Vort

priesthoodpower, if you want to live up to your name, delete your match.com profile and don't go back there until your divorce is final. If you're married, keep your mind strictly on your marriage and your wife. Don't let it wander to others, such that you check out divorcees on match.com, or you will certainly lose your power in the Priesthood. And you need that power, as do your children (and frankly, your wife). So do the right thing, and avoid that nonsense.

What is with the recent fad of dismissing ancient thinkers and writers as "wandering Jews" or "Bronze Age shepherds"? How is their being "wandering Jews" or from the Bronze Age (which in any case is factually incorrect -- the Bible as a history of Israel is based firmly in Iron Age culture, which is precisely the basis of our own culture and technology) relevant to the truthfulness and insights into the human condition that they had? What sort of mindless hubris convinces people that we today somehow have a better handle on what it means to be human than the ancients did?
 
I have seen this attitude a lot in the last few years, and it utterly baffles me. Are people really and honestly so blind that they think our ability to make DVDs means we understand the human mind and soul better than the ancients?

2ndRateMind, I think you must be playing games with me. You seem like an intelligent person, and I have great difficulty believing that you do not understand the basic principles of creation of wealth.
 
If the poor were in slavery to the rich, being forced to work to create things and then having that wealth forcibly extracted from them, leaving them destitute, then I would agree. But as far as I can see, that is not at all the case in today's world.
 
For the most part, and with obvious exceptions, rich people are rich because they produce riches. They create wealth. They create commodities, which they then sell to others. We are all better off because of what the rich produce.
 
You seem to be operating under a model that posits a fixed amount of "wealth" in the world that is unfairly distributed, resulting in people starving to death. But this is (to be polite) an exceptionally naive view. Plain and simple, this is not how the world works, or has ever worked on a large scale.
 
If we both live naked in the jungle, and I gather rocks and sticks to build a hut, our combined wealth consists of a hut. If you then claim that it's unfair that I have all the wealth and you have none -- well, whose fault is it? Mine, for being the oppressive rich man who owns an entire hut?

What is with the recent fad of dismissing ancient thinkers and writers as "wandering Jews" or "Bronze Age shepherds"? How is their being "wandering Jews" or from the Bronze Age (which in any case is factually incorrect -- the Bible as a history of Israel is based firmly in Iron Age culture, which is precisely the basis of our own culture and technology) relevant to the truthfulness and insights into the human condition that they had? What sort of mindless hubris convinces people that we today somehow have a better handle on what it means to be human than the ancients did?
 
I have seen this attitude a lot in the last few years, and it utterly baffles me. Are people really and honestly so blind that they think our ability to make DVDs means we understand the human mind and soul better than the ancients?

I am 38yrs old (born n raised mormon) and have a strong testimony of the gospel and faith in HF/JC.
 
- at 14 I had an internal knee injury (sports) in which I prayed and the pain dissapeared the next day.
- at 18 I was comforted with a warm blanket of the holy ghost and felt its warmth and light through my whole body
- at 19 in the mission field I had another warm blanket holy ghost feeling
- at 26 in the hospital on the day of my childs birth i felt the holy ghost again
- at 31 a few days after my grandfathers passing he visited me in a dream and simply said "you know what to do"
 
dont live life looking for signs but live life and pay attention to the signs that are all around you.

It sort of sounds like someone who has a dream that they die in a motorcycle accident, so they wake up and go buy a motorcycle. Why would anyone do that, right? Why would someone know the consequences and then knowingly place themselves into a situation for it to happen?
 
I have wondered about that for a long time. I, too, have made bad decisions like that, knowing what I was getting myself into. My advice is to avoid the situations that would allow you to have fall. You know you are weak, so what business do you have letting yourself be alone with a girl?
 
For the other person, no you will not be excommunicated. The worst thing to do is wait. I waited and waited and waited and waited and 13 years went by. 13 years of my spiritual life wasted. After repenting, I lamented to myself, "why, oh why did I wait?" It was the most loving, kind, and peaceful feeling to face God, face the church, and be helped back to being clean.

2ndRateMind, I think you must be playing games with me. You seem like an intelligent person, and I have great difficulty believing that you do not understand the basic principles of creation of wealth.
 
If the poor were in slavery to the rich, being forced to work to create things and then having that wealth forcibly extracted from them, leaving them destitute, then I would agree. But as far as I can see, that is not at all the case in today's world.
 
For the most part, and with obvious exceptions, rich people are rich because they produce riches. They create wealth. They create commodities, which they then sell to others. We are all better off because of what the rich produce.
 
You seem to be operating under a model that posits a fixed amount of "wealth" in the world that is unfairly distributed, resulting in people starving to death. But this is (to be polite) an exceptionally naive view. Plain and simple, this is not how the world works, or has ever worked on a large scale.
 
If we both live naked in the jungle, and I gather rocks and sticks to build a hut, our combined wealth consists of a hut. If you then claim that it's unfair that I have all the wealth and you have none -- well, whose fault is it? Mine, for being the oppressive rich man who owns an entire hut?

The OP referenced an article with an English politician talking about "the poor." In context, this obviously meant the English poor, not starving children in sub-Saharan Africa. It seemed reasonable to generalize this to the socioeconomically disadvantaged in Western democracies. Not sure why this is so absurdly provincial.
 
For that matter, since poverty is always a relative measure and not an absolute, I don't quite see what's so absurdly provincial in your example. If a family is too poor even to afford any gas to power their automobile -- not unable to power it a lot so they can drive all over the place, but unable to power it at all so they cannot use it to perform basic functions like procure food at the grocery store two miles away and thus not easily accessible in two feet of snow -- then compared with a typical middle-class American family, they are indeed quite poor.

"High priest" has various meanings. The lead priest in the Levitical order was called the "high" priest. Though he held the Levitical Priesthood, which is basically what we Latter-day Saints would call the Aaronic Priesthood, still he held the title of high priest because he was the one in charge. Similarly, in Christ's day, the main priest was referred to as the "high priest". In this sense, of course, Jesus is always the great and ultimate "high priest"; the Priesthood is his.
 
But we distinguish between two great orders of Priesthood: the lesser Priesthood, which we call Aaronic; and the greater or "higher" Priesthood, which we call Melchizedek. Generically, one who holds either Priesthood is called a "priest". In this sense, a "high priest" is one who holds the higher (or Melchizedek) Priesthood. See, for example, Alma 13:1-9.
 
The term "high priest" is also used as the name of a specific office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, one of five defined offices: elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, and apostle.
 
So there are many "high priests" in the sense of "someone who holds the higher Priesthood" who are not "high priests" in the sense of "someone ordained to the office of high priest". And when we say that Jesus is the great high priest, we mean neither of those, because the Priesthood and its authority come from Jesus. When we follow back our Priesthood line of authority (assuming we actually have a valid line of authority), it must necessarily end with Jesus.

"High priest" has various meanings. The lead priest in the Levitical order was called the "high" priest. Though he held the Levitical Priesthood, which is basically what we Latter-day Saints would call the Aaronic Priesthood, still he held the title of high priest because he was the one in charge. Similarly, in Christ's day, the main priest was referred to as the "high priest". In this sense, of course, Jesus is always the great and ultimate "high priest"; the Priesthood is his.
 
But we distinguish between two great orders of Priesthood: the lesser Priesthood, which we call Aaronic; and the greater or "higher" Priesthood, which we call Melchizedek. Generically, one who holds either Priesthood is called a "priest". In this sense, a "high priest" is one who holds the higher (or Melchizedek) Priesthood. See, for example, Alma 13:1-9.
 
The term "high priest" is also used as the name of a specific office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, one of five defined offices: elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, and apostle.
 
So there are many "high priests" in the sense of "someone who holds the higher Priesthood" who are not "high priests" in the sense of "someone ordained to the office of high priest". And when we say that Jesus is the great high priest, we mean neither of those, because the Priesthood and its authority come from Jesus. When we follow back our Priesthood line of authority (assuming we actually have a valid line of authority), it must necessarily end with Jesus.

Fixed that for ya. 
 
If the Baroness' point is that it is more efficient to buy raw ingredients and cook at home, but that a lot of people don't know how to do this and the burden of purchasing costlier pre-prepared foods falls disproportionately on the poor--I agree with her.  I don't think it's an accident that, if you go to an LDS Bishop's Storehouse, you will find they also distribute a cookbook.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense a snarky sarcasm in your tone, and I don't understand it. In my experience, it is almost universally true that the poor do not know how to cook. They are dependent on prepackaged, precooked food. Anything past boiling water is outside their range of experience. I have been in the houses of many poor people, and with a few exceptions, they could not cook, often freely admitted they couldn't, and almost never seemed very concerned with learning how to cook. It's as if the skill of preparing food seemed irrelevant to them -- despite the fact that food they prepare themselves is FAR cheaper, more nutritious, and better tasting (once they learn how to cook it right).
 
"Starvation is the fault of the poor" is the obvious sarcasm in your post, but the fact that poor people almost never know how to cook hardly means that starvation is the fault of the poor. Furthermore, almost no one starves to death in the US. Many are malnourished, but in most cases they're obese, and malnourished because they choose badly in what they eat rather than because they can't get food. This gets right back to the fact that they can't cook.
 
Your final barb, that "the wealthy [hog] the resources the poor need to stay alive with", is false on its face. I'm astounded that any rational person believes such a thing. That is sheer nonsense, as if the fact that rich people have a lot of money causes poor people to die. You cannot seriously believe such a proposition -- can you?

Vort, to clarify, I'm not really that interested in getting involved with this discussion. My comment was between the lines, perhaps like the original post, in that no one can tell a Filipino woman that she can't cook - regardless of if she's poor or rich. It'd be like telling a Jewish woman she doesn't have an opinion, or a woman from the Netherlands, like my husband's side of the family - you don't tell those women what they can and can't do :) It ain't gonna fly.

echo, I am not sure what you should do. I can tell you what you SHOULDN'T do, though. You shouldn't let your neighbor's (perceived) racism make you unhappy. You have plenty of other neighbors, friends, and fellow Saints you love you just fine. Don't let one bad apple spoil your barrel of happiness.
 
I would also suggest that you cannot look into this woman's heart and see her motives. What looks to you like racism may in fact be nothing of the sort. So rather than condemn her, just let her go her way. Don't let her actions hurt you. Just live your life as you think the Lord wants you to, and don't take offense. Let it go. That's my opinion.

2ndRateMind, I think you must be playing games with me. You seem like an intelligent person, and I have great difficulty believing that you do not understand the basic principles of creation of wealth.
 
If the poor were in slavery to the rich, being forced to work to create things and then having that wealth forcibly extracted from them, leaving them destitute, then I would agree. But as far as I can see, that is not at all the case in today's world.
 
For the most part, and with obvious exceptions, rich people are rich because they produce riches. They create wealth. They create commodities, which they then sell to others. We are all better off because of what the rich produce.
 
You seem to be operating under a model that posits a fixed amount of "wealth" in the world that is unfairly distributed, resulting in people starving to death. But this is (to be polite) an exceptionally naive view. Plain and simple, this is not how the world works, or has ever worked on a large scale.
 
If we both live naked in the jungle, and I gather rocks and sticks to build a hut, our combined wealth consists of a hut. If you then claim that it's unfair that I have all the wealth and you have none -- well, whose fault is it? Mine, for being the oppressive rich man who owns an entire hut?

echo, I am not sure what you should do. I can tell you what you SHOULDN'T do, though. You shouldn't let your neighbor's (perceived) racism make you unhappy. You have plenty of other neighbors, friends, and fellow Saints you love you just fine. Don't let one bad apple spoil your barrel of happiness.
 
I would also suggest that you cannot look into this woman's heart and see her motives. What looks to you like racism may in fact be nothing of the sort. So rather than condemn her, just let her go her way. Don't let her actions hurt you. Just live your life as you think the Lord wants you to, and don't take offense. Let it go. That's my opinion.

No, it describes the end of an angelic visitation.
 
"Wormholes" are a recent theoretical construct. It's always fun to take popular ideas and shoehorn them into some aspect of the gospel. Perhaps this is a harmless pastime, but you need to make sure you keep imaginitive ideas distinct in your mind from the gospel and its teachings.

I know I'm replying to your reply to Vort...but...my thought:
 
I don't see it that way. What God want us to know about the Holy Ghost He has revealed and is plain and easy to understand. What He does not want us to know, He does not want us to know, and there are probably few exceptions to this. There may be some select cases where someone with enough faith and righteousness has enlightenment on the matter beyond what God has given to the general. But in those cases, that revelation is for that specific person, and they would not share it with the masses, and would likely be commanded not to share it with the masses.
 
I believe (he can correct me if I'm wrong) that is Vort's point.
 
As far as the answer to your question, it is unknowable. Only those who have said information revealed to them would know if it is explainable or not. The rest of us are guessing.

It's hard to know what turns people away.  It might be race.  It might be nervousness over an accent.  It could be something you said or did, that meant nothing to you, but was interpreted negatively by the other person.  To give an example, I was speaking with another pastor one time, and we were talking about beverages.  I said that I prefer higher-end brands, as they really do taste better.  His response was something to the effect that he did not think Jesus would be so picky.  I was totally caught off guard by that.  He thought I was being pretentious, snooty, and arrogant.  We continued to be acquaintances, but I doubt he would ever let me get close after that.  There wasn't much I could do.  He'd formed an opinion, and no protesting on my part would change that.  So, I was nice to him--cordial, but came to realize that we were never meant to be close buddies.
 
Perhaps your neighbor falls into this category.  The problem is probably not yours, and you cannot do much to fix it.  So, be nice, be cordial, but stop investing emotional energy into this lady.  She's probably not one that Heavenly Father meant for you to get close to.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense a snarky sarcasm in your tone, and I don't understand it. In my experience, it is almost universally true that the poor do not know how to cook. They are dependent on prepackaged, precooked food. Anything past boiling water is outside their range of experience. I have been in the houses of many poor people, and with a few exceptions, they could not cook, often freely admitted they couldn't, and almost never seemed very concerned with learning how to cook. It's as if the skill of preparing food seemed irrelevant to them -- despite the fact that food they prepare themselves is FAR cheaper, more nutritious, and better tasting (once they learn how to cook it right).
 
"Starvation is the fault of the poor" is the obvious sarcasm in your post, but the fact that poor people almost never know how to cook hardly means that starvation is the fault of the poor. Furthermore, almost no one starves to death in the US. Many are malnourished, but in most cases they're obese, and malnourished because they choose badly in what they eat rather than because they can't get food. This gets right back to the fact that they can't cook.
 
Your final barb, that "the wealthy [hog] the resources the poor need to stay alive with", is false on its face. I'm astounded that any rational person believes such a thing. That is sheer nonsense, as if the fact that rich people have a lot of money causes poor people to die. You cannot seriously believe such a proposition -- can you?

So, here we have it. The reason why poor people starve. It's not that the poor can't afford food, it's that they don't know what to do with it, when they have it. Clearly starvation is the fault of the poor, and down to their own ignorance, and nothing to do with the wealthy hogging the resources the poor need to stay alive with.
 
2RM's poverty pasta sauce. Serves 4.
Price per serving £0.30p. Maybe $0.50, with you.
 
2 medium onions, chopped
4 Garlic cloves, crushed
2 400g cans of chopped tomatoes.
A good dash of cooking oil.
 
optional extras; bacon, mushrooms, haricot beans.
 
Fry the onions and garlic in the oil 'til fragrant and translucent. Add the tomatoes, and simmer for quarter of an hour. Taste, and salt to taste. Meanwhile cook your pasta - conchiglie, spaghetti, tagliattelli, penne, whatever, according to the packet instructions.
 
Serve with grated cheese (doesn't necessarily need to be parmesan) and fresh ground black pepper.
 
Hope you try it, hope you like it.
 
Best wishes, 2RM.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense a snarky sarcasm in your tone, and I don't understand it. In my experience, it is almost universally true that the poor do not know how to cook. They are dependent on prepackaged, precooked food. Anything past boiling water is outside their range of experience. I have been in the houses of many poor people, and with a few exceptions, they could not cook, often freely admitted they couldn't, and almost never seemed very concerned with learning how to cook. It's as if the skill of preparing food seemed irrelevant to them -- despite the fact that food they prepare themselves is FAR cheaper, more nutritious, and better tasting (once they learn how to cook it right).
 
"Starvation is the fault of the poor" is the obvious sarcasm in your post, but the fact that poor people almost never know how to cook hardly means that starvation is the fault of the poor. Furthermore, almost no one starves to death in the US. Many are malnourished, but in most cases they're obese, and malnourished because they choose badly in what they eat rather than because they can't get food. This gets right back to the fact that they can't cook.
 
Your final barb, that "the wealthy [hog] the resources the poor need to stay alive with", is false on its face. I'm astounded that any rational person believes such a thing. That is sheer nonsense, as if the fact that rich people have a lot of money causes poor people to die. You cannot seriously believe such a proposition -- can you?

Are you so sure that being born into wealth is a reward?  After all it IS easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...
 
Again you're basing ALL of your idea of justice on what amounts to less than .02 seconds of a life that has lasted literally forever before we were born, and will last literally forever after we die. 

Here are just a few privileges I don't enjoy -
 
1. There is no assumption that I'm a racist because the color of my skin.
 
2. My opinion on racism is not disregarded because of the color of my skin.
 
3. I don't carry the full historical weight of genocide, slavery, and destroying the environment.  
 
4. When I achieve anything people think it's because of my merits and hard work not my "privilege" based on my skin color.
 
5. I can safely use the "N" word as a non-pejorative.
 
6. I can drive thru unsafe neighborhoods and not be in extra danger because of my skin color.
 
7. I can shop at the most expensive stores dressed like a bum or a thug and the store attendants assume I'm a wealthy rap mogul.
 
8. I can send my kids to school knowing they will receive a balanced, accurate account of the great scientific and social advancements their ancestors brought to our civilization including ending slavery and bringing about civil rights and not just  years and years of re-hashing the mistakes those of my skin color made.
 
9. I have many more scholarships available because of my skin-color.
 
10. I can apply for a job and beat out higher performers because my skin color fills a quota.
 
11. I get special consideration when applying for school based on the color of my skin.

Occam's Razor requires two(or more) equally compelling explanation for an event, before it can be applied in favor of the simplest. 
 
Your two explanations are God is having be born to places he choses...  Or God is letting it happen at random.
 
Well  I can find tons of scriptural support for God having a plan and being in control of all things.  I can not find any scriptural support for God being random for anything really being out of his control.
 
Now the case can be made that it appears random to us.  But the scriptures even cover that when they declare that God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts our not our thought.
 
Simply put the scriptural Evidence God having a plan is overwhelming...  The Evidence for it being random is our own faulty sense of what is going on right now with no eternal perspective.