mordorbund

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.

My point is this "Praise the dead" mentality does nothing to end the cultures of crime or police brutality. Too many claim to be fine with these cultures until someone dies. Suddenly that victim is a saint and the cultures that led to the death are both cherished and shamed--depending on which side produced the victim.
We can't expect crime culture to exist without consequences and police to die dealing with it.

For the sake of discussion: The conundrum for many seems to be prayer and the Holy Spirit. As an example, when missionaries ask an investigator to pray about the veracity of the Book of Mormon, if the answer they receive is a yes, then they are told that the answer came from the Lord. If the investigator says the answer they received was a no, they are told the answer didn't come from God, they are told it came from Satan or their own feelings, etc etc etc.
 
In a few words, as long as the answer received through prayer agrees with Church doctrine then automatically comes from God. So basically yes, use prayer but it needs to agree with the Church. So prayer becomes more as a confirmation tool rather than finding out the truth. NOT saying it is wrong, I am pointing out why some people might have issues with this and I understand.

There is really nothing to fear, that's why we have the wonderful gift of Prayer and the Holy Spirit that can confirm to us the truth of all things.
 
"Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception, I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer, and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety." (Elder Henry B. Eyring).

I've focused on one gun, one holster, one right way to do things.  My duty - gun only exists in three places: My person, locked in my car, or in the gun safe.  If it's anywhere else, I'm failing in my duty and being an irresponsible gun owner.  
 
I focus on mindset.  I think about all the times I'd much rather risk injury than use my firearm.  Me and my family go with this: 80 ways to not be there in the first place, 10 ways to run the other way, 6 ways to hide, 4 ways to take action to stop the threat.
 
Wife and I went with matching Glock 26's.  After gathering eight bajillion opinions from countless people, I found more value in 9mm low cost, lower kick, specialty ammo's effectiveness, and Glock's quality, smaller frame, and easy maintenance than I did in the valid selling points of other setups.
 
I find myself unable to enjoy shooting and carrying like other folks.  The weighty matters are just too sobering for me.  But while there may not be a lot of fun involved, there is plenty of resolve and confidence.

Charley Brown: 
I wonder why they always call him a "blockhead" when his head is round/circular?  

sxfrits pretty much covered the first part of your questions for me. I'll have to think about the second part. Part of it is the inherent organizational structure where people who are moving into or out of the ward get help, sick or struggling families given meals and gifts. Yet none of this is mandatory and requires individuals to decide to participate as they can. The other part is encouragement of service, and advocating sites like http://www.justserve.org/aboutus/ to help people serve. The other part is when teaching about service contesting some of the excuses for people to not serve.

All the years i served as a Bishop I did encourage a few couples to get Married outside the Temple first. Boy did I take some grief over the one couple I told that too. Wow!! I had my reasons for telling them to do so.

Both Edersheim and McConkie held the Traveler's opinion that the shepherds were tending temple-sheep.
 
Some additional thoughts:
 
http://askgramps.org/11162/shepherds-at-christmas
 

The Church also properly understands the difference between "poor" and "needy" as they taught me this.  Needy are those who may be down and out but with a little help can get back on their feet. The "poor" are those who lack resources to overcome poverty or other difficulties.
 
The Church has training programs worldwide for assisting people in education and employment. My son's brother-in-law recently completed a motorcycle repair course sponsored by the Church and held at the Mission House in Peru. The primary mode of transporation in that city is motorbike. A dozen men qualified and were trained in that class for jobs that can help them provide in a city otherwise steeped in poverty.

Great question!  We help the poor and needy in several very specific and direct/tangible ways.
 
* We collect fast offerings monthly. Most active members give something to the fast offering each month. We're asked for the cost of two meals (however we choose to judge that). We have been encouraged to give as much as we feel we can afford. I've seen small families give $100 and even $200 a month. I've seen people give a dollar, but most are about $15 to $20. Multiply that by a few million people a month.
* Those funds are distributed to members of the church at the discretion of the bishop. They pay for electric, medical, housing - on a short term/basis.
* The excess funds are given to the stake and the church in general, for use in the building and maintenance of "storehouses, canneries and farms",or to share with wards that don't cover their own local short-term needs.  We volunteer our time to work the canneries. I'm sure you can find a lot of info on this online. 
* We allow people to give to specific funds to help out in times of crisis. We mark our tithing slip for "Tornado in Arkansas", or "Japan Tsunami", and the money goes directly to the relief effort.
* Our church always helps the general community when there is a crisis. Both financially from Salt Lake, or physically by local or gathered Saints. 
 
Again, I am sure you can find a lot of info online at Mormon.org or just searching in general.

So was Jared Loughner; but you know what? It didn't matter. Conservatives were still regaled with hair-raising tales of how a Sarah Palin-sponsored campaign flyer depicting incumbents in bull's eyes was just the sort of "eliminationist rhetoric" that causes these things to happen.In this case, you've got honest-to-gosh leftists flat-out saying "let's kill cops" (or, in Mayor DeBlazio's case, openly praising demonstrators as they say it). The NYPD union demands DeBlazio walk back his support, he refuses and doubles down instead; and a week later--wonder of wonders!--some moonbat takes 'em at their word and actually kills some cops. And suddenly the media's all "yesh, yesh; terrible thing the way that happened, and we have (harrumph!) quite a problem with mental illness in this country, doncha know?"
"Tragic", to me, implies "unavoidable" or at least "unintended". To the contrary, the conditions that led to these police shootings were created deliberately; and their consequences could have been (and in fact were) foreseen. DeBlazio owns this the way Tom Ford owns the murder of the Smith brothers at Carthage; and that's why a police officer retorted "No, we aren't" to DeBlazio's face when offered a consoling "we're all in this together" the other day; and that's why dozens of officers turned their backs on him en masse at the hospital.

Well, I just meant that if one regards the succour of the poor as a requirement, as a duty, as a necessary and irksome chore, then one is bound to have a fairly jaundiced view of philanthropy. On the other hand, if you love the people, as Jesus wants, then providing for their needs is no less a pleasure than providing for one's family. It's a question of attitude, not external imperative.
 
Cheers, 2RM.

Listen to President Monson and how he encourages us to help others.

I view an organization as an entity so yes, I think organizations are expected to act responsibly in Gospel matters. We are at a greater strength to act as a group.  That does not absolve us individually.  As we become aware of opportunities to assist, we are obligated to act.