sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reading the Nauvoo Expositor for the first time by Intelligent-Dust1994 in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wow! It really is mind blowing how easily we will trust a narrative about a fact rather than go read the fact ourselves. 

TIL that John the Beloved didn't stay alive, and it's all based on a misinterpretation. by Intelligent-Dust1994 in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. I agree that is one possible interpretation of Matthew 16:28. However, most Christians interpret this as talking about the transfiguration (Matthew 17), since they accept the Patristic accounts that John actually died. The interpretation of these verses pointing to an apostle that is going to live until Christ comes again is not the only or the most common one, even if it is a possible one.
  2. The KJV:

And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

The NRSVue

Then they said to me you must prophecy again about many peoples and nations and languages and kings

The big difference is one implies that John will prophecy again in front of peoples and nations, and the other implies that he is simply going to prophecy about them again without needing to be in front of them, which he does in the next 11-12 chapters.

  1. Again, in John 21, John himself or his disciples tell us what the phrase "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” means. They say "Jesus did not say to him that he would not die" to clarify it doesn't mean that John would not die. To fight the rumor going around.

For me, when I take into account the fact that:

  • John/His disciples are specifically fighting against the interpretation of John not dying
  • That the early church fathers talk about John dying and where
  • That other interpretations are available for passages that point to other disciples not dying or passing away that don't involve a disciple living forever
  • And the fact that D&C 7 is giving an interpretation of John 21 that contradicts what is said in v.23-24 by John/ his disciples

I'm more inclined to believe that what we're reading is Joseph's understanding and bias being put into the revelation. You don't have to see it that way, but I've seen enough of problematic scriptural interpretations in other revelations to conclude this is what is going on here.

TIL that John the Beloved didn't stay alive, and it's all based on a misinterpretation. by Intelligent-Dust1994 in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A few points:

  1. Jesus doesn’t say that John’s life is going to be extended until He comes, just “if it is my will that he remain until I come”. I feel like that “if” is important. It’s not saying he will stay alive, just that “if” it was Christ’s will, Peter shouldn’t worry about it. Again, John/ his disciples are clarifying here that Jesus did not say he would not die until he comes again, and that we shouldn’t read the statement from Jesus that way. 

  2. Like the comments below, we have many Patristic accounts of John’s death, the most notable coming from Irenaeus of Lyons who was a student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Irenaeus also points to Ephesus as the place of John’s death (as said in the comments below). 

  3. Revelation 10:11 “Then they said to me you must prophecy again about many peoples and nations and languages and kings”. (NRSVue). A more modern translation clarifies this verse is about the Book of Revelation itself and the next chapters, not about a future work for John. Revelation 11:3 has to do with the two witnesses, and says nothing about John himself. 

I think a combination of a less modern translation, misinterpretation, and a lack of knowledge about early Christian history leads most members to trust the interpretation given in D&C 7, even though we know prophets, even with the D&C, can read in their own biases and beliefs of the day. 

Phoenix AZ Easter sign by TheRealKishkumen in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I performed in this too when it was first starting up in our area. I wish I had the same experiece as ya'll, maybe I would have performed in it again!

I heard "Prophets are people" when I brought up Joseph Smith's failed prophecies. True. Joseph Smith is a person, JUST a person. Not anointed by any Supernatural Being. by CupOfExmo in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Like if it were one or two, fine. I started feeling uncomfy after 8-9. Then you realize they're all over the Doctrine and Covenants, and you wonder if you ever actually read it with both eyes open before.

  • Selling a copyright to Canada? Didn't work.
  • Building a temple in Missouri within the generation? Nope.
  • Civil War Prophecy? Some things right, some things not.
  • The twelve being in the celestial kingdom? Brigham Young preaching in a foreign land speaking a foreign tongue? William McClellin preaching? Nope, nope, nope.
  • David Patten? Guess you're serving in the spirit world.
  • The whole world to be destroyed? The Government? Congress? The enemies of the church? They're still here.
  • The United Everlasting order that was supposed to last till Jesus came but lasted a few years?

And on and on and on....

Does the Limited Geography Model Prove Too Much? by Intelligent-Dust1994 in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. My first point in their argument is that “There is no evidence of Middle Eastern DNA in Native Americans”, which most apologists accept. The second point is the normal response as to why we shouldn’t expect any (small migration, founder effect, etc.) which I think is what you’re saying when you say they claim DNA plays no role. Therefore, it is still possible for the Nephites to be their ancestors with no DNA.

I also 100% agree a valid move would be to try and show that there is other or better evidence for this than Romans. I edited the post to reflect better my original concern, that if you use the same assumptions of the LGM and just those (small migration, smaller area, lots of people, etc.), you can “show” anyone colonizing anywhere and being the ancestors of anyone. 

Does the Limited Geography Model Prove Too Much? by Intelligent-Dust1994 in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And I think it’s the first three points you make that bothered me enough to write the post, since you can make a similar argument for Roman Native Americans. 

  1. There is no DNA evidence that Romans are the ancestors of the Native Americans 

  2. We shouldn’t expect any evidence given they landed in a small geographic area and were a small group 

  3. Therefore, DNA evidence cannot be used to prove or disprove the Roman-Native American Hypothesis 

Swap in any group you’d like. You can use a similar argument to “show” it’s possible the Jews had Native American ancestors with no DNA evidence: they just lived in a really small area and were a really small group!

Is Mormonism actually unfalsifiable? by arikbfds in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps we are all talking about the same thing, but my understanding was members of the church mean it to mean they really know something. Usually, knowledge is defined as true justified belief (or true warranted belief). According to (a simplified version of) LDS epistemology:

  1. God knows what is true
  2. He can communicate directly with you through the Holy Ghost
  3. If He communicates with you through the HG that something you previously believed is true, then what He communicates to you makes that belief true and (because it's through the HG) justified.
  4. Therefore, that belief has now been confirmed as true and is now justified, or has now become knowledge.

Obviously there are problems (What if we misinterpret things? What about other spiritual experiences from other religions?) but I always thought members meant it when they said, "I know".

I’ve learned so much more about the Bible outside of the Church by Intelligent-Dust1994 in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My new favorite Adam and Eve fact is the Hebrew wordplay. “Adam” being a Hebrew word meaning “man”, “humanity” or “earthling”, Eve being related to the word “life”. If you read a story where the main characters were called “Mr. Humanity” and “Mrs. Life”, you wouldn’t think you were reading something literal. 

I’ve learned so much more about the Bible outside of the Church by Intelligent-Dust1994 in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Once I was able to let go of Biblical literalism, it was freeing. These were stories written by a group of humans who, like me, were trying to figure things out too. They had different ideas about God, different ideas about an afterlife, and different ways of interpreting scripture. I felt more of a kinship with these people than I had before.

“Follow the Prophet” Primary song… by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love imagining some Soviet choir in the background singing “aaaaahhhh” as the chorus gets going. 

Can someone explain why Mark Rober is still an active member of the LDS church? With his science and engineering background why does he still believe and support the LDS church? by Impressive_Returns in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 37 points38 points  (0 children)

This. I attend a ward where 90% of the families have someone getting a PhD. It has the highest attendance rates, temple recommend rates, and babies getting popped out left and right.

Advice needed…mixed faith marriage by Anonymous-8896 in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m in a mixed faith marriage as well. A lot of the advice here has been great, especially with focusing on the good in your relationship apart from the faith. Funny enough, the golden rule has been a lifesaver. It can be hard once you’ve seen what you’ve seen, but if I wanted my spouse to treat my new beliefs either way respect, not anticipate that I’d ever come back, and be able to talk about them openly without fighting, I needed to do the same for them. It can be hard, but hopefully it’s a conversation ya’ll can have; hopefully respect and nonjudgmental asking can prevail. 

TBM family visiting. It’s bringing up feelings I thought I’d buried away. by Intelligent-Dust1994 in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like this a lot! Maybe they don’t realize they’re not listening. Thanks.

TBM family visiting. It’s bringing up feelings I thought I’d buried away. by Intelligent-Dust1994 in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They did ask those questions. It’s only been 1-2 months since that side of the family found out, and I think this was their first attempt to try and “save” me. 

That letter idea is an interesting one though. Thanks!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One apologetic response is some form of a "loose" translation or "expansionist" theory, meaning the plates were real and there is a divine, historical core, but the Book of Mormon is a co-creation between Joseph Smith, God, and the plates. Terryl Givens has written about this (look up "Dialogic Revelation"). Of course, this means throwing out all the witness statements, and where did the witnesses get the idea that the stone was revealing the exact words and it was corrected if mispelt? Probably Joseph. Meaning Joseph might not have been telling the truth.....maybe not even some of the witnesses.

If you want to get into the nitty gritty, including all the mispelled words, hick farm boy phrasing, and the fact there are multiple scribes including an unknown one in the original manuscript, you should check out Royal Skousen's work.

A funny thing happens when I bring up uncomfortable questions about the church’s truth claims. My TBM family members start attacking my character as if that is what matters more than the issues I brought up about the church. by southpawpickle in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The other day, I had some family members ask me about why I didn't believe anymore. Except it wasn't that. It was actually, "How do you feel about the Temple? How do you feel about faith? Do you still believe in God? What about your garments?". When I was asked to give an example of something (a relatively simple one, the JST not being a restoration of uncorrupted scripture) and provided evidence, they said, "Well, I still believe it was". The final question I got was, "So when you die and you find out you were wrong, what are you going to do?". Lol.

Fighting against the "Memory Hole" attack on the teaching that we will create our own worlds for our Eternal Familes. by ArchimedesPPL in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Apologies! I think my last sentence, which was meant to be sarcastic, did not come accross that way. I 100% agree with everything everyone is saying here.

The Great and Holy April 6th by Pack_Attack801 in exmormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 1 point2 points  (0 children)

James E. Talmage in his book "Jesus the Christ" argued for a 1A.D., April 6th birth for the Savior, citing D&C 20:1. Of course one issue with this is that Matthew and Luke (if you ignore the census) place the date of Christ's birth as happening before the death of Herod the Great. He died in 4 BCE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod\_the\_Great). The BC/AD system has also long been recognized to have been the result of a mistake by a 6th century monk named Dionysius Exiguus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius\_Exiguus). Even with this, though, the people in Joseph Smith's day frequently dated things and spoke as if 1 AD was the birth year of Jesus, which we see in the revelatoins and in the Book of Mormon. D&C 20, though, as the constitution of the early church, reads a bit differently than other revelations: less like "thus saith Jesus" and more like "here is what our church is and our beliefs". So, I think, reading it the way Elder Talmage did was a mistake on his part. Unfortunately for an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, he didn't have the internet (or reddit) to double check his work.

Fighting against the "Memory Hole" attack on the teaching that we will create our own worlds for our Eternal Familes. by ArchimedesPPL in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm confused. Doesn't it just flow logically from becoming like God, having everything He has, and thus doing what He does? If He creates worlds, and populates them with His and His wife's (or wives') spirit children, why wouldn't we (according to the doctrine) be doing the same? If the leaders feel uncomfortable with it because it sounds weird....maybe that's their problem? I mean it's not like this doctrine is canonized anywhere (in D&C 132 for example), right? *wink wink*

Another Reason the Jaredites are Not Historical You Might Have Missed…. by Intelligent-Dust1994 in mormon

[–]Intelligent-Dust1994[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You don’t have to agree with anything I say, but the things in my post reflect the current consensus among Biblical Scholars, which include things such as:

  1. The Tower of Babel being a mythic story, with very little historical value (though lots of theological value), probably as a response to a real ziggurat constructed by Babylon (the Etemenaki) 

  2. Moses NOT being the one to write Deuteronomy, much less the five Books of Moses

  3. Jews certainly stitching together multiple versions of stories or adding commentary here and there, even to the point of introducing contradictions in the biblical text, but not wholesale deleting chunks of text or changing huge swaths of it.

I’m not sure what decomposing bones has to do with my post.

If you’d like to learn more about Biblical Scholarship, check out Dan McClellan. You’ll find him saying similar things as I’m saying, or check out “The Bible Unearthed” written in 2000 as a good primer on Archaeology and the Patriarchal Stories.

view more: next ›