["Protestant Mormons"]

Protestant Mormons? That's the ones fighting with Catholic Mormons in northern Ireland 🙃

[Book of Mormon Language]

On 7/22/2022 at 5:31 PM, Jamie123 said:

Also, what happens when it is translated into other languages? Do the translators mimic how those languages were spoken in 1611?

Can't really say how they do in other countries, but in Denmark and Sweden the Book of Mormon translation follows the most modern national bible translations. Names change as well according to the Bible translations, for example, Jehova changed to Jahve in the Book of Mormon when it became the new Bible standard

[So you want to listen to Hugh Nibley, do you?]

On 7/3/2022 at 6:09 AM, Vort said:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/bibliographies/hugh-w-nibley/lectures/

That's amazing! I've wondered if such a library existed. Thank you

 

Not all heroes wear capes

[The Millennium]

"But McConkie seems to be teaching that that time is in no way impacted by the conditions of the world"

Sounds pretty odd. The parable of the wheat and the tares would strongly indicate that the growing polarization between the gospel and the world is a factor for the second coming

"Does this imply that some of those who live during the millennium may only inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom because only Telestial law abiders are removed?"

There will be both celestial and terrestrial inheritors in the millennial kingdom

"Is this implying that the natural man will not exist within us during the Millennium?"

Since we who are not dead still have mortal bodies in the millennium, I'm pretty sure the natural man still exists, especially considering there will be a variety of people there. Just a guess, but perhaps people worthy of the celestial and terrestrial kingdom are more resistant to the natural man than telestials when Satan is not there to whisper in their ears?

[Joseph Smith comment on Matthew 24:36]

Well, I guess it's good for the last prophet before the second coming to know that there's a deadline for repentance 😂

I don't think though that the rest of us are going to know the date since we're supposed to look at the signs of His coming to know that He's near and live as if He's already here. I don't say that's how it's going to be, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate otherwise

[Why the King James Version?]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my personal impression that we must be careful what we call the most correct English version.  Part of the problem is the evolution of initial Biblical texts.  We have learned through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures that the ancient manuscripts of the Bible that were thought to be the most accurate - are in reality far from it [...]

I absolutely agree. Even if one bible version is considered more accurate, it's still far from a correct translation of the originals. It's a huge blessing that we have the necessary teachings today despite the attempts to change the scriptures

[Why the King James Version?]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The claim was that it was the most correct "OF THE ENGLISH VERSIONS AVAILABLE."  I thought that went without saying.  But I guess not.

Easy now, cowboy 🤠 I thought it went without saying that latter-day saints shouldn't talk down to each other, especially when it's uncalled for. But I guess not.

But no, the main post didn't claim that the KJV version should be the most correct English version available. I think however you take this a little bit too personal.

 

Where did the notion about the KJV being the most correct version come from anyway? Perhaps I haven't noticed the general authorities mentioning it...

[Why the King James Version?]

Well, Joseph Smith did say that the German version was the most correct version, so it can't really be because of that... they could just have translated it to English. However, the King James was indeed (and still is) a very popular version, and the language fits the Book of Mormon.

 

It's funny though to see when the general authorities use other bible translations in their talks. There's no need to be obsessed about it, as long as you don't suddenly have a class reading out loud from 20 translation (it's good to agree to some order)

[Romans 16:7 - Itching Ears]

I was very confused when I first read that this passage was interpreted as if they were apostles or included in the aposleship.... I would argue that it's one of those passages that shows the limits of the english language and the necessity of critical thinking when reading through the scriptures.

A direct translation google translate style from the Swedish Bible, 2015 version would be like this:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and fellow prisoners, who are highly esteemed among the apostles and who came to Christ before me

(The original: Hälsa Andronicus och Junia, mina landsmän och medfångar, som är högt ansedda bland apostlarna och som kom till Kristus före mig)

Note how it still translates to "among the apostles" if you just google translate it, which is quite interesting. Even though it's how it's translated word for word, it's definitely not how it's commonly interpreted. It would instead be interpreted like like this:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and fellow prisoners, whom the apostles think very highly of, and who came to Christ before me

 

In short, the apostles thought they were good saints. I tried to look at translations in other nordic languages and other germanic translations, and it's the same there. perhaps you can propably only make "women aposltes" arguments in english

[Judgement and attributing motives]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

The core question is why is it appropriate to attribute innocence or positive motives, but not ok to attribute negative motives

Well, Joseph Smith did say this:

"It is better, said Joseph Smith, to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition"

This principle can be applied to not just food but to any judgement we make

[Boring General Conference]

General conference is supposed to be relevant for the time, not to please us with deep teachings or things WE think is important... so no, I don't see it as boring but important spiritual instruction/insight

 

However, general conference has barely begun, we'll see what else is in store for us

[The Beast]

On 3/16/2021 at 7:50 PM, Carborendum said:

Ok, it's time for this month's edition of Carboggeddon.  That's right.  Carborendum's newsletter on things to look for in the coming apocalypse.  All kidding aside...

My missionary daughter was discussing the Book of Revelation with her district in a recent meeting.  Some things in her weekly email to us led me to think about The Beast.

For centuries many people thought of the Beast as being Emperor Nero.  He certainly seemed to satisfy the description as far as the persecution of the Saints of God.  And his name/title "Neron Caesar" in Greek (?) provided the gematriot = 666.  So, there really was no question that Nero was the Beast Spoken of in the Book of Revelation... Only... it wasn't really him because Christ's coming didn't happen anywhere near that time.  In fact, Christianity thrived for centuries after his death.  And still... no Second Coming.

But after reading some of what my daughter wrote, I wondered, though, if this was a symbol inside of a symbol.  Maybe John actually meant Nero, but not Nero.  He was just a type and shadow of The Beast.  But we would know The Beast by certain behaviors and traits that paralleled some things that Nero did.

While he was known for many acts which were both evil and just plain wacko, there is one single act that almost everyone who's ever heard of him mentions.  He fiddled as Rome burned.  I was going to write more.  But I feared that would break the rules of the forum.

Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. I do believe that John was referring to Nero but also that the beast and its mark is not just one single person or concept but rather the spirit of it which continues until Jesus says: it is enough. During the ages we have seen rotten leaders who behave just like him, blaming and persecuting the saints or the seekers. A corrupt and tyrannic ruler.

But I'm just guessing here. sadly, the church anything official about it... which is also why I'm guessing that it at least refers to Nero since he probably wouldn't have spiritual significance to us (maybe)

[Do people's attitudes affect what the Church teaches and how it operates?]

Well, the first thing that came to my mind was the Savior's words when He said:

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so"

So I would say yes, the attitude of the people can affect teachings and operation.... To a certain degree. I don't believe that God surrenders to our opinions and sins and make compromises. However, I do believe that God adapt the church to work so as many as possible can be saved without violating the celestial laws

[President Nelson vaccinated]

Yeah... if the vaccine was so dangerous, God would have stopped the prophet from doing it and even urge others to do so.... I'll get the shot

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Conference October 3-4, 2020]

On 9/28/2020 at 4:08 AM, prisonchaplain said:

I'm thinking more along the lines of "LDS culture" or "LDS event" vs. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints culture/event. Then again, I could just say, "Oh, you know...it's a Thirdhour.org thing." I'm sure most will get my meaning.

Well, we are discouraged to use the short form LDS. However, when you refer the people themselves, you can definitely say things like "Latter-day saint culture"... it even has lesser syllables than for example "evangelical culture" 😁

Reference:

"When referring to Church members, the terms "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," "Latter-day Saints,” "members of the Church of Jesus Christ" and "members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ" are preferred. We ask that the term "Mormons" and "LDS" not be used."

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

 

[Milton Berle on US movie ratings]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I Googled that name and nothing came up-are you sure it's not named something else? 

"Den skaldede frisør"

[Milton Berle on US movie ratings]

On 4/17/2020 at 2:46 AM, Vort said:

What movie was this?

It was called "The bald haircutter" 

It could be argued that the title itself is a red flag 😂

[Milton Berle on US movie ratings]

Personally I'm very careful about what I watch no matter the rating. I was invited to watch a movie in the cinema with a G rating with my sister, and I thought "well, can't do any harm watching a "childish" movie. Well... It contained sex scenes (and of course, it was adultery just to make it even worse), full body nude scenes and heated up homosexual scenes... Let's just say that I still haven't fully recovered.

 

Moral of the story: even though this is an extreme case, it shows that just because a movie has a certain label, you never really know if it has been made so that The Lord would approve it. Parental guides and alike are still the best guidelines for whether the movie reflects your standards or not

[I'm so excited!]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm totally down with the new logo. I think it's lovely, really great. I appreciate the artistry and the symbolism. But I don't understand why this logo, essentially a branding tool, merited a General Conference announcement, much less a center-stage announcement by the Prophet himself.

I am not criticizing at all; I honestly just don't get it. It seems like a prophetic prime-time General Conference announcement of, I don't know, a new BYU dress standard allowing slightly longer hair for men. If anyone can explain in simple terms, I'd love to know.

If I may say, and this is just a guess based on observations..... I think it's because we as a whole have forgotten Him in our doings. When I hear members talk about church stuff, I rarely hear The Lord mentioned. It's more focused on things we do practically like the Word of Wisdom, self reliance, and family history. While these definitely are good things, people outside of the church will not associate us with The Lord if we don't show that we do such things because of Him. think about it, we even got commanded to focus on the church's proper name instead of "Mormons". Plus, since we often have used Moroni as a symbol, quite a few think that we worship angels.

[Art of the First Vision]

I really like the one from the "pillar of light" comic. Not because of its artstyle (personally I think it's too dramatic), but I really like how the rest of the personages from the vision is included just as they should

[Tithing on children paying board for living expenses]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Irrelevant. The point is that an honest tithe is not constituted merely by whatever someone decides it is. You may decide to tithe based on whatever money you have left over after you've paid for "necessities", including recreation and vehicle payments. Your bishop may even sign your temple recommend. But that doesn't mean that you're square with God. We are not Universalists.

And that's why I mentioned God's part in tithing men are not supposed to dictate how much an honest tithe is, but I can guarantee that you don't want to cheat/mock God.. we know what happens to those kinds of people, so let's just listen to the prophets and the apostels when they have spoken 

And yes, we are not universalists and I have never indicated that either.... quite the opposite actually

[Tithing on children paying board for living expenses]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am not sure that I believe this - it is true that we are all given Agency to determine if, how and why we keep the Laws and covenants of G-d.  Obviously how we view the Law and covenants are an exercise of Agency and directly have bearing on our spiritual development.  The promise is that as we learn to engage in the laws and covenants of G-d as a spiritual investment rather than an obligation or as I was taught by my parents - we can be a minimum or maximum participant and we can think of such as an obligation or a joy of liberation.

 

The Traveler

 

16 hours ago, Vort said:

I think I have to agree with @Traveler here. Saying that how we define income (the actual word is "increase") is up to the individual is tantamount to saying that whatever amount we pay as a tithing is correct—that is, is acceptable to the Lord—merely because that's how much we've decided to pay. Though some Saints find this Universalist reasoning compelling, I do not. As a friend of mine once put it, "I don't really care what your opinion is or what my opinion is. I want to know what God's opinion is."

This is where I think the trite expression that so many object to, "Net tithing, net blessings; gross tithing, gross blessings", shows some real underlying wisdom. Contrary to popular opinion, we (those of us who have received our temple endowment) ARE under the law of consecration, today, right now. We have covenanted to consecrate everything, and God expects us to do so at this very moment. Part of that consecration is paying an honest tithing. Our bishops today are instructed basically (for the most part) to take our word for it if we declare ourselves full tithe payers. But that doesn't mean God recognizes a dishonest tithe as okey-dokey. God sees the heart. Are we being honest? Are we looking for deductions and loopholes, or are we consecrating ourselves to the kingdom?

You can deceive men, even your bishop. You cannot deceive God. Pay an honest tithe.

(Please note that I'm not attributing any of the above sentiments to @Nordic saint. I'm just extrapolating from what he wrote to what I think is a reasonable conclusion, and then disagreeing with that.)

 

Well, the only thing I can do in this case is to quote the brethren's official statements   This is from the first presidency letter from 1070:

"For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."

 

This goes hand in hand with what Robert D. Hales quoted from Handbook 1 in his talk "The divine law of tithing":

"The First Presidency has written what the law of tithing is for us today: “The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.” (First Presidency letter, 19 March 1970.)"

 

The conclusions:

• Members are entitled to make their own decision as to what they think they owe the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.
• No one is justified in making any other statement than the one in the first quote

 

These statements are the newest ones and been repeated ever since. I think though the misunderstanding happened by assuming that I didn't take God into the picture. However, I did say that we should do it by The Spirit of The Lord. In other words, it doesn't mean that whatever we pay in tithing is honest, it means that that it's between you and The Lord with no lifted finger from others. No mortal has the right to say that I have to add $10 extra in tithing to make it right, whether it should be gross or net or what money on my bank account constitutes my income  I pesonally think it is really wise how we should let any judgement of our tithing come from God and not man since we mortals tend to become almost like devils when it's about money, especially other people's money

[Tithing on children paying board for living expenses]

Hi and welcome rustyoz!

 

First of all I feel inspired to give a reminder that tithing is ten percent of one's annual income. How we define income is up to the individual, and even though we can give our personal insights, we are not allowed to instruct others how tithing should be defined beyond this.

Now, the questions is, to whom do those money belong to in the first place? This is a really important question, because it's the owner of the money who decides by The Spirit of The Lord what should be defined as income. If I understand this correctly (and let me know if I'm wrong), it's the son who's the owner of the money in the first place. If that's the case, he should prayerfully decide himself whether he considers the money as income or not.

Hope that this comment will help in any way  

[A logical explanation for why Hell is not literally fire and brimstone.]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

My understanding is that this is the origin (or at least the popularizer) of the "fire and brimstone" imagery associated with hell. I think it's meaningful that Dante represented Hell as a frozen icescape with Satan himself at its core, and that Brigham Young spoke of God's domain and the glory of His kingdoms as "eternal burnings".

It's quite interesting because Brigham Young's (and Joseph Smith's) descriptions COULD indicate what has been told that heaven for one person would be hell for another (eternal burnings vs fire and brimstone)

[A logical explanation for why Hell is not literally fire and brimstone.]

Two toughts:

1:  being burned alive is one of the most (if not the most) painful way to die. now, doing that in fire and brimstone eternally is quite a strong picture for not being in God's precence. Only one who really despise God would wish for that

 

2:  It's indicated that Gehenna was used as a rubbish heap at the time of jesus. If it's true, a pile of waste burning day and night would make people think twice about risking being compared to that