rpn

Why wouldn't believe Noah is a real person who lived: we know him as Angel Gabriel and he was noted in both the New Testament times and came to Joseph Smith in modern times.

https://www.parentingforbrain.com/tantrums-in-5-year-olds/ https://www.webmd.com/parenting/child-tantrum-behavior-disorder https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/what-to-do-when-your-temper-flares-a-kids-guide-to-overcoming-problems-with-anger-what-to-do-guides-for-kids_dawn-huebner/308717/item/4161701/?mkwid=| Dawn Huebner has some other books that might address other elements of tantrums too dc&pcrid=77447028765180&pkw=&pmt=be&slid=&product=4161701&plc=&pgrid=1239149900900141&ptaid=pla-4581046492312219&msclkid=54d507b2eb951edeedf360b9e3e74ca5#idiq=4161701&edition=4532329 https://zonesofregulation.com/ https://childmind.org/article/what-not-to-do-when-your-child-is-having-a-tantrum/ If you have worked with Dawn Huebner's material and zones of regulation and aren't resolving the issues, you'll likely want to get your pediatrician to refer for evaluation of language and speech/hearing, developmental eye issues, neuropsych eval, and a BCBA do a Functional Behavioral Assessment and rule in or out other possible challenges the child may have to figure out what the issues are. You may also want to keep records of what a child eats in relationship to their behaviors. Every now and again the behavior is a manifestation of a food or other allergy. And you might want a sleep study to rule out any sleep problems that may be the source of behavior. (I do sped law for a living, though I don't anymore take cases, only helping parents in the background. And I would urge parents not to agree to remove their children with behavioral issues from general ed, where they have healthy role models. I tell parents that there is value in getting evaluations privately paid for by insurance (and a good source is always the university clinics which train therapists in the various areas as they are typically the most up to date and usually don't charge much when insurance doesn't want to pay. But this is timed to university semesters, and there are often long wait lists. And while parents are working on issues, they need to do everything they can to get themselves sufficient restful sleep. Including getting the pediatrician to sign of on melatonin or glycine for parent and/or child, and/or using white noise and/or weighted blankets or something else. If extended family can give parents off time once a week or once a month for 36-48 hours good for them.)

There is a new resource for those interested in this topic at https://www.google.com/books/edition/This_Abominable_Slavery/SvMiEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover All of Brigham Young's speeches (for which we had shorthand but apparently not transcribed versions, which have now been completely transcribed) during the 1852 time frame that Utah was discussing what to do about slavery (and apparently also native americans) in the Territory.

Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament (though not a study guide per se). And the Old Testament Institute Study Guide (though I don't know that it's been updated recently).

But why should 90+ year old counselors do it when there are lots of younger apostles and it takes no authority to do it? Hooray for sharing the experience.

I didn't realize that the priesthood ban happened in the same time frame as the UTAH legislative vote for slavery (of both blacks and also native americans ---the only state with such a law and they called it "service"). Having learned a few things in further research today (see link below), I can no longer see any reasonable doubt that that Brigham Young was racist, whatever the impetus might have been for the priesthood ban: https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/this-abominable-slavery/page/4_2 It would be important to read the entirety of the most accurate recording of Pres. Young's speech that is at that link to understand what BY thought. And BY seemed most concerned about interracial marriage spreading the curse of Cain. And the idea that people he saw as inferior to him should participate in governmental affairs by voting. I also wonder how/why the 1880's and early 1900's investigations didn't consider BY's admission that Joseph Smith had not proclaimed the position BY took about Blacks AND BY's admission in that 1852 speech that God was at some point going to give the Priesthood blessings to blacks. (Could it have been because BY made that speech as Governor Young to the legislature, rather than as President Young?).

deleted

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/this-abominable-slavery/page/race-and-election-law

That's my point. Whether or not God was okay in 1850 with BY's solution, it seems persuasive that He wasn't when He prompted the leaders to investigate it.

Yes I wrote that wrong. It legalized slavery in 1852 as part of the Compromise of 1850. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah#:~:text=After the Mexican–American War,slavery in all US territories.

I've read Matthew Harris "Second Class Saints". His assertion that the priesthood ban was racism from its beginning I'm not persuaded is true. But I do think that racism and the way others in the world did and said that was racist did have an effect after the second time (in the early 1900's) when church leaders were inspired to look into the priesthood ban AND DID SO without changing it. Brigham Young learned of two things within a mere six week period: 1) That a black member had started his own church outside winter quarters and required white women to stay overnight to join AND HAD TAKERS. 2) As a result of BY's request to find out how blacks were managing in the NE, learning that the son of the most prominent black church member (who himself had been ordained to the priesthood) in the NE had married a white woman shortly after his state became the first in the Nation to allow interracial marriage. (Interracial marriage did not become legal nation wide until 1967, and that wasn't by 50 state statutes, by state initiatives from voters, by government agreeing it should stop, by legislation, but rather ONLY BECAUSE the Supreme Court held in Loving v. VA that the interracial ban was unconstitutional. IOW this interracial marriage remained a problem in a significant form in a third of the US a mere fifty years ago. I am inclined to believe that BY didn't believe the church could simultaneously survive the backlash from polygamy and interracial marriage at that time in history AND I think BY figured out that the priesthood ban was the only thing that would discourage white women from marrying black men. (It absolutely would stop any righteous woman from doing it.) And I think it is possible that our Heavenly Father when it was instituted, was not opposed to that. Couple other facts that informs this interpretation: A stake president whose slave gave birth to a mulatto child being excommunicated in the 1840's. We also have a letter from BY in response to a request from a member who with her dh had given BY a slave for a driver on the trek west (maybe as tithing?) to return her slave because her dh had died and she needed him. BY wrote that he couldn't return him because he didn't know where he was. (Like BY in Utah couldn't have found any dang person he wanted to.) Brigham Young knew that there was a black man who held the priesthood at Joseph Smith's direction, because we know that BY observed Elijah Abel (who had been called as a Seventy and sent on a mission) acting as bishop in an OHIO biracial ward and BY told him he couldn't do that any more (unclear whether his objection was being bishop of white people too or just a black man leading any church congregation), when BY visited that congregation enroute back to Nauvoo after Joseph Smith's death. Facts about the 1880's investigation that informs this interpretation. Two people who had actual knowledge of Joseph Smith's directing that Elijah Able had been ordained to the priesthood flat out lied and denied that JS ever had done that. Zebedee Coltrin was even there when Elijah Abel was ordained. Abraham Smoot said he'd asked Joseph Smith when he was serving in the SE States Mission if he should ordain black slaves, and Joseph Smith told him not to do that. Smoot made it sound like he said that for all black men or that what was appropriate in 1940 in the slave south applied because of skin color, not slavehood. (This is why I think BYU should rename the Smoot building.) If God had not in 1880's and early 1900's prompted people to come foreword --- Jane Manning James kept up the request until she died in 1908, eventually getting her temple ordinances, but done by proxy and not her husband's or sealing to him --- , and two different prophets to investigate the racial ban issue, I guess racism could have explained it. But what we know about what actually happened, doesn't support the always a racist perspective. If I'd been Church President 10 years BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR called to have polygamy I'd have thought the priesthood ban was the only way the church could survive the opposition to interracial marriage AND that a priesthood ban would be the ONLY thing that would discourage women from marrying black men, too. (Utah became a part of the United States only by agreeing to be a slave state, after all. I CAN tell you racism existed in SLC in 1978 because I married a black man the year before and experienced with him shocking things that I'd never seen growing up, including my own parents who'd welcomed countless people of different nationality and and skin colors into our home over the years) try to have me committed to a mental institution when they learned I had done so, people loved his work, terminated contracts upon learning he owned the company, I saw store people follow him around when he was shopping and they'd tell me when I asked that they were making sure he didn't steal anything. And they treated him like he was less than. So the 1950's stuff Matthew Harris documents in his book is unsurprising. Can't help wondering how things would have been if those two hadn't lied outright. They have a lot to answer for.

The medical school is absolutely part of the church's humanitarian services. When announced they said it would be directed at improving the lives of those who live without adequate medical services within the realms that the Church find consistent with its mission to all the world.

The reason they are seeking the change (for a part of Deseret Ranch) is that state law changed making it development more difficult effective in a few more months. The Church wants to develop under the existing rules, when it is ready to do so. Deseret Ranch has a long and well thought of history of appropriately using natural resources in the area and sponsoring environmental projects that preserve the area for sound and thoughtful development. So the City of Orlando and the adjoining counties support what the Church is doing, and the longtime partnership they've had with the Church in responsible development. And I think it hypocritical in the extreme that Huntsman paid 10% annually until his faithful father (who very well could and would have stricken him from the will if he'd stopped earlier) died and only started this fight (about what he paid so he'd remain in his father's good graces, not really "tithing" in any religious sense) and then wants to challenge the Church's actions and good intentions.

Yes, once he was called and became the Lord's prophet, the Holy Ghost absolutely magnified him. Yes he was a reader and being a reader gives everyone a great start in learning. And there were eventual intentional efforts to broadly educate all the church leaders in a way that was not then common in the School of the Prophets. But he still started out the journey as a 14 year old with 3 years of formal schooling, and became an 21 year old translator of the Book of Mormon.

Usually, but in the past, not always.