MaidservantX

I know where you are talking about Ben, where there is published with, or in, the Pearl of Great Price, what has been titled something along the lines of "Joseph Smith -- Matthew". BUT, there is also an appendix with several extended passages of a variety of places in the Bible. For example, some amazing additions to the story of Noah are made; I think those are my favorite. Do you know what I'm referring to? The footnotes show some minor Joseph Smith changes or, refer to the appendix for the extended passages. But all of it is not much compared to the length of the entire Bible, of course. I don't know exactly what happened when, as, or how much Joseph Smith received a translation of all or some of the Bible. But I don't need to. There are those for whom this type of history trivia is of great interest, but most of us just read it (the King James Version, not a Joseph Smith version). Just like other individuals in other churches who read it without knowing who tyndale is (I learned something from Ben today, lol). Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's just a miracle that we have this record (the Old and New Testament) from anciently that testifies of Jesus Christ.

yeah, Ben? LoL.

I would also add, lol, that there is a little verse in the New Testament, James 1:5 that got this whole Restoration started. You can find out that story by reading Joseph Smith's own account of his experiences. I believe you would be able to find that on www.mormon.org. Keep in mind that "lds talk" is not a site sponsored by the church; every one here just shares their own thoughts and experiences; we are friends here and keep lds standards; but it is not official doctrine here, if that's what you are looking for. For the official information go to www.lds.org or www.mormon.org. God bless!

No, I cannot be specific about those changes, because I mainly learn principles from the Bible, not its history. However, I can tell you that Joseph Smith did a translation of the Bible, and if you can get ahold of an LDS edition of the King James Version of the Holy Bible, there is an appendix with significant changes Joseph Smith would have made (through God's power and inspiration we would say); also there are smaller changes he made in the footnotes of the LDS editions. However, when we are just reading the Bible in Sunday School, or whatever, we usually just read and learn about it the way it is. For myself, I do love reading the Joseph Smith changes and often consult them if I am doing my studying in the Bible. Keep in mind, when I say 'changes' I would mean that in my belief Joseph Smith would have restored the original meaning. As well, we do read the Bible with a mind to the many principles that have been revealed and restored in the latter days through living prophets and sometimes these revealed principles shed a new light and context on what is read in the Bible so that a more original (as we would believe) meaning or interpretation is now understood.

What an adjective, 'perverted', lol. No. The Bible is sacred. However it has been translated (and mis translated) by many men down through the ages who were under varying degrees of inspiration, some none at all, some perhaps even deliberately changing it. We simply recognize this fact and take it into account at times. We study the Bible, we read the Bible, we love the Bible, we adhere to the principles in the Bible -- the Bible tells us of the life of our Savior. Etcetera etcetera. Happy learning! Welcome to the site!

Beautiful.

well, as you say, I'm sure these people my mother did were dead more than a hundred years, so. :)

Doesn't she also see where the money is coming from and where it is going? Doesn't she see the whole financial picture with you and doesn't she have a solution for what is going to happen with other needs and expenses if this trip is taken? I personally wouldn't take this missionary experience this far, BUT, I do not know what the Spirit is telling your wife (and you). You have a right to get confirmation from the Lord on this matter to see if it is worth the investment. Just in a brief post with limited information about your financial picture (which of course you should not share it all with us online, lol), it's hard for anyone to say whether you can afford to go. Everyone including spouses have different ideas about how to define 'afford'. I personally like to put a little money out there for things above the basics, even if it means I have to work harder before and after, and a missionary (slash honeymoon?) trip could be just the thing for you guys. If you don't have $700 for a ANY kind of trip, or you are not able to meet your expenses currently, I think you should be realistic. I don't think the Lord expects that kind of sacrifice from your wife, nor does he (unless she is feeling some special prompting of the Spirit) expect her to try to be spiritually heroic in this situation. Although I've been there -- you feel like, what else is life for if not to try to shepherd our brothers and sisters; and some times we go about it even when we feel fears and inexperience, and I think the Lord is glad when we just do our best, which it sounds like your wife is trying to do and I'm glad you are supporting her. But money is money. Whatever you use has to come out of somewhere.

First of all, how do you know that the child in the matter is born in the covenant? Was she told at some point she was born in the covenant, or was she just guessing? I'm not saying that she's not, if the sealing of P1 and P2 is apparently active and unbroken, but if she is NOT their child, how can she be attached by sealing? And please don't refer me to the law of Levirate, I'm aware of that, and maybe that does apply -- but is that the only reason why? (Just pointing out a thought I had, hmmmm.) Also, I know for a fact that my mother has done geneological research and submitted names to the temple (for which I did proxy initiatory) on lines tangential to her lines, and NOT her direct ancestors. These were people connect by shirt tails, but not by blood. Here's my family. My bio mom and bio dad married in the temple. Three children (inc. myself) born in the covenant. Then my bio dad was excommunicated, which also broke the sealing he and my mom had. It did not change the fact that we were already born in the covenant; however a fourth sibling born after the ex -com was born OUT of the covenant. Bio mom and bio dad then divorced. My mom quickly remarried. They went through quite a process to prepare to be sealed, I think they both had their sealings broken (I could be wrong about the exact nature of this, but they did have to go through a process similar). Also, my bio dad's parent's rights were legally terminated and step dad legally adopted us first four. Then, my mom 8 mo pregnant with my fifth (half) sibling (she and subsequent would be, again, born in the covenant), her and (step) dad were sealed, and my fourth brother from the 1 st marriage was sealed on the altar to them. This is all fine. BUT, when my heart is turned to my Fathers, I ALWAYS feel after my biological heritage, from which I have been legally terminated and from whom whose my sealing status seems to have been transferred away to my step father. I have no interest whatsover in searching out my step dad's line, even though I love him and he was a good dad.

It seems odd that family history centers of any size would be abolished since they are helping so many people with their families of any faith; and also becomes a missionary tool at that point -- and introduction anyway. People are always going to need a smiling, helpful 'live' person to help them get started with the Family History, Internet or no. I'm glad you are one of them! Keep up the good work!

also, ukdal, try www. mormon.org. This site, and the lds.org site given above, are official spots for doctrine. "lds talk" is a very wonderful, special place, but it is NOT a place to get official doctrine. First of all, not every one here is lds, and second of all, even the people here who are lds hold a wide range of thoughts, believes, observations, opinions and interpretations of doctrine -- and we usually hash it out pretty thoroughly between all of us -- meaning, and I say this with humor, if you are trying to find a place where you will be free from argument, this is NOT the place, lol, lol. I'm laughing as I type this. The debates here are phenomenal. But there is also encouragement and support and friendship here. Welcome, ukdal. Happy seeking, ukdal! oh, and the most important thing, is YES the Savior, Jesus Christ, died for my sins. He saves me, forgives me, heals me, rescues me, etc. etc.

biz, I can't speak for everyone, but just how I see it, there is an underlying presumption that we are obeying and it doesn't need to be said out loud, but then 'on top of that' we are trying to understand because we are allowed to try to figure out what the Lord means by it. It doesn't (always) mean we are trying to justify it. By the way, to me I do NOT obey 'because my church leaders told me to do it', lol. I HAVE made promises -- that is a big difference to me. I made these promises, or at least confirmed them in my heart, based on a great deal of thought and experience. Will I find out I have my ladder up the wrong wall with these promises? That I have made these promises with a non-existent person or being? Actually, in my case, I already have found out about this Person -- his effect on my life is actual and external to my own mind. I trust this person (Jesus Christ). So I have promised to do what he's asked me to do. However do you know how many conversations I've had with my Father in heaven that go something like this: "I'm not sure I can do this . . ." "This doesn't make sense to me . . . " "Does this really come from you . . .". I don't refuse to turn on the faucet to get water, or refuse to flush the toilet just because I didn't put the plumbing in myself nor do I wait to get the benefit of the faucet and water until I can learn every single thing about the plumbing. Commandments work the same way. I have the opportunity of applying them in my life if I desire without understanding all about them, and I still get the 'water' from them. If I AM interested in the plumbing, my Father is more than happy to show me all about it. Personally, I think describing tattooing and piercing as 'defilement' is a little strong. After all, we are allowed to pierce our ears, no? But then we've been asked not to have more than one earring hole (women). I personally enjoy long hair and an earring or even two in a man; I would allow my son to pierce his ear if he desired EXCEPT we have been asked not to and I have promised to obey. The obedience gives me joy and benefit, although I do continue to talk to God about this if it comes up in my thoughts. I don't pretend to have any conclusions on this subject, although I have come up with some possibilites of why having a tattoo (for example) is different than being fat (for example), at least at the mortal time and place we are currently in. You know there are actually lots of examples of laws we obey in the world that have a surface symbolism that isn't wrong in and of itself, but it is a sign of a much deeper law that if we were to violate would have fatal consequences. My favorite of this is a traffic light. Is it really WRONG to drive when you see a red light? What's so SPECIAL about a GREEN light, that we are supposed to go when we see it? Is there any thing intrinsic in red and green lights that would account for this? Of course not. But they are signs, messages, keeping hedge around us so that we are safe from the negative consequences of a deeper, stronger law; most of us would do not consider for moment trying to be the maverick in the world of red and green traffic lights. What law does it represent? The law that no two spatial objects can OCCUPY the same space at the same time. KABOOM!!!!

Humanism sounds wonderful with the descriptions you've shared. Thanks. I get the same deep excitement and wow when I think about being the daughter of my Heavenly Father and a disciple of Jesus Christ and a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and all the knowledge and experience I've been privileged to participate in as founded on that paradigm. I, within the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as a daughter of God, think for myself. There is no area of thought that I am afraid to challenge and explore. I seek to comprehend reality. I enjoy and utilize reason and science as I think and explore. I am positively soaked and ignited with imagination. My values are of primary use here and now, and only secondarily in a future (the present is all there is; although ever-blooming 'todays' arise from seeds planted in previous conditions of universe). My only desire is to be more compassionate and use all my life energy to meeting human needs and society's problems. The understanding of dilemnas and the consequences of various courses of actions is of utmost importance in my paradigm. My paradigm embraces truth regarding the natural earth. My paradigm informs me that I have a stewardship to care for this earth. My paradigm embraces social and governmental liberty; it embraces ever increasing technological advances and encourages a sense of morality regarding them. There is nothing pre-fabricated about my paradigm. I do receive solace from my person to person bond with my Redeemer and from his words including promises, solace is not my PRIMARY result from creating myself from within the fold of the Church of Jesus Christ and the gospel of Jesus Christ. For me, anyway, the main thing I seek and experience is power and sight: I want to SEE and know the reality of the universe; and I want to have POWER to cause the elements of the earth and substances of the universe (including mastery of self) to obey me and not have power to destroy me (this power accessed because of agency and atonement); and I want to obtain this condition of soul while experiencing and enjoying (and arising from) intimacy with my Father, my Savior, my parents, my children, and my family and friends, and hopefully, one day, MY MAN. Sounds like we're both loving life!

[all times Eastern] "Where Angels Fear to Tread" Thursday, March 8, 10 p.m., Sundance channel Barbarians 2 (second half, first half was yesterday), tonight, Tuesday, March 6, 8 p.m. History Channel "Decoding the Dead Sea Scrolls" Sunday, March 11, 9 p.m. National Geographic Channel

Green tea is the same type of leaf (plant) as black tea (regular -- ?) and has the same substances in it; only it has been processed a lot less, ergo it is the same type of tea we are not to drink. I think that it can be said that the caffiene content is not the be- all and end- all of a Word of Wisdom question. We may not really know exactly what the Lord had in mind in giving the health directives. Personally, I would never drink green tea as I feel that it is against the Word of Wisdom. Marijuana has health benefits, as well. Shall we have that conversation, lol?

Rosewood, The scripture CK just quoted are the ones I had in mind when I said in an earlier post that there were some definitions in the scriptures. One thing in this particular thread was, we were not talking about salvation, but joy rather. Maureen asserted that there were many people who did NOT believe in God who were still very happy people. And I tried to show my opinion that to the degree they were happy was based on the degree that they were living the gospel (in this case, the commandments) even if they would not impute these things to God. And I do think God blesses those who are sincere and try to do good even if they don't believe in him. They may miss out on greater blessings, of course, and eventually they will need to choose true salvation or not. We say that we get blessings predicated on our obedience to law and even atheists who are decent people are living many laws that result in blessings, including joy. This would only be a portion of the gospel, just as we say that other religions enjoy some truth, a portion of the gospel, but are missing a great deal of it.

Just to add to the thoughts being expressed, I refer you to 3 Nephi ch18 vs. 28 -32.

Biz, lol, we're just talking about it, trying to figure it out, PRECISELY because it is not necessarily a central item; no one is flinging judgment around, lol. We like hashing things out here a little bit. You have some good points. Welcome!

I like to use the word discernment. We have to discern evil and differentiate it from good. This often includes choosing good friends and not associating with people we cannot keep our self while we would be around (and that may be different for people. Maybe someone who is a recovering alcoholic would need to get a completely new set of friends, whereas myself I could associate with persons and all types of alchohol and not even feel a whisper of temptation). But I can only confirm what people have already said better than I have, that we just do not know where people are coming from sometimes and we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Traveler, I love that you have shared with us this idea of the Accuser. It goes right along with the Adam and Eve story where he told them they needed to be ashamed and hide and cover their power; he made sure that they knew they had done something terrible. The conversation with God went quite a bit differently, thankfully.

quoting from the book "The Mainspring of Human Progress" "Mosques were built in the same spontaneous way [as their universities] . . . Men in the neighborhood kept the mosque in repair if they liked; if they didn't, it fell into ruin. Philosophers, poets, and idlers sat in its quiet courtyeard, by its splashing fountain. At dawn, noon, and sunset, and in the mid-morning and mid-afternoon, someone climbed the minaret and called out that there is no god but God . . . Theirs was a spontaneous religion based on a sense of reality, springing from and depending upon the personal self. And for 800 years, during the period when the greater part of Europe was submerged in the Dark Ages, this religion produced the most brilliant sicentific progress and the greatest material prosperity that had ever been known to man. [the author continues to go through several details of the culture, habits, manufacture and in some instances compares them to the habits of the European; I will only type a couple.] There was a variety of meats, cooked with seasonings and sauces. There were salads and ices. . . such a variety of cereals, vegetables, and fruits -- rice, spinach, asparagus, lemons, melons, peaches-- produced by the world's first scientific farmers . . . Damascene steel was not equalled until very recently in the United States. We Americans owe directly to the Saracens our Californian and southwestern architecture, our cotton industry, our asphalt paving and a long list of such things as beds, tables . . . sofas . . . rugs . . . We speak Arabic when we say 'mattress', 'cotton', 'talcum', 'sugar', 'coffee', 'sherbet', 'naptha', 'gypsum', 'benzine'. Our cars are run, our streets are paved, our houses are furnished, and our bodies are clothed with things that the Saracens began to create a thousand years ago. Jerusalem was the first of the kingdoms established by the Crusaders, and the Christian kings were able to hold it with fewer than a hundred soldiers. As time went on, the invaders were dressing and living like Moslems. They melted into the civilization of the Saracens, and their sons grew up so tolerant that they raised no objection to Moslems worshipping in Christian churches. But the new kingdoms set up by the Crusaders lasted less than a century; then the Emir of Palestine proposed an alliance with England. He offered his sister in marriage to Richard the Lion-hearted, who was crusading at the time. But Richard was planning to return to England . . . he lacked the courage to face his fanatical subjects with a Moslem queen. Upon his refusal, the Moslems attacked and took Jerusalem, but they did not sack it. As soon as its defenders surrendered, the EMir released his prisoners unharmed and gave them 40 days to dispose of their property and go back home. During these 40 days, the people of Jerusalem bitterly complained that the departing Christians were stealing everything in sight, and they demanded that the robbery be stopped. The Emir replied that if he stopped the robbery, the Christians would say that he had broken his word; but that if he did nothing to stop it, the Christians would have an opportunity to praise the goodness of the Moslem religion. . . Prior to the Crusades, it had never occurred to the invaders that a strong man need not be brutal. The Saracens were fierce in battle, but they were not cruel. They did not kill the wounded; they did not torture their prisoners. When they struck down an opponent, it was not uncommon to help him up. They did not persecute Christians. They were honorable; they told the truth; they kept their word. [the author suggests that the European idea of knightly chivalry was adopted from what they learned from this culture] [ the author then speaks about how ideas from Spain (which was Saracen) began 'leaking' into France and Germany, including the dangerous idea that the earth was round] This was contrary to the accepted teachings of the time, which were based on pagan belief that an authority controls all things, including men. Such heresies had to be suppressed, and in most of Europe they WERE suppressed. But the Italians were prospering from their trade with the Saracens, and they continued to deal with these men of greater knowledge and wider experience. The Saracens had better methods of navigating ships, quicker ways of computing costs and adding up bills [the zero! ha ha]. They transacted their business affairs over great distances and with incredible swiftness. A European who traveled 18 miles in one day had something to write home about -- had he known how to write. But a Saracen thought nothing of sending a parcel 200 miles and getting back a receipt on the following day. A thousand years ago, the Saracens' pony express habitually covered 200 miles a day -- anywhere on land, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. . . The Saracens' postal service was even swifter. Today you can see a remnant of it in Ragusa on the Dalmation coast. Ragusa was one of the 'free cities' which traders had set up in Italy just before the Rennaissance. It is important to note that trade -- the exchange of material goods -- is always an exercise of individual freedom. Production and trade are possible only to the extent that restraints upon personal freedom are absent."

Jesus Christ is also my Father through the covenants I have made. I don't like to use the word 'God' that much at all, although since it is so handy and ubiquitous, I do use it of course plenty enough. Instead, though, I always say who I mean: I say 'Heavenly Father' or I say 'Christ' or 'Savior'. 'God' is used in our latter-day scriptures, of course, so this is just something for myself. I have pondered deeply that the GOD that we worship is indeed the FATHER and the SON (which individual is manifesting what doesn't matter for this particular point) -- isn't this amazing? This is the deepest calling that God has and that we worship him as or for -- our Father. It isn't tangential -- it's central. In another recent thread, myself and others said several words about the etymology of the word 'God', and I would refer any readers of this post to that -- was it under 'Was Jesus Married'? I think I say that 'God' simply (?) means Mighty One -- it is an honor word, the most amazing honor word, but in my opinion doesn't give much other crucial information about who and what God is and his nature and what he does. As I have pondered and asked God about his godness over the years, I learned that 'God' is an office (and a Presidency, I might add); also it refers to a soul condition (celestial exaltation) that, as we know, there is an opportunity for all his offspring to attain to (through the merits of the Savior's atonement). Also, we of course know that all priesthood authority and power on this planet and in this world organization is administered directly by Jesus Christ (God). He has received this priesthood delegation and power from his (our) Father.

You know, just reading those words at face value, I don't get the sense that they are offered as catechism. I get the feeling that David has been there and knows what it feels like and knows what freedom from those traps feels like. He knows what it's like to deal with people that are not your fans. I love the Psalms! I know it is a common one, but still, I really love Psalm 40. (and U2 did this one, also!) I waited patiently for the Lord And he inclined unto me and heard my cry He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, our of the miry clay and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings And he hath put a new song in my mouth even praise unto our God . . . Yea, they law is within my heart . . . Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy lovingkindness and they truth continually preserve me For innumerable evils have compassed me about; mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to loook up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me . . . Deliver me: O Lord, make haste to help me . . . I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinketh upon me: thou art my help and my deliverer . . . This is my praise to a God that has raised me up just as he did Lazarus.

Yes. Mitt Romney has been, I think, governor of the state of Massachussetts in the past (maybe currently?). He is running for President. He is a Republican.

CK, you've got it exactly right. Even just reading the post gives me deep vibrations of joy, to remember those scriptures. Thanks. And a-train, you said pretty much the same thing as CK. I'm glad you brought these truths to the front of my mind and heart again.

Well, a person who is an atheist may still be a person who loves their family and neighbors, who is temperate in his appetites, who meditates and seeks spirit energy from similar practices, who may even share of their means (tithing and fast offering - ?), who is honest and hard working, and so forth. All of these types of things are commandments, and lo, the atheist is KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS, who knew? The 'definition' of the gospel could very well be another thread -- I think there are some places in the Book of Mormon where Jesus gives some succinct definitions. But for the purpose of this discussion, the gospel can be seen (at least one purpose) as tool for God (the universe) to transmit the knowledge of these kinds of principles so that the individual can benefit from the consequences (the reward) of the commandments/ principles; and also there is support available in fellowship for having, perhaps for some, a greater strength in keeping the commandments and then accessing the joy from them. But obviously the gospel is not the only place to get this information, because people from a lot of different world views are capable of behaving decently and good and enjoying themselves. There is another point though that where did the ideas of ethical (or deeper than 'ethics') behavior come from in the first place? Was this when God was talking to Adam (the Christian might imagine)? And so the atheist benefits from the information God placed on the earth (so the Christian says) without having to go through the bother of believing in God, lol. Fine by me.