Interpreter 2.0?

[Gadianton]

It lacks imagination and worse, actual information based on anyone's experience

wrong. It was based on experience. He played the card suggesting he had direct communication from the other side without saying exactly what that meant.

[I Have Questions]

As I understand the Mormon theology, the afterlife is split into three levels of descending value based on how people lived Mormonism in this life. If you don’t join the Church in this life then you can’t achieve the top level, no matter what. Further, the top level is split into three more levels. And the top level of the top level is only for married people.

So here’s the issue Mormon’s are going to have - in any given family unit - Grandparents down to grandchildren, there will be one or more family members who won’t make it. So in the Mormon afterlife, if you choose to stick to your achieved level, you’re going to be missing some members of your family whom you love. Let’s say you are all in the Celestial Kingdom except your granddaughter who remained single in this life and who chose not to go through the temple. Do you all spend eternity dwelling apart from her? Why if it’s your daughter, will you choose to dwell eternally without her?

Mormon theology ensures families can’t be together forever.

[Moksha]

And the top level of the top level is only for married people.

The very top level in Mormon Heaven is reserved for polygamists. 144,000 in total. 8,563 men and the rest will be sister-wives. Hope that helps.

[I Have Questions]

And the top level of the top level is only for married people.

The very top level in Mormon Heaven is reserved for polygamists. 144,000 in total. 8,563 men and the rest will be sister-wives. Hope that helps.

Is that the doctrinal belief?

[Moksha]

Is that the doctrinal belief?

Top-level for those engaged in plural marriage.

[Tom]

Some years ago, I pointed out some editing problems in Interpreter articles. It was my way of helping to build the Kingdom. While copy editing at Interpreter has improved over the years, I had to laugh when I saw the Proprietor's surname misspelled three times in the space of a single paragraph in the latest article.

The world we choose to live in determines, among many other things, how we read scripture. Those who have chosen to live in God’s world read a different Bible and Book of Mormon than those who have chosen to live in a godless world. Dan Vogel and Dan Petersen do not read the same Book of Mormon. For Vogel, the Book of Mormon is a purely naturalistic product of Joseph Smith’s nineteenth century. For Petersen, the text has both ancient and nineteenth century provenance, being composed anciently and translated in the nineteenth century. For Vogel, Joseph Smith was the sole, purely naturalistic, human author of the book. For Petersen, the book has multiple authors and, since most of those authors are prophets, God strongly influenced the book’s construction and content.

I assume that Brother Wyatt, the managing editor, is tweaking his boss for mocking him during an Interpreter Radio Show broadcast several years ago. Does the Proprietor read each week's article or review before it is published? The answer seems to be no. Does he read the articles and reviews after they’re published? It’s not clear.

[drumdude]

They must be referring to someone other than Peterson. Have we looked for this Dan Petersen? Dan Peterson has insisted that Interpreter articles go through a stringent process of peer review and editing, and must be of the highest quality before release.

[Tom]

They must be referring to someone other than Peterson. Have we looked for this Dan Petersen? Dan Peterson has insisted that Interpreter articles go through a stringent process of peer review and editing, and must be of the highest quality before release.

I may email my good friend Richard Nygren down in Birmingham for assistance. He’s well acquainted with most Latter-day Saint apologists and will likely have contact information for a Brother Dan Petersen.

[Doctor Scratch]

They must be referring to someone other than Peterson. Have we looked for this Dan Petersen? Dan Peterson has insisted that Interpreter articles go through a stringent process of peer review and editing, and must be of the highest quality before release.

I may email my good friend Richard Nygren down in Birmingham for assistance. He’s well acquainted with most Latter-day Saint apologists and will likely have contact information for a Brother Dan Petersen.

If Nygren doesn’t have any information, you might consider contacting Louis Midley. I understand that he and Petersen are fast friends.

[Gadianton]

For Petersen, the text has both ancient and nineteenth century provenance, being composed anciently and translated in the nineteenth century

I'm surprise Petersen isn't outraged by this. How dare they circumvent the translation committee in the spirit world? Anybody can see it has nothing to do with the nineteenth century, and is a product of the ancient world and the 15th century.