"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote :

Not in Mormonism He doesn't.

Huh?

Mormonism does not require, that where The Bible is used, the version so
used, should be the 1611 AV/KJV.

"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote :

I think the KJV is interesting for a few reasons.

We call it the AV, Authorised Version. Since when we British talk about
computers, we must use the US variant of the English language, you can
use UK English for the 1611 Bible. :)

I believe all of the "translators"
were Anglicans, but I could be mistaken.

In 1689, His Britannic Majesty, passed into English law, the Act of
Toleration, which, granted freedom of religious worship to all, except
Catholics and persons denying the Trinity. You could be right!

As far as I know, we are still required to get heretics, like Mormons,
and remove their heads.

In any case, the intent behind the KJV seems
to have been to supplant the Geneva Bible commonly
in use, with its notes, and to create a bible that
used the vernacular to gain popularity.

The 1611 Bible is not written any in vernacular. The purpose of writing
like that, is to set its contents apart from more every day matters,
reminding those who come into contact with the scriptures, that they are
dealing with sacred writings.

Similarly, even modern versions, use capital letters for pronouns
referring to deity.

We don't speak as they did in 1611, and yet God
continues to insist that we use a translation
that uses words no longer in use.

Not in Mormonism He doesn't.

"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0405011715.45f53f67@posting.google.com...

"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<c6o6q1$eaul6$1@ID-146277.news.uni-berlin.de>...

=> God did not consider God's work completely done when God had the
=> prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its original
=> Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical Christians
=> believe to the contrary. God was there helping the King James team
=> translate as they were working on their project. I'm not saying that
=> team made no mistakes as they translated the book. I'm just saying
=> that God guided the translation effort to such an extent that God was
=> happy with the result, and God was content to have Christians use that
=> translation as a tool for the next several hundred years.
=
=How can you possibly know that? If you know the history of the KJV and
=still maintain that assertion, then God is a mighty fickle critter.

Lee, feel free to educate me. What is it about the history of
the KJV that makes you think my God "is a mighty fickle critter"?

Among many things, he's had many biblical translations over the years. I
think the KJV is interesting for a few reasons. First, the version
published in 1611 included the Apochrypha. I believe all of the
"translators" were Anglicans, but I could be mistaken.
In any case, the intent behind the KJV seems to have been to supplant the
Geneva Bible commonly in use, with its notes, and to create a bible that
used the vernacular to gain popularity. It seems a bit peculiar that these
days many think the language used in the KJV is quite elegant.
We don't speak as they did in 1611, and yet God continues to insist that we
use a translation that uses words no longer in use. And despite all the
queries and differences in understanding of individual verses, God still
insists. That's fickle for a being who wants us to worship according to
standards set forth in the bible.

--
Regards,
Lee, the James, uM, feminist
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, "hmm.... that's
funny...."

In any case, the intent behind the KJV seems to have been to supplant the
Geneva Bible commonly in use, with its notes, and to create a bible that
used the vernacular to gain popularity. It seems a bit peculiar that these
days many think the language used in the KJV is quite elegant.

"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote:
= Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
=>= One of my favorite blunders by Smith is the following:
=>= From:
=>= http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
=>= "So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons
=>= claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written
=>= beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly
=>= copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith
=>= pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he
=>= included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously
=>= he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying
=>= the King James Version of the Bible."
=>= Notice the word "pretended" above. Another liar for the Lord,
=>= just like all those before him who claimed to have received
=>= special messages from God.
=> Elroy, did it ever occur to you that maybe God _wanted_ what was
=> written in the King James Version to be the way the Bible was
=> translated?
= You're joking, right?
Not at all; I'm completely serious.

God did not consider God's work completely done when God had
the prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its
original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical
Christians believe to the contrary. God was there helping the King
James team translate as they were working on their project. I'm not
saying that team made no mistakes as they translated the book. I'm
just saying that God guided the translation effort to such an extent
that God was happy with the result, and God was content to have
Christians use that translation as a tool for the next several
hundred years.

How can you possibly know that? If you know the history of the
KJV and still maintain that assertion, then God is a mighty fickle
critter.

"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0404280327.78f3e9e6@posting.google.com...

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:<r5i3701caaikj3fhtrq7vououhv0megnev@4ax.com>...

=>= One of my favorite blunders by Smith is the following:
=>= From:
=>= http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
=>= "So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that
=>= an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about
=>= 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's
=>= original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed
=>= 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon.
=>= Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying
=>= the King James Version of the Bible."
=>= Notice the word "pretended" above. Another liar for the Lord, just
=>= like all those before him who claimed to have received special
=>= messages from God.
=> Elroy, did it ever occur to you that maybe God _wanted_ what was
=> written in the King James Version to be the way the Bible was trans-
=> lated?
=
=You're joking, right?

Not at all; I'm completely serious.

God did not consider God's work completely done when God had the
prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical Christians
believe to the contrary. God was there helping the King James team
translate as they were working on their project. I'm not saying that
team made no mistakes as they translated the book. I'm just saying
that God guided the translation effort to such an extent that God was
happy with the result, and God was content to have Christians use that
translation as a tool for the next several hundred years.

How can you possibly know that? If you know the history of the KJV and
still maintain that assertion, then God is a mighty fickle critter.

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
=>= One of my favorite blunders by Smith is the following:
=>= From:
=>= http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
=>= "So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that
=>= an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about
=>= 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's
=>= original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed
=>= 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon.
=>= Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying
=>= the King James Version of the Bible."
=>= Notice the word "pretended" above. Another liar for the Lord, just
=>= like all those before him who claimed to have received special
=>= messages from God.
=> Elroy, did it ever occur to you that maybe God _wanted_ what was
=> written in the King James Version to be the way the Bible was trans-
=> lated?
= You're joking, right?
Not at all; I'm completely serious.

God did not consider God's work completely done when God had the
prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical Christians
believe to the contrary.
God was there helping the King James team translate as they were
working on their project.
I'm not saying that team made no mistakes as they translated the book.
I'm just saying that God guided the translation effort to such an extent that
God was happy with the result, and God was content to have Christians use
that translation as a tool for the next several hundred years.

What then is the big problem with having portions of the Book of
Mormon identical (or nearly identical) to what God inspired the King
James group to write?

Latter-day Saints are hardly the only theists
who get caught in that semantical game.

Wouldn't most Evangelicals admit that
there are three persons who are divine?

Scripture is a pretty fluid thing
to Latter-day Saints, [ . . . ]

Latter-day Saints are hardly the only theists
who get caught in that semantical game.

Wouldn't most Evangelicals admit that
there are three persons who are divine?

Scripture is a pretty fluid thing
to Latter-day Saints, [ . . . ]

"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<cQCHb.31685$gN.2758@fed1read05>...

=>> Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
=>> Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
=> A lot of people think the LDS Church is the epitome of an
=> organization where people do "what [they] are told no matter
=> what is right," but that's really not the case.
=
=And I believe it is. And not just the LDS but all churches. Let's
take the =homosexual issue for example. They church says it's wrong,
so the followers =say it's wrong. When the followers are questioned
as to why they think it =wrong, they go lock-step with the church and
spout chapter and verse. Ergo, =church doctrine, regardless of the
morality of treating others badly.

Well, Latter-day Saints do what _God_ tells them to do. I took
the original poster's statement as labeling Latter-day Saints as peo-
ple who did what _people_ (church leaders) told them to do.

I look at gays and lesbians about how I look at tobacco-users.
When God first told Joseph Smith that God didn't want us using tobac-
co, scientists didn't know what we know now about the high correlation
between tobacco use and cancer. Still, Latter-day Saints didn't
smoke, and even back then that was the right decision to make, even
though scientists didn't know about the health benefits of the prac-
tice.

Right now, as far as I'm aware, there are no known benefits of
abstaining from the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Even so, God has re-
vealed to Gordon Hinckley (and other LDS leaders) that God doesn't
want us living that lifestyle. Maybe in the years to come, after more
studies of the consequences of living that lifestyle are completed, we
will learn just why God made that prohibition.

By the way, I am somewhat left of center, relative to most Lat-
ter-day Saints, when it comes to gay rights. The way I see it, the
LDS Church is perfectly within its rights to prohibit the gay life-
style for its members. But when it comes to the state finding adop-
tive parents for children, there will be some times when it should
choose gay couples. I don't think gay couples should have _as much_
of a right to adopt children as straight couples; nor do I think, as
my wife does, that they should be prohibited from adopting entirely.
In my opinion, the policy of the state of Texas is a good compromise.
In Texas, when the state finds a child that needs an adoptive parent,
the child is placed with a straight couple if one can be found that is
willing to adopt the child. If one cannot be found, then the state
lets a gay couple adopt the child.

I've also struck what looks to me like a nice compromise when it
comes to gay marriage. Let me point out that gays, lesbians, and bi-
sexuals are not the only sexual minorities who want to be granted the
special status of legal marriage. Legalizing marriage for gay couples
and lesbian couples would be like passing civil rights legislation
that benefited blacks and Asians, but that still left discrimination
against Native Americans perfectly legal.

What I'm talking about are polygamous groups. If the USA gets
around to legalizing gay marriage, it would be _extremely_ hypocriti-
cal if it didn't at the same time legalize polygamous marriage. When
it made such marriages illegal back in the 1800's, that decision was
based on an appeal to the Victorian value system, that condemned homo-
sexuality just as much as it condemned bigamy. If we're going to
overthrow the Victorian value system, then we need to repeal the poly-
gamy laws too. _I would vote for_ an "alternative marriage" law, that
granted legal sanction to marriages both between couples of the same
gender and between polygamous groups. I would vote _against_ a law
that legalized gay marriage but left the laws against bigamy standing.

Let me rush to say that I am _not_ saying this because I want the
LDS Church to return to the polygamous days of its past. I don't
think that will ever happen. The legislation I'm proposing would only
benefit the so-called "fundamentalist" LDS break-offs of rural Utah.
What I want for the main-line LDS Church is simply vindication. The
recognition by the law that its polygamous days in the 1800's were
really perfectly legal, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights' promise
of freedom of religion.

Duwayne, do you think that I'm _not_ skeptical about the LDS
Church?

I think about all these doubtings, and many, many more, and I see
a lot of skepticism, Duwayne.

I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.

With all my doubts, with all my cynicism, I'm still at my core an
optimist. Each person in this world needs to decide for herself/him-
self whether or not s/he believes in a deity. In spite of my doubts,
and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me. When my three
children get old enough to hear what critics have to say about God,
I'm going to explain to them that in spite of everything the critics
say, an optimist will still believe in that type of a God, and we are
a family of optimists. And a faith in that type of deity leads di-
rectly to the central challenge of the LDS Church--once you believe in
that type of God you need to _go to that deity in prayer_, and ask
that deity if that deity supports the LDS Church.

So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?

Yes, the Book of Mormon is sometimes hard to take seriously. But
the hardest part of the Book of Mormon to believe is the story of the
Jaredites, and the hardest part of the story of the Jaredites to be-
lieve is that there _was_ a Tower of Babbel that they could have come
out of. Evangelicals make such loud noises about the archaeological
evidence in favor of the Bible. Where, then, is the archaeological
(and linguistical) evidence for a building built to reach to heaven,
with all of humanity speaking one language before the building was
started, and all of them speaking different languages when the build-
ing was abandoned?

I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.

So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?