mordorbund

I think Joseph wept for Zion when they were cast out of Missouri. But I don't think the Zion in this verse is the same Zion as later in the revelations. For a year Joseph's revelations encouraged believers to establish Zion and establish the cause of Zion (see D&C 6, 11, 12, and 14). This was before the revelation on the gathering to Zion; it was before the inspired translation of Genesis that would describe Enoch's Zion. So what is this cause of Zion Joseph was occupied with, that kept showing up in his revelations? And would this phrase have any meaning to his contemporaries?

When you read them The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn did you read Jim's name as Twain wrote it or did you censor it? Literary classics are classics for a reason. Sometimes it's simply because it represents its culture of origin. and sometimes it's because there is something there that speaks to the human condition and resonates with the reader. When it's the latter, we should recognize when cultural norms have shifted and artifacts of the original culture interfere with appreciated the work's soul-song. That said, I do think it's worthwhile to keep the original for mature readers looking to understand the original culture (in the case of the former) or who recognize the appeal of the work despite cultural differences rendered by time. On the other hand if Shakespeare has taught us anything with his bawdiness obfuscated through the centuries, it's that in time scholars and high school teachers are more than ready to highlight the controversial portions and laugh off the controversy.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, God is a tremendous enabler. Instead of striking idiots with blight He causes His rain to fall on both the just and the unjust. One of the themes that comes out in the apocryphal accounts of the Flood (and even in our own book of Moses) is that God's generosity to the wicked is an absolute mystery. Enoch, the angels, and later Zenos' gardener all wonder why God puts up with this garbage as long as He does! I sometimes wonder if this is the wisdom of coming to a telestial creation. The Spirit knows all things, but godliness - perhaps even charity - requires that we learn through our own experience how to love those who don't deserve it. That said, I also acknowledge that Jesus did not move away the stone of Lazarus' tomb, and had to be talked down from destroying the Israelites and creating a new nation from Moses' descendants. There's a balance here, and I'm not sure that I know where to draw the line between allowing enabling versus allowing divine discontent. President Oaks has drawn attention to these two forms of divine love and says there's a need for both. But as a general authority he leaves it at general principles and leaves to us to work out what requests we file in each group. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2009/10/love-and-law?lang=eng

@Fether Here's the short version of Milton Friedman explaining the effects of inflation. (full video here).

The strongest argument in favor of stimulus is that the government is morally obligated to pay restitution for the damages it caused. The ones in power shut down economies, so their budgets should reimburse businesses for their losses. The problem I see with this is that 1) it's already too late for many businesses. They're already closed. 2) How do you determine how much they're owed? Perhaps look at each business' quarterly filings from 2019 and pay them the difference? Note that this would be FAR more than is proposed by any stimulus legislation. 3) Where is the money coming from?! Revenue raised in taxes of course - which means the government needs a strong, rebounding economy to rebound the economy! Sorry government. You caused this mess, but I think you should just say "sorry" and give me a hug rather than try to set my broken arm.

The moral argument against federal stimulus is grounded in the realization of where stimulus money comes from: taxes. If only people who paid taxes were getting the stimulus then it would just be a tax break. Instead we have the federal government taking money from one group and giving to another. The analogy often used is imagine I found out that you're struggling financially so I reach in my pocket and give you $600. I tell Carb what's going on and he hands over $600 also. No one is objecting to this (until we find out you're the subject of the charity thread - but we can forego that discussion for now). Where it becomes morally wrong is when I go to Carb and tell him you're struggling financially, and he WILL give you $600 or I will forcibly take $600 from him to give you. The fact that it benefits you does not make it any less of a robbery. What suddenly makes it okay when I don't do it myself but instead vote for some faceless government to bully on my behalf? The logistical argument against federal stimulus is the variance in cost-of-living across the nation. $600 will go a lot farther in Provo, UT than it will in New York City. Rapid inflation (also known as a "soft default" for government loans) penalizes saving. Similarly, income tax penalizes high wages, sales tax penalizes high spending, and property taxes penalizes ownership. Yet despite these penalties we still see wages, spending, and ownership. So there's a tradeoff. In the case of inflation, the economy can handle some, but you don't want so much that it stifles lending (if I loan you $100K today, I want to know that the 200K I get back in 30 years is worth more than the $100K I'm giving you now). You've grouped UBI and stimulus together, but note that these are 2 different things. We used to have a few posters promoting universal basic income, but I haven't seen them for a while. Is UBI something you'd also like to discuss or do you want to keep this focused on stimulus?

Go back to the tried and true methods.

I'm starting to suspect that this "legal loophole" mentality is why God has chosen so many lawyers to be modern apostles. Peter will have an entire legal team at his disposal!

They could have at least had the decency to add a potassium layer on the outside.

D&C 6 also has God pointing out that He speaks to Oliver through enlightening the mind, peace, and memories of previous spiritual experiences. I think when it comes to the Spirit there's a reason why "differences of administration" is a gift.

Joseph Smith taught that many of the early Relief Society sisters had the gift of healing, that it was a gift of the Spirit, and used Mark 16 to justify the practice among the sisters. Those same verses speak of casting out devils and I think the same applies for that.

The car was coming from inside the vehicle.......

In verses 5 & 6 the Lord is clearly speaking to Peter directly. In verse 7 the Lord then speaks to John again. "And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James". Working backwards, who is the brother of James? John is the "thy" and "thee" of this sentence and Peter is the "him". "I will make John to minister for Peter and for John's brother James" makes more sense than "I will make Peter to minister for John and Peter's brother James". As for Peter's desire, I don't think we can freely assume that Peter knows about the work on the other side of the veil, or (if he does know it) how much conviction he has in his knowledge. He had been taught about the Resurrection, but was still shocked to see Jesus in the flesh. He's participated in the 40 day ministry and, rather than take on the mantle of senior apostle, declares to his brethren "I go a-fishing". Even in our own dispensation, there's 6 years between when Joseph Smith is first told that Elijah must com and when he actually does. It's another 6 years between when he learns that Alvin has a place in the Celestial Kingdom and when he learns about the mechanism (baptisms for the dead) that ensures it. With all this, the only thing Joseph reveals about the work on the other side is that "we can't be made perfect without them" and that they also have "administrators". It's not until 80 years later that we finally learn about the missionary force organized on the other side of the veil by Jesus. Returning to Peter, he wrote that Jesus descended to hell to preach to the Noah's generation, but Joseph F. Smith showed that Peter did not fully understand how it was ordered because Jesus did not actually teach them in person but sent emissaries instead. Even if Peter had this knowledge, it's not clear that Peter had this knowledge immediately following the Resurrection.

1. Become good friends with multiple alumni who have rings. 2. Encourage them to get into woodworking.