Anddenex

Also, to note, I have never interpreted this statement from Stephen as a prayer. This appears to be a statement of fact knowing he was about to die, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

See v. 22.  If more than that has been said to explain this, I can't find it.

I spend a lot of time talking with Christians online about how science isn't their enemy.  Stuff like this is maybe 8% as bad as it gets. 

I saw the same thing, clicked to see if they had a better image (cuz, you know, they never ever have a better image) and in their best image, it was perfectly clear to me that this was nothing but a smoke pattern around one of those triangle-shaped trees.  By fluke, the smoke isn't wrapped around the "head" of the angel.
I agree, this is harmful because it looks like whoever is claiming to believe this is an angel is just a wee bit nuts.  And that's just not going to help open doors or minds - it could even fuel the anti-religion brigade.  (In addition to your rational question about perspective/height, one could ask: If angels could be photographed, wouldn't it have been done (clearly, beyond a doubt) by now?  Wouldn't it mean that everyone could see the angel, not just the person he was sent for?  Isn't this contrary to the idea that our most sacred experiences aren't meant to be shared casually?  [add other rational thoughts here]) 
Alternately, it's harmful because it may facilitate deception of someone who is spiritually weak or vulnerable - if they get obsessed with finding "evidence" of angels, for example.
I don't mean to imply I don't believe in angels - quite the opposite - I just recognize smoke, fire, and a tree when I see them...

In this situation I am always reminded of Joseph Smith's words, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."
This is a perfect example by the church of teaching correct principles and letting us govern ourselves. In correlation with the principle of violence we are taught in the 13th Article of Faith "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
I also recognize, that we are continually learning as a people and as individuals, and what you might accept now as OK, you may no longer think is OK as you grow in the gospel, serve a mission. As well, what you may think is not OK now, you may switch your perspective and feel it is OK.
As Vort said,
"This situation is a perfect example of when you need to use that gift. The Holy Ghost can and will tell you all things if you learn to listen."

It is my experience that with full repentance and forgiveness, embarrassment disappears along with the guilt.
How often have we heard stories of someone who has overcome a weakness and admired that person's determination and humility?  If you have become the kind of person who is constantly repenting and improving, there will be no embarrassment and no shame.
No offense to JAG, but I have a much better Advocate.
 

I'm planning on hiring JAG when the time comes. if he's as good as I think he is, I'll be able to do what I like in this life, and then just leave it to my lawyer to sort out on judgement day.

Ummm... the final judgement is not a time to be worried about being embarrassed.....   It's a time of honesty, of accountability, and about all of us-- beliefs, actions, mistakes, growth etc.  

I am hoping and looking forward to Vidangel winning the law suit.

I am hoping and looking forward to Vidangel winning the law suit.

Hi, all. Just poking my head in to give you all the benefit of my profound insight. Feel free to laugh with me or at me, whichever better suits your fancy. My review of Batman vs. Superman, which I posted on a BYU sports site and thought I should post among my friends here, is as follows:
What a stupid, stupid, stupid movie. The stupidity of the stupidness of this stupid movie was just stupid. My IQ dropped 50 points watching it, which is probably why I kept watching until the end, waiting for something to occur that would show me that all the stupidity wasn't really stupid. Never happened. The longer it went, the stupider it got.
To be fair, the stupidity didn't really begin rearing its stupid head until over a third of the way into the movie. Until then, it looked like it was setting up to be a continuation of Man of Steel, which was not a stupid movie. (Just entirely too self-satisfied with its constant Christ figure posing, presented with all the clever subtlety of a Donald Trump campaign speech. But that is not the same thing as stupid.) But starting somewhere before the halfway point, the stupidity started encroaching. By the midpoint of the movie, The Stupid started taking over, and the longer the movie went, the more The Stupid snowballed. I had heard so many good things about the movie that I didn't want to stop watching it, thinking that surely it would quit being the awful piece of garbage that it was turning into. I almost quit watching it two or three times; in retrospect, I'm kind of glad I didn't, just because now I know that the movie really was as stupid as I thought it was, all the way to the bitter end. (Including the dirt on the coffin lid starting to float up a half-second before the end, which was about as subtle as the previous movie's Christ figure posing. But whatever. On the Stupidity Scale, that hardly even registers.)
Now, I know that some will say, "Look, Vort, people LOVED the movie. It made a gazillion dollars. Therefore, you are wrong." Okay, whatever. This is the same American public that chose Barack Obama as its commander in chief (twice), that put Donald Trump up as the Republican candidate for president, and that will shortly elect the vomitous Hillary Rodham Clinton to its highest office, making both of the previously mentioned men look almost rational by comparison. Those same people loved this movie, which in my mind pretty much confirms everything I have said about it.
tl;dr -- Do not waste your time and money on Batman vs. Superman. Instead, take the cash you would have spent in $1 bills, light them on fire, and roast marshmallows. You will have a much more profitable and enjoyable experience.

See... I knew there was something to be said about being Catholic... the priest puts the sacrament on your tongue so you wouldn't have to figure out right hand or left hand.  Then left-handers won't have cause to be offended...
 

Joseph Fielding Smith had some pretty strong opinions about making such things TOO important:

Both insightful and um, well... lovely. A reminder of something I once knew and intentionally forgot... thanks!

There is a difference between caring about the lives of others and being stewards.  We can do service for others and teach the gospel without having any kind of stewardship over them.

It seems to me that most folks who have passed a tenth-grade English literature class, should be able to reconcile the notion of an extraordinarily great individual who still suffers from a number of human weaknesses.  The tension comes from the fact that certain classes of people are bound and determined to suggest that Smith's flaws were something other than what they actually were.
Joseph Smith was boastful but not selfish; demanding but not predatory; superstitious but not lazy; enigmatic but not fraudulent; open-minded but not an occultist; overly trusting but not ignorant; easily-offended but not vengeful; financially incompetent but not profligate; occasionally earthy but not bawdy or lecherous.  Smith was also tremendously loyal, sympathetic, generous, resourceful, curious, driven, managed to leave his followers believing themselves closer to God than they had been before meeting him and even worked miracles in their eyes, was absolutely committed to the progress of what he believed to be God's work even in the face of enormous personal sacrifice, and ultimately--when Smith had made it across the river into Iowa and was en route to the Rockies, but was begged to return by messengers fearing that his escape would trigger retributive raids against Mormons in Nauvoo--he came back, and surrendered in Carthage knowing that there were better-than-even odds that he was going to his death.  
Smith was not a common person, and IMHO the Church hasn't been wrong to point that out.

Haven’t we been taught through official channels to see Joseph Smith as a hero and place him on a very high pedestal?
He was a hero. He was the prophet of the restoration who did as God commanded. Why would that be a problem to label him a hero? It isn't. What pedestal are you referring to? We are to place him on the pedestal which God gave him and which he received willingly. Death can't conquer the hero again, true. Why would that be bothersome. Any Mormon should recognize why death cannot conquer him again, he's dead, and through Christ he lives. Not sure the problem.
We are taught that no one can have a testimony of Christ without having a testimony of Joseph Smith.
True. How can you have a testimony of the Master without recognizing his servants. The same would be said for Peter, James, and John, and any servant which held this office. This includes President Thomas S. Monson and all who held it before him. Even the Lord specified, If they reject you don't worry for they rejected me first. The Oath and Covenant of the priesthood specifies this. Receive servants we receive Jesus. Receive Jesus we receive the Father. Reject servants we reject Jesus who called them, and ultimately we reject the Father. How is that a problem?
He was the most exalted of people.
The stretch interpretation of John Taylor's quote isn't helpful, "I thought, why must God’s nobility, the salt of the earth, the most exalted of the human family, and the most perfect types of all excellence, fall victims to the cruel, fiendish hate of incarnate devils?" Notice the statement refers to anyone who walked the path God would have them walk and have paid the price for doing so with their life. This includes all the pioneers who lost their lives during the trek to Utah. This includes Isaiah. This includes all the prophets and apostles who Christ called during his life, and those called after his death in the New Testament as they were killed. "God's nobility," for doing that which God called them to do. This includes innocent children who have fallen victim, life ended, by incarnate devils as well. Not a statement of worship in the least, unless a person wants to stretch what was actually stated.
When speaking of “a lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” only Jesus Christ should be mentioned.
False. The notion of a lamb before the slaughter represents an innocent being slain by wicked men. This can be used for anyone in a position similar to Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. You imply a personal interpretation and then stamp or draw a line that no one should pass by. Ok, this is your personal choice. 

How does church doctrine and policy strip people of their agency?  Is the church trying to force people one way or another?  I don't believe it is.  I don't believe the Lord is.  The Lord wants us all on the same page.. but that's up to each of us.  He still will call those to lead us who He will call.  They will make decisions and be accountable to Him.  The Prophet and the apostles bear an especially heavy burden in this.  They don't answer to us... they answer to the Lord.  I believe this with all my heart.  If I became convinced this was just a church of men then I can't imagine that I'd be able to continue to be a member.  But I've experienced too much.  I know enough to know that this church is the Lord's church and that this is His work and His priesthood.  It's not found anywhere else.
If people want a church created in their own image they're welcome to start their own.  If they have a testimony that this is the true church then they need to take their doubts and questions to the Lord and reason with Him.  The Lord calls imperfect men and women to lead us.  I'm not saying that to justify any mistakes that individuals make.  I do believe that the Lord works with all of us in our imperfections... especially our leaders.

Haven’t we been taught through official channels to see Joseph Smith as a hero and place him on a very high pedestal?
He was a hero. He was the prophet of the restoration who did as God commanded. Why would that be a problem to label him a hero? It isn't. What pedestal are you referring to? We are to place him on the pedestal which God gave him and which he received willingly. Death can't conquer the hero again, true. Why would that be bothersome. Any Mormon should recognize why death cannot conquer him again, he's dead, and through Christ he lives. Not sure the problem.
We are taught that no one can have a testimony of Christ without having a testimony of Joseph Smith.
True. How can you have a testimony of the Master without recognizing his servants. The same would be said for Peter, James, and John, and any servant which held this office. This includes President Thomas S. Monson and all who held it before him. Even the Lord specified, If they reject you don't worry for they rejected me first. The Oath and Covenant of the priesthood specifies this. Receive servants we receive Jesus. Receive Jesus we receive the Father. Reject servants we reject Jesus who called them, and ultimately we reject the Father. How is that a problem?
He was the most exalted of people.
The stretch interpretation of John Taylor's quote isn't helpful, "I thought, why must God’s nobility, the salt of the earth, the most exalted of the human family, and the most perfect types of all excellence, fall victims to the cruel, fiendish hate of incarnate devils?" Notice the statement refers to anyone who walked the path God would have them walk and have paid the price for doing so with their life. This includes all the pioneers who lost their lives during the trek to Utah. This includes Isaiah. This includes all the prophets and apostles who Christ called during his life, and those called after his death in the New Testament as they were killed. "God's nobility," for doing that which God called them to do. This includes innocent children who have fallen victim, life ended, by incarnate devils as well. Not a statement of worship in the least, unless a person wants to stretch what was actually stated.
When speaking of “a lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” only Jesus Christ should be mentioned.
False. The notion of a lamb before the slaughter represents an innocent being slain by wicked men. This can be used for anyone in a position similar to Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. You imply a personal interpretation and then stamp or draw a line that no one should pass by. Ok, this is your personal choice. 

There are, I believe, two ancient symbols of discrimination against the saints of G-d.  These two symbols are Sodom and Gomorrah.  Most theologians and religious thinkers have come to believe that Sodom is the symbol of homosexuality but I think that is somewhat in error.  I believe Sodom is symbolic of much more.  I believe it to be symbolic of individual wants, desires, passions and pleasures in contrast to the covenant and sacrifice necessary to establish and preserve the divine order of  families.  There is an interesting passage in the Book of Enoch - a book lost from scripture but quoted as scripture in the New Testament in the Book of Jude.   This passage highlights two problems among mankind that are in part responsible for the Flood of Noah.  The two items were that mankind "changed the order of marriage" and the second was that "children were conceived for carnal purposes". 
But there is also a second symbol in Gomorrah of which most theologians and religious thinkers have forgotten or thought it tied to Sodom and not a symbol of something else.  I sometimes think this symbol to be even more treacherous because of the more subtle influence on the saints of G-d and the reason that the righteous Lot turned towards Sodom and Gomorrah in the first place.   Without going into all the details I believe that the sin of Gomorrah is to trust money and wealth more than G-d and his covenants.
In short the challenge to the saints has, in my mind, always been the same - even in the Book of Mormon - The challenge is pleasures (I personally see the addiction {trust} of drugs or alcohol as similar to sexual addictions) - and also the challenge of wealth or money as a substitution for faith in G-d.  That freedom comes from money and not from the covenants of G-d.
 
The Traveler

And here is the sad thing about homosexuality.  The Church does not discriminate against them - they separate themselves from the Church.  Church dances and the like is to teach males and females to respect each other and learn to identify the qualities of a spouse.  One's sexual attraction to somebody is not the end-all be-all of choosing a spouse.  The movie Imitation Game depicts this almost to perfection - Alan Turing and Joan Clark's relationship had all the elements that makes the foundation of a happy marriage except one.  Alan Turing is not sexually attracted to Joan Clark.  Yet, that ONE THING - physical desire - was not something Turing wanted to overcome even as Clark was willing to overcome it.
Many people go into marriage knowing they have to overcome one faulty foundation in some form or other that they found out about a person during Church dances or group dates, etc. - addiction issues, psychological issues, fertility issues, past sinfulness, physical disabilities, cultural differences, etc.  I don't have to understand addiction issues, psychological issues, homosexual issues, fertility issues etc. etc. to know it is a difficult thing to overcome - I have my own problems to overcome that is difficult as well.
Homosexuals separate themselves from the Church because they don't think their sexual attraction is something they need to overcome.  That's not on the Church.
 

And in 20 years there will be another social issue.  I suspect it will be transgender or priesthood related. Or maybe polygamy but from the other side of the argument.

Understand that homosexuality is just the latest challenge...
Black's and the Priesthood has been another..
Plural Marriage has been another...
And those are just the major ones...
Almost anytime a Church leader opens their mouth you can bet that someone will get offended.
And yes it can be uncomfortable... there is a reason it is likened to being forged in the furnace of affliction

Yes! Let's tear down this idol:

What on earth would possibly make you think Americans worship George Washington?

* did George have a c-section giving birth to his nation?

I don't remember now where I had read this, but the concept of turning the cheek comes from a tradition during Roman times. As Jews were seen as slaves, when the initial slap was received it was a slap of superiority specifying "I am master you are slave." The notion of turning the cheek required the master to slap the cheek that would be considered the slap of an equal. If the cheek was turned, then the master would have to slap the side of the cheek and in a manner that meant the master saw the slave as an equal, which meant that the individual would not get slapped again, as the master wouldn't slap him on that side. It was an interesting read.