LeSellers

Members
  • Posts

    2354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from Blackmarch in How come no one else translated the Bible?   
    No one knows exactly.
    It is my opinion that the reason is that the JST has served its primary purpose. (See 5 below.)
    Your question is similar to one antis ask frequently: Why don't you (LDSs) use the JST?
    There are, to my mind, six reasons for this:
    1) We don't own the copyright. That belongs to the CoC. We worked for decades to get permission to use a tiny fraction in foot- and end-notes.
    2) We don't need it because it's available with the full text from Herald House (the CoC publisher) and the most important changes in our own edition of the AV as foot- and end-notes.
    3) Joseph never finished it (which is your question in a different guise). Some claim he did based on a statement that he had. But this statement is open for interpretation, and, more importantly, refuted by Joseph's own acts. He was still working on it a few weeks before his martyrdom. When the RLDS Publication Committee took the "manuscripts" in hand, they found it "bone tiring work" to prepare an engrossed copy for the printer to work from. The translation process changed about the end of Matthew and Genesis. The first had Joseph read from a large, family-style Bible while his scribe wrote word-for-word the text as Joseph read it from the book itself or from revelation. But that took a long time, and God had him change the process so that Joseph read, but the scribe only wrote the changes, while each made marks on the document before him: Joseph in the Bible, the scribe on the transcript. (These symbols were underlinings, dots in pairs or triples or singles, dashes, and so on and matched.) However, as the Publication Committee discovered, it was not clear what these changes meant. As noted above, the Prophet was still working on it right up until his death. This he did by pinning scraps of paper to the manuscript. Again, the meaning wasn't always clear
    4) We don't need it for doctrine. We have the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the Book of Mormon to reveal doctrine that has been lost in the Bible.
    5) The purpose for the JST was to train Joseph in "prophethoodness". With rare exception, prophets of earlier times had grown up in a culture that knew what a prophet did. They may not have accepted them, but they understood the job description. As Joseph went through the Bible, less hurriedly than he'd done in the Book of Mormon, he could reflect on how Ezra or Moses or Isaiah approached his ministry.
    6) God hasn't commanded us to use the JST. We are already "weird enough" with the Book of Mormon, etc., that if we also had a different Bible, our work of spreading the Gospel would be even more difficult, and those who might listen now, might not in such a case.
    We have a promise that the records of the Jews and of Israel will be available to us at some point. That time is not yet. Patience is a godly virtue.
    Lehi
  2. Like
    LeSellers reacted to NeedleinA in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    Perhaps?
    Here is another chart I think you might enjoy @Zarahemla. It is easy to perhaps see where global marriage ages are headed and perhaps where they have been.  There is a very clear age increase globally. Perhaps in another decade or two, the world will look back upon 25yr old men & women and say they were just "babies" when they got married.

  3. Like
    LeSellers reacted to NeedleinA in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    FAIRMormon Link: "Historical and cultural perspective: Plural marriage was certainly not in keeping with the values of "mainstream America" in Joseph Smith's day. However, modern readers also judge the age of the marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century.

  4. Like
    LeSellers reacted to NeedleinA in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    Here is another example I enjoy. I'm not sure what Moroni was up to at age 14-16, but I highly doubt he was only playing kick the can (toucan) and catching tadpoles at the pond to prepare himself to be the "chief" captain by age 25:
    "16 Now, the leader of the Nephites, or the man who had been appointed to be the chief captain over the Nephites—now the chief captain took the command of all the armies of the Nephites—and his name was Moroni;
     17 And Moroni took all the command, and the government of their wars. And he was only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites.
  5. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from yjacket in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    That bothers me not in the least. It would not bother me today, as long as they married and both were in their right minds.
    One of the big things I hate about grtf-welfare schools is that they infantilize children. Admiral David Farragut commanded his first warship at age 14. Benjamin Franklin wrote articles for a fairly large newspaper when he was less than 16 under the pseudonym Prudence Dogood. It's virtually impossible for an adolescent (which didn't even exist back then) to do anything of the sort. So they have regressed back to what we expect of them, which is, essentially, nothing.
    Lehi
     
  6. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from askandanswer in How come no one else translated the Bible?   
    No one knows exactly.
    It is my opinion that the reason is that the JST has served its primary purpose. (See 5 below.)
    Your question is similar to one antis ask frequently: Why don't you (LDSs) use the JST?
    There are, to my mind, six reasons for this:
    1) We don't own the copyright. That belongs to the CoC. We worked for decades to get permission to use a tiny fraction in foot- and end-notes.
    2) We don't need it because it's available with the full text from Herald House (the CoC publisher) and the most important changes in our own edition of the AV as foot- and end-notes.
    3) Joseph never finished it (which is your question in a different guise). Some claim he did based on a statement that he had. But this statement is open for interpretation, and, more importantly, refuted by Joseph's own acts. He was still working on it a few weeks before his martyrdom. When the RLDS Publication Committee took the "manuscripts" in hand, they found it "bone tiring work" to prepare an engrossed copy for the printer to work from. The translation process changed about the end of Matthew and Genesis. The first had Joseph read from a large, family-style Bible while his scribe wrote word-for-word the text as Joseph read it from the book itself or from revelation. But that took a long time, and God had him change the process so that Joseph read, but the scribe only wrote the changes, while each made marks on the document before him: Joseph in the Bible, the scribe on the transcript. (These symbols were underlinings, dots in pairs or triples or singles, dashes, and so on and matched.) However, as the Publication Committee discovered, it was not clear what these changes meant. As noted above, the Prophet was still working on it right up until his death. This he did by pinning scraps of paper to the manuscript. Again, the meaning wasn't always clear
    4) We don't need it for doctrine. We have the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the Book of Mormon to reveal doctrine that has been lost in the Bible.
    5) The purpose for the JST was to train Joseph in "prophethoodness". With rare exception, prophets of earlier times had grown up in a culture that knew what a prophet did. They may not have accepted them, but they understood the job description. As Joseph went through the Bible, less hurriedly than he'd done in the Book of Mormon, he could reflect on how Ezra or Moses or Isaiah approached his ministry.
    6) God hasn't commanded us to use the JST. We are already "weird enough" with the Book of Mormon, etc., that if we also had a different Bible, our work of spreading the Gospel would be even more difficult, and those who might listen now, might not in such a case.
    We have a promise that the records of the Jews and of Israel will be available to us at some point. That time is not yet. Patience is a godly virtue.
    Lehi
  7. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from kapikui in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    That bothers me not in the least. It would not bother me today, as long as they married and both were in their right minds.
    One of the big things I hate about grtf-welfare schools is that they infantilize children. Admiral David Farragut commanded his first warship at age 14. Benjamin Franklin wrote articles for a fairly large newspaper when he was less than 16 under the pseudonym Prudence Dogood. It's virtually impossible for an adolescent (which didn't even exist back then) to do anything of the sort. So they have regressed back to what we expect of them, which is, essentially, nothing.
    Lehi
     
  8. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from Blackmarch in Hillary openly panders to Mormons   
    The same is true for almost anything that remotely resembles philosophy: economics, politics, religion, and so on.
    I have developed what I call "the Iron Law of Humanity": You can tell what any person or group of people want by observing, over time, what they accomplish." There's a similar "law" that tells us that that which a man thinks every day will make him into that thing.
    Lehi
  9. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from NeedleinA in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    That bothers me not in the least. It would not bother me today, as long as they married and both were in their right minds.
    One of the big things I hate about grtf-welfare schools is that they infantilize children. Admiral David Farragut commanded his first warship at age 14. Benjamin Franklin wrote articles for a fairly large newspaper when he was less than 16 under the pseudonym Prudence Dogood. It's virtually impossible for an adolescent (which didn't even exist back then) to do anything of the sort. So they have regressed back to what we expect of them, which is, essentially, nothing.
    Lehi
     
  10. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from NeedleinA in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    No, no!, a thousand times NO!!!
    "Life expectancy" is not a useful measure unless you attach an age. The assumed age is "birth", so, while a neonate could expect to live 40 years in the i, his father, presumably at least 15, would have an LE of at least 60, and his living grandfather, aged, say 45, would have an LE of 70 or so.
    All life expectancy tell us is that half of the people alive at a given age will be dead at another age in the future. Since half or more of all children died before age 5 until about the mid XIX, the LE at birth was necessarily low. but when someone lived to age, say, 20, his LE wouldn't be a whole lot different for a twenty-year-old today.
    Lehi
  11. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from Blackmarch in Hillary openly panders to Mormons   
    But the opposite is also true: were we to assume that she had nothing to do with the murders and other suspicious deaths around her and her husband, then she becomes the victim of this vast right-wing conspiracy and gains the support of a significant part of the voters.
    The thing is, no one in the left-stream media has even raised this possibility, and the numbers are high, and rising. What better way to paint her with a brush of rosy hue?
    The pattern around her is that she treats the law as if it does not apply to her.
    The eMail scandals, the lies about Benghazi, the lies about landing in Boznia under sniper fire, and the myriad of lies about her husband's mistresses and rape victims; these all point to her scoffing at the law. Why would murder be the exception?
    If we look at the eMail scandal, for example, Comey recommended she not be indicted. But he did so in a speech that listed her myriad of crimes. If that isn't "[buying] out the [prosecution]" what does?
    And, as I said earlier, even if she didn't order the murders herself, she has surrounded herself with people who would. And she could have known, and, indeed, she should have known what was going on amongst her confidant(e)s. If she didn't know (which I doubt), she has the façade of plausible deniability.
    The circumstantial evidence is such that any unbiased jury would find her guilty of a host of felonies. That murder would, or might be, one has no power to shock me in the least.
    Lehi
  12. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from SilentOne in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    No, no!, a thousand times NO!!!
    "Life expectancy" is not a useful measure unless you attach an age. The assumed age is "birth", so, while a neonate could expect to live 40 years in the i, his father, presumably at least 15, would have an LE of at least 60, and his living grandfather, aged, say 45, would have an LE of 70 or so.
    All life expectancy tell us is that half of the people alive at a given age will be dead at another age in the future. Since half or more of all children died before age 5 until about the mid XIX, the LE at birth was necessarily low. but when someone lived to age, say, 20, his LE wouldn't be a whole lot different for a twenty-year-old today.
    Lehi
  13. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from yjacket in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    The only law we need is, "Don't hurt people and don't take or break their stuff."
    Anything beyond that is too much.
    Lehi
  14. Like
    LeSellers reacted to Just_A_Guy in "Polygamy" v. "Polygyny" —— NOT a doctrinal topic   
    Interestingly, in the animal kingdom the males will very often kill the progeny of any other male except themselves.  I think as men, the desire not to raise other men's children is hard-wired into us to some degree--a staggering proportion of child abuse, for example, is perpetrated--not by a child's biological father--but by the mother's newest boy-toy.  That tendency might perhaps be part of the reason why cultures where men are responsible for raising other men's children (such as the arrangement Backroads mentions) tend to be out-competed by cultures where men are largely responsible for their own progeny.
    As a crime, from a civic/social standpoint, you have a good point.  But as a sin, from a theological standpoint; I think the major factor making all sexual sin abhorrent is that our whole raison d'etre on this earth is to learn to become a god and to have absolute power over life and death.  If you abuse that power--either by the inappropriate termination or creation of life--you have failed the test in way that is pretty darned close to irreversible.  
    Probably worth noting that when Deuteronomy is read in conjunction with Exodus 22:16-17, it appears that the victim and/or her family had the right to opt out of the marriage and simply collect the fifty-shekel fine.
  15. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from BeccaKirstyn in "Polygamy" v. "Polygyny" —— NOT a doctrinal topic   
    In several other topics, we've seen a melding of the concepts of polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and the Celestial idea of Plural Marriage. These are not the same things, and speaking about them as if they were only muddies the waters and makes understanding more difficult than it need be.
    The superset is polygamy: from the Greek, meaning "many joinings", i.e., marriages (whether formalized or not) between or among multiple partners, male or female, same-sex or natural.
    Completely within "polygamy" are "polyandry" and "polygyny". The former means "many men", the latter, "many women". "Polygamy" also subsumes "polyamory", a portmanteau (mixing of Greek and Latin roots) meaning "many loves", i.e., several men and/or several women who engage in sex with each other promiscuously, including homosex if desired, with the knowledge and consent of all of the others in the "family".
    "Polygyny" could  mean (but I've never seen it used this way) same-sex joinings between/among women. In parallel, "polyandry" could mean (but unattested) the common homosexual practice of having multiple homosexual males partners. In general, however, either means heterosexual marriages (formal or not) with one partner of one sex and multiple partners of the complementary sex.
    "Plural Marriage" is a subset of "polygyny" (with some "outerlaps", that is, parts that common polygyny does not include). Plural Marriage is not the subject of this topic. Please do not raise it, and only use scriptures (please divorce them from their spiritual basis) to support or undermine the other, legitimate, subjects. An example might be 1 Samuel 1, wherein we meet Hannah and her polygynous husband and see the strife between the wives of Elkanah. The question to be examined here would be "Is polygyny inherently stressful, or can two women share a husband without harming each other?"
    Finally, while it is a major issue in our time (we're not alone, the ancients did it, too), serial polygamies of whatever sort, don't lend themselves to this topic, either. Divorces and remarriages have little redeeming value, absent brutality. Jesus condemned them, and that's good enough for me.
    The goal (assuming "goal" isn't too strong a word) of this topic is to examine the plusses and minuses of each arrangement.
    It would be really nice if participants could keep it scholarly and detached. This is a potentially contentious topic, deeply imbued with emotion. That's not the point.
    Lehi
  16. Like
    LeSellers reacted to cdowis in Youtube Apologetics   
    CRITIC
    Can't natural phenomenons just occur, without any creator?  
    Why would God be necessary for our universe?
    RESPONSE
    Natural laws are independent of Divinity, He did not create those laws and are subject to those laws. And matter itself is eternal, not created. Now, i assume you know the relationship between scientists (pure science) and engineers. In my analogy, the scientists describe laws (pure science), whilst the engineers apply those laws into practical applications.
    Divinity ORGANIZES (creates) using those laws, as an artist creates (organizes) his masterpiece. He does not "create" the canvas, brushes or pigments but uses these existing elements. Basically "creation" simply means to organize, using existing materials, laws, and designs, as does a product engineer.
    Simple.
  17. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from NightSG in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    The only law we need is, "Don't hurt people and don't take or break their stuff."
    Anything beyond that is too much.
    Lehi
  18. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from yjacket in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    That's "wayyyy past" anything in my original statement.
    @Just_A_Guy has it pretty well right, it's the political background that defines my assertion that even a library fine would lead to the political powers sending a lot of armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges who, if you resist long enough and aggressively enough, will kill you.
    Before anyone says, "There ought to be a law!", he should first ask himself, "Is this important enough to kill someone over it?"
    You accused me of some dastardly things, and you pass it off with a shrug‽‽
    Lehi
  19. Like
    LeSellers reacted to Just_A_Guy in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    With all due respect, it strikes me that a lot of this depends on the nature of the resistance.  If a citizen/miscreant decides (s)he does not want to be physically subdued and uses a firearm to prevent that, I'm sure you--and any other conscientious officer of the law--would of necessity bring out the firearms mighty quickly. 
    That said, this lady was (pardon the pun) gunning for a Darwin award; and it seems she got one.  I hope her antics were the result of mental illness; because if her thought process is at all mainstream then we're a lot closer to an armed insurrection than I thought we were.
  20. Like
    LeSellers reacted to NightSG in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    This, in spades.  There are way too many laws on the books as it is.
  21. Like
    LeSellers reacted to Just_A_Guy in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    Agreed, from a legal standpoint; but I suspect LeSellers was using the word "resist" in the more generic sense.
  22. Like
    LeSellers got a reaction from unixknight in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    That's "wayyyy past" anything in my original statement.
    @Just_A_Guy has it pretty well right, it's the political background that defines my assertion that even a library fine would lead to the political powers sending a lot of armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges who, if you resist long enough and aggressively enough, will kill you.
    Before anyone says, "There ought to be a law!", he should first ask himself, "Is this important enough to kill someone over it?"
    You accused me of some dastardly things, and you pass it off with a shrug‽‽
    Lehi
  23. Like
    LeSellers reacted to Just_A_Guy in A Baltimore Facepalm   
    Perhaps, but I read him as saying that it is the overall body politic that pronounces--through the passage of a law--that citizens who refuse to comply with that law must ultimately change their minds or die.  Take Eric Garner, for example.  Assuming law enforcement followed proper procedures, it wasn't the NYPD who killed him; it was the citizens of New York who banned the sale of loose cigarettes and then tasked the thin blue line to enforce that ban at the risk of their own, and/or any potential offenders' lives.  The citizenry knew, when the law was passed, that the enforcement process would probably result in at least a few deaths; and it is they who must answer for Garner's death.  The cops were just trying to effect the people's will, and not get killed while doing it.
  24. Like
    LeSellers reacted to yjacket in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    It's not just helpful, it's essential . . .The vast majority of problems in the world can be traced back to horrible parenting (everyone has their agency-but parenting makes a huge difference).  Raising righteous children is an act of love for one's neighbor and probably the best thing one can do for in this life.
    I'd sure take the Brigham Young having 10 wives and raising 40 righteous kids over him having 1 wife raising 4 righteous kids and then the other 9 wives raising 4 deviant kids b/c their husbands can't get it together. . . The 1st case society will be better off, the 2nd it will be worse off.
  25. Like
    LeSellers reacted to estradling75 in I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy   
    You forgot the only reason that matters... God commanded it and the guy is going to do the best he can to follow God's commands