Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

mordorbund

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6430

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

 Content Type 

Posts posted by mordorbund

  1. Russia-Ukraine conflict

    in Current Events

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

    Church History accounts for it.  I don't know of links on the internet itself...but the sources are prior to the internet.

    Okay, then print sources please. You've written 16 paragraphs with only one citation. If one of your students turned this in how would you grade it?

    The citation you did include had the following (emphasis original):

    Quote

    the Prophet informed Bishop Partridge, in a letter dated May 2, 1833, that although stewards had no claim over their initial consecration, their inheritances beclonged to them; it was their property. "Concerning inheritances," he explained, "you are bound by the law of the Lord to give a deed, securing to him who receives inheritances...." He further taught that if an individual transgressed and left the Church, the inheritance still belonged to him

    This is the crux of the matter!! Members consecrated their property to the Church, the Church then gave them a stewardship. This stewardship was a deed, which means if they left the Church they still owned the stewardship land.

    As for the Brigham Young period, your own source points out that the properties in question were not deeded to any particular saint and so was not a case of the Church reclaiming land deeded to a saint under consecration. The best you can claim is Brigham found a loophole by not handing out stewardships. I think if you look at other Utah settlements you'll see that the Salt Lake City practice was not the norm.

    For all you've written you still haven't made a compelling case that the Church reclaimed land deeded to saints as a consecrated stewardship.

  3. AI

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

    Won’t be long before ChatGPT starts editing Wikipedia for us.

    The post just reminded me of the Amelia Bedilia author’s entry, which had some made up info, which was referenced but not cited by a major paper, which was then used as a citation to bolster the made up claim.

    We can streamline the process by having Chat edit wikis with its false citations, get published and then re-edit the wiki with the newly-published article as a source.

  4. AI

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I’ve got a friend who’s an Econ professor. He had ChatGPT write an essay in response to one of his standard essay questions. He then had the students correct the response as an assignment. That seems like a fair way of acknowledging that students will want to use the AI while letting them know in practical terms that they’ll still have to put in some work.

    @JohnsonJones you’ve been in the business long enough to remember when Wikipedia came on the scene. There’s some comparability here.

  5. AI

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 5/29/2023 at 11:59 AM, Carborendum said:

    This guy learned the hard way that trusting & depending on AI can get you into trouble.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769

    SUMMARY:

    A lawyer used ChatGPT to look up case law.  It turned out that there were a number of bogus cases that the AI cited.  The lawyer didn't bother to look up the standard sources to verify the cases and what their contents were.

    When the opposing legal team looked for the cases, they either couldn't find the cases at all, or they found numerous errors in the citations.

    What's worse is that the guy doing the research wasn't even the lead counsel.  So, the lead counsel was reprimanded for this other guy's failure to verify the sources.

     

    I don't know why the lawyer would do that.  If you just want help looking things up, sure, use AI to help you find the relevant  cases.  But then verify them through manual means.

    When I'm looking up various codes, I will use search engines and other tools to determine what passage is even talking about my situation.  But when I need to cite them, I have to find the original source and get the specific wording from the original source.  Then I make sure it has the right context and applicability to my situation.

    Won’t be long before ChatGPT starts editing Wikipedia for us.

  6. Russia-Ukraine conflict

    in Current Events

    Posted

    On 5/30/2023 at 5:52 PM, JohnsonJones said:

    This is especially pertinent to land, where the land is owned by the Lord and so no one can truly own their land. (this can also be seen in Joseph Smith's time where he would grant land to some members, but when they apostatized it was seen as still being owned by the church and taken and given to another).

    You mentioned this in another thread and I replied with links to various land deeded to individual saints that would have been legally binding. Many others on this site also provided references from the scriptures to show that what you’re describing is not the way the Lord directed it. Again, I’ll ask for citations. Do you have any references I can look up that shows the Church reclaiming land that was already deeded to a saint under consecration?

  7. Church Growth

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by mordorbund

    I recently watched a video on “unplanned childlessness”. 

    Only 5% of women in early child-bearing years say they don’t want children but far more than that actually never do. I need to read the book and check the numbers, but the claim is that women believe they can get a degree, build a career, seek a husband, and have children once they’re established. The reality is there’s a window of opportunity for having babies and the body doesn’t always wait for a career (and that’s assuming you beat out the women 5 years younger in attracting a mate).

  8. Christian Glass

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 5/24/2023 at 12:04 PM, Jamie123 said:

    There has been some silly talk on YouTube about "extracting that $19,000,000 from police pension funds, 'coz it's not fair that the taxpayers should pay it". Well, it's not fair that the good honest cops should bear the full brunt of it either, just because of a couple of trigger-happy lunatics. They will pay their fare share of the cost in their own taxes.

    Springboarding here. Ideally, what is the proper punishment? Attaching a fine suggests a systemic rather than a personal failure led to the death. That being the case, what system failed here?

    - The retired police staff? If so, is the incentive for the retired police to head to the station and set the house in order? Pensions don't make sense.

    - The tax-payers? $19M comes to about $3K per resident of Clear Creek County. If they were directly assessed they would feel the sting of the fine but I doubt they will be. If they were assessed, or payed it as a lump sum, then it would incentivize them to take some action, but what would that action be? Recall the sherriff? Vote directly on police policy?

    - The PD? They had a budget of $5.7M in 2020. I'm guessing this is where the fine is actually going, and it will impact their budget for a decade or more. This would seem to have the desired incentives provided the cost isn't already masked through some sort of insurance.

  9. Unconditional Love

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    22 hours ago, mikbone said:

    Words have meaning.

    You may have noticed that free speech is under attack.

    It is incumbent upon Saints to understand what is happening.  And how Lucifer’s war is being waged.

     

    Yes, words have meaning. What condition did the murderous farmer meet to merit rain on his crops? I would say that’s unconditional. Elder Nelson prefers the term universal, but I would say it’s universal because it is without conditions. If we create a formal love theology around this talk then we can formalize using universal in lieu of unconditional, but in casual conversation and discussions the two are synonyms.

    By all means, remind the saints that there’s more to God’s love than just the unconditional but don’t go overboard and deny that it even exists.

  10. Unconditional Love

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    There is a baseline of love that God shows everyone. The farmer that brutally murders his brother will still receive rain on his crops. If that’s what fellow saints refer to as unconditional love, then God has it. If, instead, they have picked up the popular “God loves you as you are” they should follow it up like Elder Holland did, “don’t plan to stay as you are.” God’s salvific love is predicated on following Him. But his love and hate aren’t based on the petty divisions we often create. “Righteousness is the only protected class for God.”

  12. The Prodigal Son's missing verse

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    Quote

    Do you structure these 3 parables differently so that there is no missing verse?

    Sounds like for many people here the parable structure is:

    Parable with focus on the lost sheep
    Parable with focus on the lost coin
    Parable with some focus on the lost son, but with additional focus on the one "left behind" who also needs to be recognized as lost

    I don't want to discount what has been shared since I think it has merit, but I do want to revisit my questions since I've had some additional thoughts since posting. As with many parables (and as seen in this discussion so far) there's no need to limit it to one strict canonical interpretation -- doing so often robs us of precious insight.

    On 5/5/2023 at 2:01 AM, mordorbund said:

     

    Quote

    Sheep:

    I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

    Coin:

    Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

    What should the missing verse say?

    Son:

    Likewise, I say unto you there is joy for the Father above over one sinner that repenteth.

     

    Quote

    Who omitted the verse? Jesus or Luke, and why?

    I think Jesus omitted the verse. If this were Matthew I could see it being one of the "secret" teaching like he has with the parables of Matthew 13. There Jesus gives several parables, explains one to His apostles and asks, "Do you understand them now?" Suddenly they do! Clearly the additional explanations were given but left out of the record. There doesn't look to be anything like that here and Luke doesn't generally refer to secret teachings. If this were John I would expect an overt statement and a blasphemy challenge. Since this is Luke and he grounds his writings in histories, I think if there were an account that Jesus said the missing verse then Luke would have tried to include it.

    Quote

    Why is the verse missing?

    The missing verse addresses the charge that launched all the parables of the lost: "This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." His answer is that the Father above has joy in the work of reclamation, and Jesus Himself does too! He did not come right out and say it because it was an admission of the charge.

    In His rivalry with the Pharisees, Jesus would not always directly admit to the wrong He was accused of but would instead require the Pharisees to come right out and say that the good was evil. Since they wouldn't, Jesus was left to continue. I think in this case those who had ears to hear recognized that Jesus enjoyed working with them on their repentance, while those who did not have ears to hear could be content that they were among the 99 sheep.

  15. The Prodigal Son's missing verse

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    Back when our family was studying the Psalms, we discussed poetic elements to look for. One such element was parallelism. For example:

    Quote

    Blessed is the man that
    walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
    nor standeth in the way of sinners,
    nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

    This particular parallelism is one of degrees. Each time it gets repeated it's moving in a particular direction. Because of the unidirectionality of the structure there is an implied "next step" that may be used to "take the limit" or at the very least illustrate where the slippery slope (or ascension) leads. This one implies something like "nor lieth in the bed of the treacherous".

    The parables of the lost in Luke 15 have a parallelism to them:

    One sheep is lost
    99 are left behind while the shepherd searches
    The sheep is found
    Communal rejoicing
    Moral

    One coin is lost
    9 are left behind while the woman looks
    The coin is found
    Communal rejoicing
    Moral

    One son is lost
    1 son remains at the house while the father awaits
    The son returns
    Communal rejoicing

    The Prodigal Son does not have a moral attached to the end.

    Quote

    Sheep:

    I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

    Coin:

    Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

    What should the missing verse say?

    Why is the verse missing?

    Who omitted the verse? Jesus or Luke, and why?

    Do you structure these 3 parables differently so that there is no missing verse?

  17. Loose House Cats

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

    The registrar may declare a dog to be a dangerous dog if— (a) the dog has attacked or harassed a person or animal

    No wolf whistles. Got it.

    6 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

    Despite the huge numbers of murders that cats commit every year, cats are not considered to be dangerous

    My son tells me that if someone tried to attack you by hacking a Roomba they can have it try to trip you down the stairs. That’s right, his dystopian future has Skynet creating robot cats.

  19. Children and Covenants

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    A brief history on salvation for the dead in the latter days:

    1 ) Sept 21, 1823 - Moroni reveals to Joseph Smith that Elijah will return with a priesthood that turns children to fathers.

    2 ) Nov 19, 1823 - Alvin Smith dies. At his funeral the minister insinuates unbaptized Alvin is hell-bound.

    3 ) Jan 21, 1836 - Joseph Smith sees in vision a future day when Alvin is in the celestial kingdom and discovers that those who would have received the restored gospel are heirs of that kingdom (and unaccountable children are saved in that kingdom).

    4 ) Apr 3, 1836 - Elijah gives Joseph Smith the sealing keys

    5 ) Aug 15, 1840 - Joseph Smith delivers a sermon on the salvation for the dead and instructs the saints that they may be baptized for the dead. (Hyrum Smith is baptized for Alvin that same year)

    6 ) Jan 19, 1841 - Joseph receives a revelation that baptisms for the dead should really be performed in temples.

    7 ) Sept 6, 1842 - In an epistle to the Church, Joseph explains more about the doctrine of baptism for the dead and how Elijah's keys make the ordinance effective. In light of this doctrine he gives some best practices for perfoming the ordinance.

    There's more to the history, but let's leave it at baptisms for the dead. What I'd like for you to consider is to consider that you were a saint (or even Joseph) in between each of these milestones. (1) is a significant revelation, but pairing Malachi with Joel tells you that Jesus is coming soon an you'll have a part in it and this book will too. There is nothing in here addressing the soteriological problem. We'll come back to Malachi and Elijah (much) later. (2) is a tragedy, but in the minister's defense he taught sound doctrine. The Bible clearly teaches baptism is a requirement for heaven and Joseph didn't receive any revelation to contradict it. Father Smith did not like what was said, and it probably bothered the entire Smith family, but God's law is God's law.

    I want you to sit with this a bit because the next milestone doesn't happen for another 12 years. 12 years ago was about the time Osama bin Laden was killed. Occupy Wall Street got a lot of press, as did the Arab Spring. The Oprah Winfrey show had their final episode. That was 3 US Presidents ago and President Obama was still in his first term.

    12 years pass and what is finally revealed? Alvin is not damned. God, knowing the thoughts and intents of his heart, recognized that he would have received baptism if he had lived 7 years longer. That's reassuring for the Smith family, but what is the doctrinal fallout? The soteriological problem is solved but is baptism really required then? If it still is, then how does this revelation square with that?

    Another 4 years pass. 4 years ago the Notre-dame cathedral caught fire. Protesters marched in Hong Kong. Theresa May stepped down as PM over Brexit.

    4 years pass and what is finally revealed? The living can be baptized as proxies for the dead. After 4 years Joseph and the saints finally have the solution that brings God's law, judgment, justice, and mercy into balance.

    It's also worth noting a doctrinal gem that is in the background of all this. At each of these steps, the doctrine of Elijah is revealed but it isn't until 1842 (19 years after he was first taught it - left as an exercise to the reader) that Joseph explains to the saints that Elijah is key to this work.

    And now a follow up question to this - this seems to rest on the God's foreknowledge, what is going on in the Spirit World? 3/4 of a century later Joseph F. Smith receives a revelation that explains this. Agency is restored as the guiding principle, and some correction is made to Peter's (and Joseph Smith's for that matter) understanding of Christ's intervention in the Spirit World.

    This is lengthy and may seem irrelevant to the thread, but I wanted to lay the groundwork to emphasize a point President Oaks made some time ago. 

    Quote

    What do we really know about conditions in the spirit world? I believe a BYU religion professor’s article on this subject had it right: “When we ask ourselves what we know about the spirit world from the standard works, the answer is ‘not as much as we often think.’”

    For the question at hand about children that aren't accountable, we are still at (3) - we know they'll be saved in the celestial kingdom and they are "alive in Christ" but we don't know the mechanism. We might even be at (4), but like the earlier saints not recognize the keys already in our possession. Regardless, there is a clear hole in our doctrine that needs further revelation. Again quoting President Oaks:

    Quote

    For all questions about the spirit world, I suggest two answers. First, remember that God loves His children and will surely do what is best for each of us. Second, remember this familiar Bible teaching, which has been most helpful to me on a multitude of unanswered questions:

    “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

    “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths” (Proverbs 3:5–6).

    There's some additional counsel cautioning the use of speculation as official doctrine and I think the talk is worth a good read.

  25. Easter Celebrations & Traditions

    in Current Events

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Vort said:

    I wonder how many have tried through the ages to compare Mary's sorrow and travail in bringing forth the Savior with Jesus' sorrow and travail in bringing forth salvation.

    Greate are the words of Isaiah.

    Quote

    When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days ... He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: ... for he shall bear their iniquities.