Vort

Actually, pregnant women CAN fast for 24 hours without deleterious effect...but I grant that most do not. And I can't argue about the "half the ward" thing...guess I'll have to give you half a victory.

PC, you are on dangerous ground. When you spout off such beliefs, many Latter-day Saints would call you a "dry Mormon". You might be spending too much time around our bad influence. Beware! Repent!

Let's see: A: Abish, and about ten thousand more B: Brother of Jared :) or Benjamin C: Coriantumr D: ??? David is mentioned as a historical figure, but I can't think of any Book of Mormon-used names starting with D. E: Enos F: ??? Can't think of any G: Giddianhi H: Helaman I: Isabel J: Jarom K: Korihor L: Laman M: Mormon N: Nephi O: Orihah P: Pahoran Q: Queen :) Can't think of any others R: Riplakish S: Sariah T: Teomner U, V, W, X, Y: Can't think of any Z: Zenos So D (not including the non-Book of Mormon king David), F, Q, U, V, W, X, and Y are letters I can't find any Book of Mormon names for.

Sure, I understand that, Clarity. I am not questioning your intent, which is clear enough. Rather, I am wondering about your phrase "standard sunday school understanding". In my experience, the standard Sunday School understanding is profound indeed. The fact that you used the phrase suggests that you have not had the same experience. Since I have heard others use a similar phrase, that suggests that, for many people, Sunday School does not provide much of an enriching spiritual experience. Since my own experience is exactly counter to that, I am wondering what most people's experience is. Do you, like Clarity, find Sunday School to be surface-level and lacking in substance? Or, like me, do you find it to be a doctrinal and scriptural feast?

lost, surely you realize that you are in a very tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of people can go 24 hours without food or drink and suffer nothing worse than irritability and a headache. While your counsel may be true in a literal sense, it can easily be misconstrued. Better in my opinion to reaffirm that a full fast is a 24-hour fast than to start building in excuses for why it is not necessary. Most people have a hard enough time disciplining themselves to learn how to fast for 24 hours; they don't need to get the (false) impression that simply wishing to fast for 24 hours is sufficient. This is not about impressing God enough that he decides to send you some blessings. This is about getting the great spiritual (and physical) benefits of fasting by disciplining oneself to actually go without food or drink for 24 hours. Admittedly, some (like yourself) are unable to do so. But just because some are physically unable to exercise without exposing themselves to grave danger, does that mean the rest of us should sit on our fat rear ends the talk about how wonderfully beneficial exercising is, but you know, my heart is in the right place and that's what really matters with all this exercise business anyway?

This is a question of mechanics, akin to asking, "How does prayer increase our spiritual sensitivity?" It is not a bad question per se, but it is probably a useless question. We are not given to understand most of the mechanics of spiritual things. Perhaps one day, but not today.

Very unreasonable, in my opinion. The author of Hebrews very clearly states that he is talking about: "...those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come..." In my view, no reasonable and honest reader can assert that this verse is talking about people who merely "assented to an idea, to joining a group of good people, but [who] never truly embraced Jesus". Such is a shameless twisting of the plain meaning of words.

Clarity-over-agreement has started a thread on fasting that begins as follows: I'm curious about Clarity's emphasized portion above (and to be clear, the emphasis is mine), which I have read or heard many times over the years, often on this very site. I'm wondering: Is this merely an expression understood by some people in the Church to mean "childish, immature, surface-level thinking" and not actually meant to be taken at face value? Or do people really have such useless Sunday School classes? My ward's gospel doctrine class, which I have always thought of as relatively standard in the Church (perhaps somewhat more interesting than the norm, but that's just because I know and love most of those who participate), involves a true and often deep discussion of such principles. The statement "We fast because it hurts and the pain is good for us" (as suggested in Clarity's point #2, "If Fasting is a sacrifice of bodily discomfort than why dont we participate in inflicting pain upon oneself as a form of sacrifice?") would not survive two seconds in my ward's gospel doctrine class. On the contrary, the discussion in our gospel doctrine class would begin with the very questions Clarity asks, then proceed from there.

This post was not written by Vort, but by someone else of the same name. Also, I am not here. I am somewhere else.

If you live in a culture where meals are taken three times a day, and if the time it takes you to eat is negligible, then a two-meal fast IS a 24-hour fast. And yes, fasting suggestions have always been for 24 hours. IMO, fasting for less than 24 hours may certainly bring benefit and be more than just going without food, but the full fast brings more personal growth.

If this is so, then the "eternal security" apologists have no claim on being taken seriously. We might as well be talking about flat-earthers, moon-landing conspiracy theorists, or Obama-as-messiah-worshipers.

I do not understand the "unconditional security" position, PC. That is, I understand how you have explained it, but I do not understand how any person claiming to believe the New Testament can hold to it. I realize that you, like the Latter-day Saints, also don't believe it, but you do seem to have a better handle on the mindset than I do. Given that, can you explain how a believer in this doctrine would explain Hebrews 6:4-6? For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Does not this verse teach openly and overtly that those "once enlightened" may yet indeed still fall away, and that such cannot again be "renew[ed]...again unto repentance"? How do the believers in the "unconditional security" doctrine you describe deal with this verse?

Thanks, Connie. You're sweet. I still think you're right.

You are probably right.

Justice, Here is a complete list of every time Mormon uses the phrase "these plates" in his abridgment (as opposed to quoting someone else using the phrase), along with an explanation of the meaning of the phrase "these plates": W of M 3 ...I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates... W of M 4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me... W of M 6 ...I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record... W of M 10 ...after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin... Here Mormon is talking about the plates that he just got finished inserting into his compilation, and that we just got through reading; that is, the Small Plates of Nephi. Mormon 2:18 And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations... Here Mormon is referring to his abridgment. Mormon 6:6 ...I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni. Here Mormon is speaking specifically about the plates that hold his abridgment -- that is, Joseph Smith's "Golden Plates". Other usages of "these plates" outside the Small Plates: Benjamin refers to the Brass Plates as "these plates" (Mosiah 1:3-4)Alma the younger refers to the Brass Plates, and possibly the Large Plates of Nephi, as "these plates" (Alma 37:3, 9)Limhi refers to the plates found in Desolation as "these plates" (Mosiah 8:19)That, I believe, constitutes an exhaustive listing of the use of the term "these plates" outside the Small Plates. As you can see, it in no sense refers uniquely to the Small Plates. In fact, it does not refer at all to the Small Plates, except when Mormon is talking about the Small Plates immediately after their inclusion. The only other place that "these plates" refers to the Small Plates is on the Small Plates themselves. So your insistence that Mormon wrote on the Small Plates because he said "these plates", then saying that "these plates" must mean the Small Plates because that's what Mormon was writing on, is circular. Circular reasoning is generally considered a logical fallacy. That is not relevant, Justice. We already know that those who wrote on the Small Plates called them "these plates". That is obvious. It is also obvious that Mormon is referring to them as "these plates" because they are the plates he is talking about. It's not one instance, Justice. See above. Reread it. He doesn't say "upon these plates". He said "I chose these things, to finish my record upon them". That is, he is finishing his record of this part of Nephite history with the information from the Small Plates. No. As Amaleki made clear, the Small Plates were full. Mormon is not writing on them. No. He was about to give his son the abridgment that he was then doing. Once he finished the abridgment, for which he had spent the large majority of his life researching, planning, and executing and the realization of which he was now within a short time, perhaps only months or even weeks, of finishing, he was going to give it all to Moroni.

That's not true. I don't see why it needs to come to this, but I'll show you how he refers to the plates. I'm not going to include his commentary within his abridgment of the Large Plates, just his direct unabridged writings. I will start by showing that Nephi makes the same distinctions, and the other writers of the Small Plates. 1 Nephi 9: 1-5 1 And all these things did my father see, and hear, and speak, as he dwelt in a tent, in the valley of Lemuel, and also a great many more things, which cannot be written upon these plates. 2 And now, as I have spoken concerning these plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; therefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi. 3 Nevertheless, I have received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people. 4 Upon the other plates should be engraven an account of the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people; wherefore these plates are for the more part of the ministry; and the other plates are for the more part of the reign of the kings and the wars and contentions of my people. 5 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not. 1 Nephi 19: 2-5 2 And I knew not at the time when I made them that I should be commanded of the Lord to make these plates; wherefore, the record of my father, and the genealogy of his fathers, and the more part of all our proceedings in the wilderness are engraven upon those first plates of which I have spoken; wherefore, the things which transpired before I made these plates are, of a truth, more particularly made mention upon the first plates. 3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord. 4 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did make a record upon the other plates, which gives an account, or which gives a greater account of the wars and contentions and destructions of my people. And this have I done, and commanded my people what they should do after I was gone; and that these plates should be handed down from one generation to another, or from one prophet to another, until further commandments of the Lord. 5 And an account of my making these plates shall be given hereafter; and then, behold, I proceed according to that which I have spoken; and this I do that the more sacred things may be kept for the knowledge of my people. Nephi continues throughout his writins to refer to his 2 sets of plates as "these plates" and the "other plates." True enough. When Nephi writes on the Small Plates, he refers to them as "these plates", which is of course entirely logical. But since Mormon wasn't writing on the Small Plates -- which, as we know, were full -- then when he says "these plates", he generally isn't talking about the Small Plates. In at least one case he is, because the clear antecedent to "these" is the Small Plates. But generally, he is either talking about "the plates to which I most recently referred" or else "the plates holding the abridgment that I am currently compiling." Your point about the 116 pages is disputable. I believe it is indeed a sufficient number of pages to hold the history from Lehi to Benjamin, as abridged by Mormon and translated by Joseph Smith. If you want to discuss this, I would ask you to please respond to the arguments I already made before proceeding further. Justice, you're obviously worked up over this. I know you believe you have received a divine testimony of the truthfulness of your scriptural gloss. Please understand that I respect your right to believe that, but also that your testimony in that point does not mean anything to me. I simply am not going to believe in a (to my eyes very obviously flawed and deficient) scriptural interpretation just because someone on the internet bears me his testimony that God has revealed to him that's what it means.

It is to me, sister! It's perhaps significant to note that this was Mosiah's eldest son, almost certainly born before those men left Zarahemla. I would suppose that Ammon was an admired friend of king Mosiah II.

So then, you have adjusted your understanding of the words to fit your newly-conceived notion. That does not convince me that your new idea is correct. Why? It's not "illogical" at all. The book of Alma contains a lot more information than only about Alma II, as do, resepctively, the books of Helaman, 3 Nephi, and 4 Nephi. It would appear that Nephite history ("the Large Plates") were kept in separate and sequential books named for the book's originator or, perhaps, most important prophet. It would make perfect sense that Nephi, in making the first of these books, would call it by his father's name. Seriously, please explain what is "illogical" about that. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I must confess that I don't see how "logic" enters into the discussion at all. That was the Small Plates, kept by Jacob and his descendants. The pattern of the Large Plates, as possibly reflected in the rest of the Book of Mormon, appears to be much different. In any case, the book of Omni defies your argument and supports the other interpretation, since Omni was responsible for only a small part of that book. Doubtless the book of Lehi bore the history of Lehi's life, as well. By the way, your assertion that "some [of our translations of Mormon's redaction of books of the Large Plates are] easily 116 written pages or more" is incorrect. Only the book of Alma approaches this length. The entire printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon was only 465 pages long, including the testimonies of the witnesses. Lehi to king Benjamin constitutes less than 500 years of history. The Small Plates of Nephi, which cover exactly the same period (but include extensive inserts of non-Lehite history such as Isaiah's writings) take pretty much the same number of pages in the printer's manuscript. Given Mormon's uneven adaption of parts of the record into his abridgment, it is completely believable that the Book of Lehi could be written out in 116 pages. (I have not been able to find out if "116 pages" means 116 sheets of paper, or both sides of 58 sheets of paper. If the former, then the Book of Lehi would have been almost double the length of the Small Plates translation, and thus approximately the same length as the rest of the Book of Mormon from Mosiah to Moroni.) Justice, please don't bear your testimony of the truthfulness of your exegesis. It's not really proper, and frankly it's a bit embarrassing. As is your right. But it's my quiz, so I get to give the answer key. :)

#8 Special High Priest question: Name at least five instances when Lehi's descendants fell unconscious in response to divine interactions or miracles. Extra 10 minutes of nap time given during high priest group meeting for naming eight or more instances. #10 Third Quorum of Seventy level: Tell within ten years how long the Nephites' reign of judges lasted. Sorry, Justice, I'm not seeing how your arguments deal with these.

Justice, what is the antecedent of "these few plates"? Answer: The plates that constitute the Book of Mormon, not merely the Small Plates of Nephi. This is clear in context. Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that, in his abridgment, he cannot cover even a significant fraction ("a hundredth part") of the record of the Nephites. His abridgment is the barest sampling of the extensive history kept by the Nephite kings and prophets -- few plates, indeed, compared with the massive amount of Nephite history kept by the kings and the prophets. In this matter, it is worthwhile to note that Brigham Young testified that Oliver Cowdery told him that, when he finished with the translation, Joseph returned the gold plates to a cave in the hill Cumorah that contained, among other things, "many wagon loads" of plates. By comparison, the record of the Book of Mormon, no larger than a small pillow and no heavier than fifty pounds, represented few plates, indeed. You are getting hung up on an inconsequential point, Justice. Perhaps you are correct and Mormon has, in fact, completed his abridgement, and he's now handing the plates off to Moroni. I think that's probably a misreading of things, but it's certainly possible. So what? It says nothing about whether Mormon was actually inscribing letters on the Small Plates. He was not; that much is perfectly clear from all that has been said before. Mormon is handing off "these few plates" -- that is to say, what we call "the golden plates" from which the Book of Mormon was translated -- to his son. Those "few plates" doubtless included the Small Plates, or at least a transcript of them, but it included the rest of Mormon's redaction as well, and apparently included some blanks for Moroni to give a synopsis of Ether's record and some final words. (Note that these "few plates" also contained plates that were sealed to Joseph Smith, and that apparently constituted fully two-thirds of the plates, so that our Book of Mormon is probably only about a third of the actual content of the gold plates -- and that third is including the lost Book of Lehi.) My friend, this is condescension. You may not mean it as such, but so it is. Perhaps the reason I don't see it is because it is not there to be seen. Because it is not there. Mormon is very clearly not "finishing his record on the Small Plates." I believe you have misread what is written here. Fair enough, they can. I don't know which ones 8 and 10 are, but I'll go look them up and count to figure it out. That is, they will agree with you. Right? Justice, do you truly not see the problematic attitude in saying, "I am sure that any intelligent, honest, open-minded person will agree with me"? It was certainly not a lack of smileys, Justice. It was the whole attitude that anyone intelligent and insightful enough would naturally agree with your point of view. I have my opinions, some of them quite firm, but I acknowledge that informed and intelligent parties might disagree with my exegeses, timelines, and historical interpretations. Huh? Why would talking about BYU profs agreeing with me tip me off that you're only joking?

Under the leadership of Zeniff and during the reign of Benjamin, a sizeable group of Nephites left Zarahemla in an attempt to return to "inherit" the land of Nephi. A couple of generations later, some men set out from Zarahemla in search of the descendants of these "lost" Nephites, by permission of Benjamin's son, king Mosiah. Is there any evidence (aside from the bare fact that they were allowed to go) that any of these men might have had a position of special influence with the king?

Perfect! Follow-up: c. Given that Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni spent a significant portion of their young adult lives among the Lamanites, did Mosiah have any grandchildren? :)

Two-parter: How long did the sons of Mosiah spend among the Lamanites?What brought them back to the Nephites?

The Book of Mormon printer's manuscript contains about 463 pages. Today's Book of Mormon contains roughly 532 pages (iirc, which I probably do not). That works out to be around 1 1/6 typeset pages for each manuscript page. Now, I do not know for certain that the Book of Lehi was written on the same type of paper or at the same word density: One could surmise that the printer's manuscript might have been written more tightly than the original, and so (for example) a page of manuscript might only have produced a page of typesetting. I don't know how many pages the original contained, and unfortunately most of that has been destroyed. But based on the above, I think it would be safe to guess that 116 pages of manuscript would have produced somewhere around 125 or so pages of typesetting. This number is fluid, depending on how many footnotes there would be and such. We can probably pretty safely guess at between 100 and 150 pages. A pretty good chunk, roughly the same length as our present Small Plates translation -- perhaps unsurprising, since it covers the same time period, albeit with a much different focus.

:) Several people on this forum will be only too happy to inform you how deficient my logic is.