MrShorty

It's that Bucket woman!!

It's pronounced "Bou-quet"..... 

I'm more excited for it now that my wife and I just got called to teach the 4-year-olds in primary. It'll be sweet and fun, but also...1 hour just sound much better than 2 all of a sudden.

One of my pet rants in elders’ quorum is that, speaking as someone whose job inclides picking apart “testimony” in a legal context and showing that people don’t really “know” what they thought they knew—an effective testimony must be competent, meaning (among other things) that it is not by nature conclusory or hearsay; it simply relates a person’s direct experience.  It is one thing to stand up in court and say “I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, with every fiber of my being, that John killed Fred”.  It is another to say “I saw John lift up a gun and aim it at Fred, and pull the trigger, and I heard a shot, and then Fred slumped over and I could see blood coming out of a wound to his chest that hadn’t been there earlier; and then I knelt beside Fred and observed that he had no pulse and was not breathing; and sure, maybe there’s some other explanation for the fact that we buried Fred a week later; but my experience leads me to believe that  Fred was in fact dead and John killed him.”  The second variant is less certain, but more articulate and ultimately more persuasive.  
I’m like @bytebear:  My “testimony” of President Nelson is based less on a direct revelation saying “yes, he is definitely a prophet”; and more based on a series of inferences that begins with earlier relevant revelations and considers their natural implications for the current question in order to draw a tentative conclusion—and then a sort of feeling in the heart that the logical process I have followed has drawn me to truth.  
In this case I have had a spiritual confirmation of the Church as an institution, I have had spiritual confirmation of the principles of succession within the highest echelon of Church leadership,  and I continue to receive spiritual confirmations of the wisdom of many of the changes President Nelson’s administration is enacting.  Given all that, could President Nelson be a false prophet?  Sure—and for that reason I won’t say I “know” he’s a prophet—but given what I have experienced, that possibility seems almost comically remote; and I’m comfortable saying that I strongly believe in his prophetic call. 
I wonder whether the effectiveness of a spiritual testimony lies less in what we think we “know” about a hyper-specific topic, and more about our ability to honestly and articulately leverage whatever we have experienced into a series of logical conclusions on which we feel comfortable staking the rest of our major life-choices.  You gather the evidence, make some educated guesses, draw a conclusion, make sure you can sleep at night—and then you go to trial with the evidence you have, not necessarily the evidence you wish you had; and through the whole process you try to maintain a sense of humility about what you may not know while still seeing through your adversary’s attempts to blow smoke and get you off-track. 
Perhaps the ultimate proof in the pudding is what we do with our testimonies, and it strikes me that there are few better witnesses than a life well-lived.

Has anyone seen our nearest neighbor.  It is an easy night time target, if you have dark and clear skies.  But you have to use averted vision.
Anyone can find the Big dipper.  Follow the last two stars from the cup of the dipper past the North Star and you hit the W.  (see second picture)
The W is Cassiopeia,  follow the larger spike -about 3 heights of the W -  till you hit Andromeda.  (see first picture)   Then there are 3 stars 2 of which are circled on the image.  If you could imagine the third star was inline with the first 2 start it would be where the Galaxy M31 can be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision
 

This might be an example of Grunt's "less faithful" kind of comments, but can I push back on something, Jane_Doe?
A few months ago (I'm too lazy to go find it right now, but internet search engines should be able to find it, if one felt the need), James McDonald ("Walk in the Word" Christian radio program) said something on his radio show (a series he did defending the Bible) that struck me. He said (necessarily paraphrasing) "The Holy Spirit chose every single word in the Bible." Perhaps it is too much influence from less than conservative Biblical commentators, but I find myself unconvinced that God chose every single word in the Bible. I see more of a God speaks to people/persons and then those people/persons make some kind of record (or someone who later felt that their statements/experiences were worthy of making a more permanent record of). That record not only tries to capture the essence of the divine communication, but also gets filtered through the people's/person's culture and preconceptions to eventually give us something that we believe helps us understand God and our relationship to Him.
Your addition to the 8th AoF reminded me of this, so I will ask -- do we believe that God chose every single word Joseph Smith wrote in the [English] Book of Mormon? Is there room in "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God" to see some human influences (Joseph Smith and his 19th century culture) in the Book of Mormon that may not be exactly divinely inserted into the scripture?
In a past discussion where I brought up the question of slavery in the Bible, that was a common defense -- the Bible includes cultural and human influences that maybe don't perfectly reflect God's divine truth and will. Is there something in the "as far as it is translated correctly" phrase that allows for human elements to be part of scripture? That maybe allows that there can be human elements inserted into the Book of Mormon (and other latter-day scripture)?

This might be an example of Grunt's "less faithful" kind of comments, but can I push back on something, Jane_Doe?
A few months ago (I'm too lazy to go find it right now, but internet search engines should be able to find it, if one felt the need), James McDonald ("Walk in the Word" Christian radio program) said something on his radio show (a series he did defending the Bible) that struck me. He said (necessarily paraphrasing) "The Holy Spirit chose every single word in the Bible." Perhaps it is too much influence from less than conservative Biblical commentators, but I find myself unconvinced that God chose every single word in the Bible. I see more of a God speaks to people/persons and then those people/persons make some kind of record (or someone who later felt that their statements/experiences were worthy of making a more permanent record of). That record not only tries to capture the essence of the divine communication, but also gets filtered through the people's/person's culture and preconceptions to eventually give us something that we believe helps us understand God and our relationship to Him.
Your addition to the 8th AoF reminded me of this, so I will ask -- do we believe that God chose every single word Joseph Smith wrote in the [English] Book of Mormon? Is there room in "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God" to see some human influences (Joseph Smith and his 19th century culture) in the Book of Mormon that may not be exactly divinely inserted into the scripture?
In a past discussion where I brought up the question of slavery in the Bible, that was a common defense -- the Bible includes cultural and human influences that maybe don't perfectly reflect God's divine truth and will. Is there something in the "as far as it is translated correctly" phrase that allows for human elements to be part of scripture? That maybe allows that there can be human elements inserted into the Book of Mormon (and other latter-day scripture)?

Just go first thing in the morning on February 15th.  You can do it.

@zil and anyone else who might have an interest in fountain pen history, or the days when Church magazines accepted paid advertising, or who is just intrigued by the link:
http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2018/12/03/can-i-borrow-your-pen/
 

I truly believe that all of us, at some point or another, will struggle with our faith. Whether it stems from Church history, a Church policy you don't understand or agree with, or simply feeling like you never received that lightbulb moment you've longed for, each of us is going to be faced with questions and concerns. Having questions or concerns or even doubts doesn't make you unfaithful. It doesn't mean that you're doing something wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean you should abandon everything you've loved and lived for because your testimony is struggling. What it does mean is that you've reached the point in your life when your faith is really going to count. After all, what's the purpose of faith if not to carry us through something we don't understand? One of my favorite quotes from Jane Eyre come's from the novel's heroine, Jane. When the man she loves tempts her to do something she feels is wrong, she replies: "Laws and principles are not for the times when there is...
View the full article

I always suspected
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

Philosopher responds, "What is this crap?"

I have successfully observed Venus in daylight on 2 occasions:
1) When I was a teen, randomly lying on the grass in the backyard staring at the sky, and my eyes managed to focus on a small distant dot that never moved against the backdrop of the sky. Years later, comparing to my 2nd observation, I determined that this was Venus and not some weather balloon.
2) A couple of years ago, on a day when the moon was expected to occult Venus during the day, I was hoping to catch the event before the clouds rolled in. Like you, I noted the position of the moon and Venus before the sun rose so I would know where to look for Venus. Even knowing where it should be, it was difficult to see (and I had decent seeing, it sounds like your atmosphere was really turbulent that day). It was like I needed to stare at the correct spot and wait for my eyes/mind to "focus" on Venus. With practice it got easier.
So, it can be done. It is not easy. Part of it is knowing exactly where to look (the moon can help when it is close to Venus), and part of it is getting your eyes to "focus" on the little, faint, whitish-grayish spot against the bright blue background.

As we go about revising our book of hymns, I thought I'd start this thread.  I inherited lots of LDS books from my grandpa, and I've been on a scanning/digitizing/preserving kick recently.  Here - have a 1919 LDS Hymnbook.
 

In our ward, we've instituted the policy that any interview with a child not in the youth program must be conducted with the parent present.
All other members are asked "Would you like a parent, teacher, or another adult to accompany you to this interview?"  Regardless of the answer, the door between the bishop's office and the clerk's office is left slightly ajar.
The issue I have with "all minors have an adult present" is that sometimes minors need to have the ability to speak with their ecclesiastical leader privately and in confidence.  Especially in situations where the minor approaches the leader. There may be things the youth can tell a bishop ("I was out with my friends and we stole a motorcycle. I don't know what to do now.") that he is not obligated to report to law enforcement that other members may be required to report.
The improvements I would request at this point would be
1) a window in the door to the bishop's office (with a privacy screen arranged so that you can see the bishop, but not the interviewee)
2) a formal set of guidelines and philosophies about what interviewees can expect to be asked, including examples of questions that are out of line.
That is, I think we rely too much on our leaders just not committing any form of ecclesiastical abuse. I think it would be prudent to educate the general membership about when a leader has gone too far.

You might enjoy this synopsis of a recent article. Actually, you'd probably enjoy Barlow's work more, as referenced in it.
 

Sorry.

Apologies in advance. I usually find grammar/spelling police irritating rather than helpful, but this one just struck me as too funny to ignore. Divided horses falling over just struck my funny bone. Again, apologies for drawing anyone's attention to it.

An interesting point. I don't know what state schools you compared to, but I don't see this as universally true, though I'm sure it is true in some cases. Comparing to Utah universities, BYU's LDS tuition is about average for state run colleges and universities (including community colleges) and about the same as the cheapest 4 year Utah state run universities (Dixie State is ~10% cheaper than BYU, Weber State and Utah Valley are pretty close to the same as BYU). Non-LDS tuition seems to be similarly positioned relative to other school's out of state tuition. It seems to me that BYU's tuition is well positioned to compete with other school's in the region. Maybe room to expand tuition (if you think it should be more in line with say the University of Utah in terms of tuition). I don't know how the Board of Trustees at BYU views this, and it would ultimately be up to them to make recommendations and such, but they seem inclined to run low to middle of the pack compared to other Utah state post-secondary institutions.
source I used for this comparison: https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/compare/tables/?state=UT

Oh great! Now I look like some moron who didn't get the joke and ruined it for everyone else.

An interesting point. I don't know what state schools you compared to, but I don't see this as universally true, though I'm sure it is true in some cases. Comparing to Utah universities, BYU's LDS tuition is about average for state run colleges and universities (including community colleges) and about the same as the cheapest 4 year Utah state run universities (Dixie State is ~10% cheaper than BYU, Weber State and Utah Valley are pretty close to the same as BYU). Non-LDS tuition seems to be similarly positioned relative to other school's out of state tuition. It seems to me that BYU's tuition is well positioned to compete with other school's in the region. Maybe room to expand tuition (if you think it should be more in line with say the University of Utah in terms of tuition). I don't know how the Board of Trustees at BYU views this, and it would ultimately be up to them to make recommendations and such, but they seem inclined to run low to middle of the pack compared to other Utah state post-secondary institutions.
source I used for this comparison: https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/compare/tables/?state=UT

Perhaps a different (maybe unwelcome perspective). As a dad who, in hindsight, thinks he would have enjoyed and done well at being a stay at home dad -- especially if mom's income potential is so much higher than mine, I am somewhat sympathetic towards your husband's point of view (except for handing junior off to grandma regularly). I can also sympathize with your concern about the things you miss as a parent who works full time outside the home.
I have no idea how best to resolve this issue. If you want to use the traditional gender role thing to break the stalemate, I guess that works (though I note that even in the Proclamation on the Family, allowance is made for "individual adaptation" as circumstances dictate). When all is said and done, this is going to come down to what you and your husband can work out, and I don't expect that it will be an easy thing to work out.

https://thedailyfrick.com/zach-wilson-looking-forward-to-4-interception-performance-against-utah-a-byu-quarterback-tradition/?fbclid=IwAR0inT0PRAvNh6_hSGMK-yQB03QRIWAenV8YwJGIJ44zefDwDXOgeng_hms

The phrasing of the question is odd to me. I don't believe in organic evolution. I accept organic evolution as the best explanation of the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.
Beleive is a faith verb. Evidence is not faith and faith is not evidence, Paul's statements not withstanding. Faith extends where evidence lacks.
Paul's statement that faith is evidence of things unseen is more about the understanding of his day in my interpretation of the statement. 
My understanding of the creation is that there was no death before the fall so evolution is not how God did it. But I'm still interested in human understanding. In the empirical human view, evolution is a very good explanation.