Leaderboard

So 'Spiritual Bypassing' is a thing, but not 'Gender dysphoria?' Seems like the world is using Psychological Bypassing.

I believe there is a greater need for a forum such as this one - more than ever before. But I am not sure that something needed is something utilized. We live in a culture of intolerance that is becoming more and more dominate. I started posting on forums many decades ago (Dr. Laura) because of the anti LDS posts. I was asked to become involved. What has happened is that in "efforts" to become more tolerant we have become less tolerant of opposing ideas. Some call this current trend - the cancel culture. Which is: If someone disagrees with you it is because they think you are evil crud and one must respond in kind. As a culture it is becoming an act of inferiority or stupidity to allow alternate opinions. Of course there are always the opposite examples (like @prisonchaplain). I have personally experimented with him to see where his boundaries of tolerance may lie but he has never taken that challenge. And through it all he seems to see more similarities than differences in our religious faiths. There is a old saying: "If you can not say nothing good about no body - it is more better you no say nothing!" We do not have to respond to every challenge or answer every question. I would personally prefer that the forum be more liberal concerning toxic posts - but the problem is that someone feel that they have to set trolls right. Which is exactly what the trolls want and why they post. If no one responded to such posts - they would no longer post. It does seem to me that if someone posts a truthful and inspired post - it may be read by many but few will respond. Say something offensive, foolish re unusually stupid and everybody will jump in with anger and things will quickly spiral out of control. Which is exactly the purpose of trolls - and may I add Satan and his followers? I think Jesus said some interesting things about trolls when he said, "Love your enemies and do good to those that despitefully use you." But then Jesus was quit strong in his rebuke of the Pharisees. So here is my advice - never respond to any post in anger. If you want to tell someone off - take a day off, pray about it then write a response. If you heart is not full of love towards those you are addressing - save your post for another 24 hours - pray again about what you have written. If you are still upset - then do not respond - rather find a post with which you agree and post a thanks. BTW - @pam Thanks for starting this thread. The Traveler

I started the #GiveThanks thread. That's a start. When I did so, I stopped talking about politics. It has helped me personally. As I recall, the "ban" on political speech was because of the non-profit status of the forums as part of the More Good Foundation. Then either the law changed or some other criteria changed which allowed it. So, the ban was lifted. May I suggest along with JAG: Just because we CAN do a thing doesn't mean we MUST do a thing. I'm going to do my best to stay out of political topics moving forward.

A couple of thoughts through the eyes of having been a moderator for many years on a different, totally unrelated forum: This issue is definitely not unique to Thirdhour. Forums in general are experiencing this dwindling regardless of how well they are run. Other social media platforms are simply gobbling up users. Mega tech giants with huge budgets are aggressively competing for the same user's attention. Unfortunately, the forums of yesteryear may never return despite anyone's best efforts. Sidenote: I would suspect that if we did a survey we would find that most users here today are age 40+. This tends to be the demographic of most forum formatted sites. Users, on the other forum, would try to make this claim as well, "the moderators said such and such...". I see the moderators as 'users' of the site with opinions, just like the rest of us. In addition to being a user and with almost zero fanfare or appreciation, they volunteer their time and energy into making the site better. There are many users who want to relegate moderators down to mere rule enforcement and limit their opinions to zero, unless of course it favors their own. I've been here for 5 years now and have never seen anything from a moderator that I would call toxic. They have always been polite and professional while either giving their opinions or reminding me personally of the site rules. I'll admit, this past year has been particularly hard and I personally have taken a way more serious tone myself. With covid, elections, job insecurities, etc. it has simply been a more serious time in life. As serious topics on the forum arise, serious and passionate opinions flow. When those passionate opinions collide with equally passionate opposing opinions, there is the potential for less harmony. I've both dished it out and received it. I can do better on my end. I'll agree with JAG:

I see more and more of these videos, articles, and blog posts creeping into the church membership. They all have one thing in common. No scriptural or prophetic words backing them up. It just a soapbox of their own. Read Mothers Working Outside the Home and anyone can see that the church is against what she is advocating. They took it one step further in this video. They quoted Spencer W Kimball and said he was wrong... the only mention of scripture in the whole video related to her topic. The same thing is found in their modesty video and whenever they talk about young men not needing to serve missions. This episode belongs on the Mormon Stories Podcast A good 85% of Saints Unscripted is wholesome and Christlike. But these occasional opinion videos show just how accepting of Satan’s ideals “Saints” my age are. I want a good Latter-day Saint YouTube channel that focuses on nothing but the doctrine when it comes to these controversial topics. No opinion, just what has been said... however, I don’t suppose that would be popular enough to gather any notable following.

@Jane_Doe is one of the shining stars on this forum. We have had and do have several. Perhaps if we reach out to engaging friends and invite them to join in. We can and do lament some of the great voices we've lost. It would be nice if some of them return. However, the more common path to success is bringing in new participants. So, yeah...some good old fashioned recruiting might be in order.

You've noticed...eh? It's been going on for a while, and while some of it is not that disturbing and could be encouraging (liberal in and of itself is not a BAD thing, our religion is not Conservative OR Liberal, it does NOT worship our political beliefs and we should not mistake political opinions or parties as our religion. Too many worship at the altar of the false idol of politics, putting forth their politics as their religion rather than having the Lord as first and foremost) there are other items which have been disturbing me for a while which are in direct conflict with what was taught and given by the Prophets and Church leaders through the centuries up until now. Some liberal ideas are reflected in the Bible and so are not terrible in and of themselves. We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto the Lord what is the Lord's for example, to be in the world but not conformed of it (Romans 12). This can be where we allow people the freedom to be who they want to be without persecution. The idea of loving your neighbor, or loving the person but not the sin I can see reflected in encouraging those who are in sin to come to our church (And hopefully repent, but that is their free agency) but still not approving of the sin. On the otherhand, there have been a great number of ideas that have been brought into the Church in the past decade. Some of it is the confusion brought on by those who have created church manuals themselves. You talk about their criticism of Spencer W. Kimball, but there is a trend to do so now that was encouraged by the Church essays and such. In it they cast down a few items taught as doctrine in the past (and even declared as such) and instead imply that the leaders of the time were speaking their opinions and that we do not know why they taught such opinions or actions that they took. This cast doubt on the prophets and their prophetic mission as obviously those at that time did not think these General Authorities were speaking only as men on these topics. This opens up the gambit where we have no idea when a Prophet is a prophet and when he is a man (Brigham Young on the other hand clarified it somewhat, but today there are items that he said as a prophet that we say he said as a man, and the same for Joseph Smith). It is very easy now for Saints to take these ideas and apply it to whatever they want in regards to prophets...including statements by Spencer W. Kimball (and ironically, to some of the ideas in the Bible itself, at least if you accept Paul as a prophet). However, these changes that go contrary to how the gospel was taught extend to many other facets of the church, and many are directly contrasting to that taught previously. Sometimes it is just in direct contradiction to things taught in our modern era but other times, they are in direct contradiction to EVERYTHING written and taught in the Church from the Beginning of the Bible, reinforced in the Book of Mormon and by our Modern prophets, and more. Some of the more disturbing in my thoughts again, is that I see it extended even into the temple and how things are done there (without going into it any more than that). I see it as driving a wedge into the Church in many ways, and this approach has shown a reduction of Baptisms, retention and many other things reflected in the Church itself...at least to my view. So...what is a member to do? What do I do? I remember that I received a testimony of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon. I remember that I have gotten a testimony of the divine calling of the Prophets and the Apostles. This testimony is MORE than just some emotional feeling that I had, or some emotion that is can be felt otherwise. It is a distinct and explicit testimony where I have heard the Holy Ghost testifying that the gospel is true. Because of this I KNOW that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that the Gospel is true. No matter what else, I KNOW the truths given to me. It does not matter what the changes are to the Church for now. As Elder Uchtdorf has said in summary..."Where will you go?" There IS no other place to go. You stay in the boat because it is the ONLY vessel which was designated as the vessel of the Lord, at least until the Lord comes back. We do the best we can, even with what is happening around us. As you are probably not (you may be, but most of the members are not) the Prophet or the First Presidency, there is very little you can do or any of us. Instead, we follow the Prophet and if there are things that are done that lead people away or are not in accordance with what the Lord desires, it will not be held upon our heads (unless in direct contradiction to the commandments and we are directly told by the Lord not to, which has not occurred to me as of yet) but those who have caused the sins to occur due to their responsibility and power. As such, we stay in the boat (in the church) and cling as hard as we can to what we know is true. The gospel is true, and we know that in it we can find a safe haven for when the Lord comes (and he will be coming and is coming). I see a LOT of changes (or what you may call Liberal Ideas) that have crept into the Church in recent years. In fact, if you had me look at the Church today from when I joined decades ago and many of the things that it is teaching or promoting in regards to Church doctrines and to a lesser degree it's history, I may have thought it was an offshoot of the Church rather than the main Church. However, there is ONLY one church that still brings and delivers the gospel as found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. We can either hold to it and stay in, or give up. I don't plan on giving up any time soon. If nothing else, when I have problems or difficulties, I lean back on the testimony I have received so long ago which I cannot deny, and grab onto it in realization that despite any doubts I may have, I still have a testimony that I cannot deny and that holds me to the Church.

It's been sad over the last few years to see the forums dwindle to almost nothing. I realize that we lost a lot of people each time we changed software. Lately I've gotten numerous requests from members to delete their accounts. Many are stating it's due to the toxic nature of the forums. With a big part of the problem being the moderators adding to it. Not my words. Words of those asking for their accounts to be deleted. For me, the forums aren't fun anymore. We used to really have a lot of fun. We could joke and laugh, we played games. It was such a different world than it is now. Everything is so serious now. What can we do to make it better? How can we draw more people into the forums that will participate in a civil manner? How can we make it fun again? This won't be a thread to attack the moderators or other members. If we want the forums to continue we need to do something to show there is a need for it.

My honest thoughts. I joined about 2 years ago because I enjoyed the conversations and felt there were some great insights... today I feel like all insights have been exhausted. Conversations seem to be rehashes of old and few are posting gospel questions anymore. politics have a negative effect, but it’s the lack of honest and thoughtful gospel questions. That is/was the life blood of this forum.

Wow - I had totally forgotten how great I am. Thanks for the reminder Carb!

"That sounds like 'third' in some Latin language," Tom said tersely.

Absolutely! Quite a few of us seem to have lost our steam here (including me). So, more posting by the old standbys might be another key to renewal.

"Creeping in?" No, they are kicking down the door and attempting to drag us into the streets of Sodom and Gomorrah. We have become 'Sodom and Egypt' in Revelation 11:8.

I have noticed it for a long time. Something just triggered in me this time around. I am completely ok with the changes. But cultural changes without the church's stamp of approval is my only complaint. If the church came out tomorrow and said "mothers do not need to be home with their children, go to work and leave the children to daycare" Then I would be less frustrated with videos like these. But when they are spitting out opinions that have no scriptural backing, I can't help but imagine Satan laughing at us for falling for his tricks.

I am grateful for mechanical vehicles that transport us various places in this world. I am grateful for automobiles which allow me to get to work and live where I want (Well, within reason withing car travel of work) and allow our Church wards to be rather spread out (without cars there are many that could have a tough time getting to church each Sunday...when Church is meetings of course) as well as visiting ward members. I am grateful for trucking and rails which bring food and supplies to stores. I'm grateful for Airplanes which also are used for transport but also transport people. In better years cars also bring kids and grandkids for visits as well as Airplanes. I'm grateful for the ability we have to live where we want and still be able to go visit family in a rather quick time frame, something that we are blessed so much with today that those of centuries past did not have.

We no longer subscribe to LDS living magazine because of this same type of thing. Many far left ideals have become very commonplace in that publication, and I would rather me and my children just read the church news or official church magazines for uplifting stories without having to wade through garbage. The same is true for so many latter-day saint bloggers and facebookers...too many people are putting their faith in people rather than the Lord and His servants. I prefer scripture than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

As a theory, yes. Suggesting, yes. But there are plenty of other theories that have validity. And the full truth may not be known in our lives. I have my own theory about that. But I'll get to that later. Noted. Well, there's more to the story. And I'm readily admitting, they are "theories." And I admit there are "questions." I'm not declaring that my conclusions are the simple facts. But put a lot more other facts with it, and a clearer picture emerges. My comment was more of a "big picture" idea. To illustrate, in the 1800s it was very common for a good Christian man to quote the Bible so often that it became part of their everyday speech. Phrases and clauses were interwoven into the common language of everyday life. This was by no means universal. I don't mean to imply so. But it was common enough that people spoke in such a manner and people understood exactly what they meant. Compare that with today where the other missionaries are asking my daughter to "translate" the ENGLISH version of Isaiah to them. We can pick apart the differences between 16th and 19th century. But they are far closer to each other than 21st century apparently. Not so. It expects God's promises to be fulfilled. That does not require inerrant men. It only requires God's guidance and protection. Again, more to the story. "slight revisions to (the KJV)" (my words) "elaborates on the KJV" (your words) I've read a sufficient amount of your explanations now that, yes, I kind of see the nuanced differences. But they are indeed very similar. This is really the basis of some of the miscommunications we're having. Note your use of the word "dogma". I'm going to guess "as opposed to secular/scholarly research." That's fine, but we must always remember your own words: "No text has inherent meaning. All meaning resides entirely and exclusively in the minds of hearers, readers, and viewers. " So, if the text itself isn't meaningful, then I would say learning based on faith, study, and prayer is what helps us arrive at the whole truth. I need to emphasize that I do agree that STUDY is an important part of that trifecta. I hope that as a brother in Christ, that whatever scholarly research presents itself, it is always balanced with faith and prayer. Yes, I always had a hard time with Whitmer's account. And I've always pointed out that it was secondhand. I certainly agree. I'm certain it did. But we still seem to be on opposing sides regardless of how much we seem to be agreeing. Opposite sides of what? I still haven't figured that out yet. Yes, you have. Even if it will never be complete, we can at least get to the slope of enlightenment or plateau of sustainability. I was on the peak of Mt. Stupid. You've shown me to the valley of despair. I believe that to get to the slope of enlightenment, I need to learn Hebrew myself. I've gone through this cycle many times over many issues. Most recently, my newest client basically shoved me into a role I had very little experience in. But he was confident I could figure it out. The little experience I had prior to this put me on the peak of Mt Stupid. And for the time, it was actually sufficient. But this new role pushed me further into that space. And I found myself floundering. I admitted my weakness in this area and they told me to just keep pushing forward anyway because they had faith in me (or rather, they didn't have any other alternative since they had no expert on the topic). So, I did. And now I know enough for the job at hand. But I also know that there are many more things involved that may or may not be in my scope. So, Hebrew? Ok. Challenge accepted. (to be clear: I'm not saying you challenged me. It is more like "life" challenged me.) As far as similarities to KJV vs Brass Plates: I have been an atheist where I depended only on my intellect to guide me. I was always several standard deviations above the norm. So, I did about as well as anyone I suppose. But the very fact that I recognized that "I'll never have complete knowledge" kept itself clear in my mind, weighed on me. After many spiritual experiences I realized that the things of real importance were never highly informed by what our five senses told us. In fact, they can easily be fooled. I am still one of the most educated people I know. Yet, all that knowledge didn't amount to a hill of beans in determining what was of real importance. So, yes, I always try to work from a position of prayer and faith first, seasoned with a healthy dose of scholarly investigation. When they conflict, I have to accept that "I don't know the whole story." Again, let me go back to the analogy of the Patriarch. As I understood it, after the translation from the Golden Plates, there was a period where Joseph and Oliver went over the translation written (mostly) in Oliver's hand. I have no idea how many days were actual translation vs going over that translation. (But only a total of 65 days from when Oliver arrived to when they took it to the printer. That was some feat.) If it were perfectly translated by the power of God, what was there to go over? Well, there were apparently spelling mistakes and words which fell from Joseph's lips that were not properly heard by Oliver. What else was there? I don't know. But it seemed all too much like the process the patriarch told me about his blessings. So, it is entirely possible that for these chapters, instead of using the words of a farm boy, they sought out the verbiage in the KJV to re-word the same "messages" that had been translated. But where the "message" was not the same, they had to alter the KJV so it reflected the "message" of the translated work. That's my theory that fits all the secular facts as well as the oral history. But still a theory.

I am grateful for the blessing of good health, for me and for my loved ones. We have had a few scares that help us appreciate it more but by and large my family and I have been very blessed in this matter.

More posts from me - obviously

As much as I enjoy talking politics—that’s been behind most of the major bannings / withdrawals that I’m aware of over the last year. Maybe we need to reconsider bringing back the ban on political discussion?

For what it's worth, here is my measly 2 cents. I am of the opinion that the translation of any scripture or sacred text does not have to be what we would call 100% accurate in order to also be considered "correct". If we take the Book of Mormon for example, Joseph Smith made the remark that "...the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth..." I believe it is not just the actual words that caused the prophet to make that remark, but it was more so the correctness of the doctrine contained in the text that makes the Book of Mormon the most correct of any book on earth. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the Lord really cares about a changed verb or adjective here and there, as long as His defined doctrines are clearly understood. This is the main problem with the Bible...truth has been removed and transfigured due to the follies of man. Sometimes intentional...and sometimes unintentional. Different people may use different words to describe certain things, and adding in different languages only adds to the complexity. It is only natural to expect a small bit of difference between the BOM and KJV, or even the Bible written in Hebrew or Greek. Suffice it to say that Joseph translated from the small plates what Nephi wrote, and Nephi wrote what Isaiah wrote. The translation is correct.

Fro mmy scripture reading this morning: Titus, 3: 1- 4 1 Put them in mind to be asubject to bprincipalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, 2 To aspeak evil of no man, to be bno brawlers, but gentle, shewing all cmeekness unto all men. 3 For we ourselves also were asometimes foolish, bdisobedient, deceived, serving divers clusts and pleasures, living in dmalice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, and verse 9 9 But avoid afoolish questions, and genealogies, and bcontentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I'd go so far as to say that there is no remedy to emotional and psychological issues that isn't spiritual.

Please don't take the following the wrong way. I'm finding this discussion to be most educational and edifying. I appreciate your participation. But I'm finding myself sloshing back and forth a bit. This is the second time you've reversed my words on this very issue. I said that the brass plates were earlier than the KJV. Not the other way around. Could you take a minute to reconsider what I've written about this? I believe it is somehow backwards in your mind. I'm wondering if you're adding some assumption from your own mind on this issue. I don't know. I'll try clarifying my postion: Whatever records were available in 1600 AD were certainly later than 600 BC. Thus the KJV would be from a later source than the BoM was. If those 1600 AD documents were different than the 600 BC version, there must have been some altering between 600 BC and 1600 AD. Then I said your statement implied (or at least I inferred) that Nephi's words in the BoM were an altered version of the KJV. Thus the BoM was NOT taken from the 600 BC version, but started with the 1600 version and altered it. My position is that the BoM was translated from the 600 BC version with a few transcriptions in between which were "no more dimmed by time." Thus the BoM translation came from an earlier document of Isaiah's words than the KJV did. If earlier, there was no "consulting the KJV" for the wording in the BoM, unless it was done after the translation into English. If a message was translated from an earlier document, it is more probably a more accurate translation -- if we're trying to ascertain Isaiah's original message. Now, knowing where I'm coming from, can you guide me to your position so I can understand it better? That's a good question. And from a scholarly/secular position, no one knows. Joseph Smith, himself, said that the world was not meant to know the method of translation. If we're not meant to know, then we probably don't know. From a spiritual position, it means that "a man can get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book." This doesn't really get into translations and hermeneutics. Personally, my initial assumption is that whatever words the Nephites wrote on the Golden Plates were translated into 19th century American English in the most efficient and accurate method possible (by the guidance of God). Having said that, We don't know how accurate the Brass Plates were since they were obviously copied from a still earlier version of Isaiah's words (unless we assume the Brass Plates have Isaiah's own handwriting). We have the promise that the Brass Plates would be "no more dimmed by time." So, whatever errors were in the Brass Plates by 600 BC would remain unless Divine Intervention made it otherwise. Since all the hands which translated or transcribed those words from Nephi to Joseph Smith were all prophets, we can assume that there were no "additional errors." I don't know. Would you care to expound? The bolded is exactly what I thought you meant. But then you said that was not what you were saying. For my part, I can't say I've received any revelation on it, but I tend to believe not. I could be persuaded otherwise. Again, this is an area that no one really knows. Many people say that it was only translated in Joseph's mind, so the words were Joseph's just Joseph's verbiage of the concepts given by God. But Joseph never confirmed this as far as I know. David Whitmer said it was word-for-word. Again, unconfirmed. If we can draw a parallel to patriarchs: My patriarch and several of my children's patriarchs all made it a point to say that the "wording and phrasing" were from the patriarch. But the concepts and ideas and blessings were from the Lord. Additionally, a patriarch recently told me that the "revelation" portion does not end when he says "amen." During transcription of the recorded blessing, he will often get impressions to change the specific wording to something else than what occurred to him at the time of the verbal pronouncement. So, he makes changes as the Spirit dictates. If we were to assume a similar process with Joseph and the BoM (and I'm not saying this is definite) then that would still imply that even then, the translation is "correct" according to the Lord. What do you think it means? "Direct dependence on the KJV." I thought I knew what this meant. I offered what I thought you were saying. But you said that was inaccurate. So, what are you saying? I'll be sure to check those out. Thank you for the suggestions. But again, I'm depending on someone else's knowledge of Hebrew. Whether trusting a single translation or trusting the notes and explanations of why they chose a specific translation, I'm still depending on someone else's knowledge of the language than my own. So, it's still incomplete.

It’s way over generaling. Are there some people whom like to avoid thinking: yes, the exist in all camps. It’s not remotely a spiritual only thing. Now is is there any pint in responding: zero.

To me it is a bunch of hogwash, poppycock, balderdash, malarkey...take your pick. I could say the exact same things in this article apply to philosophy, which is nothing more than man's way of avoiding the real trials and questions in life. The only "proof" or reason to believe in the author's view is her word only. She has no foundation...no ground to stand on, and her argument is, truly, very weak. At it's most basic and simple level, believing in God makes much more sense than mankind's way of trying to explain everything. Unfortunately, spirituality will continue to be mocked and attacked in greater amounts in the future. That isn't to say that God has a hand in all things...because I don't believe He does. I do believe in real coincidences, and sometimes things just happen to us for better or worse. That's part of life on this earth...and we all accepted those potential risks before we came here. Being a fanatic and thinking that every single thing that happens everywhere is all the will of God is actually contrary to His plan, and can ultimately lead people away from Him. Now, the author can say faith is just a shield if they wish, and perhaps there are some who use it that way; who say that faith "helps them" while deep down they are truly struggling with their belief in God. For myself, I know what I have felt in my life, and I am not confusing true spiritual promptings for mere emotionalism. The Holy Ghost has spoken to me, and I know it was not my own thoughts. I have also had many experiences in my life that prove to me that there is a God - far too many little details all fell into place (some years in advance) for said experiences to just be a coincidence. I love Alma 30:40-41. The more I think about this the more I believe it to be true. Too many things on earth denote that there is a God...it cannot all be explained by chance or the opinion of one who has an axe to grind against religion.

Yeah, I agree, it's baloney. The idea of "spiritual bypassing" as described in the opening sentences is probably correct. As human beings, we wrongly use all sorts of explanations and thinking, including the idea of spirituality, to explain away or hide from harsh realities. But the specifics of this idea as developed in the article are pure nonsense. Someone took a simple truth and grafted onto it all their doubts and insecurities, and the result is this "spiritual bypassing".

That seems the reverse of what I was interpreting. The common (LDS) wisdom is that a) What we have today is altered from the original. b) The Book of Mormon is supposed to be the best translation (by the gift and power of God) from the 600 BC edition of Isaiah. But when you said, It would imply that the words which we have in the BoM today are an altered version of the KJV, not an earlier version. By your reaction, I guess that's not what you were saying. So, I'm asking for clarification on what you meant by this. Like what? It seems that whatever source I look to for to help with the translation while I can get directly to the studying will depend on the accuracy of the translator in question. And I would personally have no way of knowing how good it is without knowing the Hebrew myself. So, what are these other alternatives you speak of?

Yes, that's certainly a factor we have to consider (though it would be 3rd century BCE for the earliest translations of the Septuagint), but at the same time, we can point to thousands of examples of the Septuagint translators either getting things wrong, or intentionally changing the translation to reflect theological preferences. They were frequently less disciplined about their hermeneutics back then, which means their take is not necessarily any more reliable than what critical scholars are able to reconstruct today. In fact, in some ways, our knowledge of early Biblical Hebrew today is superior to that of third century Jewish folks translating the Bible into Greek. In other ways it's not. We try to consider all these factors. I've written about that here: https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/why-is-elohim-plural/ I've written on the Church and Bible translation as well, which discusses some of these issues: https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-20-no-2-2019/far-it-translated-correctly-bible-translation-church One of the biggest issues here is the use of the definite article in reference to "beginning." The Masoretic text very clearly does not use the definite article, and preserves the use of "beginning" in construct with the verbal root that follows, creating a temporal clause that continues into verse 2. The verse doesn't say, "In the beginning, God created X, Y, and Z . . ." It says, "When God began to create X, Y, and Z . . ." The overwhelming majority of translations are too theologically dogmatic to translate it correctly. So Joseph didn't do any translating? It was a translation given to Joseph that he just dictated? Why is it so clearly based on the KJV? But it presents the KJV's translation even in places where the translation is incorrect. On what grounds can we argue that it is the "most accurate"? That seems pretty arbitrary. So you're suggesting that Joseph's articulation and supervision of the dictation, transcription, and redaction of these revelations was inerrant? But the Joseph Smith Translation and even the Book of Moses are products of revision of the course of many years conducted by numerous different people who weren't supervised by Joseph Smith. There's even a JST revision in our footnotes that was written by Joseph Smith III. Latter-day Saints rejected the JST for generations. It wasn't until the late 70s that we even decided to give the JST a shot.

No, it's not a joke. It was determined that someone decided to create a "work of art" and happened to be an Arthur C. Clarke fan. My big question was: what is it made of? I'm assuming it is a hollow shell. If it isn't, DANG! If it is steel, it would be far too heavy and it will rust. Stainless would still be too heavy. If it is made of aluminum, it will scar, scratch, dent, and wear away far too quickly to justify the expense. Titanium would be reasonable. But REALLY expensive. I know, only an engineer would care...

It must be understood that the paint brushes and canisters are themselves an integral part of the work. Indeed, the emotional punch is diminished if not lost altogether if one imagines -- if one even CAN imagine -- the opus without those integral elements. Bravo, I say! Bravo!

All our excess comes from Texas.

Or anywhere else with a strange accent. The Traveler

It is true. The demographics for the forum do tend to lean more towards the 40+ crowd.

Do we want to lose more people?

Boy howdy you got that right.

Ok, well, since you all keep twisting my arm, I'll cave. Ladies and gentlemen, Brothers and Sisters, I give you: "When Bob doesn't believe that you know an apostle, and he turns around to see you hugging elder Holland like old friends and you give Bob this look" I urge you, gentle viewer, to not lose yourself in it's majesty. Please, keep a modicum of decorum about you as you try to grapple with your emotions. Try not to spend more than 30 minutes viewing it at a time. Remember, you have a life, and relationships, and duties and hopes and dreams outside of this painting - all of which will require your eventual attention.

Bob and Judy Hill are traveling through Transylvania when they get into a terrible wreck and are gravely wounded. With no one around, they manage to drag themselves to the nearest residence, a terrifying castle. Igor answers the door. Unfortunately the castle phone is out of order, but his master is a scientist who could possibly help. The scientist tries his best to save the lives of Bob and Judy Hill, but in the end they succumb to their injuries and die. The scientist mournfully goes to his organ to play out his failure, leaving Igor with the bodies. As the organ music fills the castle, Igor noticed something strange. With each note, movement occurs in the bodies until Bob and Judy were sitting straight up. Igor ran through the castle to find his master, shouting "Master! Master! The Hills are alive with the sound of music!"