nuclearfuels Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 Looking for any comments on verse 1. Heard from a friend this theory: 1. Brother of Jared - of the 16 sacred stones, 2 were placed in his barge. Those were passed down to succeeding spiritual leaders, prophets 2. Ether or some prophet between him and the Bro of Jared - fixed those two stones in the Urim and THummim. This wasn't mentioned in the BoM because the stones were (and are) sacred. 3. Mosiah uses those to translate the 24 Jaredite plates and passed down the sacred records and Urim and THummim to succeeding spiritual leaders, prophets 4. Moroni carried the U&T to Palmyra, NY* 5. Moroni revealed the plates, liahona, U&T, etc. to Joseph Smith * I think there were two Cumorah's but I'm not an expert at really much of anything, so...
longview Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 I think the mention of the breastplate, the fact that the interpreters could be attached to it, and the two stones were linked together with a bow would make it unlikely for them to have been part of the sixteen stones. Those stones shone very brightly so the Jaredites would have put them into a pot at bedtime. Also, each barge had two stones but they most likely would have been placed at either end so the lighting would be more evenly distributed. But when Joseph Smith possessed the interpreters, they were very dim to the point he had to put them into a hat to shut out daylight so he could discern the glow. Don Bradley was able to obtain quite a bit of information about the U&T in his book "The Lost 116 Pages". They were too large to have been used as spectacles. He said the two stones were joined together with a hinge, each stone had a triangle inscribed within the circle. When the two stones were swung together, the triangles formed the image of the "Star of David". 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: .......... 1. Brother of Jared - of the 16 sacred stones, 2 were placed in his barge. Those were passed down to succeeding spiritual leaders, prophets Ether 3:22-28 discusses the purpose of the 2 stones, which were sealed up with the records, and have nothing to do with the stones used to light the barges. Quote 2. Ether or some prophet between him and the Bro of Jared - fixed those two stones in the Urim and THummim. This wasn't mentioned in the BoM because the stones were (and are) sacred. There is no Urim and Thummim in the BofM. The 2 stones are called interpreters and directors. Mosiah 28:13 describes how they looked: "... those two stones ... were fastened into the two rims of a bow." Only in 1833 does W. Phelps introduce the term Urim and Thummim and it continues to be misused by everyone. Quote 3. Mosiah uses those to translate the 24 Jaredite plates.......................... ................................ Mosiah or Benjamin (Mosiah 21:28) translated the 24 plates of Ether. The Printer's Manuscript of the BofM reads "Benjamin," while the 1981 edition reads "Mosiah." Since the Interpreters are originally two stones molten from rock (Ether 3:1-6,22-24,28, 4:5), it might be well to note the recent development of solid state batteries, using solid glass electrolytes.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0nA8CfxBqA (Joe Scott, Nov 18, 2019). Edited February 21, 2021 by Robert F. Smith 4
theplains Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 9:28 PM, nuclearfuels said: * I think there were two Cumorah's but I'm not an expert at really much of anything, so... Search for Cumorah in the 1928 General Conference talk. It does a very good job at showing what the church was teaching to its members. 1
Ahab Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 14 minutes ago, theplains said: Search for Cumorah in the 1928 General Conference talk. It does a very good job at showing what the church was teaching to its members. Just to be clear, when someone talks in a session of a Church conference, the person doing the talking is the one talking, not the whole Church. Even if someone publishes all of the talking done at all of the sessions of a Church conference and puts a stamp or writes out the words saying the publication was is published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in general, each "talk" given during each and all of the sessions was given by the person who did the talking, and not the whole Church. Some people don't seem to understand that, thinking it is possible for all of those speakers to be speaking for the whole Church, in general, as representative of all of the members, and that just ain't the way it is. It just doesn't work that way. 1
theplains Posted March 3, 2021 Posted March 3, 2021 On 2/25/2021 at 3:30 PM, Ahab said: Just to be clear, when someone talks in a session of a Church conference, the person doing the talking is the one talking, not the whole Church. Does this mean that the church does not review everything written down in the sermon speech as truthful before the person gets up to speak? Or does the church not pre-scan the speech and leaves it up to the members to decide for themselves whether the teaching is true or false?
Ahab Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 17 hours ago, theplains said: Does this mean that the church does not review everything written down in the sermon speech as truthful before the person gets up to speak? Or does the church not pre-scan the speech and leaves it up to the members to decide for themselves whether the teaching is true or false? The Church now has... what is it now, 9 million?, 10 million?, 11 million members now? How do you think the Church could possibly review what a speaker is going to say before he or she gets up to speak, wherever? Do you think everyone who speaks in a Church service sends out a memo before speaking to tell everyone what he or she is planning to say? Every member who hears a speaker does decide for himself or herself whether or not they will believe what another member is saying, but, No, speakers do not generally send out a memo to every other member of the Church to before giving a talk. You do realize when you say the "Church" you are referring to ALL of the members of the Church, don't you? How organized and coordinated do you believe we are?
theplains Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 (edited) On 3/4/2021 at 11:41 AM, Ahab said: How do you think the Church could possibly review what a speaker is going to say before he or she gets up to speak, wherever? I am primarily focusing on what any speaker says at any General Conference (which occurs in Salt Lake City). In this case, the Presidency is fully aware of what is going to be said. Additionally, the church is responsible for everything it teaches in its published magazines. Edited March 7, 2021 by theplains
Ahab Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 On 3/6/2021 at 4:21 PM, theplains said: I am primarily focusing on what any speaker says at any General Conference (which occurs in Salt Lake City). In this case, the Presidency is fully aware of what is going to be said. Are you assuming the First Presidency assigns topics as well as assigning speakers, similar to how many bishoprics do that in their wards, or do you have actual proof for your assumption? I think it is likely that the First Presidency assigns speakers but I'm pretty sure they don't give those speakers word-for-word manuscripts of what they want those speakers to say, preferring instead to encourage them to speak as the Holy Spirit inspires them to speak. And they may not give them a topic to speak on while encouraging the speakers to allow the Holy Spirit to influence them in that decision as well. On 3/6/2021 at 4:21 PM, theplains said: Additionally, the church is responsible for everything it teaches in its published magazines. The church is the people in it, and yes each person is responsible for what he or she says. Other members do not speak for me, though, unless I agree with what they say, and it works that way for every other member as well.
theplains Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 On 3/8/2021 at 3:36 PM, Ahab said: Are you assuming the First Presidency assigns topics as well as assigning speakers, similar to how many bishoprics do that in their wards, or do you have actual proof for your assumption? No. I am saying that the LDS Church is responsible for everything spoken at a General Conference or printed in its magazines.
The Nehor Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 On 2/25/2021 at 2:30 PM, Ahab said: Just to be clear, when someone talks in a session of a Church conference, the person doing the talking is the one talking, not the whole Church. Even if someone publishes all of the talking done at all of the sessions of a Church conference and puts a stamp or writes out the words saying the publication was is published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in general, each "talk" given during each and all of the sessions was given by the person who did the talking, and not the whole Church. Some people don't seem to understand that, thinking it is possible for all of those speakers to be speaking for the whole Church, in general, as representative of all of the members, and that just ain't the way it is. It just doesn't work that way. You'd think that people would haveHad enough of pedant nonsenseBut I look around me and I see it isn't so Some people wanna fill the boardWith pedant nonsense And what's wrong with that?I'd like to know'Cause here we go AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1
Ahab Posted March 16, 2021 Posted March 16, 2021 On 3/13/2021 at 1:50 PM, theplains said: No. I am saying that the LDS Church is responsible for everything spoken at a General Conference or printed in its magazines. So what you are saying is that any time any member of the Church speaks in General Conference he or she is speaking for the whole Church as a representative of every member. Now just try to understand that isn't true, even though you said it.
The Nehor Posted March 16, 2021 Posted March 16, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ahab said: So what you are saying is that any time any member of the Church speaks in General Conference he or she is speaking for the whole Church as a representative of every member. Now just try to understand that isn't true, even though you said it. You'd think that people would have Had enough of pedant nonsense But I look around me and I see it isn't so Some people wanna fill the board With pedant nonsense And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know 'Cause here we go AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ahab Posted March 16, 2021 Posted March 16, 2021 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: You'd think that people would have Had enough of pedant nonsense But I look around me and I see it isn't so Some people wanna fill the board With pedant nonsense And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know 'Cause here we go AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Loooooooooooooooooooooooove Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Loooooooooooooooooooooooove Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu! Love doesn't come in just a minute Sometimes it doesn't come at all I only know that when I'm in it It isn't silly Love isn't silly Love isn't silly at alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Yeah, yeah, yeah.................................. baby!
Recommended Posts