Anddenex

This is a poorly thought out article.
When we say The Church is perfect, we don't mean the individual person.  We mean the organization of this assembly of people.  The excommunication of the GA, for example, illustrates that an individual GA is in error.  It does not illustrate that the organization of General Authorities is in error.
How a Church can be in error - The Catholic Church proclaimed the authority of a Bishop as the Apostolic successor.  This Church is in error - and is, therefore, not perfect.  The LDS Church has no such errors (as we claim) and is, therefore, the most perfect organization on earth.
Writers tip:  Always be cognizant of word definitions and connotations.

Here are a number of miracles:
https://history.lds.org/article/hawns-mill-face-wheel?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/10/miracles?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/children/resources/topics/priesthood-blessings?lang=eng&_r=1
i have had miracles occur in my life and I also know many people who have related miracles to me.
 

Daily conversations with my Heavenly Father. I find nothing strengthens my testimony more than really talking to God on a daily basis.

Why do we not hear about Mormon prophets today performing big miracles like prophets in old and new testament? 
1) I think if we are all genuine to ourselves we have probably asked this same question.
2) Miracles for one have been for "believers" and increase the faith of those that already believe. One example I find truly intriguing is Jesus's experience with Herod who desired to see a miracle. No miracle was performed. Why? 2 Nephi 10 may shed some light, "For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God."
3) Miracles do not convert the faithless, let me provide one example from a conversation with an ex-Mormon, now Atheist (at the time). His father shared with him how on his mission he, through Christ, was able to heal a clubbed foot. The son, now Atheist, merely said, "I believe my father miss diagnosed the clubbed foot and it would have healed on its own. Other Atheists I have spoken with, if you can't perform the same miracle on someone else, right then and there, in front of their eyes -- it never happened.
4) Miracles are sacred experiences, and are not to be cast before swine (hard term for others to hear -- you often get -- are you calling me "swine?"). I think someone already mentioned, people are learning to keep sacred experiences sacred unless inspired by the Spirit. I have never publicized any miracle to the public (at least details), only to members of the Church.
Noah constructed a great ark to be filled with a male and female from every living species on Earth....
These miracles are an exception, not the rule. We are talking about specific times, and some times which fulfilled prophecy. An example of this type of miracle though was seen in the beginning of the Church and which has been publicized (yet, why not national attention? Because they don't care and they don't believe because they did not see it with their own eyes). Early Church history talks about a storm during a conference and the storm parted leaving the conference without a rain drop. Miracle, yes. Also, think about the time before Christ comes again, and the two prophets, which will be publicized before all, and think of the miracles and God's power being manifest plainly, and yet the natural man still does not convert. There are times or certain miracles, and there are times when they are not.
Some say we don't need BIG miracles anymore because we no longer have such a need.  I would argue we need big miracles more than ever.  Do we not continue to have wars?  Do we not continue to have sick among us?   Others would say we do hear of many miracles today in the church, but on a much more subtle level.  The sick are sometimes healed when Priesthood blessings are administered to them.  But these events are never publicized nor do they attract the same national attention as did miracles found within the Bible.
I would disagree personally with the first sentence; however, some "BIG" miracles are for specific purposes like addressed in my previous paragraph. Sick are healed among us, and from friends I know who have been in war they speak openly, if inspired, about miracles they encountered with other members. I would love to hear about "BIG" miracles, and I have heard of some, one particularly in my stake, but these are sacred events and experiences, and are not my place to share in an open forum, nor nationally. Elder Neal A. Maxwell came to BYU while I was attending and shared a wonderful miracle that happened to his ancestor. At the end of the talk he asked that his talk would not be written because he shared a miracle that he never shared in a open forum like that before. I have looked for his talk again to be able to remember exact details (so my second hand experience is more correct), but I have never found it. A lovely pearl this miracle was.
Did Jesus not gain national attention even when trying to avoid it?
No, Jesus did not gain national attention and for good reason as shared previously and again, "For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God." If Jesus gained national attention he would have never been crucified, and also remember the natural man seeks to hide miracles with a different explanation of the results. Think about the Pharisees and how they wanted the record to be written regarding Christ's body no longer in the tomb. We have miracles publicized in our scriptures and think how intriguing it is that Atheism is on the rise among our younger generations.
We've had 16 modern-day prophets from 1830 to 2017, and yet none, to my knowledge, has performed a miracle that gained national attention as did many miracles we read of in the Bible.
1) Joseph Smith and others healing people with Malaria. This is published material and the world ignores such a miracle with -- never happened!
2) Wilford Woodruff, I would recommend reading his biography. In this book they talk about his mission experiences and how he performed mighty miracles in the east missions of the United States. This is published material and these aren't going national -- why -- because the natural man doesn't care about what they can not see, hear, feel, or touch themselves. Why perpetuate a lie -- in their eyes.
3) I know of a mighty miracle from Elder Holland in Russia. National attention, none.
4) President Monson shares an experience while he visited one of the Polynesian islands. I find it interesting that he doesn't give any insight to the end of the blessing, he merely says what was pronounced and that they went their separate ways.
The question is, with all the miracles that have been published and are published why have they not received national attention? Why aren't people lining up to be baptized with all the miracles that were performed and are publicized?
Does anyone know of a miracle performed by a modern-day prophet that gained national attention?  And no, I'm not looking for a sign, just a pattern between Mormon modern-day prophets and prophets of the Bible.
Yes (Edit: meaning they have been published for the whole world to read), I have shared at least one that is published. There are plenty more. In some ways, I feel the same, let the whole world know, but then again, I am glad that these are kept sacred this way the glory returns to God, and not to man. I think this is one of the main reasons we are counseled not to tell the whole world. All we do is to glorify God, and if you notice, people who perform miracles often become the center of focus -- not God, but within sacred circles and when shared by the spirit these events glorify God and increase the faith of those present.
I assume, which you already know, the question (especially for us as priesthood holders) is have we ourselves been an instrument for God in performing a miracle, if not, why not?
 

The witness I have received from the Spirit, and the personal miracles in my life, is the reason I believe I will endure to the end.

The witness I have received from the Spirit, and the personal miracles in my life, is the reason I believe I will endure to the end.

"We do not know much about who will inherit two of the three degrees within the celestial kingdom. However, much has been said about the highest level in the celestial kingdom, or exaltation, because that is where the Father wants all of His children to live (see Moses 1:39)."
- Elder B. Renato Maldonado
He them goes on to say nothing more about the other degrees, but only talks about the highest degree.
That is essentially what you will find.
 

Here is a breakdown of the different Kingdoms of Glory per Preach My Gospel and scripture
https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng
Celestial Kingdom
"During our mortal lives we make choices regarding good and evil. God rewards us according to our works and desires. Because God rewards everyone according to deeds done in the body, there are different kingdoms of glory to which we may be assigned after the Judgment.  Those who have repented of their sins and received the ordinances of the gospel and kept the associated covenants will be cleansed by the Atonement of Christ. They will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom, also known as the celestial kingdom. They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy. They will live together for eternity with those of their family who qualify. In the scriptures this kingdom is compared to the glory or brightness of the sun."
Terrestrial Kingdom
"People who do not accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ but live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the moon."  
Telestial Kingdom
"Those who continued in their sins and did not repent in this life will receive their reward in the lowest kingdom, which is called the telestial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the stars." Doctrine and Covenants 76:103 further clarifies this to mean the "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie."
Outer Darkness
Helaman 12:25-26. 25 And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord; 26 Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery

I don't know if anyone would be interested but I was asked to create a "music video" to show at my Stake Ward Conferences.  I ask that you please overlook the imperfections, I only had half a day to put it together. Otherwise, enjoy.
 

Another important thing to consider is the possible differences of context in which he was retelling the events.  When my children ask me to read the same book over an over again I start leaving out sections, sometimes pages, I read faster, etc.  Imagine if you had to tell the story of having experienced the first vision over and over again.  You might stress what you felt would be important to the specific individual(s) to whom you were speaking.  Unless Joseph explicitly said that he only saw one person, I would suggest he was placing more importance on something else at the time.  Seeing two personages is a much bigger question to answer for many of us, but for him, it was not his most important concern, nor was it one of the reasons he initially sought the Lord in prayer.
Also, Joseph's vision was real and he was present to experience it, he did not need faith, nor the Spirit, to be with him in order to state the events that actually occurred, he simply could tell it.  It was not a revelation that had to be written in the moment, it is a permanent memory that he will always have.  However, when I tell someone the account of the first vision, I am seeking specifically for the Spirit to bear witness of it's truth, and am seeking the guidance of the Spirit to aid me in retelling it accurately.  Joseph did not meticulously prepare to retell his experience, nor did he memorize a written version of it, he simply recalled it from memory.  The variations in the accounts are more of a witness that he was telling the truth than anything else.
Have you ever told someone something important and then later come back to say, 'oh yeah, and [x important part] too'?  Just because Joseph was a prophet of God with an important message, that doesn't preclude him from the frailties of man.

I have appreciated the comments previously given, and they center around my thoughts with regard to your question.
True, we ask the Father forgiveness because he is the law giver, and the individual who presented the plan that enables us to become like him. It is his laws we are obeying or disobeying, and our Savior was sent by the Father. We are indebted to both, the Father and Son. Without the Father their could have be no son, and without the son we could not return to the Father; although, it is the Father's kingdom we are returning to. We ask his forgiveness through Christ. A scripture I have come to love is found in Doctrine and Covenants 45: 3-5:
"Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—
"Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;
"Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life."
Our Savior even recognizes who it is that truly forgives, and I love the interaction between him and the woman taken into adultery, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" By which she responds, "No man, Lord," and the Jesus responded in kind, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." The interaction is wonderful as it confirms Christ did not come to condemn, but to save. His atonement, saves us, because it provides an opportunity for us to receive forgiveness, and for Christ to be our advocate.
The definition of being "one" doesn't mean their roles are also the same. Remember the intercessory prayer, and how we are commanded and the Lord prays that his servants will be one like Jesus and the Father are one. Our specific roles do not change when we become "one." Think about husband and wife who are also commanded to be one. Think about wards that are also commanded to be "one." As we make choices to become one, our roles do not change. A person who is one with their bishop, doesn't then assume they have the keys and stewardship to speak for the ward. A son that becomes one with his father, in a family, doesn't assume the roles of being the father of the home.
The last questions really depends on how a person is defining the notion of "addressing." Christ's role is our Savior, our advocate, with the Father; however, his role also assumes a role of "Father" as he has spiritually begotten us. He has personally taken responsibility for us. I think is very interesting that in the Terrestrial Kingdom, those who believe in a "One" God, not the Godhead (as LDS), will have their trinity who visits them - Jesus Christ - who carries roles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (This may provide some further insight as to why the Holy Ghost (as it appears) wasn't around while Christ was living, and why they prayed to him after he was resurrected).
The best example we have as to why we pray to the Father though, and not the Son, is actually the Son himself;
1) He commanded it as does the Father
2) Christ, as PC shared, showed us how we pray
3) Christ recognizes his role, as Savior and Advocate with the Father, first scripture shared, and is seen pleading our cause that the Father would forgive us. Christ is not condemning us, but saving us.

I have appreciated the comments previously given, and they center around my thoughts with regard to your question.
True, we ask the Father forgiveness because he is the law giver, and the individual who presented the plan that enables us to become like him. It is his laws we are obeying or disobeying, and our Savior was sent by the Father. We are indebted to both, the Father and Son. Without the Father their could have be no son, and without the son we could not return to the Father; although, it is the Father's kingdom we are returning to. We ask his forgiveness through Christ. A scripture I have come to love is found in Doctrine and Covenants 45: 3-5:
"Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—
"Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;
"Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life."
Our Savior even recognizes who it is that truly forgives, and I love the interaction between him and the woman taken into adultery, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" By which she responds, "No man, Lord," and the Jesus responded in kind, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." The interaction is wonderful as it confirms Christ did not come to condemn, but to save. His atonement, saves us, because it provides an opportunity for us to receive forgiveness, and for Christ to be our advocate.
The definition of being "one" doesn't mean their roles are also the same. Remember the intercessory prayer, and how we are commanded and the Lord prays that his servants will be one like Jesus and the Father are one. Our specific roles do not change when we become "one." Think about husband and wife who are also commanded to be one. Think about wards that are also commanded to be "one." As we make choices to become one, our roles do not change. A person who is one with their bishop, doesn't then assume they have the keys and stewardship to speak for the ward. A son that becomes one with his father, in a family, doesn't assume the roles of being the father of the home.
The last questions really depends on how a person is defining the notion of "addressing." Christ's role is our Savior, our advocate, with the Father; however, his role also assumes a role of "Father" as he has spiritually begotten us. He has personally taken responsibility for us. I think is very interesting that in the Terrestrial Kingdom, those who believe in a "One" God, not the Godhead (as LDS), will have their trinity who visits them - Jesus Christ - who carries roles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (This may provide some further insight as to why the Holy Ghost (as it appears) wasn't around while Christ was living, and why they prayed to him after he was resurrected).
The best example we have as to why we pray to the Father though, and not the Son, is actually the Son himself;
1) He commanded it as does the Father
2) Christ, as PC shared, showed us how we pray
3) Christ recognizes his role, as Savior and Advocate with the Father, first scripture shared, and is seen pleading our cause that the Father would forgive us. Christ is not condemning us, but saving us.

I make a hobby of reading about the Titanic disaster; and several survivors left multiple and partially-contradictory accounts throughput their remaining lifespan.  I think it's a relatively normal thing for the human mind to do--to re-interpret past experiences in light of more recent events, and come up with a paradigm that everything fits into.  As an attorney, it's not uncommon for witnesses to contradict themselves on minor points; especially when the witness has been through a very traumatic experience.  (Trauma does all kinds of really funky stuff with the brain and the way it processes memory.)
For Joseph Smith and much of the early church, the message of the restoration was that the heavens were opened; that man could approach God on an individual basis and experience the "visions and blessings of old" together with the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament.  I think that troubles with neighbors in Kirtland and Missouri from 1832-1839, often led or green-lit by clerics of other faiths, made Joseph ponder much more deeply on--and accept more fully--the Lord's statement that Joseph had downplayed in earlier accounts: That "none doeth good, no, not one".

It says there are comments on this thread but I'm not seeing any at all.  What is going on here?  Is anyone saying anything.

"Our Father who art in heaven ... forgive us our debts." We ask forgiveness of the Father because Jesus told us to. Then there is his example of asking the Father to let the cup of punishment (the upcoming crucifixion) pass from him. The Godhead has determined that it is the Father who decides how sins are redeemed, and that they are forgiven.

Jesus was sent by the Father, Jesus is the Father's servant. We did not break Jesus's laws, therefore it is not his forgiveness we ask. 

I never liked the debtor/creditor analogy or the bicycle analogy.
What kind of a creditor sends his debtor's own intercessor?
Every single term, condition, and law comes from the Father. Never has a term, condition, or law come from Jesus. The Man of Holiness is the God of man yesterday, today, and forever. Christ has never given to any man terms which were not laid out before the foundation of the world by the Father, the Man of Holiness.

These articles are why I put very little trust in the "arm of flesh".

I think this is the point of "intelligent design" proponents who are searching for an "intelligent designer" scientifically, thus stating it is still scientific, and that it should be viable option for students to learn and hear a different thought approach in schools. Evolutionists will claim, no creator, but are still unable to provide any significant impact regarding abiogenesis and yet we still call it "science" or "scientific." Allow students to choose for themselves which theory they want to pursue, rather than only teaching one method -- theory.
I personally don't see anything wrong with it, and I don't see why anyone who professes a belief in "deity" would have any issues with it either. We live in a world that continually tries to separate science from "intelligent designer" as if they are mutually exclusively -- when they are not.

And the more you counter their points, the more they offer more historical "facts" to the contrary... this goes in circles until Godwin's law prevail and you end up un-friending yourselves on Facebook.

It has been my experience that when someone has a crisis of faith (which is what this thread is really about) due to someone "interpretation" of historical facts, trying to help them by offering more "facts" and different interpretations of "fact" is kind of like giving and aspirin for a brain tumor.   Sure you might treat a temporary problem (headache) but you really did not do anything.  Crisis of Faith are treated by building up of Faith and teaching correct principals about God.
We can look back with hindsight and say yeah Nazi Germany was EVIL.  If we have a limited understanding of God we would think that he would be all out attacking... but this ignores the scriptural record of God repeatedly using EVIL nations, EVIL men to bring about his will (See the Lamanites).  When those purposes are done then they speedy get destroyed.  Now what purpose did God have with Nazi Germany?  I have no idea.  I am not God.  But I am not at all surprised to see the Faithful followers of God come out of it stronger then ever.  (Of course those that do not see them as faithful followers of God, think the only way they could have come out stronger was being being Allies to EVIL and that is where the conflict gains traction)
Sadly to many people make God after their own image a have problem when the Idol that they call God is different then what God really is.
 
 

hmmm.. what if I did mean immortal...? lol

- So funny, I thought the same thing when I read "immortal" but knowing he meant "immoral." hehe

- So funny, I thought the same thing when I read "immortal" but knowing he meant "immoral." hehe