Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Tone Loc]

wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn;

[LA Ute]

I've never understood why we can't simply say that the Book of Mormon is sometimes wrong. Moroni himself clearly recognized that that was a possibility, as per the title page. Why not just say that the claim made in Moroni 9:9 might just be wrong? Why are we so quick to acknowledge that our current leaders may occasionally be uninspired (or at least struggle to express their inspiration adequately) yet deny that same right to ancient prophets? Is it the whole "I-told-the-Brethren-that-the-Book-of-Mormon-was-the-most-perfect..." quip? Why do we assume that "inspired" or "canonized" means "infallible" or "perfect"?

Very interesting questions that made me think. Clearly the BofM is not intended to be perfect, and I don't think it is. "Most correct" does not mean "perfect."

Just focusing on the Moroni 9:9 verse, I think Solon may be right, that Mormon's language reflects the sensibilities of his age regarding women and sexual purity, but it doesn't bother me because I've never seen that verse as being about that subject. (That's why I don't think it's the right scripture for teaching that value.)

Call me dogmatic, reverse Korihor, or Ute; that's my story and I am sticking to it.

[Indy Coug]

I've never understood why we can't simply say that the Book of Mormon is sometimes wrong. Moroni himself clearly recognized that that was a possibility, as per the title page. Why not just say that the claim made in Moroni 9:9 might just be wrong? Why are we so quick to acknowledge that our current leaders may occasionally be uninspired (or at least struggle to express their inspiration adequately) yet deny that same right to ancient prophets? Is it the whole "I-told-the-Brethren-that-the-Book-of-Mormon-was-the-most-perfect..." quip? Why do we assume that "inspired" or "canonized" means "infallible" or "perfect"?

I think it is infinitely more likely that the membership of the church (apostles, prophets included) are extrapolating far more out of that verse than can be rationally justified,

[Harry Tic]

I don't believe Moroni 9:9 needs any defense. To the point of this thread, I agree with those here who believe that scripture is the wrong one, contextually, to use for teaching the value of chastity. (We Mormons use lots of scriptures out of context, especially OT verses.) Like Swampfrog, I have always seen that epistle from Mormon to Moroni as a description of the horror that life among the Nephites and Lamanites had become, and that's good enough for me. Make sense?

I've never understood why we can't simply say that the Book of Mormon is sometimes wrong. Moroni himself clearly recognized that that was a possibility, as per the title page. Why not just say that the claim made in Moroni 9:9 might just be wrong? Why are we so quick to acknowledge that our current leaders may occasionally be uninspired (or at least struggle to express their inspiration adequately) yet deny that same right to ancient prophets? Is it the whole "I-told-the-Brethren-that-the-Book-of-Mormon-was-the-most-perfect..." quip? Why do we assume that "inspired" or "canonized" means "infallible" or "perfect"?

[LA Ute]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this. Can't believers just say that "Moroni lived over a thousand years ago. This is a common idea from ancient times that women's "honor" stemmed from their sexual purity. Thank goodness we know better now." - and leave it at that?

I don't believe Moroni 9:9 needs any defense. To the point of this thread, I agree with those here who believe that scripture is the wrong one, contextually, to use for teaching the value of chastity. (We Mormons use lots of scriptures out of context, especially OT verses.) Like Swampfrog, I have always seen that epistle from Mormon to Moroni as a description of the horror that life among the Nephites and Lamanites had become, and that's good enough for me. Make sense?

[Indy Coug]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this.

Which people and what defense?

[Moliere]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...church-leaders

[Solon]

1. I wondered if these two words had the same meaning over 180 years ago that they do now. PAC and Solon provided some valuable insight into that question. However, I don't believe we have satisfactorily arrived at any conclusions about whether 19th century and 21st century usages are sufficiently equivalent or not. Count me as undecided. Also count me as bemused why this bent people so badly out of shape when I explored this line of questioning. It would seem to me if somehow we could discover that 19th century connotations of these words were significantly different than now, it could perhaps help us remove the subsequent misconceptions that have arisen from this verse's existence.

2. I am also not convinced the choice of words in the translation necessarily captures the intent of the author. Noting that the 1828 definition of the word "virtue" has 10 entries, maybe choosing a word that was less ambiguous in its meaning would have been a better option. The Book of Mormon authors also on at least one occasion offered up a mea culpa for their weakness in writing, so maybe this is one of those instances where they just couldn't quite convey what they really were trying to say. Given how delicate and difficult a topic this is, is it really that hard to think that maybe it was just an honest mistake? Again, count me undecided.

3. Given the context of the scripture, I don't believe the broader extrapolations about virtue and chastity going on in this thread (including the several GA quotations) are necessarily correct conclusions to be drawn from what is in this particular verse.

I commented specifically on the meaning of the word "virtue", and - like you - I don't believe that the word carried a sense of sexual purity in the early 1800s. On the other hand, I think it's quite clear that Moroni 9.9 says that chastity and virtue (or "honor", if you will) are more important than life itself (for women).

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this. Can't believers just say that "Moroni lived over a thousand years ago. This is a common idea from ancient times that women's "honor" stemmed from their sexual purity. Thank goodness we know better now." - and leave it at that?

The rest is just jumbled BS.

[LA Ute]

Wait -- you conclude all those violent images with a "yawn" smiley? What kind of a person are you? Scary.

[LA Ute]

YES! I love Ute on Ute violence. Especially amongst UB5 mods.

What is this -- the Carbon County tag team? If I didn't know better, I'd think you guys are trying to antagonize me.

[YOhio]

I've always liked dogs. That's why I started a dog lover thread both on the old CUF board and the UB5 board. I wouldn't say that dogs use logic, but many breeds are pretty smart.

[LA Ute]

LA is quite dogmatic. That its why his arguments are fairy predictable. Dogma does not necessarily equate with logic.

I've always liked dogs. That's why I started a dog lover thread both on the old CUF board and the UB5 board. I wouldn't say that dogs use logic, but many breeds are pretty smart.

[Jarid in Cedar]

YES! I love Ute on Ute violence. Especially amongst UB5 mods.

I am an equal opportunity jackass.

[YOhio]

LA is quite dogmatic. That its why his arguments are fairy predictable. Dogma does not necessarily equate with logic.

YES! I love Ute on Ute violence. Especially amongst UB5 mods.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Since when did predictability make an argument wrong? It seems to me that if you can predict an argument, it probably makes some logical sense. Now an argument has to be novel or unheard of in order to be acceptable here? Huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

LA is quite dogmatic. That its why his arguments are fairy predictable. Dogma does not necessarily equate with logic.