New Revelations and the Future

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

For example I have my doubts that the listing of weights of gold and silver have great edifying or practical value.

From our own Robert Smith in a Fair presentation.  This is just a taste of an interesting article.https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf

Quote

 

Maneh / Mina

Both the Nephites and Israelites use the same Egypto-Semitic base and multiples (with notation in hieratic Egyptian for Israelite weights),26 along with a term for the total (mane) which (as noted by George Reynolds and Janne Sjodahl about a century ago27) is phonologically very close to the same term for the same Book of Mormon total, limnah – which exhibits the same numerical ratio as its ancient Near Eastern counterpart.  māne “mina, weight”

Shillum / Shilum

The meanings of some of the other terms fit as well, particularly shilum, shillum (Hebrew “recompense, repayment,” Isaiah 34:8, Hosea 9:7, Micah 7:3), which are only known from the manuscripts (the 1830 and subsequent editions mistakenly have shiblum).  šillûm “repayment, recompense”

Sean / Seon

Most of you are probably aware of the existence of the 5th century B.C. Jewish military colony on Elephantine Island in Upper Egypt, and of the small Jewish temple (with animal sacrifice) built there. An interesting spelling in the Elephantine documents is  se’an, instead of the usual biblical Hebrew sěâ “measure.” This a dead ringer for sean (the spelling in the Printer’s Manuscript), the Nephite gold-measure in Alma 11:5,8-9, 28 and Reynolds & Sjodahl correctly suggested that seon be derived from Hebrew sěâ, 29 even though it never appears in the KJV Bible in that transliterated form. The Israelite sěâ is also represented by the Egyptian Hieratic sign for “⅟₂” in four Arad Ostraca, and one each at Qudeirat and Tell Jemmeh, i.e., ⅟₂ ḥqЗt-grainmeasure.30 Biblical Hebrew  sěâ “measure”

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I can't pin point any exact thing...it has always been with me that somehow..they were coerced.

Coercion means there was force involved or that they were threatened. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You can if you want but I am not going to reach that conclusion. I simply do not see a need for a first person written declaration from God.  The content was thrilling and exciting and I cried when it was revealed and explained.

I'm thrilled and excited and may cry a little later to know that someone was thrilled and excited and even cried about it.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm thrilled and excited and may cry a little later to know that someone was thrilled and excited and even cried about it.  

Whatever makes you happy. I am not here to judge.

 

 

 

Ya weirdo.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Whatever makes you happy. I am not here to judge.

 

 

 

Ya weirdo.

eh...well...if only I could add to your 15,000 plus rep points, I'd do it.  It's always fun to reach the end with you.  

[Jeanne]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Coercion means there was force involved or that they were threatened. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

No.    But I do think they wanted so bad to believe..so they saw what he saw..mo violence..just a mind game

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Seems wrong".

Is that the best you can do to justify your moral beliefs?

Welcome to the club.  To me it seems right so neener neener.  Your world is as real as you make it and so is mine.

You can string together as many "shoulds" and "rights" or "wrongs" as you like and none of them are based on objective evidence.

Both worlds require faith, yours as much as mine.

Is this like the faith not to be healed that Bednar spoke of?  I have faith not to believe mormonism.

[Lemuel]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There were probably tears of joy the first time the Nicene Creed was read to people.

Fortunately, in our day, the will of God is known when 15 PSRs are unanimous. 

"Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!"

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

No.    But I do think they wanted so bad to believe..so they saw what he saw..mo violence..just a mind game

That would be influence maybe but not coercion.

[CMZ]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yeah, that's not official doctrine.  It's not canonized and therefore isn't binding on the Church.

If we accept that one there are few more revelations to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff we ought to give a shot.

Lol. How do I unravel all the problems with these statements? 

1. Guess we better toss out/ignore/repudiate everything that's not canonized.
2. It was just restated in general conference, so that lends extra credence to it, and it was printed in Messages of the First Presidency.
3. Are you telling John Taylor his revelation wasn't real?
4. Binding on the Church? I suppose nobody is being forced to believe that the Church is continually being perfected and developed. I can't even figure out what you are getting at though. You're saying because the revelation has not been canonized (yet?) that the idea that the Church is continually being perfected and developed is not true? And because it's not true that means that it's already perfect? Or that it's less than perfect and never improving?
5. I didn't think there'd be any problem bringing up that revelation since I think you had brought it up before yourself, but then I bring it up to try to make a point that I thought you'd agree with only to be struck down by being told "it's not canonized!" I guess that constitutes troll behavior? Whatever it takes to be contradictory...

Edited April 12, 2018 by CMZ

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Is this like the faith not to be healed that Bednar spoke of?  I have faith not to believe mormonism.

Welcome to the board! Nobody is forced to believe. God doesn't work that way.

[CMZ]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

Well, it is still based on trusting another or others in terms of realizing that the emotion felt was really the Holy Ghost.  When I was on my mission, this was a big area of emphasis, that of convincing the investigator that what they felt was the Holy Ghost and not just some emotion coming from within the person.  If I read this story or that story or from the Book of Mormon and get emotional each time, which is from God and which isn't or are they all from God or none from God?  It is hard to determine this without the group pushing one to believe one way or another.  This is the point of testifying about feeling the Holy Ghost, to encourage the listener to believe the emotion he/she feels is the Holy Ghost and not something else.  It seems that this should not be necessary but it is because one can feel similar emotions to what the Holy Ghost supposedly is in many areas.

That's why we grow into the principle of revelation. I can't do it for you, and I don't think you'd want me to try. It is each individual's personal journey. We work throughout our lives to discern the Spirit from our own feelings. Joseph Smith got there. Thomas S. Monson got there. Others have too. It can be done.

Quote

 

Those who quietly and thoughtfully go about doing good offer a model of consecration. No one in our time more perfectly incorporates this trait into daily life than President Thomas S. Monson. He has cultivated a listening ear that can discern even the faintest whisper of the Spirit signaling the need of someone he can reach and help. Often it is in simple acts that confirm divine love and awareness, but always, always Thomas Monson responds.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/reflections-on-a-consecrated-life?lang=eng

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by CMZ

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

Is this like the faith not to be healed that Bednar spoke of?  I have faith not to believe mormonism.

So?  Am I asking you to get baptized?  At least you understand you have faith!

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

Lol. How do I unravel all the problems with these statements? 

1. Guess we better toss out/ignore/repudiate everything that's not canonized.
2. It was just restated in general conference, so that lends extra credence to it, and it was printed in Messages of the First Presidency.
3. Are you telling John Taylor his revelation wasn't real?
4. Binding on the Church? I suppose nobody is being forced to believe that the Church is continually being perfected and developed. I can't even figure out what you are getting at though. You're saying because the revelation has not been canonized (yet?) that the idea that the Church is continually being perfected and developed is not true? And because it's not true that means that it's already perfect? Or that it's less than perfect and never improving?
5. I didn't think there'd be any problem bringing up that revelation since I think you had brought it up before yourself, but then I bring it up to try to make a point that I thought you'd agree with only to be struck down by being told "it's not canonized!" I guess that constitutes troll behavior? Whatever it takes to be contradictory...

Apparently a sarcastic wink is lost on you. 

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, CMZ said:

Lol. How do I unravel all the problems with these statements? 

1. Guess we better toss out/ignore/repudiate everything that's not canonized.
2. It was just restated in general conference, so that lends extra credence to it, and it was printed in Messages of the First Presidency.
3. Are you telling John Taylor his revelation wasn't real?
4. Binding on the Church? I suppose nobody is being forced to believe that the Church is continually being perfected and developed. I can't even figure out what you are getting at though. You're saying because the revelation has not been canonized (yet?) that the idea that the Church is continually being perfected and developed is not true? And because it's not true that means that it's already perfect? Or that it's less than perfect and never improving?
5. I didn't think there'd be any problem bringing up that revelation since I think you had brought it up before yourself, but then I bring it up to try to make a point that I thought you'd agree with only to be struck down by being told "it's not canonized!" I guess that constitutes troll behavior? Whatever it takes to be contradictory...

When do you perceive that something becomes binding on the members of the Church?

[Marginal Gains]

On 10/04/2018 at 3:39 AM, The Nehor said:

Externally to a spiritually dead person, not much unless the Spirit is so strong people start weeping. As someone who has been in meetings and councils where the will of the Holy Ghost is powerfully made manifest and have also had the experience of reaching consensus in a corporate management meeting the two are nothing alike.

 

23 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I attended such a meeting. A General Authority was teaching how the Lord protects the righteous etc and, quite literally people, grown men with leadership responsibility, were weeping with the spirit so moved they were by the General Authorities words. I’ve never seen that kind of an outpouring in a Corporate setting, I guess that’s an example of what you mean.

Of course, I should point out that the General Authority presiding at the meeting, whose words generated such an outpouring of the spirit, was Paul H. Dunn and everything he said during his remarks was untrue. Go figure.

[Stargazer]

On 11/04/2018 at 8:07 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Why do you suppose that stupor of thought didn’t come to the General Authority who appointed Joseph L Bishop to the MTC Presidents job? Or to the Bishop that called the Primary teacher in Texas who went on and abused children over a period of years?

I used the words ‘reliably’ and ‘objectively’ in my question deliberately. The fact remains, it is impossible to reliably and objectively differentiate between what people call ‘the spirit’ and confirmation bias etc.

I certainly agree that it would have been convenient for that stupor of thought to have occurred in those cases.  As to why it didn't happen, it would be nice to know.  This gets compounded with the rise of tyrants such as Lenin and Stalin -- was it God's will for those two monsters to enslave millions and kill millions for nothing more than ideological differences -- or anticipation that they would oppose their ungodly policies?  I rather think not, but giving humans free reign to exercise their agency is a crucial factor in Father's plans and goals, both in judging the guilty and testing the innocent.  And finally, bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  

I don't think it's impossible to differentiate between the spirit and confirmation bias.  It's surely not always easy, however, I'll give you that.

As for me, in my life, have found the guidance of the holy spirit to be quite reliable.  And of course, this is quite subjective. As for confirmation bias, I am aware of the problem, and seek to exclude it from my important evaluations.  Confirmation bias is an example of relying upon the arm of flesh, which is condemned in scripture -- and I believe we are all subject to it, including those who are skeptics.  It is a task we are well-advised to undertake, to distinguish reliance upon such things from reliance upon truth.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Stargazer

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think it's impossible to differentiate between the spirit and confirmation bias.  It's surely not always easy, however, I'll give you that.

So what are the key differentiators?

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So what are the key differentiators?

That is a helluva interesting question.

And I'm not sure I can provide a decent answer off the top of my head.  

Dang it, I'm trying to write software, and now your question has thrown me off topic.  I shouldn't have been monitoring this board while working.

Let me get back to you on this.  

Here's how it might work, IF god were a machine capable of being approached as a computer might be:

private Answer GetInspiration(Question sentence)
{
    Answer inspiration = System.Spirit.HolyGhost.Revelation.AskInFaith(sentence);

    return inspiration;
}

But that's clearly not what's going on.

My apologies if you're not knowledgeable about the C programming language.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Of course, I should point out that the General Authority presiding at the meeting, whose words generated such an outpouring of the spirit, was Paul H. Dunn and everything he said during his remarks was untrue. Go figure.

And?

[Exiled]

13 hours ago, CMZ said:

That's why we grow into the principle of revelation. I can't do it for you, and I don't think you'd want me to try. It is each individual's personal journey. We work throughout our lives to discern the Spirit from our own feelings. Joseph Smith got there. Thomas S. Monson got there. Others have too. It can be done.

 

How do you resolve the problem of mistaken discernment as in the Bishop case?  At a certain point, can't one fault the HG or God for not being better at communicating?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

How do you resolve the problem of mistaken discernment as in the Bishop case?  At a certain point, can't one fault the HG or God for not being better at communicating?

In what way?
When Bishop was called he had not done these things therefore there was nothing to discern.
After his calling he used his agency to choose to commit these offenses.

You might as well ask if there was mistaken discernment when Christ called Judas to be an apostle.  At the time of his call, he had done nothing wrong.
Or are you suggesting that discernment should include prophecy (a la crystal ball) that knows how those called might misuse their calling?

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

In what way?
When Bishop was called he had not done these things therefore there was nothing to discern.
After his calling he used his agency to choose to commit these offenses.

You might as well ask if there was mistaken discernment when Christ called Judas to be an apostle.  At the time of his call, he had done nothing wrong.
Or are you suggesting that discernment should include prophecy (a la crystal ball) that knows how those called might misuse their calling?

Didn't Bishop have a history of questionable conduct prior to being the MTC president?  He had problems at Weber State and supposedly confessed sins to Wells.  It seems likely that he wouldn't have felt it necessary to confess conduct that wasn't of a serious nature and mentioning the confession to Wells happened in the context of talking about his sexual addiction.  So, it seems that there was something to discern and the discernment dials got mixed up.  As for Jesus and Judas, I think there are some problems with the betrayal story.  For one thing, why would it be necessary to have Judas point out a figure that everyone probably knew?  Certainly, the miracles, the entry into Jerusalem, and causing the ruckus at the temple would bring his attention to the Romans.  There simply was no need to bribe Judas to betray Jesus.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Didn't Bishop have a history of questionable conduct prior to being the MTC president?  He had problems at Weber State

But the Weber St. issues appear to be completely of a "he was a jerk as a boss and there was a wage gap between men and women" nature. 

Quote

and supposedly confessed sins to Wells.  It seems likely that he wouldn't have felt it necessary to confess conduct that wasn't of a serious nature and mentioning the confession to Wells happened in the context of talking about his sexual addiction. 

I've said this before, but I have known men who feel that they are the very worst of sex addicts and perverts, when their only problem is struggling to control their thoughts. One of them had several prominent stake and ward callings, and he came in often to confess and clear the decks. No masturbation, no pornography, no immorality of any kind with other people. Not even purposely indulging in bad thoughts; he just felt wicked if one popped into his head unbidden. He had been wracked with guilt since his mission, and had been confessing and suffering to bishops and stake presidents over twenty years. I told him to trust what all these bishops and stake presidents had unitedly been telling him: stop beating yourself up, as long as you're trying, you're okay. But, having known him for five years, I guarantee that he is still flagellating himself constantly and regarding himself as a wicked sex addict. 

Bishop in the transcript reminds me very much of him. He seems to be the type to ask to meet with a Seventy as a mission president and confess to "clear the decks" and "get everything off his chest," but it is possible that there wasn't anything really serious --- even though, to him, it may have seemed like it was an addiction.

Yes, it is also possible that he confessed more serious, specific things to Elder Wells. But I think people are automatically ascribing credibility to Denson's narrative according to automatic personal "pre-settings." 

What do you think about Spencer's point about Denson's anachronism with her main charge (that Bishop confessed in 1978 to Wells about his rape of Denson in 1984)? I think that deals a severe blow to her claim, and really damages her credibility. What he does or does not confess to in the transcript is pretty much a mirror of the person discussing it. Especially when they keep pointing to Weber St. as supporting evidence to build the case that he had a rape problem.  

Edited April 12, 2018 by rongo

[Physics Guy]

Judas's job always seemed like a very realistic detail to me. Jesus may have caused a commotion over the prior week but that's far from guaranteeing that every available soldier would recognize him definitively at night. Moreover the authorities could not have taken it for granted that he would identify himself and come quietly. They had to reckon on him and his whole group all trying to scatter and hide when the fuzz came, and catching a dozen guys running off in all directions through the dark isn't easy. Perhaps Judas's deal included him grabbing Jesus until the guards could close in, but in the event he didn't actually have to do that because Jesus didn't try to run. Anyway, if I were tasked with capturing a controversial figure at night in a big city, I'd be really glad to have an insider tip about when and where to find him, and to confirm which guy was my target once I got there. If he held my target in a bear-hug for long enough to exchange a few words, so much the better.

Finally, it seems to me that the authorities would have been keen to get Judas even if he wouldn't have been very likely to be useful, just to cover all the bases. If Jesus evaded one arrest attempt he might either rouse his fans to riot the next day, or just slip away and keep up a sort of guerrilla insurgency for years. It would likely have been worth 30 denarii to push the chance of that happening down as low as possible. Thirty guard-days can't have been such a big hit to the security budget.