Reputation from Connie - Page 26

Connie reacted to Vort in Linguistic Issue with Scripture January 8, 2015

We account for it by recognizing that that is the best we have. Popular autographs (that is, original documents written by the author's own hand) in an ancient context would almost certainly perish within centuries, probably decades. Aside from the slow and very expensive process of inscribing on metal plates that don't tarnish (meaning a gold alloy) or that are kept from weathering (which means centuries-long vigilance without a slipup), there simply was no way to create a durable record of any significant length. n-generation transcriptions are the very best we can hope for. There is nothing either mysterious or conspiratorial about this.

I believe the issue you raise is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as you suggest. The noun "elohim" (אֱלֹהִים) is a plural that is also used as a collective plural and a singular, where it takes a singular verb conjugation. As a singular, it appears to be a shortened form of "el elohim", or "God of Gods". (There are other theories, too.) This idea would suggest that "Elohim" was adopted as the conventional name for the Great God, or the Father God -- hence the singular verb conjugation. The point is, to bring up a poorly understood, 3,000-year-old linguistic feature in an ancient language as a basis for rejecting the authenticity of the Bible doesn't seem the most reasonable course.
If you are talking about accepting the Bible in the "sola scriptura" sense that other sectarian Christians do, you are preaching to the choir. But we accept it as scripture because, in the first place, prophets of God have told us it's scripture, and in the second place, because we have read it, studied it, pondered it, and prayed about it until we accept it by testimony.

This may be true, though you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate it.

Interestingly, the term "blind faith" does not occur in D&C 9, nor anywhere else in scripture that I am aware of. I get the distinct impression that God isn't much worried about us having "blind faith", and that he's actually a lot more concerned about us not having faith at all.

Connie got a reaction from Leah in Linguistic Issue with Scripture January 8, 2015

Verification of the Spirit is what matters.

Connie reacted to The Folk Prophet in Linguistic Issue with Scripture January 8, 2015

The Book of Mormon verifies the Bible. That's one of it's primary purposes.

Connie reacted to Just_A_Guy in What's the last book you read? January 7, 2015

Currently reading Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament. Great book, and hugely informative; but I find I can only read it in 3-4 page doses. I am simultaneously laboring through Volume 1 of The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, which is convincing me of nothing so much as what an utter ignoramus I am about the New Testament.

Connie got a reaction from Palerider in What's the last book you read? January 9, 2015

The last LDS non-fiction book i read was The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. This was such a good book for me to read. I don't consider myself too ignorant on church history, but there was something special and amazing about reading this first-hand account. It was particularly poignant through the Missouri period as he was there through it all. I learned a lot i didn't know about this man. I didn't realize what a fan he was of logic and debate, and yet he had such an innate spirituality (not that those things are mutually exclusive). I really enjoyed this book.

Connie got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in What's the last book you read? January 7, 2015

The last LDS non-fiction book i read was The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. This was such a good book for me to read. I don't consider myself too ignorant on church history, but there was something special and amazing about reading this first-hand account. It was particularly poignant through the Missouri period as he was there through it all. I learned a lot i didn't know about this man. I didn't realize what a fan he was of logic and debate, and yet he had such an innate spirituality (not that those things are mutually exclusive). I really enjoyed this book.

Connie got a reaction from Vort in Linguistic Issue with Scripture January 7, 2015

Verification of the Spirit is what matters.

Connie got a reaction from theSQUIDSTER in greek mythology, anyone? January 7, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuyus6NpfK4

Connie got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Knitting/Crafting in Church? January 7, 2015

This is an extremely good point, and a big part of the concept of reverence--showing respect and consideration toward those around you. But that also flows the other way, too--showing consideration and understanding to those who can focus better when their hands have something to do. It's a hard balancing act sometimes. Oh, the joys of "bearing each others burdens!" yet that is the covenant we have made.

Connie reacted to The Folk Prophet in Knitting/Crafting in Church? January 6, 2015

First, no one is saying that they insist others do not knit. Exhortation and insistence are not the same thing.

Second, apply this back to the temple, where undoubtedly knitting would be disallowed (insisted). Do we call the temple presidency selfish then?

I do not find it selfish to exhort people to treat with reverence that which should be treated with reverence. If they "learn" better another way is not the point at all. Moreover, it's a wrong-headed premise about how we learn at church. We don't learn from the speakers. We learn from the Spirit. It doesn't matter a whit if one learns better in most circumstances while being distracted. I am one of those. I do much better with a distraction of some sort. (I have A.D.D. rather than something like autism). But the standard learning method is not what is in question here. It isn't even relevant. The key to learning in church is the Spirit. And the Spirit's standard of enlightening our minds is clearly set, not by our mortal proclivities or other natural "needs", but by strict standards that God has laid out. These involve reverence, respect, obedience, virtue, humility, and charity. These are the requirements of learning by the Spirit. And these, therefore, are the exhortations I have for any attending church. Disregard yourself and your needs (the selfish p.o.v. argument that anatess offended LP with ), and submit yourself to God in all manners, your dress, your attitudes, your actions, and your focus.

Exhorting others to this is the opposite of selfish. It is, actually, real concern for them and their well being. To do otherwise would be to disregard their well being in favor of -- I don't know -- some P.C. sense of never offending others I suppose.

I don't mind my own business because my fellow man IS my business. I care about them. I care that they actually learn in church, but that they learn as they need to -- by the Spirit. And so I will advocate behavior that is conducive to that end in every case.

Connie got a reaction from Bini in Is Vort Clark Kent? January 6, 2015

I once had someone tell me i look like a power ranger.

Connie reacted to Vort in Harry Potter musings January 5, 2015

How do wands and spells work?

In the Harry Potter universe (HPU), a magical person can achieve a magical end by waving a wand and reciting an incantation. What sense does this make? Is there any way to see this as a reasonable idea, rather than just "it works that way because it's magic and I say it does"? I think there is.

First, the wand.

We don't know what "magic" is in the HPU, because it's never really explicitly defined. But it seems that people are divided into two sorts: the magical minority and the "Muggle" majority. Similarly, animals, plants, and even non-living things are often divided into these two camps, though there appears to be a continuum. So dragons and unicorns are purely magical creatures, while pigs are completely unmagical. Cats and owls appear to be somewhere in between. Some plants are magical, and trees used to make wands can have some magical properties, or at least can amplify certain magical properties. So "magic" appears to be a quality that exists in some beings and things but not in others. Furthermore, it's heritable in humans. That suggests a possible DNA link, or perhaps something more like mitochondrial inheritance. (Hey, it worked for George Lucas and his "midichlorions".) So this is sort of the basic premise from which I view the whole idea of HPU magic.

In this view, a wand is a concentrator or focuser of sorts. The magic originates from the magical person himself or herself; the wand simply provides a convenient vessel for focusing it. But then, why not use an egg? Why not curl up a unicorn hair and stick it in a small block of wood? That would seem to be a lot more convenient that a stick. But the one-dimensional nature of a wand makes it perfect for pointing, thus giving the magic direction. As people get better at magic, they stop using a wand altogether in many situations, but even powerful magic users continue to use wands, so they obviously offer some real help and are not mere crutches.

Second, the spells.

What the heck sense do "spells" even make? And why should they be in Latin or Old English or some weird pseudoderivative of them? What, exactly, is "magical" about uttering the sounds "wingardium leviosa"? And if you don't pronounce it quite right, it doesn't work. What's up with that?

The magic, as always, comes from the magic user, not from the outside world. My brain has decided that the magic is accessed by a mental process within the magic user. But it is difficult to find such magical abilities, and almost impossible to teach them. What is needed is a "shortcut" method that can reference the mental process necessary without the magic user having to come up with it himself or herself. (NB: This is precisely what language is, a shortcut method for accessing inner ideas and mental tokens for things by giving such things convenient labels.)

So in this view, there exists what we in the 21st century might consider a "database". When a wizard or witch, through experimentation or luck, discovers a new mental process that results in useful magic, s/he labels it with an incantation. That label is then "stored" along with the mental process it refers to, and by teaching that label -- the "magic words" -- to another magic user, can then be accessed by that other magic user, who never has to discover the mental process to make it work. So Snape figures out a great spell that will eviscerate someone, so he gives it a name -- "sectumsempra" -- and attaches a reference (or pointer, in geekspeak) to the mental process that causes the result. Later on, Harry Potter finds the incantation, then uses it to almost kill his opponent, without ever having realized what the spell does until he tries it out.

But why "sectumsempra"? Why not "eviscerate"? Perhaps the incantation is chosen, or perhaps MUST be chosen, to be something not easily said. Otherwise, magical people would accidentally be casting all sorts of awful spells without meaning to, just by speaking plain old English. Since there appears to be no record of who invents or registers a spell, the very fact that wizards and witches aren't constantly destroying their children or setting things on fire or turning things into piles of slugs suggests that you can't pick any old word to be a spell. (Otherwise, the Fred and Georges of the magical world would long ago have turned normal language into a useless or even dangerous pile of spellcasting.) This suggests that there might be a registry committee of some sort that must approve the spell names as being sufficiently uncommon so as not to present a hazard. Or maybe the nature of the magical community itself is such that this is a natural consequence.

It also suggests that (1) there might be any number of ancient spells in lost languages that could do things (though perhaps when no one uses a spell any more, that "reference" is lost and recycled, so that it no longer points to the given mental process), and (2) that you might by accident be able to cast a totally unexpected spell just because you happened to vocalize something wrong or in a particular manner that just happens to sound exactly like Chinese or ancient Persian or something.

Connie got a reaction from Jane_Doe in Knitting/Crafting in Church? January 5, 2015

Vort: For an experienced knitter or crocheter, it is more a matter of muscle memory than anything else. Sometimes it depends on the pattern, but most patterns are very repetitive, particularly if it's just a scarf or hat or something. One can get to the point where counting stitches is not necessary and they can tell from just a glance whether it's right or not. My mother-in-law said to me on one occasion that she doesn't even have to look at it, she can tell just by feel. Hope that makes sense.

Connie got a reaction from Vort in Knitting/Crafting in Church? January 5, 2015

Vort: For an experienced knitter or crocheter, it is more a matter of muscle memory than anything else. Sometimes it depends on the pattern, but most patterns are very repetitive, particularly if it's just a scarf or hat or something. One can get to the point where counting stitches is not necessary and they can tell from just a glance whether it's right or not. My mother-in-law said to me on one occasion that she doesn't even have to look at it, she can tell just by feel. Hope that makes sense.