If it's this talk, I'm missing what was purportedly said in the clip from reddit.
I'm wondering if someone might point out the time stamp?
Maybe it was another talk? I'm always wary of things being put out on the Internet that are 'shorts' on YouTube or found on a social media site such as reddit.
Regards,
MG
Your link doesn't work...
It looks like you have to scroll down to the story (seventh one down). Is it possible that the 'smoking gun' link posted in the OP might be A.I. generated?
It looks like you have to scroll down to the story (seventh one down). Is it possible that the 'smoking gun' link posted in the OP might be A.I. generated?
Regards,
MG
No need to invoke AI - the link was "broken" by the autocorrect function of the board software which cannot distinguish between what's typed as part of a URL and what's typed as regular text.
The board capitalizes 𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 wherever it occurs, just as it capitalizes 𝗹𝗱𝘀. This also makes it impossible to guarantee that any URL will never be mangled, as we (regular board members) have no control over what is autocorrected.
You can use the trick that I employed in this comment to get what you want to see outside of a URL, but if you use it inside a URL then the URL is non-functional.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
It looks like you have to scroll down to the story (seventh one down). Is it possible that the 'smoking gun' link posted in the OP might be A.I. generated?
Regards,
MG
No need to invoke A.I. - the link was "broken" by the autocorrect function of the board software which cannot distinguish between what's typed as part of a URL and what's typed as regular text.
The board capitalizes 𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 wherever it occurs, just as it capitalizes 𝗹𝗱𝘀. This also makes it impossible to guarantee that any URL will never be mangled, as we (regular board members) have no control over what is autocorrected.
For example 𝘄𝘄𝘄.𝗶𝗺𝗼.𝗰𝗼𝗺 is rendered as www.in my opinion.com.
You can use the trick that I employed in this comment to get what you want to see outside of a URL, but if you use it inside a URL then the URL is non-functional.
Interesting. Nonetheless, it's possible to get to Elder Oak's talk. I'm not seeing/hearing anything that's a 'smoking gun' in this talk.
And he looks a lot better than he was made out to look in the 'short' that was found on reddit.
Something fishy going on? Hard to say. But for reasons I've already mentioned I wonder if we ought to be a bit skeptical. If there's nothing to it, it wouldn't be the first time a critic had a so-called smoking gun that turned out to be a dud.
No need to invoke A.I. - the link was "broken" by the autocorrect function of the board software which cannot distinguish between what's typed as part of a URL and what's typed as regular text.
The board capitalizes 𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 wherever it occurs, just as it capitalizes 𝗹𝗱𝘀. This also makes it impossible to guarantee that any URL will never be mangled, as we (regular board members) have no control over what is autocorrected.
For example 𝘄𝘄𝘄.𝗶𝗺𝗼.𝗰𝗼𝗺 is rendered as www.in my opinion.com.
You can use the trick that I employed in this comment to get what you want to see outside of a URL, but if you use it inside a URL then the URL is non-functional.
Interesting. Nonetheless, it's possible to get to Elder Oak's talk. I'm not seeing/hearing anything that's a 'smoking gun' in this talk.
And he looks a lot better than he was made out to look in the 'short' that was found on reddit.
Something fishy going on? Hard to say. But for reasons I've already mentioned I wonder if we ought to be a bit skeptical. If there's nothing to it, it wouldn't be the first time a critic had a so-called smoking gun that turned out to be a dud.
Regards,
MG
MG the smoking gun is that via this “prophet, seer, and revelator” we know that the church and its apologists denials that “God didn't become a God” like the Lorenzo Snow couplet and all of church history say, is PR nonsense.
If Elohim didn’t become a god why do heavenly mothers exist? To beget spirit children? Oh, what is the ultimate goal of those sprit children? Why to reach exaltation to godhood and rule over “thrones and kingdoms and worlds” of course!
Mormon apologists continually get metaphorically kicked in the face by church leadership and I find it rather funny
Interesting. Nonetheless, it's possible to get to Elder Oak's talk. I'm not seeing/hearing anything that's a 'smoking gun' in this talk.
And he looks a lot better than he was made out to look in the 'short' that was found on reddit.
Something fishy going on? Hard to say. But for reasons I've already mentioned I wonder if we ought to be a bit skeptical. If there's nothing to it, it wouldn't be the first time a critic had a so-called smoking gun that turned out to be a dud.
Regards,
MG
MG the smoking gun is that via this “prophet, seer, and revelator” we know that the church and its apologists denials that “God didn't become a God” like the Lorenzo Snow couplet and all of church history say, is PR nonsense.
If Elohim didn’t become a god why do heavenly mothers exist? To beget spirit children? Oh, what is the ultimate goal of those sprit children? Why to reach exaltation to godhood and rule over “thrones and kingdoms and worlds” of course!
Mormon apologists continually get metaphorically kicked in the face by church leadership and I find it rather funny
Megladroth, I have no idea as to what you are referring. Can you reference denials of this sort? This would be a major shift in LDS teaching.( not just, well we don't much teach that for deflecting a televised question)
Has the hymn Our father with its verse about heavenly mother been removed?
MG the smoking gun is that via this “prophet, seer, and revelator” we know that the church and its apologists denials that “God didn't become a God” like the Lorenzo Snow couplet and all of church history say, is PR nonsense.
If Elohim didn’t become a god why do heavenly mothers exist? To beget spirit children? Oh, what is the ultimate goal of those sprit children? Why to reach exaltation to godhood and rule over “thrones and kingdoms and worlds” of course!
Mormon apologists continually get metaphorically kicked in the face by church leadership and I find it rather funny
Megladroth, I have no idea as to what you are referring. Can you reference denials of this sort? This would be a major shift in LDS teaching.( not just, well we don't much teach that for deflecting a televised question)
Has the hymn Our father with its verse about heavenly mother been removed?
No it hasn't. We've sung that hymn recently. Reference to Heavenly Mother is made at church.
Here is the original OP's explanation of why it isn't AI.
o
The link was to his fireside he gave in Brussels Sunday evening. The quote excerpt was from a sacrament meeting he showed up to in the Gent ward in Brussels Sunday morning. The sacrament meeting was only broadcast to ward members so a link is not available. This excerpt was captured by a ward member in the morning during the Sacrament meeting talk. Several people insisted this excerpt was Al generated so Rebecca sent the link to the fireside to show that Elder Oakes was in fact in Brussels that day.
@mo
The Church News has written up an article about Oaks and his talk in Belgium. Can you guess which part of his talk they forget to mention?
They didn't show the talk at the Sacrament meeting. I think we know why.
Exactly
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
