snipe123

I mark my footnotes in the text with color dots...Green for GR(greek) Pink for JST(joseph Smith Translation) etc etc...you will be amazed how much you learn, particularly in the Bible, from the footnotes...Marking the footnotes in the text makes you look down to that much neglected portion at the bottom of the page, and also lets you know that this particular footnote, is not just refering you to the TG (Topical Guide) which make up a large bulk of the footnotes... Read the Gospels using the Harmony of The Gospels in the Bible Dictionary...This lists the events in Christs life, in the order they occur, from the various Gospels in which the events are recorded...and use the map to follow along in his travels... Read the Bible Dictionary...sounds boring, but it is official Church Doctrine and you will be shocked how much you don't know...In particular you will learn the background of all the various books in the Bible...which is fascinating! I have read the B of M at least 15-20 times, and I know what you are saying about it being tediuous and a bit boring...I have been trying recently to retrain my scriipture study to search topically, rather than chronologically...good place to start would be the Topical guide...start at Aaron and look up all the references...tedious, but you learn alot...:) Pretend your preparing a lesson on the subject...:) I am finding that I start following little threads of information everywhere and end up on a topic that I had not started on and it feels a bit more like I am being led by The Spirit in my studies rather than just having a few tidbits pop out at me as I read chapter by chapter...still new to this method in personal study, but it is much more rewarding, and requires a little more effort...much like you feel after preparing a talk or lesson...HOpe this helps!

You have a really great question there, and I would like to agree with all of what has been suggested...I would also like to point out that a lot of us Mormons seem to not use the tools we have in the scriptures themselves...These tools will give you a tremendous ammount of knowledge just by using them...Here are some suggestions> 1) Mark your footnotes in color codes. There are various types of footnotes in LDS addition of the scriptures...particularly the Bible which are very important. They include not just references to the bible dictionary(BD), and the Topical guide(TG), but also these abreviations: OR, GR,HEB, JST and one other that I cannot think of...hahaha...So the JST are footnotes quoting the Joseph Smoth Translation of the scriptures, GR are alternate words from the Greek (for new testament) etc... The footnotes are explained further in the opening pages of The LDS addition of the King James Bible... I mark my GR footnotes with a green colored pencil...just a small dot...so that as I am reading along and see that green dot, I know there is a different Greek word meaning in the footnotes that might help me to understand the text...These footnotes are then set apart from the topical guide footnotes that make up the bulk, and can be a bit cumbersome... You will also be amazed by some of Joseph Smiths contributions...small example is when Christ is tempted by Satan when he is fasting for 30 days, in the New Testament and how Satan seems to be able to take Jesus at will, wherever he want to go and show him things...on top of a mountain, the temple etc...It always bothered me that Satan seemingly had this power over Jesus...Joseph Smith clarifies...by saying that God took Jesus to these various locations to show him things, and THEN Satan came and tempted him...It also says that Jesus went out to fast for 30 days "to be with God" and THEN Satan came and tempted...King James Bible says Jesus went into the wilderness to "be tempted of the devil". Seems far more reasonable that Jesus would go into the wilderness to be with God, than with Satan, and then the devil would come out after the fact and try to persuade Jesus to worship him instead, don't you think? Joseph Smith gets it right, and it's right there in the footnotes...:) Sounds like a lot of effort, but it does not take to long, and you will learn a lot as you go through it! 2) Use the Bible Dictionary...In fact, read it...It is official church doctrine and has every topic you can think of, including a lot of background information on the books of the bible themselves...Articles such as The Gospels, Pauline Epistles, and any other articles written about each book of the Bible would be great places to start...knowing the background of what you are reading, helps you to understand... 3) Use the Harmony of The Gospels (again, in the Bible Dictionary) to read the accounts of Jesus' life from each of the four Gospels in the order in which the events occur...and use the maps...Great way to get to know the life and ministry of Jesus... 4) I also highly recomend the institute manuals, particularly for the D&C, Old Testament (two manuals) and New Testament...They are fairly inexpensive and can be ordered online...Again, they are church doctrine...Good rule of thumb on that is if the church's logo is printed in the title page, or if it is published by the church...you know its doctrine. 5) The other books mentioned on the other posts are all excellent...I am envious of the fact that you have Jesus The Christ on your Mp3 player...I don't have one, and now I think I just found a reason to get one, so thank you for that! 6)Don't be discouraged by what you read on the forums from all the "experts"...I have heard that if you study a subject for an hour a day for 5 years, you will be an expert! Most of what I know, from a foundational standpoint (including all these suggestions)was learned in two years as a missionary 15 years ago...so I think the Gospel can be learned even faster...:) Remember also the principle that The Apostle Paul teaches that just like a Baby requires milk before he can eat meat, so it is with a study of the Gospel...start with the basics...much of the discussions on the forum are pretty meaty and you might decide to spit it out, much like a baby would reject a steak...:) 7) accept church callings particularly if you are asked to teach...you will learn far more as a teacher, than you will as a student, and every adult in the church can either be a home, or visiting teacher...My favorite callings in the church have been as a teacher...also be willing to speak in sacrament meeting...you will learn a lot in your preperation and your confidence will grow... 8)"...Seek learning, even by study, and also by faith..." Can't think of the reference there, but use the topical guide and you will find it...hahaha If you have any questions or wish me to clarify something, please respond... I hope this helps, and God bless you brother for embarking on this lifelong journey of study!

A number of your statements are incorrect, and because the are so many I thought they should be clarified. The "black girl" that lived in Joseph's household was Jane Mannings James, and she was 21. Joseph and Emma did offer to adopt her, but she declined as she didn't understand what they meant by "adoption." While the Mormons were in Illinois they were indeed against slavery, although individual members were not so welcoming because of racist feelings; it was, after all the 1840s. But Joseph, especially, was an ardent abolitionist, especially as his belief in the evils of slavery evolved over time. For example, in December of 1836 Elijah Able, a man of color, was ordained a Seventy by Zebedee Coltrin. He also became a "duly licensed minister of the Gospel" for missionary work in Ohio. (Minutes of the Seventies Journal, December 20, 1836) Beginning in 1842 , Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In March 1842 , he began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule?" (History of the Church, 4:544). On February On February 7, 1844, Joseph Smith wrote his views as a candidate for president of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850 . His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands. Interestingly, every other country in the world that ended slavery did so by buying the freedom of its slaves, all except the United States. (I just love that little tidbit.) So all of this coincides with your statement that "the Mormons were totally against slavery." (I just love pointing out all of Joseph's statements about slavery.) However, this did not prevent them from seeking any public office. In Nauvoo, Mormons could hold any office they wanted because of the city's charter. In Utah, polygamy was the issue that kept Mormons from holding public office. Anti-slavery had nothing to do with it. In fact, after Joseph's death and the Mormon trek to Utah, the situation changed drastically. Brigham Young was not an abolitionist, and in 1852, slavery was made legal in Utah. "Several unique provisions are included which terminate the owners contract in the event that the master had sexual intercourse with a servant "of the African race," neglected to feed, clothe, shelter, or otherwise abuse a servant, or attempt to take him from the territory against his will. Some schooling is also required for slaves between the ages of six and twenty. (Neither White nor Black, Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, 1984, pg. 68-69) A good place to get information about the history of blacks and the LDS Church is Blacklds.org. Elphaba I appreciate the corrections...I really do...One thing I should have said differently is that Slavery is one of the issues that created opposition (actually, I think I did say that...I was not saying that they were not allowed to run...although driving them from the state eventually, would in fact prevent their hoding or running for public office...:)) to Mormons and thier holding public office...not that they were prevented from it...since obviously they did hold many city, and county seats, not just in Illinois, but also in Missouri...I was not refering to Utah at all in those comments...Polygamy did create problems in that regard...:) I was refering to Missouri...Missourians were greatly alarmed that if the Mormon imigration into Missouri was allowed to continue that they would soon have a voting majority and could reverse the states policy on slavery(as I recall, Missouri was a pro-slave state...going out on a limb there...), and other issues...Of course one of the other objections(in Missouri) were that Mormons were too superstitious and believed themselves to be the recipients of supernatural healings and visitations from God and his angels...Certainly that makes them unfit for public service...hahaha The book I mentioned, does talk about the possibility of some blacks being ordained to the priesthood, but I did not want to delve into it to much in a few brief paragraphs particularly when it is covered so thoroughly in the book...and it is obviously a very touchy subject...:) However, the book does not come to a definite conclusion on the subject as I recall, as the source material is scarce and old...Would be curious if that was what you were refering to regarding Elijah Able? This I found interesting: In fact, after Joseph's death and the Mormon trek to Utah, the situation changed drastically. Brigham Young was not an abolitionist, and in 1852, slavery was made legal in Utah. Are you certain of this? The quote you gave, refers to servants, and seems to say that they had far more rights than a "traditional" slave would...but it also refers to them as slaves...It has been some time since I have read the book...dooes it assert that slavery was legalized? Is that your source? I find it extremely ironic that one of the first states to allow women to vote, would years before, actually legalize slavery... It also makes sense to me that a country would buy slaves freedom from their owners since they were purchased under a legal (though morally bankrupt) system previously allowed by the government...In a sense, it would be buying the slave owners cooperation and abolish a terrible practice...Curious to know why U.S. didn't do that? Not enough support? Civil war came on instead(recognizing of course that the civil war was not all about slavery)? I must admit I did not know about that, and would be interested in more info... Thanks for the post...

References please? So it seems my centuries were slightly off, but the jist of what I was saying remains...haha...was on my lunch break when I wrote this post and could not look up references at the time...It is late, so in looking up my references briefly here, here is one: Hugh Nibley has an entire chapter on the subject in his book: Mormonism and early Christianity...among the folks quoted on the subject of Baptism for the dead are: Tertullian, Epiphanius, St Ambros...The quotes are to lengthy to type out this evening...He also quotes from various non canonical books on the subject...Wikipedia has a very huge ammount of resource material on the subjec that I still need to delve into that I only recently discovered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead ...a segment of the opening paragraph is pretty intriguing... "The practice [baptism for the dead] is referred to in The New Testament (1 Cor. 15:29) but was forbidden by the Orthodox Church in the 4th Century and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity. " Granted, WIkipedia is not the end of all opinion and scholarly research, but I am sure there is a lot of source material referenced... Now as I said, I am not an expert, and I should say I don't really feel the need to have a debate here, but it is a subject that interests me so I will continue to do more research, and in the meantime, so can you...:) Hope you have access to Nibleys book, and certainly the article in Wikipedia would be a good launching pad for your research...

Wrong. The translation was to be done in a language that everyone understood. Do you think that everyone knew French in early 19th century America? I guess we'll have to wait and see. Tell me something I don't already know. It is my understanding that Latin was taught in public school until the 1950's or later. Of course, French and German were pretty common as well. But does it make sense to include a Latin, French or German word into an ENGLISH text? I think you've already answered that in the negative. The word "adieu" does not make the BoM fradulent. But it doesn't do much for Smiths translating abilities, as I pointed out two years ago that "god be with you" or "go with god" would have been a perfect translation for this. I think he did it to make it seem more like the rest of Scripture. Again, I don't know how we can tell for sure, other than reviewing public news papers of the area and looking for the word in print. Yeah, but notice Smith used the word "Christian" not the French "Chrétien". B) Sorry, I had no idea that was a two year old post, but in your own words you said: "Im still waiting for someone to adaquetly explain how the Nephites learn to say "Adieu", when even the French language didn't exist at the time? " THat's what I saw, so I thought I would formulate a well thought out response... To me it sounds like you were saying: How is it possible that the Nephites knew French? Or: How is it possible that they learned the word Adieu? Seems pretty obvious that you were asking that...I was answering your question...not "calling you out." I was simply pointing out that neither French, nor English words ever passed the lips of a Nephite...nor were French or English words used on the plates...We can agree that Smith picked a bad word since it has created a great deal of misunderstanding...which was also my point...otherwise, I would say he did a wonderful job and millions cherish the book, in whatever language they read it in...It may be a two year old post, but based on your response to it, it seems to me you still are not quite getting the point...Not trying to be inflamatory by saying that...I was just trying to answer the question...

The historical fact I find most interesting that lends support to Joseph Smiths claim to have restored The Gospel, is the early Christian belief in salvation for the dead and practice of baptism for the dead in the 1st centery A.D.. Apart from it's brief mention in 2 Corinthians(which I hardly consider as proof that it was done, just an indicator...a mere mention...very brief!) Some of the Apostolic Fathers not only acknowledge that the ordinance was practised, but they also give their commentaries on the subject...going so far as to say that the apostles themselves were baptised vacariously for a dead parent...as time goes on through the centuries, (3rd and 5th)other writers attempt to explain the practice away and scold (16th century)the early Christians for doing it...prayers for the dead was instituted eventually and is still practiced by some Catholics(not an expert on that subject so I will not comment further on it)...the knowledge of Baptism for the dead had been lost and corrupted and now was being explained away and denounced as heresy... I find it interesting that Christian writers and theologians who were centuries removed from Christ and his apostles would have the audacity to reprimand the early Christians, some of which had actually heard Christ and the Apostles teachings first hand...If they were the earliest Christians who heard the Gospel from the mouth of the Lord, then certainly they had the Gospel right, not Christian apologists centuries down the road who had become taiinted by Greek philosphy and hellenistic ideals...Not going to try to give a complete account of the subject, nor do I consider it the strongest proof of the mission of Joseph Smith, just wanted to give it as an example since it is something I find interesting...and is a subject of personal study...not an expert! Mormons practice baptism for the dead and as far as I know they are the only people who do, with the exception of the ancient Christians just mentioned...

Any takers folks?? :) A Strongs Concordance is an excellent resource for such subjects, or use this link: http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html Great site for word studies like the one your asking about...:) I have also gone through the footnotes in the Bible and marked all the Greek footnotes with a green dot, so that as I am reading the New Testament, my eye is immedietly drawn down to the footnote because I know there is an alternate word from the Greek to aid in understanding...not sure if that helps in this case, but it is good practice...also marking the HEB, OR, JST footnotes with there own colored pencil dot color helps a lot! Kinda weeds out all those TG footnotes references that make up the bulk of the footnotes...Does not take an aweful long time to do and is worth the effort...Did it 15 years ago and I am still learning things I had not seen before...

I wanted to give you a few priciples that help me when settling these types of questions, and if you wish me to clarify or delve more into your questions specifically, then I will be happy to do so, as I have had similar questions...:) 1)While it is true that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, it is plain from the scriptures that the way that he deals with his children on earth is not always the same...the plan is the same, but the lesson plan changes, and it sometimes changes dramatically. 2) Some practices and beliefs in the Bible, or Book of Mormon, or in the early days of the restoration for that matter, may not appeal to our modern sensibilities, religious ideals or culture, but that does not make them untrue... 3)It is best when examining these questions, to view them in their historical context and setting, as well as the historical dealings the Lord has had on that particular subject in the past, not from our modern perspective or by just looking at one instance. 4)Exercising faith when answering these questions is crucial to receiving help from the Lord (and there is definite help for these questions, believe me.)and it will be useful if you discover these answers in your studies, rather than being spoon fed the answer by someone else(not criticising you at all) While it is useful to ask questions of others, it may not be reliable enough to provide you the ultimate answer to your questions, because your testimony will hinge on whoever can give you a better answer. Your opinions and convictions are subject to change with whatever argument that comes along that is better than the one that gave you your present conviction. Others can point you in the right direction, but giving you ultimate peace is between you and The Lord. There is nothing better than the sweet whisperings of the spirit of God to aid you in your studies...The world will tell you to use your senses, but there is another "sense" which is the Spirit and it is stronger and more convincing than any argument devised by man, or the devil for that matter... So with the priciples above in mind, I would like to speak briefly about the two subjects you mentioned...they are very complex historically, and from a religious standpoint but perhaps i can point you in the right direction... I am not ashamed that blacks were at one time excluded from the priesthood...I don't go around proclaiming that it was so, simply because it is a very complex issue to explain and talk about due to the sheer volumn of historical context that must be understood...Blacks and the priesthood is very interesting historically and should not be seen as a policy motivated by racism...seems odd to say that in todays society, but as mentioned by other respondants, Mormons were totally against slavery and is one of the chief reasons that people were opposed to Mormons holding state public office...Joseph Smith had a black girl live in his household he adopted her as his daughter...Some of the first Mormon pioneers to enter the Utah Valley, were black...There is an excellent book on the subject...probably out of print now, but it discusses this issue in depth, from a historical perspective and will probably give you a lot to chew on...much more than i can mention here...Its called: Neither White or Black. I think it was published by Sea gull book. So that's all very interesting historically, but it does not answer the question, and that is because typically people who have trouble with blacks being excluded from holding the priesthood are not asking the right question...Some better questions might be: Are blacks the only people ever excluded from holding the priesthood by God? Why would God exclude anyone from holding his priesthood? The answer to the first question is definitely: Yes!...Almost everyone was excluded!...In fact at one time, the authority to minister in Gods name (the pristhood) was reserved for one paticular tribe in the house of Israel(Gods covenant people or people of the promise)...The Levites. The rest of the people were totally dependent on the Levites to do sacrifices for them to atone for their sins.Weren't the other people just as capable of learning and performing these ordinances, and remaining worthy etc? Of course they were...So the question is why would God do things that way, and unfortunatley we really have no idea...God gave the responsibility to the Levites and no others...that's all we know...Why do we hold the Mormon church to a higher standard than that? Women, historically, in the early Christian church, were also not given the priesthood...thats not to say, they did not have spiritual gifts...they certainly did...prophecy among them, but they did not have the priesthood...Until the ministry of Paul, the Gospel was not even preached to the Gentiles (with a few notable exceptions)They were certainly not entrusted with the priesthood before that time...These are historical realities that are difficult to reconcile from our modern perspective...We like to be inclusive...it's who we are, but it is not always how God dealt with others, and we don't know why for certain...all we can say, is that in some of the things we see as exclusionary, Mormons find themsleves in good company on these, and many other issues...I do not wish to be misunderstood in anything I have said here, so if you need clarification, please let me know... As to Polygamy, we should not be ashamed or embarrassed by the practice in our history...it does not appeal to us for sure...seems foreign...it has been condemned at various times for particular people, but the fact is that as a principle, one is not condemned by God for practicing it, atleast when it is authorized...as an example, if God frowns upon polygamy at all times, then Abraham (who had 2 wives)surely would be condemned, but in fact, according to the New Testament, he is sitting on the right hand of God with his sons Isaac and Jacob. Jacob, who was renamed Israel, had 12 sons and is the father of what we refer to as The 12 Tribes of Israel(one tribe for each son)He had 4 wives. He had children with them...had he not had more than one wife, we would only be talking about the 6 tribes of Israel! These are the people of the promise...It is through this seed that "all the nations of the earth will be blessed". So does God condemn polygamists? Yes...the ones not authorized, like the ones in Jacob in The Book of Mormon, and modern "Mormon Fundamentalists". Christ forbade the early Christians from engaging in the practice... But as we have seen, some polygamists were exalted! Again, I am not saying we should all run out and be polygamists, but we need to stop being ashamed that the Mormon church at one time practiced it...What is it's purpose and why was it stopped? Why it was done, is perhaps the easier of the two to understand...That is a question for another time...I just wanted to point out some historical realities which are critical to understanding these issues...again, if you need clarification, please ask...

The Nephite's did not use English words either, so according to your argument, saying "goodbye" would have been unacceptable as well...:) The Book of Mormon is an English (with the above exception of course)translation of whatever words the Nephite's happened to use which we do not know...The plates were not in English or French since the Nephites did not speak either one...the word Adieu was not on the plates and neither were any of the other English words in the Book of Mormon...It is a translation of the Nephite characters that were on the plates... naturally Joseph Smith can translate them in whatever way would be most understood by its readers, and in a way that most accurately renders the meaning of the word...If a translation is to be best understood by the readers, then the job of the translator is to render the meaning into a language that people understand...If Joseph Smith had translated the Nephite language into Latin(assuming he knew it), that would not have been very useful to the masses, since few people know it and noone uses it in common speech. Pig Latin is better known but not very reverent...:) If he had translated into pig latin or Latin, would you have cried foul since the Nephites didn't speak either one of these languages? Had Joseph Smith been French himself, and translated The Book of Mormon into French, would you have said he is a fraud because the Nephites could not have spoken French? What if he had inserted one English word into his French translation? On another front, that he rendered his translation in King James English does not mean the Nephites spoke King James English(which is a criticism I have read elsewhere), it simply means he recognized King James English as beautiful and poetic, and frankly, the only English version of God's word that people were familiar with at that time...speaks again to the responsibility of a translator... My only criticism of Joseph Smith on this issue is that in using a French word here, which most people in common English speech do not use, he has created some misunderstanding about translation...I would be curious to know if Adieu was a common term of departure in upstate New York by English speaking people (kinda like you hear "adios" far more often in San diego than its English equivelant) at the time of Joseph Smith...This is a far more interesting question since if it was, then in that case it would be a great rendering of the Nephite word (farewell with a blessing) for Joseph Smiths regional readers...I wonder if Joseph Smith or his family members commonly said good bye in this way? Have never read anything to say either way, but it does make me curious... The same argument above can be used when people criticize the word "Christian" used in the B of M before the time of Christ...not a Hebrew or Nephite word certainly...not really English either...and was not used until the time of The Apostle Paul...but lets assume for sake of argument that the Nephites had a word that was used to describe a "believer or follower of Christ, or the Messiah". I have no idea what the word was, but it wasn't "Christian" since that is not a Nephite word...So Joseph Smith comes along and sees a word ( a title) on the plates that denotes "a believer in Christ or the Messiah"...The job of a traslator is to render that word in a way that the reader understands...lets say the Nephite word title for a believer or follower of Christ was..."Tralla". Sorry to trivialise here. as I have no idea what the Nephite word was...it's just the first word that popped into my head and is only for illustration...:) So for our example: Tralla = Believer or follower of Christ or the Messiah Christian= Believer or follower of Christ or the Messiah So if Joseph Smith were to render the Nephite word in the best possible way that his English readers would understand, then he would translate the word "Tralla" as "Christian". Again, this is only for illustration...it would be silly to assume the Nephites used the actual New Testament word "Christian" similarly it would be silly to assume the Nephites used a French word "Adieu". They used their own word or title, in their own language, for a believer or follower of Christ, and their own word for "farewell". Joseph Smith gave us a translation of words, not the actual words themselves as spoken and written by The Nephites...if his account is to be believed that is...:)