bytebear

I think you need to take it to a position of liberty rather than religion. See if they can understand that it's unfair to force people to change their beliefs, no matter how wrong you may think they are.  People should still be free to have freedom of speech, regardless of how offensive it may be to someone else.  And note that this freedom goes both ways.  I would remind them that a law that prohibits Mormons from speaking out against homosexuality also allows the reverse, and that one could make their "hate speech" memes illegal. 

I think you need to take it to a position of liberty rather than religion. See if they can understand that it's unfair to force people to change their beliefs, no matter how wrong you may think they are.  People should still be free to have freedom of speech, regardless of how offensive it may be to someone else.  And note that this freedom goes both ways.  I would remind them that a law that prohibits Mormons from speaking out against homosexuality also allows the reverse, and that one could make their "hate speech" memes illegal. 

Make sure you understand the whole story.  Anti-Mormons like to use the stone in the hat to make it sound odd, but when you understand the translation process (fully documented in church history) it makes perfect sense, and is only a fraction of the miracle that the translation of the Book of Mormon is.  So, tell the whole story, and don't overemphaize things that really aren't that important (but like to be used negatively).

Best thing you can do is show your faith through your actions.  They will see a change in you as you grow in the gospel.  They will notice you being happier, more patient, more loving, more joyful.  It will be difficult for you as Satan tempts you and puts up roadblocks, but if you live it, and embrace it, they will see it in you. They may react negatively, as they see you improve, they may be jealous or accuse you of bettering them or showing off your "self rightiousness"  Just remind them that they are welcome to participate whenever they are ready.  You'd be surprised that in time, they just may.

Sons of God = covenant people,  Sons of man = everyone else. 
 
God makes covenants with people, and, at least in some cases, has followed lineage (Abraham through the tribes of Isael). So that's my interpretation.
 
And as for Lamenites, I believe Lamen and Lemuel also married outside their covenant with the natives of America (who may have been darker skinned), causing their covenant to be broken, and their children's skin color being a sign of that broken covenant.  But, as was said, skin color doesn't mean rightiousness, or even exclusion from covnent blessings. 
 
It's important to note that the early church specifically invited Lamanites (Native Americans and Pacific Islanders) into the chuch because they were of the lineage of Lehi, even though they had darker skin.

Hey, my grocery store may stop providing bananas, therefore, we must regulate grocery stores.   If anyone thinks this is about protecting consumers, and not a power grab, is a fool.

Hey, my grocery store may stop providing bananas, therefore, we must regulate grocery stores.   If anyone thinks this is about protecting consumers, and not a power grab, is a fool.

I would assume the Three Nephites and John had the Priesthood, and in that sense, it was still on the earth.

Best thing you can do is show your faith through your actions.  They will see a change in you as you grow in the gospel.  They will notice you being happier, more patient, more loving, more joyful.  It will be difficult for you as Satan tempts you and puts up roadblocks, but if you live it, and embrace it, they will see it in you. They may react negatively, as they see you improve, they may be jealous or accuse you of bettering them or showing off your "self rightiousness"  Just remind them that they are welcome to participate whenever they are ready.  You'd be surprised that in time, they just may.

This, and really, it should require nothing more than a single, simple yet comprehensive contract, nor should it be limited to a simple pairing.  For example, I have a friend whose parents died shortly after he turned 18.  Some close friends of the family more or less adopted him, but of course there's no legal recognition of it since he was an adult at the time.  The couple has no children of their own, and while they can leave their property to him in their wills, that doesn't grant him "family" status when it comes to hospital visits.  I see no reason they shouldn't all be able to enter into a binding contract that would, for all legal purposes, make him their son.  The same contract with slight alterations would, in my previous example, make the old friends domestic partners, with the same access, inheritance and survivorship rights as immediate family.
 
Obviously, there are other potential issues if, for example, children are involved, but AFAIK, most states already have some sort of case law in place from adoptions, etc. that would adapt to the situation.

Mr. Dehlin has been very public about this, almost to the point of being exhibitionist.  In the latest news he quotes his stake president's letter at length, which says very reasonable things, such as: "I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause. But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error."
 
I agree completely.  I'm astonished this excommunication didn't happen years ago.  

I am all for civil unions.  The government involvement in marriage was not to declare them, but to use them as evidence in property disputes and inheritance.  But even with gay marriage, the single person is at a disadvantage.  Civil unions shoudl be used to determine who gets your benefits and property.  It should be independent of any religious rites, and should be open to couples who don't consider their relationship to be marital.

I also think we really don't know the whole story of Smith's early life.  After he published the Book of Mormon, a slew of anti-Smith stuff was written.  Some went so far as to go to his town and find people willing to talk dirt about him.  The trial of him swindling a farmer by treasure hunting for example, had the farmer actually defending Joseph.  So, clearly there was some back handed railroading to make him look bad.  But even still, he admitted he did some foolish things in his youth, but I take the stories of his youth and treasure hunting with a grain of salt.  We just don't have all the information.  And I agree with what was said, he or the Lord used what he was familiar with.  The interpreters were just symbols to help Smith get started.  He preferred a stone to the Urim and Thummim provided with the plates or perhaps used both.  Either way, I don't see it as an issue.

Slight bit of context.  Jim Crow laws specifically enforced discrimination in the public sector and sometimes in the private sector.  The widespread use of marriage licenses issued by the state has its roots in Jim Crow laws-it was designed to prohibit whites and blacks from marrying.
 
Jim Crow laws didn't just restrict the liberties of blacks, it restricted everyone's liberty.  If I'm a white businessman and I see profit by doing business by integrating whites and blacks, I'm prohibited to do so and my liberty as a businessman is infringed.  This actually happened with train companies in the early 1900s who wanted to integrate train cars but were prohibited by law from doing so.
 
Enforcing discrimination by law is every bit as wrong as enforcing non-discrimination by law.

I also think we really don't know the whole story of Smith's early life.  After he published the Book of Mormon, a slew of anti-Smith stuff was written.  Some went so far as to go to his town and find people willing to talk dirt about him.  The trial of him swindling a farmer by treasure hunting for example, had the farmer actually defending Joseph.  So, clearly there was some back handed railroading to make him look bad.  But even still, he admitted he did some foolish things in his youth, but I take the stories of his youth and treasure hunting with a grain of salt.  We just don't have all the information.  And I agree with what was said, he or the Lord used what he was familiar with.  The interpreters were just symbols to help Smith get started.  He preferred a stone to the Urim and Thummim provided with the plates or perhaps used both.  Either way, I don't see it as an issue.

I also think we really don't know the whole story of Smith's early life.  After he published the Book of Mormon, a slew of anti-Smith stuff was written.  Some went so far as to go to his town and find people willing to talk dirt about him.  The trial of him swindling a farmer by treasure hunting for example, had the farmer actually defending Joseph.  So, clearly there was some back handed railroading to make him look bad.  But even still, he admitted he did some foolish things in his youth, but I take the stories of his youth and treasure hunting with a grain of salt.  We just don't have all the information.  And I agree with what was said, he or the Lord used what he was familiar with.  The interpreters were just symbols to help Smith get started.  He preferred a stone to the Urim and Thummim provided with the plates or perhaps used both.  Either way, I don't see it as an issue.

As technology increases, the stone in the hat story actually makes more sense.  How many times have you tried to read your cell phone in bright light?   I always have to cup my hands around it to make it readable.  The description of the stone in the hat explains this practice exactly. Yet, it was written 100 years before the technology existed.  I find that fascinating.

As technology increases, the stone in the hat story actually makes more sense.  How many times have you tried to read your cell phone in bright light?   I always have to cup my hands around it to make it readable.  The description of the stone in the hat explains this practice exactly. Yet, it was written 100 years before the technology existed.  I find that fascinating.

As technology increases, the stone in the hat story actually makes more sense.  How many times have you tried to read your cell phone in bright light?   I always have to cup my hands around it to make it readable.  The description of the stone in the hat explains this practice exactly. Yet, it was written 100 years before the technology existed.  I find that fascinating.

Some interesting history of political parties among Mormons. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_%28Utah%29
 
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/partypoliticsandutahstatehood.html

On the point that Claire asks, I would read Doctrine and Covenants 93.
 
11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.
 12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
 13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
 14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
 
See also Luke 2:52
 
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

Forgiveness is not for the other person.  It is to lift the burden from you.  And it doesn't mean they are able to continue with blessings.  I don't equate forgiveness with progression.  That still requires repentence.

I thought they were just silent note taking.

I don't really dwell on the material source.  The Book of Moses was inspired by the Genesis, and not a literal translation of any known documents.  So, clearly when God needs to reveal certain truths, he reveals them.  The material source is (parden the pun) immaterial.  It's the spiritual message that's important.  And the Pearl of Great Price is filled with ancient truths that were lost, perhaps with no physcial way to retrieve them. So, God delivered truth.  The truth is more important than the method of revealing the truth.  And it's something we can't ever really know.  I don't think Joseph Smith could even explain it.

Eating the fruit was not "good".  It was necessary.  There was no other way.   Just as the crucifixion/suffering of Christ was not "good" but it was necessary.