Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/20/16 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    That bothers me not in the least. It would not bother me today, as long as they married and both were in their right minds. One of the big things I hate about grtf-welfare schools is that they infantilize children. Admiral David Farragut commanded his first warship at age 14. Benjamin Franklin wrote articles for a fairly large newspaper when he was less than 16 under the pseudonym Prudence Dogood. It's virtually impossible for an adolescent (which didn't even exist back then) to do anything of the sort. So they have regressed back to what we expect of them, which is, essentially, nothing. Lehi
  2. 3 points
    No one knows exactly. It is my opinion that the reason is that the JST has served its primary purpose. (See 5 below.) Your question is similar to one antis ask frequently: Why don't you (LDSs) use the JST? There are, to my mind, six reasons for this: 1) We don't own the copyright. That belongs to the CoC. We worked for decades to get permission to use a tiny fraction in foot- and end-notes. 2) We don't need it because it's available with the full text from Herald House (the CoC publisher) and the most important changes in our own edition of the AV as foot- and end-notes. 3) Joseph never finished it (which is your question in a different guise). Some claim he did based on a statement that he had. But this statement is open for interpretation, and, more importantly, refuted by Joseph's own acts. He was still working on it a few weeks before his martyrdom. When the RLDS Publication Committee took the "manuscripts" in hand, they found it "bone tiring work" to prepare an engrossed copy for the printer to work from. The translation process changed about the end of Matthew and Genesis. The first had Joseph read from a large, family-style Bible while his scribe wrote word-for-word the text as Joseph read it from the book itself or from revelation. But that took a long time, and God had him change the process so that Joseph read, but the scribe only wrote the changes, while each made marks on the document before him: Joseph in the Bible, the scribe on the transcript. (These symbols were underlinings, dots in pairs or triples or singles, dashes, and so on and matched.) However, as the Publication Committee discovered, it was not clear what these changes meant. As noted above, the Prophet was still working on it right up until his death. This he did by pinning scraps of paper to the manuscript. Again, the meaning wasn't always clear 4) We don't need it for doctrine. We have the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the Book of Mormon to reveal doctrine that has been lost in the Bible. 5) The purpose for the JST was to train Joseph in "prophethoodness". With rare exception, prophets of earlier times had grown up in a culture that knew what a prophet did. They may not have accepted them, but they understood the job description. As Joseph went through the Bible, less hurriedly than he'd done in the Book of Mormon, he could reflect on how Ezra or Moses or Isaiah approached his ministry. 6) God hasn't commanded us to use the JST. We are already "weird enough" with the Book of Mormon, etc., that if we also had a different Bible, our work of spreading the Gospel would be even more difficult, and those who might listen now, might not in such a case. We have a promise that the records of the Jews and of Israel will be available to us at some point. That time is not yet. Patience is a godly virtue. Lehi
  3. 2 points

    Alma 9:2 Something I found....

    2 Who art thou? Suppose ye that we shall believe the testimony of one man, although he should preach unto us that the earth should pass away? Alma was teaching those in Ammonihah They asked him this. Do you know what is amazing about this verse? The people were invoking Jewish Law. Jewish Law requires at least two witnesses. They were invoking Jewish Law! How would they have known Jewish Law if they did not have Jewish ancestors? And how would Joseph have known that? Evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.......
  4. 2 points
    I remember my seminary teachers trying to help us memorize scriptures, but I don't remember ever passing them off verbatim--I'm terrible at that sort of thing and I have huge respect for those who have been able to train their minds in that way. I do remember that, if the scripture was read aloud, we had to be able to find it; and I did pretty well at that. I think it's worth noting that seminary isn't about imparting knowledge in an academic sense; it's about giving students a general (and frankly, quite superficial) background in the scriptures while cultivating their spirituality and giving them the tools they will need to find the answers they need when they need them and to independently undertake a more serious study of the scriptures later on in life. As for common core, I doubt that as a curriculum it's objectively worse than the status quo. The problem is a) the centralization issues @anatess2 mentions, and b) that the status quo allows children to be helped by their parents who grew up learningthe same methodologies. Common Core denies children this source of support, and there's some evidence that that's why the White House is so enamored of it--there's a belief in the DOE that if ("privileged") parents would quit helping their kids with their homework, a lot of the achievement gap between K-12 students of various ethnicities would disappear.
  5. 2 points
    No, no!, a thousand times NO!!! "Life expectancy" is not a useful measure unless you attach an age. The assumed age is "birth", so, while a neonate could expect to live 40 years in the i, his father, presumably at least 15, would have an LE of at least 60, and his living grandfather, aged, say 45, would have an LE of 70 or so. All life expectancy tell us is that half of the people alive at a given age will be dead at another age in the future. Since half or more of all children died before age 5 until about the mid XIX, the LE at birth was necessarily low. but when someone lived to age, say, 20, his LE wouldn't be a whole lot different for a twenty-year-old today. Lehi
  6. 1 point
    The Silence of the Lambs has telling scene—one that lays out the two main worldviews of our day. Clarice Starling, the young FBI agent from the Behavioral Sciences division, attempts to assess Dr. Hannibal Lecter, experienced psychiatrist—and serial killer. He looks at her questionnaire and scoffs. Their conversation goes something like this: “Clarice, I kill people and eat them, because I like to, and you can’t call this evil.” She responds that she thinks he may have made some questionable choices, and she would like to if they might work together towards healthier future decisions. Again Lecter laughs and says, “You have traded good and evil for behaviorism.” Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ to his enemies for 30 silver coins. Jesus welcomed him, gave him a position of leadership, and entrusted him with the group’s finance. He had community, authority, and purpose. Maslow would have said that Judas achieved self-actualization—all thanks to the Savior. The betrayer rewards Jesus by stealing from the accounts, turning him over to corrupt religious leaders, and then, even after realizing the error of his ways, by refusing to reconcile—choosing instead to take his own life. Jesus says Judas is in hell. He declares, “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” The only result worse than non-existence is hell. A philosophy professor once suggested to me that since God knew Judas would betray Jesus, the traitor cannot be blamed. It is true that, “the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought.” However, the Bible continues, “If you seek him, he will be found by you.” No one has to sin. The book of James tells us, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.” God is good, righteous, and has prepared Heaven for us. Satan is bad, evil, and will be bound in hell for eternity. Will we turn to God or continue in the ways that seem right to us, but which end in death? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bad-evil-hell-real-good-righteousness-heaven-tommy-ellis?published=t
  7. 1 point

    How was your day?

    Apparently I have had the best day of anyone I know.
  8. 1 point
    And why procrastination is a subtle death. When we are all are resurrected those who are wicked will be wicked still, and those who are good will be good still. On a seperate note i've always wondered why the thought of foreknowledge lets the doer off the hook for their actions.
  9. 1 point
    Someone more physics-minded could correct me on this, but I think it has been demonstrated that quarks have "mates"; and that if you change a characteristic of one quark, the same characteristic of its companion will *immediately* change in a similar way (no lag at all) regardless of how far apart the two quarks are. I think it's been hypothesized that this could for the basis for a means of instantaneous communications for locations light-years apart. One might build on that by imagining a world where people have figured out how that link is possible, and then can send matter by the same means (or, can send information such that distant particles reassemble themselves to create a clone of the thing one wishes to send a la NT's idea)--but only to locations where the "mate quarks" already happen to be located (and figuring out what those locations are would be quite a trick).
  10. 1 point
    1.5 to afford women protection and support. this can vary on how it's done... in times where women have few rights sometimes marriage can offset that.
  11. 1 point
    Wasn't average male life expectancy back then late 30s to early 40s anyway?
  12. 1 point
    I think it's not too much of a stretch to hypothesize that Emma sincerely changed her mind--first she rejected it, then she believed it (or at least, had enough faith to try to make herself believe it), then rejected it again. Well . . . yes and no. That the Twelve, collectively, should take the reins of the Church; was pretty well established--at least, within Nauvoo--by the end of August 1844 (regardless of whether you accept the story about Brigham Young actually taking on the voice/appearance of Joseph Smith at that conference, something happened to leave the Nauvoo saints in relative unity on the matter by the end of the month). The issue resolved in 1847, was whether the Twelve could designate one individual who would wield their collective authority; and that's where a number of dissenters really started to argue that the Q12 was overstepping their authority (the allegation didn't get very far with the bulk of the Nauvoo saints, who were already in Winter Quarters; or with the British saints, who had mostly been converted by members of the Q12; but it was more effective amongst the scattered branches of the Church in the US and Canada). I think you're conflating the second anointing with having one's calling and election made sure; but so far as I know they are not synonymous. The former does not guarantee the latter, any more than the priesthood ordinance of confirmation guarantees that the recipient will actually receive the gift of the Holy Ghost or any more than receiving Cowdery's "apostolic charge" meant that a particular member of the Q12 had actually experienced the sort of divine encounter that the charge speaks of.
  13. 1 point
    I think I'm going to have to ponder that for a while before my imagination stops feeling like a rock in a sling...
  14. 1 point

    Does morality require a god?

    Not only has the OP disappeared, some of the account information has disappeared and he also removed his Facebook references to this discussion. He has basically gone silent. On a different note, here is a video I enjoy:
  15. 1 point
    You forgot the only reason that matters... God commanded it and the guy is going to do the best he can to follow God's commands
  16. 1 point
    Only the bliss one - because mormons don't do sinful bliss.
  17. 1 point
    None of the wise-cracks I thought of seemed wise.
  18. 1 point

    Who do we worship and how?

    This discussion has me curious. Do LDS worship Jesus as God the Son? I've always assumed so, and thought I'd heard such here. In checking at FAIRMormon.org, all the articles were about whether LDS believed in a biblical Jesus, not whether or not he was to be worshipped. At LDS.org I found this: https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/12/children/we-remember-and-worship-our-savior-jesus-christ?lang=eng Basically, it's a Christmas article urging LDS to remember and emulate Jesus. The title, though, was calling for the worship of Jesus. The vast majority of "traditional Christians" do worship him. Our songs are full of adoration: Jesus Jesus Jesus, there's just something about that name. Jesus Jesus Jesus, like the fragrance after the rain. Kings and kingdoms shall all fall away, but there's something about that name. I believe there is a Christmas cantata, that quotes from Isaiah: The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, throughout eternity... Then there is the chorus in which the first verse is for the Father, and the third for the Spirit. The second verse goes: Jesus I adore you Lay my life before you How I love you! Then there's Philippians 2: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. It would seem to say that the Father glories in our glory of the Son.
  19. 1 point
    Just adding to the awesome reply from @LeSellers, I would also suggest the reading of this article: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible_(JST) In my view, as Joseph opened the seventh and last dispensation of the gospel, he had special gifts and talents unique to his person and role at the time of the restoration. Remember that in the 19th Century there wasn’t so much technology available to help in translation. Nowadays we have a lot of resources that can help us in translation processes. So, the other 13 Church presidents had different roles in their presidency time and certainly translating the Bible was not part of it. We acknowledge these men to be prophets, seers and revelators, meaning that if God so desired, they could have accomplished that task, but somehow they didn’t. Our living prophet, Thomas S. Monson, has the same prerogatives as his former prophet companions. We don’t know what the Lord has been reveling to him and what sort of revelations they might be. The only thing we can do is speculate. It’s my personal opinion that there are lots of things that these 15 prophets have been taught by the Lord that hasn’t been allowed to be told to the general membership of the Church. Why? Simply because we still need to use the resouces already available to us and because the Lord has said so.
  20. 1 point
    3 Nephi 28:39 tells us that the physical change involved with translation is not equal to the physical change involved with resurrection. Elijah et al. would still have looked at Christ's resurrection as a deliverance, their embodied states notwithstanding. So, the real question is whether translated beings who are taken to heaven go a) to the spirit world, b) directly into God's presence, or c) into some unrevealed "elite club" consisting solely of other translated beings. Option b) seems problematic given D&C 138:51 (entry into Father's kingdom, immortality and eternal life predicated on *resurrection*); and option c) seems both unlikely and doctrinally unsupported. But I know of no reason why option a) could not be the case--is there some scientific law that embodied beings cannot enter the spirit realm? John the Baptist's presence on the mount of transfiguration strikes me as being the real head-scratcher; unless his role was merely to serve as someone known to the disciples, who could have confirmed the identity of the other embodied divine messengers.
  21. 1 point

    Hillary openly panders to Mormons

    The same is true for almost anything that remotely resembles philosophy: economics, politics, religion, and so on. I have developed what I call "the Iron Law of Humanity": You can tell what any person or group of people want by observing, over time, what they accomplish." There's a similar "law" that tells us that that which a man thinks every day will make him into that thing. Lehi
  22. 1 point

    Who do we worship and how?

    The Father is the focus of worship, just as Christ Himself worships the Father.
  23. 1 point

    How was your day?

    I just had an image of you in a Superman pose with your hands on your side reciting this in the mirror each morning - hah!
  24. 1 point

    Hillary openly panders to Mormons

    But the opposite is also true: were we to assume that she had nothing to do with the murders and other suspicious deaths around her and her husband, then she becomes the victim of this vast right-wing conspiracy and gains the support of a significant part of the voters. The thing is, no one in the left-stream media has even raised this possibility, and the numbers are high, and rising. What better way to paint her with a brush of rosy hue? The pattern around her is that she treats the law as if it does not apply to her. The eMail scandals, the lies about Benghazi, the lies about landing in Boznia under sniper fire, and the myriad of lies about her husband's mistresses and rape victims; these all point to her scoffing at the law. Why would murder be the exception? If we look at the eMail scandal, for example, Comey recommended she not be indicted. But he did so in a speech that listed her myriad of crimes. If that isn't "[buying] out the [prosecution]" what does? And, as I said earlier, even if she didn't order the murders herself, she has surrounded herself with people who would. And she could have known, and, indeed, she should have known what was going on amongst her confidant(e)s. If she didn't know (which I doubt), she has the façade of plausible deniability. The circumstantial evidence is such that any unbiased jury would find her guilty of a host of felonies. That murder would, or might be, one has no power to shock me in the least. Lehi
  25. 1 point
    Basically it sounds like they're applying the policy that already exists for children of polygamous families, to children in households headed by a gay couple--no baptism until you're 18 and out of the house, and you have to specifically renounce your "parents'" lifestyle.