bytebear

Here are some study links:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-firstborn?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstborn?lang=eng

In Christian circles, there are interpretations on what it means to be First Born.  Apparently this pastor wants to make sure you understand that He is not a created being, and that the term is more symbolic of Him being the author of creation.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_216.cfm

But I guess I want to emphasize the notion of Christ being the firstborn is not foreign to Biblical scripture or doctrine.
 

It's not rocket science. I mean we can off grandma in the retirement home and have a major economic benefit.  

It's not rocket science. I mean we can off grandma in the retirement home and have a major economic benefit.  

It's not rocket science. I mean we can off grandma in the retirement home and have a major economic benefit.  

It's not rocket science. I mean we can off grandma in the retirement home and have a major economic benefit.  

It's not rocket science. I mean we can off grandma in the retirement home and have a major economic benefit.  

I would consider a historic church tour.  There are a few companies that provide them, and they do try to put in at least a bit of spiritual quiet time.  Of course, you could do your own pace, and maybe spend some extra time in Nauvoo or the sacred grove site.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602820/Tips-for-families-on-the-church-history-trail.html

I have a yard with a lot of trees, and as such I need leaf raking a lot. It is impossible to find a neighborhood kid to do the job.  Everyone is a tree service, which is a shame because I would much rather give my money to a neighborhood kid than some company.

Antifa, like the Brown Shirts are a  bunch of kids who want to beat people up with no ramifications, the "enemy" is irrelevant, although it's being pushed by an anti-American, anti-Free Speech agenda.  But you need to find the head of the snake.  Trouble is, the snake includes the people who are meant to investigate such things. 

If I understood you correctly, you're trying to say Antifa used to be like that but they've morphed?  No.  Antifa has always been like what they are now.  Their first known activist act was to throw molotov cocktails to prevent conservative speakers from speaking at Berkeley.

Reviewing the Zarahemla Research Foundation there's key sentence used that renders everything else there garbage:
"The covenant relationship is strictly personal. It does not require a public ordinance like water baptism."
This is false. Therefore this "foundation" goes on the trash heap where it belongs.

In general, I have rather liked reading Ardis Parshall. She is obviously both intelligent and well-read, she seems to value her testimony of the restored gospel, and she appears to be a much more careful historian than many (most) who identify themselves as such in LDS circles. I used to read her blog fairly often. But she appears to partake to some degree in the intellectualist sport of LDS iconoclasm, which I find distasteful.
Now I'm as willing as the next guy to identify silly ideas that have crept into LDS circles and even to call them out on occasion*. But in the final analysis, we are a Church and kingdom led by men of God under revelation, and definitely not by the learned who carefully parse literature and Think Deeply About Stuff and then pronounce their pontifications. That describes the various Catholic schools of thought as well as the Muslim madahib. The restored kingdom of God doesn't work like that.
I have no advice for Sister Parshall. I am not on her level, certainly not as pertaining to LDS history. But I, like you, get annoyed by much of this iconoclasm. It strikes me as self-serving and as not building the kingdom. Perhaps Elder McConkie's speculations were ill-considered, or perhaps they simply shouldn't have been shared. But I really don't think that the doctrine of "Michael as comforting angel to Christ during the atonement" is a widespread idea in LDS circles or one that threatens to unbalance our understanding of Christ's atonement for us.
*For example, "Jesus was left alone during the act of atonement because God could not bear to witness the sufferings of his Son. The Father fled to the furthest corner of His universe to escape this evil." This particular idea enjoyed a brief period of popularity when I was a youth and young man, and really, if you read it carefully and consider its implications, it is simply appalling. So I have little problem dismantling such nonsense, though I also realize that some people more tender in the gospel might put stock in such things and could be bruised by a vigorous attack against it. So we proceed with caution. But the point is that iconoclasm per se is not what I object to.

$1000 a month for every person?   That seriously lost me.  Do people really think these plans are feasible?  Or that the economy will not implode?

This is just another reason why many of us rooted for Trump and will continue to do so for 2020.
9th Circuit Appeals Court ruled to allow the Trump Admin to remove abortion referrals from federally funded family planning centers.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/449524-white-house-plan-to-ban-federally-funded-clinics-from-giving-abortion

I think it depends on the situation, but if someone has the opportunity to change, then choose the right.  Otherwise choose the kind.  Example.  Your friend has a spot of dirt on his nose.  The right and kind thing is to to tell him, so he can fix it.  Hermione may have been unkind to Ron when she pointed out his dirty nose, but she did the right thing.   Now, say he has two mismatched socks.  It would be right to tell him so, but if he can't change his socks, all you have done is made him self conscious about them and he can do nothing about it.

This is the same for me.  I specifically wanted this exact game.

Mission Accomplished.

Having known lots of Protestants and Mormons, and watching the way they tend to live their lives I am sorely tempted to observe:
Protestants call themselves sinners—but most of them don’t believe it.
Mormons call themselves saints—but most of them don’t believe it.  
 

I appreciate and respect that on a personal level.  But with all due respect, this seems less like an argument that I’ve misunderstood your theology; and more like a protestation that you personally are a good guy in spite of the fatalistically libertine underpinnings of the theology being advanced.  Which is fair, given the context of my observation (which I perhaps rendered in an overly personal way); but it doesn’t really address the underlying theological conundrum:  fundamentally, there seems to be no universal reason or need for the sort of ongoing contrition or penitence or resolve that fires your own personal faith-journey.
Your post also strikes me as taking a simplistic view of what sin is and how it affects us—in other words, what the true “wages of sin” really are.  
For example:  I commit adultery.  I am converted.  I have overcome my sin!  I then commit adultery again.  
Now, maybe by virtue of that earlier conversion I have somehow escaped the eternal damnation that I deserve.  But the there are other wages of sin.  There’s the cycle of character rot in my own soul that the act of adultery both results from, and reinforces.  There’s the spiritual and perhaps material harm done to my partner in adultery.  There’s the heartbreak to my wife, the loss of trust to my children, the material consequences of unintended pregnancy and disease and divorce.  Can I really say I have “overcome” my predisposition for adultery on Monday, and act as Satan’s agent for unleashing all of these horrors on Tuesday?
This is the difference I’m seeing between Latter-day Saint theology, as compared to your paradigm.  In yours, the approach seems to be to look at one’s sins and shrug and say “well, I’m a sinner and Jesus covered it, so on to the next day; and I know I’ll rise in the resurrection as a better person, so I don’t need to grapple with the fallout of what I’ve done or try to do better going forward, except insofar as I may find doing so to be personally fulfilling due to my material circumstances or my idiosyncratic sense of altruism.”  The LDS approach seems to be more along the line of “Yes, I sin.  Call me a sinner—whatevs.  I’ve known that for years.  But I’m not going to perseverate on it.  It’s my job to work hand-in-hand with Jesus to become less of a sinner now and try to contain the consequences of my fallen nature, rather than standing idly by while my nature continues to degenerate and innocent third parties suffer for my reprobate acts; and the further along I get in that process now, the better off I’ll be on the long run.”
 

Folks, @AbramM simply knows way more than we do, and is enlightened—some would say "woke"—beyond our poor ability. This is why he is qualified to get on the "Learn about the Mormon* Church" subforum and lecture us about our improper doctrine.
*Isn't it time we renamed the forum?

So you are a Baptist. Lucky guess
Joking aside, we agree on Law requiring a need for a Savior and that the purpose of law is not to condemn us to hell - totally agreed  2 Nephi 2 is a fantastic read here. Here are a couple of excerpts:
2 Nephi 2:5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
You are also right about conviction of sin - we tend to call that "Godly sorrow" which is different than the one who is sorry only because they were caught. Sorrow unto salvation.
We label ourselves children of God and believe in a divine destiny. I am aware of Baptist's beliefs as far as heavenly destiny. This difference in perspective is also why we don't go around calling ourselves sinners as our destiny is to overcome sin entirely through Jesus Christ - and to perfect ourselves through Him (which won't happen in this life. This life is but a step on that path.)
I think another good example here is many protestants celebrate the death of Jesus Christ where members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints focus on his life - and the fact he is alive today. We equate the consequence of sin as spiritual death, or separation from God, just as physical death is the death of the body and is separation from this world. We believe we can overcome both through Jesus Christ - liberated from both spiritual and physical death. We believe this liberation from sin can happen daily and weekly as we partake of the sacred sacrament.
I don't think you meant "I always want to be convicted of my sin" - An eternal convict?

I believe it means that the house of Israel (i.e. the remnant of the tribe of Joseph, i.e. descendants of Lehi) will be judged by the 12 apostles that Jesus chose in Israel.   Now, does that mean the original 12 men (because Judas would be difficult).  I think rather it means the apostles of that dispensation, whoever they may be.  But Peter, James and John would be the top picks I would assume.

 

The point is, those examples of racism are often experienced by people who aren't a minority.  It's like you are comparing bad experiences of one group to the ideal life of white people.  Fact is, a lot of white people are shot by cops.  And per-encounter statistics show that whites are actually more likely to be shot than blacks.  But we never, EVER hear about these stories, because they don't fit the narrative.

A few years ago I read an article that included a question something like, "Have any of these things happened to you?" or "How many of these things have happened to you?", followed by a big long list of stuff that had happened to the black author or their friends/relatives (I don't remember exactly what the article said about that). The clear implication was that white people would have experienced few if any.
There were about three that hadn't happened to me.
I can definitely believe that those things happen more to black people, but what I thought the article really demonstrated was that while yes, I have never experienced life as a black woman (or man), the average black person has never experienced life as a white person.

This just sparked an idea in my head.   A missionary is defined by his role, but also by his actions.  If a missionary decides to stop doing the work, stops wearing a suit an tie, abandons his companion and decides to just start living as a regular person, is he still a missionary?