JohnsonJones

This is most likely what I would back. Joseph Smith fell back onto what he was familiar with during the translation in many instances. It most likely is not a word for word translation, but one that also was done in accordance with what Joseph was familiar with. This happens with some translations today as well, especially in texts where it is more poetic. There is a choice in these texts on whether to go with a word by word translation, which will be a literal translation of what the document actually says, or go with a more substantial translation which confers what the document actually means. For example, if we had a phrase in the United States in English that says...Go break a leg...or...beating a dead horse...and translated it to another language people may be confused why we were wishing someone who was about to do something big to go break a leg, or why people who were rehashing old arguments were beating a dead horse instead of talking. Poetic texts are even tougher than that to confer what the author actually means. In addition, there is the question on whether to try to keep the poetry of the writing, or whether to go more towards what is a standard language. Take Virgil's Aeneid. In it, you have all these choices regarding translation. If you go for a pure translation a lot of the symbolism and other areas of the work could be lost. If you go only for one that tries to stay as true to the words, but also convey the feelings and experiences of it, you may lose some of the actual wording utilized, and may not convey the feeling of the poetic verse (dactylic hexameter). If you try to go and convey the feeling of the poetry in motion by replicating the meter of the poetry, you may lose both some of the actual meaning while not staying true to the words. It is a tricky thing translating many of the ancient works. At times, it is left to the translator's best understanding of the matter. Some times they already have exposure to a particular type of translation of the work (for example, many translators of the Aeneid choose to go for a more literal word on word that remains close to the actual meter of the epic poem, but that means that the casual reader will miss quite a bit of some of why things are done or the symbology and meaning of some of the work). It is what they are familiar with and so they go with that tried and true form of translation. Joseph Smith did not have the exposure to a lot of various translations of the Bible during his time period (or at least most likely did not, and/or utilized one version of the bible for most of his actual reading and studying). Hence, just like other translators he probably fell back on that familiarity during his translations. This is why much of the Book of Mormon, especially when it repeats a portion found in the Bible, replicates those portions of the Bible. It was what he was familiar with. The same could go for certain terms in the Book of Mormon. He was familiar with the name of the Lord in the New Testament and when a descriptor of that name came up during translation, he fell back on what he was familiar with. So, the actual term could have been another term or word, but as Joseph was more familiar with the term Christ (which one could view as an actual title rather than a name, Joseph and Mary did not have that as a last name, or at least most Scholars agree they didn't), when a term meaning the anointed one popped up, that's the term he utilized.

Only thing I have read was during my glance at the news today. It seems Trump ended trade talks with Canada. With the TACO acronym, I expect something will happen next week and they'll be back on or resolved or something. (supposedly it's become such a pattern that it's the best way to make money on Wall Street currently, because any other prediction or method seems to crash and burn with the unpredictability).

I think the bigger point, is that any Conservative should want a smaller government and less Welfare going out. Why are my tax dollars paying their full time employees to work at Walmart? As I mentioned above, if Walmart want's to subsidize their workforce that way, have them pay our government to reimburse us (the taxpayer). I propose that they pay us 10X the amount we subsidize any of their full time employees. Any welfare or food stamps or anything else that a full time employee (note, full time means that this should be the only job the employee needs to do) has to use or qualifies for and uses, will need to be paid back to us 10 fold. Stop using taxpayer money to subsidize their own workers. This would reduce our Welfare monies we spend, reduce the social programs needed, or bring in more money for us to use on other things in the government.

I can't speak for @Phoenix_person, but that's not what a lot of people think when they are talking about Corporate Welfare. The biggest one I can think of, which was probably the worst that we've seen in the past few years were the Loans to keep Banks from going under during the early part of this century (21st century) when we started the "Great Recession" as many call it. Was it necessary to prevent us from possibly going into a depression...probably. On the otherhand, we probably should have let all those companies and businesses go under. Nothing should be "Too Big to Fail" in that way. It would have hurt a Lot more initially, but I think in the long term we would have had better capitalism and a stronger economic future (probably cheaper housing for our children and grandchildren, many who now are wondering if they will ever even be able to afford a house, more competitors in the banking arena and car market, as well as more securities that came about due to capitalism rather than government intrusion in regards to loans and banking options, etc) overall. If we want to talk about Walmart specifically, it isn't the CEO payments that are causing the corporate Welfare, it's literally giving the Company Welfare from the government Coffers For Welfare. What I mean by that, is that Walmart underpays it's employees (especially in rural areas where it is a big employer and driven mom and pop shops out of business). They do not pay a living wage. Thus, though the employees are working full time in those areas, they also qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, and welfare in general. AS one for smaller government and less money spent, I actually am sort of outraged by this. My proposal (which will never occur due to how massive corporatism is in the US, with Walmart being very much involved with government policies) would be to charge the companies. If they have an employee that uses food stamps, welfare, or other social programs to aid the poor, WE CHARGE THEM 10x the amount we spent on their employee. We, as taxpayers, don't need to be paying Walmart for their own company. Let them pay their employees to work, not us. This type of change would either force them to pay employees enough so that my tax dollars are not supporting them, OR...bring in more money to our coffers (who knows, with that amount, maybe we could even pay off the US debt...though I highly doubt even Walmart could afford that). Corporate Welfare means that we are literally paying that companies employees to live from our tax monies, rather than the company actually supporting itself without using our tax dollars. This has nothing to do with some CEO and the Board's pay, and everything to do with lowering government costs by doing away with a Welfare state which these companies promote in order to make a bigger buck by using the Taxpayer's money to supplement their worker's incomes.

I think you are confused about what socialism is and how it can be both socialism and a public good. Fire Departments, Roads, and even police departments are all socialism and run via socialistic policies. All socialism is, is a system where something is owned or run by the people or the state, or owned collectively and run by the state (aka...government...aka...why the Fire Department and Police are almost always also part of the County or City government organizations in the area...OR...run by a group of citizens in the area itself). If a Road is owned by the government, paved by the government, and paid for by your taxes...it is...by definition...being made available via socialism. I'm not sure why you think a Public Good cannot possibly be from socialism, when in fact...a LOT of public goods as you may put it, are directly from socialistic policies in the United States. Of course, the most socialistic program in the United States is none other than the US military (which is ironic, considering how right wing it is). As a sort of flawed notion (as @Phoenix_person could easily point out, but for the purposes of the discussion it is interesting to point this out).... That also points out an obvious problem that conservatives could utilize if they truly wanted to point out the problems with Socialism. One of the biggest expenses in the United States is it's military. The military is completely socialistic in most ways, from the way they provide housing and clothing, to how they provide food and even medical care. Everything is given to them by the state (or via an allowance), so all they need to focus on is the job of defending the nation in which ever capacity they have been appointed. The military composes less than 10% of the population, but consumes much more of the Budget than that. There is no way to extend this type of socialism to the rest of the US without bankrupting it. Of course, pointing out how socialist our own military is, while saying they support that same military and how it operates, is sort of an ironic twist regarding how one would say they are opposed to socialism, but at the same time supporting the greatest pillar of socialism in our nation.

The problem in the United States is not so much Capitalism, but Corporatism and Monopolism rather than Capitalism. Unfortunately, in many instances, Capitalism evolves into Corporatism and Monopolism as the "Survival of the Fittest" edges away the smaller companies, companies merge and giant corporations that have far more power than any other business emerge. When we have companies that engulf such a large amount of sales such as Amazon and Walmart in comparison to other companies, such as Mom and Pop shops, the ability those corporations have to affect government and the economy far outscales anything that normal Capitalism can compete with. In order to have a real capitalistic society, social controls over how large corporations, companies, and co-ops can get must be written and legally enforced. The problem we have had is that these laws have been slowly eroded over the past half century, where as at the same time a great reluctance to enforce anti-monopoly laws have crippled our government in regards to stopping such corporatism from taking place. Part of this is that we see benefits of having large companies control large swathes of our economy in relation to others (an China took note and has attempted a very similar thing, which we can see it's impact on us today). An example... Microsoft, though we took a soft punch at it over two decades ago, never really got broken as a Monopoly. As a result, though other systems are utlized, on the desktop environment, over 75% of the computers worldwide (this does not include phones or tablets, just the desktop and PC environments which we use in such places as schools, offices, etc) still dominate the OS. Thus, ideas such as forced updates, forced creation of accounts, and other things just to unlock our computers to use for the first time are the norm, because all those things are on Windows. Linux, Unix, and other OS's, despite having better ways to do things in these areas are largely not utilized due to Windows dominance. In essence, the competition is not ideal. There is no real capitalism in this environment. Some would say it is a good thing, as we have more universal usage and commonality. It has allowed the United States to control the computer environment (and now along with Apple, even greater control with the phones and tablets) of the world. However, in regards to capitalism, Capitalism is dead in this arena, and has been for decades. If it were alive and well, the US may not have the control it does over these environments throughout the world. If we want Capitalism, than we have to enable capitalism to exist, rather than allowing companies to have basic monopolies in certain areas. Many do not see the advantages of it in relation to where we stand today in regards to the Corporatism that has engulfed this nation. Much of the problems people try to point out regarding Capitalism in the United States is not so much a result of Capitalism itself, but Corporatism and Monopolism in regards to their impact on our Government and Economy.

I think he has an uphill battle. He's going to have an independent (who has been a democrat) probably running against him and that is going to decrease a lot of his votes. Cuomo at least probably won't run as well (if he did, I think that would almost guarantee Zhoran would not win). I don't think his policies (the ones you listed) would fail if he actually was able to bring them about. New York is a very expensive place to live already, and a minimum wage of $30 is probably equal to a minimum wage of $10 to $15 in the rest of the US. City-Owned Grocery stores probably won't be as successful, but I imagine there would be a few small grocery stores in food deserts that would lose money continually, but actually remain. Rent controls are probably heavily needed. Let the rest of the nation catch up before the rents go crazy again. There's too much valuable land, buildings, and the ports in NYC, the wealthy will always be there, or at least will remain until the proposals cost a LOT more than what the mayoral candidate is proposing thus far. I think he may run into problems with the Jewish population and the Sunni population with some of his current views and statements. I have no idea if he will win this or not, I think it depends on whether a certain independent candidate (edit just in case no one knows who I am inferring about: Eric Adams) continues to run or not, and how successful that candidate is in drawing votes for himself and away from the Democrats.

Off Topic: I'd love to get a bigger image of your histomap quoted above. I opened it in it's own tab but still couldn't get it big enough to read it. Getting old, eyes can't read things that small. It looks very interesting though and I'd love to have one that I could really see really easily and read over.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have had a far more hostile cold war between them than the US and the USSR did in the late 20th century (though earlier in the century it probably was hotter between the US and the USSR). They absolutely hate each other. Some of it is over religious disagreements. It has benefited the US greatly (Saudi Arabia is one of the US's oldest allies, and lean greatly on the US for support, much of it due to wanting and needing weapons and defense in regards to this cold war).

I'm the slow one in this thread. I don't think I understand the question. I went to the link and it just appeared to be a post about holdings and then talking about the church's holdings. I didn't find a quiz. I'm not even sure why it matters in their context. I don't get it. I suppose that means my social media literacy score is...extremely low??

So, the history of the bible, and the history we hear in religions and churches do not always match what we read in history itself. History during that time period in Egypt is probably the Middle Era and a Golden Era for Egypt. It was also a different dynasty than the original Pharaohs of Egypt. In that light, historically speaking, the Pharaoh may or may not have been directly related to the original Pharaoh (some would say it definitely had connections, others would say it would have been impossible for there to be a connection between them...genetically speaking. It depends on the historian and the slant they are taking. Some of the opinions are more popular than others). Obviously we have problems if there is a direct line between the two, but if there is no connection between them (and we are talking hundreds of years and more...historically speaking rather than religiously speaking as the start of the Egyptian rulers and those of the Middle Kingdom would be quite vast)

To be clear and upfront, I support this action. I feel this is not something that Trump wanted to do. In fact, I think he didn't want to do it. He did it because it had to be done. He probably knew it would be unpopular. He probably knew polls, even from his own party, would show many who were against this act. But if he did this, I think the alternative was Iran with Nuclear weapons. I think they may have been close, and at this point, there was really no alternative. It was do it now, or Iran has a nuclear weapon. (and I'd be happy if someone proves me wrong, but the impression I get was that the reason Isreal took the actions it did, and what convinced Trump to do what he did was how very close they were to obtaining such a weapon). An Iran with a Nuclear Weapon is bad. They have declared death to Israel. They have declared death to the USA. They are one of the biggest backers and formentors of world wide terrorism today. I do not think it takes a great deal of imagination to think of what they may have done if they got nuclear weapons, and the damage they may attempt to do at US targets with such things. Acting offensively to kill others is not Christian, but we also know in the Book of Mormon that we can defend ourselves. Iran declared the US it's enemy decades ago. They have made no secret of things they have done to try to cause us harm. Acting to defend the US from such an enemy that would probably use such Weapons of Mass Destruction to seriously hurt us, I hope falls in line with self defensive actions to defend our nation, our lives, and our way of being. You all know I am not a fan of Trump (at all). However, I think this is one action I fully think he made the right call on. I don't think it's going to be popular (from what I've been reading in the news), but sometimes hard choices have to be made and this was one of them. No one wins with a Nuclear Armed Iran (even Iran loses, though they may not understand why). I know he says that it's a great success, but I think it's too early to tell currently. I only hope that we succeeded as well as Trump has stated (if not more so) after we finally can get the analysis of what damage we actually did or did not accomplish.

Sorry for the late reply. I could have retired years ago, but I was reluctant to. It meant that I would have to monitor my money far more tightly and I also enjoyed being able to do what I was doing at that time. I had already worked a great deal with another career, and this opportunity to teach and research sort of leaped out at me. I took it and enjoyed it greatly. However, various factors combined to finally make me take the jump and go off the cliff to retirement. #1 - Politics. Not the politics that we think about, but university politics. I was responsible at times for getting grants and contracts and overlooking grants and contracts. There were several factors that were making them much harder to obtain or to feasibly consider. It was getting to be a chore and really making my life a rather unfun experience at times. #2 - My health. Healthwise I am not doing so great these days. As I get older, my health just doesn't want to keep up. It also appears that I may have gotten some dementia (and I do not know how long that means I'll be able to remain as I am, or if it will get worse and eventually I'll not be able to do things. I do not want to be a burden on my family, but if it gets worse...then we will be there). In addition some other health concerns have popped up that could get worse relatively quickly. It's estimated I may have only 1 to 3 years left. If I only have so much time, I want to spend it doing what I want to do. I may get a miracle, but I've lived my life and if I don't, I'll be happy with where I'm at. I'm trying to convince a son or in-law to at least sign onto these forums so when I am no longer able to visit, they at least can keep people updated. #3 - It just feels like it's time. The world and the students are changing, and sometimes I just feel like a fish out of water. I think I'm ready to be done with this stage of my life. On the bright side, I am retired now. I've gone traveling (and really crazy thing happened in Utah while I was there. They actually closed the entire Federal Highway Last weekend! I've never seen another state completely close the highway down without any real reason (Beyond construction). Normally they find a way to at least keep one side open. I've gone to Disney World with some grandkids (we went to all 4 parks. It's different when you are older. I think I prefer Animal Kingdom these days to the other parks, though the grandkids probably enjoyed the other ones better). I went throughout the Western States and I've visited several of the National Parks out there. On the downside, I've found I am going to have to cut back as much as I can on spending. Finances will be tighter and I'm still adjusting. I am fortunate to have a buffer, but I still need to ensure that I stop overspending and take time to focus more on the spending necessities and less on what I would like (for example, my summerly trips overseas...done [though that was usually for research trips rather than pure enjoyment]. My thoughts on touring Europe...currently it seems like it may be a little too expensive for my retirement budgets). Bills and Budgets are tighter now and I'm feeling it. Maybe more car trip traveling around the US during the summer than going internationally, and more time with family than experiencing sights and culture.

Well, for now I've cut down on a bunch of meetings. Retired and sitting around now. I think I'll go on vacation (but is it really vacation if you are retired, or just travelling?) in June. I had one college who said I shouldn't retire, that those who retire are dead in 6 months. I hope not. I still have kids and grandkids to go visit. Still will have meetings for church, so I suppose I'll still have a few meetings to go to. Otherwise, I don't know if I'll have to worry about another work meeting for a while (though if some people's stories of their after death experiences are true, if I pass away I may have a lot more meetings all of a sudden in the near future).

???? You are a confusing one... But, that said... You have a great day as well and hope that things go well for you.