Anddenex

It seems to me that virtue is truth in action.  It seems reasonable to believe that truth cannot fully be understood without acting on it.  Acting on it is virtuous, thus increasing your understanding and virtue.  This would be an upward spiral, increasing your understanding of truth and virtue together.

@Carborendum, well thought out introduction and question. Your thoughts brought the following verse to my heart and mind, "For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God." (Source) Every word that proceeds from the mouth of God falls within (all are equal, and all have their importance and may be more important at specific times in our lives):
1) Personal revelation
2) Prophetic revelation
3) Canon scripture
The Book of Mormon was specifically meant for the last days, the days before the coming of our Lord -- his return in glory and majesty. The Book of Mormon is equal, and yet for our day it carries more importance specifically to the revelations therein. As in the Self-Reliance class, we read the following quote regarding the Book of Mormon, M. Russell Ballard: “The Book of Mormon, above all other books that I know of, is the greatest source we have for answers to real-life problems” (in “We Add Our Witness,” Ensign, Mar. 1989, 8).
When we think of the purpose of the Book of Mormon, its importance for our day, people will draw closer to God by reading the Book of Mormon and abiding by its precepts in correlation with the two other items mentioned. The Book of Mormon was never meant to be alone, sole scripture. It was meant to be the Bibles companion and to remove false doctrines that currently exist from the philosophies of men through the apostasy. And now I am just going to quote your last statement because it is an excellent analogy:
EDIT: This is also in part of why I don't like conversations that try to pit methods of receiving or having truth against each other. They are equal; although, at times, one method may be more important than the other, but does not make the other methods of less value. Example, when people try to pit scripture, prophetic words, or personal revelation using Nephi and Laban. It is error to do so.

This is the same thing with all other Christian Faiths pitting their interpretation of the gospel against other denominations to "sell" their versions... it's what led Joseph Smith to kneel down and ask God for help.  One of the things that made me stop and look at LDS more closely is the AoF 11.

Agreed.  Man is imperfect, and they help us understand them.

@Carborendum, well thought out introduction and question. Your thoughts brought the following verse to my heart and mind, "For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God." (Source) Every word that proceeds from the mouth of God falls within (all are equal, and all have their importance and may be more important at specific times in our lives):
1) Personal revelation
2) Prophetic revelation
3) Canon scripture
The Book of Mormon was specifically meant for the last days, the days before the coming of our Lord -- his return in glory and majesty. The Book of Mormon is equal, and yet for our day it carries more importance specifically to the revelations therein. As in the Self-Reliance class, we read the following quote regarding the Book of Mormon, M. Russell Ballard: “The Book of Mormon, above all other books that I know of, is the greatest source we have for answers to real-life problems” (in “We Add Our Witness,” Ensign, Mar. 1989, 8).
When we think of the purpose of the Book of Mormon, its importance for our day, people will draw closer to God by reading the Book of Mormon and abiding by its precepts in correlation with the two other items mentioned. The Book of Mormon was never meant to be alone, sole scripture. It was meant to be the Bibles companion and to remove false doctrines that currently exist from the philosophies of men through the apostasy. And now I am just going to quote your last statement because it is an excellent analogy:
EDIT: This is also in part of why I don't like conversations that try to pit methods of receiving or having truth against each other. They are equal; although, at times, one method may be more important than the other, but does not make the other methods of less value. Example, when people try to pit scripture, prophetic words, or personal revelation using Nephi and Laban. It is error to do so.

Well @Fether, it looks like you have received the following answers:
1) Yes it is wrong
2) Unsure if wrong, but definitely not wise
3) Not wrong, and also not wise
If an individual is giving you money for a specific purpose, like this scenario, I would say it is wrong and unwise. This is part of the reason why the Church doesn't give cash. What is your bill, and they right a direct check for the bill, because people inappropriately use funds.
Now if the company gives money, and you use the money for the reason given and there are funds left over. I would say, the left over money can be used for whatever you want. I would add second confirmation to @NeuroTypical who specified it doesn't hurt to ask. Then the question becomes obsolete so to speak.

I agree that a face to literal face communication with Heavenly Father probably isnt going to happen for the majority of mankind. Then again, neither is a literal face to face communication with Jesus Christ going to happen either. But, we really do communicate personally with our Heavenly Father and he communicates personally with us.

What inhibits a person from communing with the Father? This is sin. If a person has come to the point of trial and overcome, I see no reason why the Father couldn't communicate intimately with his children. We are his children.
Found the source that, to me, provides the possibility of communing with the Father. "The scriptures speak of two Comforters. The first is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26–27; Moro. 8:26; D&C 21:9; 42:17; 90:11). The Second Comforter is the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:18, 21, 23). When someone obtains the Second Comforter, Jesus Christ will appear to him from time to time, will reveal the Father, and will teach him face to face (D&C 130:3)." (Source)
John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." What does it mean that even the Father will make his abode with him who has received the Second Comforter (part or is the calling and election made sure, I would say part of)?
Eternal Life is to know God and Jesus Christ. If a person obtains their calling and election made sure, and have received the Second Comforter do they only know God the Father through Christ (because they know Christ), or do they become intimately acquainted with him also? They are no longer inhibited by the Fall - Spiritual death - as long as they remain faithful to the end.
 

My work had us take this test:

When Joseph smith prayed in the Sacred Grove, we know all three members of the Godhead were present. God initially speaks with Joseph Smith only to say, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" There are two important aspects: 1) God the Father testifies of his Son, and 2) Joseph is told to listen to the Son. Why didn't God the Father just speak himself? He surely was capable of answering and communicating with Joseph Smith directly and telling him the whole story.
When Joseph Smith prayed for forgiveness and to further know what he should do did the Father speak to him directly, he surely has the power to do so, or did he send a messenger? (Hint: it was a messenger, Moroni).
The concept of divine investiture isn't negating our ability, nor God's ability to directly communicate to his offspring, his heirs. Divine investiture is simply one method of communication God uses to speak to us, and obviously in correlation with the Fall. Without the Fall this whole conversation becomes moot, nothing false presented, no false doctrine.
If God speaks to us directly, why didn't God the Father visit the Nephites himself? Again, we have witness of God bearing witness of his Son, "Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him." And telling his heirs to "hear him."
Divine investiture doesn't mean "it only extends one way" and that God is not able to communicate directly with us. This is the false front being presented. God speaks to us directly, and he uses (more often than not) other methods to communicate with us. We know he answers our prayers through the Holy Ghost (John 14:26, Moroni 10: 5), which is the main source of inspiration, and we know from scripture that when people speak by the power of the Spirit they are speaking scripture, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."
We are specifically told in scripture that when a person prayers to know if the Book of Mormon is true (remember they are praying to the Father) the Father provides an answer through the Holy Ghost, the third personage of the Godhead.
 

When Joseph smith prayed in the Sacred Grove, we know all three members of the Godhead were present. God initially speaks with Joseph Smith only to say, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" There are two important aspects: 1) God the Father testifies of his Son, and 2) Joseph is told to listen to the Son. Why didn't God the Father just speak himself? He surely was capable of answering and communicating with Joseph Smith directly and telling him the whole story.
When Joseph Smith prayed for forgiveness and to further know what he should do did the Father speak to him directly, he surely has the power to do so, or did he send a messenger? (Hint: it was a messenger, Moroni).
The concept of divine investiture isn't negating our ability, nor God's ability to directly communicate to his offspring, his heirs. Divine investiture is simply one method of communication God uses to speak to us, and obviously in correlation with the Fall. Without the Fall this whole conversation becomes moot, nothing false presented, no false doctrine.
If God speaks to us directly, why didn't God the Father visit the Nephites himself? Again, we have witness of God bearing witness of his Son, "Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him." And telling his heirs to "hear him."
Divine investiture doesn't mean "it only extends one way" and that God is not able to communicate directly with us. This is the false front being presented. God speaks to us directly, and he uses (more often than not) other methods to communicate with us. We know he answers our prayers through the Holy Ghost (John 14:26, Moroni 10: 5), which is the main source of inspiration, and we know from scripture that when people speak by the power of the Spirit they are speaking scripture, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."
We are specifically told in scripture that when a person prayers to know if the Book of Mormon is true (remember they are praying to the Father) the Father provides an answer through the Holy Ghost, the third personage of the Godhead.
 

The need for divine investiture is a function of the Fall as well as requisite living by faith and not sight according to the Plan. This applies even to prayer--though we pray to the Father, he typically responds through the Spirit, the Son, and other messengers (angelic and mortal).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Divine Investiture, or Divine Investiture of Authority is a term sometimes used to explain when God the Father (Elohim) allows others, typically Jehovah (Jesus Christ) to speak as though he is the Father (Elohim). Ever since the first time I heard the idea, I was fascinated by it, but have never been able to ascertain where the idea originated.
I've been looking into it a bit and found this interesting reading: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/3-ministry-father-and-son#_edn28
This certainly gave me some food for thought. What I would like is to discuss what doctrinal foundation from the scriptures and teachings of the prophets we have to back the concept. On the one hand it really shouldn't matter whether the Father or the Son are speaking, as they are one and would share the same message, but it can get confusing when the Son is speaking as if He were the Father (such as referring to His only begotten, who is actually himself). Anyway, I'm trying to have a better grasp on each of the articles of faith (AoF) and I am working my way through trying to understand  more fully the Godhead as discussed in the first AoF. In so doing, I am finding it important to better grasp this concept.
Thanks,
SD

Careful Anatess2 you are breaking his
Because no one wants to hear about the truth of people lives who are in different positions, make a different decision in following counsel given, and have children even while in college or in a third world country where poverty is the norm and you still have kids -- that you can't afford. Because you know the caveat to the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" was -- only if your rich and can afford a nice diamond ring, a nice car, and a nice house -- but never while you are in college or poor. And to give congrats to college students who honor this commandment and survive just fine -- you know those "exceptions" -- don't want to hear about them -- no -- never!

Careful Anatess2 you are breaking his
Because no one wants to hear about the truth of people lives who are in different positions, make a different decision in following counsel given, and have children even while in college or in a third world country where poverty is the norm and you still have kids -- that you can't afford. Because you know the caveat to the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" was -- only if your rich and can afford a nice diamond ring, a nice car, and a nice house -- but never while you are in college or poor. And to give congrats to college students who honor this commandment and survive just fine -- you know those "exceptions" -- don't want to hear about them -- no -- never!

First World problems.
I already had a house when my husband proposed to me.  He was a feast-or-famine runway model making thousands in a weekend but may not have another gig for weeks.  He bought a $100 ring from Kay's to propose to me on one of his feast days.  He spent $80 for the marriage license, $20 for the judge to marry us with the use of the courthouse's arbor, and $40 for pizza for those who could take off work to celebrate our nuptials.  On the ceremony, the judge asked us if we'd like to exchange rings.  We did - he gave me the engagement ring again, I gave him his CTR ring.  He moved in to my house that day where he proceeded to cut up my mall cards.
Anyway, THIS showed me my husband is responsible with money.  Good thing because I'm not - as evidenced by my $40K debt even as I was making close to 6 figures being single - my husband paid off those debts within a year of our marriage.   A ring and a big wedding would have been put on credit.  My husband is allergic to credit.  He was a cash guy - if he can't buy it cash, he's not buying it.  That includes his car and his college.  The house was the only thing he was willing to put on a loan.  That guy is the guy for me.  He eventually bought us matching wedding rings - from the Philippines.  $800 for 2 rings.  Each ring having 5 diamonds to total 1 karat and our names and our courthouse wedding date etched onto the back of the gold band.  My aunt found the rings for us straight from the mining town where the stones were unearthed from.  I love my ring, not because of the glitter (I have no preference between diamonds and the bottom of a soda glass especially since it's not something I would ever pawn if life gets rough - and I'm sure my husband wouldn't have picked me to marry if I was "one of those girls") but because of what is etched on the band.  He gave me the ring on my birthday - his birthday is within a week of mine.
Life in the Philippines will show you that you don't need to be able to afford a diamond ring to be able to successfully and comfortably build a family.  No, these are not exceptions.  I have observed that people, especially first world western ones, like to try to make fulfilling God's commandment be so difficult.
 

From the link shared by @NeedleinA, here are my favorite news items:
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, announced on February 7 the creation of a new global higher education organization, BYU–Pathway Worldwide. The printer’s manuscript of The Book of Mormon was purchased by the Church. On December 14, the First Presidency announced changes in temple policies that give young men and young women more opportunities in temple work and that help Primary children better prepare to serve in the temple. The First Presidency announced on May 11 that the Church will discontinue involvement in the Boy Scouts of America Varsity and Venturing programs. March 17 marked 175 years since the organization of the Relief Society by the prophet Joseph Smith in 1842.  On August 17, Elder D. Todd Christofferson visited the Church’s only branch in Nepal and surprised members with copies of the first Nepali translation of the Book of Mormon. Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles died on October 1. Funeral services were held on October 6 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. On October 27, the First Presidency announced changes to the general women’s and general priesthood sessions of general conference.

@anatess2 - might be of interest?
 

Church News: 2017 Year in Review
Either:
or
or
 

@clbent04
I have determined our relationship with G-d is based in covenant but governed by the following principles:
. G-d does not do for us what we can do for ourselves.
. G-d does do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.
. G-d does not do anything to us that is for our eternal detriment.
. G-d does do for us that which is for our eternal benefit.
. G-d will not do anything for us without our covenant approval.
 
The covenant promises we make with G-d, although vague is quite simple:
. To love him as he loves us.
. To love others as we would ourselves.
 
The primary attribute of love is sacrifice.  In short, without sacrifice there is no love – love demands sacrifice.
Concerning knowledge of good and evil – The knowledge of evil can only come from the experience of death – death is the consequence or esence of evil.  There are two elements of death: 1. The separation of spirit from physical (we call physical death).  2. Separation of spirit (intelligence) from divine light and truth (we call this spiritual death) - spiritual death is when covenant relationship with G-d is broken.
The knowledge of good can only come from the experience of being saved from death (evil) through a divine atonement (act of ultimate sacrifice or love).
 
G-d is an eternal being - as are we - there has never been a moment that we were uninfluenced by G-d - and there never will be.  Likewise there has never been a time G-d has not been aware of us and never will be. 
 
The Traveler

Spiritual laws are natural laws, and spiritual laws exist without nature.  I believe you can answer your own question with that statement; however, in this sense it is most likely semantic we are arguing here. We have spiritual and temporal/physical laws, both of which are natural, but one only deals with nature.
I believe you are misrepresenting the Book of Abraham. He organized, brought us together, as intelligences, not that "he organized us "as" intelligences.
Here are the two phrases in the Book of Abraham, "I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen." This doesn't mean "he organized us as intelligences." It would be similar to a father saying, and I came down among my children.
Here is the other in the Book of Abraham, "Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones." Nothing here indicates what you are describing. There were many of the noble and great ones among the intelligences, God's spirit children, and he organized or gathered us together for a meeting. In this meeting we are informed, "And the Lord said: Whom shall I send?" We are given a different explanation to the assembly gathered where Christ was chosen, as God always knew he would be chosen, as our Savior. This isn't describing an event of God "organizing us as" intelligences into spirits.
If God is eternal, and intelligences are eternal, how then did we exist prior to God? How does something eternal exist prior to something that is also eternal? The question is a fallacy.
All things physical are patterned after the spiritual.

From what Joseph Smith taught, all of us (me, you, God, and everyone else) have always existed.  In order for us to have existed prior to God, God would have to have not existed at some point - thus making it so that those of us who have always existed, existed prior to that being who did not always exist.  But we know this isn't true - God has existed for exactly as long as the rest of us, specifically, always.
Now one might argue that our basest form existed prior to God becoming God, but that's not saying anything of import - it's safe to assume that God was always ahead of us in progression.
In short, we have no existence prior to God.  Further, whatever existence we had prior to God becoming God was less of an existence, since scripture teaches that He is the one who provided the means for us to progress.
All that said, the only two things we really know are:
1) Joseph Smith taught that intelligence is not and cannot be created (has always existed)
2) God saw fit to establish a way for the rest of us to progress
...everything else is deduction or assumption to fill in the gaps.  (Something we should keep at the front of our minds when considering these things.)

Personally, I don't get any of the emotional distress. I found out while on my mission that my Grandpa, great grandpa, was Jewish. My Jewish last name, genealogy, is Saltiel. I don't inhibit other religions from practicing their faith. I don't believe it right that any other religion inhibits another religion to practice their faith. It comes down to the following argument, "I don't like this...so you can't do this."
Individuals have passed on. A baptism for the dead doesn't change anything in this life. If another religion baptized for the dead and they baptized my dad (if he were dead), even though I am still living, I wouldn't care. Now, if someone were trying to baptize a living person, via proxy, now that would be odd, but hey, they still have every right to practice their faith. Doesn't change anything for my father -- dead or alive -- as all things pertain to choice.
It would be nice if all religions practiced Article of Faith #11, but unfortunately this doesn't happen. The irony is how many of these people who are waiting to be baptized, but can't because their earthly posterity are preventing it? But as things stand, it is wise for all members to follow the guidelines provided. If a person is a relative, direct line, then they should have every right to practice their faith, without anyone getting emotional about it. One thing stands common, you can't please everyone, and if you try to please everyone you will never become as God intended you to become.

Well, it says the white pin is for "blessings", so sure.