Justice

Yes, the German Bible is said to have the most accurate translation. Doesn't really matter though, German and English are different. I'm sure the Church could put together an accurate Bible if it needed to. I'm looking forward to the day when we get all of Christ's words that He spoke to the people in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi). He taught all things to them from the beginning to the end and expounded all scripture in one. I think what we have is good enough for now, and serves the desired purpose for those seeking truth.

There are obvious, logical reason why we do not. I guess we'll agree to disagree. The KJV is said to have some of the symbolisms intact that are distorted or destroyed by other versions. The GAs made the KJV the official version of the Church, and have left it that way, for a reason IMO.

You missed my point. I'm going to abbriviate the portions of the Bible Joseph Smith edited as the JSV, even though I know it doesn't constitute a version in and of itself. Joseph Smith DID use the KJV. He DID alter and add to the text. He did not use any other edition of the Bible. Here is the reason that is important: Once another translation is different than the KJV (whether they used the KJV as a starting place or not) that means we can no longer use the JSV as a study and comparison. Does that make sense? The JSV used the KJV and attempted to "restore it" to the original text of the writers. Yes, it is "The Bible" as you claim, and not any version. But, he was using the KJV and attempted to correct it to it's "perfect" form (the portions he corrected). So, if you use the Book of Mormon and any version of the Bible you will do well. But, if you use the Book of Mormon and the KJV and JS corrections to it, it seems the best solution.

We've found that as we pay tithing the things that shouldn't add up do! We know we will have struggles with certain things financially in the coming weeks, but when they arrive we always have more than enough. It's fuzzy math!

Because Joseph Smith corrected some of the wrong or deficient translations in it through revelation. He did not do so with the NIV. So, if we read the KJV, use the JST footnotes that fixes wrong portions or adds deleted portions, and then use the portions of the Book of Mormon that more fully explains the doctrine, we have a very good starting point for anyone who wants to understand the more difficult passages in the Bible. Since Joseph Smith did not correct errors in any other edition, we would have to compare the text of that particular translation to the KJV and the JST to see if it agrees, and if it doesn't we're back where we started. So, why go through all the hassle? Just read the KJV with JST corrections and additions, and the portions of the Book of Mormon where the doctrine is expounded. It just makes sense. Maybe it makes too much sense. I know we try to overcomplicate things at times. :)

I don't believe so. The outcome of all worlds is that the Savior provided a way for all who desire to return to Heavenly Father can do so. Death was overcome; hell was overcome. No failure, The plan was perfectly implemented in every world.

So we can learn and have experience.

This might account for the disrepency: ^ The LDS Church at that time did not draw a distinction between President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In that time, the person who in the modern church would be called the Acting President was set apart as the President of the Quorum. The second-most senior apostle was not set apart as the President of the Quorum if they were a member of the First Presidency, which Smith was. So, he could have been set apart as President of the Quorum, without technically being next in line to be prophet. One of the counselors was the real President of the Quarum ordination wise.

Christ never told the man he was saved. If you think there is only a heaven and hell, as your friend has been taught, then it's naturtal to think Christ was telling him he would be saved. But, as Hemi pointed out, all those saved from the second death will be "saved" in the Kingdom of God. There are many degrees of glory and many mansions within His Kingdom. He was not being promised exaltation. Also, there is another interpretation of what Christ told the man. The literal transaltion should have been "today you will be with me in the spirit world." This could be either paradise or prison. But, it could simply be a testimant by Christ that there is life after death, and therefore, there is a God.

Don't like it. Did this guy include all the symbolisms? Did this guy include the chaistic structure?

Yes, could be. But, has not been. Right now I believe we should stay with the KJV and use the JST as a suppliment, and use the Book of Mormon to understand the things that are mentioned in it.

Hemi, if you imagine what it must be like in eternity, you have to stop short of thinking about infinity, because our minds just can't reach that far. So, I guess it's impossible for us to imagine what it might be like. Yet, I've seen glimpses of what it must be like, and how time is viewed. What is time? We measure it by how long it takes the earth to revolve around the sun. We age and decay. We die. In this life, things have an end. This measurement of the earth's revolving and this death we see go hand in hand to help formulate our understanding of what we think time is. Let's say we're living on the sun, and the solar system revolves around us, and then let's say we are immortal and will not age, decay, or die. What is time then? Death can no longer be used to aid our definition. Planetary movement can be, but which do we choose? It can be whatever we choose. Do we choose the earth as a measuring stick? Or, do we use Saturn? The amount of "existence" that transpires would be different, but it wouldn't matter if we are eternal. Let me say it another way. We go to work based on the time of day. "I have to be at work at 7:00 and I get off at 3:00." Time governs our activities. When God created the heaven and earth, time was dictated by His actions. God spoke and created something, then said "this is the first day." Then He created for a period and said, "This is the second day." The first and second day didn't have to occupy the same length of existence, and in my opinion they did not. But, as I said in my last post, time is dicted by His actions. I don't know what time is to an eternal being, but I do know that actions are used to determine time, not the other way around. God can only measure time by how long it takes Him to accomplish a task. The ultimate being "one eternal round" or the span of existence it takes for Him to have children, and then perfect all of them that can be. That is one eternal round or one generation. Each "eternal round" isn't necessarily a set amount of time, but that "span of existence" (or time) marks the event. It's hard to wrap your brain around. But, if you can manage to step outside of time in your mind, you can get an idea of what it must be like.

The problem is that when another version is made it is (it must be) based on the understanding of the individual(s) translating. The KJV has errors in it. Joseph Smith pointed some of them out, and the Book of Mormon points some of them out. But, when a group of people, no matter how smart they are, get together to decide what the Bible really means, it must be based on their understanding. With modern discoveries and more in-depth study of the past, parts of new translations can be made more accurate. But, in some instances modern beliefs are "read into" the text and they are altered more to side with a particular belief. For instance, the Trinity or rapture can be read a little more clearly in some modern translations. So, even with good intentions, the translators of a new Bible can mislead their readers.

Matthew chapter 2 makes it clear that they were well aware of the prophecy: 1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Neither the wise men nor Herod knew His name, yet they referred to Him as Christ. This had to come from the Old Testament. This shows they knew of the prophecy and that His name or title would be Christ. It may also be a language barrier that caused them to write one thing in the Old Testament and something different in the New, as the 2 books were written in different languages. In Luke 1 there is also a story where an angel names Jesus before He was born: 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. So, it's not unprecidented that Jesus' name, or the title Christ, was known before He was born. The fault may be trying to equate the Book of Mormon to only the Old Testament and not also to the New. It is clear that some people knew Christ's name before He was born. There is evidence it was revealed in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

I would say it means God does not use time to reckon His activities with, but His activities are used to reckon time. He puts time in motion when He creates new physical worlds in order to bring about His eternal purposes. Time is a tool He uses, not something that He is subject to. He is not bound by any time contraints, since He lives in eternity.

The only insight I will add is that they were written in Egyptian. That being the case, we know they originated during or after the time of Joseph of Egypt. I don't think Adam or Enoch wrote in Egyptian, even though the records of their lives were included in the Brass Plates. I don't know of a more complete list than you've already given.

If not for the first vision and Book of Mormon we wouldn't be a religion, and therefore would have no reason to be different than them to begin with. I understand the need for tact and stealth if there were a mutual organization formed, but to not teach our founding beliefs and principles would seem like betrayal. How can we lead people to Christ and at the same time steer away from the first vision or the Book of Mormon? What would we lead them to? Without them we would be no better off than anyone else. They are the visible foundation for what separates us. I, too, can't see them (Evangelicals) being a part of an organization like I described unless they gave it serious thought and prayer. But, that's all this organization could ask, it could not require them to believe it. That would be akin to the organizations that say Mormons aren't Christian. The differences require us to be different. We could have good motives and be cordial at first, but eventually ALL good Latter-Day Saints would, out of necessity, bring up the things most dear to them. Those would be how the first vision and Book of Mormon bring them nearer to Jesus Christ.

Take some time and digest the beginning of Alma 13: 1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. 4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. 5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared— 6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his arest— 7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things— 8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end— 9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

Yes. Joseph Smith taught that spirit is matter. Spirit beings are real and corporeal, unlike the understanding of "spirit beings" held by the world at large.

That's one of my favorite movies. What struck me was that he exibited behavior that neither coach taught him, but that he learned from his mother... compassion. In any case, I see your point, but I recognize it as one looking from this side of the veil. From the other side of the veil, where perfection and righteousness will reign (for all those who will have children of their own, and therefore even NEED this information) I don't see this as being their attitude or method. They will be taught the methods by perfected, glorious beings. Future parents will be willing to learn instead of trying to find their own way (like parents and people do while in this mortal existence).

Mine would be that the first vision of Joseph Smith was a real event, and everything we learn from it would have to be truth... including that the Father and Son are different beings with tangible bodies of flesh and bones. However, if you take that to be true, then this group you propose would have to believe in continuing revelation, and that revelation would have to lead you to a reorganization of Christ's Church... being the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So, from my perspective, and being totally honest here, whatever new organization made would be but an appendage to the Church and have the goal or mission of bringing all to Christ, just as taught in the Book of Mormon. Sorry, PC, but truth is truth, and I see no reason to turn away from it. Each member of this new organization would have to dermine for themselves if the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture and if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

The Book of Mormon describes it as a beautiful place with rivers, hills, trees, and homes (be glad to give references). I think heaven will be much like the beautiful places of this earth, but on a much more grand scale. The physical is patterned after the spiritual.

If we hold the LDS idea that God Himself is part of an eternal family, and His roots stem back to infinity, then this method of creation and exalting His children was taught to Him, and not learned by experimentation. He carrys with Him all the wisdom and experience of an eternal family of man. The idea that Christ is not just a person, but a philosophy and method of bringing salvation to children, would mean He chose this method in a pre-earth, earth, and post-earth life and therefore would only need to be taught the execution of this eternal method.

Agreed.

My first comment would be that there is evidence in the Bible (strong evidence if not proof) that a 13th apostle was called after the death of Judas. There is even evidence that a 14th was called. People will believe what they choose. But, if his stand is that there can only be 12, then 1 or 2 more would not have been called. And, what of Paul? Was he an apostle? did he witness the baptism of Jesus? If he did, he was there as a non-believer sent to persecute and/or murder the believers.