadon said: The interesting thing is that sister Nelson's quote is barely discussed in supposed "chapel Mormon" circles. And in the one example posted by consig, it is pretty much altered to something that many have consider as already happening in my experience since I can remember (Christ meeting with the First Presidency in some fashion). If anyone believes it as consig claims, it is likely not typical LDS but those who follow the Visions of Glory and Julie Rowe crowd, Last Day Apocryphal types, the ones who are into tent cities, etc. because it (the thought experiment) follows the narrative they have already created for themselves. Though they may reject it because if it were describing reality, they would have missed the beginning of the callout and that is probably not acceptable. Edited February 21, 2016 by Calm 2
volgadon Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 48 minutes ago, Calm said: And in the one example posted by consig, it is pretty much altered to something that many have consider as already happening in my experience since I can remember (Christ meeting with the First Presidency in some fashion). If anyone believes it as consig claims, it is likely not typical LDS but those who follow the Visions of Glory and Julie Rowe crowd, Last Day Apocryphal types, the ones who are into tent cities, etc. because it (the thought experiment) follows the narrative they have already created for themselves. Though they may reject it because if it were describing reality, they would have missed the beginning of the callout and that is probably not acceptable. Contrast the relative silence with the amount of attention afforded the claim that children saw angels supporting president Monson during general conference. Isn't a large-scale visit by Christ hotter news than a couple of angels standing by the prophet? To me that is an informative silence. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, Calm said: And in the one example posted by consig, it is pretty much altered to something that many have consider as already happening in my experience since I can remember (Christ meeting with the First Presidency in some fashion). If anyone believes it as consig claims, it is likely not typical LDS but those who follow the Visions of Glory and Julie Rowe crowd, Last Day Apocryphal types, the ones who are into tent cities, etc. because it (the thought experiment) follows the narrative they have already created for themselves. Though they may reject it because if it were describing reality, they would have missed the beginning of the callout and that is probably not acceptable. Thing is, I've seen Wendy Watson Nelson's husband, on at least two occasions within the past year or two talk about the Second Coming and essentially say that when it happens everyone will know it. On the first occasion, he quipped, "CNN will be there." And, knowing I was in the room, he joked, "Scott Lloyd will be there to cover it for the Church News." On the second occasion, this past Christmas time, he made essentially the same joke, except instead of me, he made joking reference to my editor, who was there in the room. So this stuff about the Second Coming already having begun unbeknownst to us strikes me as unwise conjecture that people ought not be engaging in. It seems like gospel hobbyism or fanaticism not unlike the preppers engage in. Fortunately, I do think it quite rare. This is the first I've seen such a notion, in fact. Edited February 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Calm Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 27 minutes ago, volgadon said: Contrast the relative silence with the amount of attention afforded the claim that children saw angels supporting president Monson during general conference. Isn't a large-scale visit by Christ hotter news than a couple of angels standing by the prophet? To me that is an informative silence. Googling on the part of the quote about large gatherings, I got 8 hits on google that appeared to be from faithful sites, most just reporting it without much commentary and others making it clear it was a "imagine this" type of thing. Given the transcipt has been up since January, it does seem there aren't too many interested in that aspect of the talk. 1
CA Steve Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 On 2/18/2016 at 10:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said: The primeval history and myth contained in early Genesis is lost in the mists of time. It was old long before it found its way into biblical Hebrew, and old before it appeared in cuneiform texts. Scholars simply believe that the names of the four rivers, two in Mesopotamia and two in Egypt (which were never connected in any way) were late insertions, and that makes good sense to me. Hi Robert, Forgive me for the lengthy delay in responding, I was a bit under the weather the last few days and sitting and typing was not possible. I am still trying to connect your comment about the two rivers (or as you say four, I was unaware of the Egyptian component of the myth) being a late insertion to the story of the Garden of Eden as being anything that can reflect one way or anther about Adam-ondi-Ahman and the Garden of Eden located in Missouri. Was your initial response here to the poster Kaleb Webb intended to leave room for belief that the Garden of Eden might be in Missouri since the rivers were a late insertion into the story? Or were you just responding that they should not be part of what we take into account when dealing with the Biblical version of the Garden of Eden? Quote You might want to quote the actual words of Bokovoy as to what he believes happened. There are certainly intertextual relationships, and the late transmission of the Abraham papyri could have resulted in errors, although why this particular error would have happened is inexplicable. As you are probably aware David has a chapter in his latest book, Authoring the Old Testament regarding the Book of Abraham. See Chapter 8 pages161-189. For the portion dealing directly with my comment regarding dependency see pages 165 -169 on which he states on page 165: Quote Chief among these <challenges> is the Book of Abraham's textual dependency on late Judean sources that came into being over a millennium after the time of Abraham, making it impossible to directly connect the book of scripture with the ancient Patriarch. He goes on to illustrate how chapters 4 and 5 are dependent on P and J and concludes that section on page 169 with: Quote The Book of Abraham, therefore, is reliant up two different documentary traditions that it treats as a unified whole contrary to the scholarly consensus of over 150 years of them being separate Judean sources. I am not sure why you think this particular omission of the names of the rivers in the Book of Abraham is inexplicable. Given the process outlined by David it seems to me that errors, omissions, redactions, and additions are to be expected and why should one particular difference between a Biblical version and our own Book of Abraham be viewed as indicative of the Book of Abraham being more accurate, especially since we know our version is dependent on the Biblical version?
Recommended Posts