jerome1232

I love the miracle of forgiveness.  It is such a wonderful and terrific book to me.
Spencer W. Kimball did express a regret about this book from what I understand.  He stated that he focused too much on the sin and condemnation part and NOT enough about the actual miracle of forgiveness itself.  I believe he stated that if he had to do it over he would have focused a lot less of the book on the sin and condemnation and much more on the forgiveness, atonement, and redemption portion.  He would have stressed how much we are saved by mercy and grace.
His point, I think, was to show that without grace, we are doomed.  We cannot be saved without it.  Even if we do all that we can do, we will not be able to make it.  A majority of the book is used to point this out.  Only at the end does it start to shed light that we can be saved, even as sinners, as long as we continue to try to be perfect and try to do what the Lord tells us.  That by repentance, baptism, and renewal of our vows regularly (sacrament, temple attendance) can we show that we trust the lord and accept his atonement and thus be saved.
I think if Spencer W. Kimball could have rewritten it he would have only spent around 1/3 of what he did on the first idea (condemnation) and far more (2/3 of the book) on the idea of salvation and the atonement. 
As it stands, a majority of the book is about how we, as sinners, are unable to save ourselves.  That, left to our own devices, we are condemned.
Only a small portion of the book at the very end addresses how we are saved by the love and mercy of the lord.  It is very easy to let the first portion overcome that of which we read in the second portion, but ironically, it is the second portion which may be the most important.

There’s nothing inherently “sinful” about wine.  We Latter-day Saints have been asked not to partake of it as a token of a covenant that pertains specifically to us, in this dispensation.  But it’s no more problematic for Jesus to feed Jews wine, than it would be for Him to feed us pork.

...wait... does gray scaling the image count?
*slowly backs away
*frantically searches for a new avatar.
 

 

This is completely and exactly what Jesus prayed for us in John 17:21.  Jesus, a person in that Godhead worships the Father and wishes for us to be one exactly like they are.

I really learned something today. Kudos @anatess2! Honestly, I was not completely sure I understood your statement right. So, I went over to lds.org, and found the article Becoming Like God.(BTW, if this topic is of interest, especially to other non-LDS, like myself, I highly recommend this 5-minute read). It said what you did--that LDS will always worship Heavenly Father, and though exalted, must remain in complete unity with the Godhead. So, while I may not be converted, I now see how LDS can truly consider themselves monotheists. Thank you.

LDS are monotheists.  There is ONE God.  Different divine persons, but ONE God.
 
For a more detailed walk through:
LDS and Athanasian Christians both believe:
The Father is 100% divine.
The Son of God, Jesus Christ is 100% divine.
The Holy Spirit is 100% divine.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are all without beginning nor end. 
The Father is not the Son, nor vice verse. Neither of them are the Spirit.
The Father, Son, and Spirit together are 1 God.
 
The difference comes in:
Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 1 God through unity.
Athanasian Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 1 God through consubstantiation.

This is a very interesting but slightly technical discussion. So buckle up.
First: The English term "to anoint" means "to consecrate someone to do some particular sacred duty by putting oil on his head". In ancient times, this was a common practice; today, it is extremely rare outside our Church.
Now, the Old Testament was written primarily in an early form of ancient Hebrew. The term used in the Old Testament for "anointed" was māšîaḥ (Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ‎), or in the English transliteration, messiah. It referred specifically to the man or men that the ancient Hebrews believed would arise and be anointed to deliver them from bondage.
The New Testament was written primarily in Koine, the Greek dialect from the Alexandria (Egypt) area that was commonly spoken all over the Mediterranean during late antiquity (i.e. the Roman period). The Koine translation for the term messiah was christos (Koine Greek Χριστός), which means exactly the same thing ("anointed") and is the term used in the New Testament.
In other words, "Christ" and "Messiah" are the same word, or at least words with the exact same meaning, one from an ancient Greek dialect and the other from an ancient Hebrew dialect. Nephi probably did not speak the ancient Hebrew dialect of the Old Testament, and certainly did not speak Koine Greek, which would not be developed for centuries after his time. So whatever intermediate ancient Hebrew word he used, the translator of the Book of Mormon was free to use whatever English term or terms he saw fit to convey the thought. It appears that the English word "anointed" wasn't quite right, but the common Greek-derived English word "Christ" filled the bill perfectly. So "Christ" is used in the Book of Mormon because the translator saw fit to use it.

Sometimes, I soak my meats in sugar.

I have one small thing to add. I did not serve a mission. I made some big mistakes, I confessed before my endowment. During the repentance process I met a girl, I honestly didn't  think a mission was an option anymore. I proposed to her. Then the stake president tells me I can serve my mission. I choose to get married to her in the Temple instead.  I love my wife deeply, I love the family we have together. But I will always regret not choosing to serve a mission. I feel like a Jonah to a degree.
I would advice you to give the Lord His two years and let life sort itself after that.

That's for ex-members.
Implies some of us aren't (for Christ).
Personally, I don't like the idea of the Lord's name in a URL or site name - seems like it would cause too-casual use of his name.  But that's me.
I like MormonHub too, but I'm very glad that the owners decided to follow the prophet's counsel to not refer to the Church or its members as "Mormon":
I always think of "MormonHub" as a central / gathering place for members of the Church, thus replacing "Mormon" with "Latter-day Saint" is the closest way to adhere to the guidelines: Latter-daySaint(s)Hub.
Even if it's not so obvious to people who are not members, (a) it's still unique to us (as far as I know), (b) it shows that we follow the counsel of the prophet, and (c) it helps make "Latter-day Saint" more common, thus increasing the chance others will use it.  This seems like a more-than-worthwhile effort.

“The hub formerly known as Mormon”, expressed in written form by some character from the Deseret Alphabet?
 

But wait, I thought intoxicated persons cannot consent to sex, phew, why she almost raped him since she was sober!

I like the suggestion for Latter-day Saint Hub. It's an equivalent to the phrasing "mormonhub". I cast all 3.5k of my votes for it.

I just can't help, everytime this sort of thing props up. If a drunk woman began taking off a man's clothes and he was able to dip out before she could finish. Would it ever come back to haunt her? I guess that isn't useful. It doesn't matter much.
I don't know which story to believe. Heck I could believe Kavanaugh actually did do it, but has zero recollection of the event. Alcohol has that effect. It's entirely possible he's a great guy, we have all of those character witnesses, but even great people do really stupid things, particularly when they are intoxicated.

Let's play pretend, let's say we find out that there's a video of a heavily intoxicated, barely able to walk Kavanaugh attempting to clumsily take off a woman's clothes all these years ago. Let's pretend this is the only nick we can find. Maybe I'd like to look harder at other nominations, but does it *really* make him unfit to be a supreme court justice? I'm not really convinced of that. Maybe if there was some sort of pattern. Maybe if there were other issues with his character. Maybe if he had drinking issues to this day it would matter more to me. But... I don't know, the time, the youth, the intoxication... doesn't make it right, but, I can't say it colors my view too darkly of who he is now really.
 

Please don't make it a play on words.  It puts a non-serious connotation to the site.
LDSHub or LatterdaySaintshub is best.
I still access this site using lds.net.  

On a more serious note, given the history of the name of the Church, the revelation in scripture driving President Nelson's emphasis strikes me as accepting the self-appellation of "saints" while reminding us that we must collectively and institutionally bear the name of Jesus Christ. In that spirit, both elements can be captured with the shorter phrase:
Saints in Christ or just
Christ's saints I don't think it's a violation of the spirit of the revelation to embrace the name Mormon for the sake of search engine optimization so long as the focus still remains on the name of Jesus Christ.
Mormons in Christ Christ's Momons Of course, the downside of taking on such a name in a site is that everyone will speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world, so I might have to speak less.
 
[did I say downside? perhaps that's an upside...]

I like the suggestion for Latter-day Saint Hub. It's an equivalent to the phrasing "mormonhub". I cast all 3.5k of my votes for it.

I like the suggestion for Latter-day Saint Hub. It's an equivalent to the phrasing "mormonhub". I cast all 3.5k of my votes for it.

I like the suggestion for Latter-day Saint Hub. It's an equivalent to the phrasing "mormonhub". I cast all 3.5k of my votes for it.

I had a better seat than @Vort did, I had a better seat than @Vort did!
Apparently a better listening position, too. :-)

Possibly.  I saw an article last night noting that Kavanaugh was floated as a SCOTUS pick in a New Yorker article back in ‘12 and suggesting he is the victim of a very long setup.  
And, yeah; advocating a higher standard of personal morality will always expose us to demands that we live according to our own standards.  I don’t know if Kavanaugh has or hasn’t observed those standards.  I am reasonably confident that if he hasn’t, there are lots of people who *have*.  And frankly, while Kavanaugh was ideologically a reasonably solid pick; he wasn't my first choice and we have a pretty deep bench of rock-ribbed conservative constitutionalists to pick from.  
IMHO Trump should tell the Dems, “Look—the Senate can confirm Kavanaugh, or not.  But if it doesn’t give him a vote by October 15, my next three nominees are Amy Barrett, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz.  So—have fun with that.”

No sweat. I was intending on rocking myself to sleep in the fetal position tonight anyways!

Your are encouraging it and it is.  Mob rule is the ultimate social backlash.  When your lesser forms of social backlash do not work (which they are not) the only option left is to escalate the backlash.  Escalated enough it is mob rule
 
And in-spite of your continued slanderous implication of my character I have answered.  I believe in exercising righteous judgment as outlined and instructed in the scriptures... and summarized  by Elder Oaks here https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng&_r=1
 
You are not the only one that did not vote for Trump.  I count four in this thread alone.  You, me,  NeuroTypical and Just_A_Guy.  And we are just the ones that have spoken up so far I am sure there  more.  I am also sure there are many more voters here who looked at Hilary then looked at Trump.  Then decided to hold their nose and vote for Trump.  Inspite of this we get people who because we disagree with them, tell is we are to blinded by our own politics to see the flaws in the man. (a man we did not vote for or voted for reluctantly)  This massive misjudgment  on their part results in their total loss of creditability... they do not recognized it is because of their flawed judgment that they are being countered and discredited.  They are too invested in there own preconceived ideas of what they think and assume we are to see the truth of the matter or even listen to the words we have plainly and repeatedly spoken
 
 
 
 
 
 

Oh, there are probably *some* Mormons out there who think this way; but anecdotally—they are a minority.  In my Utah County Republican neighborhood caucus during the 2016 primaries, Trump only got four or five votes; out of over 300 cast.  And our neighborhood is so heavily Mormon, that caucus night was basically an extra session of stake conference.  
Also, for the sake of pedantry; I would note that Trump probably doesn’t have enough Gospel knowledge to become a son of perdition.  So I would venture to guess that he qualifies for the Telestial Kingdom at minimum.  

No sweat. I was intending on rocking myself to sleep in the fetal position tonight anyways!