What are /r/MormonDoctrine's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

The issue with the link you sent is it does not stick to the facts.

>That her sealing to Joseph Smith was for eternity only and without conjugality or for time and eternity and consummated is undocumented, except for Zina’s one statement in the Wight interview, and will probably never be known. Regardless, there is no evidence of polyandrous sexuality in any of Zina’s marriages.

I love how it says no evidence of polyandrous sexuality when she has children from both her first husband and from Brigham Young.

This link here shows her Married to but never divorced from Henry

https://www.familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/M18Z-MPT

Edit: I want to point out that it shows records of marriage not of sealings here

> KJB

Just to be clear, you're referring to the KJV here, right? I'm not being pedantic. I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

> And bows down the mean man and humbles the great man them not do therefore forgive to.

But that's not what the Book of Mormon says. I don't claim to be a Hebrew expert, nor can I validate your personal translation; however, you seem to be ignoring the key fact. Your translation does not match the Book of Mormon text or the KJV text; however, the Book of Mormon text did copy the KJV text word for word in the case of these errors. Therefore, the Book of Mormon still copied a bad source, which was definitely not buried a thousand years earlier.

> Now, the MISTAKE you are making is you are claiming that since the KJV isn't a MEANING for MEANING translation

No. I'm saying that since Joseph copied these exact words into his book, words first sourced here and not translated correct as per my understanding of the experts in the field, then he did not get those from a perfect source or plates buried in 500 AD.

> But as I already pointed out, the KJV is not a MEANING for MEANING translation, it is WORD for WORD and that is what the Hebrew literally says.

Okay. Then why is this site wrong? Where is the word-for-word translation incorrect?

If this is yours, you should look into bootstrap. It's free, lots of tutorials, and fairly easy to make a pretty decent looking webpage without having to do a ton of HTML/CSS

https://getbootstrap.com/docs/3.4/css/

I would also add sources at the bottom of your page. You can use anchor tags so that there is a link on places you make a claim that will bring the reader to that specific citation at the bottom of your page. You can use Wikipedia as an example.

I would also move your side notes and parentheticals into an appendix at the bottom and use the anchor tags like with the citations so that it flows better when there reader is reading through and you get the main information you want them to have right out front rather than just bouncing off the giant wall of text.

> I guess what I'm saying is do you believe that there is some global equilibrium, or would there be multiple local equilibrium?

Great question, I would lean toward multiple local equilibrium. In fact, I'm pretty sure Steve Peck's book has a few pages that don't discuss convergence but do discuss how he runs evolutionary computer simulations and the best models have multiple local minima.

> do you think that convergent evolution would be a result of deity intervention or could it be merely the result of the laws of physics?

That's a million dollar question. Simon Conway Morris in his Gifford Lectures ends with a final lecture where he claims he will now "commit intellectual suicide" and suggests that something transcending the natural world as we now it may be at play. He likes it to there being a song of creation that nature seems to come into resonance with and admits this has spiritual overtones.

I have heard others say Morris is going to far with that and it must be built into the physics in some way we don't yet understanding.

Personally, I have no idea. But I do think this: there has been so much philosophical baggage that has been built up around the idea that evolution is "completely random" that I think if this randomness actually contains convergence this could have major philosophical implications.

> Also, if I may ask, what is your area of study in physics? (I work mainly with quantum structures as a theoretician.)

Nice. I am a cosmologist focusing on early universe physics from supersymmetry and cosmic inflation to the formation of the first stars and galaxies. My papers are on arxiv if you search Joseph Smidt which I would link here but this sub automoderates links to unapproved websites.

I also do some nuclear weapon design.