bytebear

I wanted to give you an example of official vs historical statements, so you can see what I mean.   The Kinderhook plates are mentioned historically that Joseph Smith may have commented on them.  But there is no scriptural entry about it.  If he had actually had a vision from God that the writings were from the loin of Ham, it would have been recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Another example is the Apocrypha.  Joseph Smith wondered if they were important enough to study and include in the BIble.  He took the question to the Lord, and rather than having a historical record somewhere that he decided they weren't important enough to include in our official version of the Bible, we have scripture confirming it.
 
So, now you know why we don't include the Apocrypha in our official Bible version.

I hope you can see the difference.

I wanted to give you an example of official vs historical statements, so you can see what I mean.   The Kinderhook plates are mentioned historically that Joseph Smith may have commented on them.  But there is no scriptural entry about it.  If he had actually had a vision from God that the writings were from the loin of Ham, it would have been recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Another example is the Apocrypha.  Joseph Smith wondered if they were important enough to study and include in the BIble.  He took the question to the Lord, and rather than having a historical record somewhere that he decided they weren't important enough to include in our official version of the Bible, we have scripture confirming it.
 
So, now you know why we don't include the Apocrypha in our official Bible version.

I hope you can see the difference.

Thank You. Thank You So Much. You have no idea how much it means to me to hear you say that.  Thank you ? ? 

I want to be in the church that worships God and Jesus in the way they want to be worshiped.  I'm investigating the LDS church because of its claims to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth.  From my point of view it all comes down to authority.  Who has the authority on earth to act for Jesus Christ.  Turns out that's a rather hard question to answer.

There may be some confusion on what the History of the Church is. It's not a current record of church history.  It isn't updated or maintained.  It was compiled in the 1800s and basically covers the life of Joseph Smith. It was the best historical document for the church at the time, but it is very flawed, especially in terms of modern historical methods. The replacement for this is called The Joseph Smith Papers, started just a few years ago, with the goal to accurately document everything Smith ever said, and has several volumes, and additional volumes on the way.  This is the modern version of what you want to know, and it's done correctly, with every document, quote and text attributed to the correct source, with correct context.  But the church can't just pretend the 1800s document didn't exist. All it can do is clarify the sources now.

Yes, it's ridiculously inconsistent, but when the History of the Church was compiled in the 1800s, the creators decided to make EVERYTHING in the first person, regardless of the source.  Confusing and annoying.  I agree.

What troubles me most is that I keep hearing this Church history quote as being attributed to Joseph Smith. And in the Church History document it is written as if it were Smith who wrote it. But we know for a FACT that the quote is actually reworded from William Clayton's journal.  This is a massive fact that cannot be denied.

Ok, I have never read the CES Letter, but I looked it up and read the section on the Kinerhook plates.  The author quotes as follows:
 
This is literally the only "official" comment ever made about the kinderhook plates in regards to Joseph Smith.  But the CES Letter author is manipulating you.  Smith never wrote that, nor did he ever say that.  As I said earlier, the quote is actually from William Clayton's journal. Early church history was often compiled from second hand sources and attributed as first hand.  So Clayton believes Smith said this, but we have no idea where he got his information from.  As far as we know, Smith saw then, said they look interesting, and never did anything more about it.  There was never an actual translation of any part of them, and no record other than the one above, of anything even relating to Smith and the plates.  Not a thing.  So, it's interesting that this anti-Mormon booklet would make a big deal out of a very small incident, and going to great lengths to convince you the quote is from Smith and not Clayton.  Certainly the one misleading you is the CES guy, not the church, which has several extensive histories (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng), with much more detail about the Kinderhook plates. Ironically, the CES guy use the 1981 article to claim the church was caught in a hoax, but he ignores the bulk of the article to continue his manipulation.  The LDS article is cited, but the Clayton as source is completely ignored.  So, decide for yourself who you think is being dishonest.

Ok, I have never read the CES Letter, but I looked it up and read the section on the Kinerhook plates.  The author quotes as follows:
 
This is literally the only "official" comment ever made about the kinderhook plates in regards to Joseph Smith.  But the CES Letter author is manipulating you.  Smith never wrote that, nor did he ever say that.  As I said earlier, the quote is actually from William Clayton's journal. Early church history was often compiled from second hand sources and attributed as first hand.  So Clayton believes Smith said this, but we have no idea where he got his information from.  As far as we know, Smith saw then, said they look interesting, and never did anything more about it.  There was never an actual translation of any part of them, and no record other than the one above, of anything even relating to Smith and the plates.  Not a thing.  So, it's interesting that this anti-Mormon booklet would make a big deal out of a very small incident, and going to great lengths to convince you the quote is from Smith and not Clayton.  Certainly the one misleading you is the CES guy, not the church, which has several extensive histories (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng), with much more detail about the Kinderhook plates. Ironically, the CES guy use the 1981 article to claim the church was caught in a hoax, but he ignores the bulk of the article to continue his manipulation.  The LDS article is cited, but the Clayton as source is completely ignored.  So, decide for yourself who you think is being dishonest.

Perhaps because we have been warned by prophets of God of such things.

There are 3 times as many Mormons in Nigeria than there were in Utah in 1850. 

Perhaps because we have been warned by prophets of God of such things.

Paul Simon's Graceland album is my most favorite of all time, and I was not a fan of him before, and don't particularly care for his other works (I find Garfunkel annoying), but this is a GREAT album.  Every single song.

I used Windows Defender.  Part of Windows 10.  Works great for me.

Following the failure of a plan that would result in the destruction of the rebellion and the death of all their friends
Finn: “I guess it was worth it” *stares off to the freed animals that will get caught again in a few days*
Jade: *releases last animal* “Now it was worth it”
 
WHATTT??????

I wonder if when we don't feel the spirit for a while, it takes some time to retrain ourselves to feel his presence.  Maybe you just aren't in tune yet.  I also find that when I am helping others and not thinking of myself, I get that spirit more than when I am trying to just get it for self benefit.  Maybe do some volunteer work, and focus on helping others, and you can get your groove back.

I was taught in church all growing up (near 50 years now), that Ephram was specifically the tribe of adoption.    This makes sense since (as stated above) it is the tribe dedicated to the work of the restoration.
 

For Latter-day Saints, identification of a person's lineage in latter-day Covenant Israel is made under the hands of inspired Patriarchs through patriarchal blessings that declare lineage. Elder John A. Widtsoe, an Apostle, declared, "In giving a blessing the patriarch may declare our lineage-that is, that we are of Israel, therefore of the family of Abraham, and of a specific tribe of Jacob. In the great majority of cases, Latter-day Saints are of the tribe of Ephraim, the tribe to which has been committed the leadership of the Latter-day work. Whether this lineage is of blood or adoption it does not matter" (p. 73; cf. Abr. 2:10).
The patriarchal blessings of most Latter-day Saints indicate that they are literal, blood descendants of Abraham and of Israel. Those who are not literal descendants are adopted into the family of Abraham when they receive baptism and confirmation (see Law of Adoption). They are then entitled to all the rights and privileges of heirs (TPJS, pp. 149-50). This doctrine of adoption was understood by ancient prophets and apostles (e.g., Rom. 11; 1 Ne. 10:14; Jacob 5; cf. D&C 84:33-34).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Ephraim

For Latter-day Saints, identification of a person's lineage in latter-day Covenant Israel is made under the hands of inspired Patriarchs through patriarchal blessings that declare lineage. Elder John A. Widtsoe, an Apostle, declared, "In giving a blessing the patriarch may declare our lineage-that is, that we are of Israel, therefore of the family of Abraham, and of a specific tribe of Jacob. In the great majority of cases, Latter-day Saints are of the tribe of Ephraim, the tribe to which has been committed the leadership of the Latter-day work. Whether this lineage is of blood or adoption it does not matter" (p. 73; cf. Abr. 2:10).
The patriarchal blessings of most Latter-day Saints indicate that they are literal, blood descendants of Abraham and of Israel. Those who are not literal descendants are adopted into the family of Abraham when they receive baptism and confirmation (see Law of Adoption). They are then entitled to all the rights and privileges of heirs (TPJS, pp. 149-50). This doctrine of adoption was understood by ancient prophets and apostles (e.g., Rom. 11; 1 Ne. 10:14; Jacob 5; cf. D&C 84:33-34).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Ephraim

(unless you are going on a mission, in which case just "hang out" and don't get attached)

Date to mate, but when you know it's wrong, just rip the band-aid off, and move on.  After a year, you'll know one way or the other. 
 

And know that even if your husband never embraces the restored gospel, the church's position is that family harmony is critical and every attempt to maintain that should be made, even if temporary sacrifices must be made (i.e. waiting 18 months, or paying what you agree upon in tithes).

Community activities too.  Just be a presence in the town.  We did various church activities and invited the community.  "Meet the Mormons" kind of thing.  We also did a lot of street contacts.  We'd just say, "Can we ask you a couple questions?" and ask a series of questions leading to a doctrinal truth like eternal families.  Really, the best thing is to put yourself out there. In a small town, everyone knows the missionaries.  You stand out, and so use that to your advantage.  Wave.  Be overly helpful.  Chat. Get to know people's names who you run into regularly.  We used to ride the bus every day, and chat with the bus drivers and passengers.  Captive audience. 

Community activities too.  Just be a presence in the town.  We did various church activities and invited the community.  "Meet the Mormons" kind of thing.  We also did a lot of street contacts.  We'd just say, "Can we ask you a couple questions?" and ask a series of questions leading to a doctrinal truth like eternal families.  Really, the best thing is to put yourself out there. In a small town, everyone knows the missionaries.  You stand out, and so use that to your advantage.  Wave.  Be overly helpful.  Chat. Get to know people's names who you run into regularly.  We used to ride the bus every day, and chat with the bus drivers and passengers.  Captive audience. 

It seems we did a lot more in my home ward than when I was on my mission in regards to regular basketball, "road shows".  Our building was older and had a full stage, with curtains and lights. They don't make them like that any more. 
One other big pet peeve of mine. The church sign.  It says "Visitor's Welcome" but it doesn't give the hours of service.  I think the church would have a lot more visitors if they posted the time for Sacrament meetings.  Can someone look into making that happen?

Community activities too.  Just be a presence in the town.  We did various church activities and invited the community.  "Meet the Mormons" kind of thing.  We also did a lot of street contacts.  We'd just say, "Can we ask you a couple questions?" and ask a series of questions leading to a doctrinal truth like eternal families.  Really, the best thing is to put yourself out there. In a small town, everyone knows the missionaries.  You stand out, and so use that to your advantage.  Wave.  Be overly helpful.  Chat. Get to know people's names who you run into regularly.  We used to ride the bus every day, and chat with the bus drivers and passengers.  Captive audience.