Justice

It's different working on a novel than something that is supposed to be historical, factual, or even scriptural, declaring that it actually happened and is the word of God. You can add to a story you made up easily, and you can even say it was supposed to be there all along. That's very different than adding entire chapters claiming them to be historical. You better not be making it up or you are lying, fabricating, or claiming it actually happened if you only made it up in your mind. As I said, there's no doubt that by definition, he edited the KJV. My attention is on the portions that could not simply be edited because they did not exist. Those portions had to have been a translation from revelation, just as the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants.

So, anyone who writes a book simply edits it because the blank paper changed? C'mon, you can't "edit or revise" something if there's nothing there to edit. I understand he started with the KJV, but there are writings in his translation that don't exist anywhere else. Some of what he did can certainly be called "edit or revise," but when you add a story that was not there, although you "change the existing text" it can't be considered a "revision of the Bible" if an entire chapter was added. Sure, it's a revision to the KJV, but adding chapters is very different than changing a word here and there. Anyone can study ancient languages and possibly come up with a better word or phrase to describe something, but if anyone adds chapters, they better be a prophet, and it better be revelation. This is why I feel "edit or revise" does not fit what happened.

Mortality is a temporary state, but that we have our physical body with physical desires is not temporary. Any physical desire contrary to a specific kingdom of glory must be overcome in order to obtain that glory. This is what I was trying to explain with Alma 42 when he teaches his son about the "restoration" that comes with the resurrection. Check it out.

How do you explain entire chapters being added? What did he "revise?" The chapters are new and don't exist in the KJV.

This thought may apply to Lucifer and his followers, but in this life we can change because of the atonement. This is the comparison I was referring to. Again, one that does not understand good and evil, or is still innocent, is not a valid comparison. I'm saying that when your spirit is joined with a body it faces a whole new set of criteria. It has a whole new set of senses and frailties to deal with. We are sent through a veil of forgetfulness anyway, and we become a new creature with both spirit and body, and we must learn to become holy in this new condition. Naturally, the body wants us to pleasure it. We must learn to choose joy over pleasure. This is considered a change from the natural condition we are in from birth, not from pre-mortal existence, because we have changed. Through Christ, people can and do change their lives and obtain redemption. Redemption - general-conference

What's interesting is that I agree that going from English to English wouldn't be a "translation" as the definition is generally accepted. If I believed that's what happened, I wouldn't have said a word. The fact that it went from English to English, but has been changed and has had many chapters and verses added, is what's interesting. That it didn't get translated from one language to another, yet still had many changes... where did the changes come from? Hence: Revelation to English, the same pattern as the Book of Mormon. Therefore, it is a translation... just as much as the Book of Mormon is. I appreciate when people use valid definitions and point out their view. Hopefully, Snow will see that it couldn't have been just an "edit" since it has more than word and expression changes, but entire chapter additions.

You said "we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state." Then you quote a scripture that you believe points this out. Notice what the scripture is saying. It is not saying we will be innocent again at the end of our mortal state, but "in their infant state." When we are born into this world we are innocent (again, as when we were just spirits), up until the time we exercise our agency to choose evil. We are no longer innocent, and can never be again. Look at what happened to Adam and Eve. In the Garden they were innocent (just as us when we are born here). Once they ate the forbidden fruit, they were never innocent again (just as us). We can become righteous, as Adam and Eve, but never again will we be innocent in that sense.

Or, that person can change. I still think what you're missing is that all those who kept theit first estate were changed when they took upon a mortal body. We must change from the natural, selfish desires brought about by a mortal body. Comparing those who gain a body to those who did not is not comparing apples to apples.

How could he have "edited" all those chapters that didn't exist in the KJV? Like all the extra things in Matthew, and in Genesis that Joseph of Egypt wrote? I see where you are coming from (I did before I made my initial response), but I believe Joseph Smith translated the Bible from revelation, otherwise, it's just as suspect to errors as any other translation.

If you want to get technical, he didn't "translate" the Book of Mormon either. If your definition is that a person has to know both languages, the one being read, and the one being written, in order to make a linguistic translation, then you can discount the Book of Mormon. The "translation" of the Bible made by Joseph Smith was the same as the translation of the Book of Mormon. They were translated into English through revelation.

My question would be according to who's interpretation? Scholars even disagree about what exactly happened and what the words in the original languages meant at the time they were written. It's not that the Church doesn't "like" any other translation, it's that we have been given a study guide to go along with the KJV so that we can understand it better. We were not given one for any other verstion. As I was saying, Joseph Smith did make a more accurate translation of the Bible, which we use as a study guide. There are a few reasons why we don't use it as the official Bible of the Church. Not the least of these reasons is that we are a missionary Church. We send tens of thousands of missionaries out into the world to teach about Jesus Christ. For someone who has never heard of Joseph Smith or the restoration, it is best that they first learn that he was a true prophet called of God just like Old and New Testament prophets before they learn we use his translation of the Bible. Once a person sees the Book of Mormon as being translated by the gift and power of God, they are in a much better position to see that his translation of the Bible was done by his prophetic gifts as well. Very good questions.

Moses 3: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Moses 7:32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; Doctrine and Covenants 93:31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. Doctrine and Covenants 29:36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; Doctrine and Covenants 101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; This chain of scriptures is very powerful in understanding the basis of this discussion. I've mentioned this before, but the 2 red scriptures seem to contradict each other. One says Satan and his followers exercised their agency in the pre-mortal existence and fell because of it. The other red one says God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden. Understanding this seeming contradiction is where the answer is made known. Since Satan and his followers exercised their agency in the pre-mortal existence, we know all children of God has the ability to do so. You don't have to understand good and evil in order to make a choice. All you need are two things to choose between. Our difficulty is in seeing what it was like then as opposed to now. Just like in the Garden of Eden we were innocent in the pre-mortal existence. I believe this holds the key to understand. God "gave" man his agency in the Garden of Eden because all things were in place for God's plan to be accomplished. The physical world had been created and man was born into a physical body, whereby when he sinned or transgressed, he would fall to a mortal state and have an opportunity to repent. Before the creation of this world God did not "give" anyone His permission to use their agency. Choosing wrongly then meant eternal cosequences since the only fall that could come about was a spiritual fall. There was no accompanying physical fall, or death, that would give man a chance to repent, and for redemption to be made. I believe that's the seeming contradiction. Notice where God says, in the Pearl of Great Price, nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself. This permission was not given to us in the pre-mortal existence because the dangers and risks were too great. By refusing mortality they refused the only way by which they could learn to exercise their agency and be redeemed. Evil does not have to be present in order to choose. WHat they chose was to not come to earth and be mortal, thereby making it impossible for them to be redeemed of any wrong choice. Wrong choice does not necessarily imply evil, it could mean the choice they made could not save them. Where they failed is that they did not trust Father or Jehovah, but they trusted one who did not have the ability, the power or permission, or an understanding of what was required in order to be exalted. This is the same struggle we have here. It's not even clear at this point if Lucifer intended on saving eveyone that followed him (even though we know he couldn't) or if he knew his alteration to the plan would not work but just wanted the glory to himself. I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them, and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency. This scripture seems to imply that we had some kind of knowledge in the pre-mortal existence... possibly of good and evil to some extent, but was not given permission to exercise our agency to choose. It seems logical that most of us needed to experience what it was like to choose, and could not really come to know unless we did.

I like to view God as "in time and space" because of many thing I have read in the scriptures. For instance, God moved upon the face of the waters before He spoke and created. He started at one point, and then moved to another location. Even if near instant travel, one moment gave way to another. Then God spoke, which is but another moment. He moves through life just as we do. The Book of Abraham speaks of how the plant and sun closest to Him is what governs time in other places such as earth. It takes the place He dwells 1,000 of our years to elapse one day. I believe we have enough evidence to conclude that God exists in both time and space. The distinction, however, is that He is not bound by time or space. He does not age or decay, nor does space or distance prevent Him from going anywhere in a moments notice. He lives and operates differently in time and space than we do, but time does pass with Him. This is why life is made up of eternal rounds to Him.

I believe his example of the 3 lines is very good, and I think I'll have my friend read it to get his take on it. I'm sure he'll come up with a different way to understand the line analogy. I can't wait to show him!

Yes, and if it were opposite, or if we were under our Heavenly Mother's care while in this life, my speculation is that Christ could not have been born mortal, and no redemption could have been made. It seems so simple to me. Maybe I'm missing something? But, this seems the driver for eternal roles, and why men on earth hold the Priesthood, and why Christ had to be born of a mortal mother. I'll admit that we know next to nothing about Heavenly Mother. I am very glad about that. The way I feel is that I can forgive you very patiently if you offend me, but if you offend my wife or my mother it's much harder for me. We have no understanding of her power, or how she is attached to the Priesthood, or shares in it with her eternal companion. In other words, just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it's not there. Quite possibly it is reserved for a later time. Or, on the other hand, maybe it is just a male thing. All we can say for sure is that on earth it is for males only. Thank you for your understanding RM.

To me it's simple. The Priesthood is given to man so that he can serve. There are tasks that need to be accomplished on earth so that His children can be exalted, or have a chance to be. We help in those tasks since He cannot be here personally. So, we serve our fellow man, and by doing so serve God. It accomplishes God's work, while helps man to set aside his own selfish will, and adopt God's will for him.

Are you saying you have proof I am wrong? Or, are you saying it has never been said specifically as doctrine and is just speculation? Because saying "it is not doctrinally sound" doesn't sound like you're saying "it's just speculation." It sounds like you're saying you know I am wrong. There's a difference. As I said, my biggest speculation is that the offspring takes on the physical characteristics of the mother, not the father... if the mother is mortal, the baby will be mortal, and if the mother is immortal the baby will be immortal. Show me where I am wrong, or tell me you didn't mean it is doctrinally unsound, but that I am speculating and you don't know if I am right or wrong. I'd like to see what you have seen that leads you to believe I am wrong.

I think you missed my point. My point is that Heavenly Father is the one who appears to fallen man in physical bodies. Heavenly Mother does not. This is not speculation, we know it's true because it's the way it happens. You're free to disagree because I stated it differently than you've ever heard it, but the basis of this part of what I said is simply fact by what we know. You are going far beyond my simple point. All I'm stating is that while in this fallen, mortal world, Father has charge over us, to send His Son, and reveal truths of eternity... Mother does not. We know this, not because it states in scripture, or that a General Authority has told us, but because it's what happens. I didn't have to go very far out on a limb to state what happens. Frankly, I find your adamant objection to this part very odd, because all I did was state what happens. What exactly did I say? I think you're reading more in than what I said. It's funny, becuase I essentially stated what you did, just in different words. Heavenly Mother is hiidden to us on earth. Clearly, you simply restated this. My speculation is that She attends to her spirit children. The other possibility is that she does not. It seems only reasonable to imagine she attends to her spirit children. It follow the pattern set on earth. The mother stays "in the home" and the father tends to more physical needs. I fail to see how this is blasphemous or dangerous. You'll have to fill me in. Very true. It has not been stated in my words and ratified by the Church as doctrine. You know as well as I do that anything regarding Heavenly Mother will not be known (at least until the Millennium). My big speculation is that mortal women give birth to mortal children (blood), and that immortal women give birth to immortal children (no blood). That really is my big speculation. I don't find that very impossible to believe. If it is true, then what I said is but a result of what would happen if women left heavenly home as immortals to tend to their children on earth, instead of Father(s), leaving Father in secret and at home. I can show you much evidence of this speculation (mortal women give birth to mortal children, and immortal women give birth to immortal children) in the scriptures. But, it doesn't really matter. She asked a question and I stated my beliefs. I never claimed any part of it is doctrine, but maybe I should have stated it is my speculation. In any case, just because it is speculation, and just because you diagree, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I believe all the logic involved is sound, and I believe it fits every scripture that deals with these topics (I didn't arrive at this conclusion until after studying it over 20 years).

You can get a glimpse of the answer by determining why Heavenly Father takes care of all things physical, while we can assume Heavenly Mother's role is largely spiritual. The "down to the nitty-gritty" answer is that Jesus had to be born of an immortal Father and mortal mother in order to perform the blood atonement. Did you catch that? Read it again and think about it. Had Christ been born of mortal father and an immortal mother, He would have been born immortal, like His mother. He would not have been able to perform the atonement because He would not have been born with blood. This is an eternal truth and drives the very plan itself and the eternal roles of males and females. It's certainly not that one is more important than the other, it's simple logic. Since, for the above reason, it is required that "men" lead things physical or earthly, then naturally they hold the Priesthood. Because as I said, but will word it differently, if women had the divine roll of the physical or earthy (appearing to mortal man and revealing God's will), then a mortal Savior could not be born and children could not be redeemed. This is deep, and might take a very long time for me to explain how I arrived at this. But, I'm sure those of you with ears to hear will hear it.

The war in heaven was the war of words where each side tried to win over the other after each made their choice. Once sides were develpoed by the choices that were made, the war ensued when each side tried to claim members from the other side. This war continues on earth, and in the spirit world once Christ bridged the gap between prison and paradise.

People do things all the time they are unwilling to do. Part of this life is learning to do God's will, or what is right continually, in spite of what we want. I tell my kids all the time that I can't force themk to do anything. They have their moral agency and choose to do whatever they want at each and every moment. Sometimes it takes doing what you don't want to do in order to do something right. We are not like animals, where we act out of instincts alone. We have instincts, but we can learn to not do what out instincts wants, and we can learn to do the will of God for us in spite of what our natural selves want.

Thank you for these comments. I just wanted to comment on this first part I quoted. In order for us to follow Heavenly Father's plan we had to rely on Jehovah to redeem us. Part of His plan, as described to us, is that we would fall. Once fallen, the only way for us to be brought back into His presence was for a Redeemer to be sent. He had to atone for our fall. We had to exercise faith in Jesus Christ in the pre-mortal world because it was something that caused us to act based on something that hadn't happened yet. We made the choice to follow Heavenly Father's plan with only the promise that He would send someone to redeem us once we fell. We had to exercise faith in Jehovah. Faith does not require us to be away from Heavenly Father, it just requires a promise by God that He would do something in the future. We can exercise faith in God's promises as long as it requres something from us "now" and includes promised consequences and punishments, or rewards and blessings in the future. We exercised faith in Christ in the pre-mortal existence.

I didn't read all the posts. But, clearly, Lucifer and his followers made their choice to rebel and chose something evil in the pre-mortal existence. They were not in a physical body that could fall and become mortal and live for a period of time allowing them a probation period to repent and be redeemed. Their fall was permanent since they died the only way they could, spiritually, with no chance at redemption. God's plan was to create a physical world where we would fall to a mortal state and then have an opportunity to repent and be redeemed from our fall or death.

Saying that "Jesus dwells in your heart" is different than saying "the Spirit dwells in your heart." Jesus Christ was resurrected and had/has a body of flesh and bones. Either He still has it, or He ditched it somewhere.

So, if this life has no bearing on who we are or what we become, or any change to ourselves, why even come here?