T-Shirt

When my son served his mission, $400.00 per month was significantly cheaper than paying all of his expenses with him at home. We got a great deal!

Women temple workers perform vital priesthood ordinances in the temple by delegated priesthood authority. I don't see any reason that sisters in the RS presidency couldn't function in the same way under the direction of the bishop and his keys.

Authorize the Relief Society Presidency to conduct the sustaining of officers in Relief Society meetings rather than the bishopric. In addition, authorize the Relief Society Presidency to issue the callings (subject to the bishop's approval) and to perform the setting apart for those sustained.

Here is a picture taken in Yakima, WA at 1:30 in the afternoon the day of Mt St Helen's eruption in 1980

You didn't explain why not.

I appreciate your thoughts and see how some may be struggling. Form my perspective, the whole topic of his talk is about setting your sights on the Celestial Kingdom and to not let anything deter you. I feel that his advice is to not seek spiritual counsel from any source that is going to tell you that doing the things necessary for the Celestial Kingdom are not important. It's really that simple. If you are focused on the Celestial Kingdom and trying to "Think Celestial", why would you seek spiritual help from someone telling you that sexual purity is not important or paying tithing is not smart? You may seek all kinds of other advice from them, especially if they are experts in certain things, but if you want to be Celestial and think Celestial, is it helpful to ask their help in spiritual matters if they are going to encourage you to not keep the commandments?

Do you advocate for getting the advice of neo-Nazis in your hiring practices? Why or why not?

Are you trying to say that those who share my faith are the equivalent of a used car salesman? I'm not sure of your point, help me see what I am missing.

In the following statement, who are the non-believers? Reading the whole talk, what counsel is President Nelson referring to?

If you were considering hiring a minority, would you seek counsel from your Skin Head neighbor? If you needed a blood transfusion, would you seek counsel from a Jehovah's Witness? If you were trying to decide whether to have ribeye or filet minion, would you seek help from an animal rights activist vegan? If you were trying to decide if you want to vote for Joe Biden or RFK, Jr, would you seek guidance from Donald Trump? If you wanted to buy a new diesel pick-up, would ask direction from a Greta Thunberg? Would you consider me toxic to advise against seeking help from these folks in these specific decisions?

Then where are you drawing lines? What in President Nelson's words give you reason to draw those lines? If a parent or a best friend is going to attack your faith then, no, you shouldn't go to them if your testimony is faltering. That is the point. President Nelson even said, just proceeding what you feel are his offensive words, "When someone you love attacks truth, think celestial, and don’t question your testimony. I have a very good friend in who I have great trust and would seek his counsel in many things. However, he is very much against my beliefs. If I were to ever struggle with my faith, I would not seek counsel from him. I still love him and trust him. Deception comes from all angles, sometimes even from those you love. Nonsense. This was not said nor implied.

They can only be a wedge because you are placing it there and trying to pound it in with a hammer. None of what you said would be discouraged by President Nelson's words. You seem to think that I, as a faithful Latter-day Saint, should not seek help in knowing what is wrong with my car, in knowing what classes my kids should take in college, what medicine I should take, who I should vote for, or what I should do if I am struggling with the loss of a loved one, unless I first ask those from whom I'm seeking direction whether or not they believe in the same things as I do. If I don't, I am betraying the words of President Nelson. I'll give you an example of what is the intent of his words; If you are struggling with your faith and feel that your testimony has weakened, don't go to John Dehlin for help. I'm pretty sure you understand this distinction, but you seem to want to pound wedges into places where none exist, just to stir the pot.

It makes me sad to hear you say this. You are certainly Celestial material! You may not be in a current Celestial state, (most aren't) but you are definitely Celestial material. You are the clay on the Potter's wheel, not fully formed with many rough edges. However, you would not be on the wheel to be shaped and formed if the Potter thought you were not the right kind of material.

The 1828 dictionary seems to indicate that the most common meaning of the word "offend" is equivalent to the word "displease".

I am not sure you do. This made me laugh. Start a new thread.

I would love to present my case, but it would not be appropriate here. It would derail the thread. I already said it deserves its own thread. If you or he would like to start a new thread on the topic, I might contribute. I don't have the time to start the thread myself, although it is very tempting. Mr. Diamondhands is way off base.

No wonder you like the Nauvoo expositor, your comments sound just like it. A sliver of truth mixed with lies, gross exaggerations, hyperbole, and slanted to deceive. Are you sure you didn't write the Navoo Expositor?

Destroying the press was a bad idea, although there was precedent for doing so. However, doing so is not, nor was at that time, a capital offence. No one should have died over it. Joseph never should have been held in that jail. Beside Joseph and Hiram's deaths, the real tragedy was the Governor's order to hold them in jail under charge of treason, which was a false and illegal charge. To top it off, he then put the Carthage Grey's in charge of security. The Governor was either naïve, incompetent or complicit.

While this is a topic for its own thread, the Nauvoo Expositor, while containing a sliver of truth, was quite full of outright lies and exaggerations.

I am not going to speak for Ben, but I will answer according to my understanding. Of course they don't mean the same thing and I don't think Ben is saying that they do. As I see it, typically, when we use the word "translate' in an academic scenario, we would describe it as someone with experience and expertise in two languages who reads something written in one language and then conveys that which he has read into another language so that the original author's message can be read and understood by those who do not speak the author's language. This is not what happened with the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham and the Church has never taught differently. Joseph Smith did provide a translation, but he could not read the original language nor did he claim to be able to. How did he do it? Joseph Smith never explained it other than to say it was by the gift and power of God. The Church has never taught differently. Back in the 70's, when I was on my mission, we gave the memorized discussions. That is how we taught the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph was able to do it by the gift and power of God. Joseph Smith couldn't read reformed Egyptian nor could he read the hieroglyphics on the papyri. The difference is that he received the gold plates from an angel, so he knew that the translation came from the characters on the plates. With the Egyptian papyri, he had no way to know what was written on them. He provided a translation of something written anciently by Abraham. Were Abraham's writings actually on some of the papyri? I think we can be comfortable in saying that Joseph Smith, certainly, thought they were, but he couldn't read them. So, we have a translation, but not in any sort of academic sense and neither Joseph Smith or the Church has taught any differently. It was all done by means of revelation, or by the gift and power of God. Were any of Abraham's writings actually on any of the papyri that Joseph Smith had? It is certain many have believed, including prophets, seers and revelators, that Abraham's words were written somewhere on the papyri, but how do we know and does it even matter? Regardless of the actual answer to the question and regardless of anyone's beliefs or statements by General Authorities, we still have a translation of Abraham's words whether they were actually on the papyri or not. The papyri may or may not have contained Abraham's writings, but it is the message contained in the translation that matter. If it were possible to determine, definitively, that none of the Joseph Smith papyri contained anything whatsoever having to do with Abraham, it wouldn't change anything for the Church or the Book of Abraham, we still have a translation, even if it didn't come from the papyri.

I believe that God has a perfect foreknowledge of our choices, but only at a point tin time. For example, based on one's circumstances, thoughts and influences, God will know one's choices at that moment. However, as one exercises agency, what God sees will change. He also will intervene as He sees one's path heading in a bad direction. He does this often by sending people to help influence choices and circumstances or even sending angels. I believe that God will often have a plan B in place in order to cover all the bases. For example, Nephi's two accounts on the plates. I don't believe it was inevitable that Martin Harris would lose the 116 page manuscript. I believe His plan for Adam and Eve had a plan B so that it would work regardless of whether or not they partook of the fruit. In fact, I believe that God meant it when He said He forbids them from eating the fruit. He would have preferred that they not have eaten it. I believe that God had a backup to Joseph Smith as well, just in case. God can see our future with perfect clarity, but as we make choices and with His help, that future can change often. That is why the future is continually before Him. If He knew perfectly the outcome of everyone's lives in the very beginning, He would not need to have the future continually before Him, He would just know. Because it is continually before Him, the future that He sees will change from time to time based on our choices and the intervention and influence that He sends or that the adversary sends. Our future is wide open and our agency will determine our fate.

Those verses are referring to our fate if there was no resurrection. They are not referring to our fate as a result of the fall. The Fall was and is a necessary part of the Eternal plan for our progression. It was planned for and carried out as planned. Our progression would have been stopped if the fall never happened. See 2 Nephi 2:22-25

To Latter-day Saints there are three different meanings of the word "salvation". Which of these three meanings is generally determined by context although, in some cases, it may be ambiguous. First, it means "resurrection", which is universal, meaning all of God's children born into mortality (those who kept their first estate - Jude 1:6 and Abraham 3:24-28) will receive this form of salvation. The second is virtually universal. It means salvation in the Kingdom of God which includes all three degrees of glory (D&C 76:88). Only those very few Sons of Perdition who were born into mortality will not receive this type of salvation (Every knee will bow). The third definition of salvation is the equivalent to "exaltation". This type of salvation is reserved only for those who keep their second estate (If there is a first estate, there must be a second. See Abraham 3:26). Those who have received all of the ordinances of the temple and have endured to the end and inherit the Celestial Kingdom of God and will inherit all that God has. I would say that in most instances of the use of the word "salvation", when used by Latter-day Saints, it is synonymous with the word "exaltation". However, in some cases, it can refer to either meaning one or meaning two.

It doesn't appear to have been written for that purpose. It was provided to the Hawaii Supreme Court as part of an amicus curiae brief, but that happened two years after it was drafted. The available evidence seems to support that the initial impetus for drafting the proclamation was the alarming statistics regarding the disintegration of the family around the word. A report on a world conference on the family held in Cairo in 1994, read by Elder Packer, seems to be what started the desire to draft the proclamation. There is no evidence that the proclamation was written by a team of lawyers. The principal draftsman, according to evidence, appears to have been, then, Elder Nelson, assisted by Elders Faust and Oaks.

Again, according to my recollection from when I studied this topic many years ago, Joseph did give the assignment for the speech to Sidney Rigdon and he was there when it was delivered, but not knowing before hand what he was going to say, afterward, Joseph was not particularly comfortable with the speech and felt that it might backfire and cause more tension and problems rather than less. I'll have to try to review this, but it was a long time ago. My recollection could be wrong.