caspianrex

You make an interesting point. Everyone seems to talk about the sheep who wear masks and the selfish jerks who don’t, but in reality, some of the best people I know wear a mask-and some of the best people I know don’t. Humans are vastly more complex than we give them credit for. 

Harry Reid's spiritual state is between Harry Reid and God. I cannot know and refuse to speculate on another man's standing before God. I have my own to worry about, and that of those I love most and over whom I have some special responsibility.
But speaking in general terms, I am hard-pressed to understand how a man can proclaim his devotion under covenant to principles of truth, then openly and even proudly defy the truth for political advantage, even to the point of openly stating regarding his lies, "Well, he lost, didn't he?", with no intrinsic damage to his own soul and still stand white and spotless before God.
If I were to believe such a thing, it would deeply and negatively affect my beliefs about sin and repentance. So I overtly disbelieve it.
But I'm happy to leave the specifics of the application of such judgment to any given man between that man and his Savior.

Not quite defunct, but I believe, defunded. One can easily lead to the other in both directions. 

I have long felt that the content on the main page is different from what is going on here in the forum. It feels to me like this forum still has a strong core of long time members that will keep the forum going for a while (though, if Sears and Roebuck is any indication, a long history is no promise of future viability).
My impression is that the forum has slowed down some, perhaps mostly because I don't see as many "new trolls" who come in and start something controversial that gets the group's dander up. I mean, how long has it been since our last good creation/evolution debate? It seems like it's been a while. To be fair, though, it's not like yet another creation/evolution debate is going to bring up anything new. We've been having the same evolution/creation debates since the early 20th century, always with the same (non) conclusion -- we just don't know and the Church doesn't want to take sides. Most of the good controversies that drive traffic on a site like this are old news. We've had the discussions before (sometimes ad nauseum) almost always with the same (non) results. I feel like the Ecclesiast when he said there's nothing new under the sun.
I guess it seems to me that, while third hour is not necessarily shying away from the controversies, it also isn't getting as much traffic interested in rehashing yet again the common controversies. I could be reading the room wrong, but I'm not sure that the main group is too bothered by being left out of the center of those controversies.

FYI, the 3rdhour forum Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/groups/1680286298907600.  We pretty much only use it when this forum goes down right now.
Here's the scoop on the future status of this place: 
 

You are spot on with your input.  When a person begins such studies that such scriptures are "milk" needed to nourish their new born spirituality.  However, when one becomes a Saint of G-d to shine a light into this world of darkness they will need the meat of revelation to sustain them.  I appreciate your input and reminder that we all are in need of individual care - which is the essence of Moroni 10.
 
The Traveler 

Meanwhile, it is not too surprising that those verses from Moroni are at the top of the list. After all, when the missionaries talk to a non-LDS person (like myself), what's one of the first passages they are going to ask me to look up when they hand me my free copy of the BoM? So if I visit the church's Scriptures website, that's probably going to be one of the first passages I go to as well.
I would be willing to bet that, for "mainstream" Christians who are just beginning to read the Bible, John 3:16 is at the top of the heap for the same reason. And I have the same concerns with that text (and people ignoring the larger context) that @Traveler mentions above.

With Protestants, you have the same challenge.  They split off the Catholic Church due to their rejection of the Catholic Authority.  And because there's no other authority to be found except for the truthfulness of Scripture, they derive their authority on Scripture ONLY (The Holy Bible).  So the challenge remains - you can't reject the authority of the Holy Bible because that would be wrong.  So then you're going to have to present the case that there is more authority than the Holy Bible and you can't do that by attacking their interpretation of the Holy Bible (the atheist way).  The better way is for you to testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the authority of Joseph Smith on its own merit.

If the target audience is mainstream Christianity (which I understand to mainly refer to Protestants) I think you'll find the essay, however complete and well-researched, will be ineffective at changing minds.    
Protestants read the Bible.  They read it a LOT.  They read it more than we do because they don't have to divide their scripture study time between it and 3 other volumes.  Many of them know it backward and forward, and a Latter-Day Saint going against a Protestant in a straight-up "here's what this means" Biblical debate over interpretation and doctrine is likely to get his butt kicked up between his shoulder blades.  They have two distinct advantages over us:
Protestants have 5 centuries of study and theology behind their interpretation of the Bible, as well as drawing from an additional 1500 years of (apostate) theology that supports many of their beliefs, like the Trinity for example. Protestants only have to know the Bible.  We need to know the Bible as well as three other books, which reveal the truth in combination.  Their perspective is built on a worldview where those other resources are not a factor. They have a pretty well-entrenched worldview.  Take the Godhead v Trinity example.  I've debated this one with Protestant friends and no matter how clearly the Scriptures show us that the Savior and Heavenly Father are distinct personages, even without additional scriptural sources, Protestants already have their own perspective which accounts for the way the text in the Bible discusses this.  We may find it baffling (I do, anyway) but it isn't baffling to them and they won't be persuaded.  Yes, I even pointed out that not only does Jesus pray to Heavenly Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, He outright discusses how his own desire is in conflict with Heavenly Father's plan, before submitting to His will.  To me, there's just no way that makes any sense at all if the Trinity doctrine were true, and yet that argument gained zero traction.  Like I said, centuries of scholarly writings have ways to account for this, at least to their own satisfaction.
We view our interpretations to be more accurate because we believe the Holy Spirit helps us to understand, but that's not an argument in a debate.  
Now, if your intent is just to inform, then yeah by all means go for it, but it's hard to imagine people reading it and not wanting to present counterpoints.
 

The doctrinal issue that immediately jumped off the page for me is the incorrect notion many Latter-Day Saints have that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of the non-LDS Christian Trinity are not understood to be three separate and distinct personages (individuals). The fact of the matter is that the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and quite nearly every Protestant denomination have always believed the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct personages who communicate with one another. In fact, I’ve witnesses with my own eyes and ears mainstream Christian ministers in debate with non-mainstream Christian “modalistists” (modaliststs are the very small minority of Christians who believe in a one-personage Godhead), and marveled as the mainstream Christian representatives employed the very same verses of scripturewe Latter-Day Saints use to prove the Godhead is composed of three separate and distinct persons, not one person.
So then, in what way do the Latter-Day Saints differ from the Trinitarians with regard to the Godhead? First, the advocates of the historical Christian Trinity assert that though the Godhead is composed of three separate and distinct personages, to them it’s also true that in some mysterious and undefined way they also assert that somehow these three separate individuals comprise one God. Meanwhile, the Latter-Day Saints differ from their historical Christian counterparts because we have dared to demystify how the three separate and distinct persons within the Godhead comprise one God, and do so by asserting that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in heart, mind, spirit, intelligence, purpose, and in the possession of all the divine attributes of perfection.
In addition, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost also comprise one God because each member of the Godhead could not function in his specific divine office and specific duties without first being perfectly united with and supportive of the other members of the Godhead in the performance of their own individual offices and specific responsibilities. In other words, it’s impossible for God the Father to be able to function in his divine Fatherly role unless he performs he the specific duties of his office in conjunction with the Son and the Holy Ghost as they perform their own unique, specifically assigned duties. This means there can be no God who is able to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man without there being three divine individuals functioning within a presidency, each of whom have there own unique but indispensable roles to perform. Just as a man cannot become a God without first being everlasting bound to a wife who is a perfected eternal queen and priestess, so also no member of the Godhead can perform his calling without there first being a presidency of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who each perform their own unique and specifically assigned responsibilities in perfect union.
The strange irony in the LDS Church vs historical Christian debate on the true nature of the Godhead is that the Trinitarians admit they don’t understand how three separate and distinct individuals can be one God, but the day will come when the mystery will be disclosed and they will discover the Latter-Day Saints had it right all along.

NONE.
The Great Apostasy is a matter of faith in the same manner that the Restoration of the Authority on Joseph Smith is a matter of faith.  
No evidence is sufficient to prove that the Apostolic Authority of Peter, who is considered the first bishop of Rome, did not get passed to Bishop Linus, the next Bishop of Rome (the 2nd Catholic Pope after Peter).  Just as there is no evidence sufficient to prove that the Apostolic Authority of Peter was passed to Joseph Smith.
All this is a matter of faith.
Any attempt at evidence-pointing beyond that is simply... Catholic-bashing.  The Catholics have a ~2,000 year history.  It has survived for that long.  The LDS Church has a ~200 year history.  Anti-Mormons have plenty of LDS history material to bash LDS with in just 200 years worth of cultural history, the majority of which is anchored in the USA.  You will have to multiply that by 10, and add the stage of the formation of the entire European continent and the drastic changes in prevalent culture for 20 centuries to match the resources anti-Catholics can use against the Catholics.
This is what I always tell everybody - you can't convince people of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the authority of the LDS Church by showing how the other Christians are wrong.  This is the way of the Atheist which is fruitless.  The only way you can convince people of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the authority of the LDS Church is by showing how the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church is true on its own merit.
I know this sounds like I'm raining on your parade.  This is not my intent.  I'm simply stating my opinion as a faithful LDS converted from Catholicism.

I'm going to assume you're born and raised LDS?
Because, this write-up is not going to go well with Catholics in the same manner that anti-Mormon stuff does not go well with the LDS.  I can only speak for Catholics, of course, because I used to be one.  But then Catholics are the largest Christian denomination, so...
I'll give you an example:  Your entire section about the Apostasy has nothing on the Apostasy.  "Apostles died" and "Roman Emperors burned scriptures" is not definitive support for the Apostasy having occurred.  So the Catholic Magesterium declaring the Pauline Epistles as Biblical while the Book of Mormon non-Biblical is completely within their authority unless you first submit the argument that the authority of the Catholic Church is not valid.
Also this:  "All the scriptures that mainstream Christianity uses to prove that God is done with prophets do not hold water." does not follow because Catholics don't believe such a thing as "God is done with prophets".
Anyway, Talmage has this book, "The Great Apostasy".  That book is instrumental in my conversion.  But I would highly NOT RECOMMEND that book to Catholics.  That entire book is an attack on the history of the Catholic Church that has no bearing on it having been in Apostasy.  It would be like saying the LDS Church is not true because the 3 witnesses to the Book of Mormon left the Church.

My honest reaction (so it's not going to be all good). If I want something that will speak into my echo chamber and reinforce the things I as a member of the Church already believe, it all sounds good. However, I suspect that most of this is a non-starter in other Christian echo chambers. Your treatment of the apostasy, for example, is right in line with how we LDS have always talked about it -- and other Christians have never found those proof-texts at all compelling.
It is your project and you decide exactly what kinds of purposes you want your project to have. For me, I find myself looking more for something that will not only echo well in my echo chamber, but something that will tell me what the other echo chambers are saying. You can speak the normal stuff on why the Trinity/Godhead are separate persons/personalities/beings, but then I would like to see a follow up on how traditional Trinitarians see it and then how Modalists see it and then how Jews and Muslims (who like to accuse all of us Christians as polytheists) see the discussion.
Members of the Church have been using these kinds of proof-texts and arguments to defend our faith for a long time, and the rest of Christianity is not breaking down our doors to join us. I find myself looking for explanations for why broader Christianity is not convinced by our "excellent" arguments like these.

I have a more merciful view of Sherem.  Read about his final words in Jacob Chapter 7:
16 And it came to pass that he [Sherem] said unto the people: Gather together on the morrow, for I shall die; wherefore, I desire to speak unto the people before I shall die.
17 And it came to pass that on the morrow the multitude were gathered together; and he spake plainly unto them and denied the things which he had taught them, and confessed the Christ, and the power of the Holy Ghost, and the ministering of angels.
18 And he spake plainly unto them, that he had been deceived by the power of the devil. And he spake of hell, and of eternity, and of eternal punishment.
19 And he said: I fear lest I have committed the unpardonable sin, for I have lied unto God; for I denied the Christ, and said that I believed the scriptures; and they truly testify of him. And because I have thus lied unto God I greatly fear lest my case shall be awful; but I confess unto God.
20 And it came to pass that when he had said these words he could say no more, and he gave up the ghost.
 
Why would Sherem wish to gather the people and tell them about the false doctrine and the truth if he was a son of perdition?  Compare his death to Korihor's in Alma chapter 30.  Korihor wished to speak to the people again after being struck dumb and deaf so he could teach false doctrines again after having been given a sign from the LORD. 
I do not believe Sherem was a son of perdition.  But he will receive his judgment and his kingdom according to the judgments of God in the future.

IIRC, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek around the 3rd-2nd century BC; and the translators chose to render “messiah” as “Christos”, literally meaning “the anointed one”.  Lehites (who separated themselves from Judah in the 6th century BC) probably wouldn’t have used the word “Christ”, “Christos”, or any of its cognates or derivatives.  (Yes, IIRC an angel tells Nephi the name of Jesus Christ; but I think it’s dodgy as to whether a 6th century BC angel speaking to a native Hebrew speaker is going to be telling Nephi the English derivative of a Greek name-title for someone who lived His life speaking Aramaic.)
Thus the  term is a historical anachronism in the Book of Mormon and its presence is meant for our benefit, so that we in the 19th/ 20th/ 21st centuries understand unambiguously that the subject of this discussion is Jesus of Nazareth even if the actual participants in the discussion didn’t understand their topic as clearly as we do.  

Possibilities:
1) He interpreted the scriptures differently.
2)  He lied about accepting the scriptures because he knew no Nephite would take him seriously if he openly denied them.  
3) He didn’t actually know what was in the Nephite scriptures (which is my personal favorite—when Jacob actually presents him with scriptural content, Sherem doesn’t engage; he just jumps to “show me a sign”.  It’s not like every Nephite had their own personal copy of the scriptures the way we do—let alone Sherem, who may have been a Lamanite, a Jaredite, or a member of some other indigenous group).

It is said that Sherem both denied that there would be a Christ, yet believed the scriptures.
How is this so? What is the modern day equivalent of this?

This is the way it is, and anyone who thinks otherwise must fight me.

In a sacrament meeting with Elder Nattress from our Area Presidency last week, he said that the church keeps track of which scriptures from the church’s website have the most annotations. In case you are wondering, the top five, from least to most are:
Moroni 10:3
Moroni 10:4
Ether 12:27
1st Nephi 3:7
I can’t actually remember the most annotated scripture, but I think it might have been somewhere in Helaman and I think it was something about being able to do all things through Christ.

I believe it is sad that Moroni 10:3 and 4 are so referenced when I believe that the rest of the Chapter (10) is the intended focus of Moroni's last words to our generation.  In the remaining part of the chapter Moroni uses the word "exhort" several time - for what I believe to be the more important point of the focus of the Chapter.   I believe that the intended focus is pointed to our generation and specifically to the Latter-day Saints.
 
The Traveler

I've been doing some reading in Helaman and found the most annotated verse in the Book of Mormon, according to Elder Nattress, who got his information from whichever part of church administration that keeps track of these things:
Helaman 5:12
12 And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the arock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your bfoundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty cstorm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

I actually just added one more volume to my library of materials relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: a Spanish language quad combo.
Santa Biblia/Libro de Mormon/Doctrinas y Convenios/Perla de Gran Precio, a burgundy, leather, thumb-indexed edition.

I actually just added one more volume to my library of materials relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: a Spanish language quad combo.
Santa Biblia/Libro de Mormon/Doctrinas y Convenios/Perla de Gran Precio, a burgundy, leather, thumb-indexed edition.

I have them because I've long enjoyed studying LDS history and literature. I also became fascinated with the printing history of the Book of Mormon, and the way the printing and formatting of the text evolved over time, as well as the differences among versions of the BOM printed by various groups apart from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Bickertonites, Zarahemla Research Foundation, RLDS, etc.) I read them, and do gain some inspiration from them, albeit not in the same sense as my LDS friends.