Proxy Work

[Calm]

I think he's talking about the Master.

Can't be, he's not dead, he's undead.

[USU78]

Can't be, he's not dead, he's undead.

Man's plainly cornfuse.

[Skylla]

I have done probably a thousand of baptisms for the dead. It really saddens me how much time I wasted doing something I thought was the truth. Of course now that I am a Christian and have studied the Bible, I know the real truth. Baptisms for the dead is a farse, created by Joseph Smith, the master of lies. Instead of spending money on the poor and homeless who could benifit from this expensive buildings, the DEAD who do not care are worshipped by the LDS. It is such a sad state. Shame on those who know better, or are just too ignorant.

Tango: This is extremely disrespectful. Take a break from the board and read the board guidelines.

Skylla

[Lareliw]

What is the difference between the KJV and KJV JST? How much of an actual scriptural difference is there?

As far as proxy ordinances are concerned there will be no one that doesn't have there ordinances done when the day of Judgement comes. One of the important things that will happen during the millennial reign of Christ is that all temple work will be completed for everyone who has lived without hearing the Fullness of the Gospel. We will even have the help of our ancestors in the millennium to find those who we do not know yet, we do work we can now and know that there is much more work to be done in the millennium. Also one does not have to be a direct desendant to perform ordinance work, they can perform it on behalf of a direct descendant. Every temple has a requests for members to perform work on behalf of someone else's descendants because that person cannot make it to temple because of financial (they live to far away), health, or other issues.

If there is no living descendant then someone else will do the work for those people.

The only reference in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 15 (the specific verse that mentions baptism for the dead is verse 29) the chapter is about resurrection and the Three Kingdoms (or Glory) of Heaven.

The proxy ordinances were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith and they are recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, see sections 124, 127, 128, 137, and 138.

Here is the link for the Doctrine and Covenants online, http://lds.org/scrip...tament?lang=eng

This is simply not true, we have faith in the Bible and the teachings of Joseph Smith. The Bible is some of the oldest records of God to his prophets, we cherish the Bible, we accept it as the Word of God as far as it is correctly translated from the Hebrew and Greek. We also have the Joseph Smith Translation this is a inspired translation of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. It was done by the command of God and clarifies and restores lost details and verses to the KJV, the LDS KJV has the JST in the footnotes and has long passages in an index in the back of the record. We have always taught from the KJV Bible, and cherish that KJV Bible (with JST) as the most correct translation of the Holy Bible that man has.

[ed2276]

Yup. Fried Plantains are an abomination. Haven't you read Leviticus? It's right there.

So, that is why they taste abominable!!!

[LDS Guy 1986]

What is the difference between the KJV and KJV JST? How much of an actual scriptural difference is there?

There is not such thing as KJV JST, there is the LDS KJV which has the JST in the footnotes and an appendix for enteries too long for the footnotes.

The JST is an inspired translation of the KJV which restores plain and precious truths as well as clarifies parts that are confusing or contradictory.

[TAO]

What is the difference between the KJV and KJV JST? How much of an actual scriptural difference is there?

The KJV JST eliminates some of the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and also clarifies a few areas that were vague, so their interpretations can be seen clear. The difference in words is minimal, but the difference in meaning can be gigantic - sometimes it's the exact opposite. But considering how many years the OT and NT have been around, it's not surprising that things were either removed or changed in the Bible. The JST restores some of it (not all was corrected), or adds another interpretation which God desired for the verse.

[Lareliw]

What makes the age of accountability 8?

Baptism is all that is required to enter the celestial kingdom. But, only those "accountable" need baptism: SO, fully half of the earth's earlier inhabitants will never require baptism at all, having died long before "the age of accountability", i.e. c. 8 years old.

The other ordinances are all added onto after baptism, which is the first. Oh, there is the sealing of family members, - even infants - but that is not an ordinance pertaining to progression. "Little children are incapable of sin and have no need of baptism" (a paraphrase). So all the subsequent temple ordinances are likewise unnecessary ergo not required for all little children who died.

Many (most) temple ordinances up to this point are redundant, i.e. done for the same names more than once....

[ed2276]

"Our" Christian faith doesn't have to do "anything" since it's God who is just and knows all men's hearts, who makes a righteous judgement.

The Gospel of Do-nothingism? We have been over this time and again, and it is without question a false doctrine.

Paul wrote to the Corinthian Saints:

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" ( 2 Corinithians 13:5)

Paul is writing to Christians here, and telling them to examine their own hearts as to whether they are in the faith. Christ will abide in them, he tells them, unless they do things which are unfit for the Lord to abide with them. They are to examine their own hearts to determine by their own judgment if they are fit and proven for the Lord to abide in them.

Paul further said to the Corinthians :

"Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates." (2 Corinthians 13:7)

Hmmm, there is that word "do",a verb! Do no evil! Do that which is honest! And if you do an evil then what? Does Christ abide in you?

Paul elsewhere writes to the Corinthians about the Sacrament:

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." (1 Corinthians 11:26-31)

Once again, Paul is admonishing Christians to "examine" their own hearts, to judge themselves, as to whether they are in a state of worthiness to take the sacrament.

These scriptures at least imply that Christians, in fact, are required to "do" something (be honest) and to refrain from doing other things (evil) in order to have Christ abide in them and to be worthy of partaking of the sacrament. They are required to "examine"--a verb, again-- themselves. And if these Christians "do" something which makes them unworthy to partake of the sacrament and they do partake of the sacrament (an unworthy act)they may be punished for their unworthiness because of what they have done.

[Doctrine 612]

What makes the age of accountability 8?

JST, GENESIS 17:11

[BCSpace]

Current revelation trumps anything said in the past.

It could be argued that it's set up that way and it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable considering the premium the Bible places on revelation, but the interesting thing is that so far in the LDS context, there's never been anything new revealed that contradicted anything revealed in the past.

[Lareliw]

I do not think that I could accept a revelation that contradicted what the Bible says. The Bible is the Word of God and I believe that it is the foundation for everything. Whether we are able to receive additional instruction and clarification through modern day revelation, I am still praying about and studying

It could be argued that it's set up that way and it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable considering the premium the Bible places on revelation, but the interesting thing is that so far in the LDS context, there's never been anything new revealed that contradicted anything revealed in the past.

[TAO]

I do not think that I could accept a revelation that contradicted what the Bible says. The Bible is the Word of God and I believe that it is the foundation for everything. Whether we are able to receive additional instruction and clarification through modern day revelation, I am still praying about and studying

Lariel, what if the Bible was changed from how it originally was written? You know that it does not contain all the books... there are several missing books in the Bible that are referred to in several verses. If books are missing... changing a word would be easy.

But I'll give you an example of what I mean about JST correcting to original intent.

Matthew 17:11-13 says:

11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, ^aElias truly shall first come, and ^brestore all things.

12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they ^alisted. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

So Elias is John the Baptist, right? However, in John 1:21...

21And they asked him, What then? Art thou ^aElias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

So John is Elias, and isn't Elias in the Bible. What does the JST say about this? JST John 1:21-22.

21And he confessed, and denied not that he was Elias; but confessed, saying; I am not the Christ.

22And they asked him, saying; How then art thou Elias? And he said, I am not that Elias who was to restore all things. And they asked him, saying, Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

So JST eliminates that possible contradiction, by showing what Elias John the Baptist was referring to. He was Elias - but not the Elias who was to restore all things (Christ).

That is one example of how the JST helps... however, there are many other verses in which it is useful.

[Lareliw]

It is true, and I have always had difficulty tracing the proper wordings of the Bible due to my rudimentary knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew. So does the JST actually "change" the text of the KJV or rather footnote things that are unclear and explain them further? BTW I really appreciate you TAO I know that I ask a TON of questions, and have no intention of stopping, but I hope that you and everyone else realize that it is not condemning, but rather an attempt to gain wisdom.

Lariel, what if the Bible was changed from how it originally was written? You know that it does not contain all the books... there are several missing books in the Bible that are referred to in several verses. If books are missing... changing a word would be easy.

But I'll give you an example of what I mean about JST correcting to original intent.

Matthew 17:11-13 says:

So Elias is John the Baptist, right? However, in John 1:21...

So John is Elias, and isn't Elias in the Bible. What does the JST say about this? JST John 1:21-22.

So JST eliminates that possible contradiction, by showing what Elias John the Baptist was referring to. He was Elias - but not the Elias who was to restore all things (Christ).

That is one example of how the JST helps... however, there are many other verses in which it is useful.

[LeSellers]

It is true, and I have always had difficulty tracing the proper wordings of the Bible due to my rudimentary knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew. So does the JST actually "change" the text of the KJV or rather footnote things that are unclear and explain them further?

There is no known connection between the Greek or Hebrew of the most current manuscripts and the translation in the JST. Joseph did not work from an original* language manuscript. He had a large, family-style edition of the AV (aka KJV) on his lap, as he dictated to his scribe (there were many who served during the years he spent on this project) the text of his emended version (until close to the end of Genesis and Matthew), or the changes alone after those points. (The changes were marked in the Bible, and recorded on a separate sheet. Matching them has proven much more difficult than anyone not intimately involved in the process can imagine. Not all the emendations even made it into the final, printed copies.)

* As there are no extant autographs of any biblical texts, and since it is more than possible that many of the so-called original New Testament texts are actually translations into Greek from Aramaic, it would make little difference if Joseph

had

had a Greek or Hebrew "original" to work from: it would not have been the author's work in any case.

The work was solely one of revelation and inspiration, as Joseph "worked it out in his mind".

I know that I ask a TON of questions, and have no intention of stopping, but I hope that you and everyone else realize that it is not condemning, but rather an attempt to gain wisdom.

When you stop asking questions, I hope it's because you will have died, because otherwise, it will mean you've stopped learning for another reason. Most likely because you will have stopped seeking that wisdom.

Lehi

[TAO]

It is true, and I have always had difficulty tracing the proper wordings of the Bible due to my rudimentary knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew.

Hehe, me too - I don't know any Greek or Hebrew, so I'm stuck there.

So does the JST actually "change" the text of the KJV or rather footnote things that are unclear and explain them further?

It can do a few things... but let me explain to you how it is shown. Basically, in our copies of the Bible, a reference containing the corrections is put in the footonotes... so you have both the

JST and the original on the same page. However, for the bigger sections (to big to fit in the footnotes), it is stuck in a glossary in the back.

As for what it does... nah it doesn't change it. Sometimes it restores things that were there originally, however, most of the time it just clarifies what the author intended.

BTW I really appreciate you TAO I know that I ask a TON of questions, and have no intention of stopping, but I hope that you and everyone else realize that it is not condemning, but rather an attempt to gain wisdom.

Hehe, keep asking them... I am one who loves asking questions myself, so it's not biggey to me .

One thing I would advise though, is that before you focus on the history of the church, focus on the simple, and then the deeper concepts of the gospel - history can be explained and manipulated a bit, and so there's no way really to get an unbiased POV (they either support the church and leave stuff out against, or are against the church, and leave out stuff for), but the concepts... those you can think upon yourself. I find history to be rather mundane oftentimes, but gospel concepts have a much more interesting thing behind them... they explain purpose... and maybe that isn't for you, but my mind goes crazy over finding purpose .

[Pahoran]

Isaiah the prophet wrote:

Isaiah 53:

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

As Christians, we understand this to be referring to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, who suffered for us (by proxy) that we might be saved.

Also, as Christians, we believe the very best thing we can do in this world is to emulate His example.

His greatest example was when He did for us what we could not do for ourselves.

As Latter-day Saint Christians, we have the opportunity to emulate His example -- the example He set in His greatest work -- by performing, by proxy, but without suffering on our part, those necessary things that others could not do for themselves.

It is such a little sacrifice after all; and it is a privilege to be able to do it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Lareliw]

Hahaha, I actually am a huge history nut over all, as well as religious studies, my two college majors. And most certainly purpose is SO important! I think my problem is that I want to know everything all at once!

I have been (and have for a while with my Bible) keeping a notebook journal when I read the BoM so that I can record thoughts, questions, things that I want to think about more or clarify. I find it helps.

Hehe, me too - I don't know any Greek or Hebrew, so I'm stuck there.

It can do a few things... but let me explain to you how it is shown. Basically, in our copies of the Bible, a reference containing the corrections is put in the footonotes... so you have both the

JST and the original on the same page. However, for the bigger sections (to big to fit in the footnotes), it is stuck in a glossary in the back.

As for what it does... nah it doesn't change it. Sometimes it restores things that were there originally, however, most of the time it just clarifies what the author intended.

Hehe, keep asking them... I am one who loves asking questions myself, so it's not biggey to me .

One thing I would advise though, is that before you focus on the history of the church, focus on the simple, and then the deeper concepts of the gospel - history can be explained and manipulated a bit, and so there's no way really to get an unbiased POV (they either support the church and leave stuff out against, or are against the church, and leave out stuff for), but the concepts... those you can think upon yourself. I find history to be rather mundane oftentimes, but gospel concepts have a much more interesting thing behind them... they explain purpose... and maybe that isn't for you, but my mind goes crazy over finding purpose .