NOM

redjay wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:16 pm When I had a vasectomy, a well-meaning and otherwise lovely fellow at church asked me why I would mutilate myself like that (actually I had a surgeon do it - while I lay there pretending to play tough but they could tell by my wincing eyes and curling toes that more anaesthetic was needed)

Thew point to this story is that even something like a vasectomy can be frowned upon by the old guard

Korihor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:50 pm I'm it seems I can openly disbelieve in just about all of it. They just ignore me yet say they still love our family and want us there.
By openly disbelieving we are still wanted yet have become untouchables.

Brent wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:51 pm I would offer that given statements that "The Book of Mormon isn't a historical document" there's an opening to simply place it in the pile with Noah, Jonah, and other "allegorical" stories there is a growing opening to let the Book of Mormon veracity slip. This is a slowly growing section of the active Church--the "There's no DNA evidence because, well, the DNA never got here BUT the story of faith and obedience is more important than the historicity.

Give it 10 years.

I''m serious.

Charlotte wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:53 am

Brent wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:51 pm I would offer that given statements that "The Book of Mormon isn't a historical document" there's an opening to simply place it in the pile with Noah, Jonah, and other "allegorical" stories there is a growing opening to let the Book of Mormon veracity slip. This is a slowly growing section of the active Church--the "There's no DNA evidence because, well, the DNA never got here BUT the story of faith and obedience is more important than the historicity.

Give it 10 years.

I''m serious.

Do you really think so? It is SO needed.

document wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:44 am The only thing that I was able to be open in my disbelief while Mormon was polygamy. Everyone seemed to agree with me except for a few very orthodox types.

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:41 pm A year or two ago Gospel Doctrine was doing the Old Testament and covered Numbers 22 which has the story of Balaam and his talking donkey. I mostly used my comments to use the word "ass" and mention that Balaam might have been talking out of his ass. The moral of the story is once again to follow God's commandments, but it's hard to see this story as anything but a cheap fable due to Balaam's verbose ass.

I absolutely missed my opportunity to ask the class if they thought that this was a historically "real" account or if someone might have embellished it a bit. Do we have to have a firm testimony of Balaam's talking donkey? Could we not at least have some healthy skepticism of this incident since it's not a situation that we can replicate? I deeply regret not making that comment, but it's mostly because I got distracted by the juvenile, immature pleasure of using the word "ass" in a church setting.

Bloodhound98 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:12 pm I like the 10 years historical authenticity of the BoM. Anyone with any knowledge of any science can't really debate DNA.

You can see what % neanderthal you have in your DNA surely we can see if the Natives have Jewish DNA.

There is a sub on Reddit with an African tribe that has Jewish decent about 3000 years ago and they can spot it! But yet we can't see any Jewish DNA in any Native Americans.

Of course the theories of limited geography will come into play and maybe the Lamanites are somewhere in the Amazon Jungle still. Lol

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:41 pm A year or two ago Gospel Doctrine was doing the Old Testament and covered Numbers 22 which has the story of Balaam and his talking donkey.