skalenfehl

References, please, Alex. "It's all there" doesn't cut it.

References, please. I am no Church historian, but I haven't heard either of these claims.

For #2, I chose other as I could not select multiple choices. 
Section 59 has always been my Sabbath focus, particularly v. 12.
Verses 9-13 seem clear to me on the dos and don'ts:
The dos:
1. Go to your house of prayer
2. Offer up your sacraments
3. Rest from your labors
4. Pay your devotions to God
5. Offer your oblations
6. Confessing your sins to your brothers and to God (I take this to mean be reconciled with those whom you have offended/sinned against, to be reconciled with them so that you can then be reconciled with God).
7. If you have fasted, prepare your food with singleness of heart and in prayer, communing with God.
The don'ts:
1. None other thing. That means do not do it if it isn't on the list of to dos.

For #2, I chose other as I could not select multiple choices. 
Section 59 has always been my Sabbath focus, particularly v. 12.
Verses 9-13 seem clear to me on the dos and don'ts:
The dos:
1. Go to your house of prayer
2. Offer up your sacraments
3. Rest from your labors
4. Pay your devotions to God
5. Offer your oblations
6. Confessing your sins to your brothers and to God (I take this to mean be reconciled with those whom you have offended/sinned against, to be reconciled with them so that you can then be reconciled with God).
7. If you have fasted, prepare your food with singleness of heart and in prayer, communing with God.
The don'ts:
1. None other thing. That means do not do it if it isn't on the list of to dos.

There are three parables in this scene relating to the two groups of people: 1. The publicans and sinners and 2. The Scribes and Pharisees. In the first parable, the ratio is 100 to 1, the second parable the ratio is 10 to 1, but in the final parable, the ratio is 1 to 1. The Scribes and Pharisees, like the older brother were jealous of the attention given to the publicans and sinners and as the elder brother did not acknowledge his long lost returning brother, the Scribes and Pharisees do not acknowledge the publicans and sinners except with condescension. They consider themselves worthy of heavenly rewards, not considering the need to be reconciled with their sinful and then penitent counterparts and so Jesus addresses their preconceived notions by focusing on the joy of heaven when one of the least of their lost brothers is found. Jesus also once said that unless anyone's righteousness exceeds that of a Scribe or Pharisee, they will in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. So the final parable does not serve to illustrate that the Scribes and Pharisees would indeed inherit all, but rather the focus was on their preconceived notions about publicans and sinners. Those are my thoughts, anyway, for what it's worth.

Jeffery R. Holland reviewed this question in significant detail in his book "Christ and the New Covenant". Here is some of what he said:  
The entire first four chapters of Either can be seen as a guide to gaining faith a rending the veil. First the brother of Jared hears the Lord, he then sees him in a cloud, he finally sees his finger and then his entire body. Because of his faith and the promises the Lord has made to him he cannot be kept within the veil. We are invited to do the same. Moroni quoting the Lord says, "Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you—yea, when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel." (Ether 4:15). 

First of all, welcome! You will make good friends here, who have been down the same path before. I was 17, too, once. At that age you are still trying to define yourself. Finding your identity can be a struggle, especially with so many external influences. I'm 39 and I still listen to the same music that I did when I was 17, and I still enjoy video games. But I no longer define myself by the influences of my favorite lead singer in a band, or my favorite sports hero, etc.
As I grew older and stripped away all those influences, I began to find myself because I realized that I didn't need to fit in to any particular group. This is when I began to develop my relationship with the Lord. This is when I found out my true identity. Friends and fads will come and go throughout your life and even through your later years, but you will begin to find out that the things that you value most are those who value you the most.
You are a son of God. Whatever in life you decide you want to become (death metal band member, plumber, video game professional, etc), these things end up being what you do for a living, for fun, or for diversion, but they don't really define who you are inside. Once you find out for yourself who you are inside, you will realize that this is where your true self esteem comes from. It won't matter what others think of you or the kind of life you live or your family circumstances are, etc.
Everyone else your age is trying to fit in, feel accepted and define their own personality, which is why everyone your age tries to develop an identity. The more time you spend on, say video games, the better you will become at them. I was an expert at all the games I played and I still consider myself pretty darn good. Your coordination will be superior and your reflexes unmatched. My point is that if you also take a little bit of time to begin developing a relationship with Father in Heaven by saying one small prayer every day and reading a small scripture every day, you will begin to notice a change in you. Your faith will begin to build and you will begin to feel the Spirit working in you and the gospel radiating in your life. Your faith will become stronger and it will grow and you will gain a testimony. God will always grant you according to the desire of your heart. Start thinking deep down, what it is that you really want for yourself. Forget about all your friends, the music, that girl and think about you for a day. What will truly give you peace? For me it is building and strengthening my relationship with Father in Heaven.
Anyway, sorry for rambling. I know what you're going through. You can find peace and happiness. Just think about the true source of that and seek it. Best wishes.

An apostate Nephite splinter group called the Amalekites make their appearance in the Book of Mormon narrative, but only in the middle of the book of Alma. Mormon is exceedingly careful to introduce new people and groups before telling about them, but he appears to have missed introducing the Amalekites. A description of their original leader (presumably someone named Amalek or Amaleki) and why he rebelled from the rest of the Nephites are items left to our imagination, because Mormon never breathes a word of it. Instead, we just suddenly have the Amalekites being talked about. Did Mormon forget that he never told us who they were? Did he tell us in a part of the abridgment that he later redacted? No way to know.
The first mention of Amalekites occurs in Alma 21, where they are mentioned in conjunction with the Lamanites and the very evil Amulonites. Remember, the Amulonites were the corrupt priests of wicked king Noah and were led by Amulon. They kidnapped and raped/forcibly married the daughters of the Lamanites, then used their connection to the kidnapped Lamanite girls to schmooze their way into the Lamanites' good graces. They busied themselves in persecuting and torturing the righteous Nephite branch, the descendants of those who had migrated south into their original lands and who had later followed the prophet Alma into the wilderness. So later on, a generation or more after these southern Nephites had all returned to Zarahemla, we find the Amalekites mentioned in the same breath as the despicable Amulonites and living in the same area with them.
But the Amalekites were not the same as the Amulonites, even if they were more or less as wicked, and Mormon is careful to distinguish between them, by name at least. For one thing, the Amalekites had kept their ideas of worship, building synagogues among the Lamanites (e.g. Alma 21:4); in contrast, the Amulonites, though previously priests to the king, were apparently atheistic, or at least areligious. Remember that when the "old king", Lamoni's father, was taught by Aaron and his brothers, he mentioned that the Amalekites believed in God and built sanctuaries to worship him in (Alma 22:7).
It also appears -- or at least I infer -- that the Amalekites originated among the northern group of Nephites at Zarahemla, while the Amulonites were of course from the southern group that had left Zarahemla many generations before under Zeniff. Both groups were heavily involved in the Nehor movement, which seems strange, since Nehor was from Zarahemla, and appeared after the return of the southern Nephites (under king Limhi and the prophet Alma) from the original lands of Nephi. How would the Amulonites, who never "returned" to the land of Zarahemla at all, have known about or followed Nehor? Clearly, they were taught Nehor's philosophies by someone else. The Lamanites were never after the order of Nehor, at least not at this time. So the most likely possibility seems to me as follows: The original leader Amalek/Amaleki was a Nehorite (if I can coin the term), and broke off or was chased off from the Nephites along with his followers to go live among the Lamanites. These Amalekites later met up with the Amulonites, found they had a lot in common both in social customs and in philosophical underpinnings, and recruited the Amulonites into the Nehorite order.
It was among these Nehor-loving Amalekites that Ammon's brothers and fellow missionaries first went to preach among the Lamanites. Aaron and company were, of course, treated badly and eventually imprisoned before being rescued by Ammon and his new convert, king Lamoni. Among all of the Amalekites and Amulonites, the Book of Mormon tells us that only one lone person -- an Amalekite -- was converted (Alma 23:14), and this despite many thousands of Lamanites converting. These wicked Amalekites participated in the original slaughter of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, as so tragically but inspirationally recorded in Alma 24; and though over one thousand Lamanites repented of their murders and joined the Anti-Nephi-Lehies at that incident, not a single Amalekite (or Amulonite) did. Later, after being beaten in their battles against the Nephites, these Amalekites were specifically named as deciding to take their frustrations out on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies again. This set off the chain of events that resulted in the graphic, brutal but magnificent "war chapters" of the book of Alma.
The last we hear of the Amalekites is in Alma 43, where it is mentioned that they were appointed to be the chief captains among the Lamanite armies by Zerahemna because of their "wicked and murderous disposition". By the end of the chapter, the great Moroni has routed the Lamanite armies and mostly destroyed their leaders. We never hear of the Amalekites again.

Dropping by to see what's new and saw I've been tagged. A regular act of service I have noticed is from my front door neighbors. They spend some of the Sundays at a local park where many other gather to set up food, donations and kindnesses for the homeless folks in the area who don't have anywhere to go and don't know where their next hot meal is coming from. Well, on those Sundays, they get a hot meal. I've helped out by collecting boxes of winter clothes and donating them so they can have extra clothes to wear and stay warm. I've met a lot of folks on the streets and had conversations with them and have helped them on their way, too. They are beautiful people just like the anybody else. They've just run of of luck and resources. 

Dropping by to see what's new and saw I've been tagged. A regular act of service I have noticed is from my front door neighbors. They spend some of the Sundays at a local park where many other gather to set up food, donations and kindnesses for the homeless folks in the area who don't have anywhere to go and don't know where their next hot meal is coming from. Well, on those Sundays, they get a hot meal. I've helped out by collecting boxes of winter clothes and donating them so they can have extra clothes to wear and stay warm. I've met a lot of folks on the streets and had conversations with them and have helped them on their way, too. They are beautiful people just like the anybody else. They've just run of of luck and resources. 

Dropping by to see what's new and saw I've been tagged. A regular act of service I have noticed is from my front door neighbors. They spend some of the Sundays at a local park where many other gather to set up food, donations and kindnesses for the homeless folks in the area who don't have anywhere to go and don't know where their next hot meal is coming from. Well, on those Sundays, they get a hot meal. I've helped out by collecting boxes of winter clothes and donating them so they can have extra clothes to wear and stay warm. I've met a lot of folks on the streets and had conversations with them and have helped them on their way, too. They are beautiful people just like the anybody else. They've just run of of luck and resources. 

Hello, Grunt.
I'm late to the party. I can see that the Holy Spirit is working in your life. The truth will set you free. Remember that in ancient times, it was not the scribes or the lawyers (Pharisees) and all their learning that saved the Jews. It was the truth and that was found in the scriptures. When a certain radical young man named Jesus came along with powerful teachings, those teachings seemed to challenge the traditions of the people and the church. Or rather, it was this young radical named Jesus Christ that saved and set free those who discerned the truths He taught and followed Him.
There is always a difference between the truth and doctrine found in the scriptures and the traditions found in any church. It is up to you as a disciple of Jesus Christ (humble seeker) to discern truth from tradition. You will find the same truths and traditions practiced by the peoples in the Book of Mormon, but the patterns are the same. Never stop praying. It has taken me years and even decades to unravel much of it. But it doesn't take near that long to discern truth by the Holy Ghost. The journey is in reconciling what is written in scripture with the traditions of the churches you investigate. My witness to you is that the Book of Mormon is true. The more you read it, the more the answer will become clear what you should do. Hearing the answer(s) from me or anyone else may be helpful, but knowing the answer as it is given to you by the Holy Ghost will solidify your resolve and make your decisions clear. 
 

Dropping by to see what's new and saw I've been tagged. A regular act of service I have noticed is from my front door neighbors. They spend some of the Sundays at a local park where many other gather to set up food, donations and kindnesses for the homeless folks in the area who don't have anywhere to go and don't know where their next hot meal is coming from. Well, on those Sundays, they get a hot meal. I've helped out by collecting boxes of winter clothes and donating them so they can have extra clothes to wear and stay warm. I've met a lot of folks on the streets and had conversations with them and have helped them on their way, too. They are beautiful people just like the anybody else. They've just run of of luck and resources. 

In today's LDS culture, all public adult nudity is considered immodest and therefore inappropriate. Many Latter-day Saints even look on classic sculpture and painting of nudes as immodest, which is only logical, since time and fame do not supersede divine will.
But Adam and Eve were created naked, as are we all. In most cultures, both historically and today, little children run around naked and no one bats an eyelash. What's the real low-down on the acceptibility of public nudity?
Well...you've come to the wrong place. I can't give any authoritative answers. But I can open a discussion on the topic and see if any useful ideas surface.
From what I can tell, in ancient times adult nudity meant one or both of two things:
You were very poor, too poor to afford clothing. You were a slave. The mortal Lord referenced the first of these quite often when he spoke of clothing the naked along with feeding the hungry. Clothing serves the obvious purpose of protecting one's skin against the elements and preserving body heat. But why would poverty and nudity be associated? I see two reasons:
Clothing was expensive. It took a great deal of work to gather material, spin it into a thread, then work that thread on a loom to produce fabric, from which you could cut and sew clothing. Even tanning, cutting, and sewing animal skins into clothing was time-intensive and not cheap. Clothing was an obvious status indicator. Fine, beautiful clothing bespoke a rich man or woman. The Lord also had a great deal to say about this, all of it negative. As for being a slave, if you were naked -- especially given #2 above -- you were ashamed. You were either too poor to buy clothing or else you were not free to wear them.
Children are born naked. In many ancient societies and not a few modern ones, little children are often unclothed. From a financial standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to make expensive clothing for children who are just going to outgrow them in a few months. Children are also not responsible enough to take good care of their clothing, avoid soiling it, and so forth. (Modern ultracheap clothing makes these points moot for a modern society.) Since children are sexually immature, childhood nudity is pretty much of no societal consequence, assuming you don't have any significant element of society that is sexually attracted to children -- which is a separate topic that I won't explore, because I both find it distasteful and don't have any insights to offer.
Adult nudity is another thing entirely. Adults are, by definition, sexually mature, and there are all sorts of obvious physical manifestations of this. A nude adult is a sexual being. Sex implies nudity, if it doesn't actually require it. An exposed adult is an adult ready for sexual mating. This fits very well with the slavery idea, since slaves were considered the sexual property of their owners. The Hebrews and the Arabs, along with many other ancient societies, mandated that a female slave who gave birth to a master's child was either to be treated as a wife or set free. Men, too, were kept in sexual slavery by owners of both sexes, though I don't know that they ever had any get-out-of-jail-free clauses related to childbirth.
So a naked adult is a sexually exposed adult, socially if not physically. Sex being viewed by the world as a sort of animalistic thing anyway, this is an implicit dehumanization of the naked adult.
In modern Western societies, of course, these historical norms don't directly apply. Nudity is highly sexualized, even with children. It is seen as a "choice" and as a matter of "freedom of expression". Men and women demand the "right" to expose their nudity in public, and mock as "prudish" and "Victorian" those who object. I can only imagine the derisive laughter and eye-rolling that an ancient society would express on seeing modern attitudes toward nudity.
But the derision of ancient societies is of no more moment than that of modern societies. The point is that we in the modern Western world view both adult and childhood nudity much differently from ancient societies, and indeed much differently from almost any other society throughout history. It's all about titillation, voyeurism, and consensual sex.
Which leads to the topic of modesty.
"Modesty" means being moderate and unassuming in both action and self-estimation. It also means avoiding impropriety or indecency in behavior, appearance, and manners. Obviously, this will vary substantially between societies and cultures.
Is public adult nudity always immodest? In the United States, I would say the answer is probably yes, except in certain highly specific and artificial situations. But that's clearly not the case in other societies, such as those with public baths. Even in the US, I expect that most people would say that a woman "exposing" her breast to nurse her baby is not being immodest.
There is an obvious link between nudity and immodesty, but I think it wise to remember that the link is not always one-to-one. It is possible to be nude and still be modest, and it is very possible to be clothed and still be extremely immodest in appearance.
So there are some of my ponderings. I invite others.

My other blog thread was archived (it was really starting to get old) and I pondered starting another one. I have been experiencing much and there is much I want to share in the future as the Lord directs.
This entry was a labor of love: Lecturas Sobre la Fe

My favorite scripture in the Book of Mormon.  Short but oh so powerful.

8 ...Have ye inquired of the Lord?

8 ...Have ye inquired of the Lord?

Many Church members are aware that Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith was assembled by Joseph Fielding Smith using B.H. Roberts' History of the Church, which was compiled under 19th century historiographical practices that said it was perfectly fine to pull a quote out of context and "dress it up" a bit where the language was rough or fragmentary.
Now, our friends at the Joseph Smith Papers Project have broken down TPJS, quote by quote, and linked each quote back to its earliest-known source.
Enjoy!
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/sources-for-teachings-of-js-by-joseph-fielding-smith

Scientists can explain how gravity works, but not what causes it. They can only measure what they observe in the material world. The answer is simple. The Spirit of the Lord governs all "natural laws." His Spirit upholds all laws. What prevents you from suddenly floating off the ground and into space or what prevents you from coming apart at every molecule? It is God's Spirit that governs these laws. When He grants to you further light and knowledge, according to your faith, you, too, will be able to defy the laws of gravity and all natural laws. You will be able to speak and move a mountain as the bro of Jared did, or cause an ax head to float to the surface of the water after falling in as Elisha did. And maybe one day in the distant eternal future, like Jehova did, by faith, you will say, "let there be light." And there will be light. And scientists in that future will try to understand and measure the observable material world that you created for them and call it physics in a weak attempt to understand it all. 
If you can get through this discourse by Orson Pratt, it will shed more light: http://jod.mrm.org/2/334

Scientists can explain how gravity works, but not what causes it. They can only measure what they observe in the material world. The answer is simple. The Spirit of the Lord governs all "natural laws." His Spirit upholds all laws. What prevents you from suddenly floating off the ground and into space or what prevents you from coming apart at every molecule? It is God's Spirit that governs these laws. When He grants to you further light and knowledge, according to your faith, you, too, will be able to defy the laws of gravity and all natural laws. You will be able to speak and move a mountain as the bro of Jared did, or cause an ax head to float to the surface of the water after falling in as Elisha did. And maybe one day in the distant eternal future, like Jehova did, by faith, you will say, "let there be light." And there will be light. And scientists in that future will try to understand and measure the observable material world that you created for them and call it physics in a weak attempt to understand it all. 
If you can get through this discourse by Orson Pratt, it will shed more light: http://jod.mrm.org/2/334

Joseph Smith taught that our mind is actually our spirit.   As for miracles,  a miracle is nothing more than a higher law of God  that we do not understand superseding a lower telestial law.

This particular video is obviously a protestant Christian creation – I would guess that it has some Evangelical influence.  The Jews I talked to have an explanation of what is covered (or the attitude of coverage) in this video – They call it; trying to  force G-d’s hand.  In essence this is the idea that we can bring about G-d’s intentions through our efforts.  So, if we want Jesus to return then we need to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. 
The Jews I talked to all indicated that G-d knows what he is doing and if he needs our help he will let us know and command us accordingly – not a suggestion but a commandment.  In the meantime, we can prepare ourselves and be ready but we should not force G-d’s hand by trying to bring about prophesy ourselves. 
I need to explain something at this point – The official Rabbinical council has decided that covenant Jews should not go to the temple mount because only a High Priest can stand at the Holy of Holies and only priests can stand at the inner court – And they do not know for sure the physical boundaries.  There are some exceptions – for example, a Jewish “builder” can enter such sacred areas.  With this in mind a “builder” has carefully survey the temple mount based on all available information, including remaining ancient below ground foundations and determined that the original King Solomon’s temple was north of the current Muslim Mosque (Dome of the Rock).   Interestingly this corresponds to the utterances of a modern Prophet that met with a branch of the LDS church in an outdoor meeting on the Mount of Olives while the new LDS Jerusalem Center was being completed.
Even though Jews officially know that they can build the temple without moving the Dome of the Rock Mosque – it is not going to happen.  There is no divine authority to either build the temple or to perform any of the temple ordinances and the Jews know that they cannot and should not attempt to force G-d’s hand – without divine authority there is no reason to proceed.  Also for information sake – the Jews know that the wall where they pray is not a wall of the temple.  They pray at the wall because that is as close to where the temple will be (or was) that they are allowed.  BTW – as a side note – I was privileged to attend a bar mitzva at the wall (only men are allowed at the designated area of the wall so my dear wife had to watch the events (with the female members of the family) at a short distance.  I did not understand anything being said (recited) but did get to clap with our Jewish brother cousins.  I was presently surprised at how well we LDS are received.
 
The Traveler

Traveler, I believe this will interest you greatly:
 

LOL! Love this.