Comments on: Even one believing parent is a powerful thing

By: Lisa Sampsel

Lisa Sampsel — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:07:52 +0000

I definately recommend the PriceComparisonToolbar .com if you want an easy way to save money.

By: that1girl

that1girl — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:54:06 +0000

Thanks again for this. I was reminded of it by your post, but for some reason I needed to read it today.

Happy New Year.

By: Bridget Jack Meyers

Bridget Jack Meyers — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:47:29 +0000

Get a room.

By: Kullervo

Kullervo — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:23:59 +0000

katyjane = awesome

By: katyjane

katyjane — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:16:25 +0000

Jack, this issue (not the scripture in specific, although I am glad to read it) is something that Kullervo and I have discussed at length. It’s difficult to raise kids with one religion, let alone with two. And with two that are at odds with each other (as is the case in both your family and mine), the difficulty is compounded with the need to be respectful of each others’ beliefs, respectful of each other, a desire that your children choose the ‘correct’ path, etc.

However, what Kullervo and I have decided is that in a lot of ways, our children will grow up understanding that people of other faiths are “bad” or “stupid” or many of the labels that some faithful kids wind up feeling. They will grow up and have the capacity to think for themselves, and the need to figure it out and decide what they think. Our children will not be able to just drink the water, go with the flow, and never actually become believers themselves. (Or they will, but it will be more difficult because they have more choices of water flavor).

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:23:45 +0000

…meaning, I don’t find that it captures the poetry any better or worse than other translations. (Speaking of the OT here, and not the NT—I know nothing about NT poetry, or whether Paul et al even intended such.)

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:22:07 +0000

I personally don’t think see any poetic advantage to the KJV.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:37:44 +0000

I personally like the poetic nature of the KJV. I think the Church already went through a period of heavy questioning about use of different Bible translations, which resulted in a First Presidency statement on the King James Version of the Bible. You have to scroll down a long ways to find it, but it's there, I promise. I think all other speculation as to why we still use the KJV in the LDS Church is just that, and pretty useless IMO.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:26:27 +0000

@ #26

The Bible Dictionary was compiled in the 1970s by the Scriptures Publications Committee which was headed by Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie, with many others called to assist. Three BYU religion profs (Robert J. Matthews and 2 I’m not remembering right now) were some of the major ones assisting.

So BRM did have a major influence in compiling the BD, but to say it’s a product solely of his own making is inaccurate. I love the urban legend that he read the scriptures 200+ times, once for each topic, tearing out pages and stacking them by topic.

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:18:20 +0000

re: 32

Ultimately, I think we’re getting at the same thing. The average Mormon believes that the KJV must be the Bible most correctly translated (ie, containing the most correct doctrine) because it is the one which JS used (and because, as Eric noted, modern versions are, they believe, continuations of a history of flawed translation, not having been translated by inspired leaders).

re: 31

For me, the translation of the modern scriptures to modern language would be even more desirable than a switch to a more modern translation of the Bible. After all, the KJV is at least authentic linguistically. It reflects the language of its time. The language of modern scripture, OTOH, is a linguistic conceit.