ozzy

Hmmm, I figure on 2 things. One, colleges have to be competitive, so I can't see one having an outstandingly high tuition. Second, when you get a job, how long would it take you to pay back the loans? I figure if you can live well and pay it back in a year or two then you are doin pretty good.

Definitely

Loving-wife: Only if you think God is repressive. But if you trust him, then it isn't repressive so much as part of his plan. I personally don't like to think of women as house wives. Now this is coming from a single college dude, so please remember that I have no experience with any wife house or other. Anyway, the way I look at it is that I don't want my future wife to feel obligated to sit at home and clean all day. I would like her to be a stay at home Mom, and there is a difference. I am concerned about the well being of my future children, and I think it would be wonderful if my wife would be there for them when they are at home rather than just having the TV be there for them when they are at home. As for housework and chores, I feel that I should participate fairly in these rather than just unload everything onto her. I hope I expressed that accurately. I've never really tried to quantify it really.

Thanks for the history. That actually cleared up some misconceptions I had about it. I didn't realize he wasn't an apostle when he did his first edition. Sorry about the spelling. I wondered which was which but decided to just go with K. He is one of my favorites, I just don't think much about the spelling. In any case I prefer J Golden Kimball. He is awesome. :)

I see where you are coming from. I suppose when I personally consider it, I just sort of lump 'removed' with corruption. Though I suppose that in the interests of this thread, that isn't practical.

Gotcha. I'll check them out some time. Thanks. :)

Being from oklahoma (redneck country), I'm sure the version I heard was dirtier. :) I am curious to know if this dude is so eager to express his views in person or just online.

Thanks Jimmie. As a side note, would you happen to know how they compare to each other?

Okay, I think I understand what you mean now. I do agree that for the most part random sourceless claims are antibeneficial and dangerous. My thoughts though are that if it doesn't support current doctrine (which from my personal studies it usually does, then they taught different doctrine back then which negates the idea of a restoration. (some would say that doctrine changes even today. This is not true. Practice changes, but doctrine is constant. At the most, it is added on to bring into account modern needs) That bothers me, and yes, is the reason that I would make such a claim. For the most part, those doctrines that are not outright supported are at least alluded to as truth. An example would be the baptism doctrine. The description of Christs baptism (however vague) does imply immersion. The other practices for baptism have no biblical founding or scriptural support but do have historical support in the individual religions practices. I would say then that more so than textual corruption are examples of practical corruption. On the other hand though, while scholars are pretty smart and usually know what they are talking about, they aren't always right. Science is one area where we see this a lot. It's theories change constantly based on new discoveries and such. I'd bet that scholars still disagree on much of the interpretations, original meanings, textual changes and so forth of the Bible, which sort of negates the 99% (or any quantified claim for that matter) principle. History is like forensics. Sometimes there are missing pieces and so we turn to rational and logic to solve the mystery. Sadly, or rational and logic are neither perfect nor incorruptible. Even if they are scholars, and even if they do know more than me, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that they know as much as they think they do. But I can't disprove them, so I won't even try. I would be interested though to see a republished Bible with the assumed corrections for myself.

I used to go to Dollar General and buy their movie theatre box candy and take it in. Basically the same stuff, just a bit older and no one can tell the difference. That said I don't really care what people think of me bringing my own food in as I think theatres have an overinflated view of just how much their food is worth. I mean really... 3 buck for a hot dog when I can get 8 quality ones for 5? Gimme a break.

Haha, I like what Lieutenant Dan did with his on Forest Gump. :)

Oh, and if it helps, my first post was #70. Future posts on the issue follow in a number of locations. They follow my thoughts. And again, I do agree with you Snow, we can't source our claims to specific instances. The only part I disagree with is that significant changes that affect our understanding didn't happen. At least, that is what I understand your claim to be. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think the reason that the Catholic church has become a target of such accusation is because it seems to be the most able body to fulfill the prophecy in 1 Nephi (I think the exact verses are in my last post). I suppose it is presumptuous to assume that it was specifically them. But it doesn't help matters when such as Bruce R. McKonkie (who is one of my favorites) publishes books like Mormon Doctrine. This being because his first addition identifies the Catholic church as being the whore of the earth spoken of in revelation. The problem is that this book is not doctrine even though some people believe it is. Again, maybe it is presumptuous to say that the Catholic church is the source of malicious changes. However, I don't think it is reasonable to say that no such changes occured when prophecy claims they did (will). To my knowledge, there is no scholarly or (more importantly) doctrinal rebuff for that prophecy. Also, I can't source specific instances, and I admit that. However previous of my posts have included sources and my logic behind the principle that such doctrinally altering changes took place. I specify doctrinally altering because were it not so, then it wouldn't be important enough to consider in the first place by such as the Book of Mormon, or even us here.

I think I prefer 'what light through yonder pants breaks' :)

While I have never had to do anything with that particular case (BYUI has a signigficantly lesser version of nasty, and the restaurants I've worked were okay), I have heard of pretty nifty solutions. There is a chemical the school uses called consume which is supposed to break that stuff down on a molecular level. If it has gotten to that level, I don't see a problem with loading it up with consume and letting it run into the floor drain. After that stuff has been through, its at least clean enough to simply wipe down and sanitize. Still nasty though. I feel for ya. For anyone interested in the worst thing I can think of in my life along these lines, my brother used to wet the play-doh when we were using it. I always wondered why it kept getting thinner and more moist. :P:P

Hmmm, even so, at the very least there have always been factions even within the Catholic church. And for the context of this thread, we should also consider which generation of the Catholic church did the corrupting. And if we really really wanted to, we could also take into account all of the non-christian sects, but I don't think any of them really did much with the NT.

Run Pants, run They call me mister pants

So I know it isn't specific, but does anyone have thoughts on 1 Nephi chapter 13 verses 28-29? I think these may at least explain why many do believe that pertinent things have been removed from the Bible.

I agree with that. I do think that various changes to the actual text contribute as well as interpretation of the text itself. Honestly I was kinda trying to draw the conversation into a less provocative atmosphere by supplying a more common knowledge solution to why we all disagree on the Bible. Not that I don't believe what I say, but in a more... calm setting I may not have pointed this out. To your last post, I suppose its possible though I prefer to think that God gave the translation that filled that criteria.

Oh, and while I can't source it, I have heard that Joseph Smith (or at least one of the prophets) said that the German Bible is the most correct translation we have. Could be a myth though so don't take my word for it.

I'm just gonna say that I have no idea what either of you just said. :) But as pertains to evolution, it is presently taught in BYU-I science classes (hardly the establishment of doctrine, but the claims are still doctrinally supported) that evolution is very real. Personally I won't say I am 100% certain as to the truth of it, but on that subject specifically it does seem to make some sense.

So I had a thought. We all agree that there are changes to the Bible, even if we don't agree on the extent or affect of such things. Would it be perhaps more accurate to say that the mistakes lie in the teachings/practices of modern man based on his/her understanding of the bible? For instance, there are many current theological disagreements on the meaning of various parts of the Bible (NT included). Even though the Bible does have its say, our understanding of 'it's say' can vary in any number of ways. On a personal note, this makes me glad we have the other written and living scriptures to clarify. Anyway, am I wrong in this?

I have been told that statistically (though I can't source this) LDS missionaries are safer than any other group of individuals of the same age. They seem to be the least likely to have something bad happen to them. As for self defense, we were taught self defense in the form of a 3 letter word. RUN. Never really liked that approach myself. Thankfully never had to use it either.

There should be a 'laughing endlessly' button. I practically had to bite my tongue to keep from laughing hard enough to wake up the roomies. Made my night for sure. :)

Hmmm, I think that the idea is to keep people from taking the bulk of the information from non divinely inspired sources. Elder Scott gave a talk recently (I think it may have even been last General Conference) where he said that an individual tried to teach a lesson with obscure references and trying to show off how much he knew. He said there was an obvious difference in the teachings from when a different individual taught humbly straight from the gospel. I am pretty certain I have heard various quotes from non-LDS authors spoken in general conference. So my take is that we should as teachers begin with the doctrine from the manual and try to keep to it. But hey, if we have a quote or two once in a while from say Benjamin Franklin or Martin Luther, I don't its condemnable. My opinion though, and completely not based on doctrine.