mordorbund

I disbelieve the idea that we do not need to live the law of consecration. We most certainly do need to live it. It's part of the covenants we make in the temple. It is as important as the law of chastity, and as applicable to us.

We dedicate all we have, all our spiritual and physical gifts, all our money, all our effort, to the establishment and building up of God's kingdom on earth. Everything we do is to further this end.
 
Naturally, this encompasses such things as paying an honest tithe, but is far more comprehensive. It means that we seek to be the best spouse and parent we can. It means that we fulfill our callings and seek to magnify them. It means we perform our daily devotions, repent of our weaknesses, go to the temple, be good neighbors, do missionary work, and otherwise center our lives around Jesus Christ and his kingdom, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It looks very much like fast offerings based in abundance and surplus and not just the abundance of a singular monthly fast.

I personally love the Pearl of Great Price and I love the book of Abraham. My wife and I read and studied the Pearl of Great Price and learned to love it even more. I hope more members take the time to read and study it.

I just read this earlier this week in the account of the Prophet's martyrdom.
 
 
Hyrum is also identified as Patriarch Hyrum Smith, so it sounds like they were contemporaries.
 
EDIT: and look - your copy even says it was done in Macedonia!

Something that I think is very much missing from this thread.  Everyone should have an attitude of giving.  The poor should be allowed and expected to give just as much as the rich.  What I would like to get away from is the idea that offering money is the best kind of giving.  In reality it is the worse.  We should give of our time and effort first.  And of our abundance of goods from our harvest next and lastly give of money.  Money being the least of value.  Those without much harvest or money should give freely of what they do have - time and effort.
 
This is why I love the LDS welfare programs.  There is no difference between rich and poor - both in giving and in receiving help.

I agree; this sounds like "Uncle John" Smith--Here's his Wikipedia article and here's an interesting Dialogue article on him.

Some tips about killing for the table.  You do not want to chase the animals around or get them excited.  That can create adrenaline that will dis-flavor the meat.  Move the chicken into a area where they can be easily caught.  It is best to make this a daily ritual long before they are butchered so they are use to it.  Also it is a good idea to hobble chickens as a preparation.  Again this should be something a chicken is trained for so that the condition is not unusual.  Take the chicken to the butcher area genteelly.  Chickens will become memorized for a time with a line or a string.  Genteelly lay their head down on a block with a string perpendicular to their eyes.  One person calming the chicken - the other behind with the hatchet ready.
 
Once the chicken has bled out; drop the chicken in scalding water for a few seconds - 15 to 20 or so.  Then remove the feathers.  They will come out quite easily.  With the feathers gone you will want to finish the butchering by gutting the animal and removing all the organs leaving only the meat and bones.  Clean the animal by rinsing with water.  Also clean the kill area otherwise the smell will get much worse. 
 
You will now want to cure the meat by hanging the caucus in a cool place for about a day.  Do this right with an animal you have raised and cared for yourself - the meat will be unequaled.  Also when you gather your family for dinner and give thanks for your food - all those that were involved will be emotionally touched by that prayer and grateful for what is provided.
 
One last point - thought I do not intend this to draw anger but it is my personal belief that by being involved such in what you eat brings much more respect and thanks to a meal and tends to limit over eating and being indulgent or glutinous.

"That's why fur always wins out over feathers in my book" - anonymous
 

I wonder what Mary and Joseph did with the gifts from the wise mens? Did the gold go to a college fund? Was the frankincense and myrrh used to cover infant odors?

Yeah, what is a left-enant as well? Americans have solved this one :) lew-tenant makes so much more sense.

My intention was to compare the intensity of temptation Jesus experienced to that of a naive young man facing the same--NOT to imply that Jesus was naive.  His handling of the Pharisees, Saduccees, Teachers of the Law, Roman leaders, and even his own disciples, all suggest that Jesus was perceptive and most aware.

A surgeon, an engineer, and a lawyer were arguing about which profession was the oldest, and the doctor said, "Well, on the fifth day of Creation, God took a rib from Adam, so surgery is the oldest profession." The engineer said, "But, before that, God created the heavens and earth from chaos, so engineering is the oldest profession." And the lawyer said, "Yes, but who created the chaos?"

We actually have a pretty clearcut example out of the Book of Mormon, in Alma 24.
 
...they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth. ...rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives;
 
And we also find out how that worked out for them.  Three short verses later. 
 
...the Lamanites began to fall upon them, and began to slay them with the sword. And thus without meeting any resistance, they did slay a thousand and five of them.  
 
Overlooked thing #1: These folks used to be the bad guys.  They had turned from a life of killing and bloodshed.  They were murderers, and in this way they repented.  
 
Anyway, we're told everything worked out for the best (except for the thousand and five killed, and their friends and families).  Because:
 
"And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain; and those who had been slain were righteous people, therefore we have no reason to doubt but what they were saved."
 
Sounds a lot like "Oh, I'll just give up my means of self-defense, and if I die it'll be ok because I'll be in heaven".  I have kids and a wife.  I gotta say I don't see the appeal, although I understand why it appeals to others.  
 
Anyway we fast forward to chapter 53, and these folks have become a burden on the other, non-oath-of-peace-taking Nephites:
 
"And now behold, I have somewhat to say concerning the people of Ammon, who, in the beginning, were Lamanites; but by Ammon and his brethren, or rather by the power and word of God, they had been converted unto the Lord; and they had been brought down into the land of Zarahemla, and had ever since been protected by the Nephites."
 
Overlooked thing #2:  The pacifists still needed protection from the armed Nephites, against enemies who were willing to kill.  Peace didn't break out, 2ndratemind's utopia was never realized.  
 
The people of Ammon saw what was happening: 
 
"But it came to pass that when they saw the danger, and the many afflictions and tribulations which the Nephites bore for them, they were moved with compassion and were desirous to take up arms in the defence of their country."
 
Overlooked thing #3: They were on the verge of giving up their pacifism, renouncing their oath, and getting ready to fight and kill again.  It was offensive to them that their lives of peace were bought with the sacrifice and blood of other folks.  
 
Overlooked thing #4:  Not only did the Nephites fight, kill, and die to protect them, but their own children ended up becoming warriors to fight and kill in order to protect them.
 
"... they had many sons, who had not entered into [the oath of peace]; therefore they did assemble themselves together at this time, as many as were able to take up arms, and they called themselves Nephites.  And they entered into a covenant to fight for the liberty of the Nephites, yea, to protect the land unto the laying down of their lives; yea, even they covenanted that they never would give up their liberty, but they would fight in all cases to protect the Nephites and themselves from bondage."
 
In 2ndratemind's mind, all we need to make America a better place, is for someone to start a wave of social change by taking a stand.  Then peace breaks out and nobody needs guns any more, and hooray everyone.  In reality, that's possible, as long as there are still plenty of good guys out there with guns to protect them in their safe little pacifist bubble.
 
... And they aren't targeted by Islamic extremists and beheaded, like we saw in Oklahoma.
 
... And they aren't caught in the crossfire of a gang war, or they don't become a random targeted killing by someone trying to gain respect in their gang.
 
... And they don't become a home invasion victim, or surprise a burglar who decides they'd rather kill than go back to prison.
 
... And they don't have a violent ex- who isn't impressed by a restraining order.
 
... And they don't have their kids in a school where someone decides to go out with a bang and take as many innocents as they can.  

No, you're missing nothing. I think somewhere between these ideas, that Christians ought not be rich while others starve, and that, for Christians, charitable giving, through taxation or otherwise, ought to be a pleasure, you will find my stance. 
 
Best wishes, 2RM.

I think Traveller's suzerain illustration describes it well. The prophet is the Lord's representative. He is accountable to God for what he teaches. If a person embarks on a differing path, then that person bears the full burden of that choice as though a revelation came direct (which is great if God really excuses you from serving a mission or wants you to go into debt for this really important thing; not so great if the blanket rule applies to you too).

I heartily endorse LP's post and would just suggest that you try to lay some groundwork so that, when she feels she's ready to go through channels, it's as easy on her as possible. For example:
1) As EQP you have jurisdiction over her home teachers. Make sure her home teachers are sensitive individuals she can trust and with whom she has good repoire; and consider a change-up if appropriate.
2) Depending on the RS president's personality and sensitivity, you MIGHT want to consider letting the RS president know, in general terms, that your friend has had some personal trauma lately; that you aren't at liberty to disclose details and would hate to see the RS pres start grilling her, but that hopefully she can take your friend under her wing a bit.
3) Keep your priorities straight. It would be nice to see law enforcement nail the scumbag; but rape is so hard to prosecute and your forensic window is so nearly shut; that IMHO unless she makes a police report and has a kit done in the next 72 hours, you should probably focus your attention on helping your friend rather than initiating legal process against the perp. At most, you might (with friend's permission) call the perp's bishop and let him know that there are allegations against the perp; that the victim is in no emotional state to make a formal allegation at present but that you felt he should be aware so that he can at least put the young women in his congregation on notice (maybe not about the perp specifically--that might run afoul of slander laws--but an enrichment night about personal safety wouldn't go amiss).

Once again, I need help in reconciling posts that don't agree in my mind. In this thread, I'm hearing that the philanthropy necessary to care for the poor cannot be required of Christians as that would eliminate the Christianity of the giver. It must instead be given out of the abundance of charity (Christ-like love).
 
And then I see posts like this elsewhere:
  
Where donors are selected not just because of their wealth but also because of their Christianity. And what's more, their charity is demanded of them! 
 
This latter comment seems more in line with your other posts, but this thread has a really different tone to it. Am I missing something then?

Very strongly urge her to go to the police immediately. It's too bad days have passed, but there might still be DNA evidence to establish her claim.

It may be interesting, given the context of the thread, to talk about the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. It's a Victorian - say 1800 to 1900AD - distinction that has fallen out of favour in my country, the UK. The distinction is between those who do, and do not, merit charitable help.The idea was that there are some poor people who are poor through no fault of their own, and other poor people who are poor because they gamble, drink alcohol, do drugs, smoke tobacco, and generally have no one to blame but themselves for their impoverishment.
 
I have to say that my sympathies are with the poor, irrespective of whether they might deserve or might not deserve charitable assistance. Before we cast judgement, we would do well to walk a mile in the boots of the accused; and it seems to me that a modern economy has some very sophisticated methods of extracting cash from poor people with a low level of educational achievement.
 
Best wishes, 2RM

Anciently the poor were defined as the widow and the fatherless.  I would also ask not only how individuals or institutions care for the poor and the needy but how they determine who the poor and needy are?  If someone cannot or will not determine who are the poor and needy - that is a very obvious red flag that they do not and cannot be much help and that whatever they think their doing is nothing more than a vein cop-out excuse for religion or charity to justify their foolish misguided selfish vanity into thinking they have done their part and can pat themselves on their back and think themselves better than what they condemn as non or qualified givers.
 
One thing we should have learned from history is that the poor and needy are not defined as those with small or no amounts of money.  A multimillionaire on a wilderness path with a broken leg is just as needy as a popper on the same path with a broken leg.  We should know that throwing money at the poor and needy is not necessarily help.  In the just presented example - someone who has fallen on a wilderness path and broken a leg - being given money is not help.  We have also learned that giving money to certain poor is often not helpful at all.  How foolish and stupid can we be to do things that are not helpful and then condemn those that do noting - thinking that doing something that is not helpful is so much more wise and beneficial than those that do nothing????  It can be demonstrated rhetorically that doing something that is not actually beneficial is worse than doing nothing at all.

The problem is the use of the word "translation" in the current heading of Doctrine and Covenants 7. The parchment in question was not in Smith's possession at any time but because it's quite plausible that he used the Urim and Thummin just like he did with the golden plates, he used the word "translate" to describe the process.
The word "translation"implies that there was an actual document that was in his possession and that he read it, interpreted, and translated, it did not happen that way. Perhaps, a better wording would have been "seen through revelation".
Having said, a few verses in Doctrine and Covenants 7 were added in 1835 under the supervision of Smith himself, right after he was done translating section 7 he worked on a few parts of the book of John, one can assume he received further knowledge that he later on he thought important to add.