Anddenex

Humor first -- must watch. Then serious. The purpose of food is to nourish and give means to strengthen our bodies. Some who is starving isn't receiving the proper nourishment nor strength they need. The main problem I see with this is that it is done by tradition. Most of us, including myself, saying to "nourish and strengthen our bodies" because that is what was traditional taught in the home. This means, we are repeating a statement without much thought. I think this is where it is wrong. In that light, if we are sincere there is nothing wrong with the statement because food is to nourish and strengthen us. I'll take any bet against a guy who fasts for 48 hours or starves, and then he and I run a race and see who wins? I'll win that race 10 out of 10 times, unless he/she is an Olympic athlete. Why, because that body hasn't received the proper nourishment which provides strength to exert muscle exercise. As to certain foods, yes, I think it is silly to pray for nourishment from Soda or other treats. To thank is a good thing. I mean, if a person is sincere, I assume, they could say, "Thank you for Diabetes Father, because it reminds me of all the good tasting treats I had in life. Better to life and die, then to not have lived at all." I mean if the prayer is sincere, who am I to make a false judgement? My take away is this: * Is it sincere or genuine * Is it repetitive without thought * And like the comedian, I'm not praying that you pass a drug test if you just dazed and confused all week before that, or at all.

If not aware in the app itself you can send feedback: Meatball menu top right > Help > Send Feedback. I sent feedback with the "Living" app and received a thanks. But as with any update/new feature it will depend on the stakeholder or project manager over that specific portion of the app as to what gets priority. They may have other priorities they have been told to develop. What they lack: No Boolean operators. -- I'd have to know what you mean here for testing. I tested a boolean for "and" and it only pulled up my search results for both and in the Book I specified. So they do have boolean operators, just maybe not what you were expecting. No "quotes" for a phrase. -- They actually have this. You have two options: 1) Put quotes yourself, or 2) Use the pill button choice "Exact Phrase". What they do wrong: (Can't say I agree with this point) Provide a whole bunch of matches that are not in the book specified -- I've not come across this issue. They have the choice options and if you select that option it will only show that Book (i.e Book of Mormon) -- unless you have another book option selected. If you have another book option selected you will need to deselect that option. -- Also for clarification, are you meaning book specified in the search? If so, ya, this won't happen. You need to select "Scripture" >> "Book of Mormon" or whatever you are looking for for it to only show that Book. Provide perfectly poor pairings pertaining to the present point. -- I've not experienced this, as to how I'm interpreting your statement. If I have the right word or phrase I always find what I'm looking for, and sometimes more. But I think your critique with close matches is correct, and with specifically including chapter headings; although, I find with searches chapter headings are always included in the search.

It doesn't need to be a slam dunk, just simply needs to be published as it currently is. It is something we can point to and let the humble mind recognize the oral history and given evidence for that oral history. It puts a wedge in the current "Scientific" census that there were no horses in America. It also then places a conundrum for the scientific community to either accept or to call these American Indians "liars" and that their memories are wrong -- because "science" says so.

This is one of my favorite articles pertaining to horses from actual Native American Indians: https://ictnews.org/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came I particularly find this sentiment important, "We have calmly known we've always had the horse, way before the settlers came. The Spanish never came through our area, so there's no way they could have introduced them to us," reads one quote from a Blackfoot (Nitsitapi) study participant in Collin’s doctoral study." Here's another quote connecting this one, "Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”

Your thought reminds me of this verse that I have pondered a lot. It goes against the grain of the idea that using "fear" is a bad thing. Mormon 9: 27, "O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him." (emphasis mine) Not just fear, but with trembling. I, personally, think the verse is correlated with the following passage of scripture as specified by Jesus, Matthew 10: 28, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (emphasis mine). God is a God of his word, and no amount of whaling and gnashing of teeth is going to change the firm decree of a just and loving God.

The common interpretation we have today is what @zil2 and others have already expressed -- a term of endearment/respect, or simply a common word to address a "married female" at that time. This is also one I think we think too deeply on much like me calling a non-biological "Woman" Mother. If someone a thousand years later read a statement of mine calling this other "Woman" Mother, I can see someone saying, "Why does Anddenex call this woman Mother when she isn't his mother"? In the New Testament the word "Woman" is used multiple times, Christ used the word "Woman" in the following verses of scripture (emphasis in scripture mine): John 4: 21, "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." Luke 13: 12, the woman with a spirit of infirmity of eighteen years, "Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity." John 2: 4, to his mother with the wine and the first time Jesus uses the word Woman to his mother (that we have written), "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." John 19: 26-27, before his death on the cross, "26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." John 20: 13, 15, resurrected Jesus to Mary, "13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?" According to possible interpretation and thoughts from previous prophets, Mary could have been a wife to Jesus, and he used the word "Woman" to her just as he did with other women. I can easily see a possible interpretation that upon knowing his death was soon (for the second time he said Woman to his mother) that this was more a plea/invitation to John to take care of his mother. Woman, as your son/Savior is dying, behold a new son. Then to John please take care of my mother! I will be gone, but John will take care of you. I don't think we need to look too deep in a cultural word used at that time.

When I think of members who pose this question, I often wonder if they ever have read the Book of Mormon. Six hundred years of the Book of Mormon was OT Jehovah, by which we are informed many times over how great his mercy was/is toward the children of men. I often wonder if they took a moment to think clearly about how the same Jehovah who flooded the earth is the same Jehovah (Jesus after resurrection) who will come with fire. This type of question is the type of question I always feel is inspired by the wrong Spirit. Pitting Jesus against Jesus -- sounds like something the adversary would do. -- Just my opinion on that. Even the OT is full of God's mercy toward Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even the Children of Israel who were spared from Egyptian bondage as promised. The OT simply proves that God is a God of his word -- both with mercy and justice.

That's a great question, and I can only speak from my experience and learning (also in light from reading your posts you are an intelligent person and already have points for this). I would specify the following principles to disabuse ourselves from false premises whether we have considered them or not: * Always recognize any argument, especially when it strays into the realm of philosophies, can be wrong -- especially your own. * Always keep an open mind * In the gospel, I've tried never to put God in a box (e.g. God would never hurt/kill an innocent human -- then you read the Bible and quickly learn this isn't fully true) * Keep the doctrine and its core principles (connected to modern day revelation) as the foundation by which all ideas, notions, scientific research, etc.. are judged * Learn from the Spirit * Learn the difference between "fact" and "assumptions" based on facts. This is part of the problem with members who use Church history as a means to walk away from the faith. Any time I listen to their arguments I see "assumptions" being presented as the -- only -- fact (first bullet point). I like to use this analogy as an easy example. Two men walk into a shed. In the shed, there is an axe with blood on it. One of the men says, "This axe killed someone." The other man says, "I'm not so sure, there could be other reasons for the blood." The first responds, "It's a lot of blood, it was used to kill someone. Prove me wrong. If you can't, I'm right!" By this time, the other says, "I can't prove you wrong." The other than says, "I'm right." This then brings us to another bullet point. * Recognize any missing items to your argument. If I do not have all the details then I should be careful about any statement of actual facts -- because they will probably more likely be a statement of assumption -- creating a false premise. I think that is a good list, would you add or remove from this list?

This question surrounding the problem of evil I have never understood. I assume, its because of my upbringing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days. The question, in my opinion, begins with the logical fallacy of unwarranted assumptions. An example would be the statement provided by the OP quoting another member of the Church specifying, "If there is a God, and that God is both all-powerful and all-loving, how can there be so much suffering and evil in the world?" The question begins already with a false premise, that evil cannot exist with a God who is all-powerful and all-loving. This question also brings to light the finite mind pretending to know an infinite mind. This brings me to the Biblical quote from Isaiah where God instructs his children that his ways are higher than our ways. This competes the Telestial mind of the natural vs. the Celestial mind of a perfect being. This question, in my opinion, falls under the same scrutiny -- as given by Atheists -- as the following argumentative constructs: 1. If there is a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving then this God would have come up with a better plan that would not have allowed his "only" son to be killed! What parent, earthly parent, would give their son to die for others who do not care about their son? 2. If there is a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving then this God surely would have devised a plan where all who did not believe in His Son wouldn't be doomed to an eternity of Hell. Surely there is a better way. First, evil exists because we chose it. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what type of God -- malicious or benevolent. Evil exists because we chose it to exist. Second, God has given us the antidote to overcome all evil in our lives, despite this knowledge, we still chose evil (confirming #1). A benevolent God has given us instruction on how to eradicate evil from our hearts and minds, and with that knowledge we would eradicate evil in our civilizations. There are 12 commandments God has given, if followed, there would be no evil in our lives: 1. The first two great commandments 2. The ten commandments which are under the first two. Let's begin with the murder. If everyone on this earth simply kept that commandment imagine how different our world would be. Not hard for those who love God and love their fellowmen, but definitely hard for those who place "self" above all else (survival of the fittest). Not God's fault that his sons and daughter choose evil over good. Next, chastity -- adultery and fornication, which brings up the old adage that we will live in a time where people will call good evil and evil good. The easiest example of this is fornication. If two people love each other, then there is nothing wrong with fornication -- it is a natural occurrence between men and women. Yet, God has made it clear that fornication is wrong and should only be kept between a husband and wife. We have people who call fornication "good" and calling fornication out -- evil. How many babies in the womb have been hushed due to fornication/adultery? God's fault? No, not even close, it is because humankind will call good evil and evil good. And thus chose evil. I think what I have shared is sufficient.

On my mission my spirit keyed in on the following words from Nephi where he speaks of an angel ministering and teaching him. I also keyed in on Jacob's words declaring angels ministering unto him as a key point as to why his faith would not be shaken by Sherem. We know these two aren't the only ones that were ministered to by angels, and were taught by angels. As my heart pondered and read these things, I began to seek and pray for the ministering of angels. That I might receive the same experiences, and be provided with experiences so that my faith would not be shaken. To this day, I have never received these experiences, and the more I ponder this I believe this is the reason why, "Be wise in the days of your probation; strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God." (the emphasized portion). I would say, deep down (at the core of my heart) there was that sliver of pride/lust for this experience. I would also say, we are commanded to pray for all things in our lives. This would include the ministering of angels, and then when we pray we have that one important part of our prayers, "Thy will be done." In that light, we do both, we seek and we leave it up to the Lord how best to respond.

This is an idea I have pondered, and each time I ponder this type of thought I keep coming to the same verse of scripture and the same thought. John 15: 20, "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." The sons and daughters of God who myopically focus on the fallibility of prophets, and constantly use this as a way of disobedience or enmity would have done the same with their Lord. There's a difference between understanding fallibility and being consumed by fallibility. Those consumed would have seen an "imperfect" Savior.

1) This is where I like the language from Alma 13, and in particular verse 5. Our Savior was the only one of us who was perfect from the beginning, which is why he was the only one who could perform the Atonement. I agree with the principle of intelligence and exercising faith. The difference would be similar to the differences we see in our modern physical world. A person that cleaves unto light and truth and never denying will be worlds apart from an individual who cleaves unto darkness and error. I think the language of Christ being "like unto God (the Father)" is a very important principle, "And there stood one among them that was like unto God," in light of other intelligences present -- Abraham being one of them. 2) His love for God was perfect. That is what separates Him from us. If we all had the same love Christ has for his Father, we would have been able to accomplish the same feats, but our love for God was not perfect (Satan is evidence of this).

Ah, here we are dealing with two sides of a simple coin. In our scriptures, we can see both sides of the coin being taught. The side you are speaking of is as follows, "Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am." No one here, including myself, is arguing against this position. The other side of the coin is also in the same book of scripture, "Behold, my sons, I desire that ye should remember to keep the commandments of God; and I would that ye should declare unto the people these words. Behold, I have given unto you the names of our first parents who came out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I have done that when you remember your names ye may remember them; and when ye remember them ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good. Therefore, my sons, I would that ye should do that which is good, that it may be said of you, and also written, even as it has been said and written of them." Here we have a father telling his kids to look to "fallible" people who loved God, and to follow the works they chose and to make the same decisions so that it could be said of you the same. All of these Book of Mormon prophets were individuals, disciples of Christ, whose choices and actions were worthy of emulation. President Monson shared this side of the coin also with the following, "My brethren, I reiterate that, as holders of the priesthood of God, it is our duty to live our lives in such a way that we may be examples of righteousness for others to follow." If we are living lives for others to follow, then we are living lives worthy of emulation. And another verse of scripture that is worthy of emulation is that of Captain Moroni, "Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." (emphasis mine) A fallible man who the Lord said if all men had been like unto him (a life worthy of emulation), the very powers of hell would have been shaken. There are two sides to this coin. Of course we want to be like Christ, and Christ has given us "fallible" men/women to be like unto so that we may be like unto Christ. If a person's life isn't worthy of emulation (and are a leader) it will be harder on faithful believers who have sacrificed to follow counsel from someone who sacrificed the counsel for their benefit. It just a factual aspect of life. And this is why the other side of the coin is most important, we remember who we are actually emulating and that is Christ, and if he is our foundation then we will continue moving forward. Because we recognize the otherside of the coin is simply to bring us to the same conclusion -- follow Christ.

Perception. When we think of leadership, at the general authority level, we are thinking of individuals who are "examples" of Christlike living. Lives we should be emulating. It's why I read the biographies of every president of the Church. Lives worth emulating. My previous comment, "Why did I make these decisions if it really doesn't matter? But it has to matter doesn't it," is the question that arises when a general authorities decisions isn't worth emulating. Saul lost the kingdom, and as a result his son's paid the price also, because he sacrificed rather than obeyed. Thank you for your response, I understand what you are seeking to say. I agree, obedience does matter. At least that is what I feel; however, with how my life has had ups and downs, many of those downs would have been avoided if I "sacrificed" rather than obeyed. So, it does cause one to consider, did it matter, but inwardly -- at the core -- as @mikbone shared -- it does matter. Just for jest... She actually has been in the labor longer than me. She isn't coming to labor after me. Her work isn't less, it would be similar to us both working in the field, the labor, and we were commanded not to use a specific tool. I obey, and she sacrifices and ends up using that tool (more financial freedom) and the tool we were supposed to use. In the end, because of the additional work done/accomplished (due to sacrificing obedience), she is lifted up as an example. This is just one of the simple ironies in the Church I don't yet fully comprehend. And I all the more realize the Lord's way are not may ways, and his thoughts are higher than my thoughts. Side note, one of the ironies I find humorous and frustrating is about Patriarchal Blessings and interpretation. We are informed only the individual who received the PB can interpret their PB -- no one else. YET! At BYU in the seminary program the Seminary teacher teaching (who has been studying the gospel as his vocation) will tell the students, "Even if you PB say you will work for the Church," it doesn't mean a seminary teacher. The irony doesn't pass me. Those who study gospel for a living, who know who can interpret a PB, give their own interpretation of the meaning of a person's PB. Just one of those ironies that puzzle me.

Thanks for your additional positive thought JAG. This hits a little harder for me due to choices my wife and I made while we were newly weds to obey. As a result, while going through school I was working a full-time swing and a part-time graveyard to keep my wife home as a primary nurturer and caregiver. This all while taking 12 -17 credits at BYU. This resulted in me also for a year working a full-time graveyard and full-time morning job due to difficulties that came upon us. This was all to obey and not to sacrifice. If I would have known this was simply "a choice" my life and mental state, anxiety, stress, etc... could have been so much better. This to me is more a kick in the jewels and then a knee to the face. Why did I make these decisions if it really doesn't matter? But it has to matter doesn't it. In saying that, I agree with your last paragraph. A hard decision will be when to have kids for our young members.