All Activity

Count your many blessings, name them one, by one...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tSnaZKUXEE Perhaps many have seen this video about the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Christ. I realize that it is longer than most would care to listen, but I recommend it if you have not seen it before. I especially like the reference to Lehi’s Dream and the three points of doctrine of Christ and what we can understand from the examples given in revelation. The Traveler

It may have not been completely completed, but it is complete enough to be completely better than the KJV. 😁

I try not to be alone with a woman if it can be avoided as I am married. Personally I believe it leads to nothing good. If you are married, flirting with someone else is also not something wise to give in to. There is a very fine line of being friendly and getting into flirting territory. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide. My own conscience calls me out along with the Holy Ghost many times when I am not in a spiritual mind set. 8 So then they that are after the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you . . . 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. -- Romans Chapter 8 Inspired Version

Hi again Suzie. I was looking through my spiritual journal recently and also discovered this: “The reason why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not published the entire [Inspired Version Bible] manuscript is not due to any lack of confidence in the integrity of Joseph Smith, or doubt as to the correctness of the numerous additions and changes which are not in the Authorized Version of the Bible. The members of the Church do accept fully all of these (changes) as having come by divine revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The reason that is has not been published by the Church is due to the fact that this revision was not completed. It was the intention of Joseph Smith, while at Nauvoo, to take the scriptures up again and complete his labors, making numerous corrections which had not been made by him in the earlier revision. Due to persecution and mobbing this opportunity never came, so that the manuscript was left with only a partial revision” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions: A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum 1972-73, page 312). Why doesn’t the current Latter Day Saint leadership, who possess priesthood keys and serve as God’s mouthpiece upon the earth—finish the work themselves? Bruce McConkie wrote that “up to the present time none of his successors have been directed by the Lord to carry the work forth to its final fruition” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 383). However, he promised, “There will be a not too distant day when all necessary changes shall be made in the Bible, and the Inspired Version — as then perfected — shall go forth to the world” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 384).

I must point out again that you've never met me.

I agree with you. This is a really interesting post. Thank you!

You still haven't provided any links to specific examples. You made the claim. You need to back it up. But let's assume you're correct (you could be). That is by no means an indication. I'll give you an example. Did you know that for many years people thought Joseph had the First Vision at 15 (16th year of age) rather than 14? True. This was because of a side note that the scribe (Fredrick G. Williams) wrote as a superscript in the 1832 account. As far as we know, Joseph never spoke those words. Yet that version was widely circulated saying "15 years old." Virtually everyone believed it and everyone repeated it. But with so many other versions (which were less popular for a while) saying 14 years, it was eventually corrected among the common membership. So, mistakes can happen en masse a lot more often than people like to admit. Just look at mainstream Christianity. And, yes, it is quite possible that multiple accounts misheard or misunderstood exactly what words were used in the speech, and what their meaning really was. And, of course, there is one more test for valid revelation: What other apostles then repeated Young's doctrine in their own words and by the Spirit of Revelation? You said many of his contemporaries repeated his words. I'm aware of people quoting him, but not adding their witness of the Spirit to Young's words. Show the links.

I'm pretty sure they were. But the subtle changes of the artist's hand were just enough to give the "hyper-ideal" figures some qualities that simply wouldn't exist in a real human being.

I think you mean Camp 2.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/sites-released-for-three-temples-in-florida-and-utah

These are my personal observations. Take them for what they seem worth to you. There are two types of men: Those that understand women on an emotional level Those that do not understand women, but naively assume that women are emotionally pretty much like men, only more prone to tears The second group is far larger than the first. Most temple-worthy Latter-day Saint men find themselves in Camp 2. Your husband is statistically likely to be a Camp Twoer. Men can also be divided (roughly) into two camps along another axis, namely, how they feel toward women: Those that respect women Those that do not truly respect women as people, but see them as things to be used to achieve their own ends. Call these Camp A and Camp B. Curiously, at least in my experience, Camp A seems at least as large as Camp B, and probably larger, both inside and outside the Church. To hear women talk about it, you would never guess that to be the case, but I think it is. Some men call themselves "pick-up artists". These men are usually from Camp 1 and almost always from Camp B. Women find these guys irresistable. Why? In part at least, it's because they are from Camp 1 and understand women. And because these men are also from Camp B, they use their understanding of women to get into their panties. For them, that's the game. They are expert flirts. For women, flirting is a game to see if they (the women) can garner external validation. For men (at least for the PAs), flirting is a game to see if they (the men) can successfully seduce the women. This is a dangerous, volatile situation. The women involved in flirting may not consciously be looking for a sexual "hook-up", and may even believe they want to avoid that. But they are craving that emotional validation, and the men (at least the PAs) know exactly how to feed that hunger. Many women have found themselves in bed with a man they don't know and/or don't even like because they "followed their heart" (meaning their emotions) into the bedroom. Odds are that you would not follow through and cheat on your husband. But let's be clear: You're playing with fire and stand a nonzero chance of getting burned. If you view your marriage through a gospel lens, you will consider it of infinite importance, and would not risk its integrity to get some attention any more than you would risk your child's life to get some thrills. Whether or not the other guy was a PA is beside the point, at least as far as that goes. (By the way, women divide into the same two sets of camps as men. Like men, most women dwell in Camp 2, which is why women so often naively and wrongly claim that men are "emotionally stunted" or some nonsense of the sort; they expect men to be women that shave their faces. However, my observation is that women are pretty equally divided between Camps A and B, and if anything tend more toward Camp B. Men are and always have been viewed by women as caretakers. As a result, women view men quite dispassionately—many men would say ruthlessly—as to what the men can offer to the woman. This is most obvious when talking with young women in their late teens and twenties. If Carb had listened to his sister's friends much longer, he likely would eventually have heard conversation that would have included the women objectifying men, including their husbands, to a shocking degree. Not all women do this, of course; my wife never does. But if men stay quiet and pay attention to what women say in public and in private, many of them will be amazed at what they hear. Women are not the people we men often think they are. More to the point, women are not the people we men have been taught that they are.)

I've seen actual photos of the process being done. They're floating around somewhere, but I don't have the links handy. Let's just say that the people they brought on board as references for He-Man and Skeletor were pretty beefed up by the standards of the early 1980s.

If the entire movie had been up to the standard of that scene it would have been awesome indeed!

If you're gonna use anything from that film as an example, you must use this scene where Gandalf scares Sam just because he can:

None of us here really have enough information to judge how much repentance you might need other then it does not appear you need the bishop. For me, the standard I try to use and I recommend is the Golden Rule... aka Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In this case the application is pretty simple. Imagine your husband doing everything you did... feeling everything you felt... Are you OK with that? If you would be upset, angry or hurt if your husband did it to you... then you have got some work to do. But ultimately that is between you the Lord and possibly your husband. We really do not have enough to say anymore about it. Now you have been shown a weakness. This is great because you can't deal with things you do not know about. You have been shown a need and want that you have. There is nothing wrong with what you want. But there very much can be something wrong with how you go about getting what you want. So talk to your husband, tell him what you want. Odds are he wants it too. Once you guys are both aware of the issue you can make plans to deal with it. It most likely require the two of you investing time, money and effort into your relationship... Don't worry to much about that, because investing in your eternal marriage is one of the best investments you can make.

Oh, right. I got side-tracked. Nevermind. Sorry.

Agreed. I’ll start one later today, unless someone else would like to start one sooner.

How do you know that we don’t have a complete record of the discourse in question? And what about the dozens of similar statements by Brigham Young and others over the next 25+ years?

At this juncture, maybe it would be appropriate to open a new topic addressing Adam/God?

That doesn't answer the initial question I had. Why is the record speech the way it is? That simply isn't a complete record. And without the complete record, any snippets,. secondhand quotes, etc. simply are not sufficient for us to figure out what the heck he was saying. I'd hate to think what people might think about many things I said without proper background.

I believe that this very unlikely. Multiple witnesses heard it the same way it was published. And Brigham Young and his contemporaries made similar Adam-God statements many times over the next 25 years and beyond.

Not really. I was looking for (as Mav claimed) specific examples of Young's tendency to jump back and forth between topics without preamble or segue. I've read through the JoD and never noticed this tendency anywhere besides the A-G theory. It was so unusual that I distinctly remember the first time I ever read it, thinking,"This is really strange. Where did that come from? It has nothing to do with the topic he was just talking about. It came out of left field." Then when he was done with that, he seemed to pickup right where he left off. Literally, if you plucked A-G out of the discourse, it would seem like a perfectly seamless discourse. No other changes required. I have seen many times that speakers (incl. Young) would make a statement that he would give a little background that was tangentially related. And that background was necessary to understand the next section of the original topic. To some, this seems like jumping around. I don't because that is the way I do some discourses myself. But none of the discourses I've seen was as stark as A-G. None of them made me get whiplash from simply reading it. A-G did. That is why I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.

This one seems more useful: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

You’re welcome. 😉