• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mormon/Ex-Mormon Thread of 3 hour blocks and salvation flowcharts

CorvoSol

Member
Not to stereotype, but young male americans in suits are a fairly temtping targets for thieves.

I'm pretty sure we were targeted for the suits, but I don't think it was the looking American that got us. My companion wasn't and didn't look it, and being "short" with brown hair and 2 years of tan, at almost 10 PM I don't think I much looked or sounded it, either.

My guess is they mistook us for pastors, who in that region were noted for actually having money.
 

Truelize

Steroid Distributor
What was the issue with that Stake president's talk?
I saw that a couple of people said they would have walked out.
 

Fathead

Member
What was the issue with that Stake president's talk?
I saw that a couple of people said they would have walked out.

Equating the election meant people were choosing socialism, like that is Mr. Obama's stance and therefore it is evil, transfer of wealth from the top to the bottom, etc. It was a political stump speech masquerading as "from the spirit".

Its like these idiots havent read all the united order history anyway. The only ism that belongs in the church is mormonism.
 
Wow.

New introduction to the Official Declaration 2:

“The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.”

Very interesting. I think this is actually a big step forward, when put in the official scriptures. It doesn't seem apologetic to me, but lays out the facts pretty clearly. The fact that they are actually including in the official scriptures how there were early black members who were ordained to the priesthood is huge, in my opinion.

EDIT: Looks like a ton of changes were made:

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

Haven't had time to look through it yet.
 

ronito

Member
Hrmm...except it doesn't teach that all people are equal. I mean god smites people with a curse of dark skin. Not terribly hard to see why people of color would take their race being inflicted as a curse as racist. Sure people point to "lamanites ended up being more righteous than most nephites and all that." But what they miss out is that this was mainly a vehicle to say "Wow look at how bad the nephites got!" and also as one commentator put it, it's like overcoming their race. Like the lamanites were bad but so long as they became "whiteified" they were cool.

And yeah it's no apology. It's more like a shoulder shrug. But I guess it's the best that can be expected from the church. I know I should think it's a step in the right direction but part of me feels like it'll be the last step. "Look we put out an official delcaration. What else do you want?"
 

Yoritomo

Member
I would prefer an apology and I think it would be more forthright to apologize for the mistakes of a past leader. This does however give me clear ammunition in my rhetorical debates with McKonkie style mormons who like to pharisee it up.
 

ronito

Member
Found this write up of some of the changes. Interesting:

Major Changes

41 - References to strange notions or false spirits creeping into the church are removed. Instead, the revelation was morphed into instructions on where to live.

47 - John Whitmer no longer seeks an appointment in the church, prior connections revealed, Joseph had to coerce him with revelation. (see 69 where he's called as official historian and recorder).

56 Thayre villainized for postponing mission. (General theme about not postponing missions are being introduced).

58 Connections of current Native Americans to Lamanites removed. Instead, now speaks generally about Lamanites.

66 McLellin is now given a "secret request" tag, and Joseph's first-person account is removed. Important as this is the chapter that gives the age of the earth at 7000 years.

78, 82, 92, 104 - Completely rewritten. References church business, mercantile, publishing endeavors, and goal of generating funds. All references to 'code names' have been redacted. Specifically states that Joseph ordered the replacement of the phrase "storehouse for the poor" with "mercantile and publishing establishments". "Order" became "Firm". - This appears to be a theme in many headers. There's a shift towards deifying the corporate world.

85 - Caveats the revelation to state that those who didn't receive inheritances from the church were those who didn't give their properties to the church first. (Modern day tithing implications)

87 - Changes the revelation from a reflection of Joseph on African Slavery to an admitting that this was a very visible problem in South Carolina. (This is a good one, implicitly admitting the civil war "prophecy" was more observation of current events rather than a 20 year predictor of those same events).

89 - Statement that the "Inspired introduction" to the word of wisdom was written by Joseph himself was dropped. This is the portion that says it's not a commandment. The D&C verses still remain.

132 - Plurality of wives changed to principal of plural marriage, softening stance on whether this was known to Joseph in 1831. (See OD 1 for more changes)

137 - Removing references to the endowment ordinances having been revealed to preparation for the dedication of the temple. This is key when you remember that the endowments were done outside of the temple, and that they have been subsequently changed many times over the years.

Official Declaration 1 - Additional header Monogomy is now called God's standard for marriage. Claims 1890 ended Plural marriage in the church (a lie), and the manifest was considered authoritative and binding in 1890 (also a lie). Admits to practicing plural marriage in the 1840's (interesting implication on Fanny Alger). It removes the claim later on that the vote to sustain the motion was unanimous - and now states that it was binding.

Official Declaration 2 - Additional Header Claims BoM now teaches that all men are like god (true, but it wasn't always the case), claims baptisims were always allowed for all races (also true, but slaves had to have permission of masters). It Admits that blacks were allowed priesthood ordination originally, and that that stopped some time for some reason - claims to be unkonwn when (a lie or at best half-truth). Kimball asked for it back and it was given. Shame Brigham didn't ask before he stopped it.

PGP Introduction - Says Joseph translated & Produced, rather than just produced. BOA now called an inspired translation that began after procuring documents. Removes Joseph as the sole person to touch the documents, implying scribes may have altered them the following year.

Other interesting patterns and changes:

Changing Dates: 10 (1828 -> 1829), 19 (1830 -> 1829), 20 (1830 -> 1829, with special implication that the latter half of the priesthood was reveled before the church was formed), 49 (Mar - May), 74 (1832 -> 1830), 88 (1832-> 1833), 94 (May -> Aug), 107 (1835 -> 1831).

Revelations were split up: This implies natural breaks rather than one mass communication: 23 (5), 24 (everyone their own), 42 (2), 72 (3), 75 (2), 88 (several).

Watering down origin stories: "Joseph's history" added as a buffer between God and the D&C, or stating Joseph directed changes rather than made them himself. See 2, 11, 33, 35, 36, 40, 45, 49, 50, 60, 63, 67, 70, 76, 77, 102, 110, 133, PGP intro.

Priesthood namesakes were removed: Aaronic is generally left out, and Melchizedek became higher priesthood. 13, 18.

Current leadership position strengthened: 18 (new reference to the 12), 54 (Newell Knight is no longer "president of the branch", but "leader of the members"), 107 (12 were now setup with power in 1831 despite not leaving on a mission until 1835), 121-123 (attempt to connect leadership to older apostles, use of term epistle rather than letter).

Corrected/additional information: 39 (Covill replaced with Covel, Baptist with Methodist), 67 (10,000 Books of Commandments were attempted, only 3000 were printed due to "unforseen difficulties"), 95 (houses -> house), 101 (updated county names).

Other minor changes

18 - Removed all references to requested revelation. See also 56. Note that 68 allows it for personal revelation, to specific members. I wonder if this is an attempt to remove the two-way communication of a prophet. Potentially attempting to explain why Monson or others aren't receiving revelations, or aren't asking for them.

49 - Removed the higher language surrounding shaker belief.

55 Section 56 disconnected from 55, the branch was demoted to members, president to leaders). See also 58 when they're turned back into a branch, having previously received baptism, and now obedient.

59 Turned into keeping the sabbath day early with a death notice. This seems to downplay the holy land of Zion and special-ness of it's people.

70 - D&C/Book of Commandments reworded to emphasize later revelations as being of great worth. Book called a treasure.

71 - Newspaper articles of Ezra changed to "letters". Downplaying their impact.

98 - Comments of saints seeking natural revenge were removed. Softened LDS liability to say settlement and fear of losing political / economic power was what instigated local mobs. Now specifically calls out the tar and feathering.

99 - Removal of contradictory information with other versions of the D&C. Replaced with a bio of John Murdock leaving his family to go on a mission.

134 - "Church leadership" changed to "many saints" gathering for the ratification of the Book of Commandments.

The biggest one outside of Official Declaration 2 is the changing the intro to the Pearl of Great price from being "a translation" to "an inspired translation". I wonder if that's the church's stance now. "Yes, the papyrus didn't translate into what Joseph Smith tranlsated. But this was an inspired tranlsation meaning God told him what to write instead of what it really said."

That's an...interesting tact.
 
Hrmm...except it doesn't teach that all people are equal. I mean god smites people with a curse of dark skin. Not terribly hard to see why people of color would take their race being inflicted as a curse as racist. Sure people point to "lamanites ended up being more righteous than most nephites and all that." But what they miss out is that this was mainly a vehicle to say "Wow look at how bad the nephites got!" and also as one commentator put it, it's like overcoming their race. Like the lamanites were bad but so long as they became "whiteified" they were cool.

And yeah it's no apology. It's more like a shoulder shrug. But I guess it's the best that can be expected from the church. I know I should think it's a step in the right direction but part of me feels like it'll be the last step. "Look we put out an official delcaration. What else do you want?"

Sure, it's not perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction in that it admits parts of church history that the church has always been reluctant to talk about. It doesn't offer any sort of interpretation of events surrounding it or the people affected, but it states the facts.

I'm all for the church being more willing be open about its history, even if it doesn't apologize for its doctrine or practices.
 

CorvoSol

Member
Hrmm...except it doesn't teach that all people are equal. I mean god smites people with a curse of dark skin. Not terribly hard to see why people of color would take their race being inflicted as a curse as racist. Sure people point to "lamanites ended up being more righteous than most nephites and all that." But what they miss out is that this was mainly a vehicle to say "Wow look at how bad the nephites got!" and also as one commentator put it, it's like overcoming their race. Like the lamanites were bad but so long as they became "whiteified" they were cool.

And yeah it's no apology. It's more like a shoulder shrug. But I guess it's the best that can be expected from the church. I know I should think it's a step in the right direction but part of me feels like it'll be the last step. "Look we put out an official delcaration. What else do you want?"

I've never really seen it that way, but maybe it is due to the time in which I was raised. The curse comes down at much the same time that Lehi leaves his blessing with the children of Laman and Lemuel, which is considerably better than what the children of Nephi got. I don't have anything in the way of a great explanation for what was going on with the whole mark thing the Lord was doing, but if I had great explanations there would be no trials to this whole Mormon thing.

But I sincerely don't agree with the notion that it was all racist, as so many who are eager to decry the Book of Mormon and stamp the whole of Mormonism's history with the mark of racism. For one, we see that the only time there ever was true piece among the children of Lehi, it was because they had stopped squabbling over who was what. It does not say that people stopped to have darker or lighter skin (darker or lighter than what who can say, given it had been ages since anyone in those stories had seen anyone who wasn't ethnically related.) as it does in the much touted passage where the Lamanites somehow get white. All it does say is that there ceased to be -Ites among them.

I bring this up mostly because within the Church there is sometimes the repulsive belief that black people's spirits are white, or that anyone who isn't white becomes so in the Resurrection. I haven't ever seen a shred of evidence to support this, and I don't much care to. But also so as to avoid the unfortunate implication that ignorance of race is correct. On such an issue I don't believe the Book of Mormon comments.

But people do go about muddying up the issue of race in the Book of Mormon. Were the Lamanites and Nephites physically distinct? Originally, we must assume so. That's what the text says. But by the Book of Alma the issue is more complex than that. You have Lamanites who repent and dwell among the Nephites as Ammonites or Anti-Nephi-Lehites. You have Zoramites heading over to become Lamanites. You have all manner of mixing going on from that point until 4th Nephi, when they cease to have any manner of "ites" at all for 300 years. So while Nephite and Lamanite are originally ethnic terms, by the end of the Book of Mormon, its very much more a matter of political standing. Especially AFTER 4th Nephi, where people decide for themselves whether they will be Nephite or Lamanite.

We could go back and forth about what "dark skin" means in the context of the text as well, but that would be a semantic argument without point. The fact is that it does say that, and I can see why people would interpret that as such, but to myself, I do not believe that the Book of Mormon supports racism. Judging people based on their appearance is repeatedly reviled in the Book of Mormon.

Found this write up of some of the changes. Interesting:



The biggest one outside of Official Declaration 2 is the changing the intro to the Pearl of Great price from being "a translation" to "an inspired translation". I wonder if that's the church's stance now. "Yes, the papyrus didn't translate into what Joseph Smith tranlsated. But this was an inspired tranlsation meaning God told him what to write instead of what it really said."

That's an...interesting tact.

I want to say that that's not the case, that people don't think that, but you keep telling me there are people who feel that way about the Book of Mormon. It's my understanding this is the case concerning the Book of Moses, but I've never really sat down to study the history of it. The Book of Abraham, well, I mean, I already accept that he found an ancient record of American prophets, so why not? The ancient world left all kinds of fascinating, if rare, records, so I don't have a hard time incorporating it.

Corvo this is right up your alley

https://www.facebook.com/ByuISecrets


Oh man, I don't even know if I want to know.

EDIT: Why did I click?
 

ronito

Member
I've never really seen it that way, but maybe it is due to the time in which I was raised. The curse comes down at much the same time that Lehi leaves his blessing with the children of Laman and Lemuel, which is considerably better than what the children of Nephi got. I don't have anything in the way of a great explanation for what was going on with the whole mark thing the Lord was doing, but if I had great explanations there would be no trials to this whole Mormon thing.

But I sincerely don't agree with the notion that it was all racist, as so many who are eager to decry the Book of Mormon and stamp the whole of Mormonism's history with the mark of racism. For one, we see that the only time there ever was true piece among the children of Lehi, it was because they had stopped squabbling over who was what. It does not say that people stopped to have darker or lighter skin (darker or lighter than what who can say, given it had been ages since anyone in those stories had seen anyone who wasn't ethnically related.) as it does in the much touted passage where the Lamanites somehow get white. All it does say is that there ceased to be -Ites among them.

I bring this up mostly because within the Church there is sometimes the repulsive belief that black people's spirits are white, or that anyone who isn't white becomes so in the Resurrection. I haven't ever seen a shred of evidence to support this, and I don't much care to. But also so as to avoid the unfortunate implication that ignorance of race is correct. On such an issue I don't believe the Book of Mormon comments.

But people do go about muddying up the issue of race in the Book of Mormon. Were the Lamanites and Nephites physically distinct? Originally, we must assume so. That's what the text says. But by the Book of Alma the issue is more complex than that. You have Lamanites who repent and dwell among the Nephites as Ammonites or Anti-Nephi-Lehites. You have Zoramites heading over to become Lamanites. You have all manner of mixing going on from that point until 4th Nephi, when they cease to have any manner of "ites" at all for 300 years. So while Nephite and Lamanite are originally ethnic terms, by the end of the Book of Mormon, its very much more a matter of political standing. Especially AFTER 4th Nephi, where people decide for themselves whether they will be Nephite or Lamanite.

We could go back and forth about what "dark skin" means in the context of the text as well, but that would be a semantic argument without point. The fact is that it does say that, and I can see why people would interpret that as such, but to myself, I do not believe that the Book of Mormon supports racism. Judging people based on their appearance is repeatedly reviled in the Book of Mormon.

Well that's the thing though it's easy not to feel it's racist when it's not your race. I remember having this discussion with my wife when I was still active in the church and she said largely the same thing. Then I said, ok well let's replace with dark skin with white skin and visa versa and after a bit she was like "Oh yeah, I can see why you'd think this is racist".

And yes there's the whole thing about how they were the most righteous when they weren't aware of that. But you leave out that teaching that the lamanites turned white as they became more righteous. And this was even taught until Kimball's day. Over and over again the history of the church paints a picture of race as something that needs to be overcome. And yes a lot of it comes from the leadership instead of the book to say that it's not in the book is glossing over it at best.

I want to say that that's not the case, that people don't think that, but you keep telling me there are people who feel that way about the Book of Mormon. It's my understanding this is the case concerning the Book of Moses, but I've never really sat down to study the history of it. The Book of Abraham, well, I mean, I already accept that he found an ancient record of American prophets, so why not? The ancient world left all kinds of fascinating, if rare, records, so I don't have a hard time incorporating it.
Well the question remains as to why they made the change from "a translation" to "an inspired translation". I do think this has to do with the fact that there are serious issues with the book of abraham including the fact that every egyptologist that has reviewed the facsimile has pointed out that it's just a funerary text and have provided other remarkably similar examples. Many apologists have tried to find a way to explain it and the only tactic that makes any kind of "sense" is that "Yes it's a funerary text but God used it as a vehicle to open up Joseph to revelations about Abraham."

I get the whole "well Joseph Smith could translate one ancient text why not another?" I think that the church is worried about members looking at the issues with the BoA and the kinderhook plates and start thinking the opposite "Well if he faked one why not another?"


Oh man, I don't even know if I want to know.

EDIT: Why did I click?
If the Awesome fan art thread has shown us anything it's that you'll click. You'll always click.
 

CorvoSol

Member
Well that's the thing though it's easy not to feel it's racist when it's not your race. I remember having this discussion with my wife when I was still active in the church and she said largely the same thing. Then I said, ok well let's replace with dark skin with white skin and visa versa and after a bit she was like "Oh yeah, I can see why you'd think this is racist".

And yes there's the whole thing about how they were the most righteous when they weren't aware of that. But you leave out that teaching that the lamanites turned white as they became more righteous. And this was even taught until Kimball's day. Over and over again the history of the church paints a picture of race as something that needs to be overcome. And yes a lot of it comes from the leadership instead of the book to say that it's not in the book is glossing over it at best.

Fair enough, but I still don't think the Book of Mormon advocates racism. It simply doesn't make sense in the context of the narrative.

Well the question remains as to why they made the change from "a translation" to "an inspired translation". I do think this has to do with the fact that there are serious issues with the book of abraham including the fact that every egyptologist that has reviewed the facsimile has pointed out that it's just a funerary text and have provided other remarkably similar examples. Many apologists have tried to find a way to explain it and the only tactic that makes any kind of "sense" is that "Yes it's a funerary text but God used it as a vehicle to open up Joseph to revelations about Abraham."

I get the whole "well Joseph Smith could translate one ancient text why not another?" I think that the church is worried about members looking at the issues with the BoA and the kinderhook plates and start thinking the opposite "Well if he faked one why not another?"

I won't deny that even I find the whole Book of Abraham hard to understand, but the transition from "translation" to "inspired translation" seems innocuous to me. Adding "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" to the covers of Books of Mormon was done, but it doesn't have any secret significance.

If the Awesome fan art thread has shown us anything it's that you'll click. You'll always click.

Did you see the werediaper? You need to see the werediaper. You cannot take that on faith alone.
 

Thaedolus

Member
I want to say that that's not the case, that people don't think that, but you keep telling me there are people who feel that way about the Book of Mormon. It's my understanding this is the case concerning the Book of Moses, but I've never really sat down to study the history of it. The Book of Abraham, well, I mean, I already accept that he found an ancient record of American prophets, so why not? The ancient world left all kinds of fascinating, if rare, records, so I don't have a hard time incorporating it.

Oh man, I don't even know if I want to know.

EDIT: Why did I click?

It's a well-known fact that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon while staring into a hat containing a seer stone, while the golden plates were stored somewhere "nearby" (like buried outside). I sort of feel like had the church always been open about the true method of the Book of Mormon's creation, I wouldn't have been so shocked/pissed to find out the Book of Abraham was "revealed" in the same manner...even though Joseph Smith never claimed that he was dictating from spiritual revelation, but that he was literally translating texts into English. And he claimed the papyri were written by Abraham's hand...and from what I've read the contents of the funerary scroll didn't come about until hundreds of years after Abraham...

Yeah I think he just made the whole thing up.

I won't deny that even I find the whole Book of Abraham hard to understand, but the transition from "translation" to "inspired translation" seems innocuous to me. Adding "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" to the covers of Books of Mormon was done, but it doesn't have any secret significance.

The difference is it seems to be qualifying the statement. It's not really a translation any more if it's an "inspired translation." One means the text literally was translated, the other has a more ambiguous meaning. I don't think it's innocuous at all. Changing the intro from stating the Lamanites were "the principle ancestors" to "among the ancestors" wasn't innocuous either. Both are signs of backpedaling from claims that evidence has now shown to be false. Conversely, adding "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" is just a move to reaffirm that Mormons are indeed Christians, I don't think it changes what the church has always claimed about the Book of Mormon. I almost feel like the multitude of small, insignificant edits on the list are there to just cover the more substantial ones that ex-Mormons are finding and pointing out.
 

CorvoSol

Member
The difference is it seems to be qualifying the statement. It's not really a translation any more if it's an "inspired translation." One means the text literally was translated, the other has a more ambiguous meaning. I don't think it's innocuous at all. Changing the intro from stating the Lamanites were "the principle ancestors" to "among the ancestors" wasn't innocuous either. Both are signs of backpedaling from claims that evidence has now shown to be false. Conversely, adding "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" is just a move to reaffirm that Mormons are indeed Christians, I don't think it changes what the church has always claimed about the Book of Mormon. I almost feel like the multitude of small, insignificant edits on the list are there to just cover the more substantial ones that ex-Mormons are finding and pointing out.

I can see why the transition from "principle" to "among" would be considered significant, but I really cannot say that the addition of "inspired" means as much to me. This could, however, be because I am not as acquainted with the history of the Book of Abraham, I don't know. Beyond this, though, I worry that I'll begin arguing the semantics, and as that's a waste of everyone's time, I'll simply conclude that I haven't a good rebuttal at this time.

On an unrelated note, Elder Bednar was on campus last night. I didn't go, because I'm a horrible person (I have an excuse, which I feel is somewhat legitimate, but I also feel that any excuse, no matter how praiseworthy, weakens the character of a man.), but I do think it would've been cool to go. I went last year, when Elder Perry was on campus, and that was a fantastic night. It's one thing for me, I think, to watch them on TV during General Conference, and quite another to be there in person when an Apostle is speaking. It's always a moving experience for me to be in the room.

On yet another unrelated note, one of my roommates showed me the BYUI secrets page again yesterday, and you know, internet anonymity or no, sometimes I think some things just don't bear saying. Not like, things which we repress because they're socially unacceptable, but just because they're like, I dunno, not worth saying.

Still, it's an interesting concept. I don't know if it's a one I agree with, this airing of laundry anonymously, but then, I can't say I'm above it. Goodness knows I've done pretty much that here in this thread more than once.
 

Thaedolus

Member
On an unrelated note, Elder Bednar was on campus last night. I didn't go, because I'm a horrible person (I have an excuse, which I feel is somewhat legitimate, but I also feel that any excuse, no matter how praiseworthy, weakens the character of a man.), but I do think it would've been cool to go. I went last year, when Elder Perry was on campus, and that was a fantastic night. It's one thing for me, I think, to watch them on TV during General Conference, and quite another to be there in person when an Apostle is speaking. It's always a moving experience for me to be in the room.

Dude don't think about it that way. If you had something to do, you had something to do and you're not to be reprimanded for having a life outside of the church. It may sound weak coming from an apostate, but I was a true believer once and beat myself up for the same stuff. I can tell you though that your heavenly father does not expect you to spend every free moment studying the scriptures or listening to conference talks. Take it from a wise old sage in his late 20s: be happy with yourself for all the things you do right, don't nitpick yourself to death for the things you feel you could improve upon.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
One thing to keep in mind about the Book of Abraham is that the archaeological and linguistic world was busy cracking ancient Egyptian in the early 19th century after the rediscovery of the Rosetta Stone. A full understanding of the language was decades in the making, and Joseph Smith's contemporaries weren't really privy to it.

Thing is, our understanding of ancient Egyptian is pretty good now, and independent translations of the papyri used for the Book of Abraham (they are still around) are not only perfectly possible, they've been done, and the contents are not unique.
 

Yoritomo

Member
One thing to keep in mind about the Book of Abraham is that the archaeological and linguistic world was busy cracking ancient Egyptian in the early 19th century after the rediscovery of the Rosetta Stone. A full understanding of the language was decades in the making, and Joseph Smith's contemporaries weren't really privy to it.

Thing is, our understanding of ancient Egyptian is pretty good now, and independent translations of the papyri used for the Book of Abraham (they are still around) are not only perfectly possible, they've been done, and the contents are not unique.

That's what they're trying to subtly address with the change. This acknowledges that the papyri didn't contain the text of the Book of Abraham. All of these little changes in wording from the Official Declaration 2, Inspired Translation of BoA, Principle Ancestors, were actually huge shifts in doctrine within the church changed with a single word.

It's sort of funny to realize that Joseph Smith's restoration of the truth due to "inaccuracies" in the bible has happened right before our eyes with the Standard Works.

There is no definition of apostasy or the great apostasy that the LDS church applies to the early Christian church that does not also apply to itself.
 

Thaedolus

Member
There is no definition of apostasy or the great apostasy that the LDS church applies to the early Christian church that does not also apply to itself.

That's the beauty of having a living prophet with continual revelation: your church can't apostatize! It's just that new eternal truths have been revealed to replace the previous eternal truths. And done so at a snail's pace to avoid rocking the boat.
 

CorvoSol

Member
Dude don't think about it that way. If you had something to do, you had something to do and you're not to be reprimanded for having a life outside of the church. It may sound weak coming from an apostate, but I was a true believer once and beat myself up for the same stuff. I can tell you though that your heavenly father does not expect you to spend every free moment studying the scriptures or listening to conference talks. Take it from a wise old sage in his late 20s: be happy with yourself for all the things you do right, don't nitpick yourself to death for the things you feel you could improve upon.

I don't know that I find it nitpicking. I find it more the check against my laziness. I did have something to do, it's true, and Mary and Martha-ing it won't help much, but I dislike making excuses in general now. I dunno, just something I feel is applicable to myself.

We had an interesting discussion in New Testament class today. It was about the Lost Lamb and Prodigal Son etcetera, and of course this naturally lead into the topic of reactivation. What was nice to see was that many present seemed to understand that if you weren't going to be sincerely interested in being someone's friend, you shouldn't waste their time with your half-hearted "doing it because someone said I have to" fellowshipping. It got me thinking about "What not to do when with inactive members of the Church" sort of topic.

I do think, though, that it isn't revisionism that poses the great threat to the Church. I can't deny that there is a push by some to simply sweep under the rug the missteps of the past, but that's not what I'd say is the danger.

I would sooner say it is the codifying. I suppose it makes little sense to some, that I would prefer a less-defined, more up in the air way of doing things, but the ambiguity of things I find better because it allows for flexibility, whereas I fear that some people in the Church are to the point of asking "Lord, until how many times shall I forgive my brother? Seven?" I don't know, that was my worry, though, was that at times there is simply too much of the mechanical against which the Lord and His Apostles warn. No doubt they understand that this is the inherent danger of organization, but still, that I would label my fear.

Revisionism, to me, is not as large as it must appear to others. These are not the Dark Ages, and you cannot cover things up so well now. The inconsistencies don't bother me either, because if it was all consistent and coherent it would be simply too damn easy. Faith, convenient as a fallback as it is "I don't know, that I have to take on faith" is a necessary part of the whole process. It shouldn't serve as a shield from which we can turn away our eyes permanently from everything we don't wish to understand, but it serves as a good, solid bridge for us to walk while we don't, I feel.

But the mechanical "No passing the Sacrament without a white shirt and tie" worries me immensely more.
 

CorvoSol

Member
A previous engagement is not an excuse. Its a prior obligation. Short of God himself asking, don't worry about it.

Technically, going and seeing Elder Bednar was the previous engagement. Helping my friend with his homework is the Ox in the mire.
 

ronito

Member
Bednar didn't know the difference. I'd guess the friend most definitely did. I'd say the right choice was made.

This is a very good way to put it.

In other news. YOUTUBE wars!!

First a mormon egyptologist Kerry Muhlestien puts out a bunch of videos about the world is wrong about the book of abraham. Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcqbcvKgDe8

Which essentially inflamed everyone everywhere and they've started putting out videos about he's wrong. Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLa8HYsfpM&feature=youtu.be

Personally I don't think apologists do themselves any favors by tying themselves up in knots like this. In the day and age of the internet if you're a scholar making scholarly claims on the internet you should have it peer reviewed first. Because it'll get peer reviewed anyway. Except it'll happen in public.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Personally I don't think apologists do themselves any favors by tying themselves up in knots like this. In the day and age of the internet if you're a scholar making scholarly claims on the internet you should have it peer reviewed first. Because it'll get peer reviewed anyway. Except it'll happen in public.
This is functionally equivalent to saying "don't publish".
 

ronito

Member
This is functionally equivalent to saying "don't publish".

Not at all.
You can publish what you want in your apologetic journals and all that.
But don't go on Youtube making all these scholarly claims without having any kind of intellectual review/rigor.
 

ronito

Member
Haha, but you said "peer reviewed", and that wouldn't really apply in a scholarly sense.

Well to be fair this wouldn't be an issue if the guy had posted something in an apologetic journal. In fact he's done it many times.

Then people would've just been like "it's an apologist guy doing the apologist thing." But to go on Youtube and be like "Egyptologists all know about the abrahamic traditions, etc, etc." with the title "Egyptologist PhD" under your name you gotta know that other egyptologists will come out and say "Nu-uh girlfriend!"
 

Thaedolus

Member
Well to be fair this wouldn't be an issue if the guy had posted something in an apologetic journal. In fact he's done it many times.

Then people would've just been like "it's an apologist guy doing the apologist thing." But to go on Youtube and be like "Egyptologists all know about the abrahamic traditions, etc, etc." with the title "Egyptologist PhD" under your name you gotta know that other egyptologists will come out and say "Nu-uh girlfriend!"

Exactly, this is not the age where bullshit can be openly spewed without any sort of recourse. In the 90's you may have been able to go around doing local firesides and keep local areas in line by making up garbage like this, but nowadays if you're going to reach an audience, you're gonna reach the world, and that means people who know better and can easily respond to the same audience.

The church's walking back the claims in short doses like they just did ("translation" vs. "inspire translation") is a better strategy. To double down on stupidity for which there is no evidence is not.

Also the only other Muhlestein I've known in life was also a giant tool.
 

ronito

Member
Exactly, this is not the age where bullshit can be openly spewed without any sort of recourse. In the 90's you may have been able to go around doing local firesides and keep local areas in line by making up garbage like this, but nowadays if you're going to reach an audience, you're gonna reach the world, and that means people who know better and can easily respond to the same audience.

The church's walking back the claims in short doses like they just did ("translation" vs. "inspire translation") is a better strategy. To double down on stupidity for which there is no evidence is not.

Also the only other Muhlestein I've known in life was also a giant tool.

Yeah, while I'll admit when I first heard it I thought the "inspired translation" was a lame cop out the more I think about it the more I think it's the only way to claim things hold up.

I remember years and years ago when I started doubting I contacted Jeff Lindsay (noted Mormon apologist) about some of my doubts. I contacted him about a bunch of stuff and he had talking points for all of them. And while they varied for salient to possible but improbable they did at least set my mind at ease for a while except for the BoA stuff when he replied that it couldn't have been the facsimile that the church showed because a section of it was blue and in some letter somewhere some church historical figure said it had a lot of red on it. I replied back with "Is that really the best that can be done? that seems a pretty weak defense." He never replied.

At first I thought the "inspired tranlsation" tact was silly but perhaps it really is the best way forward.
 

CorvoSol

Member
So Kotaku posted an article about how well Mormons were dealt with in Fallout New Vegas

really I feel that they didn't really demonize mormons and just made them like other people. I don't particularly feel they went above and beyond or anything.

Still if you wanna read

http://kotaku.com/5988935/im-a-mormon-pop-culture-often-mocks-my-faith-but-fallout-treated-it-right

Not demonizing Mormons and making them just like other people is what passes for going above and beyond in treatment, I'd say.

Not demonizing a religion and making it sound human is also what passes for going above and beyond in video games in general.
 
Why do I always scroll down to the comments...

Ugh.

@Ronito - based on what I read in the article, it does sound like someone at Obsidian did research or has a background and put that into the game - which among today's games is remarkable (for any religion / religious topics).
 

ronito

Member
Why do I always scroll down to the comments...

Ugh.

@Ronito - based on what I read in the article, it does sound like someone at Oblivion did research or has a background and put that into the game - which among today's games is remarkable (for any religion / religious topics).

Yeah, I guess I'm being too hard on it. I was really interested because I never really liked the whole Fallout thing (too gory for me) and seeing the title I thought "Oh maybe they really got it!" And instead I read about how they got a few names right, didn't demonize the people and knew about missionaries. I guess it's true, better than most games handle it but I was hoping for more.

Also I was like "What? I didn't read the comments what's wrong with WHOA!!!"
 

CorvoSol

Member
Well, obviously, we have a rapist peeping tom in Lincoln Park campus. I guess they caught him, but he was apparently peeping on the girls in my complex. Which I suppose is what they get for having those MASSIVE windows on the girls' apartments (kidding, but seriously, those windows are a liability in the zombie apocalypse.)

I'm always the last one to know about these things. Still, I suppose it was more straightforward than the serial huggers roaming the town last semester.

Oh, and apparently there used to be a rapper on campus, who went by the stage name of Danger Mouth. And one of my professors defeated him in a rap battle, in which he performed under the name Safety Mouth and rapped exclusively about safety. I wish I could be making this up.
 

CorvoSol

Member
Rexburg is the most godforsaken place on earth. I weep for those stuck there.

At least I can purchase Guarana' here. And the girls are easy on the eyes. And the streambeds would've been great fun to play in as a kid.

The real problem is that snowball fights are outlawed. Town has an amazing amount of snow, utterly wasted because errybody is afraid to cut loose and have fun.

I'm about to Footloose this stuff.
 
At least I can purchase Guarana' here. And the girls are easy on the eyes. And the streambeds would've been great fun to play in as a kid.

The real problem is that snowball fights are outlawed. Town has an amazing amount of snow, utterly wasted because errybody is afraid to cut loose and have fun.

I'm about to Footloose this stuff.

Wait, really? Why?
 

Fathead

Member
There are things to do outside of Rexburg, but the only things to do in the town are study, play video games, and break honor code.
 

CorvoSol

Member
There are things to do outside of Rexburg, but the only things to do in the town are study, play video games, and break honor code.

It'd be a lot easier to keep if it didn't include nonsense rules like "girls cannot use the bathroom in boys' apartments and vice-versa." I mean, some apartment complexes don't even have a lounge with a bathroom, and I'm not sending a girl out into the subzero winter to hike down the block in search of a rest room.
 

Thaedolus

Member
What's the logic behind rules like that? Didn't Joseph Smith say something like give the people the commandments and allow them to govern themselves? I don't see why you can't simply have a rule for adults like "don't fornicate" and then let them figure out how to not fornicate.

I went to USU and had girls in my room and made out in bed all the time, but never violated the law of chastity...that is, until I was out of the church. Somehow a horny ass kid like me made it through two years of school and was still worthy to go on a mission. I think the excessive rules almost make getting your freak on more of an enticing prospect, like the ban on porn also makes it that much more of a powerful influence. It just seems like silly, pharisaical rules.
 
Top Bottom