JohnsonJones

Apparently it disappeared over the weekend as mysteriously as it appeared, at least according to the news.

This is a common item of belief for many who study Biblical texts and such. The understanding some of them have has created a juxtaposition regarding Isaiah's translations popping up in the Book of Mormon in comparison to the times that many feel it was made vs. the period of time that the Book of Mormon is claimed (by some BoM scholars) to have occurred. This is something that would be interesting to elaborate upon, as some (meaning not all ascribe to some of these ideas) of the scholars of Mormonism (though most of them are NOT members of the Church, so that could also be something that is different in approach and understanding of these theories) that I have met that have brought up the Isaiah issue (and the Isaiah issue is NOT actually an LDS thing, but something that is seen regarding Biblical historicity and the actual evolution of Isaiah, though there are several various theories pertaining to it) have utilized it in arguing why the Book of Mormon could not actually accurate (which is something I obviously disagree with, which means I tend to favor some theories regarding Isaiah over others). I'm not sure what the claim is, but expanding the explanation of the position could be good in understanding which theory is being utilized regarding the Isaiah translation and how that reflects on the Book of Mormon itself in his view.

So, the last few days I've been making Turkey Sandwiches for lunches (from leftover Turkey from Thanksgiving). My wonderful wife who many times makes lunches has been more than happy to allow me to make lunches...because...I'm supposed to be the one who handles the Turkey. This year, however, I had no idea where any of my normal supplies were, so I had to ask here where the cheese and tomatoes were...etc. I have to admit, I don't follow the Word of Wisdom, or the Old Testament very well when I make Turkey Sandwiches. One of the key ingredients is Bacon (beyond Turkey...of course). Mixing of different animal meets, OR conserving on eating meat (it's not really a time of famine for us right now). I ready the Bacon and after it is cooked, slice up tomatoes and cheese slices. Normally I also like to dice up some lettuce, but that is the one ingredient my wife did not have in the fridge this year. I lather on mayonnaise on both slices of the bread (I know this is a heavily contested item between those in the West and those in the East sometimes, the West seems to prefer Miracle Whip while those like me prefer Mayonnaise), for a good base, then add in Turkey on the first slice. On top of that normally goes the cheese, tomato (and the the Lettuce if I had it) and finally on top of all that is the Bacon (Two slices, broken into four pieces to fit better). Then, if I want to make it supreme, I add another slice of cheese on top of all that, some more turkey to fit on the other side for the other slice...and we are done. Of course, that one lunch turns into several meals for several days of Turkey Sandwiches...so just finished off the last of it this evening. PS: Because it was Turkey breast it actually made it far easier to slice into good sandwich size pieces. In times past, sometimes the Turkey was uneven in sizes at times.

I've heard about this, but ONLY from Liberal sources. If true, I think it is about the ultimate in foolishness...but I ALSO wonder how valid it is, as I haven't heard anything from more conservative or even neutral sources that say this is any massively large movement in Georgia. I would NOT put it past some liberal groups to push this idea and hope that people are foolish enough to bite off on it. ON the otherhand, if this really is a bunch of conservatives in Georgia pushing this, it is an absolute ridiculous idea.

Which is interesting, as, with the actual evidence we have, we don't even know if they exist (we KNOW from a Church and spiritual standpoint that they existed). With actual evidence, there is very little...and the genealogical lines that claim to do so, an even more so, those that claim to go back to Adam (many of those that trace back to Mary do this as well) are extremely suspect regarding how accurate they are and how verified they actually could be. For a scientific, historical, and archeological viewpoint those lines are normally (how to put this...nicely) a little fabricated or exaggerated regarding how they are traced... Which does not mean you aren't related, just the physical evidence that has been found through the decades indicate that normally the genealogical lines that trace back to Mary are not exactly the most dependable...from a secular and worldly point of view.

[Constitution Bot Reminder] Actual election (electoral) does not occur until December 14th.

Or...you are from the future...

Taxes. Also a good excuse to meet with the Bishop (or branch/ward leadership) personally at least once a year. In theory, it's a time for you to declare whether you are a part or full tithe payer, but you actually can do that at any time. However, it does have monetary circumstances relating to the real world (some related situations in the thread above, but those tend not to be what usually occurs, though admittedly they do sometimes) especially for those who use it in regards to filing their taxes. I normally use an accountant, so they usually ask for the paperwork and I have them take care of it. Tithing may not impact federal taxes as much these days, but for some areas it still can affect other areas of tax payments.

We didn't have the entire family over this year and I didn't really want to worry about cooling the turkey (dad's responsibility in our house...aka...mine) so I got a nice boneless turkey breast and sliced into nicely cut slices and heated it up that way. Took less time, far easier, and much cleaner in the end.

I would disagree with the idea that the Lord is as analyzed above. We look at his actions from a temporal point of view that has no real ability to understand what lies beyond what we can see with our eyes and experience with our limited mortal spheres. This life to him, is the merest of instants. He started it, and he can end it. It would be as if you told your child that they were going to their room for a minute (actually less than that, but a minute may help understanding better). In that room they forget all that was beyond that room, but the parent remembers. The Parent can take them out of the room anytime they want. The child may fear what lies beyond the room and may even think it's punishment to get them out of the room, but once out they discover there is far more out there than what was in the room. Is the parent cruel or evil for taking the child out of the room early? The Lord also is our Savior. He is the ONLY way to escape sin and death. He has provided a way for us to do that, but we need to focus on how it is that we can overcome these things. We are given the commandments to keep him in our heart and pray continually for our benefit...not his. It is to help us keep focused on what is important (escaping hell...for starters) which has only ONE solution...the Lord. We keep him constantly in mind and looking to him in order for us to stay on the path of salvation and exaltation. The world seems to be a very complex place...so complex at times that many scientists doubt that there is another world that could have what we have. They attribute life as a very rare chance occurrence. It seems to me more that whoever designed and created the world was a mastermind of creation and making ecological systems that balance out with each other so that life has continued to go on in this world for Millions of years if not longer (as per science). To me, it seems that the Lord is more of a concerned and merciful parent who has a broader view and greater understanding of how creation works and what it really is, and takes actions accordingly while we, as the children are still limited in our view to what we can see in our rooms...and can't see what is outside of the room...much less understand it at this point. AND...more on the topic of this thread, I DO think the Lord has feelings as well as his parents and brothers and sisters, and as such, can feel gratitude.

I am grateful for variety. I thought originally I'd put I was grateful for sunny days, but then I thought about it and I am also grateful for rainy days. I thought some more and appreciate the variety of weather I get to experience. Expanding that more, I am grateful for the many varieties of things in life we get to experience, from food to clothes to customs and cultures.

1. I would say (as a member of the Church) that it is the most accurate at the presentation of the gospel ideas and the presentation of what it meant originally, which MAY not always enjoin to our modern or current interpretations of Isaiah with recent scholarship. 2. People acting under inspiration can and do make mistakes. It boils down to how you feel the Book of Mormon was translated. Was it merely by inspiration? Or was there something more to it? Even those who ascribe to the stone in the Hat idea will need to say that there were tools at work there which were utilized by Joseph and that these tools apparently had some impact upon Joseph's translation. Is this merely inspiration or something more? My opinion is that it was far more than inspiration, which is why I include the idea of revelation being involved as well. People might still be able to make mistakes in explaining a revelation, but it is a different process and thing. How this occurred probably affects how one thinks of in regards to the actual Translation of the Book of Mormon. 3. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Normally that has to do with Government and religion, but not quite understanding what you mean in the statement. Edit - I am not a religious professor and so my first look at the question was from a viewpoint other than that of religious. I looked it up as I was still puzzled and found out that it has a religious definition. A basic explanation was found via the internet on wikipedia (of all places). IF I understand that correctly, than yes, it would fall under accommodationism. 4. Hundreds? We know that there are differences between the manuscripts and the version of the Pearl of Great Price we have now. MANY of these was because Joseph Smith kept on revising it from the time he started and throughout his life. We do not have (as far as I know) the later revisions which were handled by the RLDS (At the time, now CoC, but as it is the RLDS at the time, I'll refer t them in that manner) church. The conjecture is that our current PoGP is greatly reliant upon their version that they published. Faulconer is theorized to have used OT1 while Joseph III edited it. Later, it gets more than that in that Pratt, as we suppose took much from the RLDS translation but made multiple grammatical changes. I suppose this is where you come to the idea that there are hundreds of changes? While true, in that same light, the Book of Mormon itself has had hundreds of changes as well...which I would have thought would be the thrust of your ideas regarding this if we are talking the veracity of translation. Once again, I suppose it depends on what you think of the changes and translations. I am taking for granted that we accept that those involved with the translations were doing their best to copy the material the most accurately that they could that was true to the text with the best of their knowledge...because if we do not then we might as well say all the texts from them were deliberately changed and are thus not worthwhile in the first place (and seeing we are discussing this, I'd say the default is that we DO hold that they were trying their best to remain accurate to what Joseph Smith translated). Obviously, we have Joseph's translation efforts, but also the examples I gave above of the various ways the first phrase of the Aeneid has been or can be translated still remains in effect. Many of the changes were in an attempt to carry the message and the intent of the message while making it readable. Grammar was changed to make it more readable, whilst other decisions were made to try to carry the messages and ideals of the translator (Joseph Smith) forward in the form that most accurately portrayed it. We see this in Biblical translations as well, especially those that try to modernize the wording for current readers today. I would say in particular, as you are probably talking about the Book of Moses, that what we have in it's form, as for mass publication, is closer to the ideas presented by Joseph Smith (and thus the original intent and the information given by the Lord regarding these doctrines or information) than any other version of the Book of Genesis or Moses out there today that is also available for mass publication. 5. Scholarly and Intellectual exercise in some ways are synonymous when we are discussing the translations. From a worldly scholarly approach, none of the things Translated by Joseph Smith have any validity, and with the evidence we have are more an exercise in futility to try to prove it to others outside the conglomeration of Mormonism and the various Churches that adhere to it's religious teachings. In fact, to take it in a scholarly approach, faith is fundamental in accepting certain premises. So, yes, I'd say it is a combination of scholarly and intellectual exercise, because to even be able to begin to accept how it was translated in certain ways takes a great deal of rationalization before we can even touch upon the more scholarly approaches to how and why.

I have been blessed to be able to travel to many places around the world. In some places there is no indoor plumbing or even running water, and even when there is, in many places you should not drink it. In that light I am very grateful for indoor plumbing. I'm also very grateful for clean drinkable water. I mentioned that I'm grateful for the gospel above, and the next thing will seem very similar but it is somewhat different. I am grateful for the gospel but I would not have a testimony of it without the missionaries and the missionary lessons. I am VERY grateful for the missionaries and I am grateful that I was taught the gospel and received a testimony. It has changed my life and the lives of my children and family.

I cannot say I'm familiar with forums overall, or what draws people to them more than others, but perhaps there could be an outreach (or as some would say, a recruitment) to get more people onto the forums? I know I found these forums because I was trying to find a place which promoted a positive attitude towards the Church and it's teachings. To many forums had anti-Church sentiment and a lot of people that were angry or wanting to destroy the Church. This was the only place at the time that I found that promoted positive messages and well being to the Church. I have found that there are reddits and a few other locations that promote a positive message (and far too many that do not) of the church, but they are still few and far between. It is terrific to be able to discuss things with like minded individuals where we are at least joined in our testimony and beliefs of the gospel. If there could be found a way to appeal to those who are like I was, searching for a place where the gospel is presented (and protected) in a positive light, perhaps we could attract more people to these forums? PS: Something that occurred to me regarding drawing people to these forums. Could there be a correlation between the drop in numbers, or those coming to the forums, and the name change? I know Third Hour was the choice, but it doesn't exactly scream out to me that it is connected to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or discussions of the gospel. Perhaps something to change the name to something that notifies people who are searching that it is connected to those who love the gospel and the church in a more direct manner?

I think they are translations, obviously, but through the Power of the Lord, which makes them far more accurate than any other. Of course, as you point out, why then does it seem so clearly based upon the KJV and why is it that there are places it copies the KJV even down to the writing where scholars feel that the translation is incorrect? I would say it is the same as many other translators. You pointed out early in the thread regarding Genesis 1:1 which in many ways could be seen as an inaccurate translation. Much of what is translated into English is more a tradition regarding translation of the first portion of Genesis. A LOT of this is due to tradition, but that tradition is also because it is what we are familiar with. We start translating the Bible and we use the words in the way that we are familiar with, thus rather than take a purely academic approach to something (such as At the Beginning, or even more liberally, at the Start, during the Start, At First, etc) we normally say the words...In the Beginning. It is what we are familiar with. In that same vein, many theorize that Joseph read a great deal in the Bible and was familiar with much of how it was worded and phrased. Thus, this is reflected in his own translation of things. His familiarity with the way it is phrased and worded work their way directly into his own translation, much as it influences other translators. Once again, this brings on the next problem...if his knowledge is based upon the KJV and he takes liberally of it in his own translation, how then can we know if the Book of Mormon is the most accurate? Let us look at another work that is commonly translated with Virgil's Aenied. Arma virumque cano Which could be translated in many ways. I tend to automatically say it as I sing of arms and a Man...but is that accurate? Others could sing, Arms, and a man, I sing...or Of arms and a man I sing, or even I tell of a man and war...etc. Which is the most accurate? We could have various scholars argue various ways. Which captures the authenticity of the words? Which captures the phrasing? Which captures the feel of the words? Which is actually the direct translation? They could argue till they are blue in the face (and at times have. If one has knowledge of it, though the basics of the meaning are normally agreed upon (normally, not always) it really boils down to a matter of opinion regarding the rest of the facets of the translation in what is most important. In the same matter, I would say the same applies to the Scriptures that Joseph Smith translated and the revelations he had. In this, I feel Joseph stated that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book. As something of a reference, in 1984 Monte Nyman discussed this idea and issue (and though aged, it probably relates to your department I'd imagine) in the Ensign. The Most Correct Book, Ensign June 1984 If I may paraphrase and copy and past various paragraphs Thus, yes, there may be inaccuracies, but the gospel teachings are in the most correct form available from it. I'd also extend this idea to that of the Doctrine and Covenants (as it is the closes we can come to direct revelations to a prophet of the Lord without being dependent in the intermediaries of time and other layers of translators and translation) and the Pearl of Great Price. However, this obviously would not convince a scholar of another faith or another belief. Which is why in the end it IS a matter of opinion, similar to how we favor our own versions of a translation. However, in this, our opinion need not merely be based upon our own feelings, but upon an actual testimony revealed to us by the Power of the Holy Ghost. Thus, it is on faith and by faith that we feel that we can rely upon the teachings of the Gospel found in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures that we use. It is not really something that can be factually objectified (though I think we try) but in the end, if we really boil it down, it is a matter of opinion based upon faith for the members, or for those opposed, based upon opinion from what they know and understand already. So, weak as it may be, my argument is that it is based on Faith for the most part, or in whole, rather than a more substantive argument from a scholarly approach.