lonetree

Switching through some of the old Hollywood 'easter' films this past weekend, I stopped on 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'. I had not really seen it before and was surprised at the impressive scenery in it. There is a vastness in the backgrounds that I haven't seen in other of those types of films.  In fact, it's almost as if the land in which the story took place was that of Robert E Howard's mythical Conan world rather than the ancient near east. This may be worth getting on bluray just for that.

I find this unlikely for several reasons:
The Bible is perhaps our strongest contact with "traditional" Christianity, a commonality we would be loathe to lose. The JST was never proclaimed as complete. On the contrary, it's a sporadic mishmash of retranslation, interpretation, and doctrinal additions and changes. I think it would not be especially useful as the Bible is used today to try to use the JST as a regular Bible version. The Church has used a non-JST Bible throughout its history. That's what people know. You don't easily just give that up. (This is sort of an extension of the first bullet.) Saints have often complained about the shortcomings and difficulties inherent in using the KJV. The JST preserves all those perceived shortcomings and adds others. Whatever insights Biblical scholarship might add (e.g. the Dead Sea scrolls) would largely be mitigated by a slavish adherence to the JST. (Bonus point: The existence of the JST itself argues against "slavish adherence".)

No, he was not, not in any sense in which that word is used in American political discourse today.
That is not a feature of today's American liberalism, unless you're saying that Jesus would call for the freedom to destroy your unborn baby if you feel it might inconvenience you. Pretty sure you're not saying that.
Certainly not any sort of feature in modern American "liberalism".
This is simply false. We as Latter-day Saints are familiar with this general idea. It's an application of the law of consecration; early latter-day efforts were generally called "united orders", were entered into only by covenant, were always voluntary, could be left at any time, and were administered in all cases by leaders called of God and not by agents of profane governments. To compare such small, private, religiously motivated efforts to "a type of socialism" is way beyond the mark.
I think it's worth noting that even with divine guidance, the early covenant Saints failed to get those societies to work as they were intended, until the effort was ultimately abandoned.
As he has always done. Note that he did not call for Rome to care for the sick or for the nominal Jewish king Herod "to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities." Jesus' call to action was an individual charge, to be fulfilled individually and not to be abrogated to a government (profane or otherwise) to enforce such feeding and caring.
I think you overstate, or simply misstate. Please outline which of "the more conservative ideals of the time...were alarmingly closely aligned with many of the [conservative] ideas of today."
This is not even slightly true unless you intend the word "liberal" in almost the opposite sense to which it is normally used in America today.

Not sure why the bold part would be there if "endless" was just another way of saying "no end".  Of course, I'm also pretty sure this is academic, unless one is thinking, "I can handle temporary Endless punishment, but I'm not willing to endure torment with no end, so I need to know which it is so I can make up my mind whether to repent."

I disagree somewhat with this interpretation. Christ's atonement frees us from the wages of sin, which wages are spiritual death. But if we do not avail ourselves of that gift, we will inevitably suffer the same horrific spiritual death that Christ himself suffered and overcame. But such suffering will not sanctify us; it is simply the price of our sinfulness, a  price that will not be paid by Christ until we accept his payment for us.
Some have understood the above verses of Section 19 as a proclamation that we ourselves must "pay" for our own sins if we don't accept Christ's atonement, but this is antidoctrinal. We are unable to pay for our own sins. Period. No amount of suffering on our part pays for anything. We are unclean and in a damned state, and we cannot be cleansed from that damnation save by the blood of Christ. There is no other way. And until we accept that atoning blood of our Savior, we, like Alma the younger, must suffer eternal damnation. I see no other reasonable interpretation for Section 19.

Here is something that might resonate with you, part of a revelation given to Jospeh Smith: Doctrine and Covenants 19 (churchofjesuschrist.org)
1 I am aAlpha and Omega, bChrist the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the cworld.
2 I, having accomplished and afinished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might bsubdue all things unto myself—
3 Retaining all apower, even to the bdestroying of Satan and his works at the cend of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, djudging every man according to his eworks and the deeds which he hath done.
4 And surely every man must arepent or bsuffer, for I, God, am cendless.
5 Wherefore, I arevoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, bwailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my cleft hand.
6 Nevertheless, it is anot written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written bendless ctorment.
7 Again, it is written aeternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this amystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my arest.
10 For, behold, the amystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am bendless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless cpunishment, for dEndless is my name. Wherefore—
11 aEternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.
13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the acommandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;
14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;
15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I asmite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your bsufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered these things for all, that they bmight not suffer if they would crepent;
17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer even as I;
18 Which asuffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and afinished my preparations unto the children of men.

There are roughly one trillion (1012) grains of fine sand per cubic meter. "Mountains" is not a precise specification, but for a small mountain/large dune, we might guess roughly a million cubic meters. (Maybe a billion for a somewhat larger mountain.) So taking the one million figure, we're looking at around 1018 (a quintillion) grains of sand. At a million years per grain carried away, it would take 1024 (a septillion) years.
This is such an absurdly long period of time that we have no good way of even getting our  minds around it. For comparison, it is roughly 1014 times the estimated age of our universe. That means if you lived the life of our universe from the so-called Big Bang until this moment, then went back and relived it again, and kept repeating that a total of ten million times, that amount of elapsed time would put you one ten-millionth of the way to a septillion years. You would have to live ten million universe ages ten million separate times.
As one segment of a wonderful series of lectures, the famous computer scientist/mathematician Donald Knuth (a faithful Lutheran) described what Graham's number was and then tried to describe what it would be like to live Graham's number of nanoseconds. His conclusion was that, from any human standpoint, such a thing would be indistinguishable from eternity. Well, of course that is simply false by definition, but I think Knuth wasn't looking for doctrinal truth. I think he was trying to describe how monstrously enormous the numbers that we construct in our numbering system can become. And, of course, that literally unthinkably huge Graham's number—far, far, far, unbelievably far greater than the septillion years we just talked about—is vanishingly tiny compared with all positive numbers, almost 100% of which are a very great deal larger than Graham's number. That being the case, eternity cannot even reasonably be contemplated.
So I'm not actually going anywhere with this. Just responding to @lonetree's comment.
EDIT: Donald Knuth, "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About"

Such examples might include:
Voting for someone you don't like because he's vastly less objectionable than the other person you could vote for Working with people who have historically hated you and even sought evil against you because they're on the same side as you regarding far more destructive, heinous, and hateful ideologies Taking a job you dislike because open, socially sanctioned bigotry prevents you from working in a field you're otherwise well-qualified for Keeping your perfectly valid opinions to yourself because making clear that you believe something will get you dismissed from your job, excluded from your education, or otherwise damage your professional and social prospects

At what point does earning a living become evil?  Is there a dollar amount?
Is it reasonable to ask for a raise or negotiate a favorable contract?
asking for a friend.

Europe is in a situation that the United States and Canada are quickly approaching (But the US and Canada don't have as many areas to support the family as Europe at this point when they reach the point Europe is at).
It is too expensive to live in Europe.  What I mean is housing, food, and other areas can be VERY expensive in many parts of Europe.  Young people look at that, see they can barely support themselves, and wonder how in the world they will support a family. 
The United States is quickly following that path.  Housing costs have rapidly outpaced the rise in wages (even though the past few years wages have shot up, the cost of buying a house has gotten higher much more quickly.  My own house is worth around double to 2.5X what it was worth 4 years ago.  No one's wage goes up that quickly on average).  Food costs are rising rapidly. 
Even before the current generation the US population was only being able to increase due to immigration.  More and more young people are looking at the costs of life after college (and I suppose those who choose to go directly to the workforce or choose another path are also faced with this) and realizing that they may never be able to even afford a home, much less afford a family.
Our society has gotten too greedy and placed money and riches over that of making a society where families can flourish.  Houses should be a place to live...not an investment.  That entire...investment schemes that started in the 70s and 80s have poisoned the well (IMO).  
Capitalism could keep such things in check...IF we had actual Capitalism at work here.  The problem is we placed money and riches over that of our economics and well-being.  We still have Capitalism in some places, but we also have a Lot of Corporatism and unrestrained Monopolistic economics instead.  They can be part of Capitalism, but normally are not seen as a HEALTHY Capitalistic society.  We need to promote the Capitalism that older generations promoted, and put boundaries on the Monopolies and Corporatism that seem to have become unrestrained over the past few decades. 
I don't agree with Trump...at all...but he was right in one aspect if you look at it from a certain point of view.  As a Child and young man, I didn't feel the United States had such Corporate involvement in society and politics.  It was far more restrained.  Even as late as the 90s, Microsoft and other companies that wanted to be Monopolies were aggressively handled by the Federal Government to push them back.  Things Microsoft gets away with now (integrated everything in their OS, so powerful THEY dictate to the customer rather than having to change to be what the customer wants, etc) were seen as a collective evil, even a few decades ago.  We need a change back to a more healthy economic period for workers and employers when it was Capitalism where small businesses and individuals could flourish rather than having the Googles and Amazon's drive out other competition.  Competition is good.  I feel the 50s and 60s were a time when, economically, it was good for our families.  Capitalism actually worked well then.  We need a reset to go back then so that FAMILIES can actually afford a home.
When I was a child and young man a single working father without a college degree (or even any degree) could provide a home, food, the decency of life, and other measures on their own salary.  Today, many of those graduating from college won't even be able to afford a place to live.  It's hard to talk about having a family when faced with the present day situation many of our kids are graduating into. 

I like DeSantis, but it seems like presidential nominees rarely wind up being the guy (or gal) who was getting all the buzz 15 months before the primary.  I have a suspicion that DeSantis will peak too soon, and (assuming Trump implodes, which he may well not) some other dark horse will wind up with the GOP nomination.
Ramaswamy seems to have some intriguing ideas, a unique background and perspective, and a lot to add to the national conversation generally; I suspect his candidacy will be a good thing overall.  I don’t know that he (yet) has the administrative experience to be an effective government executive, and I tend to take a jaded view generally of young wunderkinds who meet certain “diversity” credentials, but . . . time will tell. 

I believe we should care for our environment as proper stewards.  To followers of the Restored Gospel, the temporal lifetime of the world is limited, and is known to God.  Outside of general and obvious measures to treat God's creations with respect, any extreme level of environmentalism (such as modern climate-change proposals) are entirely beyond the mark and unnecessary.

First, are you in a work position that makes you privy to some changes that might be happening, or might be addressed this weekend?
As to why the Church chooses to use, and still uses the KJV, I think this article is a pretty good thought as to why -- "400 years of the King James Bible." The end of the article shares the following, "the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions." This has been my understanding of why we have held to the KJV. I would also think, like others have shared, its connection to the Book of Mormon and words pretty much quoted from the same books.
As to the second question, this is a great pondering question, but I have no clue. The next edition looks like the current edition is my best guess.

because the older english is much more poetic and lovely to the ear.

Why does the Church use the Bible at all? There is plenty of scripture more relevant to our day. What's so special about the Bible?
We use the Bible because of is an invaluable witness of Jesus Christ, his gospel, and his Church, that is, his Kingdom. The Bible was preserved for us.
 As for the KJV vs. Another Translation discussion, I think it's moot at best. Pick up a different translation and use it openly for your Bible study. I bet you a thousand bucks your bishop does not take action on your membership status for it.
Heaving said that, let me point out that much of the Book of Mormon is easier to understand if you have a background in reading the KJV, especially the Old Testament.

Yeesh.  And as it is, we get all kinds of grief just because in 1981 we “updated” the Book of Mormon to match what it said in 1840.  Either we get an updated Bible translation that dilutes much of the BoM and D&C and POGP’s meaning, or we update the LDS scriptures and expose ourselves to not-wholly-unfounded allegations of scriptural whitewash.  The status quo comes off looking like the least-bad option here.
Although, maybe the Church could beef up GospelLibrary or develop a new program like Logos or MySword or BYU’s Scripture Citation Index, that would contain Church as well as third-party content with split screens that let the user flip between alternate translations and academic as well as GA commentaries within a few clicks/taps.

Some of our liturgical/doctrinal vocabulary comes from the KJV (“more sure word of prophecy”, “nail in a sure place”, etc), and by abandoning the KJV it becomes harder to preserve those scriptural connections and/or pass them on to the younger generation.  Additionally, major portions of the BoM text interact with, not just the Bible, but the King James Bible.
I can see the Church getting to the point where you can buy—say—an NRSV study Bible through Deseret Book or even through LDS Distribution services.  I think it less likely that the Church will undertake its own LDS Study Bible during our lifetimes; if for no other reason than that so many in the LDS/BYU academic community (who would likely be tapped for such a project) are revealing their allegiance to (if not their own identities as) rakes, groomers, libertines, and/or generally dishonest cads; Thomas Wayment being the most recent example.

WOKESTER: Having two moms is great! Two mothers can do exactly as good a job, OR BETTER, than a mother and a father! Anyone who says otherwise is a hater and a bigot!
ME: Okay, so...how about two moms and a dad?
WOKESTER: NOOOO!!!! How perverted! That would mess up the children sooooooo badly!

I like October.  It is cool but generally not too cold. 
I changed the oil in both of my automobiles previously in September in preparation for the icy up coming winter.  The oil gets changed on the curb in front of my house so I like to do it in nice weather.

Jesus is the great high priest. The Priesthood, at least from our perspective and for our purposes, is Christ's. The Priesthood is, in effect, Christ. It is the very word of God, as Jesus is the Word. It is the power through which creation took place, both creation of things around us and creation of us ourselves. That a man, no matter how holy, can be given the very power of God is itself one of the greatest miracles I can imagine.
The Priesthood is one, as God himself is One. In the large sense, there are not two "Priesthoods". There is exactly one true Priesthood, and it is called Melchizedek. The name "Melchizedek" means "King of righteousness", and thus is a name of Christ. The man named Melchizedek was the greatest or best-known high priest (meaning a holder of the high Priesthood) of his time, and typified the righteous Priesthood holder. Thus, we have the "Priesthood of Melchizedek" standing as a name for The Priesthood, the only true Priesthood that exists.
But wait! If the "high priest" is a holder of the "high" Priesthood, that suggests there is more than just one! There must be a lower Priesthood or Priesthoods! Yes, it does suggest that. The suggestion is not quite true. There is indeed a lesser Priesthood, a Priesthood given to Aaron and his sons to serve the lesser Law of Moses after the children of Israel had rejected the greater law God sought to give them. This so-called Aaronic Priesthood is not really a different "priesthood" at all. Rather, it is a subset of the holy Priesthood, which concerns itself with outward ordinances and performances. Aaron's sons held this "lesser Priesthood", and through its authority they could conduct the temple worship of animal sacrifices that the Lord had revealed to Moses and other prophets before him*. These sacrifices served to atone for the sins of the people and bring them back to God, ultimately representing the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God which would truly accomplish those goals. The children of Israel quickly lost track of the underlying meaning of those ordinances, but the righteous and perceptive among them understood the meaning of the law of Moses.
*Note that the leader of the priests of Aaron was designated the "high priest", e.g. Matthew 26:3. This "high priest" is not to be confused with a holder of the high Priesthood. In normal conversation today, Latter-day Saints use the term "high priest" to refer to a man who holds the office of high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. So the term "high priest" has at least three meanings among Latter-day Saints: (1) a Latter-day Saint man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood office of high priest; (2) any holder of the "high" or Melchizedek Priesthood (e.g. Alma 13:9); and (3) the leader or chief priest during the time of the law of Moses.
Even today, the outward ordinance of baptism by water and the blessing of the emblems of the sacrament in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice are delegated to the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood. So the Aaronic Priesthood continues to serve its function as a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. But the greater law as restored by the Son of God (and as brought back to us today through the agency of Joseph Smith and other prophets) must of necessity operate under the auspices of the higher or complete Priesthood, which we commonly call Melchizedek. Thus, a couple of weeks or so after the resurrected John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829, the last presiding leaders of Christ's Church, namely Simon Peter, James (the greater), and John the Beloved restored to them the Priesthood of Melchizedek. With this authority, they were enabled to restore the kingdom of God on earth once again.
This is an incomplete explanation, and I invite others to add to it. But I hope it helps answer your questions about how the Latter-day Saints understand the place and purpose of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

My thoughts on the question of why God creates someone that will not make it.... is really simple.  Even a little bit of progress is better then no progress.
Lets walk through this... God sees a pre-existent Intelligence and knows what it is capable of...  And does what he does to advance it to being one of his spirit children.  The focal point of my thought is that the selected Intelligence is much better off with the advancement even if it goes no further.  Then there is the physical body, we are better off with a physical body then with out one.  Then there is the resurrection and degrees of glory.  Each type is better then mortality, but some are better then others.
Thus each step along the way is a benefit and gain for us but we only go as far as we are willing to go.  With this idea then even Lucifer being lifted to a Spirit Child is a positive and net gain for him even if he does not go any farther.
Now we do have the things like 'endless suffering' and 'eternal damnation' to deal with... But I have to ask... compared to what?  What an exalted person has... Sure... But maybe not when compared to a pre-existent Intelligence
 
 
 

Yes. Without free choice, it is just a game- a horrible game. There is no need for Satan, because God has become Satan.