antispatula

How does this even apply? The thing that bothers me is the fact that the actually content has been changed. In the jst, it says jesus said "if someone asks you to go with him a mile, go with him one mile," while in the kjv and bom it jesus says "go two miles". Which one did jesus actually say? That we should only do as we are asked, or should we go above and beyond?

Hey, i really appreciate your response. However, whether canonized or not, do we not beleive that joseph smith was a prophet? Also, we learned in our NT class that when elder mcconkie finally got his hands on the rlds inspired version, it was apparent that there had not been any changes.

Hey, i am an active lds man attending byu. It has come to my attention that some discrepancies between the kjv, jst, and book of mormon, and its really bothering me. Any sincere insights would be greatly appreciated. Oddly enough, this stuff came to my attention studying out of the new testament manual for my religion class this semester. In both the kjv and bom, it says "and whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile, go with him twain." ( matt 5:41 and 3 nephi 12:41). Yet in the jst, it reads "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him a mile; and whosoever shall compel thee to go with him twain, thou shalt go with him twain."(jst matthew 5:41). Note that this jst change is not in the lds bible footnotes or appendix, but is included in the "full version" available online or for purchase. I understand that the jst is rarely just a verbatim restoration of text, and that it is often to clarify or expound on doctinal ideas, but these two versions seem to contradict eachother-one says we should give what is asked, and one says we should give more. And the thing that disturbs me the most is the fact that not only does the BOM verse disagree with the jst, it agrees word for word with the kjv that is supposedly wrong. And again, its not as if the jst is simply clarifying an idea-it changes the meaning completely. Please, please help me. I feel like i am in a very dark time. Please take 2 minutes out of your busy day to help, if you feel like you have a good answer.

I was reading about having your calling and your election made sure (after you have been promised Eternal Life) and came across this quote in the D&C student manual. So you know the context, this paragraph discusses the question "what happens if someone has his calling and election made sure, and then they live a sinful life (without commiting any unpardonable sins) and never repent before they die? Are they still promised Exaltation? “But suppose such persons become disaffected and the spirit of repentance leaves them—which is a seldom and an almost unheard of eventuality—still, what then? The answer is—and the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith so recite!—they must then pay the penalty of their own sins, for the blood of Christ will not cleanse them. Or if they commit murder or adultery, they lose their promised inheritance because these sins are exempt from the sealing promises. Or if they commit the unpardonable sin, they become sons of perdition.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:342–43.) Thoughts? It seems horrifyingly contradictory within a gospel viewpoint that one could get to a point where God essentially says "Ok, I promise you Eternal Life, and as long as you don't commit an unpardonable sin, you can live as sinfully as you want and you will still eventually be exalted."

you may join the church, but you cannot enter the temple. The temple is a vital part of salvation.

did you register on this board just to say that?

a blessing does a few things. It is both instruction, and a personal prophecy. it tells you which line you are a decendant from things you should do/look out for and, most exitedly in my opinion, what will happen to you in the future if you live a good life. Some are as simple as telling you about your future marriage, while another prophecy may say some very specific things.

The whole discussion of what constitutes a cult is silly, because it's over simple use of terminology. I could care less if the Church was considered a cult. If people started calling the Church a frozen caterpillar's ear lobe, would that change the truthfulness of the Gospel, or the power of Christ's atonement?

just read a fair ammount of that link a-train, that explained everything, thank you. Aparently, the women he was sealed to were only civily married to other husbands.

Having read Bushman, you must surely have some idea... No? I'm only on page 40-50 right now. To see if I would be interested in the book, I first skimmed through random pages, I have not read the entire book yet. Of course. And thank you for the very helpful link, I am reading it right now.

Gaia, do you have any links you can share with us that perhaps show sections prior to revision and then the edited version, for comparison? I think more people, including myself would appreciate a convenient link instead of books. Interesting topic though, I would love to learn more!

I'm reading "Rough Stone Rolling," by Richard Bushman, a professor at Columbia University, Historian and Patriarch within the church. I must say, the 1st 30 pages are quite boring, but it gets interesting and I love that he admits he believes him to be a prophet, yet tries to stay as objective as he can while discussing both the great and not-so-great things about him. Anyways, I've always heard rumors that Joshep Smith, when he started marrying a whole plethora of women, married young girls as young as 15 and married a few women that were already wed to other men and I have always disregarded them and false, but turns out I'm wrong ; that it is well-documented. While some people would find this news to be testimony shattering; I do not. I understand that the Restorer of the church was in no way perfect and did and said lots of things that many would find offensive, and I am not trying to justify his actions or do discredit his actions; I'm simply curious to see if anyone has any insight into this topic, I would like to learn more. I understand that a couple of centuries ago, it was more common for men to marry much younger women, even though 15 sounds like it's kinda pushing it. But for the life of me I don't understand why he would marry women that already had husbands. Does anyone have any thoughts? Cheers!

So in order to meet Christ one must already be facing in his directions when he comes? That doesn't even begin to make sense

Because the idea that a simple "till death do you part" ceremony is almoast laughable in comparison to a ceremony that has the power to beat Death and Time. Utlimately, if the couple does not get sealed, they marriage, love, and relationship with eachother was one of futility. Harsh, but true.

If the couple is endowed and hold current recommends and still choose not to get married in the temple, there must be a reason for it. If they simply don't see the value of getting married in the temple then they obviously have some learning to do, and therefore shouldn't be getting married in the temple. The one year wait is not a matter of worthiness as much as it is a matter of preparation and learning. Exactly. A couple who believe a civil marriage is of any importance, especially when they have the temple available to them isntead, obviously do not understand some very essential things; the most important things, when it comes to ones eternal happyness.