Leaderboard

3 Nephi 22 is quoting Isaiah 54, and in the BoM the translator has made a decision to reflect the KJV. In other translations of Isaiah 54:12, the words the KJV renders as “windows”, “agates”, and “carbuncles” are commonly rendered “battlements” or “fortifications”, “rubies” or “gemstones”, and “jewels” or “shining gems” or “beryl” or “crystal”. Basically, Isaiah is poetically saying that it’s gonna be beautiful. By the way - there is precedent for the Book of Mormon’s translator relying on the KJV even though a more accurate English rendering could have been rendered. Compare Malachi 3-4, 3 Nephi 24-25, and Joseph Smith-History 1:36-39.

I agree with @NeuroTypical, but would also invite you to consider: what do you believe you, as a woman, ought to expect of a husband who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood? Does it make a difference to you whether your children’s father holds the Melchizedek Priesthood? Or, if he does hold it, whether he honors it and fulfills the obligations inherent to that priesthood?

I think that's the critical detail. Why doesn't he feel welcome?

From Jesus the Christ:

Hi and welcome. There's some wise advice I've heard: When people tell you/show you who they are, believe them. Sounds like your BF is being honest. So you can believe him when he tells you and shows you he's not temple sealing material. Sounds like you've got a choice to make. Either break up and find someone with a compatible view of faith/religion/church/the eternities, or marry him and give up on yours. That means the probability that any kids will be raised outside the church. People who don't feel welcome in the church, probably won't want their kids going.

I agree that they were trying to defer to the KJV for those Isaiah verses. But I have a different take on these passages about Malachi's prophecy. Joseph had already received the words from Moroni a long time before the translation of the BoM. They were recorded. Many of the Isaiah verses specifically had changes from the KJV because they were "corrections". The JST tends to parallel those changes. D&C 128 indicates that Joseph merely considered the words of Moroni a "plainer translation". But the words of the KJV constituted an adequate translation as is. The JST shows no change from the KJV. Put this all together, and it would seem that the prophecy given to the ancients was simply different than the same message that the Lord wanted delivered to our dispensation. What would "reveal unto you the priesthood" really mean to them? The Jews after the Diaspora didn't have the same order of priesthood as what they had before teh scattering, or understanding of it as we do today. It wouldn't make any sense to them. So, different words were spoken to them. The use of the word "turn" is simply a clarification that could easily go either way. In English, it is plainer the way Moroni rendered it. In Hebrew, it would be more standard to render it as it stands in the KJV. Still, the KJV basically says the same thing as Moroni said it. The primary difference I see is the "utterly wasted" vs "smite the earth with a curse." I have my own ideas about this. But my ideas don't really stand up to scrutiny. So, I'm still working on that part.

John 1:1 is quite a meaty verse. John really had a way with words. And this is evident throughout his Gospel. Why is Jesus "The Word"? This verse is a wealth of etymology and semantics. And that was exactly what John was using to communicate so much in so little. Written in Greek, the word John used was "Logos." That in and of itself has a wealth of meaning. Logos means: Word, speech, utterance, etc. Reason, logic, cause, motivation (Logos is the root of the English "logic") The controlling principle of the universe (cultural meaning in Ancient Greek) It is also the root of "Legend." This means both "the legend of Bagger Vance" and the legend on a map that helps you identify symbols used thereon. I tend to believe that a little bit of all these meanings was part of John's message to us. Additionally, one cannot make such a cryptic statement in Greek without also evoking the trinity (I use the word purposefully) of arguments: Logos, Pathos, & Ethos. Does John mean to evoke a meaning distinct from Pathos & Ethos? Does he mean to include all three? Thinking in terms of the Trinity, this trinity of words seems appropriate. But John really wants to focus on just one word -- whether unified with or distinct from the others. He is the physical manifestation of the Plan of Salvation. He is what is real. He is physical. The Father is Ethos (authority). The Spirit is Pathos (heart/emotion, etc). Separating them in this manner really does a disservice. But this is part of the Trinitarian argument. And it is also why we believe in the Godhead. We cannot separate them in our worship. They must be worshiped as one God. Jesus was also the word because He was the messenger of the New Gospel that would replace the Law of Moses. It is HIS message, HIS testimony, HIS gospel, HIS covenant, His Atonement. The common wisdom is that the word "gospel" means "good news." I slightly disagree with that definition (consider how we use "news" today). Rather than "news" I'd say "message" (think about how they used the word "news" only 100 years ago). But the full translation would be "God's Word." Earlier English didn't distinguish "good" and "God". If it was good, it was of God. And God only did that which was good. Now, let's look at the JST: My personal belief is that this was not a "correction" to the text. Joseph obviously wanted us to get away from the Trinitarian notion. But the D&C still reminds us that Jesus IS God (D&C 18:33,47 & 19:18). He's not "God, The Father", but he's still God. So, it was perfectly accurate as it was. So, why bother with the change? I believe that he was trying to point out a specific meaning because it was more important than all the other meanings in the verse as John intended. The primary point here is that the gospel is all about Jesus. It is the Word, Covenant, & Doctrine of Jesus Christ. What do you think Joseph's response would be if you asked him these three questions: Was Jesus, in the beginning? -- YES Was Jesus with God? -- YES Is Jesus God? -- YES So, this was not to "correct" anything. It was more of a commentary to direct us to a specific concept as written. Let's face it, most people don't really understand why John wrote this in this manner. The Christian world already has many different interpretations which all have some validity to them. But Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration. He wanted us to focus on the most important meaning which usually gets lost in the translation. The most important part of John 1:1 is: The gospel is all about Jesus Christ, our Lord, our God our Savior & Redeemer. See the word play? That's why Jesus is the Word.

Asking it about transgender issues is a fun exercise in finding out what it's allowed to say, and what it won't talk about. If you ask it to write a paragraph about detransitioners or the gender critical theory, it will refuse. But when I asked it to write a paragraph about transgendered children, I got some sanity:

That is correct. I don't know if you've really thought through what "genetically altering the host" means. This is a deep topic that could take pages to explain. Contrary to some alarmists rhetoric, the mRNA vaccine is NOT "gene therapy". https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/ Compare a virus' effects on the immune system vs the mRNA vaccine's effect on the immune system. A virus injects itself into a cell. Then it releases a certain protein that is harmful to the body. The immune system responds. The mRNA vaccine is a copy of some proteins that the virus generates. The immune system responds. From that point on, the process is identical. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy That difference is that gene therapy means that the genes that are affected are the actual "operating cells" (my term for clarity) of the body. These are the cells that are merely the differentiated copies of the original cell formed when the egg and sperm united. That set of genes are being altered all the time in tiny quantities by a variety of effects. Both genetics and epigenetics may be involved in such changes in every human being. The mRNA vaccine differs in that it does not have any affect on our operating cells. But it does work with genetics in that the "stored" nucleotide sequences are kept in the body's lymph nodes. But this is VERY different from actual gene therapy. So, if you think of this as "gene therapy", then you may as well say that our immune system is performing gene therapy all the time. That would be incorrect. You may be confusing this technology with CAR T-Cell Therapy. Two different things. Yes, that is the weakness of the mRNA vaccine. It only carries a few of the overall proteins that the virus can produce. Thus the immune system is triggered again only when those few proteins are found in the body again. (From what I understand, the Pfizer vaccine only protects against three proteins). A natural immunity (having contracted the virus naturally) means that the lymph nodes have a record of many more proteins. So, it is triggered whenever ANY of those proteins (From the sources I've read, this generates immunity for 26 proteins). There are some technical arguments that can be made (and have been made) about the efficacy of the three proteins chosen. And they are, indeed, good arguments. But in practical application, they don't seem to work. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-withdraws-authorization-covid-drug-effective-new-variants/story?id=96715718 I don't know where you get that from. Cytokine storm is a phenomenon that periodically happens from a variety of triggers. It is uncommon (but still noticeable statistically) with ANY vaccine. Some people (like me and my son) are much more prone to having such reactions from vaccines than others (like the rest of my family). But I have heard of no additional risk of CS from the mRNA vaccine than from traditional vaccines. But I haven't heard any reliable sources say there isn't additional risk either (No, I don't consider Fauci a reliable source). It seems that it hasn't been commented on. If you know of a source that does indicate such, I'd like to see it.

It is my opinion that the primary reason G-d will step in and stop evil is to preserve innocent children from suffering abuse from adults. The Book of Enoch said that the reason for the flood was for two reasons. First - that children were conceived for corrupt purposes and second that the order of marriage was changed. If we apply this to a specific city – I guess we could ask if there were at least 10 people that would not abuse children for their own desire and pleasure and allow (respect) marriage according to G-d’s law (between a man and a woman). The Traveler

The Hebrew words kadkod and eben refer to precious stone and high quality stone respectively. The precious stone is often thought of as a ruby. The high quality stone is quite generic, leading to such a variety of translations. It could be something like marble (which was certainly sought after) or it could be some type of semi-precious stone. The KJV translation used agate per a different definition which was basically a naturally occurring glass which was considered a precious stone because such stones were harder than our glass today. I have no idea what those translators thought a carbuncle was besides my uncle. ( @zil2). As JAG says: It's just conjuring up images of a beautiful place.

Carb's uncle wants to know if it will be as beautiful as Carb's aunt. Carb's aunt will be satisfied with the absence of pus in Carb's uncle.

Los Angeles, yes. New York City, yes. San Francisco. maybe. Washington DC - let me get back to you on that one. My town? At least one.

Are there 10 righteous people in, say, San Francisco? New York City? Los Angeles, Washington DC? Your town? Seems like the presence of righteous people delays destruction of the wicked.

" I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah." “Nothing happened in Sodom and Gomorrah which exceeds in wickedness and depravity that which surrounds us now." Personally, I think there are some things that our world is doing today that those people would have found abhorrent. It is remarkable how quickly and how far man can fall.

Video on how the earthquake-proofing will work. Dang amazing. If (when) there's a big earthquake, the temple will basically sit still while the earth moves around it.

That's a good thing to keep in mind. While we may be open to accepting federal funds, we are not dependent on them. And it seems that this setup means that the only reason BYU even bothers accepting them is that the students often need them and apply for them, not the Church.

“If you are going to go looking for it check your moral compass first,” Mason cautioned Monday evening. “The last thing we need is for this to turn into some sort of supervillain origin story.”

I'm now imagining that first conversation - before social media gossip - took over and the usage spread... Party 1 (pointing to patient): "What is that!?" Doctor-like person: "It looks like ... like a ... a carbuncle!" Party 1: "Yeah. One filled with pus maybe..." Party 2: "Gross!" Party 3 (outside, not hearing every word), to party 4: "He's got carbuncles." Party 4: "Whats?" Meanwhile, millennia later, @Carborendum wonders, "What about my uncle?"

😁 In medical circles, a "carbuncle" is indeed a pus-filled boil. In mineralogy, a carbuncle is a red gemstone, usually a garnet. I guess our creative ancestors thought that an angry, pus-filled boil resembled a fiery red gemstone.

Carbuncle is a precious red gemstone: Carbuncle (gemstone) - Wikipedia Agates are semi-transparent, but windows in those days were open to the air, not glazed. I'm surmising that these "beautiful and versatile gemstones" Agate - Wikipedia formed the window opening or even the shutters for the opening, so that even when closed, light would shine through. Some say the use of this stone allows those in the house to see the glory of Zion but not the fullness of the presence of God -- meaning that we live in Zion in the last days by His protective grace until we are perfected and quickened sufficiently to see God.